Bread and Circuses

I normally don't swim in these waters anymore. But at times the atmosphere gets to me just the same.

I don't like playoffs. They're one of the reasons, and perhaps the main reason, which turn me off from sports. If you'll excuse the admittedly vague pun of a dad joke, I don't like being played by playoffs. And that's what playoffs do. They try to manufacture excitement solely for the sake of cash and prestige. And that, I will argue, diminishes sports and wastes time.

Take Indiana's win over Ohio State yesterday. A great win? Not in this day and age. Sure, they beat OSU for the first time in 31 games. It's Indiana's first Big Ten Championship since 1967, when even I was but a child. And what's their reward for it? Basically, a pat on the head followed by, 'win two more games to prove yourself'.

If they don't win a national championship the conference title is no more than a footnote. If they should meet Ohio State again and lose, it will be thought of as a fluke. Indiana will have effectively won the wrong game.

Yes, it may not happen that way. Maybe the Hoosiers will win a Natty. That still accomplishes the same purpose: a meaningless and forgotten win over the Buckeyes on a cold December Saturday. Win it all or you're in the dustbin. Losers rarely get more than apologetic afterthoughts.

The championship is all that matters. And that has to be made even more difficult by adding more hoops to leap through, all so that more money can be made. There's talk of expanding college football playoffs to 16 for no other purpose than that. Don't try to argue integrity. All adding four more teams to a playoff field means are four more teams without a realistic chance to win. 

Now, if watching and rooting are your hobby, by all means enjoy. We aren't talking about any evil. At least, I don't think so anyway. But I am open to the question, quite frankly. Bread and circuses don't strike me as the best expressions of humanity or human effort.

Income Gap Tinkering not Useful

Income equality. Or income gap, if you prefer, the gap between rich and poor, yadda, yadda. Under whatever form you like the term, they all mean basically the same thing: some Americans want incomes more level among the citizenry. But is such a thing even possible?

Why should incomes be within a certain range? Is a plumber actually worth the same money we pay a cancer specialist? A truck driver equal to a secretary? Indeed, is there any true equality among jobs? No? Then why should there be income equity?

Well, we don't mean that, say the supporters of bridging the income gap. We mean raising wages so that people can live better off of lower wage jobs. But why are there lower wage jobs? Why are the people who only want them, or can only work them? Aren't those questions beyond the actual scope of whatever job is in question?

Further, don't we want the natural incentives which the chance of higher earnings might offer? That woman who several months ago famously called out the McDonald's CEO; has any asked her why she's been at a Mickey D's 9 years and not advanced? Why haven't her two children been a factor in her wanting to improve herself rather than demanding that society acquiesce to her terms? Is she saying that advancement is impossible with a family, even a snigle mother household? We suspect that even many single mothers would take offense at that.

The bottom line is twofold: is closing the income even remotely possible (without a tyrannical state), and that there are really too many questions involved to determine exactly who's worth what even within industries and professions. Only where a pair of or a small group of workers are involved, all of whom have almost identical qualifications and seniority, could we seriously discuss equal pay for equal work. Yet how often will that be the case?

It is foolish to talk about income equality. We will only waste our time, money, and effort. Oh, we'll surely make people jealous and resentful. That certainly is not a decent use of our human resources.