Mediaboss Marketing

Getty Images

Free-agent defensive end Everson Griffen remains in a holding pattern. The 32-year-old has been linked to Seattle but not many other teams has he looks for a new NFL home.

The Cardinals reportedly have interest in Griffen, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com.

Arizona is trying to boost a defense that needs plenty of help. Given all the attention devoted to Chandler Jones, Griffen would likely see some favorable matchups and, at a minimum, one-on-one opportunities.

Chad Graff of TheAthletic.com recently explained that Griffens status has been influenced in part by the inability to make visits to teams. As Vikings G.M. Rick Spielman told #PFTPM in the aftermath of the draft, the door isnt closed on a return to Minnesota; however, the Vikings lack the cap space to give Griffen the kind of deal he may expect.

Griffen has 74.5 sacks in 147 career games. He had a career-high 13.0 sacks in 2017.

Link:
Cardinals reportedly have interest in Everson Griffen - NBCSports.com

Post Views: 622

Ideology has been a big incentive for action over the course of history. We know that humans have fought over scarce resources, but they also have a strong system of beliefs that they are willing to defend at high costs. But how they get their belief system is a different conversation that has to do with the fundamental question brought up by American political scientist Harold Lasswell: Who gets what, when and how? He argues that the ruling elites engage in forms of power and manipulation against the counter-elites, and thus, ideology comes into the picture.

If we look at the state of ideology over the 20th century, we can see that more than 100 million people were killed as a result. Im not going to get into the details, but you get the idea of how it went down. So, you have a group of people who think that other groups ideals are so corrupted that there is no way to change them. And what do they do? They try to eliminate them. Im mainly talking about World War II, but the same thing was happening during the Cold War two big nations fighting for two different ideologies.

Moreover, looking at the state of ideology today, here in the U.S. we have two main political ideologies: left wing, with liberals and the Democratic party, and right wing, with conservatives and Republicans. People tend to have their belief systems deeply ingrained in those ideologies. For example, we have both sides arguing as to why the other side is corrupt. Sound familiar? But now we have a new phenomenon occurring that is partly the consequence of the internet and social media. This is the popularization of ideological representatives. And Im not talking about government or religious figures. This is a part of a collective thinking that is guided by the chosen ones the ones who are selected by the public, or the ones whom the public allows to do their thinking for them.

A clinical psychologist and professor from University of Toronto, mostly notorious for his debates on political correctness, female wage gap and gender pronouns. His main view on bettering the world has to do with fixing yourself. He believes that people need to work on personal responsibility and bettering themselves first, and in this way they can better the world around them.

Quotable phrases: Make your bed! Clean up your room!!

A Slovenian Philosopher and researcher at the University of Ljubljana, also known as the most dangerous philosopher in the West. He is more notorious for his work on continental philosophy, political theory, Marxism, Hegelianism and theology. Zizeks work deals with ideology and he thinks that in order to better the world one needs to stop indulging in ideology. He believes that ideology consists of the wrong ways we try to define reality and a post-hoc rationalization of why institutions do what they do.

Quotable phrases: If you want to get rid of ideology, first you have to beat yourself.

Peterson argues against the postmodern neo-Marxist position held by, in his terms, the radical left. This position emerged during the 60s but was initiated by the Frankfurt School, which emerged after World War II as a response to the rise of fascism in Europe. It had notable members including Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno, who used a Marxist and Freudian (psychoanalysis) framework for analyzing the world around them. Nevertheless, the position Peterson has a problem with is the idea of how oppression is the result of nefarious actions by the elites. Peterson believes that this belief creates a victim mentality that doesnt do the world any good.

On the other hand, Zizek is a Marxist. He supports the notion that capitalists generate profit by exploiting the labor classes. This said, Zizeks view on the postmodern condition is different than Petersons. He thinks that our ideology is the product of our discomfort with our present condition. And our present condition being part of a capitalist system smartly divides a nation into ideologies to keep the people in place. Nevertheless, the two go face to face in a debate on Marxism.

Watching the chosen ones have a debate in a big auditorium is something that reminded me of a sports event. Whenever Zizek made an argument, those rooting for him began screaming, and the same for Peterson. It was a competition from the audience as to who could chant and scream harder. I dont know if they were listening carefully to what the two were saying.

Petersons way of speaking is carefully executed. He takes great care with his tonality, and he is concise and tries to give out secure and bold statements. I think that being a psychologist helps him understand how to control peoples attention. On the other hand, Zizek is an experience to watch. His ticks and mannerism are eccentric and eclectic. His way of speaking consists of simultaneously squeezing his nose and grabbing his ears followed by his thick Eastern European accent. I couldnt understand certain things he was saying.

When it comes to who won the debate, it is important to point out the following: Peterson opened by saying basically that Marx and Engels only considered the economic aspect of society. This is wrong if your topic of debate is Marxism. In fact, Marxism is grounded on historical (Hegelian), religious, political and economic implications. It is noted that Marx wrote thousands upon thousands of pages to make his point. But the most important thing I want to say is that here you have a chosen intellectual completely unprepared to have an intellectual discussion. And for some reason, people end up clapping and screaming in favor of Peterson. For some reason, the people in the event were oblivious to the topic of debate and were focusing on satisfying their system of beliefs via Peterson.

Nevertheless, the two had things in common when it comes to the current state of identity politics in the United States. They both kind of agree on the dangers of the excesses of the victim mentality in the left.

I understand that people dont have the time to read entire volumes on Marxism or whatever the topic may be. I understand that people are busy with their jobs and lives, and moreso in this pandemic. But it is important to notice the conformity sometimes people choose when it comes to reinforcing their belief system. By this, I mean that people seldom engage in critical thinking. People let others do their thinking for them, which is evident in the case of Peterson or Zizek.

If I can propose something, its that you consider the context and possible motivations behind an ideology. Even your own. Try to understand why people want certain things and why they are acting in certain ways. The reason for this is because there is danger in letting a small group of people do the collective thinking for the majority.

Continue reading here:
Amidst the Peterson-Zizek Debate, We Should Still Think for Ourselves - Study Breaks

In an ACL reconstruction procedure, the surgeon normally takes a hamstring tendon from the same leg of the injured knee to rebuild the ACL. But scar tissue around the Amelias knee prevented that. So the doctor had to go into the right hamstring to draw the tendon.

I think thats what upset me the most, Amelia said. I was like Dont let her cut into my other leg! But she did anyway.

Tommy added: It wasnt like she had a choice.

The second surgery brought good news. Amelias meniscus had begun to regenerate It was kind of like a miracle, Amelia said but that also meant a slower rehab process to allow the meniscus to fully heal.

Normally, people who have ACL surgery are off crutches after a week or two, Amelia said. But I ended up on crutches for about four months.

Shed also miss an additional three weeks of school.

After her injury, the Renners quickly got Amelia into see a counselor.

We said all along that the emotional part was going to be the hardest part, Tommy said. These kids, they work their whole childhood for this dream, and now the dream is gone.

Amelia said those discussions have helped, as well as talking with other athletes. Her physical therapy group ranges from patients 22 years old all the way down to a 9-year-old who blew out her knee playing rugby.

Shes even reached out to others, like Hockinson football player Peyton Brammer, who suffered a knee injury about a month after Amelia did. Amelias cousin is Micah Paulsen, a teammate of Brammer on Hockinsons boys basketball team.

When I found out that Peyton got hurt, I sent this big long text to my cousin and said please send this to Peyton, Amelia said. The surgeon who did my surgery did Peytons too. And then later, Peyton ended up in my group PT.

These discussions, Amelia said, helped her realize there is more to life than playing sports.

Now Im just a student; Im no longer a student-athlete, she said. Im no longer the athlete that I was, and Im never going to be the athlete that I was again. For me, the biggest part is realizing that.

As one of the sports she played when she was younger, Amelia opted to play golf at Prairie last spring, earning second-team all-league honors.

Prairie golf coach Paul Shapard told her if she put a quarter of the amount of time she put into volleyball into golf, she could maybe play at college, Tommy Renner said.

So last summer, as she worked to strengthen her volleyball skills, Amelia also took golf lessons.

After her injury, Amelia thought golf might allow her to remain a student-athlete at Prairie.

When she finally ditched the crutches in January, she was cleared to begin chipping and putting. By April, she got the go-ahead to start a full golf swing and return to high school sports, once she got a brace for her knee.

Like one of those braces linebackers wear, Amelia said.

Then the closure of schools, and with it all of spring sports, ended that dream.

But missing school is what hurt most for Amelia.

I had already missed a third of the beginning of my senior year, and now Im not going to have the rest of it, Amelia said. Its awful.

She worked so hard last summer to make her senior year of volleyball special, and in the first match, it was taken away.

Now working hard to get healthy enough to play golf, that was lost before it could even start.

But her athletic journey might not be over yet.

Last week, as she was resigned to just being a college student and attend Dixie State in Utah, Amelia was contacted by the volleyball coach at Ottawa University, a small NAIA school in Kansas, with a scholarship offer to play volleyball and golf.

I called my doctor and asked her about it, Amelia said. She said golf, Im confident you could play anytime now that you have your brace. Volleyball, youd have to redshirt a year and see. I cant guarantee that you could come back and play at that level. But Im not saying you cant do it either.

Amelias parents are apprehensive about the idea of her returning to volleyball.

But ultimately, the decision is hers to make, Tommy said.

Amelia added: For me, now, having the opportunity to play in college, something Ive dreamed about since seventh grade, and not taking it might be something I regret further down the road. So thats where Im stuck right now, trying to decide if its worth the risk.

Its another twist in a winding road for Amelia Renner over the past year.

In the end, she just hopes her story might help others just starting down their own road to recovery.

I want other kids to know theyre not alone, she said.

Receive latest stories and local news in your email:

ColumbianAssistant Sports Editor

Follow this link:
Focus set on recovery: Prairie volleyball player shares story of recovery from ugly knee injury - The Columbian

Amid lockdown, Netflix has unveiled a sexy series that you can binge while staying at home. Too Hot to Handle (Netflix) is the all-natural conclusion of years of fact TELEVISION shows. It is Love Island, cut to its leanest and also meanest, and also it is Love Is Blind, with its pseudo-educational streak. These youngsters, created in the fitness center, embellished with ditsiness and also glossy hair, reach appreciate a desert-island hideaway, with the twist that they should pass up all sexual activity: no kissing, no touching, no masturbation. If they break the guidelines since training course they do the prize fund is lowered from its beginning point of $100,000. There is a sliding range of penalty. The larger the criminal offense, the bigger the fine. The hope is that, at the end of it, these formerly sex-loving, relationship-rejecting men and women will experience some woolly concept of personal growth.

Everything concerning it is awful. The truth that not having sex on TELEVISION now counts as a challenge to be overcome is an unlike the stimulating days of Big Brother in its prime, when an under-the-table encounter made front-page news though we have actually been inching in the direction of it for many years, on various programs, through blurry night-vision fumbles under a wobbling, incriminating quilt.

The all-seeing emperor right here is a beefed-up house aide called Lana, an Alexa-alike undoubtedly invented in Gilead, that brazenly informs participants that she is collecting their personal data and that reports on any kind of clandestine fumbles at mock-stern camp summits, doling out the fines accordingly. The conspiracy theory theorist in me was appalled by how much the program talked about this security, as if attempting to get visitors used to it. Lanas puritanical, cod-psychology affirmations about the benefits of abstinence are annoying at surface area level, as well as also worse when you see how much the program nudges the participants towards having sex at every turn, simply for the phenomenon of it. There are so many grim close-ups of eager, digging tongues that this show will do more to promote social distancing than any one of the federal governments main posters.

The point, according to the snarky narrator, is to take the most popular, horniest, most commitment-phobic swipesters and compel them to create much deeper and also much more meaningful links. The real point, clearly, is to gin up drama as well as sex-related stress amongst people the program hopes youll be incapable to look away from, even while the commentary (and the participants themselves) inform you theyre despicable. The programs real takeaway, though, is something else entirely.

In a peculiar twist, truth television finally echoes the present fact. The entrants, shuttered away from world, prohibited from seeking the physical intimacy they crave for concern of producing a tragedy that extends better than themselves, are essentially social distancing. As Well Hot to Deal with, which launches today, isnt a show about changing superficial pick-up musicians. Its a show about quaranthirst.

Series similar to this are improved the likability of the contestants. With a couple of exceptions, this great deal make you despair for the future of mankind: Haley from Florida has a tattoo on her back in another language, however she does not understand which one. Matthew from Colorado is a monogamy-rejecting Russell Brand-lite that definitely wishes to inform you regarding a Jordan Peterson podcast. Harry from Queensland is so immature that I hope they checked the day of birth on his ticket; he says things like All I wan na do is some rowdy sex to her, after that sticks his tongue out as well as looks confused.

It does not take wish for the candidates to go a little bit Lord of the Flies. They exist regarding each other, purposely deplete the reward fund, as well as mainly resist the programs attempts to nudge them towards discovering more regarding themselves. As I stated, whatever concerning it is horrible.

The participants have actually all been raised on fact TV and clearly know the tropes well: theyre playing a role as opposed to being themselves. The voiceover, by comic Desiree Burch, wishes to have its cake as well as eat it, buffooning whats in front of it while staying completely invested in the activity. However the episodes are short, snack-like as well as disgustingly bingeable. I did not really feel good concerning demolishing all eight episodes, nor can I stop myself doing it. It will, undoubtedly, be enormous.

See the original post:
Too Hot to Handle on Netflix is undeniably Sexy in Quarantine - The TeCake

On June 26, 2000, ABC aired a documentary called The Search for Jesus. The networks leading news anchor, Peter Jennings, interviewed liberal and conservative scholars of early Christianity about what we can know historically concerning Jesus life, death, and resurrection. The series ended with a striking statement by New Testament scholar Paula Fredriksen, who is not a Christian herself.

Commenting on the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus, Fredriksen said,

I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. Thats what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that thats what they saw. Im not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasnt there. I dont know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.

Shes admitting, in other words, that the best available historical evidence confirms that followers of Jesus like Mary Magdalene, his brother James, Peter and his other disciples, and even an enemy (Paul) were absolutely convinced that the crucified man Jesus appeared to them alive, raised from the dead.

Fredriksen is not alone in supposing that these followers must have seen something. Virtually every Bible scholar across the Western world, regardless of religious background, agrees that Jesus earliest followers believed he appeared to them alive. This is what launched the worlds largest religion. As a result of these appearances, Jewish fishermen began proclaiming to crowds in Jerusalem that God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it (Acts 2:32). Two thousand years later, the message of Jesus death and resurrection is proclaimed by billions of Christians in nearly every nation and in almost every language on planet earth.

What did all these witnesses see?

According to the earliest source we have on record for Jesus death and resurrection, a hidden pearl found within 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus appeared to multiple individuals and groups, and at least one enemy. This creedal tradition, according to virtually all scholars, dates to within five years of Jesus death. Through this source, we can reach back to the earliest years of the Christian movement in Jerusalem, to the bedrock confession of the earliest followers of Jesus.

Here is what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:38:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

This catalog of Resurrection appearances is unparalleled in the New Testament, even in all of ancient literature. We learn from this list that Jesus appeared to three individuals: Cephas (Peter), his chief disciple; James, his brother; and Paul, his former enemy. And we also learn that he appeared to three groups: the Twelve (disciples, minus Judas); more than 500 early followers; and all the apostles.

That Jesus appeared to more than 500 men and women at the same time is a truly remarkable claim. Paul boldly puts his credibility on the line when he mentions that most of them are still alive. After all, he is essentially inviting members of the Corinthian church to travel to Jerusalem and speak to these witnesses, investigating for themselves what it was like to see the risen Jesus. We can see, then, that solid eyewitness testimony to the risen Jesus was readily available in the decades following his resurrection. As G. K. Chesterton observed in The Everlasting Man, This is the sort of truth that is hard to explain because it is a fact; but it is a fact to which we can call witnesses.

Mary Magdalene also belongs on the list of key eyewitnesses, as she too was readily available to be questioned about her experience with the risen Jesus. As the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes in How Jesus Became God, it is significant that Mary Magdalene enjoys such prominence in all the Gospel Resurrection narratives, even though she is virtually absent everywhere else in the Gospels. She is mentioned in only one passage in the entire New Testament in connection with Jesus during his public ministry (Luke 8:13), and yet she is always the first to announce that Jesus has been raised. Why is this? One plausible explanation is that she too had a vision of Jesus after he died. Mary Magdalene was given the high honor of being not only the first to see the risen Jesus but the first person in history to proclaim, I have seen the Lord! (John 20:18).

Whatever these eyewitnesses saw, it transformed their lives to the point of being willing to suffer and die for it. In 2 Corinthians 11:2333, Paul recounts his almost daily suffering for his conviction that Jesus appeared to him. He was beaten, imprisoned, stoned, starved, lost at sea, and daily in danger of all kinds of evil on his journeys throughout the Roman Empire.

We also possess strong historical evidence that certain key eyewitnesses were martyred for their faith. Peter, for instance, was crucified. James was stoned. Paul was beheaded. Whatever they saw, it was worth giving their lives for. They sealed their testimonies with their blood.

In order to explain away these Resurrection appearances, some scholars have speculated that the eyewitnesses were merely hallucinating.

In his excellent book Resurrecting Jesus, New Testament scholar Dale Allison surveys the available scientific studies and literature on hallucinations. In documented cases, he concludes, there are four things that do not happen (or rarely happen). First, hallucinations are rarely seen by multiple individuals and groups over an extended period of time. Second, hallucinations are rarely seen by large groups of people, especially groups of more than eight. Third, hallucinations have never led to the claim that a dead person has been resurrected. And fourth, hallucinations do not involve the persons enemy. (We could also add the fact that hallucinations typically arent known for launching global movements or world religions.)

Yet in the case of the resurrection appearances of Jesus, every last one of these rare or seemingly impossible circumstances has come to pass.

Allison sums up the implications forcefully: These appear to be the facts, and they raise the question of how we should explain them. The apologists for the faith say that the sightings of Jesus must, given the reports, have been objective. One person can hallucinate, but twelve at the same time? And dozens over an extended period of time? These are legitimate questions, and waving the magical wand of mass hysteria will not make them vanish.

The only other answer given by respectable scholars wrestling with this robust historical record is some variation of I dont know. Much like Fredriksen, renowned New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders also represents this cautious-agnostic approach when he writes, in The Historical Figure of Jesus: That Jesus followers (and later Paul) had Resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.

Jordan Peterson, the popular professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, also belongs in this category. He neither affirms nor rejects the historicity of Jesus resurrection. When asked directly if Jesus literally rose from the dead, Peterson responded, I need to think about that for about three more years before I would even venture an answer beyond what Ive already given.

The cautious-agnostics position is a respectable one. Even the original apostles did not believe the claim of the Resurrection when the women first told them (Luke 24:811). Yet if someone like Peterson, with an open mind and heart, follows the evidence where it leads, I am convinced he will find himself at the feet of the risen Jesus, proclaiming with Thomas, My Lord and my God! (John 20:28).

The extraordinary nature of Jesus resurrection reminds me of my favorite scene in Shakespeares Hamlet. The play opens with the wondrous strange appearances of Hamlets dead father to Bernardo and Marcellus and then later to Hamlets friend Horatio. Horatio is the skeptic of the group, and Hamlet challenges his disbelief of the supernatural in this exchange:

Horatio: O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Shakespeare speaks through Hamlet, telling us to expect the unexpected. Welcome the strange and extraordinary. It is indeed wondrous strange that the ghost of Hamlets father is appearing to people, but do not reject it for that reason alone. Your philosophy should be wide enough for the supernatural. More things are happening in our wonderful world (and beyond) than you can imagine. If your philosophy is not wide and open enough to include the miraculous and the extraordinary, then you need a new philosophy.

We should be open to miraculous claims from the ancient world and in modern times. Our philosophies should make room for the unexpected, strange, and extraordinary. And yet, the most important question to ask of any miraculous claim is What is the evidence?

We have seen that, even from the perspective of the most skeptical scholars, the weight of the historical record attests that a host of individuals and groups believed they saw the risen Jesus. All the evidence we have suggests that his eyewitnesses were trustworthy and honest. Why disbelieve them?

And if that doesnt convince our modern-day Horatios, then we can go further, summoning the Twelve and the more than 500 who saw the resurrected Messiah.

We can even move beyond the first-century time frame, exploring how belief in the Resurrection laid the foundations of all Western civilization, inspiring some of the greatest art, literature, music, film, philosophy, morality, and ethics that the world has ever seen. Is this all based on a lie?

And if all that is still not enough, then let our Horatios behold the billions across the world today who readily testify to how the living Christ has transformed their lives. These include intellectual giants who have converted to Christianity from every world religion (or from atheism and agnosticism). In Christ, they have found all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

On Easter, these billions were proclaiming the same message the apostles proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost: God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Now more than ever, in this dark, plague-ridden world, your family, friends, and neighbors are looking for hope. The living Christ is the only hope for us all. Before Easter fades into the rush of everyday life, ask your neighbor: What (or who) did all those witnesses see?

They saw hope incarnate, new creation, life in its fullness, God in the flesh.

This indeed is wondrous strange! Encourage your skeptical friends not to stop at I dont know. Give the risen Jesus welcome.

Justin Bass is professor of New Testament at Jordan Evangelical Theological Seminary in Amman, Jordan. He is the author of The Bedrock of Christianity: The Unalterable Facts of Jesus Death and Resurrection (Lexham Press) and The Battle for the Keys: Revelation 1:18 and Christ's Descent into the Underworld (Wipf and Stock).

Continue reading here:
What Skeptical Scholars Admit about the Resurrect... - ChristianityToday.com