Greetings,

This is getting a bit of traffic, so I should explain.  I originally wrote this after the 2012 draft.  Then, I revised after the 2014 draft, so some of the comments below will be outdated.

With the recent play of Kirk Cousins, and considering that we drafted him in the 4th round the same year that we drafted Griffin, this is looking like my one real shot at an “I told you so!” moment.

I will savor it.

Many thanks!

Dave

And now, the original addition to the original post. . .

***************************************

I published this already, but the day after the first draft day has me saddened as I compare the round 1 trades of the Cowboys and Redskins.

Redskins: To move up 4 places in the draft, they swapped this #1 picks, plus the next two years of #1’s, plus a second round pick.

Cowboys: To move up 6 places in the draft they swapped #1’s for this year, and also gave up this year’s second round pick.

Both trades were made with the SAME RAMS team.

So either the Cowboys got a massive steal, or the Redskins, as usual, paid far too much to a team they probably could have given less to had they waited.  Either way, the news is not good for Redskins fans.

In 1848 Charles Louis Napoleon rode a wave of popular enthusiasm and was elected President of France.  He rode this same wave in 1851, declaring himself Emperor Napoleon III of France, backed by a national plebisite.  Ok — so he wasn’t his more famous, more competent uncle.  He did, however, seem to understand a lesson few other European leaders grasped, that leadership in France and in Europe in the post-Revolutionary era required a deep connection to “the people” to be truly effective.  He began his reign with confidence.

Time passed, however, and Napoleon III proved frustrating and inadequate in his statesmanship.  He flailed about, following one policy, then another, seeking the home run that would make France truly relevant in world affairs once again.  First he started with an authoritarian empire, then switched to be more liberal.  But as he liberalized France at the same time he undermined the power of legislature over France’s finances.  He announced that “the Empire means peace,” but strengthened France’s involvement in Southeast Asia.  He helped forge a new alliance system as a result of the Crimean War, but also undermined that system by his support of national independence movements.  Superior statesman learned to take advantage of him in particular, and France in general.  Dangle something of value, and he runs after it, heedless of the long-term consequences.

Prussia’s Otto von Bismarck would prove to be Napoleon’s undoing.  In Bismarck, Napoleon dealt with  a man of  focus, purpose, and creativity.  When Bismarck wanted war against Austria in 1866, he knew that he needed the French not to intervene.  France and Austria had been enemies off and on, and he counted on Napoleon III to underestimate Prussia’s rising power.  True to form, Napoleon III jumped at the chance to be needed.  “Yes,” perhaps he told himself, “France and I are relevant once again!”

Prussia’s swift and crushing victory over Austria surprised many, and it gave them either direct or indirect control over most of the German provinces.  In the blink of an eye, Prussia undid 200 years of French foreign policy, which aimed at keeping Germany divided.  People in France turned on Napoleon III, who felt humiliated.  He then came up with a solution, another attempt at a home run.  He sent his Foreign Minister to Bismarck with a demand.   “We insist that Prussia cede a portion of German territory as compensation for our neutrality.”  Bismarck easily laughed off this suggestion, and then went one better.  To further Napoleon III’s embarrassment, he published France’s demands in major French papers.  The sun had set on the French Empire, and Napoleon III knew it.

I have been a Redskin fan my whole life.  I had the great fortune of growing up with the glory days during the first Gibbs era.  But Dan Snyder’s reign has inflicted a great deal of suffering on many fans like me.  I don’t question his heart. He wants to win.  Like everyone else, I question his strategy.  The continual bid for the grand slam has given us Deion Sanders, Bruce Smith, Steve Spurrier, Joe Gibbs II, Donovan McNabb, Mike Shanahan, and so on.  Though possessing few actual wins, Snyder managed the marginally impressive feat of staying relevant for the past 12 years by his media-worthy signings.

Now, however, fans are getting restless.  The fabled waiting list of season ticket holders seems not to actually exist.  The umpteenth attempt at a home run in the person of Shannahan has brought  5-11 and 6-10 seasons.  But nothing spells relief like “Quarterback.”  So we made an enormously lopsided trade with St. Louis to acquire the right to draft Robert Griffin III.

I can only imagine the desperation Snyder and Shanahan felt when Peyton Manning chose not to give them the time of day.  He wanted nothing to do with us, and I don’t blame him.  Snyder still had one more chance at executing his favorite move, the “splashy signing.”  Shannahan had one more chance to salvage his legacy.  Beware of an old man in a hurry.  For a king’s ransom, we could still snatch Robert Griffin III.

I can’t help but see parallels.  Napoleon III thought he had scored a great coup with their neutrality in the Austro-Prussian War.  In reality, it was Napoleon who did the dancing.  Bismarck knew just how to play him. . .

How St. Louis must have salivated at the thought of Dan Snyder desperate for relevance, desperate to sell tickets, desperate to create the media buzz he craves and needs to sell those tickets.

I am utterly flabbergasted by columnist Tom Boswell who wrote,

There’s a karmic shadow over this deal, of course. It’s the apotheosis of the whole Daniel Snyder era. Just a few hours after Peyton Manning didn’t even give the Redskins a waltz on his city-hopping dance card, the team completed this blockbuster. Maybe Griffin was always Plan A. But the appearance, around the NFL, was that the Redskins hadn’t even made the first Manning cut. “We’ll-show-’em-we’re-not-dysfunctional” decisions have long been a dysfunctional Redskins trademark. But, sooner or later, one of ’em has to work, right?

The Redskins needed a huge splash for every conceivable reason: to give their fanatic fans a glimpse of glory, not more grief; to give Mike Shanahan a realistic chance to be successful again; to stay dominant in a sports market where other rivals are emerging; and to keep printing money for one of the most valuable sports franchises on earth.

The Redskins just doubled down on the very same high-profile, high-cost, high-risk (or all-of-the-above) method that has introduced Washington to Deion Sanders, Jeff George, Marty Schottenheimer, Dan Wilkinson, Bruce Smith, Steve Spurrier, Mark Brunell, Adam Archuleta, Sean Gilbert, Jim Zorn, Gregg Williams, Albert Haynesworth, Donovan McNabb and Shanahan. That the list is so long and familiar doesn’t make it any less staggering. RGIII will either demolish an amazing losing streak or confirm a curse.

The vulgar have never ceased blaming all my wars on my ambition.  But were they of my choosing?  Were they not always determined by the unalterable nature of things?

and

I am the greatest slave among men.  My master is the nature of things.

The most I can say for the venerable Mr. Boswell is that he too is a weary Redskins fan, and subject to that great symptom of weariness, blaming fate.  If one actually looks at Napoleon I, we see that perhaps his invasion of Russia, not fate, had a lot to do with his defeat.  If we look at the Redskins, we see that perhaps their addiction to big names and quick fixes, and not a curse, has put them in their current position.

Whether it be Babylonian dream interpretation during their “Time of Troubles,” or the rise of Stoicism in the Roman Empire, trusting to fate and chance is a tell-tale sign of decline.  Toynbee wrote,

Chance and Necessity are the alternate shapes in which this [passivity] is saluted by its votaries, and while at first sight the two notions may appear to contradict one another to the point of being mutually exclusive, they prove to be merely different facets of one identical illusion.

Whenever you think you must trade your future to draft a player, that is a sure sign that you better not, and start dealing with reality instead.

I hate to be a curmudgeon (well — not always, sometimes it’s fun!), and I usually don’t like to agree with Steve Czaban, but he had it right when he wrote:

The other big argument in favor of this move, is purely emotional. It goes something like this… “After 20 years without a franchise quarterback, you have to pay whatever price it takes.”

Oh, really?

Why? Because Robert Griffin III is the LAST  “franchise” quarterback the college game is ever going to produce? Because if the Redskins don’t make the playoffs this year, the NFL has announced the franchise will be folded forever?

Why?

The answer is simple. The owner is desperate. The coach is desperate. And when the fan base is also desperate, you have fertile conditions for “stupid.”

The rest of his column is here.

At least Napoleon III saw his doom approaching.  When it came after the battle of Sedan, he abdicated.  Snyder will not do this.  We are therefore left with, “But, sooner or later, one of [the dysfunctional decisions] has to work, right?”

Saddened,

Dave

I posted this a few months ago, but a student of mine recently looked at it and had a brilliant observation of his own that I include below.

Here is the original. . .

I like to watch ‘Kung-Fu’ movies on occasion.  Most of these used to come straight from Hong Kong, but recently movies are starting to come from China proper.  I have seen two such movies and their similar characteristics raised some questions.

The first was “Bodyguards and Assassins,” set in the early 20^th century.  The plot revolves around an attempt to assassinate the leadership of the  nascent democratic movement by supporters of the traditional monarchy.

The second was “Ip Man,” a movie where you can safely fast-forward through all talking scenes and not miss much.  Thankfully, most of the movie consists of remarkable fighting scenes.

Both of these movies share in strongly nationalistic sub-plots, along with generally sub-par acting.  These are perhaps to be expected.  What did surprise me was the fact that each of these movies go for over-the-top drawn out emotional endings that are entirely predictable.  In the case of “Ip Man,” they even rejected the real story of Ip Man’s actual resistance to Japanese invaders during World War II and replaced it with something far more maudlin.

It is these over-dramatic endings that have me curious.

Are these over-dramatic endings common to any new creative endeavors embarked upon by people for the first time?  That is, are they likely to overdo it?  Are there similarities between Chinese movies today and the stories (written or film) during America’s rise ca. 1890-1920?  Perhaps there are some similarities with these movies and the stories of Horatio Alger.

Is this the kind of movie likely to be made by a nation on the rise?  In other words, do these dramatic expressions express something of the latent emotions of a people held back for a while?

India is in a similar position to China as far as its national arc is concerned.  Do Bollywood films display this same excessively manipulative emotion?

Or perhaps I am missing something and what I call ‘overdone’ is just right for Asian cultures as whole.  Is anyone familiar with media from Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc?

A friend suggested that the endings I described reflected how authoritarian cultures tell stories.  Think of Stalinist era propaganda stories.  If so, how authoritarian is China with its artists?

Again, a comparison with India would be helpful here.

This is the extent of my knowledge of foreign film.  I have many questions, and if anyone might have some answers or suggestions, do please respond.

Thus ends the original post.

The student’s theory was that Ip Man is a lot like Rocky in the construction of its story.  The Rocky template is the standard underdog story, of one man rising up against the system, or an unbeatable champion.  Ip Man turns that template on its head, however.  It is not about an underdog.  Anyone with knowledge sees he’s obviously the best at his craft.  He just needs a platform large enough so that others can give him his due.

Both Ip Man and Bodyguards and Assassins are basically national epics, so Ip Man can be easily seen as a stand-in for China.  In contrast, Rocky clearly is about an individual.

Great stuff!  Please keep comments like that coming.

Recently I saw the Jet-Li movie Fearless.  Jet-Li has starred in many American films, and has no doubt imbibed something of a western ethos.  But I think this movie had many distinctive Chinese themes.  The movie was just so-so for me, but I did find the tension between the two competing kinds of stories within the movie.  On the one hand, it is “western” in that Li’s character goes through a transformation and has to prove himself, which is not at all like Ip Man.  On the other hand, Li’s character fights “foreign-devils” just as in Ip Man 2, with strong nationalist overtones.  We will see if Chinese cinema changes if their political culture ends up more western than it is today.

Blessings,

Dave Mathwin

I always enjoy when History presents us with unexpected curveballs.  Blindsided, our perceptions get challenged and the present, as well as the past, can be illumined even by  so-called unimportant aspects of civilization.

One of those unusual bits of flotsam for me are toilets.

Anyone who studies History will ruminate on the question,  “What part of the past would you like to live in?” It usually draws interesting responses from students.  But mention the lack of indoor plumbing and most anyone gets drawn right back into the present.

Flush toilets have a longer history than we might assume.  Their mass production took until the late 19th or early 20th century.  When we consider the infrastructure needed, like piping, drainage systems, and so on, this should not surprise us.  But the flush toilet existed long before in limited use, possibly even in ancient Minoan civilization.  In the modern era, we know that Tudor England developed the flush toilet, and Eilzabeth I had the chance of using a private one herself.

But she didn’t want to.

According to curator and author Lucy Worsley, Elizabeth’s preference for the chamber pot had to do with her concept of royalty.  She would not flee like some subject to the almighty toilet, the toilet would answer to her — in the form of a servant or two carrying the appropriate accoutrements.  To go “to” the bathroom offended her sense of royal dignity.

Who today would choose a chamber pot while others hovered nearby over a private flush toilet?  Had I heard half of the story without the ending, I would assume that Elizabeth would have claimed the new invention as an “executive privilege,” much like some Executive Washrooms today.

Elizabeth’s actions have  echoes in Lyndon Johnson, who according to Robert Caro, used to make his aides follow him to the bathroom when he became a congressman.  This likely had little to do with his desire to continue to conduct their business (no matter the nature of his business in the john), and served more as a way to demonstrate his power and provide a loyalty test.

But most of the time, I’m sure Johnson chose to be by himself.

Not all societies insisted even on relative privacy when it came to bodily functions.  The Romans, for example, had no qualms about sharing space in what we would consider to be an intimate moment, as this public restroom makes clear:

I believe strongly in the uniformity of human nature.  History makes no sense without this bedrock truth applied to it.  However, I do think that a study of bathrooms reveals in a small way how the “geography” of a time and place and  its context relative to other priorities, impacts other values we may have.  Human nature has an unalterable core but our values may be fungible at the periphery.

We need not think that Queen Elizabeth or the Romans placed no value on privacy.  Rather, in their hierarchy of values, privacy did not occupy the pride of place it does for many Americans today.  Queen Elizabeth valued her sense of royal imperium more than privacy.  The Romans valued community more than privacy. They could easily have erected barriers in their mini-stalls of they wanted to.

For the record — I have no problem serving as an apologist for the “Privacy” camp and advocating for indoor plumbing.

For  years in the upper echelon of college football and basketball, the notion of the players as “student-athletes” has been stretched to the limit.  Now, along comes John Calipari’s Kentucky Wildcats to end the charade once and for all.

In the past, we could always count on a team assembled of “one-and-done” players to self-destruct in some way. The players would be selfish, or wouldn’t gel together when it really mattered.  But not this Kentucky team.  Even curmudgeonly commentators noted how unselfish the players were on offense, and how well they played team defense.

But never fear, the NCAA rode into the Final Fourt to fix the situation, in the best way they know how: a silly, ridiculous rule.  As Pierce notes in aforementioned article, reporters had instructions at press conferences not to call Kentucky’s players “players,” but “student-athletes.”  So, for example, a reporter would have to phrase the question along the lines of, “Coach, how do you expect your, ah. . . student-athletes to handle the Louisville defense?” The press conferences came with NCAA bureaucrat attached, ready to enforce the rule.

“There’s nothing to see here!”

The NCAA has long had the problem of inherent contradictions embedded within, and has long sought to fix it in the worst way possible, through rules.  As Tocqueville commented,

The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections.

When you resort to law to fix culture, you reveal a weakness that predators can smell a mile away.  Law cannot fix culture by itself.

But an attorney friend of mine challenged that assumption in regard to the Civil Rights movement.  Surely, he argued, the Civil Rights Acts of 1965 and 1968 accomplished more change than some amorphous “culture” did .  I countered with the claim that civil rights efforts from Brown v. BOE to the March on Washington laid the foundation upon which law could build, but unfortunately my knowledge of that period lacks the necessary depth for me to be sure.

Or what about the whole question of gay marriage?  Some argue that law has led the fight in this issue, against the general culture, with stunning success.  But again, I’m not so sure.  Maybe the movies, tv shows, and such laid the groundwork for the charge?  The broader question is, if the movement relies on law/judges to lead the way, will they have ultimate success?  As always, I would be curious for anyone’s thoughts on the question, and here is one opinion from the UK.

Some months ago I picked up the book The Resurrection and Modern Man, by the Patriarch of Antioch Ignatius IV.  I have yet to wrap my head and my heart around even the first 20 pages.  But in light of the fact that Easter has come, I thought a few passages worth quoting:

Let us listen to Him who sits on the throne and declares: “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5).  “I make all things new,” is not a program; it is an event, in fact the only Event of history.

We propose to be neither archeologists of Christianity nor sociologists of a revolutionary Chruch: all that is radically outdated.  We must instead be prophets of the New Creation and visionaries of the resurrected Christ.

In Christ death has been overcome, but among those who are of the lineage of the Woman of the Apocalypse, it still has to be definitely conquered (Rev. 12:17).  . . . If we do not take this fact into account, our response to the Word of God will be nothing more than ecclesiastical triumphalism or pathological repentance.  In other words, the New Creation appears in history as a battle against death; it can only be perceived as a paschal drama.

. . . the New Creation is explained not by the past, but by the future.  It is clear that the action of the living God can only be transformative and creative.  . . .Any other god than the Lord is a [dead] god.  And it is high time that our modern consciousness bury him.  This multiform god, who lives in the “old consciousness” of man stands behind man as a mere cause.  This old god dominates, organizes, leads man backwards, and finally alienates him.  There is nothing prophetic about this god; on the contrary he always follows after as the ultimate reason for the unexplainable or as the last recourse for irresponsible people and their actions.  This false transcendence is as old as death itself; it is an idol made by the hands of man and for which man feels a passionate jealousy (Gen. 3).

Irenaeus of Lyon says that we are to “know that He has given us something completely new by giving us Himself, He who had been announced in former times;  He is the new principle of life which was to come, to renew and enliven humanity.”

Wonderful words for a wonderful day, if only I could fully understand them!

Have a blessed Easter,

Dave

Perhaps Paul McCartney could have been another example in this post.

His new album “Kisses on the Bottom” has occasioned a flurry of attention for the music legend.  I heard his interview with Terry Gross on “Fresh Air” and enjoyed Paul talking about the music he heard growing up, and how his work didn’t seek to escape from the old standards, but build upon them.

He specifically mentioned two of what he called “tricks”  from the old songwriters that he incorporated into the Beatles:

• Switching from Major to Minor Key, and then Back to Major

The first example he recalled from the Beatles was one of their early hits, “From Me to You.”  The verses are in major — “If there’s anything that you want, if there’s anything I can do,” etc.  But then it switches to minor when he sings, “I’ve got arms that long to hold you, and keep you by my side . . .”

• Taking a Song Full Circle

McCartney talked about an old standard called, “Cheek to Cheek,” which begins with a theme, leaves it, and returns to it at the end.  He referenced “Here, There, and Everywhere,” and we might add on a grander scale the entire second side of Abbey Road that begins with “You Never Give Me Your Money.”

Of course the Beatles had tremendous success for many reasons, but the fact that they followed Toynbee’s prescription for successful creativity surely played a role.  In the interview McCartney specifically mentioned how they consciously set out not to reject the past, but instead borrowed what they could and put their own spin on it.

And yet, his latest album seems to do exactly what the Beatles did not do, for based on what little I’ve heard, it seems that he tries to recreate the past, not make something new.  Perhaps this is why his new release falls flat, for me at least.

I’m a Redskins fan.  How can I possibly feel bad for Jerry Jones?  For that matter, how can I root for Dan Snyder?

Recently, Commissioner Roger Godell levied fines against the Cowboys and Redskins for violating salary cap regulations in 2010.  The Redskins will lose $36 million in cap space this year, $10 million for the Cowboys.

Except of course, that there was no salary cap in 2010, and all the contracts tendered by both teams that year had league approval.  Beltway Sports has a good take here, with links to other articles about this issue.

Ah, but wise Godell, declared after the fact that Snyder and Jones violated the principles of competitive balance implied in the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.  So they didn’t actually violate any actual rule, they merely refused to what, salute the “shield” snappily enough?  Snyder and Jones have fallen victim to an ancient legal principle known as,

PRIVILEGIUM

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term this way:

In Roman law, a special constitution granted the Roman emperor the right to confer on a single person some anomalous or irregular right, or imposed an anomalous or irregular obligation, or inflicted on some single person some anomalous or irregular punishment.  When such privilcyia conferred anomalous rights, they were styled “favorable.”  When they imposed anomalous obligations or irregular punishments, they were styled “odious.”

I think it’s safe to say that Jones and Snyder got the odious kind.

Numerous horrible and amusing stories abound about the worst emperors, but even some of the worst, like Nero, could be erratic in someone’s favor.  In AD 68 Nero competed in the Greek Olympics and entered the chariot race.  He did not even manage to finish, but the Greeks awarded him the prize for most outstanding rider in the competition.  In gratitude, Nero absolved all of Greece from tributary taxes.

No fools, those Greeks.

More often than not it worked the other way, like when Caligula made looking down at his bald head a capital offense, or when Tiberius made breathing wrong treasonous (yes — the Tiberius example exaggerates a little).

Both Snyder and Jones are easy to root against.  We must restrain our impulse in this case, especially if we realize that

• The league said yes to the all their 2010 contracts
• Now the league says, “You should have known that yes meant no.”
• For not knowing that yes means no, we restrict your right to spend your money as you see fit according to the agreed upon rules for this year.

The case reminds me a bit of the trial of Charles I, another monarch easy to dislike.  He had haughtiness down pat, as you can see here:

Or here:

Through various high-handed measures he alienated much of the country and provoked a civil war.  After his defeat, Parliament put him on trial.  By law, Parliament could hear treason cases, but the problem for Parliament was that Parliament wasn’t really there.  The army had gotten rid of most of Parliament’s elected representatives, and the entire House of Lords for ideological reasons.  Seeing the writing on the wall, Charles refused to recognize the court’s legitimacy and did not even enter a plea.  With rare insight, he stated to the so-called court,

I would know by what power I am called hither … I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the high-ways … Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater … I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.

I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges … I do not come here as submitting to the Court. I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever: I see no House of Lords here, that may constitute a Parliament … Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.

 If it were only my own particular case, I would have satisfied myself with the protestation I made the last time I was here, against the legality of the Court, and that a King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth: but it is not my case alone, it is the freedom and the liberty of the people of England; and do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their liberties. For if power without law, may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own.