Happy Academy Awards!
In honor of this auspicious day, I saw Juno in a cut-rate theatre & highly recommend it. Each line is so well written you won’t want to miss a word. As evidenced by the fact that my dear friend Roxanne told two old people in front of us to “Zip it!” in the middle of the movie.
* * * * *
After hours of combing through varied websites, I have finally determined my list of 100 favorite movies. They are not in order, since depending on my mood I would rank them differently nearly ever single day of the year. The top 10 are in bold, the favorite tear-jerkers are in italics.
I particularly enjoy the juxtaposition of Doris Day versus Charles Bronson, both which are listed more than once. Although I think of myself as a chick-flick kind of girl, the list is full of action movies, too. Who knew?
Drumroll, please . . .
1. Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner (Sidney Poitier) - I will love this until the end of time.
2. Brokeback Mountain (Heath Ledger & Jake Gyllenhaal) - This is the rare film I can watch again & again. Both actors were brilliant, the final scene emotionally devastating. Just utter perfection.
3. Terms of Endearment (Debra Winger) - An all time favorite. Shirley Maclaine’s character is more memorable than some of the real people in my life.
4. Men of Honor (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) - One of the best movies ever, it was never given the credit it deserves.
5. Dirty Dancing (Patrick Swayze) - What can I say? I’ve probably seen it 100 times. It’s embarrassing how much I love the duo of Johnny & Baby.
6. The Departed (Leonardo DiCaprio & Mark Wahlberg) - A masterpiece. I never understood the hype over Leo, then suddenly I did.
7. The Bridges of Madison County (Clint Eastwood) - This was both heartbreaking & beautiful. Meryl Streep & Clint Eastwood were perfect together.
8. Harold and Maude (Ruth Gordon) - A piece of genius, magnificent, fantastic black humor. They somehow made a May-December romance seem entirely romantic & reasonable. Harold’s multiple fake suicide scenes are not to be missed. Best musical score of all time by Cat Stevens.
9. The Parent Trap (Hayley Mills) - My favorite since childhood.
10. Best In Show (Christopher Guest) - The characters in this film are some of the funniest ever created.
11. Pride and Prejudice (Kiera Knightley) – Loved it beyond words.
12. Rudy (Sean Astin) – I’m a fan of the sports genre, especially underdogs.
13. Carrie (Sissy Spacek) – My all-time hero.
14. The Last King of Scotland (Forrest Whitaker) – Wow, what a movie.
15. The Birds (Tippi Hedren) – Scariest film of my childhood.
16. Urban Cowboy (Debra Winger/John Travolta) - I love this soundtrack, I love Debra Winger. I am evidently a hick at heart.
17. Hoosiers (Gene Hackman) – This will make you stand up and cheer!
18. Cinderella Man (Russell Crowe) – Combination of underdog plus romance equals perfection.
19. A Perfect World (Clint Eastwood/Kevin Costner) - I freaking love this film. I still could cry if I thought hard enough about the final scene.
20. The Glass Bottom Boat (Doris Day)
21. Gone With The Wind (Clark Gable)
22. Pretty Woman (Richard Gere)
23. Ransom (Mel Gibson)
24. An Officer And A Gentleman (Richard Gere) – He’s just plain hot.
25. The Deer Hunter (Robert DeNiro) – The scene where he’s squatting against the wall in the hotel room is seared in my brain.
26. Jesus Camp (Documentary) - If you haven’t seen it, get it. Scary.
27. Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (Gene Wilder) – I’m not sure anything ever touched me as deeply as Charlie finding the golden ticket.
28. The Notebook (Ryan Gosling) - Beautiful!
29. Falling in Love (Robert DeNiro) – Romantic & heart-breaking.
30. Clerks (Kevin Smith) – Black humor at its’ absolute best.
31. Cast Away (Tom Hanks) - He’s just brilliant. A 3-hour movie with a volleyball as your co-star. Incredible.
32. The Executioner’s Song (Tommy Lee Jones)
33. Die Hard (Bruce Willis)
34. The Sixth Sense (Bruce Willis) – One of the best movies ever written, the twist is so unexpected.
35. Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood) – I love Clint, I love ass-kicking & payback.
36. Death Wish (I, II, III, IV & V) (Charles Bronson) – Vigilante extraordinaire.
37. Midnight Express (Billy Hayes) – Brilliant.
38. Death at a Funeral – A black comedy beyond compare. Hysterical.
39. Same Time Next Year (Alan Alda, Ellen Burstyn) – I can’t believe I forgot this one, I love it! “The Last Time I Felt Like This” makes me swoon.
40. Definitely, Maybe (Ryan Reynolds & Isla Fisher) - Loved it from start to finish.
41. The Silence of the Lambs (Anthony Hopkins) – Freaks me out.
42. Jaws (Roy Scheider) – Scary every single time.
43. Annie Hall (Diane Keaton) – I love this chick.
44. The Graduate (Dustin Hoffman)
45. Meet The Parents (Ben Stiller) – Hysterical.
46. Meet The Fockers (Robert DeNiro) – And then they did it again.
47. Scarface (Al Pacino)
48. Mystic River (Sean Penn)
49. Shaun of the Dead (2004) – I had no idea I could love zombie comedy.
50. When A Stranger Calls (Camilla Belle) – I’ve never been more frightened in a theater than when I was watching this movie.
51. Pillow Talk (Doris Day & Rock Hudson) – These two are perfect together.
52. The Sound of Music (Julie Andrews) – They made it over the mountains.
53. Pearl Harbor (Ben Affleck) – Thank God he did something well.
54. Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) – The balls in the face scene – perfection.
55. Secretary (James Spader) – The hottest sex scene I’ve ever seen. And very weird.
56. The Birdcage (Robin Williams)
57. The Towering Inferno (Paul Newman)
58. Double Jeopardy (Ashley Judd)
59. Conair (Nicolas Cage) – The final scene makes it worth watching.
60. Driving Miss Daisy (Morgan Freeman)
61. To Sir, With Love (Sidney Poitier) – Huge Sidney fan.
62. American Gangster (Denzel Washington & Russell Crowe)
63. Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) - It seems hokey until I watch it again, fall in love again, cry again.
64. The Guardian (Kevin Costner)
65. Love Actually (Hugh Grant)
66. Little Miss Sunshine (Steve Carroll) – All in the character development.
67. Heathers (Winona Ryder)
68. The Prince of Tides (Nick Nolte) - A heart-wrenching story.
69. The Godfather (Al Pacino)
70. Titanic (Leonardo DiCaprio) - I can’t reconcile the final scene. They both could have fit on the float.
71. Legends of the Fall (Brad Pitt) – Really a beautiful film.
72. The People v. Larry Flynt (Woody Harrelson) – Completely unexpected.
73. Play Misty for Me (Clint Eastwood)
74. Where The Heart Is (Natalie Portman) – It really doesn’t get any better than having a baby in Wal-Mart.
75. Sex, Lies & Videotape (James Spader)
76. Gone Baby Gone (Casey Affleck) – Do you make the call or not?
77. A Time To Kill (Matthew McConaughey) – Never was there a more sympathetic character than the father in this movie.
78. While You Were Sleeping (Bill Pullman) – One of Sandra Bullock’s best movies. Pullman unexpectedly pulls off the leading man thing really well.
79. The Perfect Storm (Mark Wahlberg) – No fishing boats for me.
80. Home For the Holidays (Holly Hunter) – Dysfunction at its’ best.
81. The Family Stone (Diane Keaton) - Great ensemble of actors, Sarah Jessica Parker plays her role so perfectly.
82. Something’s Gotta Give (Diane Keaton) – Jack Nicholson’s still got it.
83. Caddyshack (Bill Murray)
84. With Six You Get Eggroll (Doris Day) – My favorite Doris.
85. Sleepless in Seattle (Meg Ryan) - I absolutely love this movie.
86. Brian’s Song (James Caan)
87. French Kiss (Kevin Kline) – The chemistry with Meg Ryan is great.
88. Raging Bull (Robert DeNiro)
89. Unforgiven (Clint Eastwood) – Unforgettable.
90. Fried Green Tomatoes (Kathy Bates) – The scene in the parking lot.
91. Sudden Impact (Clint Eastwood)
92. Love Story (Ryan O’Neill) - The first movie that made me cry.
93. You’ve Got Mail (Tom Hanks) – Another Meg Ryan. She’s adorable.
94. Sabrina (Harrison Ford) – Both versions are great movies.
95. Sling Blade (Billy Bob Thornton) - This guy is really a genius.
96. Jurassic Park (Jeff Goldblum) – The dinosaurs continue to scare me every time I watch it.
97. Please Don’t Eat The Daisies (Doris Day) – Just for fun.
98. Juno (Ellen Page) – It’s all about the writing.
99. God Grew Tired of Us (Documentary) – Should be required viewing by every American citizen. Tremendous.
100. Christmas Vacation (Chevy Chase) – It’s funny every single time.
Sooooo MsZindzi.com’ers as promised I have the FULL Rihanna interview on ABC’s 20/20 last night…
She seemed strong, and she exuded confidence throughout the entire interview w/ Diane Sawyer. I particularly liked her answers to the question, “What would you like to hear from him?”, She replied “NOTHING”….”Do you ever see yourself being with him again?” Rihanna replied, “…….I have NO DESIRE to be with him…”
Part 1 of 5
Part 2 of 5
Part 3 of 5
Part 4 of 5
Part 5 of 5
Really happy I got a chance to hear her side of things, and besides she did WAAAAAAAY better than Chris ever did! Get yours Rih Rih! OH! Imma work on getting the “Russian Roulette” video up soon.
To provide a little greater access, below the fold I reproduce the complete report from the Texas Citizens for Science on the Institution for Creation Research’s bid to get approval from Texas to grant graduate degrees from the ICR’s Irving, Texas, campus.
If you are tracking this issue, you should also see these posts and sites:
- Creationism for profit (the TCS press release)
- Deck stacked against education and science
- Creationism degree programs suffer
- Texas’s face should be creationism red
- Bending science
- Creationism school wants to offer masters degrees
- Religion as science in Texas
- Follow links from those posts to other blogs and to news reports about the creationism controversy
The TCS report is also available at the TCS website.
The Institute for Creation Research and
It’s Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award
Master’s Degrees in Science EducationA REPORT BY TEXAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE
Steven Schafersman, TCS President
2007 December 17The Institute for Creation Research and Young Earth Creationism
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wants the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to give ICR official state certification to award Master’s Degrees in Science Education in Texas. Recent MSM news reports of this story are available.
The Institute for Creation Research is the oldest of two major Young Earth Creationist organizations in the United States (the other is Answers in Genesis of Northern Kentucky, which has the new, expensive Creation Museum that received so much attention during the past year). ICR recently moved its administrative and educational offices from San Diego, CA, to Dallas, TX, presumably because it is a more congenial location for their major activity: promoting Young Earth Creationism (YEC) in the United States. Young Earth Creationism–which combines the beliefs of Special Creationism of every species or “kind,” Adam and Eve were real people, Noah’s Flood actually occurred and created most geological features on Earth’s surface, and a young Earth 10,000 years old or less–is still the most popular variety of Creationism in the country, because it conforms to the views of Biblical Literalists. Although it is illegal to teach Creationism in public schools–because doing so in secular public institutions violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution–it is possible to teach it in homes, churches, Sunday schools, private schools, and home schools. This is where most American students learn their Creationism; as studies and surveys repeatedly reveal, about 40% of U.S. citizens believe in this traditional form of Creationism, so the ICR, AiG, and Fundamentalist churches have been extraordinarily successful at dumbing-down science literacy among our country’s students and citizens.
Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), as promoted by the Discovery Institute across the country and by seven members of the Texas State Board of Education, is the most recent version of Creationism. IDC does not promote the tenets of YEC listed above. Rather, IDC has two goals: the proximate goal is to corrupt and distort science education in public schools by convincing ignorant state education officials that modern biological evolution is “controversial” and has “weaknesses” that scientists know about but don’t want young people to learn, so these officials should require that science standards and textbooks must include the alleged but bogus “weaknesses” and “controversy” about evolution; the purpose is to damage evolution instruction so much that students will distrust science, science instruction, and science instructors. The ultimate goal of IDC is to convince a majority of Americans that IDC is a better explanation for origins and biological diversity than evolution and to distrust natural scientific explanations in favor of supernaturalistic explanations, i.e. to replace naturalism with supernaturalism as the dominant intellectual ontology in science and academia.
I mention IDC to contrast it with the YEC promoted by ICR. Both falsely claim to be devoted to science and to have scientific evidence that supports them, but YEC is a much more vulgar and incredible version of Creationism, one which requires the believer to ignore enormous amounts of evidence from all scientific disciplines and to willingly suspend disbelief and engage in monumental self-deception. ICR’s pretension to teach real science is baseless. For the THECB to give ICR certification to grant master’s degrees in science education would be a mockery of science and an injustice to students who work hard in legitimate science institutions to earn real master’s degrees in science education.
History of the ICR Graduate School
ICR is registered in Texas as a “private, not-for-profit corporation, for the purposes of research, writing, and education in both the standard curriculum of each scientific discipline and the Institute’s supplemental framework of scientific creationism and biblical authority in all disciplines.” ICR runs its own graduate school that offers M.S. degrees in science education. Its stated mission is to “research, educate and communicate Truth involving the study and promotion of scientific creationism, Biblical creationism, and related fields.” ICR claims its Graduate School program “provides graduate-level training in science education through an online environment, with minors in the natural sciences that are particularly relevant to the study of origins,” specifically biology, geology, and “astro/geophysics” (this specialty is in quotes because there is no such category in modern science education that I know of). In fact, the ICR Graduate School provides instruction primarily in Young Earth Creationism and teaches its grad students the skills to proselytize this religious doctrine to younger, innocent science students in supposed science classrooms. ICR does not teach students anything about legitimate biology, geology, “astro/geophysics,” or science education, but rather teaches them pseudoscience and pseudoscholarship. Basically, ICR teaches its graduate students how to fool future younger students about the true nature of science, a truly unethical practice by any moral standard. Most of ICR’s graduates teach in Protestant Christian private schools and home schools, but a few teach in public schools. Those who work there use their ICR M.S. degree to earn a higher salary than a teacher with only a B.S. or B.A. degree.
The Institute for Creation Research has long had permission to grant master’s degrees in science education in California. How ICR obtained this is quite a story. But it will be briefly retold here since events now in Texas are mimicking past events in California so closely. ICR was formed by Henry M. Morris in 1970 following an organizational split with the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC), an older YEC organization that Morris had originally helped to start. ICR was originally a creation science research division within the Christian Heritage College, a college founded by Morris and Tim LeHaye, the well-known fundamentalist preacher and Left Behind author. Christian Heritage College was devoted to YEC and Biblical Literalism (it is now known as San Diego Christian College). It is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. However, ICR was forced to split off from CHC in 1981 so that CHC could receive accreditation from the Senior Commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Christian Heritage College could not receive mainstream accreditation with ICR as a research and teaching division. So ICR became an autonomous institution in 1981.
ICR still wanted to provide its students with Master’s of Science Education degrees. California statutes allowed academic institutions to award graduate degrees if they had formal accreditation from a recognized accrediting association or if it had been approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the chief of the State Department of Education. To gain the superintendent’s approval, the school would have to demonstrate, to a committee of examiners, that its academic resources and programs were comparable to those at accredited schools that offered the same degrees. In 1981 the superintendent was Wilson Riles, an individual sympathetic to the ideals and goals of ICR. After a peremptory examination that superficially complied with the law, an examination committee of equally sympathetic and apparently specially-chosen individuals approved allowing ICR to grant advanced degrees in science and in science education. No one doubts that the examination committee was composed of members we would call ringers, shills, or plants. In fact, this had to be the case, since one must realize what had just happened: a research institute that teaches Young Earth Creationism, Noah’s Flood, Adam and Eve, Special Creationism, and Biblical Literalism was just given legal State authority to award legitimate Masters of Science degrees in Astronomy, Biology, Geology, and Science Education to paying students. An informed rational person would consider this a con game or sham. (ICR is not a diploma mill; students had to attend, take courses, and study to earn their degree.)
What happens next is a story best related by William Bennetta in a series of ten articles titled Degrees of Folly. TCS has reformatted these papers into a single document and is making it available to readers in Texas. Degrees of Folly should be read since it describes a course of events that is being exactly duplicated now in Texas: the sham physical on-site visit and ludicrous report by the evaluation committee, the complicit public education officials, the urgency and secretiveness of the process, and the alarming public attention when the suspect program has been discovered and publicized. It really is true that what is fashionable in California does eventually reach Texas, but usually it doesn’t take two decades.
In 1986, the California Legislature tightened the requirements and review procedures for non-accredited schools, saying the institutes had to gain approval from the superintendent for granting degrees. The ICR Graduate School was thus obliged to renew its approval with the California Department of Education in 1987 under stricter requirements. California education statutes now provided that an unaccredited institution such as ICR could not receive state approval unless “The curriculum is consistent in quality with curricula offered by appropriate established accredited institutions” and that “The course for which the degree is granted achieves its professed or claimed academic objective for higher education, with verifiable evidence of academic achievement comparable to that required of graduates of other recognized schools accredited by an appropriate accrediting commission….” The new Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig wanted to make sure the law was followed. A new five-person examination committee was appointed in 1988; however, two members were plants or ringers for the ICR.
After a theatrical and acrimonious series of events, ably described by Bill Bennetta, the examination committee first voted 3-2 to give ICR approval to award graduate degrees in science, the a Stanford University geophysics professor switched his vote and the result was 3-2 against. The committee’s report was full of errors, omissions, and obfuscations. After more turmoil, Honig was forced to appoint a second committee of five in 1989, only one of whom was an ICR plant. ICR knew they were in trouble with this committee of qualified scientists. ICR tried to turn public opinion in its favor with misleading reports and news articles in order to prejudice the expected negative report. This committee eventually voted 4-1 against ICR, and its well-written report of January, 1990, revealed the scientific incompetence and ignorance of ICR in a manner that left no room to doubt the accuracy and correctness of the vote to deny ICR permission to grant graduate science degrees. Bill Bennetta’s report ends here.
But the story continues. Now barred from granting graduate degrees in science, ICR had a problem. It could still grant degrees, but they would not be legally recognized. Loss of state approval meant that students at ICR would not be able to obtain federal student loans and other educational benefits. The degrees could not be transferred to other institutions, and would not serve as recognized educational certificates that in many cases would result in higher salaries. If this continued, students would not attend and ICR would suffer a severe financial loss.
The ICR Lawsuit and TRACS Accreditation
ICR claimed it was experiencing State discrimination against Creationist Christians and filed a lawsuit against Superintendent Bill Honig. After a trial, ICR was awarded a settlement of $225,000 in 1992 and regained permission to continue its graduate science program until 1995 as long as ICR continued to teach evolution alongside creationism (ICR claims it does do this; in fact, its students may have more instruction about evolution than most Texas college students, but it doesn’t do them any good). TCS was not able to learn the logic of this decision or the arguments under which this decision was reached. The original agreement expired in 1995, and the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education granted the ICR religious exemption from postsecondary school requirements in California by finally recognizing ICR’s long-standing Christian College accreditation from the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools or TRACS.
In 1979, nine years after being founded, ICR managed to pick up formal accreditation from a recognized accrediting association, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS). It was able to do this by creating the accrediting association itself. TRACS was founded in 1979 by Henry Morris and several other men. Morris’s son, Henry Morris III, is currently a member of the TRACS Commission, the division that evaluates and awards accreditation. However, until 1994, TRACS was not recognized in California as an acceptable accrediting association, so ICR was obligated to seek and obtain approval from the Superintendent of Instruction. Once TRACS was recognized by California, ICR approval from a state agency was unnecessary.
TRACS is a Fundamentalist and Biblical Literalist Christian accrediting association. Any accredited institution must agree to follow TRACS Foundational Standards, which are based on the inerrancy and literal interpretation of the Bible. Here are three pertinent Foundational Standards from the TRACS Accreditation Standards:
The Bible. The unique divine inspiration of all the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given, so that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort in all matters with which they deal, scientific, historical, moral, and theological.
Historicity. The full historicity and perspicuity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge, and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
Biblical Creation. Special creation of the existing space-time universe and all its systems and kinds of organisms in the six literal days of the creation week.
Only a select number of institutions of higher learning would qualify to be accredited under these stringent standards. Two such institutions accredited by TRACS are Bob Jones University and Liberty University. You may think that TRACS accreditation is practically useless, since it requires its accredited institutions to follow the fundamentals of Biblical Literalist Christianity, such as “non-evolutionary creation,” “literal existence of Adam and Eve,” “the worldwide cataclysmic deluge,” and similar theological tenets. But this is not true. Bible Colleges that teach theology and train ministers would have no problem with this accreditation; in fact, they desire it. Being accredited under such terms obviously removes all mainstream scientific legitimacy and academic acceptance, so you might think that any institution that has a vision of being recognized as teaching and researching “real science” would not want TRACS accreditation. But again, this is not true; even suboptimal accreditation that is recognized by a state allows students to obtain federal student loans and use the graduate degree for a credential. It is likely that ICR Graduate School Masters Degrees in Science Education have not been faring well in the mainstream academic marketplace, but TRACS accreditation was good enough for pseudoscience education and ICR would have been happy to keep it.
ICR Moves to Texas
In June 2006, ICR’s board of directors formally approved the establishment of the Henry M. Morris Center for Christian Leadership in Dallas, Texas. The goal of this new strategic initiative is to expand the impact of ICR’s various ministries through online distance education, leadership conferences and seminars, and the further development of ICR’s web site. Of course, ICR planned to keep it Graduate School going to properly train the next generation of Young Earth Creationists. ICR’s stated reasons for moving to Texas are a more central national location, proximity to a major airport, and a greater suitable population for their ministry. But ICR had a problem: Texas does not recognize TRACS accreditation. So ICR gave TRACS up. If one goes to the TRACS Commission Action Report for November 2007, page 3 reports the following:
The following Institution’s letter of withdrawal was accepted and accredited status terminated:
Institute of Creation Research, Dallas, TX, formerly El Cahon, CA, a former Category III institution approved to offer the Master’s degree, was removed from TRACS membership.
Texas accepts accreditation from only nine accrediting associations or commissions for bachelor and graduate degrees:
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS)
Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA-CHE)
New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC-CIHE)
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC)
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges – Senior Colleges (WASC-ACSCU)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges – Junior Colleges (WASC-ACCJC)
Association of Biblical Higher Education (ABHE) (NOTE: recognized at the undergraduate level only)
Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools (ATSI learned from Linda McDonough of the THECB that ICR does not intend to apply for accreditation from the last two–the two religious associations. These really won’t work for them, because one is only good for undergraduate accreditation and the other is for theological schools, which the ICR Graduate School is not.
No government agency in the United States provides accreditation for the obvious reason of the potential for political abuse and corruption of higher education (the “approval” ICR had in California from 1981 to 1995 was not accreditation). I learned from several sources that ICR intends to seek and apply for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the standard accrediting association for Texas colleges and universities. The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M are accredited by SACS, for example. SACS is a legitimate, mainstream accrediting association and probably won’t accredit ICR, but you never know. Stranger things have happened. Additionally, intimidation works really well in Texas. ICR has sued state agencies that don’t give it what it wants, and they have succeeded. In a courtroom, scientific principles and integrity can fly out the window. The same can happen in a state agency hearing room.
The ICR website says it “equips believers with evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.” It also says “the harmful consequences of evolutionary thinking on families and society (abortion, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexuality and many others) are evident all around us.” Henry Morris III, the chief executive of the Institute for Creation Research, claimed that the proposed curriculum, currently taught in California, used faculty and textbooks “from all the top schools” along with the “value added” of challenges to standard teachings of evolution. “Where the difference is, we provide both sides of the story.”
And some story it is! With a single global flood forming all Earth’s surface features, humans and dinosaurs living together, God directly acting to create every species or kind, a 6-10,000 year old Earth. And every student appreciates a “value added” curriculum, especially one in which you don’t have to think too hard for your money. That really is a great value.
The Henry Morris Center in Dallas offers the following description of ICR’s planned course offerings in distance education:
The graduate school of ICR also offers resident Master of Science degrees in astronomy and geophysics, biology, and geology. These degree programs are currently being developed for web-based, distance education platforms to accommodate a growing number of students who desire quality advanced science instruction from a thoroughly biblical perspective.
The only thing better than offering distance education courses for thousands of Protestant Fundamentalist students in India, China, Africa, and South America is being able to give them certified and legitimate Masters of Science degrees from the United States. And the only thing better than that is charging each of those thousands of Protestant Fundamentalist students all over the world many thousands of dollars for tuition. With a fat Texas-certified Master’s Degree in Science Education thrown in, every student will get super-extra “value added” for their money. Who could ask for anything more?
The financial aspect of this story has received no attention from the press or anyone else, but TCS is happy to break the story. ICR stands to earn tens of millions of dollars from tuition fees if they can award real Masters of Science degrees to thousands of distance students over the world. Likewise, they will lose those millions of dollars if THECB certification is not granted on January 24, 2008, in Austin. Distance education is the reason ICR has only one equipped classroom in Dallas. That’s all they need. ICR wants to be the University of Phoenix of Pseudoscience.
The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
For several months now, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) has been shepherding ICR’s request for Certification to award master’s degrees in science education while it seeks permanent official accreditation from an accreditation association recognized by Texas. Certification is good for two years and allows the institution to prove itself before they receive a site visit and examination from the accrediting association. The THECB certification is temporary, but still vital for ICR to obtain, since it can start the buildup of its Creationist pseudoscience graduate school and leverage the official Texas approval and two years worth of work into something a mainstream accreditation association will be unwilling or intimidated to destroy. And even if SACS won’t accredit ICR, ICR has other options. The easiest is simply to convince a majority of Texas legislators and our Governor to tell the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to accept TRACS accreditation for graduate schools. When the multi-million dollar financial stakes are so high, anything is possible in Texas. Most Texas legislators will see the education of foreign nationals in Creationism–with their tuition money flowing into Texas–as the best of all possible worlds. We can get rich while we make other nations stupid. That’s what we mean by “value added” in Texas.
The entire certification process has been low-key and secretive. I believe that the THECB hoped that the entire process could be completed and ICR certification granted without any press, educational, or scientific attention. TCS has discovered that the individuals assigned to conduct the site evaluation were unqualified to perform this task. None of them had appropriate scientific training or credentials. The Certification Advisory Council was obviously unqualified to judge the site evaluation report. It rubber-stamped the report and voted unanimous approval for ICR’s certification. There needs to be an investigation of how these individuals were appointed to their two committees and why they were chosen. The entire process stinks of cronyism and favoritism. TCS would not be surprised if money was involved, but we know nothing yet. The press really needs to investigate the THECB.
The On-Site Evaluation Team
Texas Citizens for Science obtained and posted the Report of Evaluation of the ICR by the THECB Site Visit Team. This PDF document also contains ICR’s Initial Response to the Report of Evaluation. The latter Response contains ICR’s Strategic Plan and Budgeting Process Timeline for their new Dallas institution. These two documents contain passages that should make reasonable, educated, rational readers squirm. The on-site evaluation committee of the THECB visited ICR in Dallas on November 8, 2007. Press reports omitted their names. The on-site visiting committee consisted of
1. David Rankin, Ph.D., Social Sciences Reference/Government Documents Librarian, Texas A&M University-Commerce
2. Lee “Rusty” Waller, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Texas A&M University-Commerce
3. Gloria White, Ed.D., Managing Director, Dana Research Center for Mathematics and Science Education, The University of Texas at Austin
4. Linda McDonough represented the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
TCS believes that these individuals are not qualified to judge the qualifications of a proposed “scientific” graduate school that plans to offer Masters Degrees in Science Education. None of the three academic evaluators are formally trained in science or even science education. Gloria White, who works for a math and science education center, is a mathematician. Also, if one reads their report, it is immediately obvious that all three were sympathetic to the aims and goals of Young Earth Creationism and wrote a biased report whose fairness and accuracy is highly suspect. An investigation should be made about how these three individuals were selected for the on-site visit. Were they recommended to the THECB by the ICR itself? Who on the Board staff selected these three for the site visit? TCS predicts that an investigation will reveal that cronyism and favoritism was involved (nothing new for Texas, admittedly, but somewhat unusual in science and science education).
The evaluation committee reported the following:
A review of the vita of the full-time teaching faculty by the site visit team indicated that the faculty’s credentials are appropriate….It is fair to say that the education, experience, and characteristics of the ICR faculty in higher education are such that one may reasonably conclude that students will receive an education consistent with the objectives of the proposed master’s degree from ICR. In addition, the ICR faculty consistently stressed to the site visit team that they always include in their courses multiple perspectives on the science topics presented. In particular, they explained in detail how they provide not only the “creationist” perspective but also the “more typical secular” perspectives on the science topics covered in their courses.
The institution also makes clear in the faculty handbook the expectation that faculty publications should promote a creationist point of view, and represent unequivocal commitment to the stated doctrinal positions in the institution’s Bylaws. The institution’s statement on academic freedom has been distributed to all the faculty….
The differing perspectives of the creation/evolution issue was addressed by the faculty member in each of the courses, so that students will know and understand current scientific information and research from non-creationist scientists. Obviously, the faculty member in each of the courses also provides the student with the creationist perspective, as well. When asked if students seemed reluctant to learn about the creationist view of scientific topics as part of the course, the faculty indicated that the students at ICR tend to self-select such that they already have views that closely match those of the faculty and administration of ICR.
It is fair to say that the proposed master’s degree in science education, while carrying an embedded component of creationist perspectives/views, is nevertheless a plausible program. The proposed degree would be generally comparable to an initial master’s degree in science education from on of the smaller, regional universities in the state.
It is difficult to believe that anyone could write these paragraphs without having absolutely no understanding or appreciation of irony. It should be obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of reliable scientific understanding that ICR does not plan to teach legitimate science and that the school is an enormous con job. The site visit team writes, “It is fair to say that the education, experience, and characteristics of the ICR faculty in higher education are such that one may reasonably conclude that students will receive an education consistent with the objectives of the proposed master’s degree from ICR.” This is double-talk or Newspeak. ICR could be teaching Geocentricism or Flying Pig Farming instead of Young Earth Creationism and the statement would still be true. Are there really no principled educational standards in Texas? Yes, students will receive an education consistent with the objectives of the proposed ICR master’s degree program, but what does that mean in terms of learning actual reliable knowledge about science? Nothing! Students will learn pseudoscience and be awarded a Mater’s Degree in Science Education in Texas. This is a travesty, not an accomplishment.
A scientific view of nature is described by the ICR as the “more typical secular” perspective and the site team accepts this! Both secular and religious scientists would object to this description of a scientific view of nature. Legitimate religious scientists, who make up about 40% of all scientists, often understand the scientific view of nature from a religious perspective, and that’s okay, since they are practicing real science. ICR does not practice real science; in fact, ICR has been criticized and condemned by every scientific authority in the United States.
The reference in the report to “non-creationist scientists” is priceless! Is this the new THECB term for what everyone else in the world would call a . . . scientist? The THECB site evaluation team believes it’s a good idea to be specific when using new terms!
The site teams writes, “It is fair to say that the proposed master’s degree in science education, while carrying an embedded component of creationist perspectives/views, is nevertheless a plausible program.” Plausible perhaps, but by what standards? If judged by typical science standards, the ICR master’s degree program fails miserably. It teaches Young Earth Creationism, for God’s sake! That is not science. Even the supposed legitimate science instruction is suspect, since the ICR professors have no enthusiasm for legitimate science. Their entire careers are devoted to arguing against, attempted refuting, misrepresenting, and mocking authentic science. If judged by YEC standards, then yes, the ICR graduate program is plausible. But the THECB is not in the business of certifying Creationist research centers for approved Texas graduate degrees. Or is it? TCS would have no objection if ICR was approved to award Master’s Degrees in Creationism or Master’s Degrees in Pseudoscience. But we do object if the word science is in the graduate degree title.
The site team writes, “The proposed degree would be generally comparable to an initial master’s degree in science education from on of the smaller, regional universities in the state.” This statement is just completely false. There is nothing comparable between a master’s degree in science education from a regional Texas university and one in pseudoscience education from ICR. Only individuals with (1) absolutely no scientific and educational competence or (2) are overwhelmingly biased and compromised in the professional conduct of their evaluation could write such a duplicitous sentence such as this. This is absolutely shameful and disgusting behavior. It is scandalous that such contempt for science education goes on in our state under the official purview of a state agency that is supposed to be dedicated to the goal “to achieve excellence for the college education of Texas students.”
TCS claims that the three members of the site evaluation team were chosen because they were expected to favor the goals of ICR, and to write a positive report about ICR that would encourage its approval for THECB certification. This they did. But the language in their report–and I only pulled out a few choice quotes; there is much, much more–clearly reveals the authors are hopelessly biased and scientifically unqualified. For this site evaluation, TCS claims the fix was in. This scandal needs to be investigated by an Inspector General or the Attorney General.
The Committee on Academic Excellence and Research
The next step occurred on December 12, 2008. The THECB’s Committee on Academic Excellence and Research (AER) met and, among other things, considered the following agenda item:
AGENDA ITEM II-H
Discussion and consideration of adopting recommendations by the Committee to the Board for approval of requests from two private postsecondary education institutions for certificates of authority to grant degrees in Texas:
1. Galen Health Institute, San Antonio
2. Institute for Creation Research, Dallas[Galen description snipped]
INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, DALLAS
RECOMMENDATION: Pending Certification Advisory Council recommendation
Background Information:
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a private, not-for-profit corporation, registered in the states of California and Texas for the purposes of research, writing, and education in both the standard curriculum of each scientific discipline and the Institute’s supplemental framework of scientific creationism and biblical authority in all disciplines.
The ICR Graduate School program provides graduate-level training in science education through an online environment, with minors in the natural sciences that are particularly relevant to the study of origins.
An on-site evaluation was conducted at ICR on November 8, 2007. The Board’s Certification Advisory Council will review the evaluation team’s report, and ICR’s response to the evaluation on December 14, 2007. The Commissioner will forward their recommendation to the Board with his endorsement or with his substitute recommendation.
A person who attended this meeting reported to me that the AER Committee barely considered the ICR agenda item. They mumbled and looked embarrassed. They did not discuss the item or make recommendations. They quickly tabled the item and passed it on for the Certification Advisory Council to consider in two days, on December 14. The members of this important committee, supposedly devoted to “Academic Excellence,” could have said something to stop this madness and safeguard academic excellence in Texas, but they didn’t. They ignored the issue and tried to hide. Press reports omitted their names. Here they are:
1. Lyn Phillips, Chair
2. Elaine Mendoza, Vice-Chair
3. Laurie Bricker
4. Joe B. Hinton
5. New Board Member (Vacant)
6. Robert Shepard, Ex-OfficioThese five individuals should be ashamed of their behavior. They should have stood up for good science in Texas and given the ICR request a negative recommendation. Once again, TCS feels that something is rotten in Austin. Educated public officials that must have taken an oath to uphold the integrity of their offices allowed a religious, pseudoscientific organization to obtain a valuable Texas certification to award graduate degrees in science. What was their motivation?
The Certification Advisory Council
Finally, the THECB’s Certification Advisory Council reviewed their agency’s on-site evaluation of ICR in Austin on December 14, 2007. After the hearing and discussion, the Council voted unanimously to endorse the ICR’s request for certification. TCS knows little of what happened at this hearing. Once again, MSM (mainstream media) press reports omitted the names of the individuals on this advisory committee. Here they are thanks to Melissa Del Bosque of the Texas Observer:
Dr. Judith G. Loredo of Huston-Tillotson University
Dr. Helen Sullivan of Arlington Baptist College
Dr. Robert C. Cloud of Baylor University
Dr. Johanne Thomas of Texas A&M Prairie View
Dr. James P. Duran of UT Austin
Dr. Theodore J. Wardlow of the Austin Presbyterian SeminarThese individuals are appointed to two-year terms by the coordinating board to make recommendations on whether private institutions should be authorized to issue degrees in Texas. The authorization or certification is good for two years while the institution seeks formal accreditation from an accrediting association or commission recognized by Texas. Unlike other states, Texas recognizes only nine such associations, and they are all legitimate and respectable (i.e. unlike TRACS). Let’s be clear what these six people did. Although their credentials are not known yet, but obviously unfamiliar with and untrained in science, these six individuals unanimously approved a recommendation to the full THECB (which meets January 24, 2008) to allow ICR–a Young Earth Creationist organization–to obtain its desired certification to grant master’s degrees in science education. This is a travesty. These six public officials, supposedly pledged to uphold the integrity of their office, recommended that a anti-science Creationist organization be given the right in Texas to teach students about Creationism and award them real, authentic, legitimate Master’s Degrees in Science Education that are certified by the State of Texas. This is extraordinarily shameful and disgusting behavior, and makes a mockery of the THECB’s goal “to achieve excellence for the college education of Texas students.” In fact, it will do just the opposite. The citizens of Texas should be alarmed that our state’s highest public education officials want to corrupt and pervert science education in our state.
Conclusion
It is imperative that the Commissioner of the THECB, Dr. Raymund A. Paredes, be made aware that ICR (1) is not a scientific organization, but one that actively promotes pseudoscience and the corruption of legitimate science, (2) that ICR failed to legitimately obtain certification from California to grant graduate degrees but got it anyway by a lawsuit, and (3) that the THECB’s goal “to achieve excellence for the college education of Texas students” will be in jeopardy–in fact, Texas will become a laughingstock–if it grants ICR the official state certification it desires.
Some quotes from Dr. Paredes are not very reassuring. He seems to be unaware of the relationship between Creationism and science, perhaps believing that they are equivalent:
Asked for his views on evolution, Paredes said, “I accept the conventions of science” and “I believe evolution has a legitimate place in the teaching of science.” But he declined to say that evolution should be taught as the science. “A lot of people believe creationism is a legitimate point of view. I respect them,” Paredes said. “I’m an advocate of the principle that when there is a controversy and there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the conflict, my pedagogical principle is ‘teach the conflict.’ Maybe that’s a possibility here.”
No, Dr. Paredes, that is not a possibility. There are not two legitimate arguments on both sides here. One side is honest and has two centuries of success in discovering reliable and accurate knowledge about nature. The other side is dishonest in every conceivable way and fails every possible test of its reliability and integrity. Dr. Paredes is obviously confused about intellectual categories and boundaries within the realm of science. But later Dr. Paredes said this:
“Maybe the real issue here is to put this proposal in the right category. Maybe it’s not a program in science education. Maybe it’s a program in creation studies. Then we have to decide whether that is a legitimate field or not,” Paredes said.
Now this is a correct description, and an excellent one at that. TCS would endorse the THECB giving ICR certification to award graduate degrees in Creation Studies or Creation Education or Creationism. It is not a legitimate field, of course, but plenty of schools of higher education issue perfectly legitimate graduate degrees in weird, wacky, and obscure topics, even in Texas. Many religious institutions offer legitimate degrees in various aspects of theology, and ICR might find a place there. I would not begrudge giving ICR the approval to grant degrees in Theological Creationism. TCS would only object if the word Science was in the degree title, because this would be a prevarication.
If you are as appalled by the events described in this article as is the author, please write to Dr. Raymund A. Paredes, the Commissioner of the THECB to express your disgust at how this process has been handled so far, and to object to granting ICR the certification to award graduate science degrees it desires. The address is:
Dr. Raymund A. Paredes, Commissioner
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
P.O. Box 12788
Austin, TX 78711-2788or by email at Raymund.Paredes@thecb.state.tx.us
Don’t let secrecy, favoritism, cronyism, and probably financial mischief win this one in Texas.
Research for this article was conducted by the author and one anonymous researcher whose excellent assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Other individual sources are cited with Web addresses. Several MSM reporters and bloggers used information contained in this report (that I sent out earlier over the past several days as email messages and press releases), and that use is graciously permitted even in the cases I received no attribution.
Texas Citizens for Science Last updated: 2007 December 19
The U.S. Open is in full swing, and one of the highlights has been the unexpected rise of Melanie Oudin, a 17-year-old who knocked off several higher-ranked players. It’s the kind of story that the media love.
That led a colleague to ask on Facebook:
Can a tennis fan explain to me why I keep hearing her referred to as “American-born Melanie Oudin”? What is the importance or significance of where she was born, e.g., they don’t say “Russian-born Maria Sharapova.”
I replied that tennis is an international game that brings out nationalistic feelings in some fans. Many of us who follow tennis cheer for their countrymen (although my favorite player of all time is Swedish-born Bjorn Borg). Curiously, that attitude manifests itself more in devotion to individual players than in the team-based Davis Cup, at least in the United States.
Tune in to the U.S. Open, and you will hear John McEnroe and brother Patrick bemoan the state of men’s tennis in America. Follow Wimbledon, and you will learn how the British yearn for one of their own to win that title. Fans of players wave the flag of the home country at matches.
As for “-born,” that could be a reference to the fact that some players were born in one country but now live in another. Sharapova, for example, has left her native Russia for the warmer climate of Bradenton, Fla.
It is indeed puzzling to see “born” attached to Oudin’s name. She was born in Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country) and still lives there. A simple “American” before her name will suffice.
And here’s a bit of advice to sports journalists and headline writers: “America’s sweetheart” and “girl next door” have already become shopworn ways to describe Oudin. Avoid these clichés.
Obama scored another first. No, not the first American president to win the Nobel in the first year of presidency. That too – but perhaps more sanguinely, the first American president to light a ceremonial diya at White House on occasion of Diwali. He also recorded a video message to convey Diwali greetings to a cross-section of minority groups in the US of Indian heritage. As I watched his message, I thought of all the possible machinations in the background that would have culminated in Obama recording the message.
I am an avid fan of the West Wing. The show unravels the goings-on behind a typical day at the White House. Something like the President sending a message on Diwali does not happen impromptu – it is preceded by weeks of jostling, planning, debating and wrangling amongst the advisers of the President. So, guess why and how the Diwali greetings happened? Here is what (might have) happened….
Kalpen Modi (Kal Penn in his new avatar), Associate Director at White House Office of Public Engagement, had lunch with Valerie (Jarrett), Senior Adviser and Assistant to the President on Public Engagement, sometime after 15 August 2009. The President had just released messages congratulating Indian and Pakistan on their respective Independence anniversaries. Kalpen explained to Valerie how the messaging from White House towards Indian community needs to get stronger. The Indian-American community in the US could use some love from the Democrat administration – also, Obama’s appeal in India could be leveraged to further strenghen ties with a growing economy. Valerie wondered how. Kalpen mentioned how Diwali could be the right occasion – the festival of lights celebrated by the Indian community worldwide. Presidents had addressed the public for Thanksgiving, Christmas and other such festivals in the past. However, a President had never participated in a Diwali celebration before. Obama fit the bill.
In the next meeting with his top team, Valerie proposed the strategy behind Diwali messaging. Rahm (Emanuel) and David (Axelrod) supported the idea however suggested that Obama’s participation should be seen as inclusive of other communities also and should not be directed at just followers of Hinduism. Obama liked the idea and wondered if Valerie could speak with Jon (Favreau) and craft the right message.
Just ahead of the press briefing that day, Valerie saw Jon huddled with Robert (Gibbs) in the hallway discussing what to feed into the news cycle regarding Obama’s upcoming speech to the Congress on healthcare. Valerie indicated to Jon that they needed to speak as Jon headed back to office. Jon was busy giving some finishing touches to Obama’s healthcare speech but he agreed to stop by Valerie’s office later that day.
When Jon came over, Kalpen was already in Valerie’s office. Valerie mentioned her conversation with the President and requested Jon to work with Kalpen to create a suitable message.
Being buddies, Kalpen and Jon met over dinner that day near the Dupont Circle and talked about the Diwali message. Rashida (Jones), Jon’s girlfriend, joined them as well. Jon’s understanding of the festival was limited but Kalpen filled him in. In order to make the message more inclusive, Jon wondered if Diwali was a special occasion for other communities too. Kalpen mentioned how Diwali was significant day for Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs too. Rashida remembered several vivid details of the festival as well, thanks to her experiences in India and her dabbling in the past with Hinduism. She suggested that, aside from the personal message, the President should also light a ceremonial diya at a White House function with Vedic chants in the background. Jon and Kalpen loved the idea and agreed to take it to Valerie.
Over the next couple of weeks, Jon crafted a message to be delivered by the President with suggestions on the draft from Kalpen. Valerie approved Jon’s draft and the ceremonial diya idea. At the next meeting with the top team, Obama loved the diya idea and later, made only a couple of changes to the draft.
On the appointed day, Obama recorded the video message that had been fed into the prompter and then headed over to the East Room where he lit the diya while a Hindu priest chanted mantras. With the fun over, Rahm whisked Obama into the Situation Room to discuss some pressing matters regarding the war in Afghanistan where General Jones and Joint Chiefs were waiting for him.
What is the punch line for this event? It happens 31 times a night in Lawrence; 31 people win the lottery and all receive the same payout.
These winners are tonight’s residents of the Lawrence Community Shelter (LCS). LCS can legally house 31 people at night. The 31 nightly residents are determined by way of a ‘lottery.’ Hundreds of others, non-lottery winners, spend the night outside avoiding city police patrols.
We moved to Lawrence almost two years ago, and my definition of the homeless population was quickly defined by the panhandlers on Massachusetts St., the Lawrence Journal-World news articles, and ensuing political discussions in the Lawrence community.
Window shopping on Massachusetts St. is frequently interrupted, not by requests for money, but by demands from panhandlers. Adorned with dreadlocks, dirty clothes, backpacks, dogs, and attitude, they smell of body odor, push the limits of ‘indecent exposure’, and are covered with tattoos. One young man went so far as to inform us that he would not use the money for food or to feed his dog, but for booze (he expected points for honesty, and said so). All appear lazy; either uninterested in working or unwilling to work.
In asking questions of a staffer at LCS, the answers surprised me:
The panhandlers on Massachusetts St. are normally not LCS residents; many are drug addicts from the Gaslight (the local derelict trailer park), some are lodging with friends (technically homeless) and panhandle for income, and others are from the tent city by the river. The last group is comprised mainly of people that choose to be homeless out of a sense of individualism; this is their rebellion against society. Most LCS residents seek employment and many are working, saving, and dreaming of the home they hope to soon occupy.
Your Information Website For Lawrence Homeless Concerns; Coalition for Homeless Concerns
Last week was one of the worst weeks in NFL history, therefore we can only go up from there. This week has a couple HUGE games and none is bigger than this one…
Game of the Week
Vikings The Traitor AT Green Bay!!!! 4PM
Welcome to FarvreCenter…(cue the music)…that is what we should all expect this weekend. SportsCenter and ESPN are preparing to vomit Brett Favre news all over its viewers for the entire weekend. But the sad thing is, it’s not their fault, it’s ours. They wouldn’t put it on if we didn’t watch it. There is a reason that the WNBA Championship gets a 20 second highlight in the 40th minute of the show and Brett Favre picking his nose is the lead story. Love him or hate him, Favre is a polarizing figure, looks excellent in jeans, can’t decide what tv to get his family, and isn’t afraid to cry…
But let’s get past the Traitors return and look at the game itself. The Vikes hold a 1 game lead on the Packers in the division, and with this win would hold a defacto 3 game lead having beaten the Packers twice. I mention on this blog a lot how I do not think this Packers team is very good, but they do have an easy schedule. This win could be the key to the division for them.
One big thing to look out for Jared Allen. Last game against the Packers he had 29 sacks or something like that. He also has a great sack celebration. I call it the “jack-in-a-box,” here it is…
he also has the “Bring the ball back to life into the Jack-in-a-box”…
Other great sack celebrations include…
Shawne Merriman’s Lights out or “Steroid Injection” celebration…
Joey Porters “Kick dirt in your face” (this video is pretty intense)…
DeMarcus Ware’s “Pass out”…
Lawrence Taylor with his “Get Help I just Broke the Bone Out of His Leg” (it’s pretty gruesome)…
Take Spikes with his “I Never Made the Playoffs but I just got a Meaningless Sack”…
And Finally the less heralded Justin Smith with his “Nail in the Coffin”…
Those are some of the ones I could find. I know there are other great ones out there. But enough with sacks…I would expect a close game but I think Green Bays’ defense will hurt them in the end. Whatever happens it’s going to be a crazy atmosphere.
Game of the Weak
Rams at Lions (does it matter if I tell you what time, you know you won’t watch)
This is a game of losers. No teams have lost more over the last 2 years than these two teams, and in one epic matchup we will settle once and for all who is the worst. It’s the team that drafted 1 vs the team that drafted 2 in last April’s draft and its LIVE on Fox!!! I actually think this game is not fair for the Rams. The Lions are at least improving the Rams are still getting worse, and that in its own right is tough to say considering they had the second worst record in the league last year. The great equalizer might be the fact that Megatron Johnson is out for this game. With nothing else to say expect no one to be watching this game.
2 Match-ups 2 Watch
Knowshon Moreno and Correll Buckhalter vs Ravens Rushing Defense
The Ravens were known as the best team against the run for years, but the last two games this team has let up 100 yard rushers. Moreno and Buckhalter have not put up huge stats really in any game but they have been effective in keeping defenses at least a little honest. The Broncos are 7th in the NFL in rushing yards per game with 132.7. The Ravens need this game a lot more than the Broncos, another loss would push the Ravens to 3-4.
Interesting fact that might only interest me: Since 2003 the Ravens defense has had the following rankings in terms of yards allowed: 3rd, 6th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 2nd. But this year they are 19th. Something is wrong in Baltimore.
Drew Brees vs. the Falcons Pass Defense
The Falcons got torched by Tony Romo and a struggling passing game. Now they face off against who many would consider the best QB in the NFL right now Drew Brees. I do not expect them to be able to stop him but they have to be able to slow him down and contain him. Brees is coming off a pretty bad game. He accounted for 3 TDs (2 were rushing) but also threw 3 INTs. ESPN actually had an article stating the Saints won “in-spite of Brees” and not because of him.
For those who took my argument about Super Bowl winning QBs to mean that Brees will never win one, you are reading it wrong. I am simply saying I am skeptical of all the reporters saying that all these young guys will win one. It is hard to do, and as for Brees he hasn’t had many opportunities nor has he proven himself on that stage yet. I said I think he can do it. But I am sick of the apologists out there who say he never had a good team. The Colts had one the worst defenses in the league for years and Peyton always got them to the playoffs. Brees has not been blessed with good teams, but he hasn’t exactly led any teams “above their pay grade” yet either.
Interesting fact that might only interest me: I have told you Brees is only 1-2 in the playoff and that he has only made it to the playoffs in 2 of his 7 seasons as a starter. Some might think I am hating. Well I looked at his playoff stats and he has actually played fairly well. His playoff career totals are 5 TDs, 2 INTS, and a 92.7 passer rating. It is not amazing but it is definitely not bad.
Other Notes:
- Word choice can make for some very funny phrases being said. The other day I heard someone say that Jim Zorn had lost his play calling skills. Obviously they meant he would be no longer calling plays. However the phrase “lost his play calling skills” implies he had some skills to begin with. Trust me…he didn’t.
- Tim Hardaway had his jersey retired yesterday by the Miami Heat. He thanked Larry Johnson for his gay slurs. Hardaway was worried he’d be the only athlete to run his mouth like a moron about homosexuals. Larry Johnson was actually suspended two weeks for conduct detrimental to the team. The Chiefs must have felt his 2.7 yards per carry on 132 attempts (4th most attempts in the NFL) and ZERO TDs were detrimental to the team. I happen to agree.
- Finally I know this is a football blog but this dunk by Carmelo Anthony was just outstanding check it out…
After yet another disappointing loss at the hands of Arizona and just three regular season games to go, we now arrive at the million-dollar question: Should we be worried heading forward?
I say probably not as worried as most of you are.
The fact that this team still has not learned how to deal with the bullseye on its back this far into the season clearly is disturbing. But is that prohibitive to their success heading forward? I don’t think so; we’ve seen the cold efficiency with which this team can win when it’s locked in, and I don’t see any way that laser-like focus doesn’t make an appearance come postseason time.
I know this team has no right to be bored, but it certainly seems at times like the Cougs know they’re headed to the dance and just want it to hurry up and get here already, especially since the Pac-10 title has more or less been out of reach for a few weeks.
The only major concern I have is that they’ve done too much damage to their potential seed in the tournament.
After the latest loss, Joe Lunardi over at ESPN has the Cougs slotted as a No. 7 seed — this, after having them slotted as a No. 5 after the ASU win. I’m not exactly sure how a loss to Arizona drops you two seed lines (and moves the Wildcats up two seed lines to a No. 7, too), but I’m not going to pretend I know as much as Lunardi.
Clearly, a No. 1 or 2 seed is far out of reach, but I think a No. 3 seed is still attainable. Why is that No. 3 seed so important? Traditionally, there is a big difference between the No. 14 seed you’d face as a 3 and the No. 13 seed you’d face as a No. 4. And once you’re a No. 5 or lower and you get to the No. 12 seeds or higher, anything can (and does) happen. So getting to that No. 3 should be a very real goal for this team.
The selection committee makes it clear they don’t compare one season to the next, but history can be a good guide for what those guys are likely to do. Win out the regular season — which would include a road win over a top-10 Stanford — and make it to at least the semis of the Pac-10 tournament, and WSU would have won eight of its last 10 and finish with an 11-2 road record. Although our conference record would only be 12-6 at that point, that’s only one game worse than the 13-5 we put up last year in a considerably tougher conference en route to a No. 3 seed.
Additionally, for all the crap the selection committee has taken in the past, I think the past five years or so they generally have gotten things right and have started to evaluate which teams they think really are best at large teams. No rewarding mediocre big conference teams, no excluding a deserving mid-major because of poor RPI. And I think the same goes for seeding — remember, a lot of eyebrows were raised last year when the Cougs were given a No. 3, and we don’t have a bad loss along the lines of Utah on our resume this year.
In short, most of the goals this team had its eye on in November still are attainable. I think it’s totally doable to win the last three games — I think the way we played in the four-game win streak is much more indicative of where this team is at right now — and a run to the Pac-10 tournament championship isn’t out of the question, either. But it’s going to take a little more work at this point than we all hoped coming into the season.
