Well, when (hats off and over heart) Tom Landry was the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys, he didnâ€™t give pep talks. He didnâ€™t scream and yell at the players. After a game, win or lose, he would watch game film for two days and take notes. Then at the team meeting he would walk in with a long legal pad, go over the game film and very calmly, unemotionally explain every mistake made by every player on every play, offense, defense and special teams. This is what happened. This is what you should have done. This is what you did. These are the mistakes you need to correct.
The players hated it. Drew Pearson said he just wanted Landry to yell at him once. Randy White said it got to him personally every time. He would leave the meetings and go sit by himself for several hours, thinking about what Landry had said. And it would make him so mad, he couldnâ€™t wait until Sunday so he could get on the field and hit somebody.
A lot of people criticized Landry as being â€˜plasticâ€™, unattached to his players. But his method motivated them to achieve their very best, 20 consecutive winning seasons, 13 division titles, 5 conference titles, 21 playoff victories, and 2 Super Bowl championships. To this day no one has been that successful in the NFL, and probably no one ever will.
I think this is exactly the kind of approach we need to take as we regroup for the next election cycle. Study the game film and calmly, unemotionally examine every mistake made by every player on every play, then correct those mistakes.
I wouldnâ€™t blame President Bush too much. He is what he is, his fatherâ€™s son, not a conservative. The American people knew that when they elected and re-elected him. And considering the alternatives, Gore and Kerry, can anyone really say they made a mistake? No, the fault here lies with the leadership, or lack thereof, in the House and Senate.
The President campaigned as a â€˜compassionate conservativeâ€™ (whatever that is), and he has governed as such, seeking a new tone and bipartisanship. Obviously that was a mistake in philosophy we need to correct before selecting our next candidate. I blame John McCain, who is not a team player, more than anyone else, for undermining the conservative leadership in the Senate. And for that reason I refuse to support him for national office or any leadership position. I also blame the leadership in the House for abandoning the conservative principles, especially on spending, which got them elected in the first place. That is a mistake we cannot allow our representatives to make again.
Let us not forget that it was the conservatives in the House that killed the Bush-Senate immigration proposal, and rightfully so. I seriously doubt anything resembling amnesty has any chance of making it through the next Congress, because the conservative Republicans who kept their seats and the conservative Democrats who gained theirs are not about to risk being thrown out on their asses in the next election by passing a proposal so vehemently opposed by the vast majority of Americans.
I also seriously doubt the newly elected Democrats, the majority of whom ran as conservatives, are going to push for a â€˜cut and runâ€™ policy in Iraq or the War on Terror. The jihadists are complete fools if they think these guys are going to be more â€˜reasonableâ€™ (their term) in dealing with terrorism. When given a choice between wiping out terrorists or losing their newfound power, these Democrats are going to make the Republicans look like Frenchmen in the ferocity of their attack.
What is going to be really interesting over the next two years is watching the struggle within the Democratic party between the conservatives (read Americans) who just got elected and the liberals (read Euro-socialist weenies) who make up the leadership (Pelosi, Reid, Dean). The liberals as a group are mired in a misundertanding and misrepresentation of the past. They are completely out of touch with the vast majority of Americans, and if they try to shove their ill-founded policies down the peopleâ€™s throat, they are going to regret it.
I disagree that we need to start a third party. That is the one sure way to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008, which would be an unmitigated disaster. There are far too many yellow dog Democrats who are going to vote the straight party ticket, regardless of who is the candidate, for a third party to have any chance of electing a real conservative. It will only serve to drain votes from the Republican ticket, as Perot did in 1992.
What we need to do is build a coalition of blue dog Democrats and red dog Republicans around core conservative principlesâ€“limited government, low taxation, less regulation, national securityâ€“and take the fight to the liberals. That is the only way Team America is going to win.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 11.11.2006 @ 11:05
I agree with you, Mr. Moran, even when I disagree with you. Say what you mean and mean what you say, that's what I say. Whether I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with you is beside the point. What matters is that you stand on what you say without fear of recrimination or reprisal. When you do that I and everyone else will respect you. Back peddling is for cyclists, and it never moves you forward.
There are certain truths I will not deny. There are certain values I will not compromise. There are certain principles I will not concede. And I couldn't care less what anyone else says about it. I know what I believe, and I know that what I believe is true. I worry about what other people think like I worry about stepping in a puddle of ant urine. No one else is responsible for me but me. Oh, someone doesn't like that? Tough. What that person says, wants, believes isn't worth a flying fart out of a baboon's butt to me.
Call it like you see it, that's what I say. Defend your position with uncompromising logic and truth. It's the only way to live with self-respect and dignity. Compromising is for losers.
Mine is purely a class distinction. Either you have it or you don't. Class here is taken to mean the original sense of the word, which is a deeper sense of understanding. I know far too many lawyers, doctors, professors, businessmen, and politicians who earn a high salary and have no class. I don't have any respect for the lot of them, and I never will. They think they're all that, and they're not. Their pretence to superiority is a masquerade for their own lack of substance. And everyone knows it but them.
So take your stand and defend it. Don't hold anything back. The line in the sand Travis drew at the Alamo was and is the demarcation between character and the lack thereof. You either die fighting for what you believe in or you live in ignominy. The former is for men, real men, and the latter is for fools.
That said, I weep for your beloved Bears. Undefeated? Ha! The lowly Dolphins mopped up the field with their delusions of grandeur. Of course, my beloved Cowboys aren't impressing anyone, me included. Oh, well. There's always next season, and the next election cycle.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 9.11.2006 @ 11:00
I apologize for getting on your case, Mr. Moran. But football just gets me hyped.
However, you are wrong that I'm depressed because I have to put up with T.O. and his sideshow. I love T.O. (now that he has a Blue Star on his helmet), and the sideshow is largely a media creation (you should know it all about that).
I'm depressed because I have to put up with Bill Parcells and his sideshow. You know, the one that includes an endless parade of favored former players who have never won anything--Testaverde, Anderson, Johnson, Glenn (he did win with the Patriots, without Parcells), Bledsoe (he did lose with the Patriots, with Parcells). And they haven't won anything yet. I'll be shocked if they make it to 8-8 this year.
At least your Bears have a real coach, Lovie Smith. At least he's game planning in the 21st century. And he always has his team ready to play at game time.
Well, almost always. The game this last Sunday being the one notable exception. Howbeit, he found a way to win, that's all that really matters. But he had to depend on the other team making a mistake (missing a field goal) in order for that to happen. That's my point.
Chicago may well do it all this year. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. They have the talent and they have the coach. And they appear to have destiny on their side. I wouldn't bet against them.
But if they play like they played on Sunday against any other team, especially in the post-season, all bets are off.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 17.10.2006 @ 13:26
Oh, please. Chicago won this game on a missed field goal by Arizona. That is the reality.
The Bears were outplayed, especially in the first half, by the Cardinals, with a raw green rookie at quarterback. The Arizona Cardinals, of all teams. And Arizona head coach Dennis Green said it all. "The Bears are who we thought they were! Now, if you want to crown them, then crown their ass! But they are who we thought they were! And we let them of the hook!"
He's right about that. The Cardinals lost this game. The Bears didn't win it.
Not to take anything away from the Chicago defense and special teams, they made plays when they had to--two fumble returns for touchdowns, one punt return for a touchdown. But when a team with an offense that can only generate one field goal has to depend on its defense and special teams for a win, it doesn't bode well for the future.
I guarantee you that if Chicago comes out flat in the first half, like they did on Sunday, against any other team, they're toast. No way Grossman turns over 4 interceptions and 2 fumbles against any other team, and the defense and special teams salvage out a win. No way. Not against any other team.
The Cardinals are cursed. That does not mean the Bears are blessed.
Undefeated? Give me a break. No team will ever go undefeated in a 16-game season. It's just not possible. But even if a team did go 16-0 in the regular seaon, they'd get knocked out of the playoffs real quick, because the amount of energy required to win every regular season game won't leave enough for the post-season. This we all know.
But then, who am I to talk? I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan, and I'm in misery. I see the Cowboys' chances of winning anything of significance in the near or even distant future as nill. As in none, zero, zip, nada. And it breaks my heart.
The Chicago Bears are a good team, a very good team. I would have to say a much better team than the Cowboys at this point. And they do have the talent and potential, and more importantly the head coach, to do it all this year. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. (What would really surprise me is if the Cowboys post a winning season this year.)
But let's get serious. Undefeated? I seriously doubt it.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 17.10.2006 @ 10:02
This reminds me of a commercial I saw on Sunday. Construction workers using tape measurers as lances and wheelbarrows as horses, pushed by other mad construction workers, jousting to see who had the stiffer tape measurer.
That was funny. This is farce.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 16.10.2006 @ 15:59
The Cardinals have never won a playoff game? Strange, I remember them and Jake Plummer taking out the Cowboys in the first round, not too long ago. That loss is seared, seared in my memory.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 15.10.2006 @ 10:06
I hate to correct you, Mr. Moran, but Foley is not a pedophile. Pedophilia refers to molestation of a child. Molestation of an adolescent is pederasty. Thus, Foley is a pederast.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 3.10.2006 @ 22:42
Ha! I laughed out loud when I read "the reading comprehension of a Llama or the cognitive skills of a Tapir." That's a brilliant analogy for the mind, or should I say the lack of mind, of a leftist.
However, you're mistaken on Alice's expectations of the creatures she encountered in Wonderland, Mr. Moran. She might have been reasonably certain they were blessed with some kind of intelligence before she met them. But after meeting the Red Queen, the Mad Hatter, Humpty Dumpty, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, she was rather quickly disabused of that notion.
Lewis Carroll's masterpiece is actually a study in logic and language. Every encounter Alice has with a creature in Wonderland is a logic puzzle that turns on language. Thus, when Humpty Dumpty says, in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." Alice responds, "The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things." To which Humpty Dumpty replies, "The question is which is to be master--that's all."
Here, Humpty Dumpty takes the point of view of a nominalist--the view that universal terms do not refer to objective existences but are nothing more than verbal utterances. This is a view that Carroll actually held himself, as he explains in his book Symbolic Logic: "I maintain that any writer of a book is fully authorised in attaching any meaning he likes to any word or phrase he intends to use. If I find an author saying, at the beginning of his book, "Let it be understood that by the word 'black' I shall always mean 'white', and that by the word 'white' I shall always mean 'black'," I meekly accept his ruling, however injudicious I may think it."
Thankfully, Carroll's position did not win out in the long run. For if we are to communicate accurately we have an obligation to avoid the practice of giving private meanings to commonly used words. If we do not, then communication is impossible. We must pay our words extra, otherwise they are the stuff propaganda is made of. Thus, we do have an obligation to past usage. So, in a sense, words are our masters; if they are not, we cannot communicate. But in another sense we are the masters of words. For if we were not, there would be no such thing as poetry.
This goes to the heart of the debate over intentionalism you have alluded to in the past. And you're right, the left doesn't do nuance--they simply intend to be the masters or propagandists of all. Of course, when they fall like Humpty Dumpty, and they will, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put them back together again.
In Wonderland, Alice has to keep her wits about her, because nothing is as it seems. She has to carefully analyze everything said to her and use logic to arrive at the truth. In this sense, she is much like you. And the blogosphere becomes a lot like Rick Moran in Wonderland.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 1.10.2006 @ 11:17
Excellent analysis, Mr. Moran. In this age of selective reporting and manipulative news, it's all about controlling information to control the masses. Welcome to 1984. Say hello to Big Brother Goebell, and learn newspeak.
Fortunately for us, this is also the age of instant access and unfiltered analysis, in which the truth will out.
I find it incredible that these people, these journalists and politicians who seek to control and manipulate, are still operating from a playbook that was outdated over two decades ago.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 27.09.2006 @ 07:46
Yeah, I'd say your Bears are looking pretty tough about now. A lot tougher than my Cowboys, but it's early in the season.Comment Posted By GawainsGhost On 25.09.2006 @ 22:20