When John McCain promised in 2008 to appoint judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito, the Smarter among us had a hearty laugh with our morning toast and coffee. After all, McCain's identity as a "maverick" (helpfully defined by George Will as "the media encomium reserved for Republicans who reject important Republican principals") led him over the course of his career to such monstrosities as the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights, and, of course, McCain-Feingold, the campaign finance "reform" bill that did to the First Amendment what single-ply toilet paper does to our asses. The joke, we knew, was that McCain's model justices would be the first to strike down his signature achievements. McCain was so busy practicing his "strict constructionist" references in the mirror, he didn't stop to understand the phrase as anything but Conservative buzzwords. Too bad. He might have enjoyed the irony.
In any case, he can't have missed the blogosphere's (and the President's) response this past week to Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, a frenzy of liberal teeth-gnashing unheard since the darkest hours of the Bush administration. Writing in the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse wondered "what the Roberts majority’s next target will be . . . now that it has experienced the joy of overturning." (Her guess: the Civil Rights Act.) Back in Washington at the Post, E. J. Dionne suggested that "the Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government." Even the President (or was that his chauffeur--we're never sure) joined in the hand-wringing with his State of the Union claim that the ruling had "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." (Note: He lies.) Like all disingenuous political spectacles, this one had its volume turned to "11." A week later and we're still covering our ears.
Perhaps the deepest irony here is that there is a legitimate argument to be made that the presence of television and direct-mail advertising has perverted beyond repair the political process in this country. Show us anyone who thinks that campaigns are too short, their budgets too small. Sadly, the liberal response to the recent ruling has focused not on that merited (though hopeless) argument but on two different points:
1) Alito shouldn't have made that face;
2) The Court shouldn't have overturned precedent.
Yes, that's right. The same political Left that rightly praises Brown vs. Board of Education (thousands of years of precedent overturned if we're just talking about culturally institutionalized racism) can't stop bitching now about the will of the people, judicial restraint, and stare decisis.
But here's our question. Is anyone even listening to them anymore?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Tebow Ad: A Matter of Choice
Editor's Note: Starting today, we'll be ending each week with links to topics that didn't make our cut. It's a crazy world out there. Check 'em out.
JW,
I suggested two posts ago that I'm not particularly excited about this year's Super Bowl. The game, that is. About the commercials, I'm thrilled and bordering on ecstatic. After all, this is a year in which CBS has "eased restrictions on advocacy ads and [will] consider 'responsibly produced' ones for open spots in its Feb. 7 broadcast," according to Fox Sports. Just as a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, nothing makes bad football watchable like political propaganda. I can't wait.
And neither, it seems, can the Woman's Media Center, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation, who recently made clear their opposition to an advertisement produced by pro-life bastion Focus on the Family and starring Tim Tebow. The ad, Fox reports, "is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow . . . [who] ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child [and] later gave birth to Tim." Paradoxically, women concerned with "choice" resent the hell out of this one.
Rather than indulge in a drawn-out diatribe against abortion (some of our thoughts are here if you can't resist), let's consider the statements of the womyn who've come out against the ad, typified by those of Jehmu Greene (it's true), president of the aforementioned Woman's Media Center:
-"[The ad threatens to] throw women under the bus."
-"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year."
Not to get too picky, but how does Greene manage to break out one of Sportscenter's most obnoxious cliches (the bus thing) while completely misunderstanding the nature of sports (the bit about sports' potential to "unite")? I'm not going to the Super Bowl, but sitting at home I'll be cheering for Peyton Manning to die. Not to lose. Not to suffer an injury. To die. I'm pretty sure the game's got us divided already.
Which is exactly why Greene and her friends should run their own ad instead of complaining about Focus on the Family's.
(Narrator: We've all heard the Tim Tebow story, but what you haven't heard is the unlikelihood of his success in the NFL. Abortion? Maybe Pam Tebow made the wrong decision.)
I don't know about you, but my mind's changing already!
GM,
Why is "free speech" such a difficult concept for people to understand? I know, I know... there's a certain irony to my claim that others don't understand free speech when all they did was say something to invoke my claim. Unlike them, however, I'm not trying to employ prior restraint against the "womyn," whereby I insist that they "shouldn't be allowed" to voice their opinions.
". . . pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue. . . ."
Do not all commercials advocate? And aren't most of them offensive to somebody? Take, for instance, the endless beer commercials in which the three major domestic brands (that all taste like bath water anyway) try to increase market share with awful creativity (see Bud Light's current "Not too light, not too heavy" campaign) and pseudo-innovation (see Coors Light's "Mountains turn blue!" technology and Miller Lite's "Taste Protector" caps). We used to have prohibition in this country. Surely someone thinks we still should, rendering the issue "divisive." Devout Catholics probably don't appreciate Trojan or Viagra ads, yet we don't hear the Pope screaming from Vatican City every Monday morning.
Greene said she simply wants CBS to "follow its own example and ban advocacy ads from the airwaves." What country is this?! Shouldn't CBS get to decide what its own policy is? "No, no... you didn't run PETA's ad with women trying to sexually stimulate fruit; you can't run Focus on the Family's either." Quite frankly, as long as CBS is willing to put up with endless boycotts and perhaps FCC scrutiny, I think the network should give airtime to anyone who can cough up the $3 million. Imagine a SuperBowl sponsored by the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, The Church of Satan, and Hustler. It wouldn't be good business for CBS, but it certainly would show off our First Ammendment.
This reminds me of a recent Facebook controversy. First there was the group "Soldiers Are Not Heroes"--a statement about as provable and unprovable as "Puppies aren't cute." Then came the group "Petition To Remove Group 'Soldiers Are Not Heroes'" and some similar petitions, at least one of which actually wanted Facebook to step in and shut it down. Fortunately, it's gaining very little steam. Regretfully, I admit that most of these petitioners fall to the Right of center. Obviously, those offended by the Tebow ad are mostly of the Left. So once and for all, can everyone on both sides of the political spectrum just realize that our freedom of speech is what separates us from places like Afghanistan, North Korea, and Canada?
If the feminazis don't like what CBS is doing, they're welcome to stop watching its free product. They can use the extra time to make me a sandwich.
-JW
Quick Hits for the Week
Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change. Seriously.
South Carolina's Lt. Governor compares welfare to "feeding stray animals." Now that's racist.
Liberals cannot give good advice where pot is concerned.
JW,
I suggested two posts ago that I'm not particularly excited about this year's Super Bowl. The game, that is. About the commercials, I'm thrilled and bordering on ecstatic. After all, this is a year in which CBS has "eased restrictions on advocacy ads and [will] consider 'responsibly produced' ones for open spots in its Feb. 7 broadcast," according to Fox Sports. Just as a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, nothing makes bad football watchable like political propaganda. I can't wait.
And neither, it seems, can the Woman's Media Center, the National Organization for Women, and the Feminist Majority Foundation, who recently made clear their opposition to an advertisement produced by pro-life bastion Focus on the Family and starring Tim Tebow. The ad, Fox reports, "is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow . . . [who] ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child [and] later gave birth to Tim." Paradoxically, women concerned with "choice" resent the hell out of this one.
Rather than indulge in a drawn-out diatribe against abortion (some of our thoughts are here if you can't resist), let's consider the statements of the womyn who've come out against the ad, typified by those of Jehmu Greene (it's true), president of the aforementioned Woman's Media Center:
-"[The ad threatens to] throw women under the bus."
-"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year."
Not to get too picky, but how does Greene manage to break out one of Sportscenter's most obnoxious cliches (the bus thing) while completely misunderstanding the nature of sports (the bit about sports' potential to "unite")? I'm not going to the Super Bowl, but sitting at home I'll be cheering for Peyton Manning to die. Not to lose. Not to suffer an injury. To die. I'm pretty sure the game's got us divided already.
Which is exactly why Greene and her friends should run their own ad instead of complaining about Focus on the Family's.
(Narrator: We've all heard the Tim Tebow story, but what you haven't heard is the unlikelihood of his success in the NFL. Abortion? Maybe Pam Tebow made the wrong decision.)
I don't know about you, but my mind's changing already!
-GM
GM,
Why is "free speech" such a difficult concept for people to understand? I know, I know... there's a certain irony to my claim that others don't understand free speech when all they did was say something to invoke my claim. Unlike them, however, I'm not trying to employ prior restraint against the "womyn," whereby I insist that they "shouldn't be allowed" to voice their opinions.
". . . pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue. . . ."
Do not all commercials advocate? And aren't most of them offensive to somebody? Take, for instance, the endless beer commercials in which the three major domestic brands (that all taste like bath water anyway) try to increase market share with awful creativity (see Bud Light's current "Not too light, not too heavy" campaign) and pseudo-innovation (see Coors Light's "Mountains turn blue!" technology and Miller Lite's "Taste Protector" caps). We used to have prohibition in this country. Surely someone thinks we still should, rendering the issue "divisive." Devout Catholics probably don't appreciate Trojan or Viagra ads, yet we don't hear the Pope screaming from Vatican City every Monday morning.
Greene said she simply wants CBS to "follow its own example and ban advocacy ads from the airwaves." What country is this?! Shouldn't CBS get to decide what its own policy is? "No, no... you didn't run PETA's ad with women trying to sexually stimulate fruit; you can't run Focus on the Family's either." Quite frankly, as long as CBS is willing to put up with endless boycotts and perhaps FCC scrutiny, I think the network should give airtime to anyone who can cough up the $3 million. Imagine a SuperBowl sponsored by the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, The Church of Satan, and Hustler. It wouldn't be good business for CBS, but it certainly would show off our First Ammendment.
This reminds me of a recent Facebook controversy. First there was the group "Soldiers Are Not Heroes"--a statement about as provable and unprovable as "Puppies aren't cute." Then came the group "Petition To Remove Group 'Soldiers Are Not Heroes'" and some similar petitions, at least one of which actually wanted Facebook to step in and shut it down. Fortunately, it's gaining very little steam. Regretfully, I admit that most of these petitioners fall to the Right of center. Obviously, those offended by the Tebow ad are mostly of the Left. So once and for all, can everyone on both sides of the political spectrum just realize that our freedom of speech is what separates us from places like Afghanistan, North Korea, and Canada?
If the feminazis don't like what CBS is doing, they're welcome to stop watching its free product. They can use the extra time to make me a sandwich.
-JW
Quick Hits for the Week
Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change. Seriously.
South Carolina's Lt. Governor compares welfare to "feeding stray animals." Now that's racist.
Liberals cannot give good advice where pot is concerned.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Holding Our Applause for the State of the Union
GM,
President Obama gave his second (though first "official") State of the Union address last night, and it reminded me how we managed to elect the guy. Forget content or feasibility for a moment. The speech sounded great. He didn't at all look like a president whose popularity had plummeted. In fact, the number of times he went through his "Smirk, Wait, and Smile" routine was staggering. The SWS occurs when the president is most proud of himself. He reels off a clever remark, smirks as the audience processes the level of sarcasm or folksiness on display, waits for applause or laughter, and smiles as if he's as tickled as everyone else is. Hey, it's better than the George W. Bush "Act like you're completely clueless" expression.
In other observations, Harry Reid yawned during his cut-away, Ruth Bader Ginsburg somehow looked decrepit and sharp, and Nancy Pelosi acted like it was all she could do not to jump the desk and begin humping the president!
But the speech included several points worth mentioning, and the world needs your take.
1. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit--one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. . . . Let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment."
A typical American might say: That sounds pretty good. If big business gets bailed out, then small business should too.
2. "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will."
Typical American: It's about time the government stopped spending so much. Like the president said, I'm on a tight budget. Why shouldn't the federal government be?!
3. After bragging about all the tax cuts, Democrats applauded vigorously while Republicans remained quiet and seated. Obama's (seemingly) impromptu response was: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."
Typical American: Why wouldn't they applaud? I thought Republicans were all about tax cuts. Is it because they wanted more tax cuts for the wealthy and none for everyone else?! Those bastards!
4. "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."
Typical American: Touche, Mr. President! You're too witty.
5. "Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. . . . Let's tell another one million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years, and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service."
Typical American: Perfect! If everyone has a college degree, there can be no more poverty.
-JW
JW,
Unlike you, I spent Wednesday evening ignoring the President's speech. Why watch when the transcript is available online even before the speech is over? Who's got time to sit through all that applause? Fully rested and refreshed, I'm ready to attack this monstrosity. Let's take it point by point.
The TARP Repayment
Not only the national debt but the yearly budget deficit is a multi-trillion dollar entity these days. I mention this because we needn't have any confusion over the source of the bailout money Obama now promises to funnel into even more government projects. Either we printed the money or we borrowed it from China. In either case, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the word, and the only proper destination for the repaid funds is a steamer bound for Beijing or an armored car bound for the incinerators. To spend the money--my hands are shaking, this pisses me off so badly--is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Obama knows this. That's why he's proposing a cut in some capital gains taxes. He would never propose an idea that "regressive" if he weren't trying to get away with something.
The Spending Freeze
George Will calls it a "flagrant falsehood." The Associated Press reports, "The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the [annual budget] deficit--and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along." Politicians and commentators like to throw around the word "cynical," but Obama's strategy--say what you know to be untrue and count on your personality and the credulity of voters to protect you--is practically its dictionary definition.
Take four minutes and listen to Bill Adair of the Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan, fact-checking website Politifact.com. In his NPR interview, he states that Politifact's exploration of seven Obama claims produced only one "true" rating. Good times.
The Tax Cuts
This was the one "true" claim that Obama made, according to Politifact.com. Yes, he did use the 2nd Stimulus Package (Bush's was the first; the upcoming "jobs bill" will be the third) to give some tax break to a large majority of Americans. For political reasons, Republicans probably should have applauded. They're probably thinking about the future, though, when the bill will come due. It's not far off.
Climate Change
Don't you just love that smarty-pants line about "overwhelming scientific evidence"? If it's overwhelming, the cause is in large measure the censorship of competing data by a "scientific" community that joins Obama in his disdain for profit. F--k them. Whether or not man-made climate change is happening, the steps required to combat it cannot be achieved by the nations of this world as they are currently constituted. (Here's George Will again--sue me; I love the guy.)
Loan Forgiveness
The high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. Great. Let's do the same thing to the college diploma by educating every deadbeat in America.
The primary economic fact is scarcity. The secondary economic fact is that when you start screwing with lenders' ability--even government lenders--to recoup loans, you change who they loan to. I look forward to a world in which poor people can't go to school because of the government's attempts to make lending "fair."
-GM
President Obama gave his second (though first "official") State of the Union address last night, and it reminded me how we managed to elect the guy. Forget content or feasibility for a moment. The speech sounded great. He didn't at all look like a president whose popularity had plummeted. In fact, the number of times he went through his "Smirk, Wait, and Smile" routine was staggering. The SWS occurs when the president is most proud of himself. He reels off a clever remark, smirks as the audience processes the level of sarcasm or folksiness on display, waits for applause or laughter, and smiles as if he's as tickled as everyone else is. Hey, it's better than the George W. Bush "Act like you're completely clueless" expression.
In other observations, Harry Reid yawned during his cut-away, Ruth Bader Ginsburg somehow looked decrepit and sharp, and Nancy Pelosi acted like it was all she could do not to jump the desk and begin humping the president!
But the speech included several points worth mentioning, and the world needs your take.
1. "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit--one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. . . . Let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment."
A typical American might say: That sounds pretty good. If big business gets bailed out, then small business should too.
2. "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will."
Typical American: It's about time the government stopped spending so much. Like the president said, I'm on a tight budget. Why shouldn't the federal government be?!
3. After bragging about all the tax cuts, Democrats applauded vigorously while Republicans remained quiet and seated. Obama's (seemingly) impromptu response was: "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."
Typical American: Why wouldn't they applaud? I thought Republicans were all about tax cuts. Is it because they wanted more tax cuts for the wealthy and none for everyone else?! Those bastards!
4. "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change."
Typical American: Touche, Mr. President! You're too witty.
5. "Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. . . . Let's tell another one million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10% of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years, and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service."
Typical American: Perfect! If everyone has a college degree, there can be no more poverty.
-JW
JW,
Unlike you, I spent Wednesday evening ignoring the President's speech. Why watch when the transcript is available online even before the speech is over? Who's got time to sit through all that applause? Fully rested and refreshed, I'm ready to attack this monstrosity. Let's take it point by point.
The TARP Repayment
Not only the national debt but the yearly budget deficit is a multi-trillion dollar entity these days. I mention this because we needn't have any confusion over the source of the bailout money Obama now promises to funnel into even more government projects. Either we printed the money or we borrowed it from China. In either case, it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the word, and the only proper destination for the repaid funds is a steamer bound for Beijing or an armored car bound for the incinerators. To spend the money--my hands are shaking, this pisses me off so badly--is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Obama knows this. That's why he's proposing a cut in some capital gains taxes. He would never propose an idea that "regressive" if he weren't trying to get away with something.
The Spending Freeze
George Will calls it a "flagrant falsehood." The Associated Press reports, "The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than one percent of the [annual budget] deficit--and that's if the president can persuade Congress to go along." Politicians and commentators like to throw around the word "cynical," but Obama's strategy--say what you know to be untrue and count on your personality and the credulity of voters to protect you--is practically its dictionary definition.
Take four minutes and listen to Bill Adair of the Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-partisan, fact-checking website Politifact.com. In his NPR interview, he states that Politifact's exploration of seven Obama claims produced only one "true" rating. Good times.
The Tax Cuts
This was the one "true" claim that Obama made, according to Politifact.com. Yes, he did use the 2nd Stimulus Package (Bush's was the first; the upcoming "jobs bill" will be the third) to give some tax break to a large majority of Americans. For political reasons, Republicans probably should have applauded. They're probably thinking about the future, though, when the bill will come due. It's not far off.
Climate Change
Don't you just love that smarty-pants line about "overwhelming scientific evidence"? If it's overwhelming, the cause is in large measure the censorship of competing data by a "scientific" community that joins Obama in his disdain for profit. F--k them. Whether or not man-made climate change is happening, the steps required to combat it cannot be achieved by the nations of this world as they are currently constituted. (Here's George Will again--sue me; I love the guy.)
Loan Forgiveness
The high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. Great. Let's do the same thing to the college diploma by educating every deadbeat in America.
The primary economic fact is scarcity. The secondary economic fact is that when you start screwing with lenders' ability--even government lenders--to recoup loans, you change who they loan to. I look forward to a world in which poor people can't go to school because of the government's attempts to make lending "fair."
-GM
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bad Rules, Ignoble Endings
GM,
Similar to your prediction that the Steelers would win or lose each game by three points this year (it actually happened six times!), your Brett Favre prediction was nothing short of prophecy:
...Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it.... -Dec. 21, 2009
And it killed me. This was one of the best games any of us have ever seen, and it was ruined by horrible league policy. In this case, the NFL's failure to fix what is obviously the worst OT system in all of sports--just edging soccer's "To hell with trying to actually score; we'll just kick several times from 10 feet away" arrangement--undermined the game's legitimacy and tainted what will surely be another Colts championship. Like the conference semi-finals between the Spurs and Suns in 2007, which involved two suspensions that simply mocked logic, the fans deserved better in this one.
Forget sudden death. I'm acknowledging Sunday's first 60 minutes and no more. For the purposes of this entry, Minnesota and New Orleans tied yesterday. And what a tie it was....
Favre's second INT ruined the Vikings' chance of victory, but what made the moment so historically significant was that it was the culmination of years of abuse that somehow never sidelined football's iron man. The "Gunslinger" rolled out to an empty flat, and with his football awareness, the amount of time he had to decide on running or passing was an eternity.
Fortunately, whether you like Brett or not, you've seen into his career quite clearly. You've seen it in chapters. He was the highly-touted rookie who became the ultimate bust due to personal problems and poor work ethic. Then he became the perfect story of redemption, winning three straight MVP awards and a SuperBowl. Interceptions had always plagued his career, though, and we began questioning whether he could still play in 2005 when he threw a record-worst 29 picks. But he stuck around to break almost every career QB record. Finally, after several offseasons of indecisiveness, he shut all his doubters up with his best statistical season--only seven INTs. It appeared that the right system, an elite running back, and years of accumulated wisdom had made for the perfect fit--maybe even for one more season.
Favre entered Sunday's game looking nimble, even youthful. A few punishing hits later, he looked too feeble for the NFL. Not surprisingly, he stayed in to make a few decent tosses and get away with some bad ones. And when he rolled to the right and saw the open turf before him, he probably knew he could get enough yardage for field-goal range. He probably knew he could slide or get out of bounds to avoid contact entirely. But with his legs weakened and fatigued--his thoughts mired--all he could rely on was the old gun. Such impulsiveness had made him, and in perfect symmetry, it broke him.
I wanted a Manning-Favre SuperBowl as much as anyone. The game could have been billed as "Man vs. Machine." As much charisma as Peyton Manning has in commercials and interviews, his game is simply robotic. Favre, on the other hand, has a style of play so human that it mirrors what we assume to be his personality. That's why I want to see the man on football's biggest stage. He always gives us a heck of a show.
-JW
JW,
I got sleepy and tried to nap during the second half of the game you're calling one of the best ever, and I'll be damned if Joe Buck didn't wake me up every five minutes with another Vikings turnover!!!! My goodness, that team wanted to lose. As I joked on the telephone Sunday evening, if Buck had saved his pipes for clutch field goals, I could have slept through the entire playoffs.
Anyway, since you're refusing to acknowledge the last ten minutes or so of Vikes/Saints, allow me to fill in some blanks. If you're a Vikings fan, the NFL just screwed you. Forget about the coin toss--professional football's answer to Powerball, blackjack double-downs, and unsafe sex--and focus on the pass interference call against Ben Leber (6:29, here), made despite the fact that Brees' pass to Thomas was not a pass at all but a please-don't-sack-me throwaway. Focus on Meacham's twelve-yard "completion" (6:43, same clip) that ended the game for all intents and purposes (that's "intensive purposes" to you, Saints fans). If nothing else, this game proved for all time that NFL refs are afraid to cross a home crowd riding a generation-long crest of political sympathy--that not even Brett Favre can combat the magical formula of Disaster + Black People = Bandwagon Fans and Make-Up (For Acts of God) Calls. Once overtime hit, it would have taken Team Haiti to beat the Saints in New Orleans.
Now that the Super Bowl is upon us, I'm predicting a devestating Colts win. The Saints are inexplicably inconsistent offensively, and Peyton Manning is utterly shameless about seven-yard-slanting his way to victory, over and over again, ad nauseam. Too bad that the exact matchup I've been hoping for since week five promises to be as lopsided as the Manning family's distribution of genetic gifts. They should have played this one in September.
-GM
Similar to your prediction that the Steelers would win or lose each game by three points this year (it actually happened six times!), your Brett Favre prediction was nothing short of prophecy:
...Favre will end this season with a crucial interception--we're all waiting for it.... -Dec. 21, 2009
And it killed me. This was one of the best games any of us have ever seen, and it was ruined by horrible league policy. In this case, the NFL's failure to fix what is obviously the worst OT system in all of sports--just edging soccer's "To hell with trying to actually score; we'll just kick several times from 10 feet away" arrangement--undermined the game's legitimacy and tainted what will surely be another Colts championship. Like the conference semi-finals between the Spurs and Suns in 2007, which involved two suspensions that simply mocked logic, the fans deserved better in this one.
Forget sudden death. I'm acknowledging Sunday's first 60 minutes and no more. For the purposes of this entry, Minnesota and New Orleans tied yesterday. And what a tie it was....
Favre's second INT ruined the Vikings' chance of victory, but what made the moment so historically significant was that it was the culmination of years of abuse that somehow never sidelined football's iron man. The "Gunslinger" rolled out to an empty flat, and with his football awareness, the amount of time he had to decide on running or passing was an eternity.
Fortunately, whether you like Brett or not, you've seen into his career quite clearly. You've seen it in chapters. He was the highly-touted rookie who became the ultimate bust due to personal problems and poor work ethic. Then he became the perfect story of redemption, winning three straight MVP awards and a SuperBowl. Interceptions had always plagued his career, though, and we began questioning whether he could still play in 2005 when he threw a record-worst 29 picks. But he stuck around to break almost every career QB record. Finally, after several offseasons of indecisiveness, he shut all his doubters up with his best statistical season--only seven INTs. It appeared that the right system, an elite running back, and years of accumulated wisdom had made for the perfect fit--maybe even for one more season.
Favre entered Sunday's game looking nimble, even youthful. A few punishing hits later, he looked too feeble for the NFL. Not surprisingly, he stayed in to make a few decent tosses and get away with some bad ones. And when he rolled to the right and saw the open turf before him, he probably knew he could get enough yardage for field-goal range. He probably knew he could slide or get out of bounds to avoid contact entirely. But with his legs weakened and fatigued--his thoughts mired--all he could rely on was the old gun. Such impulsiveness had made him, and in perfect symmetry, it broke him.
I wanted a Manning-Favre SuperBowl as much as anyone. The game could have been billed as "Man vs. Machine." As much charisma as Peyton Manning has in commercials and interviews, his game is simply robotic. Favre, on the other hand, has a style of play so human that it mirrors what we assume to be his personality. That's why I want to see the man on football's biggest stage. He always gives us a heck of a show.
-JW
JW,
I got sleepy and tried to nap during the second half of the game you're calling one of the best ever, and I'll be damned if Joe Buck didn't wake me up every five minutes with another Vikings turnover!!!! My goodness, that team wanted to lose. As I joked on the telephone Sunday evening, if Buck had saved his pipes for clutch field goals, I could have slept through the entire playoffs.
Anyway, since you're refusing to acknowledge the last ten minutes or so of Vikes/Saints, allow me to fill in some blanks. If you're a Vikings fan, the NFL just screwed you. Forget about the coin toss--professional football's answer to Powerball, blackjack double-downs, and unsafe sex--and focus on the pass interference call against Ben Leber (6:29, here), made despite the fact that Brees' pass to Thomas was not a pass at all but a please-don't-sack-me throwaway. Focus on Meacham's twelve-yard "completion" (6:43, same clip) that ended the game for all intents and purposes (that's "intensive purposes" to you, Saints fans). If nothing else, this game proved for all time that NFL refs are afraid to cross a home crowd riding a generation-long crest of political sympathy--that not even Brett Favre can combat the magical formula of Disaster + Black People = Bandwagon Fans and Make-Up (For Acts of God) Calls. Once overtime hit, it would have taken Team Haiti to beat the Saints in New Orleans.
Now that the Super Bowl is upon us, I'm predicting a devestating Colts win. The Saints are inexplicably inconsistent offensively, and Peyton Manning is utterly shameless about seven-yard-slanting his way to victory, over and over again, ad nauseam. Too bad that the exact matchup I've been hoping for since week five promises to be as lopsided as the Manning family's distribution of genetic gifts. They should have played this one in September.
-GM
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Gayness, Litigation
JW,
The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.
Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.
The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.
Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.
A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?
-GM
GM,
"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."
This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?
First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.
So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.
I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.
Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!
-JW
The case that promises to be to homosexuals what Roe v. Wade was to irresponsible women is happening in San Francisco right now. The plaintiffs, shockingly led by Bush-administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, are arguing in Federal District Court that Proposition 8--the recent California measure that outlawed gay marriage by popular decree--is unconstitutional. Regardless of which side wins, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court. May I predict a 5-4 vote with [the clerks of] Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority? I'd bet my life on it.
Similarly, I'd wager very large stakes on the following, though the smart bookmaker has long since taken it off the board: Whether or not this case is the one that does it, gay marriage is going to happen in this country, sooner rather than later. Though in no way the moral equivalent of interracial marriage (more on this in a moment), gay marriage is already following the public-opinion trajectory that led to 1967's Loving v. Virginia, and while that case's 9-0 decision delivered a cultural exclamation point that today's divided court cannot and will not duplicate, a split decision will carry equal legal weight.
The problem for Conservatives is that the generational shifts, media blitzes, and snazzy spokespeople who have spearheaded the gay-rights movement have been met with a political and rhetorical strategy that is not just useless but morally suspect. Gay marriage, the Conservative argues, goes against how marriage has always been defined. It damages the institution of heterosexual marriage. It forces the values of a small minority upon an unwilling majority. Meaningless, absurd, and insensitive, respectively. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives--even those few who don't identify with a religious faith--are opposed to gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is wrong. They're afraid to say so, for the most part--they've long had moral certitude beaten out of them by a culture that holds absolute truth in lower esteem than pedophiles--but that's the heart of their opposition. Appropriately articulated, such a case makes a distinction between homosexual identity--like blackness, a morally neutral fact--and the homosexual act, which has no equivalent in the civil rights narrative. Homosexuals and their allies will argue that asking gay men and women to be celibate is cruel and unreasonable, but society has no problem asking thieves not to steal, for example. Either the homosexual act is in that category or it isn't. If not, there is no basis upon which to deny homosexuals the right to marry. None.
Careful readers will understand, then, that a society unhinged from Religion's objective truths cannot long forbid any activity that one human commits unless it measurably harms another. All laws--all moral standards--will be based not on principles exterior to (and thus independent of) society's current beliefs but on shifting cultural ideals. Just as homosexuality has come to be accepted, so too will bestiality, incest, and polygamy--provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things. What is inconceivable today is tomorrow's norm. Everything in post-Christian history tells us as much.
A final note: Despite Obama's stated opposition to gay marriage--the biggest and most obnoxious political whopper since Jimmy Carter claimed Christianity--the Sophisticate-in-Chief will be leading the parade when it finally happens. Can we please get a news story calling him out on it?
-GM
GM,
"...provided a large enough minority wishes to practice those things."
This dependent clause was perhaps the most important excerpt from your entry. Though it may not have been the most compelling or provocative, it provoked me to begin with this question: Do we live in the land of the free or the land of the majority?
First, so I can't be accused of not taking a stance, let me quickly express my opinion on gay marriage. We live in a society where pimps and prostitutes profit in Nevada, where pornographers who demean women as a gender make a better living than teachers, where bartenders can drop a few grand on breast implants and get a 100-percent return on investment in one fiscal quarter, and where infidelity is glorified in entertainment more often than it is rebuked. By no means whatsoever can this society make a moral judgment on whose genitals belong where. We can, however, decide what we want, and, more specifically, what we want to acknowledge.
So to the liberal, I say, "Stop trying to raise awareness; everyone knows." For now, the people of most states have thought about it and decided they'd rather not live in a place where marriage is defined as the union of any two consenting people. And really, that's the issue--or at least it should be. It's not about what we're letting homosexuals do; it's about what we're willing to call it. The last time I checked, that's our choice. By popular demand (sorry, LGBT), we're electing to hold off on calling it marriage. And if this social issue can't be left up to the states, we might as well not even have states, as their sovereignty has completely vanished.
I don't believe straight married couples should receive any benefits from the government, as this is a decision to respect one lifestyle over another. So as long as a straight couple can get a tax write-off, there should theoretically be a way for a gay couple to get the same write-off. But do we as a society want to call it marriage? For now, no. The majority is free to make that decision.
Knowing this, Obama told a lie so transparent that even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese gave him the benefit of the doubt by not believing him!!! Now there's a politician who can do no wrong!
-JW
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
