Month: November 2002

Some people have defended Warren Sapp’s actions in the Green Bay-Tampa Bay game on Sunday, purely on the basis that it was a legal hit, he did nothing that was against the rules, it’s a violent game, so deal with it. The suggestion that Sapp should have shown some class — either in choosing not to level the guy or, failing that, not celebrating it while the guy was still down on the ground — is met with deaf ears.

Well, the hit in last night’s game that put Eagles’ QB Koy Detmer out of the game was also a legal hit, in which nothing was done that was against the rules. So those who want to know how Sapp should have behaved need only look at the way the 49ers defensive players came to wish Detmer well before the golf cart wheeled him to the locker room.

Football is a violent game, and it is an emotional game. But it doesn’t have to be a classless game.

Share This Post

There is a bit of a tempest-in-a-teapot brewing lately over a new linking policy over on The Rittenhouse Review. Specifically, James Capozzola, the writer of Rittenhouse, has decided that the goings-on at Little Green Footballs have become so repugnant that not only will he not link to LGF, but he will go one step farther: he won’t link to anyone already linking to LGF. As Capozzola notes, “We are the company we keep.”

But are we, really?

One can learn a lot about a person by looking at the books on their bookshelf. If someone’s personal library includes titles by Carl Sagan, Stephen Gould, Martin Rees, John Gribbin and Martin Gardner, we can probably conclude that this person has some interest in science. But that does not mean that we can conclude that this person is, say, an evolutionist; they could very well be a Creationist who keeps a collection of evolutionist writings, for instance. The presence of several different translations of the Bible on my shelf does not make me a Christian, nor does the presence of several Bertrand Russell volumes make me an atheist. Interest does not equal agreement, and linking to a site does not imply endorsement of that site’s content. I’ve been reading USS Clueless since several months before I launched Byzantium’s Shores, I still visit that site at least four times a day, and it was one of the first blogs to which I linked, but I’d be surprised if I agree with what Steven Den Beste writes more than forty percent of the time. I keep the link for several reasons: one, because he’s a fine writer and a very rigorous thinker; two, because he links to a number of other fine writers and rigorous thinkers whose viewpoints I nevertheless do not share; three, well, because he’s a fine writer. (Good writing goes a long way with me; that’s why I list that reason twice.) I don’t agree with him, I don’t endorse his views, and sometimes he even angers me, but still I link to him. The same goes for the other side of the spectrum: I’m definitely a liberal, but I’m not as far left as some of the left-wing blogs to which I link, so my linking to them should no more be taken to mean endorsement and acceptance than my linking of USS Clueless. (By the way, SDB addressed this issue here, from the standpoint of sheer futility.)

There is another problem with Capozzola’s new policy: it seems a bit, well, intellectually barren. The implication is that, while we can’t eliminate those voices with which we disagree, we can do the next best thing: we can pretend that they don’t exist. Too much of that will, in the end, lead to an echo-chamber effect on the left-wing blogosphere, which would be highly ironic given the chorus of complaints from the left about the right-wing blogosphere. If there is a degree, perhaps even a large degree, to which the political right in America has turned within itself, it hardly counts as a solution to that problem for the left to likewise turn inward on itself. I’ve been reading The Rittenhouse Review for a while now — probably about six months or so — and I think that James Capozzola is a fine writer, and his work on Rittenhouse is an impressive achievement. That said, I’m disappointed that he thinks this a worthwhile step to take, and doubly so that he thinks it will have any effect on, well, anything. He maintains a very lengthy Blogroll, so it will be a lot of work for him to implement this policy, and it’s not likely to have any effect other than to make the right-wing blogosphere laugh and engage in cyber-backslapping and high-fives for a job well done.

And I’m most disappointed that he believes that we are the company we keep. To say so, and to act on such a belief, is to divide the world further into camps and factions, who are ever doomed to eyeing each other suspiciously through chain-link fences topped with razor-wire, and to look with derision on those who would keep one foot in both camps. That’s not the foundation of good debate, and it’s certainly not the foundation of a healthy society.

(For the record, I have visited Little Green Footballs a handful of times, and each time I came away feeling a bit unclean. I have no intention of ever linking to it, except for the above mention. What disturbs me is not the intimation that I shouldn’t link to it, but that there will be repercussions amounting to censorship if I do link to it.)

Share This Post

A few weeks ago, the PBS program The American Experience aired a two-part film about the life and Presidency of Jimmy Carter. Being something of an amateur Presidential historian, I taped the program and watched it over a series of nights.

Carter was not the first President of my life — that would be Nixon — but he is the first that I remember, during the tempestuous days of the late 1970s. Carter’s single term spanned my years from Kindergarten to fourth grade, so my memories are probably not the strongest, but I recall frustrating times economically (gas lines, inflation, et cetera) and in foreign policy (the hostage crisis being the first significant hostile act against Americans that I can remember). I remember the annoyance with President Carter that many adults seemed to feel, and I remember the sense of near-salvation when January 20, 1981 finally rolled around when Ronald Reagan was sworn in. (Yeah, yeah….little did I know….)

It was interesting, then, to watch this documentary and see just how accurate my memories had been. Carter was a lackluster President, whose substantial accomplishments were overshadowed (and still are) by his failings at home. He grossly misunderstood the nature of the Washington power establishment; he made no effort to either acknowledge his shortcomings or compensate for them; he assumed that the moral strength of his positions would prove sufficient, thus eschewing the types of political leadership and maneuverings that savvy pols know are necessary to the advancement of an agenda. Watching this film after the Democratic party suffered serious losses in this year’s midterm elections, losses which in many ways are a result of the same errors on the part of the Democrats of today that Carter committed, was particularly interesting. That old canard about those who fail to learn from history being doomed to repeat it really does bear some truth.

If Carter’s Presidency was something of a failure, though, his post-Presidency has most certainly not. The way that Carter has parlayed his status as a former President into one of the most successful careers as an Elder Statesman is nothing short of remarkable. This is a man who has worked, virtually his entire life, in service to the same set of fundamental principles, promoting the cause of human rights wherever and whenever he can. Jimmy Carter may not have been a great President, but he has most certainly been a great man.

Share This Post

I’ve added a permalink under “Other Journeys”, to The New Companion. I’ve been reading this site for a while, and I basically keep forgetting to add it to my links. It’s not a typical blog, but rather a collection of evocative essays, some of which must be read rather than described. Highly recommended.

Share This Post

The theme of the 2002 NFL season seems to be “Schizophrenia”. I can’t think of how else to explain why so many teams are spending parts of the year looking like they can beat anybody, and then immediately turn around and look like they can be beaten by anybody. How else to explain the Raiders opening 4-0, then dropping to 4-4, and then starting to win again? How else to explain how dominant the Packers looked until the last two games, when they’ve looked pretty lousy? And how to explain the fact that the Kurt Warner Rams are 0-6 this year, while the Marc Bulger Rams are 5-0? Weirdness galore, I tell you. Anyhow, the weekly round-up awaits.

:: The Bills lost their third straight, this time to the Jets who earlier this year looked marginally better than the Bengals but who now look like a serious threat to get into the playoffs. The Bills sputtered on offense, with Drew Bledsoe committing three turnovers (two INTs, one fumble), Eric Moulds and Peerless Price having eight receptions combined, and generally being unable to get the ball moving consistently. The lone offensive bright spot was Travis Henry, who had 83 yards on 17 carries, but the game got away from the Bills and thus they got away from Henry. The Bills have been sputtering for a while now on offense, which would not be cause for so much concern if the defense was not so lousy. Their tackling has improved somewhat, and they hit hard, but they are getting overwhelmed at the line of scrimmage (Jets RB Curtis Martin was able to gain 120 yards rushing) and they are generating no pass-rush at all (they had one sack yesterday). They have to get some defensive help for next year if they want to be an improved team.

So now they’re 5-6, with five games left. My original prediction for them, 6-10, is looking more realistic now than it did a few weeks ago when they had a modest winning streak going. Their schedule includes games against Miami (at home) and New England (on the road), both of whom will be jockeying for AFC East position; San Diego (at home), who will be jockeying for AFC West position; Green Bay (on the road), who will be jockeying for home-field advantage or a first-round bye; and — the lone bright spot — the Bengals. Going 1-4 in those five games will put them at 6-10, and that’s a strong possibility.

:: Note to Warren Sapp: what you do can be perfectly legal, perfectly in keeping with league rules, perfectly OK as far as the rule-book goes….and still make you a jerk.

:: The Steelers won, so I can still hold onto the barely-flickering light that is my pick for AFC Champion, but they almost lost to the Bengals yesterday. You’re not helping, guys. The Eagles play tonight. They may do OK, but Koy Detmer in place of Donovan McNabb doesn’t fill me with confidence.

That’s all, really, for this week. I wasn’t much in a football mood yesterday, so I didn’t watch too much of it.

Share This Post

In the interests of creating shelf-space in my home (or floor-space in the closet), I have decided to start selling some of my older books on Ebay. Titles, with links to the active auctions, can be found in a new section in the sidebar which I’ve provocatively titled, “Marketplace”. Check them out, and bid on my books. You will bid….you WILL bid….these aren’t the droids you’re looking for….resistance is futile….all your base are belong to us….

Share This Post

Apropos of yesterday’s anniversary of the JFK assassination is NPR’s unveiling of tapes of ground-to-air communications between Air Force One and authorities in Washington in the aftermath of the death of the President. I haven’t listened to it all yet, but much of it is compelling — especially the necessarily cold detachment these people had to display on one of the most trying days in American history. The discussion of the means of transportation for JFK’s body is particularly chilling and heartbreaking.

Share This Post

One small item of pride for me is the fact that while I have been overweight pretty much my entire life, I’ve never tried the Atkins Diet. Just about every other person I know who has ever wanted to lose weight has done so, and in every case they’ve done it for a few months, taken off twenty or so pounds, declared victory and abandoned it, and then put the weight back on. It sounds miraculous, indeed: eat all the fat and protein your heart desires, just cut the carbs back to almost nothing, drink four gallons of water a day, and watch the weight melt away; it’s the “miracle” nature of the thing that makes it so alluring, I guess. I’ve never done it because I’ve never been able to convince myself that eating one thing — protein — for an extended period of time is healthy. I still believe that, despite the recent studies that have the Atkins-believers dancing with joy.

Not so fast, folks.

These studies contain, from my point of view, only one real surprise: that people on the Atkins diet don’t experience a sudden spike in their cholesterol. Other than that, though, these studies are basically telling me what I already knew. Is it really a surprise that if you go on the Atkins diet for six months, you’ll lose weight? We’ve all known people who have done that, so the studies aren’t really yielding any great revelations. And I fear that people are not reading the fine print, where the researchers admit that the studies aren’t indicative of what will happen to people who go on the Atkins diet for longer periods. Real, permanent weight loss — where you don’t put it back on as soon as you stop doing whatever it was that made you lose the weight — is a matter of lifestyle, and I have yet to see any evidence at all for Atkins as a lifestyle. Don’t show me people who have done the Atkins diet for six months. Show me someone who went on the Atkins diet in November, 1997 — and is still on it. Show me that person’s cholesterol; show me that person’s overall health. Then I’ll be impressed. I’ve never encountered a single person who has managed to stay on Atkins for anything longer than a hockey season. We all know that the Atkins diet works, in that one loses weight while doing it. But I see no evidence of an Atkins lifestyle.

I’ve also seen people suggesting, in the wake of the studies “confirming” Atkins, that we should return to the diet that prehistoric man enjoyed. The problem with that, as is explained so well here, is that we don’t live like cavemen. We don’t hunt and gather our food, we’re not nomads, and in any case, there is a vast difference between the meat of a wild boar or a deer and that of a domesticated, grain-fed steer. There are also numerous cultures around our planet that eat heavy amounts of grain-based foods, who also have far less incidence of obesity than America does. Considering that, I have to conclude that “All protein, all the time” does not seem terribly adequate.

Share This Post

“Balance” is a fetish in news reportage circles — the idea that both sides of a story must be equally described. In reality, it’s a chimera — one side always gets more airtime, or is otherwise favoured. You pick a moderate on one side, and an extremist on the other, assert that it’s a balanced debate — and you’ve just shifted the centre ground towards the second faction’s territory.

Much has been written recently about the growing disconnect between American and European attitudes on world affairs. Science fiction author Charles Stross has a particularly interesting take on the phenomenon, which he has titled The Manufacture of Dissent. Stross feels that attitudes, for better or worse, are being shaped by biases both hidden and unhidden in the media on both sides of the Atlantic. I can’t help but think that he’s on to something here. I don’t know much about European media (Stross is from Scotland), but I see this kind of thing very definitely playing out here in the United States, where commonplace belief now holds that our news media is relentlessly biased toward the liberal end of the political spectrum, despite all manner of evidence to the contrary.

(Crossposted to Collaboratory.)

Share This Post

Last week I was watching The McLaughlin Group on PBS, a political show that for some reason I’ve always liked — especially the Saturday Night Live parodies of it, in which McLaughlin (played by Dana Carvey) would let his commentators get halfway through a sentence and then bark, “WRONG!” before moving on to the next thing.

But there was a fascinating segment, toward the end of the show, on a problem facing the military. Veterans of World War II and Korea are dying at a pretty brisk clip these days, pushing up the number of funerals with full military honors — but the military only has something like five hundred buglers worldwide, which makes the playing of “Taps” at each funeral a difficult or impossible proposition. The military’s solution is to use an electronic doohickey to sound “Taps” while a member of the military holds up a bugle and, well, fake it. I’m thinking, in the event of a funeral where there can be no actual bugler, why not just have a civilian trumpeter play “Taps”?

I played the trumpet in high school and college — pretty well, too; I actually majored in it my first two years of college before I switched to philosophy — and I had the high honor of playing “Taps” for several military funerals while I was in high school. They weren’t official military funerals, actually; they were done under the auspices of the American Legion, which I’m sure is a different matter requiring a different protocol. But the men being buried on those occasions were veterans or former servicemen, and I was immensely proud to be able to play “Taps” for their funerals — a small way for me, as a civilian, to pay tribute to the service they had done for their country. If there aren’t enough official buglers around, then I suggest that civilian trumpeters are the way to go. I doubt there is a community anywhere in the country where one trumpet player can’t be found, and believe me, playing “Taps” for a funeral is a surprisingly moving experience.

I don’t know the first thing about the military regulations for such things, but surely they could be changed so that a civilian could sound the call for a departed veteran. At the very least, it seems to me that having a non-military person actually playing “Taps” is preferable to having a military person who can’t play the instrument “acting the part” while the call is sounded electronically.

Share This Post