This is going to be fun.

FUCK YOU
You'll leave after this season and probably get drafted in the first round, but you'll never amount to anything in the NFL because you care too much about how your hair looks when you take your helmet off on the sidelines, or about how wearing a black sleeve on one arm makes you look like a badass.


FUCK YOU
I don't know that much about you but I know the boys over at OIA would suck your dick if you let them.





















You're cool.


And most of all...FUCK YOU
You piece of cracker white trash.

It's just too damn easy.


45-42 Love you. Got to go.

Thanksgiving Day 1958

BC 40
High School 6

St. James Chargers Win SPAL Title

Mark Beasley, Savannah Morning News

St. James 14, Savannah Christian 6 - John Patrick McCarthy caught a 60-yard touchdown pass and running back Ben Wright added a 25-yard scoring run to lead St. James over Savannah Christian.

The win concluded a perfect 8-0 season for the Chargers.

The Chargers went up 8-0 when McCarthy hauled in the scoring pass from Wright, and quarterback Mike Huggins Jr. added the conversion.

The Red Raiders cut the lead to 8-6 in the second quarter when fullback Scott Brannen scored on a 6-yard run. The stiff Chargers' defense then stopped the crucial two-point conversion.
The Chargers added to the lead in the second half when Wright found a seam and rambled 25 yards to the end zone.

The Chargers sealed the victory late in the fourth quarter on a key third-and-9 play. Huggins went 13 yards to pick up the first down. From there, the Chargers ran out the clock.

Other Charger standouts were Connor Beytagh, Andrew McNulty, Patrick McBride, Stuart Harriott, Kyle South, Taylor Jakubsen, Grant Koncul, Andrew Sparks, Andrew Ward, Chris Herold, Zach Park, Patrick Brennen, Reed Cetti, Stephen Buttimer and Nigel Wright.
The Chargers were coached by Jack Beytagh, Mike Huggins Sr., Joe Herb, Wes Worthington and Scott Moore.

More Wisdom From the Church of Arvind

In his defense, Arvind later sent me these messages yesterday, and they make more sense than Monday's comments. He also wanted me to post these for him. He says he doesn't want to comment on here himself but just wants to "use me" to vent his thoughts:

Nov 18, 10:49 am

One last thing where are the fathers of these bitching women (who sit around discussing what they are not getting education wise for their kids while they watch the view and go hang out and have a f--- session with personal trainer) I will give my time which far more valuable than just reading that cadence to find out how much money people have donated

Nov 18, 12:04 pm

Hey last word, if this school is in such a financial mess deprivatize the school, have stricter curriculum entrance standards and 1 gain the football powerhouse which once was (5AAAA) 2 teachers will be paid more, there public monastery schools in sav where its very affordable and have high entrance standards

I know none of us are interested in getting into another BC debate for the millionth time and that's not the point here. Arvind says he just really feels strongly about these things and wanted them posted on here. I would be interested to see how you go about "deprivatizing" something. Maybe BC could contact Kingston or Isakson and get a piece of that $700 billion bailout.

Arvind Raman Text Message Challenge

It's America's fastest growing game. Here's how it works:

1) I post a text message Arvind has recently sent me.
2) The first person to successfully figure out what in God's name Arvind is trying to say wins 4 free packets of honey mustard from the fast food establishment of their choice.

Nov 17, 12:43 am:

Randomthought when teachers substitues they recruit to talk to students. Its not about raising tuition but alumni volunteer. if bc wants to gain money, people need tet their hands dirty and not resort to buying there way out. Think about it.

Oh trust me, I've "thought about it" a lot. I guess he's saying something about people volunteering more, but I'm still clueless as to what that first sentence means. Anyways, have at it and good luck.

SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters

Awesome.

Pat, didn't you live in Greenville?

Nov 13 06:59 PM US/Eastern
By MEG KINNARD
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."...

..."I don't understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who's a pro-abortion candidate," said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. "You're talking about the murder of innocent beings."

New Report: Oil CEO Greed Down By Over 50% In Past Month

I'm happy to report Big Oil CEO's have really started getting nicer, all at the same time, over the last 5 weeks or so. For whatever reason, the oil companies have all gotten together and decided to be half as greedy as they were back in September. It all started at the beginning of October. You could start to see it in each CEOs' eyes: they started getting really feel-good nice and didn't feel like making as much money as before. So prices began to fall dramatically. The average gallon of gas is under $2 in many areas, thanks to less greed.

Right-wing ideologues will no doubt attempt to explain these price changes away by using annoying economics terms like "supply" and "demand." But that's just typical Republican nonsense; we all know what's really going on here. Change is in the air and even the greediest among us are starting to feel they have a social responsibility to offer "fair" prices for gasoline instead of relying on the greed tactics of the Bush years. We shouldn't rest too easy, however, because I'm told that experts are predicting greed levels to rise again in the Spring once the summer driving season picks up.

Letter to The New York Times: Do people 'deserve' universal health care? By Donald J. Boudreaux

Business & Media Institute11/6/2008 11:14:08 AM

To the Editor:

Advocating universal health care, Steven Safyer, M.D., hopes that "the next administration will see the wisdom of acting — not just talking — so Americans get the care they deserve." (Letters, Nov. 6)

What evidence is there that Americans do not now "get the care they deserve"? Material deserts are earned, not given by nature. In the case of health care, the fact that even POOR Americans consume other things so abundantly casts doubt on the supposition that this land is crowded with people who are denied health care that they deserve. Consider, for example, that today 80 percent of POOR households have air-conditioning (compared to only 36 percent of ALL households who had it in 1970); 75 percent of poor households today own a car, and 31 percent own two cars; the typical POOR American has more household living space than does the typical Parisian and Londoner; and nearly 80 percent of POOR American households have a VCR or DVD player.*

Someone who voluntarily purchases X instead of Y - where X is widely regarded as less vital than Y - cannot legitimately be said to deserve Y.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Boudreaux

* Robert E. Rector, "How Poor Are America's Poor?" Heritage Foundation, August 2007
Don Boudreaux is the Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University and a Business & Media Institute adviser.

Black Pope could follow Barack Obama's election, says US archbishop

The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope, according to a leading black American Catholic.

Wilton Daniel Gregory, 60, the Archbishop of Atlanta, said that in the past Pope Benedict XVI had himself suggested that the election of a black pontiff would "send a splendid signal to the world" about the universal Church.

Archbishop Gregory, who in 2001 became the first African American to head the US Bishops Conference, serving for three years, said that the election of Mr Obama was "a great step forward for humanity and a sign that in the United States the problem of racial discrimination has been overcome". Like Mr Obama Archbishop Gregory comes from Chicago, and was previously Bishop of Belleville, Illinois.

He said that recent Popes, beginning with John XXIII and Paul VI, had brought prelates "from all nations and races" to Rome to take up senior positions in the Curia, the Vatican hierarchy. This offered "an international vision of a Church rich in diversity", he told the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Pope Benedict — whose next encyclical is on globalisation and social justice — had a "world outlook" as a theologian whose thought had "opened hearts and minds on five continents", Archbishop Gregory said. The former Joseph Ratzinger, who as a young man in his native Germany had witnessed "the horrors of the Second World War", spoke a "universal language".

Archbishop Gregory said that the next time cardinals gathered to elect a Pope they could "in their wisdom" choose an African pontiff. "My own election as head of the US Bishops Conference was an important signal. In 2001 the American bishops elected someone they respected regardless of his race, and the same thing could happen with the election of a Pope."

He said that in a papal conclave, the cardinal-electors were "guided by the Holy Spirit to choose the person who best responds to the exigences of the moment". At the last conclave in 2005, after the death of John Paul II, it was widely thought that the cardinals would choose a Third World pontiff, perhaps from Africa or Latin America.

The choice of Cardinal Ratzinger, who had been at John Paul II's side for over twenty years as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was seen by many as a vote for a man who embodied continuity and had stressed the need to shore up the faith in the West itself in an age of secularism and materialism.

This week Pope Benedict XVI congratulated Mr Obama on his "historic" victory, offering his prayers for the President-elect "and for all the people of the United States".

Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said that the Pope's message was "personal" and would therefore not be published. However he said that the papal message referred to the "historic occasion" of the election and congratulated Mr Obama, his wife and family.

"He assured him of his prayers that God would help him with his high responsibilities for his country and for the international community," Father Lombardi said. The Pope had also prayed that "the blessing of God would sustain him and the American people so that with all people of good will they could build a world of peace, solidarity and justice." The message was sent via Mary Ann Glendon, the US ambassador to the Holy See.

Ireland's Primate Questions the EU

I was able to personally attend Mass celebrated by then Bishop Sean Brady, Bishop of Antrim, last year before the bishop was named a Cardinal by PBXVI. The bishop was in Savannah for a reunion with our own Bishop Boland. The two, with several other Irish peers, attended the same seminary.

He seemed fairly orthodox; the sermon addressed the end of abortion.

He now questions the EU's benefit for Ireland. Hopefully, his resistance will assist in blocking the EU's involvement in Ireland.

"Is it possible that citizens experience the EU nowadays primarily in terms of rather intrusive bureaucracy, oppressive legislation and insecure economics rather than as a social project based on fundamental human values," he asked.

Where To Go From Here

Last night's results were depressing, but in no way surprising. There will now be a serious debate within the Republican Party as to which direction it should go, a debate which should have started after the big losses suffered 2 years ago, but will undoubtedly begin in full force now.

Many Republicans, most of whom are part of the elite media (David Brooks of the New York Times is a prime example) or are part of the beltway crowd, will argue the party has shifted "too far to the right" these past 8 years, and needs to move towards the center and "find common ground" with the Democrats if it wants to return to electoral success. They say the party is too "ideological" and "stuck in the 1980s" and this is why they've lost the past 2 elections. It's time to find "common sense solutions" by working with the other side, and to make peace with big government by simply making it run better. It's time to expand our base by appealing to minorities and their concerns.

Others like myself realize these elitists are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place. The party has actually shifted too far to the left, particularly on economic issues, essentially becoming the Democrat-lite Party. After a trillion-dollar expansion in federal spending and a record increase in the size of entitlement outlays since 2001, one can hardly claim this administration has been "too far to the right" on taxes and spending. We've tried too hard to expand our base by reaching out to folks who aren't going to vote for us anyway. Why would big-government supporters choose diet socialism when the Democrats offer the real thing?

In '84, '88, and '92, young voters (those under 30) made up the most conservative portion of the electorate. They were reliably Republican and supported Reagan by wide margins. Today, the under-30 crowd are the most liberal voters. 66% of them supported Obama. What happened? A lot of it has to do with Bush's dismal failures, but a lot of it also has to do with young people today being a lot dumber and less skeptical than Generation X was of big government and Jimmy Carter liberalism. The flip side of this is that we haven't been actively educating these voters like we used to. This leaves CNN, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert to do the educating instead, which is extremely troublesome.

The end result is thousands of white, gooey-eyed college kids who got 1400 on their SATs but couldn't tell you what the top marginal income tax rate is lining Pennsylvania avenue and filling Grant Park, cheering in jubilation that Washington is going to get bigger, stronger, and steal more of their parent's income. Their limitless faith in one mortal, fallible man's ability to do infinite good with other people's money and magically solve all problems for all people is a religious fantasy far more dangerous than anything Bill Maher attacks every day. I mean at least faith in God is a lot cheaper, and at least going to mass is voluntary. Complying with the IRS isn't.



Long story short, "compassionate conservatism" has always been a defunct governing strategy and its followers must permanently be purged from our ranks. The conservative philosophy should never have to make apologies for itself, nor should it be abandoned in attempt to win over people that aren't going to vote Republican anyway. The Democrats continue to nominate the most liberal members of their party (Kerry & Edwards in '04, Obama in '08). How come we don't get to nominate our party's most conservative members? Here's a starting point for 2012: anyone who supported/voted for the bailout should not be allowed to seek the Republican nomination.

I could go on and on about what needs to be done to reclaim our principles, but I will instead leave you with a speech given by Ronald Reagan in March of 1975. This was in the wake of huge losses Republicans sustained after Nixon's resignation and the Watergate hearings. That situation was so similar to today's, and Reagan's words are so on point they're almost prophetic.

Why Voting Shouldn't Be That Big a Deal

Today is election day and you've probably heard round-the-clock public service announcements from celebrities on TV, radio, and youtube telling you to "get out and vote, no matter what, no excuses" because "you have a public duty" and "the stakes are too big for you to stay home."

I would rephrase this announcement to say get out and vote, but only if you already planned on doing it (before Leonardo DiCaprio or Ben Affleck commanded you) and only if you actually know what's going on in this country. People that have to have MTV tell them to get off their ass and pull the lever are already clueless and probably don't pay taxes. Frankly, they should do the public a duty by not voting.

But statements like "the stakes are too big to stay home" bring focus to a larger point that's really worth discussing. If our politicians and judges actually obeyed the Constitution instead of doing violence to it at every twist and turn, the stakes really shouldn't be that big on the election day, and choosing our president shouldn't be that big a deal. The founding fathers designed the presidency to be the head of state and commander-in-chief of our armed forces should Congress declare war, and little else.

The fact that the stakes are so big illustrates just how powerful, intrusive, and omnipresent the federal government has become in our economic and personal lives, and how ignored our original Constitution is.

You'll also hear pundits say how the "right to vote is what made America great." Well, there's some truth to that, but I don't think voting is the most important right we as citizens have. What about the right to private property, to freedom of assembly, to own a firearm, to earn and keep the fruits of one's labor, to trade freely with others?

If these aforementioned rights were as fiercely protected under the Constitution as originally intended, the right to vote wouldn't be as nearly as big a deal as it is today. It simply wouldn't matter if the president was Republican or Democrat, because neither would have the ability to benefit or burden us as private individuals. It wouldn't matter who was appointed to the Supreme Court, because each justice's role would be limited to interpreting laws instead of writing new ones from the bench and determining social policy for 300 million people. It wouldn't matter which party controlled Congress because $3 trillion of our tax dollars wouldn't be up for grabs to be wasted at the whim of the lobbyists and interest groups that feed (gorge might be the better term) at the federal trough. The redistributive state as we know it wouldn't be allowed to exist.

A few decades ago (not sure if it still holds true today) it was said that the best-run government in the world was Switzerland, yet you could walk up to someone on the streets there and ask them who the president was and get a blank stare in return: so few people there actually knew who their own head of state was, not because they were ignorant, but because the national government played such a non-role in that country's society.

I'm not saying let's all pack our bags and move to Switzerland, but, like millions of fellow young voters today, I have that magical "HOPE." Hope that some day, this country will return to a constitutional republic where government is small, limited, and insubstantial. After glancing at Messrs. Obama's and McCain's platforms for no more than, say, 10 seconds, it becomes apparent I won't be able to hold my breath waiting for that day to come.

BC's "Pink Out"

Great, the BC Cadets want to eliminate breast cancer, just like every other reasonable human being.

Private efforts to help prevent cancer should always be encouraged... except when it involves wearing pink at a BC football game.

Call me a heartless bastard, but PC junkies are creeping into BC's activities.

Who came up with this idea?

The Showdown

'Dogs gonna need some help from old lady luck this afternoon.