Who Would Win in a Fight: Dan Snyder v. Al Davis

We all know the craziness of Al Davis. His team is a mess and he is surely not really alive. I never thought we would be legitimately able to argue another owner in the league was crazier…but then…Dan Snyder decided to not only continue to ruin the Redskins – but completely piss in the face of his fan-base.

This article detailing the sign-police crackdown at the last MNF football game is flat out insane. The security guards have been told that no t-shirts badmouthing Dan Snyder are allowed and must be turned inside-out – like when kids wore Marlyn Manson shirts back in middle school.

So – we know Al Davis is a Zombie and Dan Snyder -all 5’2″ of him – might make me turn this blog post inside out…but who would win in a fight?

Who Would Win in a Fight: Weis v. McDaniels

Take this fantasy showdown of Belichick disciples. One one side we have the pear shaped, lawsuit losing, still can’t recruit defensive players, and did I mention fat…Charlie Weis. On the other side is the new Jesus. Who ya got and why?

Here was gargs take:

McDaniels over Wies: another no brainer.  charlie is a fat motherfucker with a reconstructed knee.  his only advantage would be to strip down naked to gross out mcdaniels and prevent mcdaniels from actually touching him. actually, that might be a great strategy.  i change my mind, i’ll take weis, but only if he’s naked.

My Counter:

Before the Patriots game – I thought Weis’s pure weight advantage would be too much – I mean look at McD’s size. But If he can direct a few of those energetic fist-pumps right into that tremendous FUPA – he has a good chance to disorient the big guy.

FUPA!

NY Times Debates Current Vatican Strategy (UPDATED)

The NY Times has a series where they take hot topics and have experts write a quick bog post about it. The most recent one highlights the Vatican Strategy to woo Anglicans upset at the progressive moves (Women and Gay ordinations) in their own church to convert to the Catholic Church.

So – is this same-old same-old from the Vatican…or is the NY Times showing their progressive bias by not telling the whole story? I have not read the piece yet – but hope to later on.

Gonna be a busy day – so it might be quiet around here until I get some Broncos thoughts up later.

(UPDATED – MY THOUGHTS AFTER SKIMMING THE ARTICLE)

So – from a brief skim of the “debaters” there is an overall feeling that the positive side of this measure (from the progressive catholic perspective) is that it reveals a Vatican much more open to ecumenism than in the past. John L. Allen, a very good reporter from the progressive National Catholic Reporter, makes this suggestion and points the possibility of the inverse working as well – that is – progressive Catholics being wooed by the Anglican Church.

I generally like Mr. Allen’s work, but I disagree here. I tend to view a move like this much more suspiciously and as a way for the Vatican to “shore up” its ideological base by selectively reaching out to those who will hold the party line on the social conservative issues. So…I am not so sure I agree with the suggestion that the Vatican actually thought this through in terms of true ecumenism. Sure, this reaching out (and the earlier reaching out to Eastern Orthodox and extremely conservative sects previously) shows an ecumenical spirit. But is it the ecumenism of the 2nd Vatican Council that is driving this new found openness from the Vatican…or something else?

It’s difficult to credit the powers that be in the Vatican with being “progressive” in their new-found ecumenism when the effects of that ecumenism is to rally the reactionaries in other Christian traditions that feel isolated by their own denomination’s progressive shifts. Therefore, taking John Allen’s interpretation of this Vatican manuever to its logical end, we see is not really ecumenism at all – its a re-organizing of christian denominations based along ideological lines. Conservatives move to the Catholic Church and Progressives to the Anglican.

So – yea – I still think about theology even in law school. Other thoughts?

Who Would Win in A Fight: Lion v. Gorilla

And now….I would like to resurrect the age old argument (fought about for many hours in college) about who would win in a fight? (actually – if you type lion v. gorilla into google – you already get a whole ton of ridiculous chat boards, etc. (even a tv show) about this…but its more fun off the top of the head without any “real facts” to back it up)

For our general arguments…let us turn to this e-mail exchange I recently had with a friend from ACE who wishes to remain anonymous so we will call him John G.

Gargs: “a lion would destroy a gorilla.  they are faster, more agile, and have claws.  no brainer really.”

Me: “really…lets think this through. The only way they actually fight is if the lion is the aggressor/Gorilla needs to protect its young, etc. At this point, the gorilla has more to play for and with one strong swing of itsarms, its superior strength would knock a lion down with a stunning blow. Then, the Gorilla could contiue to make blows to vital organs, head etc. The claws would have little effect on the thick fur/skin and the faster/agility advantage is minimal and negated by the strength. I ultimaltey make the intelligence the deciding factor. Gorilla…but not in a landslide”

Battle it out in the comments…or just watch this stupid video that I will never actually watch that is actually a leapord…but whatever

Best Hitters Ever?

Nothing to see here…move along

I love best ever conversations…which is why I LOVE Joe Posnanski – the prolific SI and KC Star columnist. He finds time to blog (for fun – not paid directly) about all sorts of things – including his love for Bruce Springsteen (ranks his favorite albums here) and especially his love for all things baseball.

This is a great little post he probalby spent a few hours on arguing about the 10 best hitters in baseball. He put Pujols 7th and Bonds 3rd. Take a look and see what you think

Football Will Make You (more) Stupid

Mike Utley - Remeber what happened to this guy? And this is just the more publicized worst-case-scenario

Malcolm Gladwell can be a little full of himself in the “I am the new American Public Intellectual and therefore everything I write is genius” kind of way. However – I skimmed his recent piece comparing violence in football and dog fighting. I think the premise to compare the two is a little weak and a bit stretched in exectuion. However- I found the grim stuff about the inevitability of brain damage for linebackers, lineman, and most football players really remarkable. We know deep down this sport is the 21st century gladiators – but do we really care that it is very possible most of these guys will be suffering from severe mental degeneration in a relatively short amount of time after their careers?

I think it certainly links into a larger debates about choice (do some of these guys really have one), the profiteering off of violence and death (and the hypocrisy as compared to all sorts of other industries that do the same), and our complicity as (die-hard) fans in all of it. Anyway – hard to look at a wedge on the kickoff the same way again.

Read it here if you missed the above link