Fake Concern for Hitchens

I've given Christopher Hitchens a tough time in the past.  A well-deserved tough time, I might add.  But now he has cancer and I can't/won't bring myself to give a guy with cancer a tough time.  Ok, maybe a little.  But I'll keep it to a minimum.  Anyway, apparently some Christians decided to make last Monday "Everybody Pray for Hitchens Day".  For his part, Hitchens will not participate.  Say what you will about Hitchens (and I certainly am not afraid to), but if I were Hitchens I think I would be offended at this idea.  How can this be justified as more than ad hoc concern?   If people truly care about Mr. Hitchens won't they pray for him on days other than September 20, 2010?  To me this just wreaks of a publicity stunt at the expense of a man dying of esophageal cancer.  Declaring a public day of prayer for an arch-enemy of your faith is uncomfortably reminiscent of the Pharisees who made sure their piousness was seen publicly only to be classified hypocrites and snakes when Jesus confronted them.  Undoubtedly there are some who are sincere in their prayers for Hitchens...I just don't see why they feel this is the best way to show that concern.

The Megatron Incident

Ordinarily I try to keep this blog about politics, religion, philosophy, etc.  Trust me, I'm not trying to turn it into a sports blog.  That being said, I am a die-hard Detroit Lions fan so I would be betraying myself if I didn't post about the disaster that was the opening game of the season against the Chicago Bears.  I took away six important issues from the game:

1.   Brandon Pettigrew will go down as the worst draft pick in the first three years of the post-Millen era in Detroit.  Why?  Because he was picked as a way to bolster our offensive line ahead of Michael Oher.  When you have Jeff Backus sucking it up and left tackle because Gosder Cherilus proved to be incapable of playing that position in the NFL, why in God's name would you draft a tight end to bolster the line above a left tackle?  Well, it's official - Stafford has now been injured in 3 of his first 11 starts.  Sunday's injury was a direct result of Backus's dwindling ability to play that position.

2.  Jahvid Best is not the second coming of Barry Sanders.  Don't get me wrong - I like Jahvid Best.  But he is now getting to experience what Barry experienced his entire career: the ineptitude of the Lions offensive line.  14 carries for 20 yards is simply not going to get it done.  It's not Jahvid's fault, but that's little consolation.

3.  Matt Stafford should offer to take a pay cut if it means figuring out a way to get a new left tackle.  His health is on the line.  And money can't buy health (usually).  Really at this point I'd say his career is on the line.  It's very difficult for a guy to experience so many injuries early on and still turn in to a productive NFL player (see: Charles Rogers).  Obviously I'm being hyperbolic with the pay cut comment.  My point is simply that the Lions are wrong if they think their tackle situation is ok for the time being.

4.  The Lions defense may just be a lot more stout than originally anticipated.  This is not due to an unexpectedly solid secondary.  It is due to a truly dominant defensive line.  The Lions made their first legitimate goal-line stand in....I don't know how long, but trust me - it's been a long time.  The harassed Jay Cutler all day long and completely contained the running game.  A truly impressive performance by a unit that has been less than miserable since losing Shawn Rodgers to the Browns.

5.  Calvin Johnson, while typically an excellent and smart football player, had the worst game of his short career.  He caught 4 passes for 45 yards.  He dropped two passes, which he almost never does.  And then he dropped the third.  Unquestionably the most crucial catch of his career and the catch that would have given the Lions their first road win since September of 2007, and Calvin was so excited to get up and celebrate that he forgot to leave no doubt on the catch.  Consequently the Lions are a really, really bad 0-1.  Yes, I said it - it's Calvin's fault.

6.  The NFL is incapable of making rules that are easily interpreted.  Remember the "tuck rule"?  Yesterday the Megatron Incident reminded us what the receiving equivalent of that rule is.  Have a read:

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.  (Courtesy of Kevin Siefert)


Here's the video.  At what point does "the act of catching a pass" end?  At what point can the refs determine that "he touches the ground"?  Did Calvin lose control of the ball before the ball touched the ground?  If so, when?  If not, then shouldn't this rule be irrelevant to what happened after he let it touch the ground?  This is not "black and white" as the NFL has said.  Calvin's catch could easily fit as a catch within this rule if (a) Calvin's two feet and butt touching the ground qualifies as "going to the ground"; (b) Calvin is deemed to have had control of the ball during that entire process of "going to the ground".  Why should the "process" be determined to last after both feet and a butt have all hit while retaining possession?  I see no reason whatsoever as to why this rule necessitated the ruling given on the field.  This needs to be fixed, and fast.

It Appears My Hypocracy Knows No Bounds

That's right, I'm a hypocrite.  For I have done something I swore I would never do: I joined the NEA.

I assure you it was not by choice.  Nay.  I was required to do so in order to do my student teaching this coming spring.  I know you're all disappointed in me.  I feel legitimately dirty inside.  I'm going to need to drink a whole 24 pack of PBR just to prove I'm still a good American after this.

2010 NFL Preview

My goal for my football preview is simple: do better than I did in my baseball preview.  I like to set the bar low.

AFC East: Patriots
AFC West: Chargers
AFC North: Ravens
AFC South: Colts
Wild Card 1: Texans
Wild Card 2: Jets
AFC Champions: Texans

NFC East: Giants
NFC West: 49ers
NFC North: Packers
NFC South: Saints
Wild Card 1: Cowboys
Wild Card 2: Vikings
NFC Champions: Packers

DROY: Eric Berry
OROY: Ryan Mathews
MVP: Aaron Rodgers

Super Bowl Champions: Packers

No, I don't expect to be correct.  But I refused to pick repeats when possible to not call the repeat.  But I definitely wouldn't be shocked to see a Saints repeat.

On Quotes

*I started writing this post toward the end of last school year.  Then I got tired of writing my blog, so I never finished it.  I'm still quite sympathetic to the issue, though, so I decided to finish the thought and post*

Today I was once again reminded exactly why I can't stand people who say, "I love quotes," and then proceed to include 75 of them in their PowerPoint presentation.  Here's the story:

Today in my Classroom Management and Discipline class, all of us education majors were giving our final presentations.  Girl X begins her presentation by saying, "I love quotes."  She then proceeds to start quoting.  Not just one quote, but one-liner quote after one-liner quote from probably 10 different random people.  Bear in mind that she is supposed to be presenting her own, personal philosophy of education.  Has she ever read Jean Paul Sartre?  No.  Does she have any idea what he thinks about anything?  No.  She Googled "quotes about education" and found a couple by him.  She has no idea how well they represent his views on education (and neither do I...or anyone else in our class for that matter).  She certainly doesn't know anything about his communist sympathies or his pure anti-theism - if she did she definitely wouldn't have quoted him so readily given that I happen to know that she's a churchgoing conservative.  She undoubtedly has no idea how much he influenced the Khmer Rouge when they committed one of the worst genocides of the 20th century in the name of communist reform.

What's my point?  I'm so tired of people quoting those whom they know little or nothing about.  The quotes found on the internet (where most people get their quotes) rarely even come with a citation.  They are quoted without the slightest regard for their original context or intended meaning.  Taken in such small sections, these sorts of quips can be manipulated to mean anything the quoter wants them to mean.

Isn't this just one of the worst forms of plagiarism imaginable?  And lazy plagiarism at that.  I, for one, prefer that if anyone ever chooses to quote me they provide the quote in context and with reference to me.  I'm sure Mr. Sartre feels the same way...from his grave.

Just imagine: Paul Draper submits his most recent defense of the Evidential Argument from Evil to Faith & Philosophy for publication.  He begins the paper with a quote that reads: "There is no God - Psalm 14:1"  How would it be received?  Most likely as a joke, given his stature.  But what if I were to submit the same paper?  I'm guessing it would be thrown away prior to even getting read.

I don't know how to conclude this post from here.  That's all I have.  For the love of Pete, respect some context!  Rant concluded.

The Blog Is Back....Again!

As I'm sure all three of my loyal followers have noticed, I haven't created a new blog entry for about four or five months.  It is apparently high time I start up the blog again (I know this because I was told by my professor who gave us the assignment to have a blog this semester).  The good news: my readership should increase dramatically due to the other students in my class who may or may not be required to read it.  The bad news: I have to get back to searching for things to blog about.  The silver lining to that cloud, of course, is the fact that this blog covers a large variety of topics.  The touch of gray, of course, is that virtually none of my new readers are likely to care at all about many of those topics.

You can see I'm torn as to how I should proceed.  The answer, I suppose, is to proceed the same way I always have: I shall post about topics that most people don't care about at the risk of boring (and thus pushing away) my audience.  I hope at least a few of you enjoy.  First real entry to come this evening.  Stay tuned!

Back!

I want to apologize to all 6 or 7 of my loyal fans.  I've not posted in quite some time.  It will never happen again. Here's what happened while I was away:

1.  I got engaged to my beautiful new fiance, Brianne Phillips.
2.  Congress passed ObamaCare.
3.  The Lions were active in free agency.
4.  Baseball season started.
5.  The snow melted, which coincided with...
6.  Golf season started, which coincided with...
7.  Tiger Woods took a break from sex to play a little golf.
8.  Islamic terrorism in Russia.
9.  Some whack-jobs in a "Christian Militia" in Michigan got raided.
10.The Pope got attacked and then attacked back - same issue as always.

All of these, of course, are highly bloggable issues that I missed.  Sorry.

However, due to a specific request from a certain reader, I am going to give my predictions for the new baseball season:

AL West - Mariners
AL Central - Twins
AL East - Yankees
AL Cy Young - Felix Hernandez
AL ROY - Carlos Santana
AL MVP - Mark Teixeira

NL West - San Francisco Giants (what a pathetic division)
NL Central - St. Louis Cardinals
NL East - Philadelphia Phillies
NL Cy Young - Roy Halladay
NL ROY - Jason Heyward
NL MVP - Chase Utley

World Series:  Phillies over Yankees in 7

Now back to the blog!

Tebow Critics: Going Out In Style

Well, the Tebow ads came and went.  Pam Tebow called Tim her miracle baby and talked about family toughness and love that pulled them through difficult times.  Never was abortion even mentioned.  I think that now would be a good time to reflect on some of the idiocy that has been thrown out in the last week or so.


1. Gloria Allred - Allred made big news when she boldly proclaimed that Pam Tebow may be lying about her story since abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930's, and even asked for at FTC review of the ad for illegal/misleading advertising.  Two comments on this: (a) isn't one of the principle arguments thrown out by pro-choice advocates the notion that if abortion is illegal, women will still find ways to have abortions, just unsafely?  It seems that if we buy this argument, then we would have to reject Allred's notion that abortion really wasn't an option for Mrs. Tebow.  This is definitely a fair criticism, since Allred herself draws the parallel between the illegality of abortion in the Philippines and the same in the U.S. pre-Roe.  (b) This is more important than that first point.  Allred is actually dead wrong.  According to this New York Times story from 2005, there are at least 400,000 abortions annually in the Philippines, and the WHO estimates that the number may be as high as 800,000.  They are typically offered for between $37 - $93 by real doctors (who have to do the procedures secretly).  Will she apologize?  I somehow doubt it.

2. NOW - The National Organization for Women.  Terry O'Neill, president of NOW, called this ad "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning".  I remind you - she did this without seeing it (which is obvious once you watch the video).  Will NOW (and Ms. O'Neill) apologize?  See below.

3. Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood was so offended by the pro-life theme in this commercial (that didn't one time mention abortion or pro-life) that they deemed it necessary to find some famous athletes of their own and do a rebuttal ad...to the ad they had not yet seen.  What's funny about it is that they had to get Al Joyner (who? oh...the guy that married Jackie Joyner-Kersee and was Flo-Jo's brother) and Sean James (who? some dude that made the Vikings roster for two years and never played a down) to make this rebuttal that didn't actually address a single thing in the ad!  Honestly, you know you're struggling when the only "famous" athletes you can find are a guy who's more famous for the female athletes he's associated with than for his own exploits and another guy who never saw a professional field.  This is probably more funny than it is pathetic.


Some media types have done the honorable thing in admitting they look dumb now for criticizing an ad they had not yet seen.  Sports blogger Mike Bianchi, for instance, writes, "If you got worked up over this Tebow commercial, you get a Dud nomination" and "there wasn't even a mention of abortion or pro-life in the commercial.  I know I feel stupid.  Do you?"

Others, however, continue to insist on looking more and more ridiculous.  Terry O'Neill, for instance, says the ad supported violence against women.  She says, "I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it," she said. "That's what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don't find it charming. I think CBS should be ashamed of itself."  WTF mate?  Did you watch the ad?  Of course it comes across more strongly than the anti-abortion message...there wasn't an anti-abortion message in the ad.  


Now some wench named Amanda Marcotte, who is apparently well-known in the feminist blogosphere, tweets the following: "Hey Mom! Tried to kill you from the womb and failed. How about a blind side tackle? Violence against Moms."


Are these people serious?  Their initial attacks were preposterous.  Now that those fell to the floor with a resounding thud, they have to come up with some other poppycock in a last-ditch effort to save face for their initial criticism.  It's not working - it's having exactly the opposite effect.  




*Update* I didn't realize when I posted this, but K-Lo, over at The Corner, had posted on NOW's reaction as well.  I thought it was quite apropos.  Have a look. 

A Depressing List of Rock Songs

During halftime at the Super Bowl this Sunday, The Who will be rocking out to what is now known as the greatest conservative rock song of all time.  In 2006, John J. Miller wrote the list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs of all time.  "Won't Get Fooled Again" was at the top, narrowly edging out "Taxman" by The Beatles.

As I looked through the list, I found that it was definitely a stretch to consider some of them conservative.  Initially I thought the same of "Won't Get Fooled Again" until I found out that Pete Townshend agrees with the sentiment.  He says it's "right on the money" and that he never bought into "all that hippie (expletive) I so despise."  So there you have it - tune in to the Super Bowl at halftime to listen to the greatest conservative rock song ever.

In thinking about thi list, I find it quite sad that it's THIS HARD to find conservative rock songs.  I mean...they really had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with 50.  I'm sure a quick glance through Green Day's discography alone would nearly be enough to fill a list of liberal songs.  Anyway, here are a couple that probably shouldn't be on there:

1. "Gloria" by U2 - it's on the list just because it's about faith and its title is in Latin...neither of which are inherently conservative things.
2. "I Fought the Law" by The Crickets - as far as I can tell it's only on here because the law won.  Presumably liberals like that too.
3. "Red Barchetta" by Rush - it seems that speeding is apparently seen by Mr. Miller as a conservative virtue?
4. "Small Town" by John Mellencamp - there are a LOT of liberals that live in small towns and nothing in this song is distinctively conservative as far as I can tell.
5. "Wake Up Little Susie" by The Everly Brothers - what? a song about falling asleep in school?

Anyway, I decided I should find a few songs to replace these ones that quite obviously shouldn't be on the list.  Here's what I came up with:

1. "Never Again" by Nickelback - say what you will about Nickelback (odds are high I'll say it with you), but their Silver Side Up album was actually quite good.  The conservative principle: hand-guns in the hands of defenseless women for the purpose of self-defense.  Here's a sample: "Seen it before but not like this / been there before but not like this / never before have I ever / seen him this bad / she's just a woman / never again." "He's drunk again, it's time to fight / same old S*** just on a different night / she grabs the gun, she's had enough / tonight she'll find out how F***ing / tough is this man? / pulls the trigger just as fast as she can / never again."

2. "Hollywood's Not America" by Ferras - it's no secret that virtually everyone in Hollywood is a raging liberal.  Leading men from Sean Penn to Brad Pitt.  Leading women from Angelina Jolie to Scarlett Johanssen.  Guys who play presidents from Martin Sheen to Harrison Ford.  Ocean's 11.  And pretty much everyone else not named Chuck Norris or Jon Voight.  Hollywood is decidedly NOT a representative sampling of America, and certainly doesn't represent middle-America in any way.  So this song's encouragement to "put your blue jeans back on" because "Hollywood's not America" should ring a loud bell for conservatives.

3. "Critical Acclaim" by Avenged Sevenfold - this is a song written by lead singer M. Shadows in his frustration at people who were critical of the war effort in Iraq, since a number of his friends were over there fighting.  A brief sampling: "So how does it feel to know that someone's kid in the heart of America / Has blood on their hands, fighting to defend your rights / So you can maintain the lifestyle that insults his family's existence?" and "All the way from the east to the west / We've got this high society looking down on this very foundation / Constantly reminding us that our actions are the cause of all their problems / pointing fingers in every direction / blaming their own nation for who wins elections / they've never contributed a F***ing thing to the country they love to criticize."

Jay Nordlinger suggests the Steppenwolf song "Renegade" as #1.  I think that actually sounds quite reasonable.  There's nothing conservatives hate more than Communism, after all.  Does anyone have any more ideas for conservative rock songs?

OneRepublic Meets Thomas Jefferson, Et.Al.

Southern Appeal had this fantastic little video up today.  I thought I'd pass it along - it's very well done.  Enjoy!

The Tim Tebow Kerfuffle

Several days ago, I mentioned the Tim Tebow Kerfuffle in passing.  At that time the news was still new and the story hadn't yet gotten out of hand.  Now it has.  The National Organization for Women (NOW) has officially called his forthcoming pro-life Super Bowl ad "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."  Umm...did I mention that the ad has not yet been released?  To anyone?  Including NOW?

We are given a couple hints as to what is in the video.  Focus on the Family says the theme of the ad is "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life".  That is pretty offensive.

Tebow has come under fire from members of the sports media as well.  Both Doug Gottlieb and Tim Keown (both of ESPN) have been critical of Tebow's alignment of himself with James Dobson.

Well, I thought I would pass along an article that puts the Tebow issue in excellent perspective (tip o' the hat to Southern Appeal for the story).  This article is written by a fairly well-known sportswriter named Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post.  Ms. Jenkins is both pro-choice and a feminist...and she wholeheartedly supports the Tebow ad.  One highlight:


        "As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
         I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
        Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical."


And that isn't all.  I highly recommend reading this if you have 5 minutes on your hands.  Here is the link to the rest of the article.  Read it.  It's good.


Oh, and by the way - let's not pretend that this is the first time famous athletes have chimed in on the topic of abortion.  Have a look at this video from 1989:




Believe it or not, there is actually a whole organization for professional athletes (mostly former) that count themselves as pro-life called Life Athletes.  Here are some of the notables:

Steve Largent, Rebecca Lobo, Don Beebe, Wellington Mara (RIP), Curtis Martin, Kevin Mawae, Derrick Brooks, Mark Brunell, Matt Millen, Gary Carter, Trot Nixon, Trent Dilfer, Dan Reeves, Tony Dungy, Joe Gibbs, A.C. Green, Jason Hanson, Phil Simms, Mike Singletary, Brent Jones, Justin Tuck, David Tyree, Jon Kitna, Herschel Walker, Reggie White (RIP), Steve Wisniewski

Keynes + Hayek + Rapping = Awesome

Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog is quickly becoming my favorite.  This is the second time I've stolen material from him (he tipped me off to the Hitchens story as well).  For anyone who thinks economics is interesting or just wants to get a kick out of a nerdy video, I highly recommend watching this.  Basically it's just John Maynard Keynes rapping against F.A. Hayek about why each other's economic philosophy is wrong.  The look of annoyance on Hayek's face while watching Keynes party it up, followed by his glee at Keynes' hangover are worth the price of admission. Enjoy!

John Edwards & Christopher Hitchins

I was kind of looking around at random things today having to do with the Tim Tebow kerfuffle, and I came across this political cartoon.  Now, the cartoon was originally published in March of 2007 (yes, this date is important) to make fun of Newt Gingrich for being a jerk of a husband (which was true).  Umm...I would explain why this cartoon is so ironic, but you're all smart: I'm sure you can figure it out...

Isn't that just a doozy?  Exhibit A as to why it would be wise NOT to put your politician of choice on a pedestal.

Moving on - Christopher Hitchens (right) has definitely made a strange bedfellow with this one.  Who might this bedfellow be?  Would you believe me if I said "C.S. Lewis"?  While being interviewed by a minister of the Unitarian Church named Marilyn Sewell, he was asked the following question:

"The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and [sic] distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?"

He responds the way C.S. Lewis responds in "Mere Christianity" about people who similarly call themselves Christians without actually affirming virtually any major Christian beliefs.  Hitchens says:

"I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian."

It's not often that you will ever hear me say this to Mr. Hitchens, but: Bravo, you cantankerous bastard - Bravo.

Political Influence in the United States

Ever wonder who holds all the political clout in the U.S.?  Well, wonder no more.  The London Telegraph released its 2010 list of the 100 most influential U.S. conservatives and liberals this month.  They had done this once before, back in 2007.  Some of the changes are fascinating.  For instance - George W. Bush is listed as a more influential conservative now than he was when he was president.  His vice president is now #1 after leaving power.  Interesting, eh?

With that in mind, since I'm a conservative, I'll list 5 surprises in the conservative list (other than what are listed above):

1. David Petraeus at #8.  Really?  Does anyone actually know his politics?  Sure, he supported Bush's surge plan in Iraq: but he obviously is currently in support of Obama's pull-out policy in Iraq, (which conservatives have lambasted) since Obama still has Petraeus at the head of all military operations in the middle-east.  How can the Telegraph even label him a conservative?  I'm pretty sure no one really knows what he is...which is exactly how it should be with a military commander.

2. Joe Lieberman at #29.  Come on.  Lieberman?  A conservative?  Given a 100% rating by NARAL on abortion rights.  Opposed Bush tax cuts "for the rich".  Supports Affirmative Action.  Supports same-sex marriage.  No on drilling in ANWR, yes on Kyoto (if China would have signed on), yes on UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  0% rating on family record from Christian Coalition.  No on preemptive war.  Ran as AL GORE's running-mate for president on the Democratic ticket in 2000!  Oh...and did I mention that he's still in the Democratic Caucus in the senate?  Sorry...his record on a few security issues and a couple gun issues is decidedly NOT enough to qualify him as a conservative.

3. Ron Paul at #41.  First of all, libertarianism is not the same as conservatism - at root they are actually philosophically opposed...it just so happens that occasionally their separate philosophies land them in the same place on issues.  But if everyone and their dog wants to define libertarianism as a form of conservatism, so be it.  The bottom line is that Paul had an odd following of a few fringe conservatives, a lot of libertarians, and a few fringe liberals (he had Nader-esque support in 2008).  At best, 10% of conservatives are influenced by him and virtually 100% of the rest think he's a crackpot.  Certainly not in the top 50, and DEFINITELY not above luminaries like Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, George Will, Bill Kristol, etc.

4. Jeb Bush at #76.  Ok, first of all - how did he go UP from the 2007 list, where he was #86?  The only argument given for him is that he would have been a good candidate in '08 had his name not been "Bush".  Umm...soo...3 years ago he was influential enough to be #86, he's no longer in office and has no real public voice anymore, but somehow goes up?  What?

5. Bill O'Reilly at #85.  This seemed remarkably low to me.  "The O'Reilly Factor" finished #1 in the ratings race for cable news shows this year and has (I believe) for a couple years running.  So how do Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Mike Huckabee all finish above him in the list?  Strange...

I'd be interested to hear what all your takes on the list are.  Any liberals that read this - tell me what you think of the liberal list.  Conservatives - am I wrong?  Do you have surprises other than those listed?

Breaking News: The Detroit Lions are Not in the Super Bowl

Well, it's official - the Saints are going to the Super Bowl.  The Saints, as many of you know, were one of only 5 teams in the NFL that had never attended a Super Bowl.  This leaves the Lions, the Browns, the Jaguars, and the Texans as the only remaining teams to have never been to a Super Bowl.  Of these teams, the Lions plight is certainly the worst.  Why?  Here goes:

The Jaguars are a relatively new team, since they were an expansion team from 1994.  During their existence they've already been to the AFC Championship game twice, which means they've gone to the AFC Championship twice during the time since the Lions' last appearance.

The Browns have not been to an AFC Championship game since 1986, where they lost to Elway and "The Drive".....technically.  I qualify that with "technically" because this doesn't tell the whole story.  Let's not forget that in 1996 the Browns moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens.  That same team that moved to Baltimore not only went to, but won the Super Bowl in 2000.  The Browns that exist in Cleveland now are an expansion team that has only even been in existence since 1999.

The Texans have only been in existence in 2002, so who really gives a crap that they've never been to the Super Bowl?

The Lions, on the other hand, have been a continuous franchise for the duration of the time that the Super Bowl has existed.  They've only even been to the NFC Championship game one time since the Super Bowl's inception.  Given the above information, is there any question that the Lions are more due than anyone left?

I remember back in the 80's and 90's when the perennial bottom feeders of the league were teams like the Patriots, the Bucs, and the Saints.  Since then two of those teams have Super Bowls (one of which created a full dynasty), and the third is on its way there for the first time now.

I ask this: is there ANY team that is more due than the Detroit Lions now that the Saints are going?  Absolutely not.  So much has been said about how great this is for the city of New Orleans - the great story it has made post-Katrina, etc.  True.  However, if I were to ask what city, other than New Orleans, has suffered the most in the last couple years is there any doubt that it is Detroit?  I'm not sayin'.....I'm just sayin'.

First post!

Hello to everyone who will be reading my blog (all 4 of you)!  Basically, I'm creating this as a means to replacing the "note" function on Facebook.  I used to write notes pretty often, but I discovered more or less quickly that I hated that.  So I move to a real blog - my first since the now defunct and oh-so-famous zombie blog.  I promise to anyone who actually reads that I will post a minimum of once per week.  What will I post on?  Who knows.  Politics, the Detroit Lions, food, philosophy, the Mariners' offseason, theology, books.  It's all on the table.  If you're lucky I may even delve into mockery of pop culture.  Comments are always more than welcome.

Oh...in case you're wondering (which I'm sure you are), the name of my blog is kind of a reference to this guy:

He often says that he's operating on "knowledge on loan from God".  Well...in Latin, the title of this blog mean "knowledge from God...or not".  Is my blog in dedication to El Rushbo?  No.  He and I differ on too much for me to dedicate a blog to him.  But he really is a character.

*Update: I changed the name of the blog anyway.  Please disregard.