Latest Affront to American Civilization

Dennis Prager reports on the latest assault on American civilization: a Muslim taking the oath of office with his hand on a, gasp, Koran. How will our culture survive such attacks?

Didn't Jesus tell us that we should only swear by the Bible? Oh, wait. "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37) But if Jesus said we shouldn't swear by anything, and that in fact swearing by the Bible is from Satan, why would this Christian guy be demanding that we do so? Oh, sorry. I'm letting the Bible get in the way of Christian politics. The Bible is for swearing on, not for actual reading. I forgot.

Movie Review: Casino Royale

I just got back from seeing Casino Royale, the newest entry in the James Bond series. This, the 21st film in the series, is an adaptation of the very first Bond novel. The movie marks the first time Ian Fleming's work has actually been involved with a Bond movie since 1987's The Living Daylights. While Fleming's titles, and occasional passages from the books, were used until then, no movie has actually tried to remain faithful to its source material since 1964's Goldfinger. Royale puts that streak to an end, by not only using the title but telling the story of the novel, though with some tweaks to modernize it.

The story pits our hero against Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorists. Le Chiffre has lost a lot of his clients' money when a terrorist attack is foiled by Bond and has set up a high stakes game of poker at the Casino Royale to get it back. The British government decides to stake Bond in the game so he can clean Le Chiffre out and then offer him sanctuary in return for information.

The movie, while telling a modernized story, has quite a retro feel to it. As already noted, the novel on which the film was based is the very first one. So, true to the book Bond is a newly minted double-O. The pre-title sequence shows his first two kills which earn him the rank and is in black and white. Bond drives a 1964 Aston Martin early in the film. And his swimsuit and sunglasses have a decidedly 1960's feel to them. But Bond is all 21st century. Cell phones and text messages feature prominently. And the big card game between Bond and Le Chiffre is the highly popular Texas Hold 'Em poker rather than baccarat as in the novel.

As a Bond movie, this one is very scaled back. The usual touches are not there. The opening visual that has been used in every movie since From Russia With Love (the white disk moving across the screen to reveal Bond) is absent, though the shot into the gun barrel is there. The Bond theme music is absent until the closing credits, and when it is finally played it's the old style version, not the amped up hard rock version of the Brosnan movies. The signature line ("Bond, James Bond") almost misses the film. Q is absent. Moneypenny is absent, at least in body; there is some word play in one scene that evokes her memory ("I'm the money." "And worth every penny."). Gadgets, other than cell phones, laptops, and a defibrillator, are absent. Bond drinks martinis, but doesn't really "give a damn" whether they are shaken or stirred.

Instead, we have a Bond who gets the crap kicked out of him, who nearly dies, who bleeds and gets bruises. We have a Bond who makes mistakes, then loses his temper and composure, reverting to being a thug or, as M so aptly puts it, a blunt instrument. We have a Bond who is subjected to a very uncomfortable torture scene, and who escapes only due to luck. In other words, a more realistic Bond.

The big question, of course, is how well new Bond Daniel Craig fairs in his debut. With all the franchise gimmicks taken away, the film rests solely on his muscular shoulders. Honestly, I'm not sure. His Bond is a cold hearted, brutal SOB. Emphasis on cold. His blue eyes might as well be ice. Dalton tried to go that way in his movies, at least License to Kill. Brosnan hinted at it at times in his movies. But no one has been this cold. As a read of the literary Bond, Craig is superb. As the cornerstone of a movie franchise, I'm not so sure. While he has the coldness and brutality down pat, there is little appealing about the character or the man.

As a film, the pacing is a bit strange. The first maybe 3rd of the film is very fast moving and action packed. Then it settles down to mostly pure drama for most of the rest of the film, until one last climax of action. It's never boring. The drama sections have an element of tension to them as Le Chiffre and Bond face off. It is testimony to Craig's performance that the film can slow down so much, and stay so slow, and yet be interesting. It makes for a good movie, but can a franchise continue for long with such films?

One thing that's interesting about the film. Typically an actor's first foray into Bond is weak. Each actor has brought a different interpretation, but the script is typically customized for the prior Bond. So, for example, Dalton comes off kind of awkward in The Living Daylights because it was written for Roger Moore, even though Dalton was a quite different Bond. This film seems tailor made for Daniel Craig. In fact, it is hard to see Brosnan (who I loved as Bond) in this film.

In the end, this is a very different Bond film, much more brutal than its predecessors and less formulaic. Daniel Craig delivers a very good performance as the Bond of the novels. But it remains to be seen how well he can morph into a Bond more suited to the franchise.

Pelosi Stumbles Again

Talking Points Memo asks "why [is] Nancy Pelosi [] waiting so long before signaling her choice for chair of the House Intelligence Committee?" First she screwed up by injecting herself unnecessarily into the race to be her #2, and lost. On this one, she's holding back and at least giving the impression that she's thinking about an impeached judge for the position, among other things. And she promises a running start for the Democrats? The new Congress isn't even seated yet, and we're already seeing comments that "things are drifting without strong guidance from the top." You would think these things would have been decided long before now, even before the election.

Presidential Succession

Instapundit has links to an interesting discussion about the presidential succession. Currently, the speaker of the House is 3rd in line of succession, so should the president and vice-president be removed in some way or other, the presidency would fall to the Speaker. Sandy Levinson wants to revert the law back to its prior version under which the presidency would fall to the Secretary of State. This would avoid potential problems of the presidency switching parties in this admittedly unlikely scenario. Sounds reasonable, but I would echo a comment on another blog: "elevating an unelected official to the highest elected office in the land is much worse" than the current system.

NFL 2006 Mid-Season Report Revisited

It never fails. I make my mid-season predictions for the rest of the year, and that very weekend or the next it all falls apart. It's been a pretty bad design for prognosticators, at least this one. I think it's because there are no really dominant teams, and very few really bad teams. Rather just about everybody is in the vast muddled middle so you never know who will win. Anyway, let's do some corrections shall we.

AFC West
Denver has pretty much tanked since I took them to win the division and the conference (and the Super Bowl). With back-to-back losses against San Diego and Kansas City, they are now 1 1/2 games behind the Chargers and effectively 1/2 game behind the Chiefs (division record as tie-breaker). Assuming the Chargers can beat the Raiders, one of the few really bad teams, San Diego will open a 2 game lead in the division that so recently looked so tight.

The Chiefs have beaten San Diego already this season. But that was at home where the Chiefs have a strong advantage. The rematch will be in sunny California. In fact, three of KC's last five games are on the road. Their recent surge has been fueled by Larry Johnson's running. Can he keep up that pace for the rest of the year?

Denver will play three of it's last five at home, where they too have a good advantage. But the schedule isn't the easiest with games against the Seattle, Chargers, surging Bengals, and the surprising 49ers. Plus there will be a lot of uncertainty in Denver. Plummer has not had a strong season and there is the growing expectation that he will be benched in favor of Cutler.

So the Chargers look to be a pretty solid lock for the division title now.

NFC East
With McNabb out for the season, Philly is done. So I guess it doesn't come down to the Eagles and Giants after all. It comes down to the Giants and Cowboys, like I originally said. Dallas is playing very well. The defense is very strong and aggressive, ranking 7th in the league in points allowed. And what can one say about Romo. He is playing like a seasoned pro. Since taking his over as starter, Dallas is 4-1, with wins over Carolina and Indianapolis. The only loss was that fluke game with Washington where Dallas' winning field goal at the end turned into the Redskins' winning field goal at the end. Whenever they've kept the game off the foot of Vanderjagt, they've won.

The Giants, on the other hand, are struggling. Injuries have hit them hard, and Manning is in a slump. They've dropped two straight and play the Titans, who like to play giant killers, this weekend.

The division could well come down to next week's matchup between the two teams. The Giants won the first matchup, but that was with Bledsoe as the starter. Right now you have to go with the hot team, and that's Dallas.

NFC South
I was going to revise this division as well, with New Orleans losing last week and dropping to second place. But I stand by my prediction.

Playoff Predictions - AFC
The revised seedings will be

1. Indianapolis
2. San Diego
3. New England
4. Baltimore
5. Denver
6. Jacksonville

I debated the 5th spot. I can't go with KC because I don't think they can keep riding LJ the way they have. And their defense is still the Chief defense. In picking Denver, I'm assuming Plummer remains the starter, than Shanahan wouldn't change QBs in the middle of a playoff run.

I'm forced to predict San Diego win the conference now. What I wrote about the other teams in the conference stands. The Chargers are a well balanced team, with a strong defense, superb running game, and a quarterback who is playing quite well. I don't see the other teams in the conference taking them down.

Playoff Predictions - NFC
Revised standings:

1. Chicago
2. Seattle
   
3. Dallas
4. New Orleans
5. Carolina
6. New York

I still put the Seahawks at #2 because they have a soft schedule down the stretch.

I didn't write much about who would win the conference, putting Chicago well out in front. But the truth is they've been struggling a bit on offense for a while. Starting with the Cardinal game they nearly lost, the offense has done poorly several times, with the defense bailing out the team as it did last year. As well as Rex Grossman played early in the season, as I've pointed out many times, prior to this season, the man hadn't played as many as four straight games without a serious injury. He's now started 10 straight, with #11 coming Sunday. He hasn't played that many games in a row since college. What's worse, because of his injuries on being on IR so often, he hasn't even been in game planning. So starting so many games is both a physical and mental challenge and you have to wonder if it is starting to take its toll.

So if Chicago falters down the stretch and in the playoffs, the conference falls to Dallas.

Kevin Greene for the Hall of Fame

The list of semi-finalists for the next Hall of Fame class came out not too long ago. I've read several analyses of the list. Why is it that Kevin Greene never gets much coverage? Granted, I may be a bit partial to him as he was a star on the Steelers. But if nothing else, the man finished his career #2 on the all time (for what that's worth) sack list, just behind Reggie White. Plus he was a key fixture on the Steelers defense of mid-90's that was pretty dang dominant, and was a member of the 1990's all decade team. Yet, he doesn't seem to warrant too much attention.

Sam Raimi for The Hobbit?

It seems New Line studio is going ahead with filming The Hobbit, the story before Lord of the Rings. But the director will apparently not be Peter Jackson, who helmed the mega-hit trilogy. Instead, sources are saying it will be Sam Raimi, the man behind the Spider-Man movies. Jackson is out because his company has a lawsuit against New Line for money on Fellowship, and New Line will lose its rights to The Hobbit next year, which means they need to get moving on it and can't wait for the suit to be settled. Jackson explains his side in an email to TheOneRing.net.

I love the Spider-Man movies and so have nothing against Raimi. But Middle Earth is a very different place and the only director I would have the confidence in to make another film (or two, according to Jackson) there would be Jackson himself. (Of course, in all fairness, before Fellowship came out, few really believed Jackson was the guy who could pull it off, given his prior films.) As Ian McKellen puts it, "It's hard to imagine any other director matching his achievement in Tolkien country."

Having said that, Saul Zaentz, who owns the rights to the Tolkien work, is sure Jackson will make the movie, but only after New Line's rights run out.

I don't quite get all this about film rights. If New Line loses its rights next year, how would they get the film produced in time? Or is it that they just have to start working on it before losing the rights?

Regardless, given the high price tag that would go with any quality production of The Hobbit, it seems New Line should do everything they can to get Jackson on board. Any extra money they would have to pay him for Fellowship in a settlement would be well worth it to get him on board for the new movies.

National Motto Hysteria

I'm on the mailing list for the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a religious right counterpart to the ACLU. They periodically send around emails about some sensational case that demands our immediate attention. I'm often appalled at the absurdity, the exaggerations, and the downright dishonesty found in those letters seeking my money. But this one takes the cake. They are preparing to file an amicus brief in Newdow's case trying to remove the national motto, "In God We Trust." Here are some excerpts from the ACLJ's solicitation:

The day those words are banned - the day they are stripped from our coins and currency - we'll be witnessing the beginning of the end of religious freedom in this country.

And we've got 24 hours.

Please understand my sense of urgency. If our National Motto can be declared unconstitutional simply because it reflects a basic truth of our religious faith - as Dr. Michael Newdow has charged in court - then any expression of your faith and mine can also be declared illegal. Our foundational freedoms will crumble.

...

In just 24 hours, we will be filing one of the most important amicus briefs in the ACLJ's history - perhaps, one of the most important amicus briefs in America's history: arguing for the preservation of our National Motto, "In God We Trust," in the Newdow v. United States Congress case.

(emphasis in original) I don't know if I even know where to begin. Stripping away a little phrase is the "beginning of the end of religious freedom?" Our freedoms will "crumble?" Any personal expression of religious belief will be illegal if Newdow wins? Give me a break. A tad bit of exaggeration, maybe, to scare people into giving money? And how many Christians will fall hook, line, and sinker for this one?

We have a president who wants to be able to torture people, who wants to be able to lock up anyone he wants without any pesky Constitutional rights getting in the way. These are OK, I guess. Sekulow and his bunch don't seem too concerned about those things, nor about the myriad other ways the president ignores the law and that pain in his butt Constitution. But take away In God We Trust, and freedom will crumble!

Hammer of the Gods

I did Van Halen two weekends ago. This time it's the greatest band of them all, Led Zeppelin. I'm a guitarist, but Bonham's drumming never ceases to amaze me. I was too young to see the full thing, but I did see Plant & Page twice in Boston when they were touring in the mid-90's. Best shows I've ever seen.









And the obligatory

NFL 2006 Mid-Season Report

Back in June I analyzed the upcoming football season and made my predictions. With the season half over, it's time to revisit that analysis and figure out what went wrong, er, make any corrections.

AFC East
I picked the Patriots to win this division but to no longer be the dominant team they have been in the not-so-distant past. And that's what they've been. As predicted the running game has improved considerably. Of course I did comment that Brady would be working with a receiving corps with which he was comfortable, which obviously didn't work out so well. But after a relatively slow start the passing game does appear to be improving. Despite losses at home to key opponents (Denver and Indianapolis), the Patriot offense could be trouble for somebody come January.

I did expect a lot more from Miami than they have delivered. Given that they have to go with Joey Harrington at QB, that's not really a surprise. Culpepper was very much a disappointment when he was starting. Fans can blame the nagging effects of last season's injury, which isn't necessarily wrong, but he wasn't executing much of anything well before being benched. It still remains to be seen if Daunte will ever be the same player he was a couple years ago.

The Jets are certainly a surprise. They have played competitively and have beaten New England to put themselves only 1 game out behind the Pats as of this writing. But that won't last. They are an overachieving team and aren't as good as their record.

The Bills, well, they are playing down to expectations.

The rest of the season looks pretty easy for New England, with only the Bears posing a serious challenge. Despite the setback of those home losses, and of losing to the Jets, the should still end up with at least 12 wins and yet another division title.

AFC North
I didn't really do well on this division. I predicted it would come down to the Bengals and Steelers, again. Instead the Ravens are running away with things, already commanding a three game lead, with several division games left. The Ravens haven't necessarily been impressive. They've just won. With Brian Billick calling the plays on offense now, the points have gone up nicely.

I expected the Steelers to have a fall off this year, but this is crazy. What's especially galling is that the offense is moving the ball quite well, ranking 5th in the league in yards/game (375.7). Unfortunately they lead the league in interceptions (14). They just march down the field and then have a turnover in the red zone. And the defense isn't really stopping anybody. The team will be competitive, but they have dug themselves far too deep a hole, and will be lucky to finish 8-8 this year.

The Bengals have regressed a bit. The defense is doing about what was expected of it, but the offense is not lighting things up like they did last year. I have noticed it often happens that a team has a disappointing season a year after a big breakthrough year. The Patriots in 1995 and 2002 both followed up surprise playoff runs (and in the latter case a Super Bowl title) with underwhelming seasons. The Rams in 1999 followed up a Super Bowl win, after a decade as the worst team in the league, with a year in which they barely made the 6th seed in the playoffs. This seems to be happening for the Bengals as well.

The Browns are showing some promise, being competitive in games against quality opponents. But they still have a ways to go.

The Ravens have a pretty secure lock on this division, with a three game lead on Cincy and four games on the Steelers and Browns. It's hard to see them not winning the title. And with the rest of the division having losing records, it's doubtful anyone else will make the playoffs.

AFC West
I got it right with the Broncos, who have emerged as a Super Bowl contender with a defense giving up fewer points per game than any other. I do think the defense is over-rated. They have gotten ripped a couple of times and do give up a decent amount of yardage per game. But they do look good. And the offense is looking pretty solid again, with Plummer getting his feet under him and playing less mistake-prone football.

I was not impressed with the Chargers pre-season. Others were picking them to win the conference. I saw a first year starting quarterback and thought there was no way. Well, they are sitting at 7-2, tied for the lead in the division. Rivers has been impressive, as has the rest of the team. Martyball has taken a back seat to a more aggressive offense, so much so that they lead the league in scoring.

The Chiefs and Raiders are about what I expected them to be.

This division is certainly up in the air with the Chargers and Broncos tied for the lead. I still think the Broncos will win, just because of their better experience and the fact that, while he has played well, Rivers is essentially a rookie. But San Diego will be a wild card team.

AFC South
I pretty much nailed this division before the season. The Colts haven't lost quite as much as I thought they might. Back to back 9-0 starts speaks for itself. Quality wins over Denver and New England has given the Colts control of the top seed again. But it remains to be seen what the Colts will do in the post-season. For all their wins in the regular season, they haven't won too much in the playoffs.

There's not really much else to say that I didn't say before the season.

NFC East
This division is about as competitive as I thought it would be. As of this writing, the Giants are in first place, but the Eagles and Cowboys are only a game back. Before the season I wrote glowingly about the offense but questioned the defense. But it is the defense that is carrying the team lately. In the last three games, they've scored 17, 14, and 20 points. So while the offense may rank 9th in the league in scoring (23.8 per game) they haven't been doing it lately.

I picked Dallas to win the division. I thought Bledsoe would have a good year with such good receivers and what I thought would be improved pass protection. Oh well. Drew's on the bench, his career likely over. Owens, for all the press he's gotten, has been something of a disappointment, more known for his dropped passes, sleep habits, and possible suicide than touchdowns. He may lead the team in touchdowns and yardage, but I don't think he's delivered quite what Jerry Jones expected. While they sit only a game back of New York, it's difficult to see them fulfilling my prediction with Romo as the starting quarterback, particularly with the pass protection that line provides.

The Eagles got off to a great start, only to drop three in a row. They are the only real competition left for the Giants. McNabb looks very good throwing the ball, at least before slump, and the defense was playing well.

The Redskins have been a huge flop. With all the talent on the coaching staff, the money spent on free-agents, and last year's success, a lot more was expected from this team. Nothing is working for them. The defense, which was one of the best last year, stinks. The passing game has been pretty anemic, as I predicted. They need a strong defense to contend, and they aren't getting it. Moving to Campbell as QB is a good move long term for the franchise, but won't help much this year.

The division comes down to the Eagles and Giants. The Giants have already beaten the Eagles this year, and Philly has a tough schedule ahead (Indy, Giants, Carolina). The Giants' schedule isn't necessarily easier. But given that they already have the edge, and the rematch with the Eagles will be in New York, they do have the advantage. So I'll go with New York to take the division, but Philly will make the playoffs as a wild card team.

NFC North
OK, I was wrong about Rex Grossman. I thought a lot of Chicago's potential, but only if they put Brian Griese in as starting quarterback. Well, with Rex at the controls for the longest continuous stretch of his career, the Bears lead the league in scoring most of the season. They have played some bad games against bad teams, barely beating Arizona and losing to Miami. But they have looked outstanding outside of those games. In fairness they have had a soft schedule, with only wins over Seattle and New York standing out. The rest of the season isn't too challenging either, outside of a visit to Foxboro against New England. So look for at least 13 wins.

No one else in the division even has a winning record. It is so bad, the Packers are actually in second place. Green Bay has won three of the last four, to make the team a respectable 4-5. But they now face a rough stretch, with New England, Seattle, then the Jets. I predicted 6-10, and that still seems about right.

The Vikings started off well, but have hit a bad stretch, dropping three in a row. That basically drops them out of the division title hunt, and makes it tough even for a wild-card spot.

Detroit is a frustrating team. They seem to be much better than their 2-7 record would suggest. They have been competitive in most games and the offense has put up a fair number of points. (Their average isn't fantastic, but it's weighted down by two very low scoring performances to begin the season.) But it seems whenever they are about to win, they throw the game away. I do think they are moving in the right direction, but they have to learn to finish out games.

NFC West
Yet again, I pause for laughter. Done? OK. Yes, I picked Arizona, current owner of the worst record in the NFL, to win the division. The franchise has spent a lot of money the last few years acquiring talent. Big bonuses to high draft pick receivers and quarterback, big contracts to veteran quarterback and running back. And this is the result. The running game, supposedly boosted by the arrival of Edgerrin James, is the worst in the league. Why? For all the investment, little has gone into the offensive line. Any quality offense starts in the trenches, and Cardinals have not invested there. Until they do, all that talent they have in the skill positions on offense will matter little.

I backed away from Seattle again this year because I wasn't convinced they had become a sufficiently stable team. Yet here they are at the top of the division again. I'm still not impressed. I know they've had serious injuries to deal with. But they still haven't shown me they should be a top team. Will they win the division? Most likely, yes. They have effectively a 2.5 game edge on St. Louis. And I can't take San Francisco as a serious contender. But they won't go far in the playoffs.

I was pretty much right about both the Rams and the 49ers.

NFC South
I did not exactly distinguish myself with this division either. Of the Saints, I wrote

The Saints, well what can one say? They made two big splashes in the offseason, acquiring Drew Brees from San Diego, and drafting Reggie Bush. Good moves, but this team has so many problems that the whole roster has to be overhauled, and that will take a few years.

Well, they are in first place. On the other hand, I liked Tampa, and they are in last place. I really take my hat off to Sean Payton and the Saints. They have established themselves not only on top of the division but as legit Super Bowl aspirants. Unfortunately they too have had some key losses at important times, so they have been unable to separate in the division. As good as they are, they could still lose the division.

I was pretty much right about Carolina and Atlanta. Both are dangerous teams, but inconsistent and flawed. That said, either of them could win the division.

In the end, I like what I've seen from New Orleans. They have beaten both Atlanta and Carolina already this season and are undefeated in the division. Carolina has problems due to injury on the defense, which is a problem facing a good offense like the Saints'. And Atlanta is just too flawed, period.

Playoff Predictions - AFC
Unlike the preseason predictions, I will now predict the playoff teams. And the winners are

1. Indianapolis - perfect so far, a solid 4 game lead in the division, and a not-too-daunting schedule ahead. The Colts are great in the regular season.
2. Denver - good balance, strong running game which is important late in the season. Like last year, they play a tough division which will cost them a game or two. But they are a better team than Baltimore, who I think will also drop a few. And they have the edge on New England.
3. New England - with a soft schedule and an improving passing game, they should be able to finish ahead of Baltimore. But last week's upset loss to the Jets could well end up costing them, because it drops the Pats a game back of both Denver and Baltimore.
4. Baltimore - with such a big lead in division they are a virtual lock. But with Ray Lewis out and some challenging games ahead, they will lose more than their division winning peers, dropping them down to 4th seed.
5. San Diego - one of the top teams in the AFC, but forced to share a division with Denver.
6. Jacksonville - they are the best of the other three second place teams and have beaten the Jets which gives them the edge even though they have the same records.

Of these six teams, I am least impressed with Baltimore and Jacksonville. I cannot see either of them as true contenders for the conference title.

It's hard to pick New England to win it all again, given that they have lost to both Denver and Indy. But they are a very experienced team, and they play their best football in January and February. But their defense has some big flaws that it didn't have back in the glory days. This is not the 2003-2004 Patriots anymore. They will have a hard time against the offenses of Indy, Denver, and San Diego.

I still am not convinced Indy can win in the post-season. They are not the dominant team they were last year. And their run defense is atrocious, and Denver and San Diego both have strong running games.

So it comes down to the Broncos and Chargers. As I see them winning the division, this AFC title game would be played in Denver, where they have a solid advantage. So my prediction for AFC champion is Denver.

Playoff Predictions - NFC

1. Chicago - they have looked to be the only true dominant team in the NFC.
2. Seattle - I don't like the team and don't expect them to do much in the playoffs, but they have the easiest schedule of the remaining predicted division winners so should end up with the best record.
3. New Orleans - the Giants have a pretty brutal schedule down the stretch, so the Saints get the edge. A Christmas eve matchup between New Orleans and New York could be crucial for playoff seeding.
4. New York - playing in the toughest division in the league will take its toll
5. Carolina - strength of schedule again becomes a factor, and the Eagles have a tougher one
6. Philadelphia - a good team stuck competing in a tough division.

Looking over this list, it's hard to do much analysis. Chicago just looks so much better than anyone else in the conference. With a defense giving up among the fewest points per game and an offense scoring among the most per game, it will be hard for anyone to beat them. So the prediction is Chicago.

Super Bowl Prediction
Chicago and Denver. That should be a very good matchup as both have strong defense and good offense. Both have quarterbacks who can play well, but who can also be rattled and taken out of their game plan, Plummer because he's Plummer and has always been that way, Grossman because he's still young and relatively inexperienced. Both have good running games. I give the edge to Denver, because they have more depth at running back and because Plummer, as flawed as he can be, is more experienced than Grossman, particularly at such a high level.

Getting Out Of Iraq

I have long resisted the idea that the US should pull out of Iraq. But it has been a conditional opposition. My opinion has been that we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with, but having done so we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to help clean up the mess that we helped create. But if we ever get to the point where we are no longer helping, but are perhaps making things worse, then we should go.

For a long time during the occupation, war supporters could point to lots of news that wasn't necessarily covered well by the MSM, but which suggested that things weren't as bad as they seemed and that things might be going the right direction. Bloggers like Instapundit regularly linked to posts about under-reported good news in Iraq. Those posts have long since disappeared. War supporters have gotten to the point where the only argument they can come up with for continuing the efforts and the death over there is that Americans don't surrender, the stoic idea that we just have to stay the course because we just can't give in.

The greatest shame of Vietnam was not that we went there to begin with, though that was a pretty bad call, but that two American presidents continued waging a war they knew they would not win simply because they were too prideful to admit defeat. How many Americans and Vietnamese died over the years because Johnson just couldn't bring himself to admit publicly he had made a mistake? How many died because Nixon insisted on holding out until he could extricate the military without admitting failure?

The arguments then and now for continuing the war seem eerily similar. The current president has proven himself over and over incapable of admitting error. That Rumsfeld managed to last as long as he did in the Pentagon is proof of that. Commending the infamous Mike Brown for doing a heckuva job, while the complaints and realization of incompetence were already rising proves it again. And the list goes on.

The situation in Iraq has gotten to the point where we appear to no longer be doing anything to help. The president should have enough integrity to admit this and accept a withdrawal from a tragic situation largely of his own making. Withdrawing may or may not stop the suffering of the Iraqi people. But staying will certainly only make things worse and our soldiers will die for the pride of their commander-in-chief.

Democrats Win

Well, the Democrats seem to have won their big victory. They've taken the House and could take the Senate depending on how Virginia goes. Nancy Pelosi might say power is now in the hands of the children. Let's hope the Democrats are a little more capable and adult than Ms. Pelosi seems to think.

Ironically, the Democrats are totally dependent on party reject Joe Lieberman in order to get that control. That should be fun to watch.

Of course, having won the Democrats now have to start leading and actually standing for something. They've tried so long to avoid having any beliefs or ideas, at least in public, that might be hard. Even in their big push this election cycle, what was their agenda? To win. Why? Well, because they haven't in a while. So why should Americans vote for them? They're not Republicans! That was the strategy in the presidential campaign of 2004, emphasizing Kerry's lack of a Bush name, and continued in this cycle. Fortunately for the Democrats, the public's attitude toward the president and his party was so bad that this clumsy strategy worked this time.

The epitome of the post-Clinton Democratic party in Washington was at the last State of the Union. The president mentioned failing to get his Social Security reforms passed, to which the Democrats applauded lustfully. That side of the room was full of smiles, laughter, and self-congratulatory pats on the back. Of course, as the president said, the issues facing Social Security are still there. The party didn't want to actually fix anything. They sure didn't want to propose alternative ideas that might force them to commit to an idea. As long as they could take whatever the president proposed and defeat it, great.

I didn't want to see a continuation of Republican rule, either. I've bashed both parties from the beginning of this blog. But the Democratic party in Congress has been exceedingly underwhelming these last 6 years. I respect ideas, of which the Democrats have been notably lacking.

Like the big Republican win in '94, this change could force Bush to moderate some of his policies and make some changes. Donald Rumsfeld is out, finally, because of the election results. On the other hand, it's so late in his presidency, and the guy's not exactly flexible, it may not change anything.

Vote No on the Amendment

Tomorrow, voters in Wisconsin will vote on a constitutional amendment that would, allegedly, ban gay marriage in the state. I will be voting no. Do I support gay marriage? No. If a bill came up to legalize gay marriage, I would probably vote against it. (Since I oppose it, do I get all bent out of shape over gay marriage? No. I would vote no, but it's hardly the end of civilization if homosexuals are allowed to marry.)

But the constitution, state or federal, is not the place for this kind of decision. It should be left to the will of the people. If the people want to allow gay marriage, so be it. That's democracy. I don't like courts that circumvent the people by legislating from the bench in the form of newly found rights. Nor do I support attempts to circumvent the courts by forcing social views into the constitution such that they are difficult or impossible to challenge. Both represent abuses of the constitution, elevating some issues to a level where the people no longer have a say. That's wrong.

Some might say that amendments reflect the will of the people. After all, the people are voting on this one so the outcome will reflect what the people of the state want. But what if the amendment passes but in 10 years views change and people aren't so scared of gay marriage? Too bad. The amendment takes the question out of the people's hands.

Apart from this more philosophical point, the language of the amendment seems pretty vague, resulting in an unclear scope. Hence my use of the word allegedly above. I'm no lawyer, but the gist of the amendment appears to be that only the only type of relationship that can be given the status of marriage is a marriage between a man and a woman. What does that mean? What is the impact to unmarried heterosexual couples? It would appear to impact health insurance coverage for co-habitating unmarried straight couples, for example. In Ohio, where an amendment with similar language passed, there is now an effort to prevent domestic violence laws from being applied to unmarried couples.

Such vague language invites judicial intervention in deciding just what it means , something conservatives allegedly dislike. Supporters could have pushed for more straightforward language that would explicitly limit the scope to banning gay marriage. That they didn't is curious and should be noted by anyone considering a yes vote.

The point is not that such lawsuits and unintended consequences, like the domestic violence example, would happen here should the amendment pass. (Rick Esenberg argues that the Ohio case arises from the specific language of that state's law and the comparable Wisconsin law about domestic violence does not have the same flaw.) It is that with such vague language, we have no idea what the scope of this amendment would be. Again, the amendment's authors could have chosen language that more explicitly stated their intentions, and chose not to.

I have to commend the no campaign. Rather than trying to argue in favor of gay marriage, most of the ads start from a presumption that the listener opposes gay marriage and then argues why, despite that opposition, they should vote no. I don't know how the vote will go, but that was a smart strategy.

EVH - Catherine (Studio Version)

Last one, I promise. I don't know how recent this is or even what it's from (one post says a movie called Sacred Sin, which I can't find in IMDB, and another says a Michael Ninn's Catherine, which I can't find in IMDB). But an awesome instrumental from Eddie, full of emotion.

David Lee Roth, Bluegrass Star

As long as I'm on the Van Halen video kick, I have to include this. I think I'm speechless.



Yes, boys and girls, this guy was once one of the biggest rock stars in the world.

Van Halen Early Videos

A very early Van Halen video, something I've never seen. Man the clothes!



And here's a more well-known concert video of Unchained:



Not quite so early, but a superb instrumental version of Panama with David Letterman's band from the mid-80's.



And another instrumental, not a Van Halen tune (very bluesy), from Saturday Night Live, introduced by then-bride Valerie.

Eruption

For rock minded guitar players of my age, this guy was all but God.



Here's a very early performance of the song, with Eddie doing his best Jimi Hendrix:



And here a totally different take on the same stuff:

Shut Up and Sing

There's a new movie coming out called Shut Up and Sing. It's about freedom of speech and how the Dixie Chicks were criticized and made to pay a price for expressing their views of the president. The big question on this site is, should there be limits on free speech? I've commented on this before, but I gather the movie's answer is yes. Apparently the Chicks' criticism should be totally free and open, but anyone who disagrees should shut up and listen to the music (a more apt title for the film?) rather than use their freedom of speech to reply.

On a side and irrelevant note, I see the Chicks have cleaned up their image a bit. The site has several copies of an old EW cover picture of the group covered in various phrases like "traitor" and "boycott." What's interesting is the original image had the ladies nude with hands and legs strategically positioned. For the movie, someone has helpfully added some towels over the ladies. Not relevant, just funny.

The Adoption of the Century

What is with the obsession with Madonna adopting a kid? I don't get it at all. Apparently neither does she.

"With all the chaos, pain and suffering in the world, the fact that my adoption of a child…who was living in an orphanage, you know, was the number one story for a week in the world," Madonna said. "To me, that says more about our inability to focus on the real problems. And our desires to have distractions and to be consumed with people's personal lives and gossip."

Some sanctimonious people want to make it a race thing. How dare she adopt a, gasp, black child! I guess the idea is black kids are better left with their own kind than being seen with white women? How Klan-ish.

Others appear to be concerned that she will raise her child in Kabbalah. Teaching your child your beliefs? What is the world coming to?

Aren't there more important things in the world to discuss than who Madonna chooses to adopt?