Yeah, I watched last night's Redskins game against Philly. What an odd one. There were a couple drives when we looked okay, and, even counting two massive, back-breaking plays by Jackson, the defense only allowed 14 points (I'm not counting the two field goals).
But let's face it: what a miserably bad team the Redskins are. They are so woefully bad that they invent new ways to fail; I personally liked the shotgun-snap-into-your-ass on 4th and goal late in the game. Again, Jason Campbell comes off looking like a subpar quarterback. And yeah, good QBs take charge and make crappy players look okay, but the man is surrounded with bad football players who also appear to be clueless -- a terrible combination. I think that if we looked at where each Redskin ranks according to their position, across the entire NFL, we'd find Jason somewhere between 18 and 21. Where would we find Stephon Heyer or Will Montgomery? Hell, where would we find Carlos Rogers or Laron Landry? HELL, where would we find Clinton Portis and Santana Moss?
Of course, these are subversive things to say these days. One cannot say them at or near Redskin Park or FedEx Field. Otherwise they will be censored. Dan Steinberg, of the DC Sports Bog, has long served as the voice of the fan here in DC, and he's carried the torch admirably well of late on this debacle of an organization to which some of us have given so much love, time, and money over the years. Two important items to note:
1) The team is no longer allowing banners or signs in the stadium. This policy has changed in the past two weeks, much like a fading regime imposes a curfew after hours and/or bans dissenting political parties. Actually, it's exactly like those two things.
2) They tried to kick out several fans wearing anti-Snyder/Cerrato/fascism t-shirts. Some are quite funny, most are predictable.
Anyway, these are things to consider when going to the next home game. And what I mean by that is that you should not pay a dime for tickets, parking, beer, soda, or officially licensed merchandise. Accept donated tickets only. Take metro. Wear homemade shirts. Sneak mini-bottles into the stadium, or drink water from the faucet. I imagine security will only get tighter, which it tends to do as regimes close the political space available for opposition forces. You know, someone really needs to write a book about Snyder and his incompetence, find a way to peddle said book near the stadium, thereby goading Snyder into confiscating and burning the book. Is Steinberg up for the job?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
e + i = history
Last week, I had the privilege of attending a pretty interesting conference put on jointly by PARC and the Institute for Middle East Studies at GW. The topic was "Palestine: What We Know", and more than anything the panelists and speakers were trying to get at the problem of accessing information about a place that isn't a state. It was about the difficulties historians (and historically-minded anthropologists) encounter when they go in search of archives -- official or otherwise -- that, at worst, have been destroyed or, at best, haven't been subjected to the same kinds of official cataloguing, etc. that an official state might undertake.
The keynote speaker was Rashid Khalidi -- whom you may recall from his days as one of Obama's "subversive" pals in Chicago, but more importantly a Middle East historian of the finest order, and a pretty good speaker too. He was opinionated without ever getting too preachy, sharply shooting down a student's rather silly question about what "Obama is really thinking" by asking why, if he actually knew, he would broadcast it in front of this particular audience today.
He was hitting the major themes of the conference too, speaking to the challenges of "Palestinian Studies" as a discipline, but with a strong focus on history. He came back several times to the importance of "dealing with sources". He even took a swipe at Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, sort of a sacred cow when it comes to great histories of the 20th century, for Braudel's inability to read Turkish and Turkish sources when writing about a time when Turkish-speakers dominated much of the very region he was studying.
Though I'm sure Braudel -- always one for expanding the historian's toolset to include new disciplines and skills -- would agree with the criticism, for me Khalidi was highlighting something deeper about the nature of history. As one of my current professors puts it, it's the "application of imagination to evidence", and I like that definition a lot. Any good history is based on the collection and analysis of evidence, but that collection never comprises a full picture. We're always trying to dig up more artifacts and uncover more previously-unknown sources, but that full documentation will never be reached. So what do you do? You take what you do have and you imagine it as wholistically as possible, trying to distance yourself from biases (or not, depending...) and relate the pieces of evidence to each other. But every historian has limitations to his/her toolset, posing yet another problem to the evidence-gathering process.
When I write this -- or share it with someone, typically my wife, God bless her -- it can come across as somewhat obvious. It sounds, on paper, a lot like what a good journalist does or even a lawyer, and not too distant from the work of a scientist either. I'd agree with that, too, but I think unlike some of those things, there are aspects (and ideas) of history that have become so deeply ingrained in the way we think about ourselves -- as individuals, as a nation, as members of a religion, a race, a gender, a community -- that we cease to anymore understand them as the result of this process: evidence + imagination. These "truths we hold to be self-evident"? Those too.
The keynote speaker was Rashid Khalidi -- whom you may recall from his days as one of Obama's "subversive" pals in Chicago, but more importantly a Middle East historian of the finest order, and a pretty good speaker too. He was opinionated without ever getting too preachy, sharply shooting down a student's rather silly question about what "Obama is really thinking" by asking why, if he actually knew, he would broadcast it in front of this particular audience today.
He was hitting the major themes of the conference too, speaking to the challenges of "Palestinian Studies" as a discipline, but with a strong focus on history. He came back several times to the importance of "dealing with sources". He even took a swipe at Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, sort of a sacred cow when it comes to great histories of the 20th century, for Braudel's inability to read Turkish and Turkish sources when writing about a time when Turkish-speakers dominated much of the very region he was studying.
Though I'm sure Braudel -- always one for expanding the historian's toolset to include new disciplines and skills -- would agree with the criticism, for me Khalidi was highlighting something deeper about the nature of history. As one of my current professors puts it, it's the "application of imagination to evidence", and I like that definition a lot. Any good history is based on the collection and analysis of evidence, but that collection never comprises a full picture. We're always trying to dig up more artifacts and uncover more previously-unknown sources, but that full documentation will never be reached. So what do you do? You take what you do have and you imagine it as wholistically as possible, trying to distance yourself from biases (or not, depending...) and relate the pieces of evidence to each other. But every historian has limitations to his/her toolset, posing yet another problem to the evidence-gathering process.
When I write this -- or share it with someone, typically my wife, God bless her -- it can come across as somewhat obvious. It sounds, on paper, a lot like what a good journalist does or even a lawyer, and not too distant from the work of a scientist either. I'd agree with that, too, but I think unlike some of those things, there are aspects (and ideas) of history that have become so deeply ingrained in the way we think about ourselves -- as individuals, as a nation, as members of a religion, a race, a gender, a community -- that we cease to anymore understand them as the result of this process: evidence + imagination. These "truths we hold to be self-evident"? Those too.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Welcome (back)
So I know it's been a short-lived existence for the old distant/imperial blog. The name just never really fit. I think I found a better one.
I hereby christen this here new blog "wowee zawiya".
What does it mean? First off, Wowee Zowee is Pavement's third full-length LP. As my former co-blogger G.L. pointed out to me, it's also kind of a grab bag of a record -- all sorts of different sounds and styles and moods in pretty random order. Since I'll probably cover music, sports, the Middle East, food, and maybe some current events, it seemed like a good fit.
The pun, of course, is trading "zowee" for "zawiya". A "zawiya" (or zaouia) has a few different usages in Arabic, but usually means either an Islamic school or place of learning, or a Sufi lodge. In parts of North Africa, specifically around the Sahara, it's used to refer to the scholarly tribes (as opposed to the warrior and subservient tribes on either side of a kind of caste system).
So there you have it. Expect the same stuff. Just with a different name. Kind of like Hardee's and Carl Jr.'s. Or regime changes in Algeria. Either way.
I hereby christen this here new blog "wowee zawiya".
What does it mean? First off, Wowee Zowee is Pavement's third full-length LP. As my former co-blogger G.L. pointed out to me, it's also kind of a grab bag of a record -- all sorts of different sounds and styles and moods in pretty random order. Since I'll probably cover music, sports, the Middle East, food, and maybe some current events, it seemed like a good fit.
The pun, of course, is trading "zowee" for "zawiya". A "zawiya" (or zaouia) has a few different usages in Arabic, but usually means either an Islamic school or place of learning, or a Sufi lodge. In parts of North Africa, specifically around the Sahara, it's used to refer to the scholarly tribes (as opposed to the warrior and subservient tribes on either side of a kind of caste system).
So there you have it. Expect the same stuff. Just with a different name. Kind of like Hardee's and Carl Jr.'s. Or regime changes in Algeria. Either way.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Jeremy Jarmon in the Washington Post
Good article about former Kentucky Wildcat and current Redskin Jeremy Jarmon in the Washington Post today. All I can say is, when they scrap the dead weight that makes up much of the 'Skins roster, this guy becomes a building block on the d-line for years to come.
US-Costa Rica Reactions
A very exciting game last night at RFK to close out World Cup qualifying for the US team; can't believe I had to turn down the chance to go.
If you didn't see it, Costa Rica -- needing a win to guarantee qualification for the World Cup -- took an early 2-0 with two fine goals from Ruiz. The US, who fielded a nearly-full strength team, played reasonably well (certainly better than their terrible 3-1 loss in San Jose last spring) but had nothing to show for it. A second half goal off a rebound from Bradley made it 2-1, but here's where things got interesting. First Onyewu goes down injured (now out for 3-4 months, which is very bad), then the Costa Rican coaches go nuts on the sidelines over a substitution issue. It seemed pretty clear to me that they were killing as much time as possible, as the entire team had done for most of the second half. Eventually, the ref says enough's enough and tosses head coach Rene Simoes and his assistant (who could be seen saying "Don't touch me!" while being escorted from the field by a DC cop). All that time-wasting on the part of Costa Rica results in five minutes of injury time, and with fifteen seconds left of those five, Jonathan Bornstein swoops in and heads a corner kick low into the net to tie it up. Down in El Salvador, Honduras had taken a 1-0 lead, meaning their win, coupled with a bigger goal difference, would be enough to put the Hondurans in the World Cup and send the Ticos to a difficult playoff with Uruguay for the final spot. The US game ended 2-2, setting off wild celebrations amongst the Hondurans and ensuring the time-wasting and gamesmanship of Costa Rica wasn't rewarded.
Watch the goals from US-Costa Rica here and from El Salvador-Honduras here.
If you didn't see it, Costa Rica -- needing a win to guarantee qualification for the World Cup -- took an early 2-0 with two fine goals from Ruiz. The US, who fielded a nearly-full strength team, played reasonably well (certainly better than their terrible 3-1 loss in San Jose last spring) but had nothing to show for it. A second half goal off a rebound from Bradley made it 2-1, but here's where things got interesting. First Onyewu goes down injured (now out for 3-4 months, which is very bad), then the Costa Rican coaches go nuts on the sidelines over a substitution issue. It seemed pretty clear to me that they were killing as much time as possible, as the entire team had done for most of the second half. Eventually, the ref says enough's enough and tosses head coach Rene Simoes and his assistant (who could be seen saying "Don't touch me!" while being escorted from the field by a DC cop). All that time-wasting on the part of Costa Rica results in five minutes of injury time, and with fifteen seconds left of those five, Jonathan Bornstein swoops in and heads a corner kick low into the net to tie it up. Down in El Salvador, Honduras had taken a 1-0 lead, meaning their win, coupled with a bigger goal difference, would be enough to put the Hondurans in the World Cup and send the Ticos to a difficult playoff with Uruguay for the final spot. The US game ended 2-2, setting off wild celebrations amongst the Hondurans and ensuring the time-wasting and gamesmanship of Costa Rica wasn't rewarded.
Watch the goals from US-Costa Rica here and from El Salvador-Honduras here.
UPDATED: If you haven't already heard this, go now and listen. It's the radio broadcast from Honduras as the result comes in from RFK meaning Honduras clinches a World Cup spot. I don't speak Spanish, but it doesn't matter at all. Just a little taste of what's in store next summer, hopefully.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
I Will Sing You Songs
I know Z seems to be the consensus number one My Morning Jacket album these days, and while I'm not knocking it, I still think their "Golden" age (heh...get it?) was that period just between the atmospheric country of At Dawn and the brawny rock stomp of It Still Moves. I'll never forget two truly epic versions of "Phone Went West" I saw the summer before It Still Moves came out, the band stretching everything out way too long and throwing in a barnstorming punk section near the end of its jam that nearly brought the house (or tent) down. But thinking back on all that MMJ era's tunes, my favorite also happens to be one of their slowest:
My Morning Jacket - "I Will Sing You Songs" (Live) [be patient with the intro]
Great piece on my beleaguered Redskins
Tracee Hamilton of the Washington Post really nails the situation at Redskin Park. It's a must-read for Skins fans as well as those that delight in our misery.
What's really amazing about our predicament is that we're 2-3, far better technically-speaking than a host of teams in the league, but the consensus is that it really doesn't get any worse than the burgundy-and-gold. If I had to put our my power rankings, I'd place us just ahead of bottom-dwellers St. Louis, Oakland, Tampa Bay. Actually I'll keep us ahead of Cleveland and Buffalo too. I do, however, think the Chiefs will beat us this weekend. And the Titans, though 0-5 and truly reeling, are probably better than Zorn's crew. Anyone care to disagree with this assessment?
Minorities, as defined by (some) Republicans
This is terrible, but, in its own, very particular way, awesome too. Robert Lowry, a Republican, is trying to unseat Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). In a weekly campaign meeting at a local gun range, Lowry fired shots at a target that was dressed in a traditional kaffiyeh with the letters "DWS" (the Congresswoman's initials) on it. His campaign has kinda/sorta apologized to Wasserman Schultz, and now the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is on their case trying to get an apology. And best of all, the president of the Southeast Broward Republican Club (who hosted the event) actually commented that the complaints were infringing on minority rights: "For the Democrats, who are supposed to be the party of minority rights, they're not being very sensitive to our rights." I suppose the minority he's referring to would be the Republican party? Or perhaps the ever-maligned "male Caucasian" minority group?
Seems like a pretty reasonable request. Given the pretty absurd portrayals of Arabs, my guess is that many (the majority?) Americans have no idea that Arabs and Muslims are not the same, that the Taliban is not comprised of Arabs, etc, etc. (if you don't know, this information can be found on Wikipedia rather quickly). Just about one year ago we were hearing the only-slightly-humorous complaints of Sarah Palin and John McCain over the LA Times' refusal to release a tape of Obama giving a toast to Rashid Khalidi, esteemed Columbia University professor and scholar, on accounts that he was a "PLO spokesman." Of course, it later surfaced that he and the organization he headed was funded by the International Republican Institute (which denied the "PLO spokesman" claims), which was...wait for it...chaired by McCain.
That's old news, but it's still a fine example of some in this country -- saying it's all "Republicans" is just too easy, and it's not too fair -- seeing "Arab" and thinking "terrorist", or seeing "Palestinian" and thinking "anti-Semite". These are not interchangeable terms.
Also: reminds me too of last year's Fancy Farm happenings whereby Mitch McConnell supporters donned robes and beards and acted like Arab oil sheikhs who were raking in the cash because of opponent Bruce Lunsford's gas tax policy positions. Now apparently Fancy Farm (an annual political meetup) is "rowdy" and "pretty wild" from what I hear, which nonetheless fails to excuse this and further highlights what I'm talking about here.
Seems like a pretty reasonable request. Given the pretty absurd portrayals of Arabs, my guess is that many (the majority?) Americans have no idea that Arabs and Muslims are not the same, that the Taliban is not comprised of Arabs, etc, etc. (if you don't know, this information can be found on Wikipedia rather quickly). Just about one year ago we were hearing the only-slightly-humorous complaints of Sarah Palin and John McCain over the LA Times' refusal to release a tape of Obama giving a toast to Rashid Khalidi, esteemed Columbia University professor and scholar, on accounts that he was a "PLO spokesman." Of course, it later surfaced that he and the organization he headed was funded by the International Republican Institute (which denied the "PLO spokesman" claims), which was...wait for it...chaired by McCain.
That's old news, but it's still a fine example of some in this country -- saying it's all "Republicans" is just too easy, and it's not too fair -- seeing "Arab" and thinking "terrorist", or seeing "Palestinian" and thinking "anti-Semite". These are not interchangeable terms.
Also: reminds me too of last year's Fancy Farm happenings whereby Mitch McConnell supporters donned robes and beards and acted like Arab oil sheikhs who were raking in the cash because of opponent Bruce Lunsford's gas tax policy positions. Now apparently Fancy Farm (an annual political meetup) is "rowdy" and "pretty wild" from what I hear, which nonetheless fails to excuse this and further highlights what I'm talking about here.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Letter from Burgundy and Gold Royalty
(I swear, I'm going to get to stuff other than the Redskins and the Wildcats, but it's just taking a little while.)
So a little backstory. My parents both grew up in northern Virginia, out in Loudoun County, both families big Redskins fans (on a side note, many family members moved off and subsequently abandoned the Redskins. My parents, God bless them, moved to Kentucky but raised us as Redskins fans from afar). My mom grew up next door to Pat Fischer, one of the true all-time burgundy-and-gold greats. My first Redskins sweatshirt? Pat's old practice shirt.
Anyway, my grandparents stayed good friends with them and so when we'd visit, we'd typically see them. Pat's son Marty was always around and sorta like the cooler, older guy when I was younger. I haven't seen any of the Fischers since my grandfather passed away five years ago, so I was pretty surprised to see this show up on the DC Sports Bog. As you can read on the Bog, it started off as a letter to his fellow 'Skins fans that basically blew up and got forwarded all around. Makes for a great story, and I like what he says. I think he'd probably judge me a bit too critical of the team (well...), but he's undeniably one of the biggest fans we've got, and for that, I salute him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)