Saturday, September 14, 2002

 
Iraq Says Will Repel Any Attack with Knives, Stones
So they HAVE been developing weapons more advanced then what they used in the Gulf War!
posted by Stephen. 1:46 PM

 
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A DEMOCRAT

In mock disbelief, the president said before a meeting with African leaders in New York on Friday that he could not imagine being an elected member of Congress and saying, "Vote for me and, oh, on matters of national security, I think I'm going to want somebody else to act." --George W. Bush, as quoted by Fox News--

I'm sure he's going to drive his press secretary to an early heart attack, but is there any question why this guy's approval rating is higher than the Braves' winning percentage?
posted by Stephen. 2:11 AM

 
MAYBE THEY JUST SAID THEY WERE GOING TO BLOW UP THE NEW MIAMI VOTING MACHINES
Well, it turns out the South Florida terrorist threat was a hoax. Thank God that it was. The authorities (not to mention several thousand I-75 commuters) didn't think it was very funny, whoever was responsible, and the former plans to find out. The leading theory at the moment is that the men were joking about 9/11 and a woman in a restaurant took it seriously and called police with the license plate numbers for their vehicles. The three men were then pulled over for running through a toll booth without paying, and were then uncooperative with the officer.

They, of course, deny every bit of it. Their family is crying racism. "She saw obviously the way I was dressed and maybe she put a little salt and pepper into her story," one of the men said. The father of one of the men added "I don't know what the lady in the restaurant heard or assumed. She must have had some kind of prejudice." As for the toll violation, Fox News wrote that "The men told CNN they paid the toll, but that the attendant was confused about whether they had."

Call me a cynic, but I'm just not buying it. First, we have to believe that a woman in a restaurant saw three strangers of Middle-Eastern heritage and thought it would be a real hoot to accuse them of terrorism. Then these same men get pulled over for a toll violation even though they paid the toll. If their side of things is true, then they're holding the trump card in any future "you think you had a bad day?" story battle. As I said, I don't buy it.

The mother of one of the men whined to any news reporter that would listen "Anybody can call anybody to make any kind of accusation. And the authorities treat you like you are a criminal." Well, yes. We're 366 days removed from 19 Middle-Eastern men killing over 3,000 Americans. Not to mention the instances of Middle-Eastern men bombing embassies, attacking Americans abroad, etc. So when somebody phones in a report of three Middle-Eastern men talking about a mass bombing, you'll have to excuse the authorities for taking it to heart.

Which leads me to my next point: now that the "threat" turned out to be a hoax, it's only a matter of time before civil libertarians cite this as an erosion of our Constitutional rights, and a group of leftists (with the media firmly in tow) cite this as just another case of racial profiling. What worries me about that is that some of our law enforcement authorities might feel the pressure, and think twice before acting on another tip like the one they received from the restaurant. Even if the phoned-in threat was a complete fraud, the authorities did exactly the right thing, and should be commended for it. That's why they need to figure out who is responsible for the hoax (whether the woman or the three men), and see that they're tried to the fullest extent of the law. We don't need a bunch of people crying "wolf," not when American lives are at stake.

On a side note, something else stood out to me in the Fox News story. The sister of one of the men told reporters "My brother doesn't joke about these matters.... A lot of Muslims suffered in 9/11." Is that the only fact that disturbs her? That Muslims suffered? I'm disturbed that 3,052 people were killed. I don't weep any more or less for the Catholics that were killed in the attacks.
posted by Stephen. 1:54 AM

Friday, September 13, 2002

 
The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.
Highlights from President Bush's speech to the United Nations on 9/12/02:

By breaking every pledge - by his deceptions, and by his cruelties - Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise.

In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan, and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

The first time we may be completely certain he has a - nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable.

With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

posted by Stephen. 3:14 PM

 
LOOKS LIKE I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING...
by skipping the 9/11 tributes and coverage on TV.
posted by Stephen. 1:08 PM

Thursday, September 12, 2002

 
ANOTHER ROUND OF "PLACE THAT QUOTE"
"The goal of abolishing the black race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed black supremacists,"

"Mein Kampf?" Marge Schott's diary? The Complete Idiot's Guide to the KKK?

Well, actually it's mis-quoted. The quote is mostly accurate, except the places that read "black" should read "white." Ah ha! Then this obviously isn't racism, it's scholarly work of the highest caliber!

Accuracy in Academia reported the above line was printed in Harvard Magazine, the official magazine for Harvard alumni. I don't know why this sort of thing still confounds me so, but it does. Sadly, this didn't garner a peep in the mainstream media. How is it that the left has convinced everybody that the only form of racism is when whites are attacking minorities. It's perfectly acceptable in most of America today for minorities to say whatever they want about whites, no matter how vitrolic, and not garner an ounce of protest. Heck, they could even be PRAISED for it, as in the Harvard Magazine example above.

Not that this should surprise me. Racism (against whites) isn't merely an attitude, it's the law! Millions fought (rightly) for black and other minority civil rights in the 60's, for the idea of equality under the law. But "affirmative action" makes a mockery of that idea. How can anybody possibly reconcile the famous line "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" with the idea that certain people should be given preferential treatment in job applications, college enrollment, and public works contracts because of their skin color? If I hire a white man over a more qualified black man because of his skin color, I'm a bigot. But if I hire a black man over a more qualified white man because of his skin color, I'm a champion of human rights?

Were blacks denied basic human rights because of their skin color in the past? Absolutely. It was racism, and it was wrong. Racism in the past, however, does not justify racism in the present. Americans of all skin colors need to stand up against racism and racist policies, regardless of what skin color they discriminate against. Cincinatti Reds baseball owner Marge Schott was suspended from the league for making racist comments toward blacks. People of all colors decried her hatred. So I have to ask, where is the outrage to the Harvard Magazine article?
posted by Stephen. 10:45 PM

 
FORMER PREZ SEZ....
The following two were uttered by a former president of the United States. Guess who said what:

" . . . We ought to give that inspection thing one more shot."

"Saddam Hussein has shown the world before, with his acts of aggression and his weapons of mass destruction, that he cannot be trusted."

....

Ok, pencils down. Give up? The first quote was from Bill Clinton on Larry King Live recently. And the second?

Bill Clinton, in a 1994 address (thank you Larry Elder).
posted by Stephen. 10:19 PM

 
FLORIDA ELECTION OFFICIALS TRADE BLAME
"While Gov. Jeb Bush and other Republicans are blaming local election supervisors in south Florida Democratic strongholds, county commissioners said much of the fault lies with the state for a lack of funding and with the companies that provided complicated machinery and inadequate training."

That's mighty impressive. The Democrats in charge of the local elections bought highly advanced (too highly advanced, apparently) computer equipment for their elections with a lack of funding. These people should be in charge of the budget!

Lest anybody think this is a Florida problem, it isn't. This is a SOUTH Florida problem. In my county, we fill in bubbles with a magic marker, then feed the ballot into a machine. No problem reading the ballots (we fill in the bubble next to our choice, imagine that), and no technology problems (same technology as most every standardized test ever made). What exactly seems to be the problem here???
posted by Stephen. 10:12 PM

 
I SAT DOWN TO WATCH TV AGAIN TODAY...
Which is something I DIDN'T do yesterday. Yes, I managed to take a pass on the 24-hour recap of 9/11. Not that I fault any of the coverage, I just didn't want to see it again. There was some debate in the local newspaper about their coverage, which included photos of bodies falling from the towers. Some complained that the pictures were too graphic, too disturbing. Personally, I think that's the beauty of photojournalism. The event WAS graphic, and IS disturbing! 9/11 is not an event that should be sugarcoated. We should never forget what happened, just as we should never forget that it could happen again. Although I had no desire to watch on Wednesday, it should have been mandatory viewing for a lot of people. Commentators in the days and weeks after 9/11/01 theorized that America would never lull itself into such a false sense of security again. Sadly, it took less then a year for them to be proven wrong. Hopefully some people got a wake-up call.
posted by Stephen. 9:57 PM

 
AUGUSTA NATIONAL AND WOMEN
A little background information: Augusta National Country Club annually hosts the Masters golf championship, the most prestigious golf tournament in the world. They are currently an all-male club (though women ARE allowed to play the course), which the National Council of Women's Organizations takes offense to. So they went after the club, then the Masters' sponsors. So club president "Hootie" Johnson pulled sponsorship from the tournament to prevent them from pressure tactics. USA Today ran several editorials in their 9/8/02 issue, most likening denial of female membership to racial segregation.

My response? The criticism is a bunch of bunk. Sexual segregation is not morally equivalent to racial segregation. If you disagree, then tell me this: when you're out in public, do you go to the bathroom in a "Men's Room" or a "Woman's Room"? Why is it that this practice is socially acceptable? There would be boycotts and protests (and rightfully so) if any place of business still had separate bathrooms for whites and blacks, yet not a peep is uttered about sexually segregated bathrooms. Most sports teams are sexually segregated. Most college dormitories are sexually segregated by floor if not by dorm. Why isn't the NCWO targeting sponsors of all-female colleges? Will fraternities and sororities have to integrate now?

And on, and on, and on. What's wrong with guys wanting to have a place to hang out with other guys? Anybody who's ever had a "girls' night out" should understand the motivation. But as Bill Maher once noted, one could put a velvet rope in front of a sewer in this country and people would try to sneak past it. There's no good reason for the NCWO to whine and complain. Leave the Boys' Club alone. Heck, start your own (by the way, isn't a National Council of WOMEN'S Organizations itself discriminatory?). But that's not good enough for them. All they see is a place where they're not wanted as members, and have to try to bully their way past the velvet rope.
posted by Stephen. 1:30 PM

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

 
NO BLOG TOMORROW, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS
Please pray for the repose of the souls of those who lost their lives on 9/11, and for their families. And please pray for those brave souls who put their lives on the line so that the rest of us can wake up each day free.

"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends." --John 15:13--

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do thou, o prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, case into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
posted by Stephen. 8:37 PM

 
I HOPE YOU DON'T MIND ME BORROWING YOUR MATERIAL
I found this on Mark Shea's blog. Click here if you've forgotten why we're preparing for war with Iraq.
posted by Stephen. 8:29 PM

 
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN....
That's the question that will be running through a lot of people's minds tomorrow. "Where was I when I found out?"

Me, I was walking through the cube farm at work, and off-handedly heard our accountant mention that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center. My assumption was that a pilot had lost control of the plane, and somehow managed to clip his wing on one of the towers, so I went to look for news coverage online. By that time, the second plane had hit, and I found out what she meant by "flown into the World Trade Center." I listened to (CNN?) radio as best I could, but with phone and network lines jammed, the stream cut out quite frequently. Everybody sort of moved in slow motion at the office, making a conscious effort not to sit around listening to the coverage, but not really able to get back to work either. Thoughts inevitably turned to friends and family in the area. Having just graduated from a college in Washington, DC four months prior, I knew quite a few, both close family friends and classmates of mine. Fortunately I eventually got word that all were well. I remember talking to my mom on the phone about how fortunate I was to be away from the commotion in DC after the Pentagon attack. And of course I made sure to visit my parents that evening.
posted by Stephen. 8:27 PM

Monday, September 09, 2002

 
SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT
Salon.com is adding their $0.02 to the upcoming 9/11 anniversary. They conclude an article on the consumerization of 9/11 thus: "In America today, those who can't remember the past for more than two seconds without getting interrupted by their cellphones may be condemned to repeat it."

Perhaps the Salon.com crew should put their cellphones away for a bit. In another article, Joan Walsh writes "Bush's management group has announced its plans to use 9/11 to hype his coming war with Iraq, the president is going along with the strategy, and we're all expected to watch and applaud." No, we're not. We're expected to take notice. We're supposed to remember WHY we are going to war with Iraq, something you and a distressing number of Americans seem to have forgotten. The US is at war to protect our way of life. The US is at war to prevent an incident that could make 9/11 look like a three car pile-up by comparison.

And don't give me any of this bunk about needing to gather global support first. "The only way to beat terrorism is for the U.S. to unite the world, not divide it," reads a portion of an article by our former Philanderer-in-Chief. With the exception of Britain, the world's sum contribution to our war against terror has been a fruitbasket postmarked 9/12/01. The old saying still holds true: Lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way. The United States has been leading for the better part of a century. So either get behind us and support our war against international terrorism, or step aside and let the adults take care of business.

If anybody wants to know why we're pondering war with Iraq, turn your TV's on on Wednesday. Watch every moment of coverage, no matter how painful. 3,052 Americans lost their lives on 9/11/01. Too many Americans seem to have forgotten that.
posted by Stephen. 11:41 PM

 
JUST A REMINDER...
That Tuesday is the primary elections day. If you're registered, then get out and vote. If not, then correct the deficiency in time for the November general election.
posted by Stephen. 9:56 PM

 
JUST WAR?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists four requirements for military action to be considered just. The four requirements are listed below, along with my commentary on how I see them applied to the pending war with Iraq:

--All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective: The US and the UN have tried since the end of the Gulf War to send weapons inspectors into Iraq, and each attempt has been met with little cooperation if not outright resistance from Saddam Hussein. Especially considering the reports of biological and nuclear weapons being developed, all other means of ending the conflict are clearly ineffective and impractical. Change won't come without a new regime.

--There must be serious prospects of success: United States Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy. Next....

--The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated: Saddam Hussein poses a clear threat to the lives of thousands of Americans, as well as his own people. This man has no problem starving his populace to raise their ire to trade sanctions, and to using his population as a human shield. As long as we don't target civilians intentionally, then the evils to be eliminated are far greater than the evils to be inflicted.

--The damage inflicted by the aggressor or the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain: The CCC later states that "the evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good," which is to say President Bush and his administration. I don't have all of the facts (and would frankly be scared if all of the facts WERE released to the public), so I have to trust their judgement. If there really is a clear link between Iraq and al-Qa'eda (which the administration is saying there is), then the condition is clearly met, end of story. But even if there weren't, then how would the above be applied to 21st century terrorist warfare? What does it take for a country to be considered an aggressor? With nuclear and biological weapons, a country or a terrorist cell need only one well-placed strike to cause irrepairable harm to a country. While I'm not ecclesiastical authority, I don't think that a country is expected to sit back and wait for a rouge nation to render a quarter of their country uninhabitable before launching justified attacks.

In short, there is no doubt in my mind that, under Catholic Christian theory on "just war," that the pending war with Iraq is indeed considered just. But we should never forget to pray for God's guidance in their decision making, and for our military to be kept safe in their mission.
posted by Stephen. 8:58 PM

 
YOU MAY NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMENTING
Apparently all it took for me to fix the comment buttons was to post a blog saying they weren't working. Must've been some bad mojo.
posted by Stephen. 8:23 PM

 
TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
I don't know why the comment sections aren't working at the moment. I'm working to correct the problem. Stay tuned.....
posted by Stephen. 8:20 PM

 
I'VE BEEN ACCEPTED....
As an official member of St. Blog's Parish!!! If my posts aren't enough excitement for you, you could always spruce them up by playing the St. Blog's Drinking Game.
posted by Stephen. 8:19 PM

 
USA BASKETBALL
Amid the sounds of, well, very little actually, the US Basketball team finished 6th in the World Championships on its home soil.

6th place. That's three losses (Argentina, Yugoslavia, Spain) by a team that was 58-0 in international play since professional basketball stars were allowed to play on the 1992 Olympic "Dream Team."

And make no mistake about it, it really was a Dream Team. Jordan. Johnson. Bird. Barkley. Malone. Stockton. The greatest collection of basketball talent in history came together to reclaim pride in American basketball against countries that had long been sending paid athletes to the games. The subsequent teams may have been given the the moniker "Dream Team __" by USA Basketall, Inc., but they were anything but. Slowly but surely each successive team displayed more and more the negative traits that would do in this year's team. The ego level rose exponentially, while the talent level dropped. Eventually, more and more of the game's top stars opted to skip out on a chance to play for their country and rest their bodies for the upcoming NBA season. Teams became more and more lazy on the court, counting on their natural talent to carry them through the games. It caught up to them this year.

What should they do about it? Glad you asked.

First, assemble a top-level team for the qualifying tournament, and for the 2004 Olympics. Do the names Michael Finley, Baron Davis, Jermaine O'neal, Ben Wallace, and Paul Pierce mean anything to you? Probably not. Try to develop a sense of urgency in the Tim Duncans, Shaquille O'neals, Kobe Bryants, and Jason Kidds of the league to play for their country. Didn't that used to mean something?

Then after the 2004 Olympics, call the whole thing off.

That's right, after we show that we're still the top basketball country in the world, stop sending professionals. If they're not going to act like they're representing their country, then don't let them. Send college kids. The college all-star team nearly upset the 2000 "Dream Team" iteration, so we know that the college teams can be competetive when properly motivated. It will be better for the team, and better for the fans as well. The first Dream Team was a magical collection, but since then it's been hard to embrace a collection of millionaires who act like their summer vacations are being interrupted so that they could be handed a gold medal. So leave the millionaires at home. I certainly won't miss them, and I don't think the majority of the country will either.
posted by Stephen. 8:08 PM

Sunday, September 08, 2002

 
I'M NOT A FAN OF TED TURNER...
just of Ted Turner's money. Specifically, the money that has kept Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux, and John Smoltz in the pitching rotation for most of the decade in Atlanta.
posted by Stephen. 10:12 PM

 
MAYBE JEN'S RIGHT...
and I really DON'T know anything about football! I'm 8-5 on my Week 1 picks so far, with the Dallas-Houston game tied at the moment, and the Monday Night game still to be played. 10-5 would still be respectable, but I can't afford to have either of the last two picks blown.

What we DID learn was that Steve Spurrier is not just a college coach. The Washington Redskins NorthFlorida Gators ran up 320 passing yards and 122 rushing yards in their 31-23 win over the Arizona Cardinals, with former Gator Shane Matthews at the helm. I just wish he'd have left the playbook behind for Ron Zook, so that UF could have mustered a little more than 16 points against Miami.
posted by Stephen. 10:10 PM

 
JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY MATTERS

I'm not a journalist; I don't even play one on TV. But I've been a part of two separate discussions lately on how questionable journalistic practices affect an overall body of work, and I want to give my opinion.


The first discussion is in regards to Michael Rose's new book Goodbye, Good Men. He gives several stories as evidence to support his thesis, that the Catholic priesthood is being tainted by a homosexual sub-culture in American seminaries that is effectively excluding orthodox seminarians from being accepted, or to make it through the entire formation process. As the Bible says, "by their fruits shall you know them," so even though I haven't been to a seminary myself, I've seen the fruits of seminaries in liberal parts of the country, along with reading enough similar accusations from other sources, that I don't doubt Rose's thesis at all. The problem is that a lot of other individuals and publications (most of whom also agree with his thesis) have called into question his reporting on several of the instances detailed in his book. At least three of the incidents have been called into question. In a major part of his book, talking about the American College of Louvain, Rose bases his entire argument on the testimony of one former seminarian, without even so much as contacting the college for their side of the story. An article in Crisis Magazine details the problems with the Louvain story, and lists some of Rose's other critics. Mr. Rose has even threatened legal action against Fr. Johansen for a critical review of the book in Culture Wars.



Yet in the discussions I've had about the book, the above is summarily dismissed as minor. "His book isn't perfect," the typical reply goes. Yet they still recommend it to others as Exhibit A in what's wrong with American Catholic seminaries today.



Even if you agree with his thesis (which I tend to do), how much do the poor journalistic episodes detract from the book? How many shoddily researched stories can a book hold and still maintain its credibility?



The second point of discussion is a rather lengthy critique of Reflections On Covenant and Mission by the U.S. Catholic Bishops by self-styled Catholic apologist Bob Sungenis. His critique makes some valid criticisms of the document, which many feel is too "ecumenical" in its treatment of the Jews and the Old Covenant at the expense of authentic Catholic Christian teachings. But his reasonable-sounding critiques are interspersed with statements like the following:

"In the section known as Moed, there are various other unpleasantries. Seder Nashim contains the most vile filth and obscenities. Kethuboth (on the sum due a wife who is divorced) occupies 2 volumes in the Soncino edition with 728 pages of sexual perversions (e.g. a baby girl being fair prey for adult men): "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than three years old it is as if one puts the finger into the eye-tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." (Kethuboth 11b; Exh. 180)."

Mark Shea lists six such quotes in his blog, along with links refuting each claim. Check his blog out if you want more details, but I think you can get the idea from the above. There are a number of such hateful lies against the Jews throughout his critique, yet a number of people have defended Sungenis' commentary in spite of them. They argue that his criticism of the document is valid, even if some of the facts are a little exagerated.



If you're still reading this lengthy post, I commend you. In the two above examples, what do poorly researched pieces of evidence or outright lies do to the rest of the bodies of work? Can any good be salvaged from around the problematic passages? In both cases, I would say "no," that the errors taint the rest of the work. I think their credibility is damaged beyond repair. For what? In Rose's case, it was to sell more books; in Sungenis', to add to the shock value of the supposedly offending Bishops' document. But in both cases, the aim was to make their cases sound stronger. Does it work? Sure, if you don't know that you're being deceived. But if that's the kind of journalistic integrity they apply in some instances, then I can't help but wonder about the rest of what they wrote. Are other stories in Rose's book as poorly and one-sidedly researched as Louvain College? Does Sungenis put the same anti-semitism into the rest of his critique? I cannot in good conscience recommend either work, no matter how much I agree with their central theses.
posted by Stephen. 10:00 PM

 
THE NEW AMERICAN PAST-TIME

In Florida, there are only two sports: Football, and Spring Football.

My high school alma mater made a successful season debut Friday night, winning 33-7.

Professional football lacks the pagentry and tradition of college football, but this season holds a lot of intriguing story lines. First, Emmitt Smith of the Dallas Cowboys is 540 rushing yards away (which he should have, barring injury, by mid-season) from breaking the all-time career rushing record, currently held by Walter Payton. The other big story is something that pains me personally: Steve Spurrier, the great University of Florida coach, is now with the hated Washington Redskins along with a host of other former Gator players and coaches. So now I'm torn between cheering for a coach and players I like, and a team I despise. Euphamisms seem to make things less painful, so I'll refer to them from here on in as the "NorthFlorida Gators." It's a start, at least.

My picks for Week 1: NorthFlorida, Green Bay, Baltimore, Miami, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Chicago, Buffalo, Philadelphia, San Diego, Tampa Bay, Oakland, St. Louis, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.
posted by Stephen. 2:54 AM

 
THE BLOG REVOLUTION CONTINUES

I'm slowly but surely getting my trusty blog in good working order. Just added: COMMENT BOXES! Now you can communicate with me and the rest of the world through the power of the blog. All I ask is that if you post a comment, that you 1) have a take, and 2) don't suck [(c) Jim Rome]. Also, keep it civil. Inappropriate comments will be removed from the comment record, and the author mercilessly mocked in my blog.
posted by Stephen. 1:18 AM