• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Sign in to follow this  
Larry

CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? There isn't much research on it, but Ive seen stuff range from issues the baby was having during gestation, not being able to access abortions earlier in the pregnancy (cost, logistics, state laws, etc), or life-threatening situations for the women carrying the child.

 

And its a small number of cases. I am not sure how often it is "I have been pregnant for seven months, but I have finally decided I do not want this kid." And even on the chances that is the case, and?

 

Just to throw another "what if" into this mix, but there ARE people who come in to the ER in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

 

I certainly HOPE they're rare. But they do exist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I have been trying to put it into perspective, but I guess Im not getting it across.

 

Can you answer this question for me? It may make it clearer to you, but at least should make it clearer to me how to get why across:

 

Why did the people working to abolish slavery feel they had the right to impose their view that slavery was wrong on slave owners?

 

Because while reasonable people can disagree on exactly when a fetus becomes a person no reasonable person could argue that someone born in Africa or born from those people abducted from Africa is a person. 

 

Also the impact (harm) of slavery was far wider than to the individual slave - there was societal level impact in the nations that slaves were stolen from, on the economies of the nations where slavery took place and from where the slaves were taken, to the families of slaves and the treatment of slaves in captivity.

 

I don't know if they had opinion polls back then, I don't know if a majority of people wanted to end slavery or not. But I think we can be certain a majority would now. We also know there is no majority of opinion against availability of legal abortion. Imposition by a minority on a majority is tyranny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1- what does opinion polling have to do with why someone who sees it as murder should not then feel obligated to do something about it (even if it’s just to vote to ban it)?

 

2- I’m sure at one point “slavery is bad” was a minority opinion. This is a bad measuring stick. 

 

3- I’m going to throw this “minority imposing on majority is tyranny” argument at people next time I get a chance. I don’t think it’s as good of an argument as you think. Might want to reconsider how many minority groups out there rely on being able to impose on the majority for things to be fair 

 

4- even if that wasn’t true, rule by simple majority is hardly an indication of doing the right thing. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tshile said:

 

3- I’m going to throw this “minority imposing on majority is tyranny” argument at people next time I get a chance. I don’t think it’s as good of an argument as you think. Might want to reconsider how many minority groups out there rely on being able to impose on the majority for things to be fair 

 

 

I am sure there are examples - and possibly some good ones (in terms of intent and impact). Have you any in mind?

 

But as a generalization I am VERY comfortable taking a position that a minority imposing a position on a majority is a bad thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It always comes down to morality and morality is essential opinion mixed with experience, recognized by a society.

 

slavery didn’t end because it was wrong, it ended because enough people thought it was immoral.

 

Abortion is legal or isn’t not because it’s wrong or right, but because enough people believe the government getting involved in a woman’s choice is immoral, or that killing the unborn is immoral. 

 

Right and wrong exist regardless of what we think.  Whether or not we choose to do right or wrong depends on whatever the interpretation of right or wrong is at the moment, and our thoughts can be easily swayed to think something that is wrong is right or vice versa.

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And @tshile, let me go further.

 

I don’t think that people should get late term abortions.  I think that they should have made their mind up LONG before it gets to the third trimester.  In some cases of defect or complication, then sure.  But a woman (and her partner, if she so chooses) should have determined the fate of that child immediate after she discovered that she was pregnant.

 

I just think that trying to decide if something is actually “alive” and what constitutes that is impossibly difficult.  To me, it’s alive from when the seed is germinated.  That doesn’t make it a real person though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I just checked. Apparently there are 13 States 

 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/only-these-states-say-babies-are-humans-heres-an-update-on-the-fierce-abortion-battles-across-the-us

 

"Thirteen states have laws on the books that state unborn babies are people. These personhood statements are often included under the criminal code to protect mothers and their unborn babies from violent attacks like domestic abuse"


Homicide ...Homicide is the act of one human killing another.

We could get into the difference between a human and a person but that gets on peoples nerves

 

 

Quote

 

 According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states have “fetal homicide” laws, though the group is quick to note the political ramifications of designating a crime against a pregnant person versus a crime against the entity within the pregnant person.

https://consciousstyleguide.com/are-fetus-and-unborn-child-interchangeable/

 


 

Quote


 

With 37 states recognizing the unborn child under criminal law and 38 states recognizing the unborn child under civil law, there can be no doubt that there is widespread recognition of the personhood of the unborn child in the United States.

https://aul.org/2011/11/17/states-acknowledge-unborn-despite-personhood-amendment-defeat/


 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

I am sure there are examples - and possibly some good ones (in terms of intent and impact). Have you any in mind?

 

But as a generalization I am VERY comfortable taking a position that a minority imposing a position on a majority is a bad thing.

 

None off the top of my head that are appropriate for this thread. 

 

In general I consider measuring the quality of an idea based on which side is the minority or majority not of any value. People don’t tend to be on the right side of things simply because more people agree with them  

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

And @tshile, let me go further.

 

I don’t think that people should get late term abortions.  I think that they should have made their mind up LONG before it gets to the third trimester.  In some cases of defect or complication, then sure.  But a woman (and her partner, if she so chooses) should have determined the fate of that child immediate after she discovered that she was pregnant.

 

I just think that trying to decide if something is actually “alive” and what constitutes that is impossibly difficult.  To me, it’s alive from when the seed is germinated.  That doesn’t make it a real person though.

 

My issue is with your wording. The way you worded it people could draw their lines anywhere. The line could even be drawn after birth, and for quite a while. That makes it a useless standard to me. That’s all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

In general I consider measuring the quality of an idea based on which side is the minority or majority not of any value. People don’t tend to be on the right side of things simply because more people agree with them  

 

But democracy starts to break down when the majority feel they are being disenfranchised/marginalised by a minority. It's also dangerous when a party in power from broad public appeal impose minority views and go further and stack the court system with political appointees to hold their fingers on the scales even if they are voted out of power (having judges appointed by politicians is a novel and scary concept to me - in the UK there is legislation which explicitly limits the role and influence of politicians in judicial appointments).

 

It's a dangerous road on which to tread. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

It would appear that my faith that "this satire is so far over the top that I don't need to label it" is incorrect. At least on this subject. 

 

Which I guess I should understand. It is, after all, a subject which pushes a lot of very powerful buttons on a lot of people. (Including me. Which probably causes me to work harder to try to be ironic, or something.). 

 

No, this is not "not my fault y'all are too stupid to see what's obvious". This is "maybe if one person doesn't get it, then it's just him. But if multiple people don't, then maybe it's me."  

 

sarcasm or not, it's not funny, imo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think it’s disingenuous to wrap all that up in a little box as a presentation as to why people shouldn’t be against abortion. 

 

I agree its not an argument for why someone shouldn't be against abortion. But its reasonable to ask those people pushing legislation through which will result in the birth of more children, often into difficult economic circumstances how they are planning to help support the lives of those children. 

 

To wit.

 

'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

Someone put out a stat that only a third of 20-24 week old infants make it, that is a disturbing failure rate to act like all the mother has to so is get the fetus out the womb if they don't want it, that doesn't sound the case at all and how much does that cost?  Who's paying to save premature babies when the parents don't want them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

Here is what I think he is saying.  He sees the fetus as a human being.  He thinks killing another human is wrong.  So the justification for him "pushing his morality" is the same it would be for him disagreeing with some killing their neighbor because he doesn't want a neighbor.  Killing a human is wrong, born or unborn.  (A position I don't agree with)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

 

“Late term abortions” are about 1% of cases, and seem to happen because women lack access at earlier stages in some parts of the country. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

With that said, what do you mean by holy wars? If its in reference to wars that happened in the old testament in the bible I have and see no contradiction but if you want me to expound further send me a message. This could easily go off the rails from the actual topic of abortion which I don't want to do.

You are right that you haven't brought up religion.  It happens so often I just assumed you did.  I apologize. 

 

By holy wars I mean holy wars.  The crusades, etc.  Not stories from the bible but actual factual, historical wars fought in the name of God.  It is usually a point of hypocrisy when someone claims abortion is wrong because [insert whatever religious justification] but holy wars were fought because it's what God wanted. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/religious/holywar.shtml

 

But again, since you didn't mention religion, it is off topic.  Sorry for the derail.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

Someone put out a stat that only a third of 20-24 week old infants make it, that is a disturbing failure rate to act like all the mother has to so is get the fetus out the womb if they don't want it, that doesn't sound the case at all and how much does that cost?  Who's paying to save premature babies when the parents don't want them?

I was one that mentioned 7+ months but that was just in response to someone that had stated that it wasn't a person until born. 

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Here is what I think he is saying.  He sees the fetus as a human being.  He thinks killing another human is wrong.  So the justification for him "pushing his morality" is the same it would be for him disagreeing with some killing their neighbor because he doesn't want a neighbor.  Killing a human is wrong, born or unborn.  (A position I don't agree with)

Yes basically, thanks for putting that a bit better than I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

But democracy starts to break down when the majority feel they are being disenfranchised/marginalised by a minority. It's also dangerous when a party in power from broad public appeal impose minority views and go further and stack the court system with political appointees to hold their fingers on the scales even if they are voted out of power (having judges appointed by politicians is a novel and scary concept to me - in the UK there is legislation which explicitly limits the role and influence of politicians in judicial appointments).

 

It's a dangerous road on which to tread. 

 

Sure

 

but the whole reason we are a republic and not a democracy is because majority rule without checks is foolish. 

 

I feel as though some of you have gone out of control with applying general, overarching themes about governance to a very specific issue. 

 

Being in the majority is not really a good standard for whether an idea is “good” or not. It just isn’t. And just because that’s the case, and just because someone argues that in this specific issue the majority isn’t right (not my argument, but clearly it is some others), doesn’t mean our system of government is going to crumble if they’re right. It certainly doesn’t mean you can use the threat of crumbling to shut them down. 

 

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not against the general idea you’re using, I just don’t know that it applies to this specific case. I don’t know that it’s fair to look at the abortion debate and declare that the people who want it banned because they view it as murdering a life are wrong simply because majority of the country think abortion (on some level) should be legal. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I think they’re wrong that it should be banned. But not because they’re a minority opinion and making that law would be tyranny. 

34 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I agree its not an argument for why someone shouldn't be against abortion. But its reasonable to ask those people pushing legislation through which will result in the birth of more children, often into difficult economic circumstances how they are planning to help support the lives of those children. 

 

Agreed. 

 

I think this is yet another issue where there’s just no empathy for the other side. One has chosen to care about the unborn (their wording), the other has chosen to care about women (their wording), and neither seems interested in reconsidering why someone might actually disagree with them. Some do. But the vast majority don’t. Reading the posts in here there are very militant people on both sides. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using stats on how well people are doing or provided for to justify killing humans is a rather dangerous path imo.

 

Freedom and opportunity at any level do not exist w/o life.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, twa said:

Using stats on how well people are doing or provided for to justify killing humans is a rather dangerous path imo.

 

Freedom and opportunity at any level do not exist w/o life.

 

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Sure

 

but the whole reason we are a republic and not a democracy is because majority rule without checks is foolish. 

 

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

 

It’s a statement made by people who were failed by their US civics teachers.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

 

 

And what procedures medical professionals can perform and when.

 

We have limits  even on fertilized human eggs.....since we recognize their humanity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

Sure the US as a democratic republic, or representative democracy, has aspects of a democracy but it's very different. The republic aspect of it is there to protect from majority rules through the Constitution. If I remember correctly that was one of the main reasons it is not a democracy but a combination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

 

A true/pure democracy is everyone having one vote on every issue. 

 

A republic is everyone having one vote vote for a representative;  who then convenes with their peers to vote on issues, presumably on your behalf (lol)

 

it’s usually brought up to illustrate that simple majority rule is silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.