This was my reaction. Unbelievable. Why they sat on 19 points is a mystery. Wilson was playing terribly but absolutely no need to play it as safe as they did. Cost them a trip to the big game. Something those guys will never forget,
Live on television. This afternoon. I think the delivery of that line perfectly captures the tone of this show - serious, funny, unsettling, weird.
Its a great show. Shades of Kieslowski's The Decalogue in White Bear. I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who may take a look but I'm impressed by the quality of the film-making itself in relation to the writing - nothing is half-assed and the form of the the show is essential. Take the first episode: excellently shot, no gratuitous shots to say " look at me, how clever." It is filmed seriously, paced well, and disturb precisely for this reason - you' may laugh but are you suppose to? You get progressively unnerved but you're still slightly amused and they don't give you the option just to laugh or sermonize about its themes. I mean, the youtube comments were classic and I couldn't help myself laughing very hard at them even as they are so disturbingly mean spirited considering the context [ I'm thinking of the bacon comment ].
The second episode of the first season I didn't appreciate as much till I rewatched - where all this anger, all this commentary we can all recognize, simply gets folded into another sequence of 'events' , another thing co-opted and made entertaining. What do you do? Those are just some run away thoughts.
Chargers over the Chiefs. I think they're the better team and can do more with their backs against the wall. Rivers is better than Smith and can make the big plays in what should be a tight game. Paper Tigers over the Steelers. Sorry, murrai. Its probably because they beat Denver but Marvin Lewis and his coaching staff exhibited some real craftiness with their game plan. Defense can still be leaky and the Steelers already trounced them but I see the Bengals growing some real teeth here.
RGIII over the Cowboys for the upset. Because why not? Ridiculous, improbable, but it will happen. Tis the season.
I've lost faith in the Broncos. I doubt we get out of the first round. Manning made some terrible throws today and the defense was spanked. Good game though. A pick 6 from Manning in the 4th quarter with less than five minutes to go killed it. Does not compute. Anyway, Cowboy nation, as usual, are going bonkers arguing that Romo is a MVP candidate. I don't agree ( I'm borderline Grinch on the Cowboys - can't explain it). Not more valuable than Watt, Rodgers, or even Brady. Great year. I still expect them to fall in the post season but they're playing strong at the right time.
I should have expected TheHeretic to highlight an epic troll thread. Some good stuff up there. Those Freewill/Foreknowledge threads are a tour de force due to the number of participants and many, many, diverging paths and ideas. I think even Norman Schwartz showed up for a response. The thread on Rhetoric and the self brings back many memories. And where is Tim? Quite a few good folks no longer here. Good thing this thread! I need to find the link to Paul's thread on Kierkegaard and the public in Media. That's another good one.
Ten years strong! I hope to meet some of my fellow TGLers next year if possible. I'm already considering *what* game to go to in Seattle. All in all, some great discussions and great people. I can honestly say that I have developed an appreciation for thoughts diametrically opposite to mine just by partaking in and reading discussions here. In particular, I'll say that I have a better appreciation of film and fiction due to the many excellent essays and discussions here. Cheers!
I stopped watching the 49ers/Chargers game at the half ( they were up 28-7) but then watched the last half of the 4th quarter. Amazing grit from the Chargers but bad loss from the 49ers. I missed the 90 yard touchdown run from Kaepernick. All that effort and and more from Gore squandered.
I must admit being uneasy with both the question "How well do you think these narratives stand up empirically?" and the subsequent answer. On the question, what do we mean by "empirical"? Following on what Peter says, the sciences have varying 'empirical' methods ( I know you know this, Paul - bear with me) so the question to me is really asking "How do you judge this narrative?" To be true, false, or somewhere in between? What is the 'data' used to confirm it? To make my point clear, think of a more concrete historical problem - the effect of segregation in America. It seems we can judge its effects without of any sort of natural scientific pretense ( we look at the laws, testimony of individuals, identify places, locations, living conditions, events ) but at the same time, how different is affirming or denying whatever effects there are from a grand narrative concerning the decline of the West? Which seems more nebulous but not necessarily more ideologically driven.
On the response "If the objective reconstruction of the past is the intent, then history will always fail, because the process involved in writing history is a literary one with interpretative narrative, instead of objective empiricism or social theory." Part of the reason I was uneasy with the question is just this: what determines the 'truth' of history may justly be different from how we reason in the natural sciences. "Objectivity" then maybe formally similar across disciplines, but not in how it is determined. At first blush "objective reconstruction" seems to imply a sort of de-contextualized 'reconstruction' which should be impossible not only for the reasons stated but because it is history, where we're dealing with the utterances and actions of social beings. Whether or not Caesar crossed the Rubicon and what, if anything, it means is irrelevant to Physics which describes the crossing, the bodies, the movements of all creatures with the same formula. Gravity, for example, is operative regardless if Caesar crossed or didn't cross. Physics pays no attention to individual context. But history does so any "objective reconstruction" must be a narrative and judged according to how this narrative stands up to whatever scrutiny we put it. Here, I'm not sure that narratives can't be true or false. I'd rather say they can be true and false in some respects to capture the perspectival nature of history. Even with all its prejudices I think there is 'truth' to history but certainly not in an atomic sense. Much of what takes on historical significance is 'invented' as you say because it has to happen before we can properly understand or appreciate it - take the fascinating battles and stories we all read concerning wars. Even though, say, the storming of Normandy, might be significant to the actual participants only later do many smaller battles "get their due" as some sport of turning point. Physics can tell us what will happen if a body falls from a ten story building. History tells us who and what if anything it could mean. Therefore, I think any "reconstruction" that tries to eschew narrative could not be "objective." That is, not just because the natural sciences dictate objectivity but that objectivity for history involves more than natural science.
Apologies for the digression. As to the OP, just as you argue, I tend to have a more literary reaction to these sort of narratives often viewing them in moral terms - as declarations or dissatisfaction about the state of the present and an attempted explanation -historically- of why it is so. This maybe scandalous but they appear true or false depending on mood, or more precisely, the type of investigation I engage in. I tend to hone in on the ideologies or moral we're supposed to learn and don't take them as 'objective' re-tellings.
What about the Bills defense though? I watched that game and knew Rodgers was going to get picked. Very good crop of guys there. Don't forget they slowed down Denver the week before and picked Manning two times as well. I'm more forgiving of the Packers on this one. The Bills, 'offense' however....sheesh. I always root for the under dog when it's not my team so it was very hard watching them do nothing at all to seal the win while their defense put on such a strong performance. It was only fitting the game ended the way it did...with the defense, I think, getting a last minute interception. Good win for that side of the ball.
Sanchez, yeah. Passable. I'm going to defend picking the Eagles noting that their two turnovers were the difference in the game - that horrible turnover on the first play was killer but then they stormed back but Sanchez got intercepted. That Bryant had to have a monster game and Witten had to show up - along with Philly's mistakes - means I'm not sold on the Boys. Eagles are sliding though. Defense was not very good and the offense is flattening out a little.
Seattle definitely is back.
Finally, I think Cutler is making 22.5 million this year,
I will not pick the Bears against any team with a pulse...however slight. Saints win and overcome Paul's apparent curse. Eagles take the Cowboys. I think this should be a really good game but I don't think the Cowboys defense will hold up. Against better defenses with Sanchez at quarterback ( passable currently), I would always pick the other team. Not here. And Romo's December woes may return - the Cowboys were real angry about the last game (which is why it should be good) but all the macho talk will go out the window when Philly is running that defense into the ground. Rams over Cardinals. Stanton is not inspiring confidence and the Rams defense has been very good. Not enough offense from the Cards but then the Rams have the same issue... and the Cards have a good defense as well. I see the Rams clamping down on Stanton though.
Seahawks @ Eagles
I'm buying that Seattle's defense is back and therefore they will have Sr. Butt fumble making mistakes. I'm not confident Sanchez is ready for those guys. Should be a good one though. Seattle's offense is still struggling so Philly will be in it.
Steelers @ Bengals. Bengals. I think you're right about the Steelers ( they play up to the competition) but the Bengals are on a streak here and at home. I'm very tentative with this one because I'm not sure what Dalton is going to show up.
Ravens @ Dolphins. Ravens. If the Dolphins win, I'll start picking them. Until then, I have to think the Ravens are going to be more focused than ever down the stretch. The Dolphins are a few players away from elevating themselves beyond middling but I can't pick them against a perennial contender in must win games.