Dull Razor

Congratulations, New Orleans! One heck of a game. Glad to see a championship come to the city after such a long draught. It kinda sucks to see Manning lose, as he certainly deserves more rings than he has, but I’ve never been a Colts fan – even when Tony “The Coolest Cat Alive” Dungy was coaching there. I was really surprised at the Saints’ lackadaisical first quarter performance, but it seemed like they were just stressed and that once they got their head wrapped around the idea that it was just another football game, they picked it back up.

I must also add that Sean Payton has enormous balls of steel, going for it on 4th down and then calling for an onside kick on the halftime kickoff. I love it. That’s the kind of gutsy football you can’t help but root for. Plus, in addition to the daring play calls and great performances from both sides, the game avoided most of the little irritations that are so typical in big games – there were no controversial calls, and only 8 penalties in the whole game. Just good, enjoyable football.

Now, on the other side, we have the ads, which is the reason we all really watch – right? And was it just me or were these ads particularly awful? Especially the Michael C. Hall Dodge Charger ad:

This isn’t even a funny commercial. This is a serious, kind of disturbing and really quite dark commercial. He lists a series of complaints about his life, specifically complaints against his employer and wife. His solution to his miserable life? He buys a Dodge Charger – which is itself a name that has only recently been grabbed again by Dodge in an effort to salvage their own miserable company image. There are multiple disturbing things about this ad, even if we ignore the materialistic and patently ridiculous idea that such a miserable man could find happiness in a new Dodge Charger.

He lists 18 things that he “will do,” apparently because he is being forced to. Two of them are specifically related to work, the other 16 are specifically related to a nagging wife, who, in addition to the usual stereotypes of asking him to leave the seat down and clean out the sink after he shaves, apparently makes him listen to her friends’ opinions of his friends, brings her mother in between them, and makes him sit through vampire TV shows. She’s a pretty poor wife, from what we can tell. But his response is that he will do all these things because she demands it and because he must, but because he plays the part of submissive husband so well, he will “drive the car that I want to drive.” He then declares: “Charger: Man’s last stand.” Against women, presumably.

Now the commercial is just kind of dark and sad until you realize who’s voicing the ad: Michael C Hall, most famous for his role as Dexter – the serial killer. The “serial killer we identify with,” more specifically. This injects an even darker and more dangerous tone into the commercial for those who identify the voice – which, I think it’s fair to assume, is a large part of the target audience. Now there’s an implication of his wife’s behavior putting him on the edge to the point where if he doesn’t get this car he will start to murder people.

Wow, that’s cheerful. So we have the misogyny of women being the enemy and men needing to make a last stand against him mixed in with an overall theme of emasculation and frustration. I dunno about you, but I totally want to go buy a car now. What was odd, though, is that those two themes came up again and again – moreso than in previous years, at least that stood out to me. FloTV, Bud Light, and Bridgestone were also offenders, among others. 

But there were a couple bright spots. My favorites this year? Hyundai and Snickers.  ”You’re playing like Betty White out there!”

I was catching up on my Google Reader when I came across a post by Jon Acuff from a couple days ago. To say it hit me like a ton of bricks would be an understatement; something – I’m not sure what, exactly – just clicked.  The message isn’t anything new, and I’m sure I’ve heard very similar words spoken (or written) before – but right now, this is what stood out.

I don’t know the specifics of your situation. There are some circumstances where we are called to act and have the chance to do something and we don’t. But I think far more often we make the same mistake Brian made. We look back on yesterday or last year or ten years ago and we think we could have done something differently. And if I could tell you the same thing I told Brian, it would be pretty simple.

“God didn’t ask you to be God that day.”

God didn’t turn the reins over to you that day. Just like he didn’t ask Brian to handle a stranger’s aorta tear in the gym, he didn’t ask you to be the God of any particular situation. He is still God. He is still in control. He is still on the throne. And when we act otherwise, it must pain him so.

A friend of mine is going through some very tough times right now, to the extent that I have lately felt guilty about dwelling my own problems when someone I knew was dealing with something far more significant.  About a week ago, we talked briefly about his situation, after I’d read a Facebook post of his talking about his current study of the book of Job.  And as we discussed what was going on, rather than complaining to me, he asked how I was doing. I explained that his post had really encouraged me in my own situation, and he said he was glad he was able to help, and that he’d be praying for me.

Have you ever felt guilty when someone was good to you? That guilt that washes over you when someone goes above and beyond for you, sacrifices something on your behalf, or forgives you of something you might not be able to forgive? You might call it “grace guilt.” That’s how I felt that night. And so rather than feeling sorry for myself, my mind started to twist itself in new ways – if only this, if only that, if only, if only… And some of those things were genuinely in my control, things I could have done better. Others were not, but I have trouble letting go anyway. Now I’m beginning to realize that the attitude I have toward those situations is wrong.

So when I read Acuff’s post, and he said “God didn’t ask you to be God,” it hit me. I need to stop trying to play god. I need that trust. I need that reliance and faith that my friend has as he studies Job. I don’t have it yet, but God willing, I’ll get there.

This is one of those times where you desperately wait for the “just kidding!” to come, but it never does.

A while back, I added John Shore to my Google reader, after a rather spirited discussion at Boar’s Head Tavern in which he played a key part. Since then, I’ve read his posts as he writes them with increasing confusion, as the topics seem to have gotten more and more bizarre with time. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s how it feels. Recently, he’s written some heavily satirical posts mocking New Age thinking and his recent liberal-vs-conservative Christianity post had the conclusion “In the end, who cares?” – so when I saw his post the other day entitled “Christian men SHOULD lust,” I expected another satirical piece. So, I began to read:

The ancient, persistent, pervasive idea that being a good Christian man means being a eunuch (a castrated male) is something that I think we need to reconsider. Men are men. Men lust. They lust constantly. They can’t help it. And I get real uncomfortable whenever I hear anyone say we should want them to help it. [...]

Being a man means that in the privacy of your imagination, you are going to do to think a great many lustful thoughts. That’s just a fact about being a man. That won’t change. It can’t change. It shouldn‘t change. The whole idea that somehow Christian men aren’t reallysupposed to be men is ridiculous, and harmful.

Healthy sex isn’t just a good thing; it is the necessary thing. It’s how our race survives. It’s what makes the whole world go round.

If God didn’t want men to be men—to do their part to help that world go around—he wouldn’t have filled them with all that testosterone. That certainly doesn’t mean that men should ever be promiscuous, or in any way ever disrespectful to women. But it does mean that men are bound by their very nature to, in the privacy of their imagination, have lust for women.

Oh, wow. Not so satirical. And his proof that lust isn’t really a sin, but rather the overindulgence in lust, as with any other “unhealthy fixation?” A generously stretched interpretation of a paraphrased text.

Mark Driscoll, when talking about the beginnings of the “emergent church” movement, talks about how it began with a group of people asking a bunch of questions about how church was run and how evangelism looked. He’ll bring up a story about a group of guys who started asking questions, though, that shouldn’t be asked in that context – or at least should be quickly and decisively answered if they are. Questions like “is Jesus really God?” or “is there really a Hell?” – these are the dangers of a modern liberal mind, which refuses to accept absolutes and universal truth. If you don’t like something in the Bible, just explain it away by using phrases like “cultural relativism,” and then for bonus points grab another text, strip away the context, and say it relates to whatever new (un)truth you are preaching.

I didn’t know if Shore realized this is what he was doing, or if he was just being a little sloppy with his thinking, so I didn’t comment –  I didn’t want to give some sort of knee-jerk reaction before I saw what others said. It’s rare that I comment on blogs anyway, so it wasn’t exactly a hard thing to restrain myself from doing. However, after a day had passed, instead of a clarification or gentle rebuke, there were 27 comments echoing support and gratitude that he’d challenged the stifling puritanism of the eeeevil conservative Christians. There was even a comment by Shore, who posted that he was shocked Crosswalk.com took the article off its site – a note which inspired a chuckle from me, I must admit – which received a response of, basically, “of course they did. They’re Christian wimps.”

It’s amazing how someone can get so much so wrong in a single post.

But then, another post went up in follow-up to the original! My hopes for sanity to return to Shore’s site flared briefly as I clicked through to “The Christian Sexual Animal“ - very, very briefly. As I read, I came across his basic premise (excerpted to get at the good parts):

I think Christians do have a very serious problem with sex, and for a very good reason: Nobody can have sex without utterly losing control of themselves. [...] It’s an extremely terrifying force, that way. [...]

And that’s just the normal, everyday reason for which humans obsess on repressing sexuality. Christians have a humongous additional reason for fearing and repressing sex. As one good Christian commenter on my last blog put that reason: “Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit.”

And there you have it: the reason behind 2,000 years of Christian sexual repression, boiled down to eight words.

What?

Being sexual = being an animal = betraying God.

Being human = being sexual.

Therefore, being human = betraying God.

Okay, now I see where he’s going with this. I took logic back in high school, so let’s tackle this one like Doug Wilson would. Shore’s going with a simple if-then structure, which I’ll rephrase as: If you are human, you behave sexually. If you behave sexually, you behave like an animal. If you behave like an animal, you betray God. Therefore, if you are human, you betray God. [A→B, B→C, C→D,  ∴A→D]

Ignoring the fact that the last statement ends up being completely true due to entirely different circumstances, this argument is formed correctly from a structural but makes a lot of big assumptions in its formation. And most of them are patently false. Let’s break it down.

Claim #1: If you are human, you will behave sexually. He doesn’t really specify the exact definition, but from the context of this post and the one before it, he seems to mean that all (male) humans will (want to) have sex. Fair enough. Biologically, this is true; humans are hardwired to reproduce, and the method of reproduction is sex. If he means this as “if you are a male, you will lust,” then I would disagree. If he simply meant “be attracted to,” then that would be one thing, but he explicitly says that he means that to lust is to “constantly imagine himself in sexual situations with all kinds of women” – something that we are specifically forbidden to do, ironically in the very text he tries to excuse himself with. The word used in Matthew 5:28 for lust is specifically intended to mean a morally wrong desire for something not belonging to you – it’s used also by Paul in Acts 20:33 when he says he doesn’t covet the physical possessions of others.

Claim #2: If you behave sexually, you behave like an animal. Contextually, he means that if you behave sexually, you cannot exert self control. (Just because animals do something doesn’t mean it is morally wrong; would you challenge the morality of breathing or eating?) His evidence is that when having sex, you “at the very least shudder whilst making funny faces.” So he’s already shifted gears from having a basic sexual nature to a specific sex act, that is, the orgasm – the moment at which the brain loses itself in a temporary endorphin rush. He’s changed the terms on us. It is entirely possible to behave in a self-controlled manner unlike an animal in your normal interactions! Think about a young dog that has not been neutered; it, purely by natural instinct, walks up and begins to hump whatever it thinks it  might be able to mate with. That is what the complete lack of self control looks like – a dog humping a chair. As humans, we call this “dating,” but that doesn’t mean it’s any less ridiculous. Is it possible to live without engaging in this behavior? Of course it is.

The point he wants to make here is that if you are 0f a sexual nature, you will lust uncontrollably. This is where go off his beaten path completely, because he only addresses this by saying “all guys do it,” without suggesting why.  This, of course, is a classic ad populum, or “appeal to the people;” just because a lot of people do or believe something doesn’t make it right. Let’s assume that every guy has, at some point, seen a beautiful woman and fantasized about her sexually – it’s not too large an assumption to make, I think. In that moment, that man has just sinned. Now, being convicted of this, he goes about his day and encounters other women, equally beautiful, and he sees them and recognizes their beauty but does not fantasize. He does not entertain that next step, does not let it enter his mind. As Driscoll puts it, he doesn’t put it in his mental library for later use. This is an entirely plausible scenario, and I suspect that most of my readers who are Christians have had this exact situation play out in their lives, as I have. That moment when you decide not to cross the line from “she’s pretty” to playing out your mental fantasies is a won battle in the war against lust. You’re gonna lose a few. But don’t believe the line about not being able to win any.

Claim #3: If you behave like an animal, you betray God. Well, now that we’ve actually defined what “acting like an animal” is, then I suppose he might be correct here. Being characterized by that sort of behavior is no doubt sinful, but only the nuttiest of the nuts would suggest that having an orgasm is, in and of itself, a sin.

So, in conclusion: Is lust something men deal with? Yes. Is lust something that very few men will ever actually “conquer?” Yes. Does that mean the answer is to surrender to it – or even accept and embrace it? Hell no, Mr. Shore. We keep up the good fight, gird up with spiritual armor to do battle against the flesh, and try not to embarrass our Lord and Savior on the battlefield.

Yes, really. A multi-year deal as a “political analyst”

This seems like an outrageously bad move for her political career, as she has effectively beheaded any illusion of independent “rogue” politics by  aligning herself with the much-maligned Fox News Channel. Her initial appearance on Bill O’Reilly proved she’d remain in the fray as deep as ever though, fielding such insightful questions from O’Reilly as “Nancy Pelosi: do you think she’s a kook? Do you think she’s actually crazy?”

I like Palin, but I don’t like this move. If she’s trying to embrace the big media, big government, bloated bureaucracy that Fox seems to appreciate then she’s made a wonderful start – but I fear all she’ll get out of the gig is a slew of new jokes made at her expense.

(Though you could strike it rich on 8/1 odds she’ll lose the gig before September 1st!)

I suppose I should feel bad that I took so long to post about Sunday’s game between Arizona and Green Bay, but the truth is that I was so psyched up Sunday night I didn’t want to sit still long enough to write something up. Yesterday I resolved to avoid the blogosphere altogether, so that makes today Cardinals Day.

Where to begin? It was an amazing game. “Instant classic” was a phrase I heard a lot watching the highlight reels. I wasn’t able to watch the game live because I was at work, but through the magic of the internet I was able to see most of it after, as well as read a lot of reactions and watch a lot of highlights. (Related note: I love Ron Wolfley.) It was the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history. It was the first overtime playoff game won off a fumble recovery in NFL history. It was a game that featured the Hall of Fame-bound Kurt Warner slinging for 5 touchdowns and 379 yards with blistering accuracy and no turnovers. It was a game that featured a breakout performance from rookie runningback Beanie Wells, whose addition to the Cardinals gives me hope for a well-balanced attack as we continue into the playoffs. It was a game where Early Doucett and Ben Patrick picked up the slack left by an injured Boldin and still looked like the best receiving squad in the league. It was a game where the five big men of the offensive line protected Warner wonderfully, giving up only one sack to one of the most vicious pass rushes anywhere, while also opening holes for Wells. It was a game that featured a Cardinals offense that averaged a stunning 9.3 yards per play!

It was a game. What a game.

There are dark spots, though. We allowed 500 yards, 45 points, and about 700 first downs, including a couple 4th down conversions. Our secondary got torn apart, with DRC being the lone bright spot as McFadden and Adams looked completely incapable of making Rogers work for his big plays, and Rolle providing a hit-or-miss performance on coverage as well. McFadden was especially terrible, providing not a single bright spot all night. I hope we can replace him soon. This is my biggest concern heading into New Orleans next week – Brees will tear us apart if we put together a similarly lackluster performance. Michael Adams remains one of our best and worst defensive players, as he alternately has moments of genius and incompetence. His future here I think will depend on whether or not he can stop getting penalized and make better plays on the ball, as he certainly has the heart of a great player. Also, Neil Rackers’ uncharacteristic miss was one of the great heart-stoppers in Cardinals history, I think. Don’t do that again, please. Ever.

This definitely highlighted a lot of the strengths and weaknesses about the team and answered a few of the questions plaguing us at the moment – the first of which is that we obviously need to keep Dansby a lot more than we need to keep Boldin. Dockett is another one we need to hold onto. Whisenhunt also needs a contract extension – are you listening, Bidwell? Don’t let these guys go. It also further emphasized just how much Warner is the heart of the offense, and how much it will hurt if he does retire.

So we head into New Orleans with a steamroller of an offense and a defense that knows it needs to pick it up. Hopefully they do so enough to put a crimp in the Saints’ plans and can continue to keep Brees off balance, because if we can keep him from getting into a rhythm then we can pick apart their defense and come out with a big win. Here’s to another NFC championship for my boys in red!

[Also, for the record, courtesy of Revenge of the Birds: the reason Adam's sack wasn't a facemask was because Adams didn't pull or twist the facemask (incidental contact is explicitly not penalized as of 2008), and it wasn't roughing the passer because that can't be called if the passer fumbles. The tuck rule is also irrelevant because the ball didn't hit the ground.]

Well last night was a surprise.

The Eagles looked awful and the Cowboys looked phenomenal (albeit a bit sloppy on penalties) in their game last night, a Cowboys blowout that gave them their first playoff win since 1996. I don’t particularly like seeing the streak broken, but all good things must come to an end I suppose. If they keep up that level of play, then Minnesota had better watch out next week, because they’ll be in for a very tough fight. The Cowboys defense has been their strong side all year, but last night the offense stepped up to match the pace and blew right past Philly, which looked rather lethargic. I guess I was wrong about them being off-kilter. Biggest downside? Expect to hear lots of Tony Romo waxing poetic about his childhood idol, Brett Favre, this week. Ugh.

The Jets beating the Bengals was unexpected, but I really don’t think it will matter. Sanchez looked great, especially on paper, but I didn’t see anything that made me think they’ll stand much of a chance next week – unless overconfidence bites San Diego. It’s always a concern in the playoffs.

And of course, the Kurt Warner retirement rumors are circling, with ESPN being the latest to report this season is his last. I hope he sticks it out for one more year, regardless of what happens here, but I can respect that he’s considering it. Given his age, health issues, and career so far it’s not like he’s got any big reasons to stay beyond just loving the game. and I don’t want to see him turn into another Brett Favre. The game today will rely on our defense, I still think, and I still think we have a good shot at a victory if we play well (despite what everyone at work seems to think).

In the meantime, I’m THOROUGHLY enjoying seeing what looks like it will be an emphatic smackdown of New England by Baltimore. Go birds!

So it’s been a while since I’ve updated here, and I figured that was something I should change. And what better way to kick off the new year than by talking about football?

The playoffs begin this weekend. The AFC is in a strange position, with the only teams I feel really in contention being Indianapolis or San Diego; Cincinnati could be in that list if they played more consistently, but recently it seems like they’ve lacked the passion and stamina that is needed to beat a team like Indy if Payton Manning is at his best. NY and Baltimore are both good teams who haven’t shown enough to make me think they can get all the way (though I have a soft spot for the Ravens, so I can hope) and the Patriots will struggle to find any offensive rhythm without Wes Welker.

As for the NFC, we have a strange and wonderful scenario in which there is simply no clear favorite after the last few weeks of regular season play; the Saints have lost three in a row, with Drew Brees looking like he’s forgotten how to communicate with his receivers – Minnesota has showing glaring weaknesses, the biggest of which is revealed if they allow an opponent to gain an early lead – Brett Favre can’t handle being behind. It’s how Arizona beat them so handily in week 13, by pressuring him into making risky choices and careless mistakes.

The first round, in many ways, is the most interesting for me: Philly at Dallas should be a great game. After this weekend’s trouncing, a lot of the sportswriters are already writing off the Eagles as doomed, laying a lot of blame (as usual) at McNabb’s feet. Additionally, the Eagles are 0-4 against potential playoff opponents during the regular season, which makes many wonder if they are able to play consistently at a high caliber. I think they do. The Eagles have always been a scary team to play, even while being inconsistent, in many of the same ways Arizona has been the last two years: when they play well, they play amazingly well. Additionally, the games they lost don’t necessarily reflect the current situation; they lost to the Saints when the Saints were on fire – but New Orleans now looks like they’re running out of steam. They were barely beaten by the Cowboys back in week 9, although they were pounded last week by a relentless Dallas defense. Andy Reid learns from his mistakes, though, and I expect the Eagles will put up a tough fight and catch fire right when they need to. As for Dallas, I still have trouble believing the hype. The numbers look good and the defense looks phenomenal, but their offense still feels off-kilter to me. Maybe it’s personal bias against a rival team, or just a dislike of Tony Romo, but I’m hoping Philly keeps the Cowboys from posting their first playoff win since the 90s.

Now for my Cardinals. I can’t really look at last week as an indication of how we’ll do, as the game was mostly played by Green Bay starters against an Arizona second string, however, Green Bay looked really good – as they have for most of the season. And while we rested some of our starters, we didn’t rest all of them, and both Anquan Boldin and Calais Campbell are now questionable for Arizona’s first playoff game after sustaining injuries during Sunday’s game. The loss of either player would be a huge blow to the team, and while we’ve recovered from worse, it puts us in a very tough spot against a very formidable. At least DRC appears to be ready to play after his injury – although who knows if he’ll be at 100%. But even a wobbly DRC is a vast improvement over Michael Adams, as we saw quite clearly in the last regular season game.

The key will be to rush Aaron Rogers mercilessly, as we did with Favre. Green Bay’s offensive line is terrible, and Rogers has taken a brutal beating whenever teams press the blitz, which we didn’t even try on Sunday. After a few come-to-Jesus talks with the turf courtesy of Darnell Docket or Adrian Wilson, Rogers and the Green Bay offense should have a much harder time picking on our secondary. Combine that with a good outing from Kurt Warner and we can win the game easily – but if we don’t bring the full package, we will risk being humiliated at home.

Assuming we beat Green Bay we’d have a rematch with the Vikings in Minnesota. The weather will be a factor here, as Warner isn’t quite as used to the cold these days, and Favre always is just a bit sloppier when the ball is hard. If we can keep up the defensive pressure we did in week 13 while maintaining a steady offense, then we can easily beat them again, even on the road. They are a very tough team, but we know their game. We just need to get through the Packers first.

We’ve kicked into overdrive at work so I’ve been putting in longer hours there than I’m used to by far, and as a result I’m exhausted and uncreative tonight. So, rather than try to come up with something witty, I will quote the new years’ wishes of one of my favorite authors, the estimable Neil Gaiman:

May your coming year be filled with magic and dreams and good madness. I hope you read some fine books and kiss someone who thinks you’re wonderful, and don’t forget to make some art — write or draw or build or sing or live as only you can. And I hope, somewhere in the next year, you surprise yourself.

Happy new year, folks.

I really, really don’t like Vince Young right now.

That said, Leinart’s second half performance was surprisingly solid. I can’t help but feel that if he’d only found his rhythm a little earlier we could have had more of an offense and a win. Instead, we let the Titans go 3-for-3 on 4th down conversions and put together a last minute drive that was far too reminiscent of the Super Bowl for my tastes. Our defense still needs work, mainly in the secondary. McFadden is infuriating sometimes, he’ll switch between brilliant coverage and no coverage at all – DRC is the only cornerback that feels like he’s consistently trying. The defensive line put on a pretty good show, led by Dockett’s three sacks, but they also let through some key running plays, so it’s hard to say that they’re where they should be either.

Titans are a hot team and I had a feeling that the game wouldn’t end well with Warner out, so as heartbreaking as the end was I wasn’t entirely unprepared. The bright side to the game is I feel a little less dread when I consider that the previously-abysmal Matt Leinart is our backup quarterback. I guess that’s something.

The day can be redeemed a little if Baltimore hands the Steelerss their third straight loss, though. Go Ravens!

Sorry for the lack of posts the last couple days. Been real busy around here, but not so much in a bad way, which is nice. Hopefully I’ll have a longer post up later, but for now, Happy Thanksgiving everyone.