I read with interest our colleague John McCreery's post about blogging fatigue and the comments in response, because I know where he's coming from. I've cut down on my own blogging here in recent months for approximately the same reasons--outrage is a tough thing to maintain, now that the outrage is headed into its seventh year. For me, the urge to write never goes away--the desire to write about the same things all the time certainly can. (I've written much more at my other blog in the last several months, a blog that has virtually nothing to do with politics and, as such, doesn't provoke that little stress headache behind one eyeball.) For what it's worth, I'd echo what BDR said in response to John--the Bush gang has the tenacity of the cockroach, and it's betting its liberal opponents will give up give up just in time to save them from the righteous boot-stomping they so richly deserve. We dare not exchange our boots for fuzzy slippers just yet.
And yes, John, the international perspective is an extremely valuable one that I hope you will continue to contribute. Here in the States, we--and especially our media--swim in a bowl full of assumptions, but like fish, we don't know we're wet. How many times in the last several years have we read foreign press reports that cut through the illusions we cherish like a chainsaw through the phone book and show us things we didn't see before?
It's perhaps symptomatic of my personal political malaise that I've spent more time thinking about and blogging about football these last couple of weeks than about anything else. It's paid off, though--I've picked seven of the eight NFL playoff games correctly so far, missing only Indianapolis over Baltimore last week. So here's this week's plunge into the unknown:
New Orleans at Chicago (2pm Central, Fox): As a lifelong Packers fan, my hatred for the Bears is bone-deep, but I have been unafraid to pick them when the situation warrants. All week, however, I've been ready to pick the Saints--not on irrational hatred, but on the merits. But this morning, it's snowing to beat hell out my Wisconsin window, and the same snowstorm is falling on Chicago, which makes me a lot less confident in the Saints, a dome team. However: If this game comes down to running the football--which, in a snowstorm, you'd expect it to--I'll take Deuce McAllister and Reggie Bush versus the Bears' not-so-great-lately defense over Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson versus the Saints D. And in snow or sunshine, I'd take Drew Brees over Rex Grossman. Saints 21, Bears 20.
New England at Indianapolis (530pm Central, CBS): I truly have no idea how this is going to turn out. None whatsoever. You can construct a half-dozen rational arguments favoring each team. For much of the week, I have leaned toward New England based on my longstanding equation of Tom Brady with the man who's still my football hero, Bart Starr. However, from top to bottom this New England team doesn't have as many outstanding players as Indianapolis does, and several of the best guys they do have were down with the flu this week. Given the players Indy has and the way the stars have aligned for this game, the Colts may never have a better chance to make the Super Bowl. On a poetically just Vinatieri kick at the end, Indianapolis 29, New England 28.
Ramblin' Guys
Jerry Bowles
J.A. Bartlett
Culture Warriors
Groom Lake
Blackdogred
Political Pundocrity
John McCreery
Josh Hammond
Michael Scott
Leftcoast
Krugies
Another Loathsome Day in the USA
Danger, Bad-Ass at Work
Empathy, Ed Psych, and the Football
No Deal
Quote of the Day
Followups
Sports Page
The Fraud
So Long Saddam, So Long Oh-Six
A Ford, Not a Lincoln, or Those Other Guys, Either
May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007
