And Nobody Mentions the 3rd Place Situation. (Well, Would You?)

Doug:
So watching the Saints Falcons game last night, the Manning Idolatry reached new heights.

 

---

Doug:
For instance, last night we learned ovah and ovah again from Joe Theisman that Drew Brees is one fuck of an awesome fella because, you know, he bought a house in New Orleans on the same street as … wait for it, wait for it … Archie Manning.

 

---

Doug:
W00T!

 

---

Mike:
"Football Royalty" they are now calling the Manning Clan.

 

---

Doug:
Hey, maybe if Manny bought a house next to Archie Manning the press would staht saying nice things about him?

 

---

Mike:
Yeah, right. More likely the headline in the Globe would be "There Goes the Neighborhood: Residents Complain Superstar Neighbor Is Aloof and 'Strange.'"

 

---

Doug:
Interestingly, Horrigan has a piece in the Herald today quoting doctors saying that with Manny's type of injury you want to first try and give it time to heal and that "being sidelined for the better part of a month is normal."

 

---

Mike:
Should we expect an apology from Gordon Edes for his weekend "Manny quit on his teammates" smeah job?

 

---

Doug:
Yeah, and right after that the Muslims will apologize for conquering and occupying Spain for 800 or so years. That's so not gonna happen.

 

---

Comments

[h.b.]

BTW each time I reveal a bit more of the "real me" and what my thoughts are on any given topic, the closer it moves this site to it's final end.

So it's best not to draw me out too much. :)

[Dave S.]

It is funny how people are sensitive about different issues. In general the "hush!" you get when discussing Islam seems particularly strange, especially considering that fundamentalist Islamic belief is the mantle of choice for this current threat. To me, most religions create institutionalized contempt for others, and worse yet, do so under a gauzy banner of love and tolerance. And this contempt is total: how can you respect someone whom you believe with certitude is destined for hell? Exactly as you say, HB: "We are a religion of peace. And if you say otherwise, we'll cut your fucking head off, infidel!"

Hey HB: I dare you to include a picture of Mohammed in your strip. Or maybe your "John Oates" is a clandestine rendition? What IS that red bag he's holding, anyway?

[Kaz]

//I'm old enough to recall when Reagan's policies were vilified and how the whole world was said to be totally fucked forever because of him. (I was among the chorus thinking such myself.)

Doesn't quite seem that way in hindsight, though, does it?//

Considering the debt that Reagan saddled us with and as recent as June 2006 only 7% of Dems polled called Reagan the best president after WWII (while 56% of Repubs felt they could say so)...I'd say that it doesn't quite seem that he isn't still being villified for many of his decisions. He also provided half of the problems in the Middle East (of course, at the time he was doing it in the name of the Cold War, but the result is being felt today)...working with the mullahs of Iran, Saddam in Iraq, AIDS was all but addressed as a health crisis...

His acting skills were verbal Kool-aid and lots of people drank deep. It even rubbed off on our current president, but he doesn't have the charisma of Reagan to pat us on the head while cutting us off at the kneecaps.

[harwich rich]

"Religion,Politics and the Great Pumpkin"

[jimindenver]

I do. And I get the characters personalities too, but only because I've read the strip for so long. Getting to know the characters here is like getting to know the characters on Law and Order. It takes quite a while because the focus is rarely if ever on the character backstory.
As to the sensitivity of some to the last panel today, I do think that white characters from a traditionally Roman Catholic area skewering Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is different then those same characters saying the same things about a different culture or religion. The tone of the comments just comes across differently.

[h.b.]

I think one of the gulfs the separates us isn't so much one of political belief etc but one of optimism/pessimism.

I mean Kaz and Ryan have both dug up examples of how things are really, really bad.

OK.

But my gosh, the world we are living in today, September 26, 2006 is better than the one I lived in in Sept 1996, and quite a bit better than the one I lived in in Sept 1986 and one fuck of a whole lot better than the one I lived in in Sept 1976.

And I'm willing to bet the world 10 years from now will be better my most measures. Not for everyone, no. But in general? Science? Medicine? Tech? Better better better.

So it's tought for me to take all this "we are all doomed" kind of talk seriously.

Especially from Red Sox fans!

Sometimes I wonder if really I'm not supposed to be a Red Sox fan because, actually, I'm an optimist about most things 99% of the time. (I must confess I went off the edge when Theo resigned last year.)

With that said, there's nothing JFK did that sunk the world, nothing LBJ did, nothing Nixon, nothing Carter, nothing Reagan blah blah blah and highly unlikely Bush2 is going to be the one the finally fucks things up so badly.

And we could go all the way back to the Founders on that and before them the Kings of England and before them... well you get the picture.

Life persists. And gets better not worse.

[h.b.]

BTW I had a character of Mohammed all ready to go during the "cartoon scandal" but I mentioned it to my wife and she freaked out and promised me not to do it. (She was present as a kid in Iran during the revolution that deposed the Shah, so she's somewhat skittish about threats from guys in beards with swords.)

Had I been single, I'm pretty sure I would have.

So, yeah, this site was silenced by fear.

[da'beads]

Attempt to douse the flaming. This whole religion and violence thing is probably imminently on my mind these days as I have been wholly engrossed in reading the works of Sam Harris ... that is, whenever I haven't been reading The Soxaholix:

http://www.samharris.org/

Interesting stuff. Not really sure I agree with everything he says. But, as a the saying goes, "I might not agree with everything you think or say, sir, but I will fight to the death to defend your right as a free person to think and say them."

[da'beads]

It should be noted that I am wholly and utterly against any kind of violence...unless, of course, it involves kicking A.Fraud's pretty white teeth in through his eerily blue lips. He's just so damn PRETTY that I can't stand him! Yeah...that must be it!!

[Kaz]

Actually I absolutely agree, h.b. As long as politicians don't screw up our ability to achieve the scientific innovations that America pretty much globally dominate, the politics pretty much are irrelevant for quality of life (then again, ask Cindy Sheehan how her quality of life is since GW Bush took office).

I don't allow my optimism or pessimism to overextend on any of these things. In other words, I'm not dismal or discouraged by the national debt from Reagan any more than I am encouraged by all of the ways we're living in a gifted age of communication rising to our ability to even discuss this on this blog that didn't exist even 20 years ago. The caveat is that 1986 discourse over current events (with deference to historical fact) got us to today just as today's discourse will get us to tomorrow's brighter day.

If we didn't talk about what it would take to trade Manny and how we're going to improve our pitching before next season, then we arrive in April with the same array of players that landed us in our current situation (and if anyone else took the initiative to have these discussions for their teams, then we're actually a sight worse). Optimism for a better tomorrow doesn't solve anything even if you feel better about trying to get there just as much as pessimism because of where we've been doesn't solve it either and you're just sad that you're still in the same rut.

I just propose that we can be optimistic about our future because we're pessimistic about our past/present and expect that the appropriate changes will alleviate our problems. Well, at least I am.

[IkeG]

Kaz, is the phrase "pessimism today is the only way to be optimistic about tomorrow" written down somewhere? Pretty good line.

[lisa gray]

interesting comments section

seems to me "liberals" saying - whatever bush says/wants to do it is wrong

but i don't hear a thing about how they want to deal with a bunch of people who are real clear about wanting to kill people who are not moslem

it also seem to me that "liberal" = anti-christian

which is a problem

mind you i am not real too happy bout the "conservatives" making up all them lies about WMD so they could get into iraq and make money or whatever their real agenda is

and hart, you right about things here in america are a LOT better then they were 30 years ago. fer SHER

lisa

[jim]

huh?

[Ryan with a capital "R"]

Historical progress isn't always a straight line and the line isn't always the same with respect to geography and demographics. Life for most Americans was probably better in 1925 than 1935. Likewise with 1853 than 1863. There are, too, more drastic backslides. Life for the average European was probably far better in 1 AD than in 1200 or 1350 AD. Life for the average Red Sox fan was better 18 months ago.

I would say that life in America was probably better in 1996 than it is today. Sure, there's been quite a few technological advances that I wouldn't give back. But people were making more money in absolute dollars. People felt safer.

What would my response to the terrorists be? You hunt down the terrorists and kill them but without all of the extra-curricular hoo-ha that has gone on. USA Patriot Act? Don't need it. Illegal wiretapping? Don't need it. Invading Iraq? Clearly don't need it. Torture? Don't need it. Secret prisons? Don't need them. Just imagine if the 135,000 troops in Iraq were hunting for Osama et al. Sure, life for the average Iraqi might be worse, but the general tenor of conversation seems to indicate that wouldn't bother most of you.

[Bob]

On a disturbing note (pardon the pun):

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/09/27/fearing_islamic_reaction_germans_silence_an_opera/

[Dave S.]

"it also seem to me that "liberal" = anti-christian

which is a problem"

Lisa, what are you talking about? I know you ramble on in general, and off topic. But where exactly did this come from?

[Rob in CT]

"Yesterday Pope Benedict was severely criticized for his anti-Muslim remarks by 1970's singer Cat Stevens. So far, no word yet from Dan Fogelberg." --Conan O'Brien

And one final point - the most immutable truth of today's blog comes from Jim re: lisa gray's, er, "post"...

"huh?"

You nailed it, brother.