Off to the hospital soon, but needed to get my picks in for the weekend!
Green Bay at Minnesota -- GB
Oakland at Miami -- OAK
NY Jets at Buffalo -- NYJ
Houston at Atlanta -- HOU
Chicago at Detroit -- DET
Baltimore at Cleveland -- BAL
St. Louis at Dallas -- DAL
Tampa Bay at Carolina -- CAR
Seattle at San Francisco -- SEA
Kansas City at San Diego -- SD
Pittsburgh at Arizona -- PIT
Denver at Indianapolis -- DEN (going for the upset here)
Philadelphia at NY Giants -- PHI
New England at Cincinnati -- NE
It worries me to have so many road teams winning, but we shall see.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Welcome Lilja!
Our first child was born at 1:20 am local time today.
Mommy and baby about an hour and a half after the birth.
Bad-Hair-Day Daddy and baby this afternoon.
There are some better shots of the baby herself and a couple of short film clips, but I need to figure out how to get the computers to read the DVD before I can do anything with them.
Mommy and baby about an hour and a half after the birth.
Bad-Hair-Day Daddy and baby this afternoon.
There are some better shots of the baby herself and a couple of short film clips, but I need to figure out how to get the computers to read the DVD before I can do anything with them.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Kimon Howland Sargeant: Seeker Churches: Promoting Traditional Religion in a Nontraditional Way
I finished this book a good bit ago, but wanted to wait before I 'reviewed' it here to get my own thoughts straight, which involved rereading significant portions.
This is a book that is both very useful and seriously, perhaps fatally, flawed. It is very useful in the way it works through the mechanics of Seeker Churches, a part of the 'megachurch' phenomenon in the U.S. Rick Warren's "Purpose-Driven" Saddleback Community Church in Anaheim, or Willow Creek Community Church, where Lee Strobel preaches, are examples of these "seeker" churches, which target the seeker -- the baby boomer who had fallen away from religion, or never 'had' religion in the first place, and now is 'seeking' something transcendent. Sargeant does a commendable job using specific examples to outline the history of this phenomenon, and the chapters on "ritual," "message," "strategy" and "organization" generally flow well and are well argued (though one might fairly raise an objection to the idea of a 'postmodern denomination,' an idea that is insufficiently developed in the "organization" chapter). Moreover, Sargeant does quite well with the very difficult task of locating a contemporary phenomenon within the overall historical sweep; there are some objections that could be raised to the way he locates the seeker churches within the broader scope of American Christianity, but they're comparatively minor compared to the objections that can be raised with the final chapter and the conclusions Sargeant draws.
The concluding chapter is incredibly problematic, to the point that it casts a disproportionate shadow over the rest of the book and threatens to overwhelm the previous, worthwhile chapters. There are two portions of this chapter in particular that pose problems for the book's greater argument: the exploration of 'neosecularization theory,' and the consideration of the language employed by these churches.
'Neosecularization theory,' as presented here, is an attempt to overcome the weaknesses and shortcomings of secularization theory without looking like it's trying to do so. In the words of Han Solo, neosecularists are trying to "theorize casual." Neosecularization theory, Sargeant says, focuses on the question of the social role of religion, and whether it is increasing or decreasing. Is religious authority a legitimate force in society, and if so, is it more or less forceful than it was in the past? Neosecularists should consider this question at the individual, institutional and societal level, Sargeant argues (reasonably), but where he errs is in applying Mark Chaves' idea that the way to measure secularization is to focus on the relevant questions, the questions of the extent to which personal behavioral choices in the private and public spheres are controlled by religious authority. This idea flagrantly contradicts the overview of the seeker churches that Sargeant provides, but, more than this, is a self-fulfilling observational vantage point, in that it takes for granted and thus ignores what Sargeant occasionally hits upon as a critical factor in the development of American religion: its fissiparous, strongly individualistic character. While Sargeant talks about Nathan Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity approvingly and at some length, he fails to bring Hatch's argument fully to bear on the seeker churches and what they may reveal about the current state of American religion. In the end, Sargeant's consideration of neosecularization is misleading and inadequate, in that it focuses on the individualistic, anti-authoritarian nature of American religion as reflected in the seeker churches without adequately connecting this to American religious history over a longer scale. This failing is all the more pronounced because Sargeant did an adequate job of locating the seeker churches within that broader tradition; the ground work was done, but the conclusions here were poorly drawn.
The consideration of the language and its importance is even more perplexing, because here again Sargeant sees the correct pieces but draws the wrong conclusions from them. An example:
One of the keys to the success of seeker churches is their ability and willingness to translate theological concepts into the idiom of everyday speech. (178)
Fair enough -- this point is well documented throughout the book, and seems to be a valid assessment of the seeker church phenomenon. However, Sargeant turns this observation on its head in the same paragraph:
In short [claim the seeker churches], the Christian faith is true--but see what benefits it brings to your life. (178)
This is the root of Sargeant's consternation -- the seeker churches, he says, operate primarily by adopting contemporary language of therapy in order to package their message. God is not mysterious, but a caring, clearly human figure possessing authority Americans will readily identify and locate -- God is the CEO, the President of the Christian Corporation (so to speak), the Judge. He is not an angry, wrathful God; rather, He is a God who loves, is merciful, and is the key to self-realization.
For Sargeant's argument not to fall under its own weight, the conjunction in the quoted sentence should be and, not "but." Sargeant hits on half of the phenomenon: by adopting secular language and by speaking in the contemporary vernacular -- in this case, the language of pop-psychotherapy -- seeker churches accept and in some cases accelerate a privatization of belief. Sargeant concludes from this that this contributes both to the growth of the churches and "to the declining cultural authority of specifically religious speech." (179)
What Sargeant does not consider, however, is the other half of this linguistic exchange: the sacralization of secular vernacular. This, as Sargeant earlier pointed out, happened during the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening; however, for reasons not here given, Sargeant ignores the possibility that the seeker church phenomenon is the linguistic heir to these two periods of revival. He sees clearly the dimunition in importance of purely, unequivocally religious speech -- such is not market-friendly, it doesn't correspond with the "felt needs" of believers. What he fails adequately to apprehend is the simultaneous transmission of religious authority into previously secular speech. Sargeant believes that the 'secularized' language employed by these churches fails to convey the notion of absolute truth that pervades conservative Christian theology, from which tradition the seeker churches derive.
Once again, Sargeant marshals evidence that contradicts his own conclusions:
Seeker churches describe the quest for God as part of every seekers' [sic] journey for fulfillment in this life as much as it is for salvation in the next. Ancient rules such as the Ten Commandments are not outdated; rather, they provide a blueprint for living a successful life. Although God is a mighty judge, the great news is that following God is good for you. (my ital.)
Yes, the therapeutic language is less recognizably religious than previous "fire and brimstone" sermonizing. Adopting secular language to push a religious point of view, however, is the opposite of secularization: it is sacralization. This has no bearing on the intended truth-content of the message; quite the opposite -- a universally true message should be accessible and expressible through an infinite number of different articulations, metaphoric frameworks, etc. Religion's ability to adapt to modernity and, in so doing, to adapt modernity to religion should not be viewed as secularization, whatever the import of language, so long as the language is recoded in religious terms. Sargeant shows clearly that this recoding does, in fact, take place. Rather than a societal weakening of religious authority, as Sargeant claims, what he actually demonstrates is the continuing adaptability and vitality of what he terms "traditional religion" packaged in a nontraditional way.
Later, Sargeant makes two puzzling claims that are both likely to be true and simultaneously irrelevant. First, he claims that "nonevangelical and even non-Christian groups and organizations might be the successful innovators a generation from now eclipsing the seeker church movement." (181) Highly plausible. He further comments that "[t]he success of seeker churches with baby boomers may not carry over to the next generation." (181) Again, highly plausible. Both comments are irrelevant, however; to take another example from American religious history, the Puritan model of religiosity and religious citizenship was eclipsed by other models, but it would be difficult to claim this as a victory for 'secularization.' The Puritans were equally unable to push their model down through succeeding generations. Again, though, this fact, while true and demonstrable, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not later American generations were more, as or less religious than the Puritans.
In the end, this book is valuable for its factual development; where it falters is in the theoretical analysis of those facts.
A Bit of a Design "Oopsy:"
Here's the story.
The gist:
The US Navy is planning to spend up to $600,000 (£350,000) to give a barracks a makeover after images on Google Earth showed they resemble a swastika from the air.
Sure does:
The gist:
The US Navy is planning to spend up to $600,000 (£350,000) to give a barracks a makeover after images on Google Earth showed they resemble a swastika from the air.
Sure does:
White House Propaganda and Blackwater:
Two different gripes in one post.
First -- Jesus, he's not even trying anymore, is he?
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
Bear in mind, this is a White House release.
And this video is obviously a bit dated, but given what's going on in Iraq with Blackwater, it's very relevant.
Someone will some day have to explain how an unregulated, extra-lawful mercenary army with only marginally less firepower than the regular armed forces is a good idea within a republic.
First -- Jesus, he's not even trying anymore, is he?
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
Bear in mind, this is a White House release.
And this video is obviously a bit dated, but given what's going on in Iraq with Blackwater, it's very relevant.
Someone will some day have to explain how an unregulated, extra-lawful mercenary army with only marginally less firepower than the regular armed forces is a good idea within a republic.
Wednesday Night Movie: Godfather II
Disc II this time.
I know that I'm sort of the equivalent of Waverly watching these movies sixty years hence, so I won't say much.
Count me in the group that thinks that this was better than the first. Count me also in the group that sees how Michael overreached and became his own worst enemy.
Finally seeing these movies made this book even better.
I know that I'm sort of the equivalent of Waverly watching these movies sixty years hence, so I won't say much.
Count me in the group that thinks that this was better than the first. Count me also in the group that sees how Michael overreached and became his own worst enemy.
Finally seeing these movies made this book even better.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Raiders-Browns, Week 3
My god, a win. 322 days after the last Raider win.
Too long. Hopefully the gap between this win and the next can be measured in days -- seven, for example.
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
Things I was ambivalent about:
Things I Didn't Like:
Next week: At Miami. The game Sapp has been waiting for, and despite his playing it cool up to now, you know Daunte is itching to go here. Here's hoping that extra anxiety doesn't translate into a few idiotic throws ... Miami is due for a good game -- no need to help them along.
Too long. Hopefully the gap between this win and the next can be measured in days -- seven, for example.
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
- LaMont Jordan.
I'm leaving Jordan on this list until he plays a bad game. This was his least productive game, at 'only' 153 all-purpose yards. Three games, 350 yards rushing, 121 yards receiving, 2 tds. Awesome. Sick thing is, he can get better -- he's right to state that he's "leaving a lot of yards" out there, because he actually is. When Rhodes comes back and that's the 1-2 punch, the Raiders may actually make the leap from "god-awful" offensively to plain "adequate." An exciting concept. - Kirk Morrison.
This guy is a Pro Bowler this season, barring injury. - The Timeout.
Ha-ha! Way to go, Kif!
Things I was ambivalent about:
- The defense.
Just a tremendous, tremendous first half, then a pretty lackluster way to end out the game. I have to question the play calling on that last Cleveland drive -- playing straight-up was working great on first and second downs; to go into the prevent on third down, and then stay in it, made no sense to me. Special teams bailed out the D on this one, big time, but if they can string together a full game like that first half ... look out. - Penalties, Turnovers, Sacks.
+2, 0, -1.
You want to win at all three, but this is a decent line here. The difference is obvious: when you rate well in these categories, you're in position to win the game; when you're not, you have to try and take it away from someone else.
Still, the lack of real pressure on the QB is going to be a problem down the road.
Things I Didn't Like:
- Mike Williams.
Just a terrible, terrible game. - The Prevent.
One of these days, someone will have to tell me why this defense even exists. - The Passing Game.
It just isn't any good right now. OL and WR are Oakland's clearest areas of need right now, unquestionably. Look, I like Ron Curry -- but no way should he have to be a #1 receiver.
Next week: At Miami. The game Sapp has been waiting for, and despite his playing it cool up to now, you know Daunte is itching to go here. Here's hoping that extra anxiety doesn't translate into a few idiotic throws ... Miami is due for a good game -- no need to help them along.
A Question of Liberty:
One of many ways to ask what liberty means.
It's difficult enough in the abstract -- the concrete may be even more so.
It's difficult enough in the abstract -- the concrete may be even more so.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Grading My Picks: NFL Week 3:
SF @ PIT - PIT Easy. SF's offense looked terrible.
ARI @ BAL - BAL (though something nags at me about picking against AZ in this one) Woof -- called the almost-upset there. McGahee is killing my fantasy team, though -- the yards are nice, but he needs to score more oftne.
IND @ HOU - IND (If Andre Johnson were healthy, I'd pick the upset) If Andre Johnson were healthy, Houston wins this game; they darn near did anyway.
DET @ PHI - PHI (changed Sunday morning) Whoa, in the nick of time, too. What a game for the Philly offense. Good for McNabb -- he was right about just about everything he said back in August, and for it to come out when it did, and for him to respond in the best way possible, is great to see. I remain a fan of McNabb, even though I generally root against the Eagles anyway.
BUF @ NE - NE Speaking of players who need to score -- why, exactly, does Maroney not get the ball in the red zone?
SD @ GB - SD (though I could almost pick the Pack, and would be delighted to be wrong) Should have gone with my gut and the Pack on this one.
MIA @ NYJ - MIA And, to think, I ALMOST picked up Ronnie Brown from waivers in time to get him on my roster this weekend. Too bad -- those would have been very helpful points.
MIN @ KC - MIN Minnesota, as bad as they are this season, let this game get away.
STL @ TB - TB I'm really glad I missed out on Jackson so far. Also, I'm loving Tampa's resurgence. Despite everything, I'm still a Jon Gruden fan, and I did say prior to the '06 season that the '07 Bucs would be a very, very good team. Thus far, they're making me look like Notre Damus. (A little Bobby Baccala joke there.)
CLE @ OAK - OAK Like I said, if you can't beat 'em, copy 'em. I can't believe it worked. Again. Magnificent. Also: LaMont Jordan had his least productive game thus far this season -- only 153 all-purpose yards. I made sure to get him on all of my fantasy teams for one reason: he was going to have a monster September. His three-game line: 471 total yards, 2 tds. Told you.
JAC @ DEN - DEN I'm annoyed only that my pick was wrong, and that Denver managed to look terrible against a lesser opponent.
CIN @ SEA - SEA (that Cincy defense is just horrible, and on the road again, against a competent offense ...) Well, Seattle didn't quite bring the goods that I wanted, but they did well enough. How long until Chuck "The Suck" is fired?
NYG @ WAS - WAS You know, I've always hated Washington. Way to let me down when I finally start warming up to you, guys!
CAR @ ATL - CAR Who knew this game would be close? Carolina thus far wins the award for the most radically inconsistent team in the league. They're consistently under-performing, but man, they've looked alternately brilliant and like last season's Raiders. Not a good combo.
DAL @ CHI - DAL All too easy. At least Benson got me a cheap TD.
TEN @ NO - TEN (going for the upset here) Going into last night's game, my ideal fantasy situation was Brees playing horribly and Bush scoring points. Won two leagues based solely on this game, because that's exactly what happened.
My best weekend so far -- 11-5, bringing me to 29-19 on the season.
We'll see how it goes.
ARI @ BAL - BAL (though something nags at me about picking against AZ in this one) Woof -- called the almost-upset there. McGahee is killing my fantasy team, though -- the yards are nice, but he needs to score more oftne.
IND @ HOU - IND (If Andre Johnson were healthy, I'd pick the upset) If Andre Johnson were healthy, Houston wins this game; they darn near did anyway.
DET @ PHI - PHI (changed Sunday morning) Whoa, in the nick of time, too. What a game for the Philly offense. Good for McNabb -- he was right about just about everything he said back in August, and for it to come out when it did, and for him to respond in the best way possible, is great to see. I remain a fan of McNabb, even though I generally root against the Eagles anyway.
BUF @ NE - NE Speaking of players who need to score -- why, exactly, does Maroney not get the ball in the red zone?
SD @ GB - SD (though I could almost pick the Pack, and would be delighted to be wrong) Should have gone with my gut and the Pack on this one.
MIA @ NYJ - MIA And, to think, I ALMOST picked up Ronnie Brown from waivers in time to get him on my roster this weekend. Too bad -- those would have been very helpful points.
MIN @ KC - MIN Minnesota, as bad as they are this season, let this game get away.
STL @ TB - TB I'm really glad I missed out on Jackson so far. Also, I'm loving Tampa's resurgence. Despite everything, I'm still a Jon Gruden fan, and I did say prior to the '06 season that the '07 Bucs would be a very, very good team. Thus far, they're making me look like Notre Damus. (A little Bobby Baccala joke there.)
CLE @ OAK - OAK Like I said, if you can't beat 'em, copy 'em. I can't believe it worked. Again. Magnificent. Also: LaMont Jordan had his least productive game thus far this season -- only 153 all-purpose yards. I made sure to get him on all of my fantasy teams for one reason: he was going to have a monster September. His three-game line: 471 total yards, 2 tds. Told you.
JAC @ DEN - DEN I'm annoyed only that my pick was wrong, and that Denver managed to look terrible against a lesser opponent.
CIN @ SEA - SEA (that Cincy defense is just horrible, and on the road again, against a competent offense ...) Well, Seattle didn't quite bring the goods that I wanted, but they did well enough. How long until Chuck "The Suck" is fired?
NYG @ WAS - WAS You know, I've always hated Washington. Way to let me down when I finally start warming up to you, guys!
CAR @ ATL - CAR Who knew this game would be close? Carolina thus far wins the award for the most radically inconsistent team in the league. They're consistently under-performing, but man, they've looked alternately brilliant and like last season's Raiders. Not a good combo.
DAL @ CHI - DAL All too easy. At least Benson got me a cheap TD.
TEN @ NO - TEN (going for the upset here) Going into last night's game, my ideal fantasy situation was Brees playing horribly and Bush scoring points. Won two leagues based solely on this game, because that's exactly what happened.
My best weekend so far -- 11-5, bringing me to 29-19 on the season.
We'll see how it goes.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
If You Can't Beat 'Em --
Learn from them.
Way to go, Kif. I can't believe that worked. AGAIN.
Nice not to be on the receiving end of that sneakiness.
Raiders 26:24 Browns
THE LOSING STREAK IS OVER!!!
Way to go, Kif. I can't believe that worked. AGAIN.
Nice not to be on the receiving end of that sneakiness.
Raiders 26:24 Browns
THE LOSING STREAK IS OVER!!!
Brett Favre: 420
Congratulations to Brett Favre on touchdowns number 418, 419 and 420. He's now tied with Dan Marino for #1 all time. (Oddly, both needed 240 games to get to 420. Weird.)
Good on Brett. Let's hope he can get #421 next weekend.
Good on Brett. Let's hope he can get #421 next weekend.
ROY LEWIS: The Evolution Man, Or, How I Ate My Father
I finished this one a week or so ago, but wanted to recommend it to anyone who likes good, dry humor, and some nicely executed satire.
I think I was supposed to read this for Anthro 101 (or whatever specific course) moons and eons ago, and I may have, but since that was better than a decade ago, I gave it a new shot. Imagine paleolithic revisionist history, set in sub-Saharan Africa, with a distinctly twentieth-century, egalitarian "tinkerer" of a father leading his clan in pursuit of warmth, regular food, and, of course, women.
A few great laughs, and a very quick, enjoyable read. Definitely recommended.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Clarifying What Should Have Been Obvious To Anyone:
Bill O'Reilly can't believe that black people are, you know, people.
Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "
Good God.
Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "
Good God.
RIP, Nelson Mandela?
There's a good bit of mockery headed toward W for his recent 'gaffe,' stating that Hussein killed Mandela. Sometimes, I wonder how it is that otherwise intelligent people are buffaloed by this man. Granted, it's not necessarily the most clear statement, but its intent was perfectly clear.
Here's the basic statement: "I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."
It was less a description of Iraq than an assertion of W's overall worldview:
- There are no peacemakers, because the tyrants have destroyed them. All that is left is ceaseless combat.
- Because there are no peacemakers, there is no room for forgiveness or reconciliation -- all that is left is combat.
- Because there are no peacemakers, there is no reason to work for peace, no reason for anyone to aspire to take the place of the peacemakers.
- The fact that there are no peacemakers shows that the 'bad guys' are winning; therefore, the 'saints' are left with no options other than ceaseless combat to defend themselves against the 'sinners'.
The phrasing was also quite ingenious, for once, in that it allowed Bush to take a shot at Mandela and denigrate what he accomplished and what he stands and has stood for, all the while sounding like he admires him. Mandela does not fit within W's worldview -- there is the saintly and the demonic, and any attempt to make peace between the two is a betrayal of the saintly.
There was nothing vague or opaque about that statement -- it's classic millennial, Manichean, conservative American Christianity. Textbook.
Here's the basic statement: "I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."
It was less a description of Iraq than an assertion of W's overall worldview:
- There are no peacemakers, because the tyrants have destroyed them. All that is left is ceaseless combat.
- Because there are no peacemakers, there is no room for forgiveness or reconciliation -- all that is left is combat.
- Because there are no peacemakers, there is no reason to work for peace, no reason for anyone to aspire to take the place of the peacemakers.
- The fact that there are no peacemakers shows that the 'bad guys' are winning; therefore, the 'saints' are left with no options other than ceaseless combat to defend themselves against the 'sinners'.
The phrasing was also quite ingenious, for once, in that it allowed Bush to take a shot at Mandela and denigrate what he accomplished and what he stands and has stood for, all the while sounding like he admires him. Mandela does not fit within W's worldview -- there is the saintly and the demonic, and any attempt to make peace between the two is a betrayal of the saintly.
There was nothing vague or opaque about that statement -- it's classic millennial, Manichean, conservative American Christianity. Textbook.
More MovingOn from the Demmy-krats:
Seems others are as fed up wit the Demmy-krats as I am by this point.
A Senate move to censure MoveOn.org for a 'disgusting' political ad passed 72-25. Unbelievable, and utterly indefensible. After all, how DARE anyone question the Petraeus report -- you know, the one the White House said that THEY would actually write:
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And the BetrayUs ad probably has nothing to do with the fact that the White House's chief trouble with the Petraeus Report was deciding exactly how much to lie (from same):
During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.
"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "
Gosh, how could anyone be so silly as to misconstrue the Petraeus Dog and Pony Show as ANOTHER betrayal of The People by the Chief Executive, once again hiding behind a uniform in order to give himself 'justification' for claiming all dissenting voices as being treasonous, or some other such idiocy? How could THAT be construed as a betrayal? Just impossible!
Nevertheless, Senate Republicans proposed a censure bill, and more than a few Demmy-krats were only too happy to play along, including my own Senator, "Democrat" Jim Webb.
Here's a small bit of irony:
GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the amendment "gives our colleagues a chance to distance themselves from these despicable tactics, distance themselves from the notion that some group literally has them on a leash, like a puppet on a string."
Damn. That would be funny if it weren't true -- and pathetic.
*****
In other news, Bush claims that those who plan to oppose a bill that would expand health care coverage for poor children actually oppose good health care. It's the guy who wants to VETO the bill that's really looking out for the best interest of our children.
Wacky.
A Senate move to censure MoveOn.org for a 'disgusting' political ad passed 72-25. Unbelievable, and utterly indefensible. After all, how DARE anyone question the Petraeus report -- you know, the one the White House said that THEY would actually write:
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And the BetrayUs ad probably has nothing to do with the fact that the White House's chief trouble with the Petraeus Report was deciding exactly how much to lie (from same):
During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.
"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.' "
Gosh, how could anyone be so silly as to misconstrue the Petraeus Dog and Pony Show as ANOTHER betrayal of The People by the Chief Executive, once again hiding behind a uniform in order to give himself 'justification' for claiming all dissenting voices as being treasonous, or some other such idiocy? How could THAT be construed as a betrayal? Just impossible!
Nevertheless, Senate Republicans proposed a censure bill, and more than a few Demmy-krats were only too happy to play along, including my own Senator, "Democrat" Jim Webb.
Here's a small bit of irony:
GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the amendment "gives our colleagues a chance to distance themselves from these despicable tactics, distance themselves from the notion that some group literally has them on a leash, like a puppet on a string."
Damn. That would be funny if it weren't true -- and pathetic.
*****
In other news, Bush claims that those who plan to oppose a bill that would expand health care coverage for poor children actually oppose good health care. It's the guy who wants to VETO the bill that's really looking out for the best interest of our children.
Wacky.
NFL Picks: Week 3:
Good god, but there are some difficult games to pick this weekend:
SF @ PIT - PIT
ARI @ BAL - BAL (though something nags at me about picking against AZ in this one)
IND @ HOU - IND (If Andre Johnson were healthy, I'd pick the upset)
DET @ PHI - PHI (changed Sunday morning)
BUF @ NE - NE
SD @ GB - SD (though I could almost pick the Pack, and would be delighted to be wrong)
MIA @ NYJ - MIA
MIN @ KC - MIN
STL @ TB - TB
CLE @ OAK - OAK
JAC @ DEN - DEN
CIN @ SEA - SEA (that Cincy defense is just horrible, and on the road again, against a competent offense ...)
NYG @ WAS - WAS
CAR @ ATL - CAR
DAL @ CHI - DAL
TEN @ NO - TEN (going for the upset here)
We'll see how it goes.
SF @ PIT - PIT
ARI @ BAL - BAL (though something nags at me about picking against AZ in this one)
IND @ HOU - IND (If Andre Johnson were healthy, I'd pick the upset)
DET @ PHI - PHI (changed Sunday morning)
BUF @ NE - NE
SD @ GB - SD (though I could almost pick the Pack, and would be delighted to be wrong)
MIA @ NYJ - MIA
MIN @ KC - MIN
STL @ TB - TB
CLE @ OAK - OAK
JAC @ DEN - DEN
CIN @ SEA - SEA (that Cincy defense is just horrible, and on the road again, against a competent offense ...)
NYG @ WAS - WAS
CAR @ ATL - CAR
DAL @ CHI - DAL
TEN @ NO - TEN (going for the upset here)
We'll see how it goes.
More Bipartisan Chicanery Re: Wiretapping ...
I've complained before about the malfeasance that is the 'intelligence expansion' continually being pushed in DC.
Here's a wee bit more on that. Predictably, Bush wants to make the temporary intelligence measures passed in August to become permanent. After all, without them, we won't be able to protect ourselves.
However, we also know that the triumph of the new measures was short-lived (linked again for good measure) and that the new rules didn't actually play a part in stopping that terror plot at all.
This business about a threat on the Capitol? Turns out that -- whoops! -- to have been bogus, too.
Why do I call this malfeasance? Let's go just one step beyond the obvious. A bogus plot was cooked up and pushed as a reason to expand eavesdropping authority. Now, because we don't want to let facts get in the way of good fear-mongering, we have to leave the following aside:
- This plot was known but sufficiently 'cloaked' that the intelligence services were powerless to stop it because they couldn't get the wiretaps they needed. However -- and here's the reality that needs to be ignored for this claim to be slightly less mendacious -- under current FISA, warrantes can be issued up to seventy-two hours after the fact. Again, though, that's a dirty truth that interferes with a really superlative fear-mongering campaign, so we have to ignore it. Too bad.
Here's the kicker: lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until 'the day' they approved the FISA expansion.
If there's one thing I dislike more than the government outright lying to increase its own power at the expense of the people's, it's the sheer stupidity of the 'opposition' in not actually opposing such.
I'm not exactly alone in this (nor would I expect to be).
That article is well worth reading in its entirety, but I want to comment on a couple of things.
1. I found this bit from a White House release to be so perplexing that I had to go and confirm it for myself -- and it was pretty easy to find:
When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
First, why, exactly, is Nation capitalized in that sentence?
Second, and as important -- these firms were alleged to have 'helped the nation.' Alleged. The sentence is a brilliant piece of propaganda. Alleged will likely register as a negative with most people, given that it is most often used to allege that people have committed a wrongdoing or a crime of some sort. Certainly, 'helping the nation' isn't a crime -- hey, where do these lousy obstructionist Democrats get off trying to harm people who helped our nation after September 11?! They're alleging that --
wait, a tic. Hey, that was a good one -- I almost fell for it.
Alleged to have helped our nation. Good God.
2. My disdain for the Demmy-krats is open and sincerely held, so I have to disagree with this bit:
If the Democratic Congress ends up not only renewing and making permanent the vast new warrantless surveillance powers granted the President under the new FISA, but also provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies which violated the law, then illegal warrantless eavesdropping will be every bit as much a by-product of the Democratic Congress as it is one of the definine abuses of the lawless Bush administration.
Close but no turkey. It'll be more the fault of the Democrats for once again opposing 'on principle,' then blindly going along, then bitching after the fact about how 'gosh, we didn't know THIS was actually the case!' and then going along with the redux ANYWAY.
Cowards.
3. Here's the kicker of it all: a prescient reader of the original story pointed out something very interesting"
Recall that the administration has claimed -- under legal theories never upheld by any court -- that the warrantless "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was really lawful after all. All along there has been, under existing law, 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), a provision by which the AG could certify legality to cooperating telecoms by providing:
a certification in writing ... that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
Such a certification already would protect a company from any liability. Section 2511 goes on to say:
...No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
If the program were lawful, why the need for retroactive immunity?
If the program were lawful, why didn't the Attorney General sign off on it? It's not as if the AG were some pinko 60s flower child -- it was John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft wouldn't go along with this idea, but the Democrats probably will.
Harsh.
Here's a wee bit more on that. Predictably, Bush wants to make the temporary intelligence measures passed in August to become permanent. After all, without them, we won't be able to protect ourselves.
However, we also know that the triumph of the new measures was short-lived (linked again for good measure) and that the new rules didn't actually play a part in stopping that terror plot at all.
This business about a threat on the Capitol? Turns out that -- whoops! -- to have been bogus, too.
Why do I call this malfeasance? Let's go just one step beyond the obvious. A bogus plot was cooked up and pushed as a reason to expand eavesdropping authority. Now, because we don't want to let facts get in the way of good fear-mongering, we have to leave the following aside:
- This plot was known but sufficiently 'cloaked' that the intelligence services were powerless to stop it because they couldn't get the wiretaps they needed. However -- and here's the reality that needs to be ignored for this claim to be slightly less mendacious -- under current FISA, warrantes can be issued up to seventy-two hours after the fact. Again, though, that's a dirty truth that interferes with a really superlative fear-mongering campaign, so we have to ignore it. Too bad.
Here's the kicker: lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until 'the day' they approved the FISA expansion.
If there's one thing I dislike more than the government outright lying to increase its own power at the expense of the people's, it's the sheer stupidity of the 'opposition' in not actually opposing such.
I'm not exactly alone in this (nor would I expect to be).
That article is well worth reading in its entirety, but I want to comment on a couple of things.
1. I found this bit from a White House release to be so perplexing that I had to go and confirm it for myself -- and it was pretty easy to find:
When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
First, why, exactly, is Nation capitalized in that sentence?
Second, and as important -- these firms were alleged to have 'helped the nation.' Alleged. The sentence is a brilliant piece of propaganda. Alleged will likely register as a negative with most people, given that it is most often used to allege that people have committed a wrongdoing or a crime of some sort. Certainly, 'helping the nation' isn't a crime -- hey, where do these lousy obstructionist Democrats get off trying to harm people who helped our nation after September 11?! They're alleging that --
wait, a tic. Hey, that was a good one -- I almost fell for it.
Alleged to have helped our nation. Good God.
2. My disdain for the Demmy-krats is open and sincerely held, so I have to disagree with this bit:
If the Democratic Congress ends up not only renewing and making permanent the vast new warrantless surveillance powers granted the President under the new FISA, but also provides retroactive immunity to telecom companies which violated the law, then illegal warrantless eavesdropping will be every bit as much a by-product of the Democratic Congress as it is one of the definine abuses of the lawless Bush administration.
Close but no turkey. It'll be more the fault of the Democrats for once again opposing 'on principle,' then blindly going along, then bitching after the fact about how 'gosh, we didn't know THIS was actually the case!' and then going along with the redux ANYWAY.
Cowards.
3. Here's the kicker of it all: a prescient reader of the original story pointed out something very interesting"
Recall that the administration has claimed -- under legal theories never upheld by any court -- that the warrantless "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was really lawful after all. All along there has been, under existing law, 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), a provision by which the AG could certify legality to cooperating telecoms by providing:
a certification in writing ... that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
Such a certification already would protect a company from any liability. Section 2511 goes on to say:
...No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
If the program were lawful, why the need for retroactive immunity?
If the program were lawful, why didn't the Attorney General sign off on it? It's not as if the AG were some pinko 60s flower child -- it was John Ashcroft.
Ashcroft wouldn't go along with this idea, but the Democrats probably will.
Harsh.
... And Why The Democrats Are Just As Bad on the War:
Two things in particular pop out at me from this story.
First, something positive: Webb's idea, that the time troops spend at home between deployments should at least equal the length of the deployments seems to me a good idea.
Second, though, this bit hopped out and grabbed me:
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) a Democratic presidential candidate, has introduced another measure with bipartisan support that would endorse the partition of Iraq into three regions.
A Western power invades and conquers a Middle Eastern nation, and then proceeds to announce a desire to redraw the map of the region?
Gosh, how could anyone think that this is a (neo-)colonialist venture! Perish the thought!
Ugh.
First, something positive: Webb's idea, that the time troops spend at home between deployments should at least equal the length of the deployments seems to me a good idea.
Second, though, this bit hopped out and grabbed me:
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) a Democratic presidential candidate, has introduced another measure with bipartisan support that would endorse the partition of Iraq into three regions.
A Western power invades and conquers a Middle Eastern nation, and then proceeds to announce a desire to redraw the map of the region?
Gosh, how could anyone think that this is a (neo-)colonialist venture! Perish the thought!
Ugh.
Wednesday Night Movie: Godfather II
I know, I'm the last person in the world to see this flick, and I'm still not done -- we watched Disc One Wednesday night. Rather cheeky to break the movie up in two discs, but we've shipped Disc One back and hope to get Disc Two soon, so we can finish it.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Acquisitions:
Good Cuban cigar? Check.
Good bottle of single-malt (islay) Scotch? Check.
Ok, the kid can come now -- I'm ready.
Good bottle of single-malt (islay) Scotch? Check.
Ok, the kid can come now -- I'm ready.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Habeas Corpus Still on the PUP List:
Here are a few stories about yesterday's failed Senate vote to restore important habeas corpus protections.
Here is the list of Senators and their votes.
I take back some of the nasty things I said about Arlen Specter last year when he voted for the bill that he's currently trying to override. Good on him for realizing that he made a huge mistake and trying to rectify that.
Fie on the people who voted against this measure. I can't even cast a protest vote against John Warner for this, since he's retiring. At least Jim Webb voted yes on it (a mild surprise, honestly).
Here is the list of Senators and their votes.
I take back some of the nasty things I said about Arlen Specter last year when he voted for the bill that he's currently trying to override. Good on him for realizing that he made a huge mistake and trying to rectify that.
Fie on the people who voted against this measure. I can't even cast a protest vote against John Warner for this, since he's retiring. At least Jim Webb voted yes on it (a mild surprise, honestly).
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
More on New Intelligence Powers:
I'm a few days late on this, but I've got a couple of things I'm working on at present (all of which will be at least a bit out of date by the time I get finished with them -- oh well).
Once before, I complained about new intelligence measures. Seems like I may have been incorrect -- after all, as we found out on September 10, the new measures hurriedly passed in August provided that extra edge to foil a terror plot:
The government’s ability to eavesdrop on potential terrorists helped the United States obtain information that led to the arrests last week of three Islamic militants accused of planning bomb attacks in Germany, the nation’s top spy official said today. This surveillance ability was temporarily restricted earlier this year by a special court, and then restored by Congress last month.
Those wacky courts, always causing problems.
I like the timing of that announcement. I'm sure that was entirely coincidental.
However, it seems that the officials quoted may have -- oops! -- spoken too quickly, and erroneously:
Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, on Wednesday recanted his claim that the new surveillance powers recently given to the government helped foil a terrorist plot in Germany.
“Information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement issued late in the day.
Huh. How 'bout that. And you've got to love that late-in-the-day disclosure that makes sure that another days passes before these sorts of announcements hit the press.
This is another case of Washington grabbing at powers that it doesn't need, and people being gullible enough to fall for it.
And the courts -- in this case, the FISA court -- that stand in the way?
“In fact, F.I.S.A., which you repeatedly claim is ‘outdated,’ was precisely the tool that helped disrupt this plot,” [Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said. “The new law did not lead to the arrests of the three terrorist plotters, as you claimed.”
Again -- the laws currently in force are working well enough that we don't need to go out of our way to let the federal government have any more ways to get at our privacy.
Oh, and by the way, the Democrats are far from off the hook on this one:
The new surveillance law expires in six months. Many Democrats want to change it sooner, arguing that it gives the government far more power to eavesdrop than Congress initially understood.
I have two large complaints about this.
First, the Democrats are once again bitching about legislation that they voted "yes" on, claiming that they didn't really understand how broad it could be. This is like them bitching after the fact that they didn't have time to read USA PATRIOT.
Here's an idea: if you don't understand it, or haven't read it, DON'T VOTE FOR IT. I know, I know, it's too much to expect of our elected representatives to take the time to actually read and understand the laws they're imposing on us. Isn't it?
Second, this is precisely why I can't see myself voting Democrat any time soon: they're enablers. Every time they summon the courage to puff out their chests and stand up to the White House, they wind up looking like clowns, because they always back down, and they always come back later complaining about it.
Wah. The problem with this strategy -- other than the sheer idiocy of such tactics -- is to discredit themselves. Who can take seriously an 'opposition' that stands up only for as long as it takes to become politically expedient to kow-tow? What makes this doubly destructive is that by kow-towing and discrediting themselves as an 'opposition/alternative' party, they discredit the opposition/alternative ideas. By taking a stand on an idea only to back off of it later, they de-legitimate options that we could and probably should be considering. By de-legitimating these ideas, these alternatives, the Democrats also contribute to the one-sided political discourse; after all, if the 'opposition' themselves doesn't take these ideas seriously, why should anyone else?
Right now, I'm more angry at the Democrats than the Republican leadership, because the Democrats are cogent enough to know how wrong things are going now, and too cowardly to do anything meaningful about it. Anyone who attended a UVA football game in the closing years of the George Welsh regime will recognize the derisive chant that would be sure to arise from the stands during poor play:
Up the middle, up the middle, pass, punt!
Then, that was UVA football.
Now, it's Democratic politics.
Up the middle, up the middle, pass, punt.
I don't vote for punters.
Once before, I complained about new intelligence measures. Seems like I may have been incorrect -- after all, as we found out on September 10, the new measures hurriedly passed in August provided that extra edge to foil a terror plot:
The government’s ability to eavesdrop on potential terrorists helped the United States obtain information that led to the arrests last week of three Islamic militants accused of planning bomb attacks in Germany, the nation’s top spy official said today. This surveillance ability was temporarily restricted earlier this year by a special court, and then restored by Congress last month.
Those wacky courts, always causing problems.
I like the timing of that announcement. I'm sure that was entirely coincidental.
However, it seems that the officials quoted may have -- oops! -- spoken too quickly, and erroneously:
Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, on Wednesday recanted his claim that the new surveillance powers recently given to the government helped foil a terrorist plot in Germany.
“Information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act,” Mr. McConnell said in a statement issued late in the day.
Huh. How 'bout that. And you've got to love that late-in-the-day disclosure that makes sure that another days passes before these sorts of announcements hit the press.
This is another case of Washington grabbing at powers that it doesn't need, and people being gullible enough to fall for it.
And the courts -- in this case, the FISA court -- that stand in the way?
“In fact, F.I.S.A., which you repeatedly claim is ‘outdated,’ was precisely the tool that helped disrupt this plot,” [Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee] said. “The new law did not lead to the arrests of the three terrorist plotters, as you claimed.”
Again -- the laws currently in force are working well enough that we don't need to go out of our way to let the federal government have any more ways to get at our privacy.
Oh, and by the way, the Democrats are far from off the hook on this one:
The new surveillance law expires in six months. Many Democrats want to change it sooner, arguing that it gives the government far more power to eavesdrop than Congress initially understood.
I have two large complaints about this.
First, the Democrats are once again bitching about legislation that they voted "yes" on, claiming that they didn't really understand how broad it could be. This is like them bitching after the fact that they didn't have time to read USA PATRIOT.
Here's an idea: if you don't understand it, or haven't read it, DON'T VOTE FOR IT. I know, I know, it's too much to expect of our elected representatives to take the time to actually read and understand the laws they're imposing on us. Isn't it?
Second, this is precisely why I can't see myself voting Democrat any time soon: they're enablers. Every time they summon the courage to puff out their chests and stand up to the White House, they wind up looking like clowns, because they always back down, and they always come back later complaining about it.
Wah. The problem with this strategy -- other than the sheer idiocy of such tactics -- is to discredit themselves. Who can take seriously an 'opposition' that stands up only for as long as it takes to become politically expedient to kow-tow? What makes this doubly destructive is that by kow-towing and discrediting themselves as an 'opposition/alternative' party, they discredit the opposition/alternative ideas. By taking a stand on an idea only to back off of it later, they de-legitimate options that we could and probably should be considering. By de-legitimating these ideas, these alternatives, the Democrats also contribute to the one-sided political discourse; after all, if the 'opposition' themselves doesn't take these ideas seriously, why should anyone else?
Right now, I'm more angry at the Democrats than the Republican leadership, because the Democrats are cogent enough to know how wrong things are going now, and too cowardly to do anything meaningful about it. Anyone who attended a UVA football game in the closing years of the George Welsh regime will recognize the derisive chant that would be sure to arise from the stands during poor play:
Up the middle, up the middle, pass, punt!
Then, that was UVA football.
Now, it's Democratic politics.
Up the middle, up the middle, pass, punt.
I don't vote for punters.
Raiders-Broncos, Week 2:
You know, I actually heard that whistle during Jano's first field goal attempt. I heard it, saw the kick go through, and thought "aw, damn it, they probably lined up wrong." While Gannon was talking about what a big deal it is for a struggling team to get a good win over a division rival, I was desperately looking for the flag. No flag? NO FLAG?! The score changed, the teams started out toward midfield -- my god, they won!
Oh, wait. No, they didn't. As soon as Jano stutter-stepped, I knew the kick was off (by what, less than a foot? man, that hurts!) and that Denver would win on a field goal -- I was only hoping that they wouldn't get a cheap TD out of the deal.
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
Things I was ambivalent about:
Things I Didn't Like:
Next week: Home against Cleveland, which may be no joke, seeing as they dropped 51 on Cincy. Still, this is a good place to get a first win, and maybe we'll finally see Daunte? Kiffin says no for now, but here's hoping ...
Oh, wait. No, they didn't. As soon as Jano stutter-stepped, I knew the kick was off (by what, less than a foot? man, that hurts!) and that Denver would win on a field goal -- I was only hoping that they wouldn't get a cheap TD out of the deal.
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
- LaMont Jordan.
I said Jordan would have a big September, and thus far, I've been right. I actually expected him to have a down game against Denver, but 318 total yards in the first two games is quite ok by me. If he can come even close to maintaining this pace over the next two, his starting job will be secure when Rhodes comes back. Bonus: when Rhodes is back, that may mean no more Fargas Quite the delightful prospect. - Rich Gannon.
Yes, I am a huge Gannon fanboy, but I like him as a commentator, particularly for Raiders games (I'm not sure I've seen him do any other games). The way he talks from the perspective of Gannon the Raider QB and Gannon the Announcer and negotiates the distance is fun, and I think he does a great job of breaking down the game. This guy should get into coaching somewhere.
Things I was ambivalent about:
- The defense.
I actually was going to have the D in the "didn't like" list, since they blew a late lead again, but it's not as if the offense rallied of its own accord -- that little 17-point burst was almost dead even -- 9 points came from the offense, including the 2-point conversion, and eight came via the defense. Sapp and Burgess were shut out again, which I don't like, and Washington and Asomugha were cooked repeatedly, while poor Stanford Routt actually played extremely well, only to be outfoxed a few times by Brandon Stokeley. Still, the D kept the game close and gave the offense a chance to win, while some of the defensive players started to get some swagger as the game went on. THAT I like to see. - The Rally.
I'd be happier if they didn't start so daggone slowly. Yes, they can come back. When they don't have to, I'll really be impressed.
Things I Didn't Like:
- Penalties, Sacks, Turnovers.
-4, -2 and -1, respectively. Just can't get it done like that. - The Timeout.
Damn you, Mike Shanahan, you brilliant jerk.
Next week: Home against Cleveland, which may be no joke, seeing as they dropped 51 on Cincy. Still, this is a good place to get a first win, and maybe we'll finally see Daunte? Kiffin says no for now, but here's hoping ...
NFL Picks Week 2 Revisited:
SF @ StL: StL I knew better than to go against a team whose primary offensive weapon lost a family member leading up to the game -- or I knew better until I took leave of my senses and thought "Gosh, the Rams' offense is too good to open 0-2 at home, even with Pace hurt! Yeah. I was right earlier in the week, before I chickened out of this pick.
GB @ NYG: GB This one at least was easy.
BUF @ PIT: PIT Same as above, and the bonus is I was smart enough to bench Lee Evans this week. He'll get his, but not early, and not against Pittsburgh.
NO @ TB: NO I actually almost picked up Barrett Ruud in one of my leagues. Should have.
HOU @ CAR: CAR Looks like Houston has made a HUGE improvement over last season. Good to see a UVA grad playing well. I wonder how many times daily Blank and Petrino regret this decision?
ATL @ JAX: JAX I started to sweat this one, but fortunatly, the Jags pulled it out.
CIN @ CLE: CIN LOL. Holy crap.
IND @ TN: IND My pick or not, I was rooting for the Titans.
SEA @ AZ: SEA Crud.
MN @ DET: DET I'd like to thank Kitna for disappearing midway through that game, and midway through a decent fantasy game. Boo on Kitna for coming back after not knowing where he was for a while.
DAL @ MIA: DAL Meanwhile I forgot to swap Miami's defense for someone else ...
NYJ @ BAL: BAL And now Billick is whining about an "illegal fake snap count." Lost in all of this is the fact that Kyle Boller actually looked pretty good.
KC @ CHI: CHI I said before the season that the West would finish 1-4 Denver, SD, Oakland, KC. The Chiefs thus far have done nothing to make me think I was wrong about that.
OAK @ DEN: OAK My inverse John Kerry pick of the week. I actually was right before I was wrong.
SD @ NE: NE Something inside me smiles when the Chargers lose, especially when they lose like this. Hiring Norv was a clear case of "be careful what you wish for." I'm just as tickled as can be that he's back in the AFC West. He's like the W of the NFL -- he looks like a blithering moron, but his uncanny capacity to screw up absolutely everything he touches with an Alfred E. Newman countenance is nothing short of amazing. They're both evil geniuses working to the detriment of those they're supposed to be working for. In Norv's case, at least, I sincerely applaud his efforts. Bravo!
WAS @ PHI: PHI God, that was just ugly.
For the week: 9-7. Remarkably consistent, right down to changing the wrong pick two weekends running.
For the season: 18-14. Not the best of beginnings (then again, if Lane Kiffin goes 18-14 over his first 32 games, I'll be dancing for joy).
GB @ NYG: GB This one at least was easy.
BUF @ PIT: PIT Same as above, and the bonus is I was smart enough to bench Lee Evans this week. He'll get his, but not early, and not against Pittsburgh.
NO @ TB: NO I actually almost picked up Barrett Ruud in one of my leagues. Should have.
HOU @ CAR: CAR Looks like Houston has made a HUGE improvement over last season. Good to see a UVA grad playing well. I wonder how many times daily Blank and Petrino regret this decision?
ATL @ JAX: JAX I started to sweat this one, but fortunatly, the Jags pulled it out.
CIN @ CLE: CIN LOL. Holy crap.
IND @ TN: IND My pick or not, I was rooting for the Titans.
SEA @ AZ: SEA Crud.
MN @ DET: DET I'd like to thank Kitna for disappearing midway through that game, and midway through a decent fantasy game. Boo on Kitna for coming back after not knowing where he was for a while.
DAL @ MIA: DAL Meanwhile I forgot to swap Miami's defense for someone else ...
NYJ @ BAL: BAL And now Billick is whining about an "illegal fake snap count." Lost in all of this is the fact that Kyle Boller actually looked pretty good.
KC @ CHI: CHI I said before the season that the West would finish 1-4 Denver, SD, Oakland, KC. The Chiefs thus far have done nothing to make me think I was wrong about that.
OAK @ DEN: OAK My inverse John Kerry pick of the week. I actually was right before I was wrong.
SD @ NE: NE Something inside me smiles when the Chargers lose, especially when they lose like this. Hiring Norv was a clear case of "be careful what you wish for." I'm just as tickled as can be that he's back in the AFC West. He's like the W of the NFL -- he looks like a blithering moron, but his uncanny capacity to screw up absolutely everything he touches with an Alfred E. Newman countenance is nothing short of amazing. They're both evil geniuses working to the detriment of those they're supposed to be working for. In Norv's case, at least, I sincerely applaud his efforts. Bravo!
WAS @ PHI: PHI God, that was just ugly.
For the week: 9-7. Remarkably consistent, right down to changing the wrong pick two weekends running.
For the season: 18-14. Not the best of beginnings (then again, if Lane Kiffin goes 18-14 over his first 32 games, I'll be dancing for joy).
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Halloween 2007
This came in the mail today -- Halloween this year will make for at least one great photo op!
NFL Picks: Week 2:
I'll come in Tuesday or Wednesday and grade myself out.
Last Week: 9-7. (I was actually 10-6 elsewhere, but got stupid and decided to change the Denver-Buffalo pick here. Whoops)
SF @ StL: StL
GB @ NYG: GB
BUF @ PIT: PIT
NO @ TB: NO
HOU @ CAR: CAR
ATL @ JAX: JAX
CIN @ CLE: CIN
IND @ TN: IND
SEA @ AZ: SEA
MN @ DET: DET
DAL @ MIA: DAL
NYJ @ BAL: BAL
KC @ CHI: CHI
OAK @ DEN: OAK
SD @ NE: NE
WAS @ PHI: PHI
Last Week: 9-7. (I was actually 10-6 elsewhere, but got stupid and decided to change the Denver-Buffalo pick here. Whoops)
SF @ StL: StL
GB @ NYG: GB
BUF @ PIT: PIT
NO @ TB: NO
HOU @ CAR: CAR
ATL @ JAX: JAX
CIN @ CLE: CIN
IND @ TN: IND
SEA @ AZ: SEA
MN @ DET: DET
DAL @ MIA: DAL
NYJ @ BAL: BAL
KC @ CHI: CHI
OAK @ DEN: OAK
SD @ NE: NE
WAS @ PHI: PHI
A Little Bit of Humor:
Courtesy of SportsGal:
SPORTS GAL'S RANT
Right now, I'm eight and a half months pregnant and have a giant bowling ball in my stomach. I can't sleep and I pee every hour on the hour. Every time I lay down, I feel like someone's kicking field goals inside me. My daughter constantly wants me to hold her even though I can't hold a bag of groceries at this point. I'm always 20 degrees hotter than everyone else, but Bill lowers the air conditioning every time I'm not looking so I call him the Air Conditioning Nazi. I'm very emotional and can't watch any movie where a dog gets killed or someone might die of cancer because I don't want the water works to start flowing. If I seem especially mean in these rants over the next few weeks, don't blame me -- blame God for deciding that it would be a good idea for women to have babies and men to watch football every Sunday. I wish Bill was carrying this kid and I could go over to a friend's house to watch TV for eight straight hours under the flimsy excuse that "it's my job." Yeah, it was also your job not to knock me up in time for football season.
Just know that I'm extremely concerned. Our second baby is due right between Game 7 of the World Series and the start of the NBA season, and during the middle of football season as well. Bill claims this won't be a major problem. Ohhhhhh-kay. I keep having this nightmare that I'll be in labor in agonizing pain, but every time I look up for support from Bill, he'll be pretending to care while he's really trying to figure out how to get split-screen on the 13-inch hospital TV. If that happens, I will be the first pregnant woman to file for divorce at the same time they're administering the epidural. The other problem is that we can't decide on a name. We're having a son and Bill thinks we should name it after him because he's a third and the kid would be a fourth. I love the logic of that one -- sure, let me carry the kid for 10 months, and then we'll name it after you. That's an awesome idea. Even when he jokes that we should name him D'Bill or LaBill so he'll be a good athlete, it makes me mad. Everything makes me mad right now. Did I mention that I'm eight and a half months pregnant?
I refuse to discuss names any more, I want to see Bill's performance in the final days of the pregnancy first. If he's watching sports every spare second and saying things like, "Why did you have to go into labor during Game 6 of the World Series, what were you thinking?", then I'm naming this kid Peyton Manning Simmons and that will be that. Anyway, I'm sorry this week's rant isn't about Britney throwing her career down the toilet, but I had to get that off my swollen chest. Now I have to go pee again. Here are my Week 2 picks:
Falcons +10.5, Pitt -9.5, Browns +6.5, Texans +6.5, Tenn +6.5, NO -3, SF +3, Miami +3.5, Minn +3, Zona +2.5, KC +12, Ravens -10, Oak +9.5, Pats -3, Wash +7.
Last week: 9-5-2
Season: 9-5-2
As a sports fan whose wife could go into labor at any moment, this is only too funny -- not to mention a wee bit of true!
SPORTS GAL'S RANT
Right now, I'm eight and a half months pregnant and have a giant bowling ball in my stomach. I can't sleep and I pee every hour on the hour. Every time I lay down, I feel like someone's kicking field goals inside me. My daughter constantly wants me to hold her even though I can't hold a bag of groceries at this point. I'm always 20 degrees hotter than everyone else, but Bill lowers the air conditioning every time I'm not looking so I call him the Air Conditioning Nazi. I'm very emotional and can't watch any movie where a dog gets killed or someone might die of cancer because I don't want the water works to start flowing. If I seem especially mean in these rants over the next few weeks, don't blame me -- blame God for deciding that it would be a good idea for women to have babies and men to watch football every Sunday. I wish Bill was carrying this kid and I could go over to a friend's house to watch TV for eight straight hours under the flimsy excuse that "it's my job." Yeah, it was also your job not to knock me up in time for football season.
Just know that I'm extremely concerned. Our second baby is due right between Game 7 of the World Series and the start of the NBA season, and during the middle of football season as well. Bill claims this won't be a major problem. Ohhhhhh-kay. I keep having this nightmare that I'll be in labor in agonizing pain, but every time I look up for support from Bill, he'll be pretending to care while he's really trying to figure out how to get split-screen on the 13-inch hospital TV. If that happens, I will be the first pregnant woman to file for divorce at the same time they're administering the epidural. The other problem is that we can't decide on a name. We're having a son and Bill thinks we should name it after him because he's a third and the kid would be a fourth. I love the logic of that one -- sure, let me carry the kid for 10 months, and then we'll name it after you. That's an awesome idea. Even when he jokes that we should name him D'Bill or LaBill so he'll be a good athlete, it makes me mad. Everything makes me mad right now. Did I mention that I'm eight and a half months pregnant?
I refuse to discuss names any more, I want to see Bill's performance in the final days of the pregnancy first. If he's watching sports every spare second and saying things like, "Why did you have to go into labor during Game 6 of the World Series, what were you thinking?", then I'm naming this kid Peyton Manning Simmons and that will be that. Anyway, I'm sorry this week's rant isn't about Britney throwing her career down the toilet, but I had to get that off my swollen chest. Now I have to go pee again. Here are my Week 2 picks:
Falcons +10.5, Pitt -9.5, Browns +6.5, Texans +6.5, Tenn +6.5, NO -3, SF +3, Miami +3.5, Minn +3, Zona +2.5, KC +12, Ravens -10, Oak +9.5, Pats -3, Wash +7.
Last week: 9-5-2
Season: 9-5-2
As a sports fan whose wife could go into labor at any moment, this is only too funny -- not to mention a wee bit of true!
Friday, September 14, 2007
Book Order Arrived:
I do so love getting a package of books in the mail!
Roger Hood: The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (Third Edition)
Rachel King: Don't Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty
Christian Parenti: Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis
Austin Sarat, ed.: The Killing State: Capital Punishment in Law, Politics, and Culture
James W. Skillen and Rockne M. McCarthy: Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society
Scott Turow: Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty
Peter Wallenstein: Cradle of America: Four Centuries of Virginia History
I've already read the Hood (all three editions), but I wanted the third as a reference on the shelf. I've read some of the essays in the Sarat book, and am in general impressed by the caliber of books that Sarat edits, so I'm looking forward to reading through the rest of the book.
The others are topical, obviously, and I'm probably most looking forward to the Skillens/McCarthy and Wallenstein. I'm eager to begin the former because I am curious as to the different types of approaches to 'pluralist theory' -- which I'm sure will have a tremendous amount of applicability to my dissertation. The Wallenstein I can't wait to get into because it'll be a good way to link a lot of the things I've been reading over the past year plus (which spans from biographies and critiques of the political philosophies of Jefferson, Madison and Washington to contemporary 'new media' -- political and organizational weblogs dedicated to Virginia politics), and I'm interested in his version of history from a conflictual point of view. Should be a great read, and thumbing through the references appendices, it's a great book to have on hand for those alone.
Very exciting!
Roger Hood: The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (Third Edition)
Rachel King: Don't Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty
Christian Parenti: Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis
Austin Sarat, ed.: The Killing State: Capital Punishment in Law, Politics, and Culture
James W. Skillen and Rockne M. McCarthy: Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society
Scott Turow: Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty
Peter Wallenstein: Cradle of America: Four Centuries of Virginia History
I've already read the Hood (all three editions), but I wanted the third as a reference on the shelf. I've read some of the essays in the Sarat book, and am in general impressed by the caliber of books that Sarat edits, so I'm looking forward to reading through the rest of the book.
The others are topical, obviously, and I'm probably most looking forward to the Skillens/McCarthy and Wallenstein. I'm eager to begin the former because I am curious as to the different types of approaches to 'pluralist theory' -- which I'm sure will have a tremendous amount of applicability to my dissertation. The Wallenstein I can't wait to get into because it'll be a good way to link a lot of the things I've been reading over the past year plus (which spans from biographies and critiques of the political philosophies of Jefferson, Madison and Washington to contemporary 'new media' -- political and organizational weblogs dedicated to Virginia politics), and I'm interested in his version of history from a conflictual point of view. Should be a great read, and thumbing through the references appendices, it's a great book to have on hand for those alone.
Very exciting!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Mark Warner:
Mark Warner ended speculation today and announced formally that he will run for the Senate seat to be vacated by the retiring John Warner (no relation). This is pretty far from a secret, and has been expected since he aborted his presidential campaigning; this past spring, during an appearance at James Madison University, Warner informally "announced" his candidacy by telling the packed auditorium -- to rousing cheers, I'm told -- that he was committed to serving Virginia at the national level, and he'd explain what that meant soon enough. Not exactly difficult to read between the lines on that one.
Mark's chances at the outset are excellent, considering his gubernatorial term ended with his approval rating in the neighborhood of 70%. He's also one of a very few Democrats with whom I am acquainted that I'd still vote for after the last eight or so years.
If he wins, and he has to be considered a favorite at this point, VA would have swung from Dem 0 GOP 2 Senators to Dem 2 GOP 0 in the span of two years.
Here is Mark's video announcement. (He speaks a bit too quickly in parts -- a tick of his I'd never noticed before.)
Mark's chances at the outset are excellent, considering his gubernatorial term ended with his approval rating in the neighborhood of 70%. He's also one of a very few Democrats with whom I am acquainted that I'd still vote for after the last eight or so years.
If he wins, and he has to be considered a favorite at this point, VA would have swung from Dem 0 GOP 2 Senators to Dem 2 GOP 0 in the span of two years.
Here is Mark's video announcement. (He speaks a bit too quickly in parts -- a tick of his I'd never noticed before.)
Raiders-Lions, Week 1:
Oy vey, not the best of ways to start a season. Still, there were some good things this weekend.
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
Things I was ambivalent about:
Things I Didn't Like:
Some things that I liked in this weekend's game:
- LaMont Jordan.
Welcome back to the NFL, LaMont Jordan!! 159 total yards and a touchdown, to go along with a 4.7 ypa. Excellent. Sure, it was Detroit, not San Diego, but it's nice to see big-time production out of Jordan. That means too many things wrapped up in one to be displeased in any way. - Ronald Curry.
One of my fondest college football memories was a UNC-UVA game in Charlottesville, after Curry had verbally committed to Virginia only to spurn them for UNC. Understandably, the crowd at Mr. Jefferson's Stadium was only too happy to show our displeasure, honoring Ron with the Darryl Strawberry chant: "Cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur-ry, Cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuur-ry."
Since he's been in Oakland, however, I've grown to really like Curry. Yeah, yeah, I'm a homer. Truth of it is, he works, and works hard. He's come back from two consecutive achilles tears (in the same game, no less -- KC @ OAK) and became their most productive receiver last season -- not that this was much of a feat, since he was their only legitimate wide receiver last season, with Moss loafing and Porter red-shirting.
10 for 133 and a TD. Clearly he's established himself as the #1 receiving option, and he should only get better when McCown gets the hook in favor of Pep (which, if the injury report is any indication, may happen as early as this week). - The Rally.
Yes, it fell short, but the mere fact that the Raiders came back from 17 down midway through the third to take the lead midway through the fourth showed something. This team has something that it didn't have last season, and that extra pluck may be good for an extra win or two all by itself.
Things I was ambivalent about:
- Josh McCown.
Gosh, it's hard to pick on a guy who went 30/40 with 2 tds and over 300 yards, isn't it? In a way, yes.
In a more meaningful way, those stats were nice, but he turned the ball over three times and, even more damning, was timid out there. During the rally he looked superb, he looked like a bona fide NFL quarterback. Until that point, and after, he looked like a backup. He was timid, he was obviously not trusting his reads and his intuition, and he generally took too long each play to make a decision. Granted, he ran the offense very efficiently -- Kiffin said afterward that there were no blown alignments, no blown audibles, no missed calls from the sideline. That is fantastic. The Raiders also looked crisp in and out of the huddle under McCown's direction, and he directed a few audibles and protection changes that are light years beyond what last year's offense was capable of.
Still, he played timid for too long, and when the pressure was on, he was one of several Raiders to look like a cartoon. Very good numbers alongside some very bad numbers and inconsistent play. - The Running Game.
Yes, I said I was thrilled with Jordan, but the running game as a whole could use some work. Part of this is an indictment of the team overall, not just the running game itself, and playing from behind (17 behind!) is not conducive to a good running game. This is understood.
However, the magic number was 4.0. Given that Jordan was breaking off progressively better runs as the game went along and as the Lions DL started to get tired, that is a positive -- the Raiders OL was making progress toward being able to win the trench battle -- and a negative -- despite some sexy runs in the second half, the team's game average was an even (and fairly meager) 4.0. Needs work. It will help when they can play with the lead, too, to run time off and just go after the opposing DL. An adequate beginning, but not really something to get too excited about (yet?).
Things I Didn't Like:
- Penalties, Sacks, Turnovers.
-2, -1 and -1, respectively. That's the Raiders' ratio versus the Lions in these three categories. Looking at that line alone, is it any wonder they lost? Add to that: - Terrible, Terrible Special Teams.
In addition to the above, the Raiders were 0-3 on FG attempts. Unacceptable. To compound that particular misfortune, their kick coverage was awful -- mostly because it was quite obviously lackadaisical. Lazy kick coverage is not something this team can tolerate, and if it means making some player moves to correct it, so be it. - The Defense.
Man, how can you say this about last year's #1 pass defense and #3 overall defense? Because, to all appearances, they left their success at the close of last season. They were awful Sunday. In fact, the defense had a chance to win the game -- when the Lions got the ball back after the Raiders had taken the lead at 21-20, I started entertaining notions of a 28-20 final score. The defense didn't let that happen, and in fact let Detroit take the lead right back, seeming to offer no resistance whatsoever in letting Kitna lead Detroit to another touchdown.
It wasn't all bad. Sapp was really disruptive, though he has to be embarrassed at twice being outrun (and cheated out of sacks) by the inexplicably nimble Kitna. Still, he broke the line and disrupted plays actively and often. Burgess was literally doubled the whole game -- as he will be, and as he should be, until the other end and interior take some of the pressure off of him. There were some signs of the line growing into that role, which is encouraging, particularly since the RDE battle went as deep into camp as it did. Still, the defense was