Giants Face Their Battle of New Orleans against the Patriots

On January 8, 1815, Andrew Jackson led American forces to victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans. The British sustained 2000 casualties, while the Americans lost as few as 100. This great victory made Andrew Jackson a national hero and household name, propelling him to one of America’s most eventful presidencies.

But the battle was otherwise meaningless. Two weeks earlier, on Christmas Eve 1814, the U.S. and Britain signed a peace treaty in Ghent, modern-day Belgium, officially ending the War of 1812. But since people did not yet have wireless Internet, the news reached American shore too late to stop war’s final battle.

My New York Giants face a similar battle on Saturday. They play the mighty undefeated New England Patriots. In the grand scheme of things, the game is meaningless. The Giants are 10-5, and locked into the 5 seed in the playoffs. They play Tampa Bay in round one whether they finish 11-5 or 10-6. Ninety-nine percent of the time, teams sit their best players to avoid injury. But New England is the first team to ever start a regular season 15-0, and has a chance to be only the second team in the Super Bowl era to complete an unbeaten regular season. The Giants have a chance to ruin history and make a name for themselves. A chance, I believe, that makes the injury risk worth it.

Sure, the Giants need their stars healthy to make a deep playoff run. But I know this Giants team. If they are anything, they are inconsistent. The Giants have not put together three straight consistent games all year, and I don’t see it happening in the playoffs. They will not play three straight solid games. They will not make the Super Bowl. This week is their Super Bowl. The game will be simulcast on NBC and CBS. If the Giants can shock the world, they will be remembered as the one team to beat the NFL’s all-time greatest team (which the 2007 Patriots will go down as when they take home the Lombardi trophy in February). If the Giants pull off the upset, Eli Manning can have his Andrew Jackson moment and make a name for himself. This is his fifth up-and-down season, and if he is going to make what Bill Simmons calls The Leap, it is now or never. If Elishah Manning is ever going to be a great quarterback, if he is going to lead the Giants to glory sometime in the next half decade, if he is going to ride a chariot of fire to Super Bowl heaven, like his Biblical prophet namesake’s friend Elijah, then he needs to make like the Americans at the battle of New Orleans, even if the Giants already signed their playoff ticket Treaty at Ghent in last week’s victory over the Bills.

PC Christmas Story (A day late, but still...)

And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his espoused wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. And the angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, "I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.

"And I have to tell you, this whole thing looks to me very much like a Nativity scene," he said sadly. "That's a no-no, too." Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.

"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."

Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?" "Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion. Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped. "We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary. "Whatever," said the painter.

Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them. "I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.

With the arrival of 10 child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.

An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.

"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.

Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist. Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"

"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up. The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!" "Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi. "Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.

A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world." At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face. The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?" "That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."

"Let me get back to you," Mary said.*

*Not sure where I found this. Whoever the author is, s/he deserves credit for a job well done.

Why an Atheist Cannot be President

In less than 11 months, we may have our first woman president-elect; or we may have our first black president-elect; or we may have our first Mormon president-elect (who would double as our first Ken-doll president-elect). But we will not have our first atheist president-elect. No out-of-the-closet atheist is running. No open atheist could run. There are still a handful of Americans who wouldn’t vote for a woman or a black man, and there is a sizable minority who would not vote Latter-Day-Saint. But an atheist in America does not have a prayer.

Is hostility to atheism the last acceptable prejudice? Is it wrong for Americans to dismiss a man for his lack of religious conviction and endorse (at least on the Republican side) Mr. William Jennings Bryan 2000 (Mike Huckabee) and his 10,000-year-old earth?

I don’t believe opposition to atheism is an irrational prejudice. Strident atheism, I really think, is incompatible with our American way of life. No, Americans are not itching for a return to Christendom. We like religious freedom. We are religiously tolerant. Each December, we have a public melting pot of crèche, Santa Claus, menorah, and Kwanzaa displays. But atheism by its very nature is intolerant and incompatible. As much as an atheist may claim tolerance and respect towards other beliefs, in his secret heart he thinks all religious claims are bullshit.

A devout Christian no doubt thinks her religion is superior to, say, Hinduism or Buddhism. An orthodox Jew believes he is one of God’s specially chosen people. A staunch Muslim believes he is closer to Allah than the infidel. Anyone strongly committed to her faith by definition believes followers of other religions are “wrong” when their beliefs go against or contradict the dogma of her creed. For example, Christians believe in resurrection of the dead. Reincarnation is not a part of Christian doctrine. Therefore, a Christian, of course, would believe that the Buddhist belief in reincarnation is wrong. Islam, for example, believes that God would never become human. God is transcendent, and always outside the world. So, of course, Muslims by definition would reject the Christian belief in the Incarnation. A good Muslim must believe that faith in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate, as the Second Person in the Trinity, is wrong.

But, these criticisms between religions differ from atheist critiques of faith in a vital way. Religious criticism of other faiths is secondary, while atheistic criticism of faith is primary. Christianity, by definition, may consider Hinduism in error on the afterlife. Islam and Judaism may consider Christianity in error on the nature of Jesus. But the primary belief of Christianity is not that everyone else is partly (or more than partly) wrong. The primary tenet of Christianity is faith in the Incarnation, redeeming death, and Resurrection of Christ; the rest just follows secondarily. Judaism may consider other faiths to be in error; but its primary belief is not in the error of others but in the covenantal relationship between God and His people. Islam may consider non-Muslims infidels; but its primary point is not the error of others, but that there is one God, Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet.

However, the primary belief of atheism is the fallacy of everyone else. For atheism, “you are wrong” comes first. As a Christian, if I meet a Muslim, I know he thinks I am partly in error. But that is just a side effect of his primary beliefs. When I meet an atheist, he thinks first and foremost that my belief is wrong. In fact, that is all he’s got. The ONLY thing he believes is that I am wrong (as is everyone else who believes in anything more than the natural world).

We Americans are pluralistic. We each believe in God in our own way, and most of us are open to the idea that another faith might be right, or at least right in some ways. We believe differently, but we respect one another for believing in something more than ourselves. But atheists, frankly, make us uncomfortable. They don’t see different faiths as different (if not less valid) ways to God. They condescendingly see all faith as childish. As Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft says, “To be an atheist is to be a snob. For it is to believe that 9 out of every 10 people who ever lived were wrong in their deepest, most heartfelt beliefs.” And, for some evidence of this snobbery, read the new books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, or read the comments section from any article on the New York Times website dealing with religion or faith.

If you really want to understand these obnoxious atheists, just think back to high school, and think of the nerds who couldn’t understand why the girls always dated the good-looking athletes. They failed to see how condescending they really were to the “average”-intelligence kids. Atheists share this same befuddlement towards the beliefs of religious people. “How can she date that guy instead of me?” “How can she believe in such superstitious fantasy?” The nerd will continue to get bypassed for prom court, and the atheist will continue to get bypassed for higher office.

No One Ever Had An Original Thought

I have never had an original thought. That’s right. Everything I’ve ever said was already formulated by greater minds. I am like that Harvard asshole with the ponytail who tries to impress a girl by embarrassing Ben Affleck at that bar in Good Will Hunting. No worries, I don’t need Matt Damon’s Will Hunting to tell me:

“Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you…is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend…You pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doin’ some thinkin’ on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don’t do that. And, two: you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a fuckin’ education you coulda’ got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.”

But, again, I’m no genius. I’m no Will Hunting. I’m not even a Zack Morris (1502 SAT score). Sure, I’m semi-smart. My SAT’s were a 650 math, 620 verbal, and my GRE’s were a 710 math, 580 verbal. I can outwit your average meathead, but I’m just a routine deja-vu. It’s all been said and done before.

I believe Marxism is morally bankrupt and intellectually flawed. Marx may have said all history is class conflict, but it just ain’t true. Is this my own conclusion? No way. I can thank Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft and his book Socrates meets Marx.

The Enlightenment? Its account of morality is flawed and unsustainable. We have two options: embrace Nietzsche and his critiques or, even better, go back to Aristotle. Whose brilliant theory is this? I wish it were mine, but it belongs to Notre Dame philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, and his book After Virtue.

I believe without God, anything goes. “If there is no God, all is lawful.” Either I made this idea up, or I took it from Dostoyevsky (his novel The Brothers Karamazov) and Nietzsche (his tract Thus Spoke Zarathustra; “God is dead”).

I believe in the small of a woman’s back and opening presents on Christmas Day, not Christmas Eve. Thank you, Kevin Costner and Bull Durham.

I believe teacher certification should not be required, and anyone with a bachelors degree is qualified (not necessarily capable, but definitely qualified) to teach. That’s my brilliant theory or Nicholas Kristof's. Take your pick.

I believe in the the abolition of the designated hitter, but this personal dogma did not emit from the eminence of my vast mind. It grew in the brittle brains of every grumpy old man who thinks baseball was better when there were only 16 teams and no free agency.

I believe the Mets are the new Red Sox, which may be my own idea, but the idea of “this is the new that,” “X is the new Y,” “40 is the new 30,” and all the other new things is not my idea, but a tired cliché that I unfortunately borrowed. And, my use of pop culture comparisons with sports was a new, unique idea…about ten years ago, when Bill Simmons got famous taking the fan angle as a sportswriter. Now, there are a million terrible rip-offs (like me) doing the same thing as Bill Simmons, but only not as well, since Simmons is a sports-fan genius, a pioneer, and knows what he’s doing (and, yes, I’m kissing his ass. If you type in “Bill Simmons Sucks” on Google, there are 78,900 links. I’m counteracting the ever-expanding circle of jealous haters out there).

There are very few Great Ideas. Rare is the Original Thought. And, with the change in the history curriculum, there may be no more. Yes, the history curriculum has changed. History used to be the study of cool things like wars, great men, and the way these leaders shaped the world and affected history. Now, the Great Man theory of history is being de-emphasized, and historians focus on boring things, like social structures from below, and what the common people were doing; running their farms, selling their goods, and all the other bland everyday-life stuff that we all have to do but don’t really care about.

Yet, when you look at historical change, what propels it? Great ideas. Great inventions. Great leaders. Aristotle gave us logic. Alexander the Great conquered the world. Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. Ford made the Model-T. Copernicus gave us modern astronomy. Descartes started modern philosophy. The Founding Fathers (brilliant men all) gave the world its greatest-to-date experiment with representative democracy. Yeah, everyday life happens with the common people. But, history is propelled by Great Men. They give us those Original Thoughts we debate and discuss.

But, I have never met any of these Great Men. One, most of them are dead. And, two, I have yet to meet any of the few great living ones (like Stephen Hawking). Even my college professors—as smart as many of them are—they weren’t giving me their own theories, but the theories of pioneers who went before them. Is greatness even possible? Honestly, I’m afraid not. I’ve met many humans, and humans just aren’t capable of much more than thinking about great inventions and great ideas.

Every real great invention and unique thought, I must conclude, come not from earth, but from aliens, who, time to time, come down to earth, and implant these ideas in the minds of certain men, or, in some cases, inhabit the bodies of men and give off these great ideas (for the record, aliens gave Isaac Newton his great ideas. Albert Einstein, however, really was an alien. What, are you surprised? Aliens may be brilliant, but they have no sense of hair fashion). The aliens, who look after us, come down from time to time and give mankind a new invention when they feel it’s time for us to advance again. If they didn’t, we humans would start worrying about the lack of new technology, and we’d start killing each other. It happened during World War II. In 1945, the aliens realized they needed to stop our imminent self-extinction, so they gave us the atom bomb to end the war. In retrospect, they could have given us a giant fireworks display, but even they didn’t yet know the power of a split atom.

But even this—this great theory of civilization-advancement—is not mine. The Alien Support theory (that’s what I call it) comes from my dad. He made up this theory and used it farcically (I think it’s a farcical theory. He never really lets on whether he really believes it. He also has a theory on how the moon landing was staged. So go figure) in a grad school paper for one of those piece-of-cake education classes. As Will Hunting might say (in a different context; I know, I’m stretching it), “How bout ‘dem apples!”