7.11.03
Friday Five: I didn't do it for halloween; I'll do it this week.
- What food do you like that most people hate?
- I do enjoy spinach, even if I don't think it makes for a good pizza topping
- What food do you hate that most people love?
- certain (though by no means all) fruits. I'm not a big fan of peaches or strawberries. And I loathe bananas.
- What famous person, whom many people may find attractive, is most unappealing to you?
- Any number of dumbass, self-involved actresses/singers/whatever. Jessica Simpson comes to mind. So, for that matter, does Britney Spears. And Anna Kournikova
- What famous person, whom many people may find unappealing, do you find attractive?
- Ann Coulter, for one. I'm not sure whether that makes me a middle aged conservative or not (for the uninformed, I'm a twentysomething libertarian, or a liberal in the classical sense of the word; whatever I am, I am no liberal by the modern American definition). She's intelligent, articulate, funny and physically appealing (even if a few - or more - years older than me).
- What popular trend baffles you?
- So many. I have never been a fan of gangsta rap; by my view, it incites more violence than any score of conservative "hateful" talk show hosts could. Reality TV is, for me, worthless. If I want to experience reality, I'll go outside (which I find myself doing more and more nowadays). Why would I watch an electronic idiot box for "reality"? Can someone answer that question for me?
College Football: Tech is up in Pittsburgh this weekend. DeAngelo Hall has been suspended for a half for fighting (I think), which, against the team with the nation's best receiver (or, at the very least, one of the best 2 or 3 receivers), is troubling. Virginia Tech traditionally does well when they are the featured game on ESPN Gameday, but normally Gameday features Tech at home, not on the road. However, that said, it should be a good game. Pitt (and their fans) are looking to send one last love note to Tech before they join the ACC. Personally, I expect a high scoring game. Tech will be without two strongpoints in the defensive secondary in Hall (for the first half) and Garnell Wilds (out with injury), so one must question whether they can defend against the pass. However, Pittsburgh hasn't been able to stop the run all year - and they haven't even faced KJ, West Virginia or Miami yet. Probably my biggest concern is about the fact that Tech bombed its only game in a hostile environment, and another is whether they will build on last week's win, or whether they'll be emotionally down. I imagine that if Tech carries their emotion from last week into tomorrow's game, they'll win. If they are emotionally flat, they'll lose (for the third straight year: doubtless the coaches are using this as motivation). I like Tech in a close game, and imagine that Marcus Vick will play, for the second straight game, more than Bryan Randall.
Other picks:
- Miami is looking to bounce back at home against a good, though by no means great, Tennessee team. Miami took last week's loss poorly (as viewed by the personal fouls and general chippiness of play late in the Tech game) and should be well motivated to beat Tennessee. Miami beats Tennessee in a rout.
- Ohio State's offense sucks. There's really no other way to say it. And now it's distracted by a quarterback controversy. Having said all that, Ohio State is at home, and their defense and special teams are among the best in the nation. Ohio State helps Michigan State continue its slide into Big Ten oblivion, and toward the Sun Bowl.
- Purdue beats Iowa, in the proof that home field advantage is a good thing to have. Neither team is great (although, on a neutral field, I'd take Iowa), but both are good, and the game is in West Lafayette rather than in Iowa City.
- Texas beast Oklahoma State. Neither has a great defense, though Texas' is better. Texas has a good offense, though Okie State has an excellent offense. But this game is, in addition to home field, about momentum and emotion. And Texas has all of it after thrashing Nebraska, whereas Okie State got thrashed by Oklahoma (though, for the record, not as badly as did Texas).
- I want to pick Navy to beat Notre Dame, ending the 40-year drought that Navy has (the losing streak against ND is at 39). I think I commented earlier in this space that Notre Dame hasn't lost to Navy since some no-name quarterback; okay, it was Roger Staubach; led them to victory. And Notre Dame hasn't lost since before the days of Ara Parseghian. But here's the thing. Notre Dame's poor record has come against outstanding competition (I think I heard that Notre Dame's opponents are a combined 45-15). Navy is 5-2 against I-A competition (they beat VMI and lost to Delaware in the I-AA ranks), but that competition is significantly easier than Notre Dame's. Sure, Navy kept it close against TCU (in Fort Worth), but I'm not sure that Notre Dame is as bad as its record, nor is Navy is as good as its record. I think that the determination of the Mids keeps it close, but I think that Notre Dame beats Navy.
- Finally, the bonus CIC pick. Earlier I picked Air Force to beat Navy. Whoops. Now, Air Force is coming off a disappointing double-overtime loss to Utah. Army, as determined, disciplined and motivated as they are, isn't going to beat Air Force out in Falcon Stadium. Air Force takes out some of its frustration with the Mountain West on Army.
Finally, something I should have posted last week. Dodd's mailbag from last week features a letter from someone who thinks that LSU fans smell like corn dogs. Probably the funniest letter I've ever seen. The first letter correctly, I think, notes that the Big East is just an amalgam of teams doing their own thing, getting involved in the conference for certain sports but not others. I have made that point on other fora, but never here. The prime examples are, I think, Notre Dame football, Temple basketball, and Miami baseball. Now that Temple is getting kicked out of the football league, Miami is leaving for the ACC, and UConn is joining in football, the examples become the schools without football programs. Certainly that is their right, but it just means that there are more little piglets to feed at the mama sow's teat; in other words, the conference is too broadly based, in my view. It alone among the BCS conferences has members in basketball who are not members in football. And now, it may be alone as this "hybrid conference", considering that Conference USA's last two basketball-only programs may leave for the Atlantic 10.
Pro Football: I will only say this. Maybe if I pick against the 'Skins, they'll actually win a game.
Quick Hitters: For those of you who think that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have manipulated the awarding of federal contracts to benefit Halliburton or Bechtel, I submit this to you without comment, other than to note that the author was a Clinton-era civil servant.
When I read a newspaper, I'll look at the front page, at headlines; I'll normally read a couple of articles. I will then look at headlines inside the news section, occasionally actually reading an article. I will look at the op-ed section, occasionally reading editorials and commentaries/columns. But I will always read the letters to the editor. Those are entertaining. I will also read the letters to the editor of various newspapers around the country (though I don't do so from all the sources I've shown in the column on the right). From today's LA Times, a couple of letters which make sense, and a couple of letters which don't. First, we have Norman from San Diego, suggesting that we should move troops from Germany, Japan and South Korea, rather than mobilise reserves, if we need to reinforce those in the middle east. I thought this was sensible (and still think that these countries should be responsible for their self-defense), but then he suggests that Gulf states should chip in with troops as well. My problem with that is that, in democratising Iraq, we are hoping to democratise the entire Middle East, from Lebanon and Syria to Saudi Arabia and Yemen to Iran. In other words, the centre of the Middle East is being used (correctly) to destabilise those very despotic regimes from which Norman thinks we should draw troops.
Next, we have Hethie from Beverly Hills, who says this:
"Seeking an Angle in the Sunni Triangle" (Nov. 4), about the 4th Infantry Division's efforts to clear out Hussein loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, described an early-morning raid that netted two Baath Party members suspected of involvement in attacks on U.S. troops. According to the article, the officer in charge told the small crowd that gathered, "Be warned: If any of you stand in the way of the coalition, we will come and get you too." The crowd's "collective stare [was] as hostile as daggers."
I'm not surprised. Is this what our troops are being trained to say? Wouldn't it be much more productive to say: If any of you stand in the way of international efforts to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country and create a democratic society, we will come and get you too?
Now, maybe it's me, but what, exactly, is the difference between what the OIC said and what Hethie suggest the OIC should have said?
Another letter in the LAT, this from Edd from Tustin, deals with health benefits, and whose suggestions would lead - *gasp!* - to letting the market regulate the cost of health care and health insurance, which it doesn't do effectively now. Although he says that Congress would have a much louder voice to listen to, he misses (or chooses not to address, as it's not strictly germane) that the insurers would, as well:
Re "Outshout the Drug Lobby," editorial, Nov. 3: For the most part, people who work for companies that pay for their health coverage don't know and don't care what that coverage costs. It's just that indifference that gives lobbyists their exclusive opportunity to influence Congress. Perhaps if everyone were responsible for his or her own health coverage, Congress would have a much louder voice to listen to.
And probably the best letter I've seen in a while is from Jay in Playa del Ray:
I was in a park yesterday. A little boy, perhaps 5 years old, started to climb a tree, happy and excited as little boys are to climb. After a minute, the mother noticed a "tree climbing prohibited" sign (over-regulated L.A.). She had to pull her boy out of the tree, trying to explain that it's against the law, as he resisted and cried. Ideal democracy is fine, but the present form of democracy is more like an endless amount of lawmakers looking to make a name for themselves, passing an endless amount of laws so that we can all live under the fear of punishment equally. All forms of fun are against the law or eventually will be, thanks to boring lawmakers.
Or thanks to power-hungry lawmakers or thanks to anti-individual lawmakers.
As an Episcopalian, who simply isn't sure anymore, I have followed the consecration of the church's first openly gay bishop with a passing interest. I am not especially devout, and I have thought for a long time about leaving the church because of the fact that, on many spiritual issues, it is open-minded to the point of being empty-minded. The church (and, indeed, the Anglican communion) is based upon the three legs of scripture, tradition and reason. Now, being a faith of the book, I would think that if there is a conflict between scripture and the other two, then I would think that the scriptural interpretation would have to win the day. Further, I like to think that tradition is only upheld when it doesn't conflict with either scripture or reason. Now, we have a letter to the editors of the Washington Post from Reverend John David, the Rector of a church in Washington:
In response to George F. Will's Oct. 15 op-ed column, "Anglicans' Undoing":
I am fascinated that those who become literalists regarding comments on homosexuality in Scripture can read other teachings under "liberal" lenses.
In the Gospel of Mark, for example, Jesus makes clear that anyone who marries after divorcing his wife is living in adultery. How many who are dooming the Episcopal Church to be a sinking ship are married for a second time? Can they cast the first stone of literalism and tradition? That the Episcopal Church is weaning Scripture away from abusive, narrow and literalist treatment is to be applauded.
In the 1970s, the decision to ordain women broke almost 2,000 years of "tradition." Breaking prejudice and wrong cannot undo authentic faith.
I believe the Episcopal Church in America will grow because of its recent decisions. Many will discover a church that reveres Scripture without insulting it with cultural and spiritual blinders.
For the record, I am as against divorce as any man. I think that those who are divorced (thus violating Jesus' edict regarding the same, according to Mark 10) have no truck as church leaders, whether as parish priests or as, should they rise to such a post, future Supreme Governors of the Church of England. Moreover, inasmuch as I am unaware of any scriptural prohibitions placed upon the ordination of women, I have no problem breaking with tradition in this regard. However, there is a very distinct prohibition against homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22). What's more, regardless of whether one is predisposed to a particular sexuality, homosexuality is an action, much like heterosexuality or celibacy (or any number of other sexualities). As a representative of a church which believes that Jesus is God (and that the bible is the word of God), does he really think that the church is helped by violating biblical mores? I have no problem with The Rt. Rev. Robinson's sexuality. But, in order to lead a church which views the Bible as The Word, he needs to set a biblical example. And living with his homosexual lover, while his right, is not the way to set a biblical example. Should he wish to refuse to set an example vis a vis homosexuality, he should renounce his vows and simply accept being part of the flock, rather than the shepherd.
To the many folks who say that CBS pulled "The Reagans" because of some unholy trinity of republican grass roots, conservative talk show hosts and Ed Gillespie of the RNC, I will say this: CBS' chief executive Les Moonves said the TV movie was biased!
Finally, I left the reason I did this for last, this, again, from the LA Times (written by Doug from Laguna Beach):
After his famous braggadocio "bring 'em on" rhetoric regarding Iraq's armed forces, President Bush now claims that "Iraq's a dangerous place" and "I can't put it more bluntly than that. I know it's a dangerous place. And I also know our strategy to rout (sic) them out … is the right strategy" (Nov. 3).
I would point out that Iraq is a dangerous place simply because the U.S. occupies it. If we had not invaded this country unilaterally (not counting Britain), based on "faulty intelligence," it would not be such a dangerous place for the U.S. Hopefully, with the help of the rest of the civilized world, we can get out of this mess with as few additional American casualties and taxpayers' dollars as possible.
I have several questions, the first being this: if two parties take an action, is the action unilateral (not counting the second party), or is it...oh, I don't know...bilateral!? My second question is this: What, are Australia, Poland, Bulgaria, and the other members of the Coalition of the Willing: chopped liver? Why no mention, Doug? Which leads me to the letter that I badly want to write as response:
So, considering that the Iraqi liberation was undertaken trilaterally, namely by the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (not counting the several other members of the coalition), does this mean that the Trilateral Commission is involved? Are we all soon to be governed from Zurich?
Get a grip.
Comments:
Post a Comment
