I Love the Redskins

...but I hate them.

This must be what marriage feels like, when your partner is rejecting you emotionally. Or maybe its more like what religious faith would feel like after someone close to you was brutally murdered.

Maybe there is nothing like it. At least, in my life, there hasn't been. I grew up with the Redskins. I was 7 when they last won the Super Bowl, in 1991. I remember crying after they lost to the Cowboys in the 13th week of the season after starting out 11-0 that year, and I actually remember my dad telling my mom that in future years, I would always be dissapointed, because nothing could compare to that magical season.

And nothing has. But I'm sure my father didn't expect that I would be in for this level of dissapointment. In the 13 years following the 1991 championship season and the 9-7 season immediately following it (Joe Gibbs' last before his retirement), the Redskins have made the playoffs one time. Their records, from 1993 until now, are as follows: 4-12, 3-13, 6-10, 9-7, 8-7-1, 6-10, 10-6*, 8-8, 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10. The starred season was their lone playoff season, in 1999. I'll get into that a bit later. Their current season stands at 5-6 after this week's loss, and seems destined to be playoff-less yet again.

They seem to be in a constant rebuilding stage. They haven't been terrible since 1994, they've always been mediocre. Since Dan Snyder bought the team in 1999, he has always gone for the quick fix, spending lavishly on free agents, trading away future draft picks for current ones, and making trades that, while they address needs, are overspending to do so (the Clinton Portis deal as an example).

What is cruel is the way they lose. In 1997, they started off 7-1. Terry Allen came back from two surgically repaired knees and was a workhorse. Sport Illustrated picked them to win the Super Bowl at midseason. Then they collapsed the rest of the way, going 2-6, and finished at 9-7 and out of the playoffs.

The next year, Gus Frerotte blew a winnable division game by head-butting a wall, one of the strangest sports moments ever. He had to leave the game, the Redskins' offense floundered, and that tie, instead of a win, cost the Redskins a playoff birth. I remember listening to that game on the radio in my room (I was supposed to be in bed) and thinking, "What the hell is this?? We're cursed!!!"

After a dissapointing year in 1998, we made the playoffs in 1999. Finally!! We beat the Lions soundly, and met the Bucs in the divisional round. We were done in this time by a botched snap by Dan Turk, negating a field goal attempt that would have given us the lead with under a minute left. 6 months later, in an appropriate karmatic moment, Dan Turk died of brain cancer. I remember thinking, "Good, he deserved to die, he screwed our season!" Then, I remember thinking, "What the hell is wrong with me??"

Since then, we've gone through 4 head coaches and haven't done much of anything. We were favored to win the Super Bowl in preseason by many publications in 2000, but because of Dan Snyder's filanderings, the team lost focus and underachieved. Norv Turner was fired that year after 8 years of service, and Marty Schottenheimer was hired in the offseason.

After rebounding from an 0-5 start to finish at 8-8, Schotty was unjustly fired because Snyder wanted the ol' ball coach, Steve Spurrier. Spurrier wasn't ready for the big time, quitting after two seasons in early 2004. Then, the legend was brought back, and Joe Gibbs returned.

Since he has returned, its been more of the same. Close defeats in winnable games, overspending on questionable talents, trading away draft picks in the future for a quick fix now. Impatient tactics haven't worked so far, and they won't work now. Winners need to be built over time, not over one offseason, but Dan Snyder can't seem to understand that.

Having said all this....I still love my skins. There is something viscerally pleasing about seeing them play. The burgandy and gold must trigger an endorphin release in my brain somewhere, based on my childhood I guess. I can't ignore my team, no matter how much I hate them. Often, like today, I wish I could.

I feel sick after the Redskins lose. Literally, nauseous, headache, sick. My mind can't function either. I had two jobs this year, writing football commentary for two websites. Initially, when the Redskins were winning, the workload was nothing at all, I could handle it. In recent weeks though, as the losses piled up, I found myself staring at my computer screen in a daze, and hours would pass by without snapping out of it. I had to resign from one website because I knew I couldn't keep it up, I was too attached to my Redskins on game day.

It would be much easier to ignore the impending doom and go read a book, or play some chess, or something. It might even be healthier. But I can't do it. I can't explain why, but I just can't.

And so I watch my Redskins lose, week after week, blowing leads large and small. Its like torture. Maybe I'm a masochist. Maybe, instead of cutting myself with a knife or throwing up after I eat, the Redskins are how I punish myself.

Maybe I need some Redskins rehab.

....An Interlude from Christopher Walken

Hello, little man. Boy I sure
heard a bunch about you. See, I
was a good friend of your Daddy's.
We were in that Hanoi pit of hell
over five years together.
Hopefully, you'll never have to
experience this yourself, but when
two men are in a situation like me
and your Daddy were, for as long as
we were, you take on certain
responsibilities of the other. If
it had been me who had not made it,
Major Coolidge would be talkin'
right now to my son Jim. But the
way it worked out is I'm talkin' to
you, Butch. I got somethin' for
ya.

(pulls out a gold wrist watch)


This watch I got here was first
purchased by your great-granddaddy.
It was bought during the First
World War in a little general store
in Knoxville, Tennessee. It was
bought by private Doughboy Ernie
Coolidge the day he set sail for
Paris. It was your great-
granddaddy's war watch, made by the
first company to ever make wrist
watches. You see, up until then,
people just carried pocket watches.
Your great-granddaddy wore that
watch every day he was in the war.
Then when he had done his duty, he
went home to your great-
grandmother, took the watch off his
wrist and put it in an ol' coffee
can. And in that can it stayed
'til your grandfather Dane Coolidge
was called upon by his country to
go overseas and fight the Germans
once again. This time they called
it World War Two.
Your great-granddaddy gave it to
your granddad for good luck.
Unfortunately, Dane's luck wasn't
as good as his old man's. Your
granddad was a Marine and he was
killed with all the other Marines
at the battle of Wake Island. Your
granddad was facing death and he
knew it. None of those boys had
any illusions about ever leavin'
that island alive. So three days
before the Japanese took the
island, your 22-year old
grandfather asked a gunner on an
Air Force transport named Winocki,
a man he had never met before in
his life, to deliver to his infant
son, who he had never seen in the
flesh, his gold watch. Three days
later, your grandfather was dead.
But Winocki kept his word. After
the war was over, he paid a visit
to your grandmother, delivering to
your infant father, his Dad's gold
watch. This watch. This watch was
on your Daddy's wrist when he was
shot down over Hanoi. He was
captured and put in a Vietnamese
prison camp. Now he knew if the
gooks ever saw the watch it's be
confiscated. The way your Daddy
looked at it, that watch was your
birthright. And he'd be damned if
and slopeheads were gonna put their
greasy yella hands on his boy's
birthright. So he hid it in the
one place he knew he could hide
somethin'. His ass. Five long
years, he wore this watch up his
ass. Then when he died of
disentary, he gave me the watch. I
hid with uncomfortable hunk of
metal up my ass for two years.
Then, after seven years, I was sent
home to my family. And now, little
man, I give the watch to you.

Thoughts on Thinking

I think about everything. Sports, politics, religion/philosophy, movies, social tendencies, common sense, etc. I wonder about pretty much everything. I'm very curious, and not satisfied until I know everything about what it is I'm curious about.

Is it worth it to wonder though?? Is it worth it to strive to know everything?? Is it better to live in ignorance than to be enlightened??

The honest answer to these questions is, I don't know.

There is a certain satisfaction that comes from knowing about the world, from knowing the inner machinations of politics, knowing why a football play was called when everyone else is screaming for the coach's head. There is also a certain amount of satisfaction that comes from knowing yourself in every regard.

But then there are some things that may be better not to know. God is one of these things. While I pretty much know he doesn't exist, I also know that believing in him would add meaning to an otherwise meaningless life.

Personal tendencies and patterns are also, to some degree, better off not known. I recognize patterns in my life, patterns of success as well as patterns of failure. I know my own limitations, as well as what I'm good at. In effect, I know when I can expect failure and when I can expect success. This has led me to become less adventurous, averse to risky situations, and expecting failure in certain instances when the pattern points in that direction.

A person less aware than myself doesn't have to deal with any of these things, because he doesn't recognize the patterns. Thus, his knowledge doesn't keep him from engaging in situations that may end in failure, and his optimism stays intact.

These are just two examples of where curiosity is damaging, and ignorance is desirable. Ignorance cannot be chosen though, you either have it or you don't. I guess you can use drugs to induce ignorance, but that brings a whole new set of problems to the table.

And, of course, there are many situations where knowledge and curiosity are desirable to ignorance. Of course, ignorant people might not realize their detriment, making it less damaging.

See where thinking got me here?? Nowhere. I haven't reached a conclusion other than that intelligence isn't always desirable. And that lukewarm conclusion won;t exactly get me anywhere.

When the Debate Itself is the Goal

I was watching some debate about Intelligent Design on C-Span today, and decided it deserved a post. It is a subject that really angers me, because it shows how America, in many ways, has rejected truth and fact when they aren't in lockstep with with personal religious beliefs.

Intelligent Design has no merit. As articulated by the scientist at this afternoon's discussion, the argument FOR Intelligent Design is no more than an argument AGAINST evolution. There is no scientific support for ID. ID proponents will argue that certain characteristics of life on Earth, like bacterial flagella or RNA, are unexplained by evolution currently, and that this somehow proves ID.

It doesn't, but the convoluted and circular language of ID proponents may be able to convince laymen. Sure, some things are unexplained at the moment by evolution and, on a broader scale, science as a whole. This will always be the case. But the lack of total scientific knowledge doesn not prove the existence of a creator. It just proves we don't know everything yet.

At the debate today, it was clear that the guy defending evolution was running circles around the guy defending ID. The guy defending ID works for the Discovery Institute, a research establishment paid for by rich theologians, whose only purpose is to debunk evolution. The evolution supporter was just an ordinary academic. So the ID proponent had an axe to grind, so to speak.

The point I want to make, though, is that the debate itself was a victory for ID proponents. They don't need to win the debate or debunk evolution, all they have to do is appear to be on a level playing field with evolution. They will never be able to debunk evolution, and I'm sure on some level they know this. All they want to do is place in the minds of average Americans that they are an alternative theory to evolution, and just having the debate furthers their cause as a valid alternative.

This is why I think evolution proponents, on some level, shouldn't debate ID proponents. The debate itself is victory for ID!!! Furthermore, ID is such complete hogwash, scientifically and otherwise, that it really doesn't deserve a debate. ID proponents know, at least the intelligent ones do, that they will lose every debate with evolution on the facts.

But there is a problem with refusing to debate ID. They can claim that you are afraid to debate them because your argument is weak, and they have.

So, what to do?? If you debate ID, you give them the social verification they so desperately desire. If you refuse to debate them, they can call you a coward and impugne your evidence in that way.

It is a tough call. But it seems to me that many scientists, all on the evolution side, are all too eager to debate ID theists, knowing of course that they can win the debate. It should NOT become socially common to accept ID and evolution as two sides to the same coin, as two viewpoints, neither more valid than the other. This is what they want, and scientists unfamiliar with politics need to think in this regard before entering into any debate regarding ID.

Observations on the Right and Television

As an observer, I have alot of TV to watch. I find myself mesmerized by the way the right wing manipulates information and changes tactics to address the different issues presented before them.

Let me make it clear that I find the industry reprehensible. The people in the right wing media have no qualms about lying or misrepresenting information. They will do whatever it takes to get their message across the way they want it presented. They are only as principled as their audience forces them to be, meaning blatant lying that average Joe truck driver would see as lying is out. But convoluted lying that will get past 95% of the population, heck, that's fine!!

But even though I hate the way these guys manipulate their audience, I am fascinated by their effectiveness in doing so. It's amazing to me how people can fall for the tricks they pull. Sometimes, when watching the O'Reilly factor or Hannity or whoever, I can't help but wonder how in the world anybody can trust these guys?? But people do, it's just the way it is.

Anyway, here is how I see the debates playing out, time and again. First, concerning debates, I have always believed that you should be consistent in the way you address issues in a debate. The right-wing media doesnt do this. If discrediting the left is easily done using the facts, sure, they'll do that, as they should. I'm not an apologist, and there are certainly times when O'Reilly or even Hannity get it right.

However, when it comes to the fishy issues, they switch to different tactics. When debating someone critical on the Iraq war, they call the guy unpatriotic, and they claim his words are helping the terrorists abroad. This is a vicious attack, but a purely speculative one, and this is where the convincing nature of the hosts play a role. The format of their shows enables the hosts to shout down their opponents, making them appear overmatched in any debate.

The attacks on John Kerry by the since discredited "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are a good example. Fox News failed to do any background work on the guys, instead promoting as fact their message and failing to note inconsistensies that abounded all over the place. I remember Sean Hannity criticizing anyone who brought up these inconsistencies as unpatriotic, because these guys were veterans and deserve to be heard, or some such BS. But it worked, and I'm sure the swift boat nonsense helped Bush in the end despite being fabricated.

In some cases they play to the audience's makeup to make a point that wouldn't be supported in most courtrooms. This "attack on Christmas" that Fox News promotes every year is a perfect example. They attack stores for displaying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, for "only" having Christmas trees and not having a cresh, etc. etc. There is no factual or even reasonable basis for these attacks, at least nothing more than the audience being mainly Christian. They act as if the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and thus somehow every child has an obligation to learn about these religions. It promotes discriminatory sentiment, but it flies because its what most of the audience wants to hear.

And here is the kicker: whenever a newspaper or reputable news organization calls the right-wing media out on an inconsistency or lie, Fox or Limbaugh or whoever can defend themselves by claiming to be an opinion show, not a journalistic show. Somehow they are exempt from journalistic standards, when it gets right down to it. O'Reilly has been caught in a number of lies, as has Hannity, and they always say "Well we're an opinion show, we don't claim to be a straight, unbiased news program."

I thought they were fair and balanced though?? Guess not.

These inconsistencies and this bias seems so obvious to me though. I see liberal bias sometimes in headlines, but generally articles in "liberal" newpapers like the New York Times are consistent and accurate. I guess what it comes down to is, people want to watch pundits who cater to their belief system, and are willing to overlook inaccuracies if it means getting what they want in terms of opinions.

Honesty is less important than being in agreement and being a good 'ol boy.

It is a disturbing trend backwards for the nation dubbed as a progressive one. It's sad, really.

Cut and Run?

House Republicans are trying to take advantage of John Murtha's recent comments (link) by forcing a vote on a resolution on whether or not to immediately withdraw troops. They are, in effect, attempting to get Democrats on the record on whether they support immediate withdrawal now.

It is a political ploy, because the resolution will never pass. Every Republican will vote against it. It is a double-edged sword for House Democrats though, where the best action politically may be to abstain.

If they vote for immediate withdrawal, they will be labeled traitors by the GOP and whe White House, and unpatriotic (despite the fact that this vote was brought up by the GOP). If they vote against immediate withdrawal, they will be pidgeonholed into that position and called hypocrites if they ever state otherwise, much like John Kerry was in 2004 because of his vote to authorize the war in 2003.

My thought it this: Why not show some unity, and vote en masse FOR the resolution???

The GOP will have trouble labeling an entire party unpatriotic. Undoubtedly, their idea was to have a few stragglers support the resolution and pick them off one by one. But if the vast majority of Democrats support the resolution that won't work.

I support an immediate withdrawal. The situation in Iraq is very similar to Vietnam. We stayed in Vietnam for over a decade, and despite all our efforts during that period, when we left, our allies over there were overwhelmed. Some conservatives are of the opinion that our leaving when we did was a mistake, that we should have stayed even longer. That, in my opinion, is a completely idiotic position to take. If you can't stabilize a country after over a decade of occupation, you won't ever be able to do that. Our mistake in Vietnam was not leaving earlier, because we wasted thousands of American lives for nothing.

Iraq is the same thing. Whenever we leave, the country will descend into civil war and anarchy. All the different religious groups will fight each other for control of the country. Eventually, another dictator, similar to Saddam Huissein, will rise to power. ALL of our efforts over there will be for naught. And I don't think we can prevent that from happening, unless we plan on staying there indefinitely.

I fully understand that when we leave, the country will be left in shambles. I also understand that no matter how long we stay, that will be the case. Whether we leave in 2005 or 2015, the country will descend into Civil War when we leave. So, knowing that, the correct decision is to leave NOW.

I fully support John Murtha. I want to "cut and run," as the GOP puts it. I hope the Democrats in the House have the courage to do the right thing and vote for immediate withdrawal.

Welcome, but Beware

I am a professional observer, a voyeur of life if you will. Over the years I have gleaned information on all sorts of topics, ranging from sports, to politics, to social tendencies, and most importantly, to myself. I am a very introspective person, strong-willed at times, but always willing to alter my opinions about the state of the world if things change.

I will go by Willis here. My observations and opinions may sound harsh at times. That's what this is for; I'm not in the business of mincing words or acting in a socially acceptable fashion. After all, that's why this is "A View From The Basement", because in the basement honesty is acceptable, in every regard.

This blog will not have a specific theme. I have opinions on a wide range of issues, and I won't limit their scope by calling this a political blog, or a sports blog, or anything else. Anything goes, depending on my mood and temperament.

Enjoy.