Your Alert Header
Your alert message goes here.
A great week 15 matchup even though it was an inter-conference matchup between the Bears and Jets. The Bears were 15-1 in the 1985 regular season and the Jets were 11-5. The Jets, Los Angeles Raiders and perhaps the Cleveland Browns were the top three underachievers of the NFL in the 1980s, at least in the AFC. You could argue that even though the Bears won Super Bowl 20 and won an NFC Championship and played in three NFC Finals in the 1980s, they or the Raiders were the biggest underachievers of that decade.
Because as dominate as the Raiders were in 1985 they almost looked mediocre at least in comparison for the rest of that decade. The Raiders won two Supers Bowls in the 1980s. But continued to have great talent throughout that decade and yet were barely a playoff team after they won Super Bowl 18 in 84. But the Jets were just as good talent wise as the Raiders and Bears on both offense and defense from 81-82, until 86. And only played in one conference championship. When they lost to an inferior Miami Dolphins team in 1982. This was a great matchup on paper, but a battle of underachievers, in the Bears-Jets.
I just looked it up and the Baltimore Stars were 10-7-1 in 1985 and yet they won the USFL Championship that season. Not exactly a great record for a championship team. That would be like a 9-7 record in the NFL. Teams with records like that generally barely make the playoffs and don’t do much in the playoffs, or just miss the playoffs. But generally don’t go all the way. But if you listen to the commentary of this game, they are talking about after the first two games of the season, the Stars were still winless. And turning the ball over a lot and not scoring touchdowns in the red zone.
The Memphis Showboats were 11-7 in 1985 and also made the playoffs, but didn’t go very far. Solid record with a solid team, but not exactly championship material as their record would indicate. A defensive oriented running team, that played fairly conservatively on offense. The Stars were fairly similar in style, but with a better quarterback in Chuck Fusina, a better passing game and a great running back in Kelvin Bryant. Who would go on to the NFL with the Redskins. And be a major factor in the 1987 Redskins Super Bowl Championship team. So this was a very good matchup with two very tough teams with very good defenses.
Reason: Hit & Run: Nick Gillespie: Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA: You’re Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex
This whole so-called religious freedom law debate which is really what this isn’t about, but about creating some new right for people who are lets face it, are homophobic and hate homosexuality, is not about expanding religious freedom, or protecting religious freedom. It’s about creating a right for people who are so against homosexuality to the point they view gays as second-class citizens and not deserving of the same rights as straits, to discriminate against people simply because they are gay.
When business’s go public and are open for the public, they are exactly that. Whose the public? It’s all of us and all of our races, ethnicities and yes even sexualities. If you don’t want to serve the public, then open a private club and have it open for private membership only. And with your club you could only allow Christians, or Anglos, or Caucasians in general, or men, or straits of whoever you want your club to be open to, to serve. But if you run a store or a restaurant or some other business that is open to the public, than that is what you are. And you can’t deny service to people simply because you don’t like their race, color, ethnicity, or sexuality.
Protecting gays equal access to America is not about creating new rights for people. Since they already have the same rights as straits anyway. Fundamentalists Christian men aren’t being told that they have to bang men, or go to jail! And fundamentalist Christian women aren’t being told they have to bang women, or go to jail! If they want to continue to believe that gay sex and homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, but people banging their cousins, or aunts, or uncles is perfectly legitimate and if anything should be expanded, then they are more than welcome to continue to believe in those things. And be looked down upon as the ignorant idiots that they are. But a public business can’t deny access to people simple because of who they are.
First of all, just to speak of Susan Rook at CNN. I miss her, I wish she would come back. She’s so freakin cute and sweet and makes hard news worth listening to and watching just with her beautiful baby-face and sweet voice. She still looks great today from the few shots I’ve seen of her online. And works as a photographer and as an agent. She’s still pretty active, just not as a news anchor.
Now as far as Pelican Bay, maybe I should be careful how I put this, but if there’s such a thing as a human zoo it would be called Pelican Bay. Or the Colorado State Maximum Security Prison. Except that animals at zoos are able to move around in their yard and are probably outside most of the day. And can eat as much as they can handle and get plenty of exercise. As well as both human and animal contact. You get almost none of that if you’re an inmate at Pelican Bay.
I’m sure most if not all the inmates at Pelican Bay are quite frankly hard-core assholes who deserve to be at a maximum security prison. But there’s a right way to do that and the wrong way. The wrong way treats these people as if they’re wild animals like grizzly bears or tigers or something. And when you treat people like that, that is how they’re going to behave. But if you punish bad behavior while at the same time giving people incentive to improve, that is what will happen in most cases. The whole carrot and stick approach.
Astro Kid NJ: Video: Later With Bob Costas: Camille Paglia Trashes Gloria Steinem Wing of Feminism, in 1992
Good thing that Camille Paglia was never a U.S. Senator. Because they would never be able to shut her up. They would never be able to go home, Congress would always be in session, because the Senate was always in session. The House would be on vacation, with the Senate always open for business. Well always open to listen to Camille Paglia, if they hear very fast. Congress would have to create a new police force of Sergeant of Arms who would simply be there to shut Camille Paglia up and get her to yield the floor. To some poor freshman senator, whose been waiting for months to finally be able to speak on the floor. Because Senator Paglia has been speaking the whole time.
But having said all of that, I probably agree with just about Camille Paglia says about radical Feminists. People who I call man-hating dykes who essentially hate straight men and male masculinity. And are always putting down straight men, especially Caucasian men and especially Anglo-Saxon Caucasian men with southern or rural backgrounds. It’s not feminism or Feminists who are the problem. What they believe in is very mainstream. Which is equal rights and treatment for women under law. That men and women should be treated equally under law and not given special treatment either way for simply being a man or women. Which all Americans believe in. Well everyone to the Left of Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, but not has Far-Left as radical Feminists who see women as better than men.
As far as Anita Hill, I’m one of the last people who would ever be a fan of U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas. Never heard of the man before President Bush appointed him to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1991. Shouldn’t be surprising since I was only 15 at that point. But even back then it seemed somewhat surprising to me that Anita Hill would finally make public her allegations once the Thomas Senate confirmations hearings finally started in I believe October of 1991. Maybe Professor Hill thought she should’ve been the one appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, instead of her former boss Clarence Thomas.
I use to see Camille Paglia as the right-wing nut who put down feminism because Feminists wanted equal treatment for women. I use to put her in the same category as Ann Coulter. And saw Camille as Ann’s roommate at nut house. But thank God for education, because without that I wouldn’t of learned more about her and learn that it is not feminism, equal rights, equal treatment that she was putting down. She was putting down militant feminism and political correctness. Bill Maher had the best line in this video that he called his show Politically Incorrect, because he wanted to give liberalism a good name. That is sort of what Camille Paglia is about as well.
Maher and Paglia are two of the most anti-politically correct people you’ll ever meet. They aren’t fans of political correctness from either the Left or Right and most of it probably does come from Left. Political correctness are about as illiberal and anti-liberal as anything can get. Because it violates the most important aspect of liberalism and personal freedom. Which is the right to speech and the ability for people to express themselves and speak openly. Because someone in the political correctness, the Far-Left really will be offended by it. “Making jokes about Caucasian men and right-wing women is okay, but everyone else is unacceptable.” For political correctness supporters.
And what Camille Paglia and perhaps Bill Maher are saying is that the problem with feminism is not feminism. But militant feminism, this idea that women shouldn’t be treated equally, but better. And there other issue has to do with political correctness. That again people should feel free to express themselves especially if they are correct, even if that means it might offend someone. Like racial or ethnic minorities, women of all ethnicities and races. Or the political correctness Left. That people should be able to be themselves and express themselves, but then they also make themselves open to criticism as well.
Give Camille Paglia five minutes to talk and two days later she might still be speaking and about the same subject. She seems very pissed off and energized in this interview. But I actually agree with a lot of the points that she’s making here about feminism. That she’s a feminist in the sense that she believes in equal rights and equal opportunity. That women or men shouldn’t be denied access simply for being female or male. I believe in the same things accept that as a man and a straight one at that, (ha ha) I’m not sure that I can qualify as a feminist. But maybe that is a subject or debate for a different time.
But perhaps Camille Paglia’s larger point or the one these stresses more is that women or men shouldn’t be judged better simply for being a women or man. Her critique about Feminists is not about mainstream Feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity. But against people who are called militant Feminists. People, women especially who believe that women are superior to men and therefore should be treated better and should be running the world. And those are the Feminists that I break away from not as a man, but simply as a Liberal who believes in equal rights and opportunity.