I was doing a search of the recent Amazon sales figures for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and stumbled upon a marvelous discovery: In Amazon's "Literature and Fiction/Classics" category, Atlas Shrugged is the #1 best-seller!
Even better, the #2 best-selling "Classic" is also Atlas Shrugged, just another version of the paperback. The #3 best-seller is The Federalist Papers. And the #4 best-seller is, amazingly, Atlas Shrugged again!
Rounding out the top ten are Fahrenheit 451 (#7), Thomas Paine's Common Sense (#8), and Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (#9).
People are starting to sit up and pay attention to what is going on in the world around them.
Woo hoo!
--Dan Edge
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
New York Tea Party!
On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli of CNBC News called for a Chicago Tea Party to oppose the Stimulus Bill and the socialist philosophy it represents. Over the past week, Tea Party protests have already been organized in 40 cities across the nation. I'm happy to say that City Hall Park (Facebook link) in New York City will be the site of one such protest. It's happening this Saturday (2/28) from 2pm to 3pm at City Hall Park in Manhattan.
My wife and I will be there, with poster signs and tea bags in hand. Several of our friends are coming, too, and we're going out to dinner after the protest. I hope to see you there!
Spread the word...
--Dan Edge
My wife and I will be there, with poster signs and tea bags in hand. Several of our friends are coming, too, and we're going out to dinner after the protest. I hope to see you there!
Spread the word...
--Dan Edge
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Greenspan: A Bigger Traitor Than I Thought
Should I not have been surprised that Alan Greenspan is now calling for the nationalization of US banks? I never expected the man to fall so low. My wife Kelly says it didn't surprise her, but I was truly shocked.
What a f**king traitor. We need a YAAFM Greenspan.
--Dan Edge
What a f**king traitor. We need a YAAFM Greenspan.
--Dan Edge
Friday, January 30, 2009
Distribute The Undercurrent
The Undercurrent (TU) is an independent, student-run Objectivist newspaper distributed twice a year at college campuses across America. TU is currently looking for distributors and donors for its Spring 2009 edition.
If you would like to distribute, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/order and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please email us at distributors@the-undercurrent.com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.
If you don't have time to distribute, but would like to help us spread rational ideas in academia, you may want to consider donating to TU. A relatively small amount of money can make a big difference. For example, donating $26.50 gets 250 copies of TU distributed at a college campus in United States! And because TU is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, donations are tax deductible. Please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal.
If you have any questions about distributing or donating, please email us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.
Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place.
Thank you for your support.
The Undercurrent
If you would like to distribute, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/order and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please email us at distributors@the-undercurrent.com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.
If you don't have time to distribute, but would like to help us spread rational ideas in academia, you may want to consider donating to TU. A relatively small amount of money can make a big difference. For example, donating $26.50 gets 250 copies of TU distributed at a college campus in United States! And because TU is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, donations are tax deductible. Please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal.
If you have any questions about distributing or donating, please email us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.
Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place.
Thank you for your support.
The Undercurrent
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Is Barack Obama a Socialist?
The charge that Barack Obama is a socialist comes from several different sources: journalists, politicians, and many Objectivists among them. "Socialist" is used as a negative pejorative term, meant to associate Obama with bloodthirsty savages like Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao. Most who make the charge do so in an attempt to differentiate Obama from John McCain, ostensibly to advocate a McCain presidency. McCain may be a Big Government Republican with a Neo-Con running mate, the argument goes, but at least he's not an outright socialist like Obama.
But does the term apply?
Before one can answer that question, he must first determine what socialism is. (Note that this process is very different from determining what the meaning of the word "is" is.) So what is socialism? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines socialism this way:
"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"
Socialism is a political-economic system in which the government owns and controls all property. This theory is based primarily on the work of Karl Marx, an influential German philosopher who has achieved iconic status in communist countries. Marx believed that capitalism was part of a historically inevitable series of political-economic systems that would eventually result in a classless, stateless society of communes. Socialism, he thought, was a transitionary system between capitalism and communism in which the working classes (the proletariat) would violently revolt against the wealthy (the bourgeoisie), and establish a dictatorship in which the government owned and distributed all property.
So in asking whether Obama is a socialist, one is really asking: Does Obama believe that the government should own and distribute all means of production? Does he believe that rule by the proletariat is historically inevitable? Is he planning for a violent overthrow of the incumbent capitalist system?
One could argue that the answer to the first of these questions is "yes." Obama is pushing for higher taxes and more government controls. He wants to take money from the bourgois to give it to the proletariat. But a desire for bigger government does not make one a socialist. There are many different belief systems which advocate government control over property: Facism, Sharia Law, and other forms of theology, just to name a few. All these political systems are collectivist and statist, but they are not all socialist. Socialism is something very specific, as outlined above.
My conclusion is that Obama is not a socialist, any more than McCain is a socialist. Though their rhetoric differs (in non-essential ways), they both advocate some mixture of statism and capitalism. Both will increase the size of the federal government. Both support government intervention in the banking system, as we saw a few weeks ago. Both support welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. Both support reducing "emissions" to save Mother Earth. On nearly every major policy issue, Obama and McCain are indistinguishable.
Why do I make this point so strongly? Well for one, because it makes no sense to base one's vote on misapplied terminology. The term "socialism" is being tossed around as if it's synonymous with statism. Socialism is an emotionally charged word which incites visions of the dictatorships in U.S.S.R., North Korea, and China. If you are planning to vote against Obama simply because you think him a "socialist" while McCain is not, then I advise you to reconsider.
Also, as rational men we should be specific in our identifications of ideologies and their adherents. If Ayn Rand was right, and I believe she was, then it is ideology (philosophy) which moves the world. Properly identifying ideological movements is critically important to determining in what direction a nation is moving. In my opinion, socialism is dead, and has been dead for decades. No one believes in the historical inevitability of communism any more. No one believes that the proletariat will initiate a violent overthrow of government all over the world. These ideas have been so thoroughly discredited (and even demonized in the U.S.), that no one in the Western World takes them seriously any more.
But that does not mean that statism is dead. Statism is alive and well, but in the U.S., it still lacks an integrated, organized ideological movement to serve as its vehicle. Some have argued that the Neo-cons, with their "compassionate conservatism," now qualify as the most integrated movement advocating statism. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is definitely something we should be thinking about. Throwing the "socialism" charge around only muddies the issue further.
--Dan Edge
But does the term apply?
Before one can answer that question, he must first determine what socialism is. (Note that this process is very different from determining what the meaning of the word "is" is.) So what is socialism? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines socialism this way:
"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"
Socialism is a political-economic system in which the government owns and controls all property. This theory is based primarily on the work of Karl Marx, an influential German philosopher who has achieved iconic status in communist countries. Marx believed that capitalism was part of a historically inevitable series of political-economic systems that would eventually result in a classless, stateless society of communes. Socialism, he thought, was a transitionary system between capitalism and communism in which the working classes (the proletariat) would violently revolt against the wealthy (the bourgeoisie), and establish a dictatorship in which the government owned and distributed all property.
So in asking whether Obama is a socialist, one is really asking: Does Obama believe that the government should own and distribute all means of production? Does he believe that rule by the proletariat is historically inevitable? Is he planning for a violent overthrow of the incumbent capitalist system?
One could argue that the answer to the first of these questions is "yes." Obama is pushing for higher taxes and more government controls. He wants to take money from the bourgois to give it to the proletariat. But a desire for bigger government does not make one a socialist. There are many different belief systems which advocate government control over property: Facism, Sharia Law, and other forms of theology, just to name a few. All these political systems are collectivist and statist, but they are not all socialist. Socialism is something very specific, as outlined above.
My conclusion is that Obama is not a socialist, any more than McCain is a socialist. Though their rhetoric differs (in non-essential ways), they both advocate some mixture of statism and capitalism. Both will increase the size of the federal government. Both support government intervention in the banking system, as we saw a few weeks ago. Both support welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. Both support reducing "emissions" to save Mother Earth. On nearly every major policy issue, Obama and McCain are indistinguishable.
Why do I make this point so strongly? Well for one, because it makes no sense to base one's vote on misapplied terminology. The term "socialism" is being tossed around as if it's synonymous with statism. Socialism is an emotionally charged word which incites visions of the dictatorships in U.S.S.R., North Korea, and China. If you are planning to vote against Obama simply because you think him a "socialist" while McCain is not, then I advise you to reconsider.
Also, as rational men we should be specific in our identifications of ideologies and their adherents. If Ayn Rand was right, and I believe she was, then it is ideology (philosophy) which moves the world. Properly identifying ideological movements is critically important to determining in what direction a nation is moving. In my opinion, socialism is dead, and has been dead for decades. No one believes in the historical inevitability of communism any more. No one believes that the proletariat will initiate a violent overthrow of government all over the world. These ideas have been so thoroughly discredited (and even demonized in the U.S.), that no one in the Western World takes them seriously any more.
But that does not mean that statism is dead. Statism is alive and well, but in the U.S., it still lacks an integrated, organized ideological movement to serve as its vehicle. Some have argued that the Neo-cons, with their "compassionate conservatism," now qualify as the most integrated movement advocating statism. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is definitely something we should be thinking about. Throwing the "socialism" charge around only muddies the issue further.
--Dan Edge
Friday, October 10, 2008
Bailout Crack
This article was posted on The Undercurrent blog. Please visit The Undercurrent for other articles on the financial crisis.
In a knee-jerk reaction to panic and fear over the current financial crisis, the government issued a $700 billion dollar bailout bill last week. Rather than considering the cause of the “toxic loans” at the heart of this crisis, Congress decided that it had to immediately do something—anything.
What politicians fail to realize, however, is that they are the ones that got us into this mess, and this bailout will only further exacerbate the problem. It is government meddling in the economy that caused the mortgage meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Fed’s ability to manipulate interest rates each have contributed handsomely to the disaster. These government policies are the primary cause of the financial crisis, yet our president and both houses of Congress agree that still more government intervention is the only solution.
It is as if a man went to the hospital with low blood pressure and a low heart rate, and the doctor prescribed crack cocaine to treat his symptoms. After all, crack will raise the patient’s heart rate and blood pressure for a while, and even give him a temporary feeling of euphoria. But over the long term, using crack will severely weaken his heart and mind, making him an easy target for any infectious disease that comes along.
This is exactly what the Bailout Bill will do: temporarily treat the symptoms while allowing the disease (government intervention in the economy) to metastasize further. The only way to preserve long-term economic health in America is to attack the disease at its source. End Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, neuter the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development, repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and take away the Fed’s power to tamper with naturally functioning markets.
--Dan Edge
In a knee-jerk reaction to panic and fear over the current financial crisis, the government issued a $700 billion dollar bailout bill last week. Rather than considering the cause of the “toxic loans” at the heart of this crisis, Congress decided that it had to immediately do something—anything.
What politicians fail to realize, however, is that they are the ones that got us into this mess, and this bailout will only further exacerbate the problem. It is government meddling in the economy that caused the mortgage meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Fed’s ability to manipulate interest rates each have contributed handsomely to the disaster. These government policies are the primary cause of the financial crisis, yet our president and both houses of Congress agree that still more government intervention is the only solution.
It is as if a man went to the hospital with low blood pressure and a low heart rate, and the doctor prescribed crack cocaine to treat his symptoms. After all, crack will raise the patient’s heart rate and blood pressure for a while, and even give him a temporary feeling of euphoria. But over the long term, using crack will severely weaken his heart and mind, making him an easy target for any infectious disease that comes along.
This is exactly what the Bailout Bill will do: temporarily treat the symptoms while allowing the disease (government intervention in the economy) to metastasize further. The only way to preserve long-term economic health in America is to attack the disease at its source. End Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, neuter the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development, repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and take away the Fed’s power to tamper with naturally functioning markets.
--Dan Edge
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Get Over Yourself!
Or: Selfishness vs. Self-Centeredness in Meeting New People
--Dan Edge
For Objectivists, selfishness is a moral ideal. It is proper for man to act in his own self-interest, and his own happiness ought to be his highest moral purpose. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships, some Objectivists misconstrue the meaning of “selfishness” to mean “self-centeredness.” When meeting new people, or in building relationships, they tend to ignore the values of others. This misinterpretation of the Objectivist ethics implies a failure to recognize the great potential value of other rational beings. One who commits this error can develop and reinforce a social ineptness that cripples his ability to develop relationships.
To illustrate my point, I will take a simple example that everyone can relate to: meeting new people. How does the (rational) selfish man get to know a new person? How about the self-centered man?
[Before one can get to know new people, he must be around them. One will not meet many people by sitting around his apartment all day, every day. Some self-centered men never get to the point of meeting new people because they believe that they ought to be entirely “self-sufficient,” with no need of friendships or romantic love. But I will leave this issue aside for now, and focus on the method that a selfish vs. self-centered man uses to get to know new people.]
The self-centered man (implicitly) believes that his own thoughts, interests, and values ought to be the focus of any effort to develop a new relationship. When he meets a new person, his objective is to tell that person all about himself. “This is what I do for a living, this is what I’m passionate about, these are my interests, etc.” Of course, he will listen to what the new person has to say, but that is not his primary objective. For the self-centered man, the natural course of conversation is: I tell you as much as possible about myself, and you tell me as much as possible about yourself. The self-centered man evaluates new people, not on the basis of their values, but on how they respond to his values. For him, that is what getting to know people means.
As anyone who has met this kind of person will attest, the self-centered approach can come across as aloof, snobby, rude, or disinterested. One gets the impression: “This person is not at all interested in getting to know me, only in telling me about himself.” The self-centered man does not treat new people as potential values. Potential values are to be probed, investigated, and evaluated. How can one evaluate a new person if he makes no effort to discover that which he is evaluating? Though he may not intend it, the self-centered man sends the message that he does not see new people as a value (except as receptacles for information about himself). Not surprisingly, this turns people off.
Since many aspects of one’s personality become automatized, the self-centered man may get the feeling that he is socially awkward, but he doesn’t know why. Social ineptness due to self-centeredness can build on itself, as one automatizes the impression that new people do not value him properly. If the above example describes how you get to know new people, then I advise you to reevaluate your methodology. If one takes the self-centered approach in meeting new people, then he is more likely to be a self-centered friend and a self-centered lover. A friend who doesn’t take stake in your values is not a friend. The lover who is uninterested in your interests is a shitty boyfriend.
How then does the (properly) selfish man approach meeting new people? Because he views other human beings as potential values, he aims to explore the nature of those values. His objective is not to talk about himself, but to explore the values of others. He tries to make the new person comfortable, asks questions, and strives to relate the new person’s values to his own. Of course the selfish man will talk about himself, but that is not his primary focus. Assuming that the new person is also selfish, the probing questions will go both ways: “So what do you do when you’re not working?” “I enjoy reading adventure books like The Three Musketeers. How about you, what are you into? Etc, etc.”
If it turns out that the new person is a dud, then the selfish man has lost nothing. But if the new person is a potential friend (or lover), then he has taken the first step toward treating this person properly as a value. Such an attitude is obvious to others, and is most often greatly appreciated. If you have ever met a man who tried his best to make you comfortable, showed interest in your interests, and strived to relate your values to his -- then you know what I’m talking about. These selfish men are the very definition of social aptitude. They are the men who make friends, influence people, nail the interview, and get the girl. The selfish approach also can become automatized in the subconscious, giving one a feeling of confidence in his social interactions.
The selfishness vs. self-centeredness misunderstanding is fairly common among Objectivists. It’s an easy error to make, but it can be a difficult one to rectify. If you value relationships, make sure you take the selfish approach. And get over yourself already! :)
--Dan Edge
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Praise Galt for Football VI - NCAA
On to the NCAA. I'm getting a late start since it's already two weeks in to the season, but at least now I can make a more informed prediction. I'm skipping a few of the lesser Div 1 conferences (like the WAC and Mountain West) because I'm unfamiliar with them and they're unlikely to make much of an impact on the season.
ACC: Wake Forrest
For the past few years, Clemson has been picked as the favorite to win the ACC, and it stumbled out of the gate. Even if I hadn't seen the stomping the Tigers suffered at the hands of the Crimson Tide last week, I still would not have picked Clemson to win their conference. You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Tigers have consistently shown that they can't handle the pressure of being conference favorites. Wake Forrest, on the other hand, consistently outperforms preseason expectations. They step up to the challenge and win games they shouldn't. I don't know if it's the coaching, underrated recruiting, or what, but the Demon Deacons have an "it" factor that will lead them to the ACC Championship.
Big 12: Oklahoma
Oklahoma has reloaded this year, and will be as tough as ever. QB Sam Bradford threw *5* touchdown passes last week, albeit against a weaker Big East opponent. Their schedule is not all that difficult, with the only significant tests being against Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas. If Oklahoma can get past these stumbling blocks, we may see them in the National Championship Game.
Big East: Who Cares?
After losing three of its best teams (Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami) to the ACC, the Big East is basically a basketball conference. Connecticut, South Florida, and West Virginia all have decent teams, but they can't compete with any of the other major conferences (with the possible exception of the ACC, which sucks this year). That said, South Florida will probably take the crown.
Big Ten: The Ohio State
The only easier pick than this one is USC in the PAC-10. Ohio State, once again, has all the makings of a National Championship contender. They're explosive on offense, devastating on defense, have plenty of depth, and are extremely well-coached. I wouldn't be surprised if Penn State gives them a run for their money, but I think Ohio State will come out on top.
Conference USA: East Carolina
What a pleasant surprise to see an unknown East Carolina program do so well against heavy-hitting out-of-conference teams. After their victories against successive ranked opponents (Virginia Tech and West Virginia), East Carolina should be favored in every game they play for the rest of the season. Lou Holtz must have taught his son (the head coach of EC) many tricks of the trade. And this from a team in tiny Greenville, NC. Go get 'em Pirates! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is pleased...
PAC-10: USC
Duh. Are there other teams in the Pac-10? If there are, I'm not aware of them.
SEC: Florida
This is the conference I know the most about, since my Carolina Gamecocks are in the SEC. Unfortunately, my only positive prediction for the poor Gamecocks is that they will knock off one ranked team this year. They play against 6 ranked teams, so god help them if they can't beat any of them. Most of the experts are picking Georgia (the #2 ranked team) to win the SEC this year. But Georgia, like Clemson, tends to under-perform the experts' predictions. They did finish the season strong last year, but they got beat by lowly South Carolina in their SEC opener. I doubt that will happen again this year, but Georgia also has to play Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Auburn. One of these teams will take them down, probably Florida. If Georgia makes it to the SEC Championship game, they will likely have to play Auburn again. I just don't see them running this Gauntlet. My prediction: Florida vs Auburn in the SEC Championship game, with the Gators and Tim Tebow coming out on top.
National Championship Game: The Florida Gators!
I predict that the winner of Florida vs Georgia will play against the winner of Ohio State vs USC. I'm giving the nod to Florida and USC in their respective games, so I have the Gators vs the Trojans in the National Championship Game. That's a good thing for Ohio State, because it would be a shame for them to get stomped by yet another SEC team in a title game. This time, it's USC's turn to get stomped. SEC rules, and wins another National Title!
ACC: Wake Forrest
For the past few years, Clemson has been picked as the favorite to win the ACC, and it stumbled out of the gate. Even if I hadn't seen the stomping the Tigers suffered at the hands of the Crimson Tide last week, I still would not have picked Clemson to win their conference. You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Tigers have consistently shown that they can't handle the pressure of being conference favorites. Wake Forrest, on the other hand, consistently outperforms preseason expectations. They step up to the challenge and win games they shouldn't. I don't know if it's the coaching, underrated recruiting, or what, but the Demon Deacons have an "it" factor that will lead them to the ACC Championship.
Big 12: Oklahoma
Oklahoma has reloaded this year, and will be as tough as ever. QB Sam Bradford threw *5* touchdown passes last week, albeit against a weaker Big East opponent. Their schedule is not all that difficult, with the only significant tests being against Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas. If Oklahoma can get past these stumbling blocks, we may see them in the National Championship Game.
Big East: Who Cares?
After losing three of its best teams (Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami) to the ACC, the Big East is basically a basketball conference. Connecticut, South Florida, and West Virginia all have decent teams, but they can't compete with any of the other major conferences (with the possible exception of the ACC, which sucks this year). That said, South Florida will probably take the crown.
Big Ten: The Ohio State
The only easier pick than this one is USC in the PAC-10. Ohio State, once again, has all the makings of a National Championship contender. They're explosive on offense, devastating on defense, have plenty of depth, and are extremely well-coached. I wouldn't be surprised if Penn State gives them a run for their money, but I think Ohio State will come out on top.
Conference USA: East Carolina
What a pleasant surprise to see an unknown East Carolina program do so well against heavy-hitting out-of-conference teams. After their victories against successive ranked opponents (Virginia Tech and West Virginia), East Carolina should be favored in every game they play for the rest of the season. Lou Holtz must have taught his son (the head coach of EC) many tricks of the trade. And this from a team in tiny Greenville, NC. Go get 'em Pirates! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is pleased...
PAC-10: USC
Duh. Are there other teams in the Pac-10? If there are, I'm not aware of them.
SEC: Florida
This is the conference I know the most about, since my Carolina Gamecocks are in the SEC. Unfortunately, my only positive prediction for the poor Gamecocks is that they will knock off one ranked team this year. They play against 6 ranked teams, so god help them if they can't beat any of them. Most of the experts are picking Georgia (the #2 ranked team) to win the SEC this year. But Georgia, like Clemson, tends to under-perform the experts' predictions. They did finish the season strong last year, but they got beat by lowly South Carolina in their SEC opener. I doubt that will happen again this year, but Georgia also has to play Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Auburn. One of these teams will take them down, probably Florida. If Georgia makes it to the SEC Championship game, they will likely have to play Auburn again. I just don't see them running this Gauntlet. My prediction: Florida vs Auburn in the SEC Championship game, with the Gators and Tim Tebow coming out on top.
National Championship Game: The Florida Gators!
I predict that the winner of Florida vs Georgia will play against the winner of Ohio State vs USC. I'm giving the nod to Florida and USC in their respective games, so I have the Gators vs the Trojans in the National Championship Game. That's a good thing for Ohio State, because it would be a shame for them to get stomped by yet another SEC team in a title game. This time, it's USC's turn to get stomped. SEC rules, and wins another National Title!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Praise Galt for Football VI
This is the 6th annual edition of "Praise Galt for Football," in which I offer one educated fan's view of the upcoming NFL and NCAA football seasons. I'm going to try something a little different this year: I will pick a winner for each division (in the NFL) or conference (in the NCAA) and explain the reasoning behind my choice. Then I'll make a prediction for the Superbowl and NCAA Championship games.
NFL
--------
AFC North: Pittsburgh Steelers
My theme for this year's preview is: you have to beat the best to be the best. The Browns are the sexy pick to win the AFC North, but I can't go against a Pittsburgh team that has proven itself time and again. The Steelers are always tough on defense. They were 3rd against the run last year, and I see no reason that will change. Willie Parker is a bruising runner who will pound away between the tackles all year. But "Big Ben" Rothlisberger is the only one who can answer the question of whether the Steelers will make it deep into the playoffs. If he has a great year (like he did a few years ago with his 15-1 season), then the Steelers have a chance to go far. If not, then it will be an early playoff exit for Pittsburgh.
AFC South: Indianapolis Colts
I know, the Jags are always tough. I know, the Texans are getting better every year. But: you have to beat the best to be the best. It used to be the case that the Colts were an offensive powerhouse that scored a lot, but were easy to score against. Not any more, not with Tony Dungy at the helm. Their defense will only get better this year.
AFC East: New England Patriots
This is the easiest pick of all. The Jets could make a run for the wild card if Brett Favre picks up a new offense quickly and does his thing, but there's no way you can pick against the Pats unless the whole team gets killed in a plane crash or something. Even then, I'd fear the ghosts of New England!
AFC West: San Diego Chargers
Too much defense (even with an injured Merriman), too much LaDanian Tomlinson, and too much of a track record to pick any other team than San Diego in the AFC West. I'm very interested to see how two top draft picks play together in Oakland (Jamarcus Russel and Darren McFadden), but no one will pose a real challenge to the Chargers.
NFC North: Minnesota Vikings
I'm going with the experts on this one. Everyone is picking the Vikings in the NFC North, and I don't see any compelling reason to pick differently. Adrian Peterson looks poised to be a top fantasy pick this year, and unlike some other fantasy picks, his production will also lead to wins for his team. I still don't know much about QB Tavaris Jackson. He seems to manage the game well, but can he lead his team to a Super Bowl? Well, if Trent Dilfer can do it... The defensive front for Minnesota is nasty, which gives me more confidence in this pick.
NFC South: New Orleans Saints
I'd love to pick my Panthers for the NFC North, but the addition of TE Jeremy Shockey pushes the Saints over the edge for me. New Orleans will have an exciting offense this year, and Shockey will open up the passing game even more. Their defense is less than stellar, but I don't think anyone else in the NFC North can put up as many points as the Saints on game day. If Panthers 1st round draft picks RB Jonathan Stewart and OT Jeff Otah have stellar years (Stewart is my upset pick to win Offensive Rookie of the Year), and if Julius Peppers returns to his regular form, then the Panthers have a chance to take it.
NFC East: New York Giants
You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Giants were the best of the best last year. Got that? :) Everyone will be gunning for the Super Bowl champs, but I think they can handle the pressure. They will be weaker at defensive end with the loss of Umenyiora and Strahan, but they will still be tough on defense. Eli Manning has settled into his NFL career and will get steadier as the years go on. Success is in his blood. The Dallas Cowboys, however, might have the best offense in the NFC, will finish the season strong, and will earn a wild card spot.
NFC West: Arizona Cardinals
This is probably the division I know the least about, but I still have confidence in picking Arizona. Kurt Warner is no stranger to success, having experienced plenty of it in his career. He's an old man, but his team is primed to upset incumbent Seattle. The Seahawks have won the division for the past four years, but they haven't shown me much. The Cardinals have a pair of incredible receivers in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquon Boldin, and I believe veteran RB Edgerrin James has at least one great season left in him.
Super Bowl: New England Patriots vs Dallas Cowboys
How, you might ask, could I pick Dallas to lose their own division and then make it to the Super Bowl? Because I think they will get stronger as the season goes on. Their running game will wear defenses down in the playoffs. Tony Romo will get better and better as he begins the transformation from a young rising star to a solid veteran. Terrel Owens and Jason Witten will score many touchdowns. Pick a reason. And why New England? A better question would be: how could I pick anyone else besides New England? Even though they ended last season on a down note, they still made a run at history, and the team hasn't changed much.
New England is my pick to win yet another Super Bowl.
Stay tuned! I will handicap the NCAA football season within the next few days.
--Dan Edge
NFL
--------
AFC North: Pittsburgh Steelers
My theme for this year's preview is: you have to beat the best to be the best. The Browns are the sexy pick to win the AFC North, but I can't go against a Pittsburgh team that has proven itself time and again. The Steelers are always tough on defense. They were 3rd against the run last year, and I see no reason that will change. Willie Parker is a bruising runner who will pound away between the tackles all year. But "Big Ben" Rothlisberger is the only one who can answer the question of whether the Steelers will make it deep into the playoffs. If he has a great year (like he did a few years ago with his 15-1 season), then the Steelers have a chance to go far. If not, then it will be an early playoff exit for Pittsburgh.
AFC South: Indianapolis Colts
I know, the Jags are always tough. I know, the Texans are getting better every year. But: you have to beat the best to be the best. It used to be the case that the Colts were an offensive powerhouse that scored a lot, but were easy to score against. Not any more, not with Tony Dungy at the helm. Their defense will only get better this year.
AFC East: New England Patriots
This is the easiest pick of all. The Jets could make a run for the wild card if Brett Favre picks up a new offense quickly and does his thing, but there's no way you can pick against the Pats unless the whole team gets killed in a plane crash or something. Even then, I'd fear the ghosts of New England!
AFC West: San Diego Chargers
Too much defense (even with an injured Merriman), too much LaDanian Tomlinson, and too much of a track record to pick any other team than San Diego in the AFC West. I'm very interested to see how two top draft picks play together in Oakland (Jamarcus Russel and Darren McFadden), but no one will pose a real challenge to the Chargers.
NFC North: Minnesota Vikings
I'm going with the experts on this one. Everyone is picking the Vikings in the NFC North, and I don't see any compelling reason to pick differently. Adrian Peterson looks poised to be a top fantasy pick this year, and unlike some other fantasy picks, his production will also lead to wins for his team. I still don't know much about QB Tavaris Jackson. He seems to manage the game well, but can he lead his team to a Super Bowl? Well, if Trent Dilfer can do it... The defensive front for Minnesota is nasty, which gives me more confidence in this pick.
NFC South: New Orleans Saints
I'd love to pick my Panthers for the NFC North, but the addition of TE Jeremy Shockey pushes the Saints over the edge for me. New Orleans will have an exciting offense this year, and Shockey will open up the passing game even more. Their defense is less than stellar, but I don't think anyone else in the NFC North can put up as many points as the Saints on game day. If Panthers 1st round draft picks RB Jonathan Stewart and OT Jeff Otah have stellar years (Stewart is my upset pick to win Offensive Rookie of the Year), and if Julius Peppers returns to his regular form, then the Panthers have a chance to take it.
NFC East: New York Giants
You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Giants were the best of the best last year. Got that? :) Everyone will be gunning for the Super Bowl champs, but I think they can handle the pressure. They will be weaker at defensive end with the loss of Umenyiora and Strahan, but they will still be tough on defense. Eli Manning has settled into his NFL career and will get steadier as the years go on. Success is in his blood. The Dallas Cowboys, however, might have the best offense in the NFC, will finish the season strong, and will earn a wild card spot.
NFC West: Arizona Cardinals
This is probably the division I know the least about, but I still have confidence in picking Arizona. Kurt Warner is no stranger to success, having experienced plenty of it in his career. He's an old man, but his team is primed to upset incumbent Seattle. The Seahawks have won the division for the past four years, but they haven't shown me much. The Cardinals have a pair of incredible receivers in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquon Boldin, and I believe veteran RB Edgerrin James has at least one great season left in him.
Super Bowl: New England Patriots vs Dallas Cowboys
How, you might ask, could I pick Dallas to lose their own division and then make it to the Super Bowl? Because I think they will get stronger as the season goes on. Their running game will wear defenses down in the playoffs. Tony Romo will get better and better as he begins the transformation from a young rising star to a solid veteran. Terrel Owens and Jason Witten will score many touchdowns. Pick a reason. And why New England? A better question would be: how could I pick anyone else besides New England? Even though they ended last season on a down note, they still made a run at history, and the team hasn't changed much.
New England is my pick to win yet another Super Bowl.
Stay tuned! I will handicap the NCAA football season within the next few days.
--Dan Edge
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Ponies Made Me Do It
From The Undercurrent Blog:
Former NBA official Tim Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week for gambling on NBA games, some of which he himself officiated. The interesting thing about this case is not the question of whether or not the defendant was guilty. This was not a “whodunit?” case; Donaghy openly admitted his guilt at the trial. The interesting thing was his argument for why he should not go to prison.
Donaghy’s defense: he is a gambling “addict.” In a statement filed in a Brooklyn court, treatment counselor Stephen Block said Donaghy “could not stop himself from gambling.” (See here.) According to Block, gambling is an “illness,” a “hidden disease” which compels its victim to break the law against his will. This kind of testimony was the cornerstone of Donaghy’s defense.
This view is very widespread, and is not limited to gambling. Drug abusers, alcoholics, porn fanatics, and wife-beaters all claim that their self-destructive behavior is a result of forces beyond their control.
Whatever the facts of this particular case, being an addict does not exempt a person from the law because an addict still chooses his actions.
Consider a pedophile who is sexually attracted to young children and abuses children by acting on his attraction. Whatever the cause of his desire, there is nothing inherent in the desire that necessitates his acting on it. Whatever psychological obstacles—and they may be significant—such a man has to overcome to rehabilitate his desire, he still retains the choice of whether to act on it or not.
No matter what a man’s habits or emotional state (leaving aside the truly insane), he is always capable of making a choice. The desire to commit self-destructive acts does not compel one to act. Desires can only rule the man who allows emotions to dictate his life.
--Dan Edge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
