Congratulations are in order this morning for the New Orleans Saints in wake of their upset win in the Super Bowl over Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts. If ever a city deserves such a treat, it's the Big Easy.
Mr. Manning himself merits praise for his courteous deference to the Saints in his post game comments. If more football players were as gracious and unassuming as he is, the game itself would profit. It is the class acts which make sports palatable, not the self-aggrandizing oafs signaling first down on meaningless plays in meaningless games.
And what is talk about the big game without reference to the commercials? It seems that the pro-abortion folks are in a bit of a tiff about Tim Tebow 'tackling' his mother in the Focus on the Family ad. It encourages violence against women, apparently. But do they think Betty White and Abe Vigoda being tackled encourages violence against seniors? It shows the shallowness of their thought when that's the best retort they have to an honest and heartfelt pro-life moment.
As Super Bowls go, yesterday's was a good one. Surely, from a dramatic perspective, the right team won.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Football: not America's Game
Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings
- The Wall Street Journal
Today is Super Bowl Sunday, that day not really a holiday yet feels like it just the same. It should be a fun day, and that's all well and good. But for those of you who think that all the hoopla makes football America's game, here's a bit of medicine for you.
It's not.
There is no denying that football games in general and today's match in particular carry with them a lot more drama than a June baseball game or a November hockey square-off. Yet there's need to jump to conclusions: if there were only 16 to 19 baseball or hockey games per season per team, you would get a tremendous amount more hype for every one of those too. It's the numbers, or, rather, the lack of them, which appear to make football more appealing to the sporting masses than the other games. To borrow an idea from the economists, simple supply and demand tell us that the fewer there is of something the greater the interest.
Look at the facts: for all the talk about all the excitement in each game, there's barely ten minutes of actual play. There again, the point can be made that, as there is a lot less going on than in most games, each play means more. We see that the rare numbers are what manufactures importance rather than actual play.
Still, go ahead, have your party and eat too much and hoist a cold one. But remember that it is the high atmosphere which creates the excitement, and not the game itself.
- The Wall Street Journal
Today is Super Bowl Sunday, that day not really a holiday yet feels like it just the same. It should be a fun day, and that's all well and good. But for those of you who think that all the hoopla makes football America's game, here's a bit of medicine for you.
It's not.
There is no denying that football games in general and today's match in particular carry with them a lot more drama than a June baseball game or a November hockey square-off. Yet there's need to jump to conclusions: if there were only 16 to 19 baseball or hockey games per season per team, you would get a tremendous amount more hype for every one of those too. It's the numbers, or, rather, the lack of them, which appear to make football more appealing to the sporting masses than the other games. To borrow an idea from the economists, simple supply and demand tell us that the fewer there is of something the greater the interest.
Look at the facts: for all the talk about all the excitement in each game, there's barely ten minutes of actual play. There again, the point can be made that, as there is a lot less going on than in most games, each play means more. We see that the rare numbers are what manufactures importance rather than actual play.
Still, go ahead, have your party and eat too much and hoist a cold one. But remember that it is the high atmosphere which creates the excitement, and not the game itself.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Keeping it on Ice
There are times when it is hard to think of what is and is not important in the world. With the discovery of whiskey left in a cabin in the Antarctic from explorer Ernest Shackleton's failed attempt to reach the South Pole in 1909, we can see exactly how mixed reactions can be when a curious blend (cough) of history and modern thought come about.
A New Zealand team, restoring a hut left by Shackleton in the wake of his endeavors, found a few crates of the alcohol under the floorboards as they worked. It is expected that the whiskey has survived well, and whiskey historians (whiskey historians?) believe the find dramatic, as the original recipe for that particular formula has been lost. But all this fails to answer a few interesting questions.
First of all, why on Earth are we rehabilitating a post from a trek to the wilds of Antarctica? Who is going to see it? What's the point? It's a shack on a glacier, for crying out loud. Though it is interesting that such a hovel has even stood the test of time, given the extreme conditions it presumably survived, what else is important about it?
On a further note, the clash of eras brings up what is surely a significant cultural difference. Alcohol was thought important enough to be taken along on a trip into the void a hundred years ago. Who would ever think it necessary to take spirits on a major expedition today? One has to somehow admire the Shackleton folks for their dedication to a true human value, while at the same time scratching their heads at why those folks felt it critical to carry along whiskey when they certainly had more critical needs at the time.
Then we have the question of international law. There are treaties in place which make it impossible to remove anything from the wilderness of the seventh continent. They can't bring the stuff home. Yet it isn't as though the whiskey is native to Antarctica. It was brought in from the outside, but cannot be taken out. How schizophrenic have we become that we can't remove what wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?
These are just a few things to ponder as we sip on our two fingers of Jameson's tonight. Neat, just as God intended. At least Irish know what to do with whiskey.
A New Zealand team, restoring a hut left by Shackleton in the wake of his endeavors, found a few crates of the alcohol under the floorboards as they worked. It is expected that the whiskey has survived well, and whiskey historians (whiskey historians?) believe the find dramatic, as the original recipe for that particular formula has been lost. But all this fails to answer a few interesting questions.
First of all, why on Earth are we rehabilitating a post from a trek to the wilds of Antarctica? Who is going to see it? What's the point? It's a shack on a glacier, for crying out loud. Though it is interesting that such a hovel has even stood the test of time, given the extreme conditions it presumably survived, what else is important about it?
On a further note, the clash of eras brings up what is surely a significant cultural difference. Alcohol was thought important enough to be taken along on a trip into the void a hundred years ago. Who would ever think it necessary to take spirits on a major expedition today? One has to somehow admire the Shackleton folks for their dedication to a true human value, while at the same time scratching their heads at why those folks felt it critical to carry along whiskey when they certainly had more critical needs at the time.
Then we have the question of international law. There are treaties in place which make it impossible to remove anything from the wilderness of the seventh continent. They can't bring the stuff home. Yet it isn't as though the whiskey is native to Antarctica. It was brought in from the outside, but cannot be taken out. How schizophrenic have we become that we can't remove what wasn't supposed to be there in the first place?
These are just a few things to ponder as we sip on our two fingers of Jameson's tonight. Neat, just as God intended. At least Irish know what to do with whiskey.
Friday, February 5, 2010
What a Tangled Web We Weave, Again
The Presidency of Barack Obama has, perhaps, veered to the right. At the least, the environmental left (is that a redundancy?) thinks so, and there may be something to that.
In his State of the Union address, the President called for offshore drilling and increased subsidies to the nuclear industry. He has recently moved to support the ethanol and carbon energy fields. In short, he's trying to appeal to areas of traditional energy sources and agricultural political strength. This is not a bad idea politically, one supposes, yet it certainly does not paint him as a green-eyed idealist to the fringe left.
It is a response, surely, to the wake up calls the White House and the Democrats has heard jingling in their ears since November. They went too far, and now they have to move back if they hope to avert disaster in the coming elections. But is it too little, too late.
Let's hope so. The Spirit of 94: pass it on!
In his State of the Union address, the President called for offshore drilling and increased subsidies to the nuclear industry. He has recently moved to support the ethanol and carbon energy fields. In short, he's trying to appeal to areas of traditional energy sources and agricultural political strength. This is not a bad idea politically, one supposes, yet it certainly does not paint him as a green-eyed idealist to the fringe left.
It is a response, surely, to the wake up calls the White House and the Democrats has heard jingling in their ears since November. They went too far, and now they have to move back if they hope to avert disaster in the coming elections. But is it too little, too late.
Let's hope so. The Spirit of 94: pass it on!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Abstinence is the Safest Sex
A recent federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, suggests very heavily that abstinence only sex education programs actually work. They decrease the likelihood of teens become sexually active before they should. This is contrary to the liberal assumption that young people must be treated like rabbits, with no penchant for self-discipline at all.
It is interesting that such studies are even necessary. Like the study a few years back by educationists which concluded that students who study more learn more (gasp!), the common sense of the matter is so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone would think about the questions in a contrary or contradictory manner.
The fact is, anybody who accepts that there are such things as common sense and reason see things more clearly than those who need studies with various data tables normalized to certain base lines. When we have folks who do not believe in rationality, we get folks who ultimately have an agenda. In the case of sex education, we get liberals whose presumptions muddy their objectivity, like the environmentalists whose views are skewed by the thought that mere earth and animals and plants are superior to people, or the evolutionists whose scientific findings are clouded by their presumptions. With sex ed, we have folks who want promiscuity. Consequently, they presume it will happen, rather than afford others the dignity that they may actually be able to control themselves.
Such an approach insults our children in particular and our society in general. At the risk of overusing the term, common sense tells us that a structured, disciplined environment will, by and large (for we do recognize that simple human freedom will lead to errant behavior) give us a structured and disciplined society. People can be taught to behave in appropriate manners. If we are willing to concede that such personal control is possible.
It is an easy point to accept if you believe in the dignity of the individual. If you do not believe in that, then nothing is possible.
It is interesting that such studies are even necessary. Like the study a few years back by educationists which concluded that students who study more learn more (gasp!), the common sense of the matter is so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone would think about the questions in a contrary or contradictory manner.
The fact is, anybody who accepts that there are such things as common sense and reason see things more clearly than those who need studies with various data tables normalized to certain base lines. When we have folks who do not believe in rationality, we get folks who ultimately have an agenda. In the case of sex education, we get liberals whose presumptions muddy their objectivity, like the environmentalists whose views are skewed by the thought that mere earth and animals and plants are superior to people, or the evolutionists whose scientific findings are clouded by their presumptions. With sex ed, we have folks who want promiscuity. Consequently, they presume it will happen, rather than afford others the dignity that they may actually be able to control themselves.
Such an approach insults our children in particular and our society in general. At the risk of overusing the term, common sense tells us that a structured, disciplined environment will, by and large (for we do recognize that simple human freedom will lead to errant behavior) give us a structured and disciplined society. People can be taught to behave in appropriate manners. If we are willing to concede that such personal control is possible.
It is an easy point to accept if you believe in the dignity of the individual. If you do not believe in that, then nothing is possible.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Budget Woes
Nothing stirs up the crowd like budget talk. All right, that's facetious, but it's something which ought to draw more attention than it does. Especially as we are facing troubling deficits on the federal level for well into the future.
President Barack Obama has proposed many and varied cuts in areas one would wonder why there should be any government involvement at all. He has proposed cuts of $5 million in grants which would have gone to worsted wool manufacturers; why were they supported by Washington in the first place? Monies which would have paid for a 'water musical festival' are on the block; such things should never be considered by government. And these are surely only the tips of the icebergs.
It is as though the feds are trying to surgically refine the budget. That may or may not be possible; entrenched bureaucracies may be the hardest to dethrone even if they are mundane, repetitive, or outdated. For example, a bigger ticket budget item slated for a cut is the C-17 cargo plane. Even the Department of Defense, not exactly known for its spending acumen, said in 2007 that it didn't want any more them. It had enough. But due to political pressures Congress still insisted it order more and kept in budget money for them. The President is suggesting to cut them from the 2011 budget and beyond to the tune of a $2.5 billion savings over ten years. But will the lawmakers actually do it?
There's really only way to cut spending efficiently: across the board and at every level. Go to each and every agency and say: you lose ten percent next year. Period. Find a way to do it. Will it be tough? Tough. Do it. Everyone has inefficiencies, redundancies, and outmoded practices which if eliminated ought to save a bit of cash.
Like that will happen. There's no reason that, after more than 200 years, Congress will begin acting wisely anytime soon.
President Barack Obama has proposed many and varied cuts in areas one would wonder why there should be any government involvement at all. He has proposed cuts of $5 million in grants which would have gone to worsted wool manufacturers; why were they supported by Washington in the first place? Monies which would have paid for a 'water musical festival' are on the block; such things should never be considered by government. And these are surely only the tips of the icebergs.
It is as though the feds are trying to surgically refine the budget. That may or may not be possible; entrenched bureaucracies may be the hardest to dethrone even if they are mundane, repetitive, or outdated. For example, a bigger ticket budget item slated for a cut is the C-17 cargo plane. Even the Department of Defense, not exactly known for its spending acumen, said in 2007 that it didn't want any more them. It had enough. But due to political pressures Congress still insisted it order more and kept in budget money for them. The President is suggesting to cut them from the 2011 budget and beyond to the tune of a $2.5 billion savings over ten years. But will the lawmakers actually do it?
There's really only way to cut spending efficiently: across the board and at every level. Go to each and every agency and say: you lose ten percent next year. Period. Find a way to do it. Will it be tough? Tough. Do it. Everyone has inefficiencies, redundancies, and outmoded practices which if eliminated ought to save a bit of cash.
Like that will happen. There's no reason that, after more than 200 years, Congress will begin acting wisely anytime soon.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Figure Skating and Animal Rights
The world of figure skating is a troubled world; why, American skater Johnny Weir has felt it necessary to alter his costume for the Olympics in the wake of death threats. It seems he wore fox fur on an outfit, and now has to don fake fur lest his performance in Vancouver be affected by a sideshow of animal rights activists protesting his use of animal fur.
Not all animal rights activists have gone so far as to threaten him, but the fact that it happens at all is a reflection of the absurd lengths some folks will go to in defense of presumed rights. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing animal pelts, even for relatively unimportant and mundane events such as figure skating. It should not be an issue at all.
Yet it is. One wonders what those in favor of animal rights think of, oh, abortion and other human needs and issues. Surely the life of even one human being is far superior to that of a fox, or cow or horse or dog. But a figure skater gets death threats for his choice of costume.
It is craziness to believe animals have rights. It is insanity to threaten someone over the use of fur. That in itself tells us all we need to know about certain folks, and shows us the true absurdity behind the animal rights movement.
Not all animal rights activists have gone so far as to threaten him, but the fact that it happens at all is a reflection of the absurd lengths some folks will go to in defense of presumed rights. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wearing animal pelts, even for relatively unimportant and mundane events such as figure skating. It should not be an issue at all.
Yet it is. One wonders what those in favor of animal rights think of, oh, abortion and other human needs and issues. Surely the life of even one human being is far superior to that of a fox, or cow or horse or dog. But a figure skater gets death threats for his choice of costume.
It is craziness to believe animals have rights. It is insanity to threaten someone over the use of fur. That in itself tells us all we need to know about certain folks, and shows us the true absurdity behind the animal rights movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
