The Cardinals should persuade Kurt Warner or Jeff George to come out of retirement.
I wish this was seriously being considered. It would be legendary if it actually happened. Though the fact that they re-signed Lindley a few weeks ago tells me they are not really “thinking big.”
The argument generally given why they chose Lindley is that “he was the best that was available, and he is familiar with the offense.”
First off, there are a lot better quarterbacks out there than Lindley(any on the free agent list for starters.) My point of course is that getting a quarterback to come out of retirement like Jeff George or Kurt Warner or even Tim Tebow would be a bold and creative move. There was nothing bold or creative about taking Lindley(except it was brave to think he could lead the team through the playoffs if Stanton went down…insanely so in fact.) So there is no reason to believe they would do something epic like bring someone out of retirement. I’ve been watching football for 30 years and Lindley is one of the worst quarterbacks I have ever seen. He’s down there with T.J. Rubley(though I actually liked Rubley when he played for the LA Rams.)
Warner doesn’t have to learn any of Arians’ schemes. He can wing it. The offense will adapt to him. It’s not like his style was ever about physical fitness. I’m sure he can still drop back and throw a deep ball accurately, something Lindley can’t do while in prime physical condition. There are other options besides Warner though. The cardinals aren’t going to win the super bowl or even the division with Lindley at QB. They’re going to need more than field goals. I’m not a big fan of Tebow, but even his QB rating is almost double Ryan Lindley’s. So yeah think about that for a second. The Cardinals QB is actually WORSE than Tim Tebow, and Tebow is available.
In the 1977 “Mud Bowl,” trailing in the third quarter the Rams considered putting an aging Joe Namath in the game. From Wikipedia:
…redemption and a Hollywood ending was there for the taking. After a disastrous three quarters of turnovers and only trailing by seven points in the opening round of the playoffs, head coach Chuck Knox seemed ready to pull Pat Haden and insert Namath. Rams assistant coach Kay Stephenson said Namath looked great warming-up in the third quarter and advised Knox to put him in. The television audience was on the edge of their seats as it appeared Namath would replace Pat Haden and save the Rams’ season. But Knox hesitated. Haden’s problems continued and the Rams lost to the Vikings by a score of 14–7 in a sea of mud at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.
The Cardinals have a chance to make their storybook season truly something magical. Will they settle for being merely typical?
One recurring theme you hear in both mainstream media and alternative right narratives is how the birthrates of native born populations of Europe, the US and places like Japan are below replacement levels and that we need to either import more immigrants or start having more children if we want to survive. I say, no we don’t. At the very least, we can’t know yet if we do or don’t.
Are we committing suicide or preserving ourselves?
The reason why intelligent people have less children is that they recognize how much of a responsibility taking care of a child is and think ahead about how they can pay for it. Other demographics seem to have a shorter time horizon and less impulse control(see the lollipop time horizon study.) They don’t think about any of that “down the road” stuff. They just pop out babies and let the chips fall where they may while society is left to clean up the mess. We don’t know what the long term future holds. It could be that breakthroughs in medical technology will lead to humans having much longer lifespans, and thus there would be less of a need to increase birthrates. Encouraging responsible people just to start primitively pumping out babies indiscriminately whether they can afford them or not just to get their numbers up, is not forward thinking. If you want to encourage them to have more children, work to provide an environment where having and raising children is seen as affordable and logical, and not as a liability. Our present society isn’t it.
In the early 70′s, capable working class guys could get a factory job right out of high school that paid 30 to 35k per year. plenty of money to start a family on in those days, and so they did. 40 years later, those jobs are gone and salaries haven’t increased much, while the cost of living has. Having a child can be a financial disaster for a person who cares enough to be responsible for them. I have a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant and now pays $1000 a month in child support(even though he doesn’t even have visitation rights,) which amounts to nearly half of his take home pay check.
As far as a culture that views children as a liability as “committing suicide,” I would urge you to take a look at what happens in the wild when populations of animals grow wildly. It often leads to mass starvation and disease and ends up destroying the whole herd. Or you can just take a look at Africa to see the result of people living on pure “id” and how it
affects a civilization.
There’s no way to know what the long term future holds based on present birthrates. There are too many variables involved. In the 60′s and 70′s people were convinced there would be massive overpopulation(Soylent Green, The Population Bomb, etc.) Those projections didn’t pan out. Just because birthrates are declining below replacement level(a favorite topic of Pat Buchanan) among certain demographics, doesn’t mean the population will decline all the way down to zero. It could be that we have way too may people right now, so after it gets down to the point where we are once again running around freely in the open spaces of the post apocalyptic frontier or merely mining the underground caverns of mars, babyfever could return in some form.
It’s not defeatist to believe so either. Defeatism would be having a bunch of children you can’t afford and then thinking the resulting generation of poorly raised, dysfunctional, meth addicted white trash would be somehow be a step forward for civilization(but we got the birthrates up!)
For one thing, it’s irrelevant whether sperm counts are reduced, as in the near future they won’t be required for reproduction. Advanced scientific intelligence is more of an evolutionary advantage in the long term than just pumping out babies. Through medicine, eradication of diseases which had wiped out entire populations of primitive people put us way ahead of “build huts and hump” crowd. The real question is not whether we can reproduce at the same rate, but whether we can be smart enough to separate ourselves from the overbreeders to create an environment where we can thrive. The technological advances I’m talking about aren’t “pie in the sky” Heinleinian dreams. They’re in the works. No one is talking about Highlander style “immortality,” but there’s little question that in the future people will be living much longer than they do now. Most likely, people in the distant future will look back and think how short and miserable our lives must have been, the same way we look back at the days before people had electricity, cars, running water, etc.
It’s cool though. Some people would rather we all live in trailers and bone down all day to create kids we can’t afford, because you know “we’ll have more Caucasian and Japanese people!” They advocate going down to the level of backward peoples so we can reproduce irresponsibly like they do and keep up with them. I’d rather us climb to a higher level entirely, one that man has not yet reached. While the others are out there in their wife beaters, smoking overtaxed Winston cigs, juggling their 8 kids(that they won’t be able to see because they can’t make the child support payments) trying to outbreed mobs of barbarians and battle it out with them on the streets, we’ll be off in our own homeland putting up a force field to keep out the riff raff, so they can’t interrupt us while we’re interacting with virtual reality porn and trying to watch marathons of Battlestar Galactica(upbeat 70′s version, not the bleak and castrated remake.)
With the Bill Cosby accusations dominating the news and the positively cataclysmic negative impact on his public image, many right wing Clinton conspiracy theorists are thinking it may be a good time to recycle some of Bill’s old sexual misconduct allegations(as well as the more bizarre “body count” accusations) with the thought that maybe people might be more receptive to them in this age of hyperfeminism.
While I agree that there is a double standard with Clinton and Cosby, Clinton was only accused of rape by one woman(Juanita Broaddrick,) and she changed her story:
“During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies.”
Cosby on the other hand has been accused by more than 15 women. If there were a new accusation against Clinton it might revive the story.
The double standard goes both ways though, with conservatives willing to believe any old accusation against Clinton and reluctant to believe accusations about Cosby, due to his statements in the black community which resonated with them.
The Clinton accusations don’t even come close to the Cosby stuff. Kathleen Willey’s “sexual assault” amounted to him “embracing her and forcefully kissing her on the lips.” Wow! That’s some x-rated stuff there. Willey was also not credible. So you have the two most notable accusers with major credibility issues..
Nothing compared to drugging someone and having sex with them while they’re passed out, of which multiple people accused Cosby of. I don’t believe for a minute that Clinton was offing people either. He was a horny hick. Nothing more.
Cosby is much more disturbing because he seemed to have a developed his own creepy system.
I can’t find anything on any of this stuff that isn’t from an unbiased source. Snopes is a left wing site, but they definitely address some of the outlandish “body count” allegations.
I believe the Gary Johnson incident possibly may have taken place based on the Gennifer Flowers Hannity interview, but still there’s no tangible proof. I mean where’s the beef? More likely I think is that the story is completely made up, and she just repeated what she heard from some third party after the fact. It doesn’t sound plausible at all when you start reviewing the times and dates and the fact that no one can prove this guy is even real.
The problem with getting Clinton conspiracies any traction, is that people who hate Clinton start believing absolutely everything, and it discredits the stuff that may actually be true. It’s no different than the neocons willing to believe Ahmed Chalabi and all the Iraqi exiles about their wild claims about Saddam’s nuclear program. A lot of us believed that stuff back in 2002 because we simply wanted to(and also our own CIA, president, congress and secretary of state were telling us it was true.)
People need to find definitive sources of information if they want to lend this stuff any credibility…like police reports, videotapes, letters, etc. Otherwise these stories will never be believed by anyone but die hard Clinton haters(of which I consider myself one and even I’m not all that persuaded.) It’s at best chain email quality where it’s at now.
Cosby’s accusers included some pretty famous people, who were willing to go on television to tell their story. Where is Gary Johnson? Is he still alive? Does he still have the tape? Can anyone offer proof that he even exists? If not, then this stuff is as good as dead .
Most of the Clinton cases are pretty easily debunked with just a bit of searching. These Clinton conspiracy blogs leave out inconvenient facts and what they do include they examine uncritically. There is no real evidence to back up any of them. Most are just examples of Clinton being a sleazy guy, which everyone already knows and and a plurality of people have come to accept.
It doesn’t matter if one of these alleged incidents “sounds like” something Clinton would do. There has to be physical or verifiable evidence. A known sleazy guy grabbing a girl’s boob or thigh, or whipping it out when he’s drunk isn’t enough to scandalize anyone. In Anthony Weiner’s case there were actual photos and proof of what he was doing.
Again, see this thread to see how this stuff can’t even withstand the most basic scrutiny:
I say this not as someone who thinks Clinton did or did not commit these acts, but just to point out that if this is the best you’ve got, it’s going absolutely nowhere outside of kookville.
Professional conspiracy theory believer Roger Stone posted this on Facebook as a teaser for his upcoming book:
Bill Clinton has no degree from Oxford. The Rhode Scholar Rapist was tossed out of Oxford for raping 19 year old Emily Wellstone, beginning a pattern that will make Bill Cosby look like a boy scout- COMING SOON in my next book “The Clinton’s War on Women’ – Skyhorse 2015
Color me skeptical. This woman’s name doesn’t even bring up a single hit in google. Can’t wait to see what this guy’s evidence is. I hope this isn’t going to be like those Gareth Penn books on the Zodiac. On second thought, Gareth’s Penn is at least an interesting and witty guy.
I think people should have to pass intelligence tests in order to have children or vote, or at the very least…maybe pay 5 dollars to vote.
Robert Heinlein laid out a modest proposal in “Expanded Universe” which was so logical and intuitive that there is no possibility it could ever be implemented in today’s PC universe:
A state that required a bare minimum of intelligence and education – e.g., step into the polling booth and find that the computer has generated a new quadratic equation just for you. Solve it, the computer unlocks the voting machine, you vote. But get a wrong answer and the voting machine fails to unlock, a loud bell sounds, a red light goes on over the booth – and you slink out, face red, you having just proved yourself too stupid and/or ignorant to take part in the decisions of grownups. Better luck next election! No lower age limit in this system – smart 12-yr-old girls vote every election while some of their mothers – and fathers – decline to be humiliated twice.
There are endless variations on this one. Here are two: Improving the Breed — No red light, no bell…but the booth opens automatically – empty. Revenue — You don’t risk your life, just some gelt. It costs you 1/4 oz. troy of gold in local currency to enter the booth. Solve your quadratic and vote, and you get your money back. Flunk – and the state keeps it. With this one I guarantee that no one would vote who was not interested and would be most unlikely to vote if unsure of his ability to get that hundred bucks back.
No, I don’t think they need to solve quadratic equations or have mastered the finer points of organic chemistry. Would it be too much to ask though for people to successfully answer basic questions like “if I have a basket of 8 apples and someone takes 2 of them, how many apples do I have left?” or “is it safe to leave your baby in a car on a hot day?” I would say they should be able to use the correct forms of words like “their” and “there,””too and to,” as well as “loose and lose,” but that may weed out too many adult Americans.
Just kidding! I hate remakes They’re almost all so egregiously awful and opportunistic that I can’t imagine narrowing the “worst” down to a mere list of 10. I can only think of maybe 4 remakes that are good:
1. The 1981 version of “The Thing” which a remake of “The Thing From Another World” from 1951.
2. Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Man Who Knew Too Much”(1956) which even then was a remake of his own movie, “The Man Who Knew Too Much”(1934)
3. The 1988 version of “The Blob,” which I enjoyed many late night HBO summer vacation viewings of. It was Kevin Dillon’s finest hour.
4. “One Million Years B.C.”(1966.) It has Raquel Welch’s bangin’ body in it, and that’s enough to make it good.
Yep, that’s it…unless you count “Blame It On Rio”(1984) which was apparently based on a 1977 French film. I don’t even know if that makes it a true remake. It also isn’t considered good by anyone in the world except me.
Everything else is garbage. All the remakes of the last 20 years have been made by a dumber, less creative, more PC whipped generation of filmmakers and made to appeal to a dumber, shorter attention spanned, historically challenged audience.
So I’m not really into the whole Ali G act I have to say. I’ts pretty funny I admit, but it’s isn’t really my thing. I just don’t live in that world, and I find the whole British fascination with hip hop culture kind of bizarre.
After watching a lot of these “Ali G” videos though, I couldn’t help but notice how Pat Buchanan was cool and just went with it. So many of the other famous people were so uptight and irritated and just had no sense of humor. See the Andy Rooney or Donald Trump interviews for a comparison. They didn’t have patience for it at all. Pat understands the need to reach out to different audiences with his message and is willing to entertain a discussion with anyone. He knows it’s a joke but realizes it will be viewed by people who might be receptive to his views, that would not be exposed to them otherwise.
I remember when the Super Bowl was a blowout almost every year, the Bud Bowl was actually more entertaining than the actual game.
Bud Bowl I – “This Time It’s For Real!”
When I was a kid I had a habit of mailing companies asking for random stuff that I became obsessed with, such as when I wrote to the Los Angeles Rams in 1986, and they sent me an Autographed photo of Eric Dickerson, or the time I sent a letter to Mad Magazine in 1987 asking for some old back issues like the “Irving Pac” one(along with a couple others,) which they actually sent me for free. Well believe it or not I was really into Bud Light and the Spuds Mackenzie commercials, so when the Bud Bowl commercials showed up I had been rooting for Bud Light and remember being bummed out when they lost on the last second field goal. Why I gave a shit who won Bud Bowl I is a mystery to be solved only by child psychologists. However, you can bet that at 11 years old I wrote to Anheuser-Busch and asked them to send me a VHS tape of the Bud Bowl commercials, which they actually did. I always admired them as a company after that, even though my grandpa(who used to work for Miller) always referred to their beer as horsepiss. “That’s why they always have the clydesdales” he would say.
Yeah, that’s a Bud Light/Spuds Mackenzie hat I was rocking in the 80s.
One of the most prescient dystopian science fiction films of the 1980′s turned out to be the (direct to video?) 1987 movie, “Cherry 2000.”
The future depicted in Cherry 2000 is one where sexual encounters and relationships with real women have become complicated legal transactions requiring lawyers, and have been reduced to merely emotionless business arrangements. The women are typically aggressive, masculine, demanding and shrill. It leads to an environment where the rare romantic guy, who still longs for a traditional loving relationship, would actually find a courtship with a female android more emotionally fulfilling than one with a real live organic woman. It’s sort of a more sympathetic, less horrific spin on “The Stepford Wives” theme. In Stepford, the men killed their loving yet sassy wives in exchange for robot sex slaves who would do the dishes and clean the house without giving them any grief. They were portrayed unmistakably as as evil pricks. In contrast, the physically human women are the ones who display the robotic behavior in Cherry 2000, while the romantic men are forced to seek out the loving emulation of androids for any “meaningful” companionship. Of course the film sells out in the end, as the main character who sacrifices everything in a dangerous quest to replace his beloved, short circuited fembot(Cherry, played by Pamela Gidley) with the identical discontinued model, ultimately falls for the crass and bitchy, tomboyish tracker, “Edith”(Melanie Griffith) whom he’s hired to help locate the robot.
With the advent of “yes means yes” laws it doesn’t seem like it will be long before men will be required to get some type of verbally recorded or written consent to engage in sexual activity with a seemingly “turned on” girl, to shield themselves from litigation or criminal prosecution if she turns on them later. As if getting a girl pregnant or contracting an STD wasn’t enough to worry about, now we have bigger fish to fry. Indeed, there is already a phone app for sexual consent, called Good2Go.
Recent developments over the past two decades have lead me to conclude we’re headed towards Cherry 2000 style dating in America. Indeed, I’ve started to notice that the crudely annoying spambots on Tinder and Okcupid have been getting more sophisticated in their programming to the point where interacting with them can be more romantically stimulating than talking to actual chicks(which, if you’ve ever had an unfortunate exchange with one of these Tinderbots you would realize is more of a knock on the sorry state of the 21st century female conversational experience than it is one marveling in wonder at the advancements in artificial intelligence spam.)
Then there are video game characters. Back in a particularly isolated time period of my life in 2001 and 2002, when all I did was drink diet pepsi, eat microwave popcorn and play old Super Nintendo RPGs in my studio apartment, I would occasionally develop what I guess you could call “crushes” on some of the female sprites in the games(such as Rydia from Final Fantasy IV, Marle and Schala from Chrono Trigger, Paula from Earthbound, etc.) even to where I began to curiously research the technological possibilities of transferring human consciousness to a computer. I was thinking of course that if i could somehow hack a sprite that resembled me into the game’s ROM, that it might be possible to get something going. Yeah, it’s crazy but so what? Realized dreams are the work of madmen. I also saw Tron in the theater when I was a kid so perhaps it left a subconscious impression on me.
In any case, if that kind of emotion was possible to evoke in the days of 16 bit SNES pixelation, I can only imagine how real a romance could be in the context of modern video games which are now much more advanced in their elaborate overworlds, roleplays and simulations. Thousands if not millions of men and women find the virtual experience of video games more appealing than going outside and playing. It would be naive to think that organic human love would be any less vulnerable to competition from artificial intelligence than other components of our earthly existence.
Dust off your 1980′s JC Penney catalog and get your fembots on order, men! This scene is coming to a nightclub or campus near you.