The election for the Democrat candidate for mayor of the District of Columbia ("DC") is over. The current mayor was not selected to be the Democrat candidate for the Fall election. In DC the Democrat candidate is considered a "lead-pipe cinch" to be mayor after the election vote is ended. That Democrat candidate will be the invincible Vince Gray.
For the time being The People will have to endure the present mayor, Adrian Fenty. Will he be seen bicycling about with a platoon of Metropolitan police clearing a path for "His Honor?" Most likely, Mayor Fenty will plan a few trips to fabulous locations, observing and offering advice on how to ease from an automobile culture to a bike culture. (Can surries with fringe on the top be far away, Fenty-observers wonder.)
Needless to say, Adrian Fenty was supported by The Washington Post. The Post as an institution has taken a Neo-Feudalism position for years. The rich ("Lords") and their entourage of advisers should rule a peasantry made fit by hard work and restricted, healthy diets. The rich would see that the poor had a subsistence living, and the poor peasants would send their children to fight the enemies of the rich - typically people not yet willing to give it up to the Lords.
The Washington Post, as well as the great media empires, see a progressive, even evolutionary, society as the fruit of their illuminated vision. The Lords, such as Donald Graham, will demonstrate noblesse oblige toward the teeming masses yearning to be flimflammed.
But hold on! Adrian Fenty was the choice of The Washington Post. And Adrian Fenty lost. How can this be? Has the dream of the rich been betrayed?
Savants of the people have noted that The Washington Post also supported Creigh Deeds for governor in the last Virginia election. What gives? It is true that there were rumors that Donald Graham and Catharine Weymouth thought "Creigh" was "Cree." The implication was that The Washington Post supported him because its leaders thought they were supporting a Native American.
Whatever was the case in the Virginia race, the support of the Democrat by The Washington Post proved to be useless. Now, after the people rose up in DC to cast out Adrian Fenty, also loudly supported by Donald, Catharine & company at the Post, there also arose the thought: Endorsement by The Washington Post is like a "Kiss of Death."
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
L'AMOUR ARGENTINOISE
As is often the case in the Washington, D.C. area, when driving, I find myself listening to my preferred traffic station on the radio. It is a station that tosses in weather reports, sports news, local & world news, interviews and commentaries between traffic updates. The people one encounters on it can be amusing. One such is "Dave," who is a commentator.
He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.
I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage. Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.
Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?
Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love? If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?
I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.
Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout.
As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"
Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?
I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides."
He had gone to theatrical lengths to build up the "macho" image of Richard "Dick" Cheney to make the point that if such a "real he-man" saw nothing objectionable about homosexuals openly "being homosexual" in the U.S. Army, how could mere mortals object.
I had offered a modest correction to this sham by noting that Cheney's daughter was a Lesbian presently enjoying connubial bliss with her bride-partner and that Cheney's wife was alleged to be an author of "hot Lesbian pulp novels." She allegedly used a nom de plume. My point was that "Dave's" peon to the manly Cheney might be overstated. Perhaps Mr. Cheney has a Village People's standard of manliness. Give him a rifle for a prop, and he's ready for the stage. Mere mortals might even be more macho than the former Veep.
Comes now again old "Dave" to comment theatrically about the decision of Argentina to make "same-sex" marriages legal and fully equal to those of "opposite-sex" marriages. "Dave" carefully built the image of the fiery Latin lover, who was the incarnation of heterosexual love, for the listener to consider. He mentioned the Tango, while sensuous Latin music played in the background. As an aside, he marvelled at this legal decision being accepted in a Roman Catholic country. Doesn't "Dave" know that priests' lead and the faithful follow?
Generally speaking, "Dave" seemed to be saying that the "Dark Ages" of heterosexual love and marriage were finally evolving into a warm, tolerant "All Love" environment. After all, weren't sodomy and fistf--king just another kind of love? If that's good enough for the U.S. Army, Dick Cheney and Argentina, why would anyone object?
I have pointed out in blogs - not necessarily this one - that, if same-sex marriages were given legal status, such "married" couples would certainly adopt children. Since they do not normally reproduce according to natural procedures, their best course for continuation and even population growth reside in persuasion and abuse of innocent children placed in their care. In the latter case the abuse would begin in the mind of a child through "broadening," through a coercive "understanding" and through "lessons" in tolerance.
Incidentally, political power usually is a function of wealth, military power or effective block-voting. Numbers can mean clout.
As the Masonic culture in America demands that all travel the four roads to harmony - Liberty, Fraternity, Equality and Tolerance, "same-sex" couples, whether married or not, should find the law bulldozing away all opposition. There will certainly not be any from the Masonically infiltrated, "shell-christian" congregations, who despise discrimination as breaking the Law of Equality. Whether Roman Catholic priest or Protestant minister, the sermon is the same: "Get down and get it on!"
Incidentally, Admiral Mullen stated that the entirety of his military service included service with homosexuals. I don't believe that he ever explained exactly how he knew that they were homosexuals. Did they know that he was a heterosexual? Does he know?
I guess that it is inevitable that American soldiers will be bringing home a whole new category of "war brides."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
THE CENSUS
Our leaders and their propagandists seemed miffed that some people seemed to be slow to comply to the mailed census form. To such people, it is a really annoying situation. They pretend to be calm, rational people, but their commentary betrays this guise.
Such an instance occurred today, as I was driving and listening to my usual traffic & weather station. One of their commentators began by mentioning the census form that had been mailed 0ut to every known household. Striking an air of surprise, he then stated that 2/3 of the households in Virginia had not yet complied. His indignation rising, he then opined that these were probably the same people who complain about their constitutional rights being lessened or threatened.
Although this hypothesis was stated without adducing any evidence, thus amounting to an ipse dixit argument, he inveighed against the paranoia exhibited by these tardy-filing Virginians. Here his voice had risen, and he had informed it with indignant emotion. Therefore, to his original, unimpressive argument he now added what amounted to argumentum ad hominem, meaning an argument against the person as opposed to what the person said, or argued. In this instance, he was denouncing the "paranoid" folly of 2/3 of Virignians, roughly, each of whom was guilty of the same charge. The fact that his argument was an informal fallacy could not possibly sway him. He was now lost in his fantasy of willful non-compliance. He fumed at the absurdity of Virginians claiming their constitutional rights had been violated when the constitution specifically stated that a census must be taken every ten years, wherein the number of citizens would be ascertained. Talk about setting up a strawman issue!
Personally, I have no idea why not all Virginians have complied. Usually, there are reasons, such as concentrating on the tax filing, Spring fever, and on and on.
Having "school-marmed" all listening Virginians on the fact that the census form was composed of only ten questions, this commentator petulantly informed them that being paranoid about the census was not a "core value."(The "core" may have been spelled differently but sounded according to the idiom.)
If setting up a non sequitur and then ranting about it is informed commentary, then I believe that such commentary will be ignored by Virginians, who will direct their attention at a sudden stretch of very pleasant weather and enjoy it. That is a Virginian's "core value." Being Hectored by Census Bureau "shills" is not.
Such an instance occurred today, as I was driving and listening to my usual traffic & weather station. One of their commentators began by mentioning the census form that had been mailed 0ut to every known household. Striking an air of surprise, he then stated that 2/3 of the households in Virginia had not yet complied. His indignation rising, he then opined that these were probably the same people who complain about their constitutional rights being lessened or threatened.
Although this hypothesis was stated without adducing any evidence, thus amounting to an ipse dixit argument, he inveighed against the paranoia exhibited by these tardy-filing Virginians. Here his voice had risen, and he had informed it with indignant emotion. Therefore, to his original, unimpressive argument he now added what amounted to argumentum ad hominem, meaning an argument against the person as opposed to what the person said, or argued. In this instance, he was denouncing the "paranoid" folly of 2/3 of Virignians, roughly, each of whom was guilty of the same charge. The fact that his argument was an informal fallacy could not possibly sway him. He was now lost in his fantasy of willful non-compliance. He fumed at the absurdity of Virginians claiming their constitutional rights had been violated when the constitution specifically stated that a census must be taken every ten years, wherein the number of citizens would be ascertained. Talk about setting up a strawman issue!
Personally, I have no idea why not all Virginians have complied. Usually, there are reasons, such as concentrating on the tax filing, Spring fever, and on and on.
Having "school-marmed" all listening Virginians on the fact that the census form was composed of only ten questions, this commentator petulantly informed them that being paranoid about the census was not a "core value."(The "core" may have been spelled differently but sounded according to the idiom.)
If setting up a non sequitur and then ranting about it is informed commentary, then I believe that such commentary will be ignored by Virginians, who will direct their attention at a sudden stretch of very pleasant weather and enjoy it. That is a Virginian's "core value." Being Hectored by Census Bureau "shills" is not.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
RICHARD "DICK" CHENEY - MACHO MAN?
Although Mr. Richard Cheney, former Vice President of the United States of America in the time of "W." was characterized as a "hard-liner" on Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan and Iran), should he be considered a tough "man's man?" Does tough-talking backed by the muscle and blood of several hundred thousand soldiers constitute the essence of manliness? Could there be any possibility that a snarling, fang-baring dog wasn't actually up to a flesh-and-blood fight?
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
D.C. METRO BREATHES SIGH OF RELIEF
There was a collective sigh of relief when Dan Snyder finally made a choice of football coach for the Redskins 2010 season. Whispering had become gale force. Fear was in the air.
Some knowledgeable Snyder-watchers felt certain that he could not restrain his wild, impulsive nature. Gamblers were beginning to lay bets with bookies, and the name "Joe Paterno" was increasingly being offered as a "Snyder-type coach."
Joe Paterno offered the Redskins owner a stellar, "winningest-coach ever" type of reputaton. Paterno would offer Dan Snyder the sublime pleasure of fooling everyone by "pulling a rabbit out of his hat" with a coach whose reputation and record were such that even the most savage Snyder critic would have to agree that his choice was outstanding. Frankly, no one would want to criticize Joe Paterno. It would be in football culture the equivalent of "dissing" America.
Perhaps because he has had such a beating by critics of the Redskins' performance over the last few years, Dan Snyder apparently opted for a "safe" selection: a former Super Bowl-winning coach. How Mr. Mike Shanahan performs as coach of the Redskins can't be known at this time. I'm confident Washington Redskins fans will welcome and support him - at least for three games.
Yet, some of Washington's savviest fans cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to have Joe Paterno commanding the Redskins into battle.
Some knowledgeable Snyder-watchers felt certain that he could not restrain his wild, impulsive nature. Gamblers were beginning to lay bets with bookies, and the name "Joe Paterno" was increasingly being offered as a "Snyder-type coach."
Joe Paterno offered the Redskins owner a stellar, "winningest-coach ever" type of reputaton. Paterno would offer Dan Snyder the sublime pleasure of fooling everyone by "pulling a rabbit out of his hat" with a coach whose reputation and record were such that even the most savage Snyder critic would have to agree that his choice was outstanding. Frankly, no one would want to criticize Joe Paterno. It would be in football culture the equivalent of "dissing" America.
Perhaps because he has had such a beating by critics of the Redskins' performance over the last few years, Dan Snyder apparently opted for a "safe" selection: a former Super Bowl-winning coach. How Mr. Mike Shanahan performs as coach of the Redskins can't be known at this time. I'm confident Washington Redskins fans will welcome and support him - at least for three games.
Yet, some of Washington's savviest fans cannot help but wonder what it would have been like to have Joe Paterno commanding the Redskins into battle.
Monday, December 28, 2009
D.C. VS BILLBOARDS
Once again, Mayor Adrian Fenty has managed to appear peculiar. In this case there may be more than a little element of D.C. politicking. The mayor has got to start preparing for his next race for mayor. Fortunately, an absentee mayor has never been a political handicap in Washington, D.C. A mayor here is expected to enjoy as many "perks" as possible, while in office. Life is short; get what you can.
If the mayor is such a typical D.C. mayor, why do I dare to employ the word "peculiar?"
Today's news by television developed the issue of Mayor Fenty making a move against billboard advertisers in the District of Columbia. Apparently, a neighborhood association was organized to force the removal of unwanted billboards, which had long urged the public to buy this or that. As I recall there were two - possibly three - billboards involved. As far as I could tell, they provided a visual shield against some unsightly, abandoned houses.
As I previously mentioned, electioneering has already begun. Mayor Fenty has suddenly become attentive to the desires of this association formed to remove billboards from the city. This group does not appear to be without ambitions to "bring change" to the whole city. Mayor Fenty doesn't want to be their victim; there's just too much of the world he has not yet visited. He NEEDS another term of office.
Does this make him peculiar? No, it does not.
What is peculiar about the entire matter is that the buildings of District of Columbia are often given over to "artists" to paint images on building walls. Few of these have artistic merit. There are hundreds of buildings that have been "improved" by artist, craftsmen, amateurs (adult and children), and vandals. Some D.C. buildings have several images which make the word "primitive" seem suggestive of Michelangelo. They are eye-sores! The District government is very proud of this kindergarten image-making.
On the other hand the companies that construct the ad imagery include skillful photographers, models, set designers and ad copy. At least the imagery making falls under the category of "commercial art." If it is a lesser and more meretricious form of art, it still maintains the title of "art." This word cannot be said to truthfully apply to 90% or more of the image-making seen on District buildings' sides, backs, and even fronts. They are frivolous and without merit.
Parenthetically, the huge ads of commercial artists that sometimes can be seen from the East-West Freeway on adjacent buildings might arguably be described as "traffic hazards," due to the use of strikingly good-looking women in imagery that pitches a sale to the passing traffic. This can't be said for the District's beloved "The People's Collages" festooning the walls of many hapless buildings.
What is odd is that from top to bottom in the District of Columbia, this image-making with oils, spray-paint, and the like is viewed warmly as expressing the "diversity of inspiration" among the people of this city. Virtually no one in the District can distinguish a traditionally Western standard of beauty from a traditionally Western perception of ugly and incompetent.
The latter point underlies the District's descent into the egalitarian false-view of "It's all good!" In this limited sense, the District may be a kind of negative avant-garde leader, with the rest of America falling into the "V" formation which is typical of geese. In the District even the heads of famous Art Museums applaud the "people's art."
Can one praise or respect people of low standards - or none at all? This is the ugly essence of the movers and shakers of the District, as well as the masses of incompetent "artists" dwelling therein. Since the rest of the people are very comfortable with either, there is no real diversity in the District. The District is a confederation of people of pre-primitive sensibilities.
If the mayor is such a typical D.C. mayor, why do I dare to employ the word "peculiar?"
Today's news by television developed the issue of Mayor Fenty making a move against billboard advertisers in the District of Columbia. Apparently, a neighborhood association was organized to force the removal of unwanted billboards, which had long urged the public to buy this or that. As I recall there were two - possibly three - billboards involved. As far as I could tell, they provided a visual shield against some unsightly, abandoned houses.
As I previously mentioned, electioneering has already begun. Mayor Fenty has suddenly become attentive to the desires of this association formed to remove billboards from the city. This group does not appear to be without ambitions to "bring change" to the whole city. Mayor Fenty doesn't want to be their victim; there's just too much of the world he has not yet visited. He NEEDS another term of office.
Does this make him peculiar? No, it does not.
What is peculiar about the entire matter is that the buildings of District of Columbia are often given over to "artists" to paint images on building walls. Few of these have artistic merit. There are hundreds of buildings that have been "improved" by artist, craftsmen, amateurs (adult and children), and vandals. Some D.C. buildings have several images which make the word "primitive" seem suggestive of Michelangelo. They are eye-sores! The District government is very proud of this kindergarten image-making.
On the other hand the companies that construct the ad imagery include skillful photographers, models, set designers and ad copy. At least the imagery making falls under the category of "commercial art." If it is a lesser and more meretricious form of art, it still maintains the title of "art." This word cannot be said to truthfully apply to 90% or more of the image-making seen on District buildings' sides, backs, and even fronts. They are frivolous and without merit.
Parenthetically, the huge ads of commercial artists that sometimes can be seen from the East-West Freeway on adjacent buildings might arguably be described as "traffic hazards," due to the use of strikingly good-looking women in imagery that pitches a sale to the passing traffic. This can't be said for the District's beloved "The People's Collages" festooning the walls of many hapless buildings.
What is odd is that from top to bottom in the District of Columbia, this image-making with oils, spray-paint, and the like is viewed warmly as expressing the "diversity of inspiration" among the people of this city. Virtually no one in the District can distinguish a traditionally Western standard of beauty from a traditionally Western perception of ugly and incompetent.
The latter point underlies the District's descent into the egalitarian false-view of "It's all good!" In this limited sense, the District may be a kind of negative avant-garde leader, with the rest of America falling into the "V" formation which is typical of geese. In the District even the heads of famous Art Museums applaud the "people's art."
Can one praise or respect people of low standards - or none at all? This is the ugly essence of the movers and shakers of the District, as well as the masses of incompetent "artists" dwelling therein. Since the rest of the people are very comfortable with either, there is no real diversity in the District. The District is a confederation of people of pre-primitive sensibilities.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
SKINS SCALPED
As a working stiff, I haven't had an opportunity to see the Washington Redskins play this year. As there has been so much controversy amongst the various elements of Redskins Inc., I thought I'd take a look at the Monday Night Football. In that featured game the Redskins would take on the New York Giants.
There was much chatter about Mr. Daniel Snyder hiring Mr. Bruce Allen as the new "general manager" of the Redskins, what that might mean to the future of Jim Zorn, the present football coach, and what it meant to the team and to the fans. Sports pundits perused every angle.
With that as a preface, I made bold to get a network featuring the Monday Night Football game to manifest itself on my quirky television. I succeeded.
Almost immediately I saw that this game was between a good professional football team (Giants) and Confusion Incarnate. The Redskins football team played such an inconceivably inept game that one wondered how they managed to maintain their status as a "National Football League" team.
Then it occurred to me that there may have been a plot amongst certain Redskins to "throw the game" to hasten the exit of Jim Zorn. I do recall Jason Campbell during the training camp period making some comment about Coach Zorn's "little arm." The reference was to the coach (a former quarterback) tossing a few balls to illustrate how he wanted a pass thrown on a certain pattern. Basically, I sensed then that Coach Zorn wasn't really respected by important elements of the team.
If the players aren't "into" a coach by one means or the other, he's going to have a hard time melding them into a team with a common purpose. Instead, there will be a bunch of individuals out there, each of whom cherishes his own thing. Patterns are run by receivers according to how they think they should be run, while the quarterback throws according to how he thinks the patterns should be run. The coach has his own views about how patterns should be run, but his results are so poorly realized that an new offensive play-caller is brought in midstream. He, too, has his view of how a pattern should be run. Professional anarchy replaced professional football.
Jason Campbell got so little protection from his offensive line that he became "unglued." How could anyone focus with several Giant hands swatting at his head on every play? Further, Campbell's short passes were so inept that they brought back memories of Redskin QB Schroeder. It can't help when one is 6' 4" and one's receivers are 5' 9", while Giants are pouring into the backfield.
There were laughable plays by the Redskins in this game. Not good!
Jim Zorn appears at press time as a pathetic, stupified mensch, blandly reaching for some credible comment to serve the wolves now gathered for the feast.
The Giant dominance was so complete that they were grinning from ear-to-ear half way through the second quarter. Party time!
I did have to commend No. 44 of the Giants, who ran very well. Eli Manning, Giant QB, also looked good. If the Giants get into the Play-Offs, they may go far. Getting hot at the right time is more important than regular season records.
If the Redskins didn't purposely "dog" or "tank," then they must be judged to be a frivolous bunch without much merit. There are too many chiefs in the organization and too few braves. If they had any pride, they might offer to give back some of their pay. Not that Mr. Snyder needs it, but it might go to some worthy cause.
There was much chatter about Mr. Daniel Snyder hiring Mr. Bruce Allen as the new "general manager" of the Redskins, what that might mean to the future of Jim Zorn, the present football coach, and what it meant to the team and to the fans. Sports pundits perused every angle.
With that as a preface, I made bold to get a network featuring the Monday Night Football game to manifest itself on my quirky television. I succeeded.
Almost immediately I saw that this game was between a good professional football team (Giants) and Confusion Incarnate. The Redskins football team played such an inconceivably inept game that one wondered how they managed to maintain their status as a "National Football League" team.
Then it occurred to me that there may have been a plot amongst certain Redskins to "throw the game" to hasten the exit of Jim Zorn. I do recall Jason Campbell during the training camp period making some comment about Coach Zorn's "little arm." The reference was to the coach (a former quarterback) tossing a few balls to illustrate how he wanted a pass thrown on a certain pattern. Basically, I sensed then that Coach Zorn wasn't really respected by important elements of the team.
If the players aren't "into" a coach by one means or the other, he's going to have a hard time melding them into a team with a common purpose. Instead, there will be a bunch of individuals out there, each of whom cherishes his own thing. Patterns are run by receivers according to how they think they should be run, while the quarterback throws according to how he thinks the patterns should be run. The coach has his own views about how patterns should be run, but his results are so poorly realized that an new offensive play-caller is brought in midstream. He, too, has his view of how a pattern should be run. Professional anarchy replaced professional football.
Jason Campbell got so little protection from his offensive line that he became "unglued." How could anyone focus with several Giant hands swatting at his head on every play? Further, Campbell's short passes were so inept that they brought back memories of Redskin QB Schroeder. It can't help when one is 6' 4" and one's receivers are 5' 9", while Giants are pouring into the backfield.
There were laughable plays by the Redskins in this game. Not good!
Jim Zorn appears at press time as a pathetic, stupified mensch, blandly reaching for some credible comment to serve the wolves now gathered for the feast.
The Giant dominance was so complete that they were grinning from ear-to-ear half way through the second quarter. Party time!
I did have to commend No. 44 of the Giants, who ran very well. Eli Manning, Giant QB, also looked good. If the Giants get into the Play-Offs, they may go far. Getting hot at the right time is more important than regular season records.
If the Redskins didn't purposely "dog" or "tank," then they must be judged to be a frivolous bunch without much merit. There are too many chiefs in the organization and too few braves. If they had any pride, they might offer to give back some of their pay. Not that Mr. Snyder needs it, but it might go to some worthy cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)