Hoppy,

As a Raiders fan, I greive for my nation - the Raider Nation. The past four years have been bad - but this year has been something else. It was absolutely unwatchable.

But the Raiders are more of a dictatorship than anything else. Some would even argue a religious dictatorship (I still remember a fan who had a sign that read, "Al Davis is God"). Al Davis calls the shots and nothing is done without his approval. And look where it has gotten us (well, we have a good defense, but our offense is offensive).

But hey, on the bright side, the 49ers look to be good next year (Yes, I am both a 49ers and Raiders fan - people like me DO exist). You know, it's those "San Francisco values" that will make the 49ers contenders next year: hard work, dedication, smart money management (finally - and it appears we have plenty of cap space), good and competent personnel, a blueprint for the future, players who don't get arrested all of the time - everything this administration is not.

Posted at January 2, 2007 10:24 PM in response to Redskins: A Lesson in Failed Political Leadership

In addition, I would also like to state that Governor Schwartenegger, in addition to not knowing much about anything, knows diddly squat about American Football.

Governor Schwartzenegger, Art Shell has not worked "a miracle" in Oakland. And the NFL is NOT going to bring two franchises into the Los Angeles area.

For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, they interviewed Governor Schwartzenegger during the third quarter of the Raiders/Chargers game. While the game was going on!!!

Posted at September 12, 2006 6:28 PM in response to Redskins Return

I agree with you Hoppy. Being a Bay Area sports fan is a commitment to a life of heartbreak, pessimism, and despair. For those of us who regularly support the San Francisco 49ers (believe me, the "Team of the '80's is LONG GONE), Oakland Raiders, San Francisco Giants, Oakland Athletics, San Jose Sharks, Golden State Warriors, and the University of California Golden Bears, we know what it feels like to repeatedly have defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Supporting the San Francisco Bay Area teams is like being a Democrat, except that instead of losing every 2-4 years, we just lose every year.

Posted at September 12, 2006 6:24 PM in response to Redskins Return

Mr. Hundt,

If you think that your in for a long season as Washington Redskins fan, try being a fan of the Oakland Raiders - also known as "America's Team."

Yes, last night's "shell shocking" (pardon the pun) by the San Diego Chargers was an absolute disaster of epic proportions. It was like watching a train wreck...a 60 minute long train wreck. Mr. Hundt, you complain that the Redskins' line is overpaid. Just be thankful that you HAVE a line. The Raiders' line was practically non-existant. It was a theoretical offensive line. I mean, the San Diego Chargers are not know for their defense, but last night they looked like Steel Curtain, the Monsters of the Midway, or the Purple People Eaters of old. You Redskins fans complain about Brad Johnson or Mark Brunell. Well, try having your entire season rest on Aaron Brooks' shoulders. Well, we at least we can call up Jeff George (and I know both Minnesota Vikings fans and Washington Redskins' fans can both agree on how great Jeff George is). You complain about the Redskins' defense? Well everybody and their Aunt Mary know what the Chargers are going to do - run Ladanian Tomlinson all day long. Which is what they did to the Raiders, and we still could not stop them. You complain about YOUR coaches. I mean, what team, other than the Raiders, could make Marty Schottenheimer look like a genius?

No, it looks to be a long, hard season for the good guys. Shed a tear, America. Because whenever the Raiders have a good season, America is prosperous and strong. Everyone has a little pep in their step, and are just a little bit nicer to one another. A losing Raider season finds a conflicted and divided America, one where anger, cynicism, and incompetence rule the day.

Posted at September 12, 2006 6:15 PM in response to Redskins Return

"Dems ignore that aspect of voters' psychology at their continuing peril."

Who? Who are these Democrats that ignore religion? Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were probably the two most genuinely devout Christian presidents of the last century. Al Gore was a theology student at one time. When John Kerry quoted scriptures, people mocked him.

Maybe it is just me. And maybe I am just a bit hypersensitive about this topic. But it seems that the Democratic Party, at least the leadership, has bent over backwards to accomidate religious voters.

Anyway, another point that I want to make is that mandatory religion in the public sphere might not be beneficial for religion itself. For example, in Germany, all students attend religious classes at school, but only about 5% of the population attend mass on a regular basis. Also, and this is speaking from my own personal experience, most of my friends who are the most devout Christians went to public school, while almost everyone that I know who went to a Catholic school has very little religious faith at all. I think that there is something about enforcing religion that actually makes people less religious.

Posted at June 29, 2006 7:46 PM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

Alan, My Fellow San Franciscan,

There is an easy answer to your question why nobody ever says, "Some Republicans...," even as these "Some Republicans" say things that are far more offensive and mean spirited than the "left-wing bogeymen" they decry (and please, do not send me a list of Kos posters). And that is basically because they won the last two elections. And we lost the last two elections. And we did not just lose the elections. We lost two "must win" elections to the worst president ever (yes, I said it). And it is not just that we lost, it is because we lost by 1 percentage point (and we did not lose at all in 2000 ;op). And when your side wins elections, NOBODY cares what goes on in wingnutland.

Anyway, losing the elections and having basically no political power has caused Democrats to do a lot of "looking inward" and "naval gazing." It's nothing new, the Republicans did it during the Clinton years. In fact, the losing party always does this. But the problem becomes more exacerbated because every Democrat just KNOWS EXACTLY why we lost the last two elections.

Well, after reading ALL of the posts on this site, it seems that we are having basically the same conversation, albeit in a different form. It's kind of like Hollywood movies: you have different movies, with different locations, and the same plot. But because this topic deals with religion, something that is intensely personal and very important to a lot of people, it is discussed a bit more passionately. But the conversation is basically why we lost the last election.

And posters (both here, and in many other discussion groups) either fall into one of two camps: First are people who are socially and economically left leaning who basically think that the Democrats lost the last election because John Kerry did not appeal to the "Liberal Base;" and second are people who are socially and economically left leaning who thin that John Kerry lost the election because we did not attract enough "centrist voters."

You see it all the time, on TPMCafe and other lefty bloggy sites. The "Liberal Base" people always attack Lieberman, Beinert, Obama, etc. (and, to a certain extent, vice-versa). And the "Centrist Voters" crowd feel the "Liberal Base" people are an embarrassment, and they sometimes even say things like, "it's because of YOU that we lost the last election (or always lose elections, or never are in power, or whatever)." Both sides seem to feel that because of the other side, we lost the last two elections.

So, in this discussion thread, the "Centrist Voters" crowd accuse the "Liberals" of being intolerant towards people of faith, and this turns centrist voters away from the Democrats. And some "Liberals" get upset because they feel that "Centrist" voters are trying to push their faith upon them to attract Republicans, and they feel that if they sound more religious, Republicans will still mock them and say they are just faking their faith to get votes (I know that nobody said this on this post, but I remember a Jeff Jacoby column that mocked Kerry when he quoted the Bible.).

The problem with this whole post is that both sides basically agree on the same things, and that both sides are just talking past each other. Nobody wants to impose their religion on others, and nobody wants to prevent people from being religious. This is a wedge issue people!!! I mean, Bill Clinton was the most devoutly religious president that we have had in a long time (well, since Jimmy Carter), and we ALL got along fine with him. And we were ALL a lot better off then.

I don't really know where I am going with this. But then again, this whole discussion got off track. Maybe, instead of sniping at each other, we should try to find a common ground. We should try to find parameters as to what is an appropriate place for religion in our own government, our government's policy, and the public discourse.

This is what these posts are for - to the Habermasian "public sphere" where discuss things and try to come up with solutions (okay, maybe I am still a little naive about blogging). Not petty sniping.

Posted at June 29, 2006 7:26 PM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

Naugiedoggie,

I don't know Ellen. I have never met her. I have seen her post several messages, and I have sometimes disagreed with her. But I do not think that her, or her comment, deserved these viscious comments that you just meted out to her. She never said that she was smarter than you. She never said that she was more educated than you. And she never said that she was a better human being than you. You are just assuming that she said or believes these things. Just as you seem to assume that most "progressives" adhere to this hard-line, anti-religious stance. And to be honest, after reading some of your posts, you seem to act like the very people that you are criticising.

If you are religious, whatever your denomination, that's fine. I respect that. But you should show some respect to those who do not have religious beliefs at all. I like to fancy myself progressive and a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I am also agnostic (a lapsed Catholic), and I have never thought that I was smarter, better, morally superior, or more humane than you or anyone else - whether they adhere to a religious belief or not. And I have many "progressive" friends and I know they all feel the same way.

But there is another item that I want to address. Specifically the treatment of agnostics, athiests, and "non-religious adherents." Many people - both left and right, seem to automatically think that we are smug, elitist, contemptuous of people of faith, without a moral center, immoral, etc. Somehow, by just being agnostic, and somehow, by just mentioning that you are agnostic makes people think that you are elitist and other things. I will state that this is not the case with a lot of the people that I know. I am sure that there are some religiously intolerant progressives, but most of us believe that religion is a personal matter, and respect other people's beliefs. Yes, I am aware that I do not have other facts or statistics to back this up.

I would also like to state that it is very difficult being agnostic in the U.S. right now. I constantly feel like my beliefs are under siege. I constantly feel like the government, especially this administration, is trying to impose their beliefs on me and dictate what I can and can not do. And I constantly feel marginalized in the public debate (such as when some conservative Christian pundits talk about, and imply, how "morally superior" they are). And I constantly feel like I am less of an American then others. Maybe this is the reason why many agnostics, atheists, "non-religous people," and people who are religious minorities are so defensive about this issue. There was another poster above who mentioned being one of the 3-4 Jewish families in his/her small town, and the difficulties he/she faced. As Bill Clinton would say, "I feel your pain."

Anyway, naugiedoggie, I apologize if I seem to be picking on you specifically. It is 8:00 pm and I am still at work, and I have not had a chance to read every post. And your post just stood out to me. And if there are anti-religious posters who were contemptuous of people's faith, well, they are wrong too.

Posted at June 28, 2006 8:27 PM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

In Europe, most of the "Christian Democrat" or "Christian Socialist" Parties are very conservative. Case in point is the Christian Social Union of Germany/Bavaria.

Posted at June 28, 2006 7:29 PM in response to Obama, Religion and the Blog Reaction

You know, every now and again, something upsets me so much that I feel the need to respond. Even when I have worked an 11 hour day and I am just exhausted, I feel that I need to stay just a bit more to reply to one of these comments. Naugiedoggie, I really don't know what to say or how to reply to your post, but you have struck such a nerve with me that I have to respond - otherwise I will just be thinking about this all night.

I am a "secularist." I am agnostic. I am a "non-believer" if you will. I am not saying this to sound elitist. I am not saying this to sound like an "ideological bully." I am not saying this to display a "boorish sense of superiority." I am saying this only because this is what I believe, or in this case, not believe.

I did not become an agnostic overnight. I was raised a Catholic and it was a long, difficult, and bitter struggle for me. Gradually, throughout my teenage years and early twenties, I just stopped believing in God. I stopped becoming a Christian. I attended mass and I felt nothing. So I gradually stopped going. All I felt was anger, and (and this is my own personal experience - yours might be different) all I saw was hypocracy. I saw many people who claimed moral values who were often immoral and broke the law. I saw many religious people who cherry picked different aspects of their religion that they would follow and would not follow - ironically, the same thing you accuse us secularists of doing. I tried other religions and felt nothing as well. It has also been difficult for me. I have many family members who are very religious (i.e. Protestant Christian), and I have gradually become more estranged to them. Mainly because of religious and political differences.

But throughout this entire time, I have never once tried to impose my beliefs on others. I have never once thought of myself as better than others who are religious. I mean, if someone's religion is good for them, that is fine with me. And I have never, ever been contemptuous of other people's religions or beliefs. I have always tried to show respect to others who believe. And I know there are a lot of people out there who are like me.

And what do I receive in return? We get posts like Naugiedoggie's. You claim that secularists have a "boorish sense of superiority." You claim that us on the "secular left" are "ideological bullies." You complain that we are contemptuous. But your entire post is just dripping with contempt. You are very contemptuous of those who don't believe. And your entire post contains every negative attribute that you claim those on the "secular left" has.

I mean, "the emptiness of life in a black hole?" Just because we don't believe what you believe, our lives are empty? That is what you are saying. And you can not get any more contemptuous than that.

"That we don't want to hear the message?" What does that mean? All I want, as a member of the secular left, is that everyone should be free to choose their own way of worship. To be free to worship whoever and whenever they want. I don't want to force secularism down anyone's throat. I am not imposing my values on anyone else. What's wrong with that?

You know, in the last few years, I feel like I do not even belong in my own country. As the US becomes more evangelical Christian, and their political power increases, I have just felt more and more isolated. In addition to the religious right, now I feel like the Democrats, in their attempt to woo Christian voters, are suddenly blaming "secularists" like me. Now I, and people who are like me, are called "elitists," "contemptuous," etc. Not because of anything that we have done, but just because we don't really believe in God, we have nothing in common with the religious right, and we don't know what's out there. Now, just being secular is akin to being elitist for some people.

I hope that there are a lot of people out there like me. We offer more than Tivo's, consumer goods, hedonistic pleasures, and eveything else you accuse us of. We offer respect for ALL people - Christian or not, religious or not.

And I am sorry if I offended or upset anyone. Maybe I am just misinterpreting this post. But anyway, I am just tired of being called "elitist" or "contemptuous" just because I am not religious. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Posted at May 23, 2006 8:28 PM in response to Why Christian Nationalism now?

Mr. Greenbaum,

Although Theo Van Gogh was killed by an Islamic fundamentalist, Pim Fortuyn was not killed by a Muslim. He was actually killed by a "white collar left wing environmentalist" Volkert van der Graaf.

Posted at May 16, 2006 10:25 AM in response to Ms. Hirsi Ali goes to Washington