They're out there, spewing their condescending nonsense. They will tell you that you can't believe your own eyes, that watching paint dry is exciting. Only you can't understand it because you have an American perspective. You aren't sophisticated like the peoples of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Who are they? Obamaniacs? No, they are soccer fans. And they are buzzing with excitement about the World Cup.
As a red blooded American, you probably haven't given any thought to soccer. Most Americans don't. Football is king in the USA. Baseball, basketball and NASCAR are also royalty. Minor sports like hockey, golf and even figure skating receive American attention. Soccer fanatics think this is wrong. They use phrases like "real football," or "futbal." It upsets them that you ignore their game, but you are right.
To those who say that I'm ignorant of the game's strategy, beauty, or some other BS, I would respond that I played soccer through high school (and in a college intramural league) and I also have soccer coaching experience.
I'd add that soccer is a fine game to play. It's the ideal game for a parent who wants their kid to run around and get tired so they don't hassle them later in the day. It's fun if you are the one running aroung. However to a spectator it has the unusual distinction of being the only game I know of where it's more fun to watch third graders play than to watch the best players in the world. I enjoyed playing soccer, but I cannot stand watching it. I don't want to be subjected to it and you shouldn't either. Simply put, Americans are above watching soccer.
Objectively speaking, soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Yet it isn't even on the radar in the United States. Why is that? I'd argue that it is because Americans are more evolved than foreigners.
Want proof? Per none other than economics guru King Banaian, it's an economic truth that Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than 99% of the world. I'd argue that this means that America's judgement on the value of things makes more sense than that of dirt-eating foreigners. If most prosperous people in the world think soccer sucks, but they love it in sub-Saharan Africa, who is correct? Ponder that.
I'd add that in addition to the soft science of economics, the hard science of biology argues against soccer. What separates man from the beasts? Our large and complex brains is the most prominent difference. And where our our brains? Inside our skulls. Skulls that are protected by helmets in exciting contact sports like football, baseball, and hockey. Not only does the sport of soccer offer no protection for the human head, it actively advocates banging ones head against a ball. Some say this is harmless, but can it possibly be good for you?
Evolutionary theory suggests that many animals posses intelligence, but only primates were able to develop into a higher species. And what separates primates from the lesser animals? One key aspect feature of higher primates is the thumb, or an opposable digit. Man's hand is an evolutionary wonder. Scientists argue that the development of an opposable thumb allowed man to develop tools and written language, which increased their intelligence. Dolphins are clearly an intelligent animal, but they never developed into an orderly society because they had no opposable digits. How do soccer players value the miraculous human hands? They make it illegal to use them. The rules of soccer fight against what makes man great.
Don't succumb to the pressure of the soccer bullies. It wouldn't be civilized.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Power Line: Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman were not “Bright”
It is rare when we disagree with our good friends at Power Line simply because it is rare for them to be wrong. But when they are wrong, they can be as wrong as Ron Gardenhire trying to fill the number two spot while Orlando Hudson is on the disabled list.
On Tuesday they had just such a post: Frank Tipler: Was Einstein "bright"?
I expected the post to be short, something like:
“Yes indeed, Albert Einstein was bright. He was indisputably very, very, very bright.”
Bizarrely, Power Line’s correspondent, Tulane Physics Professor Frank Tipler, took the contrary view:
“Let me add Albert Einstein to the list of great men who were not "bright," but whose achievements were extraordinary, whose accomplishments changed the course of human history.”
We are agreed that Albert Einstein’s accomplishments were extraordinary and changed the course of human history. But he was not bright? Explain yourself, Professor Tipler.
“Einstein was not offered any academic or research job after he obtained his Ph.D., but instead had to go to work in the Swiss patent office.”
“One of his professors, Hermann Minkowski, who was one of the teachers unimpressed by Einstein the student, is reported to have said, ‘How could such an idiot write such papers?’”
Professor Minkowski had the man who would soon upend the foundations of physics studying under his very nose and he sees him as an “idiot”. I submit that it is Professor Minkowski who is lacking in the “brightness” department.
“Hans Einstein, who never saw Albert Einstein as the ‘great genius’ but rather as ‘dad,’ told my friend that he did not think his father was particularly bright.”
Wait a minute; a son doesn’t think his father is very bright? Why, yes, that would explain why he would never lend Hans the car on Friday nights.
Professor Tipler’s case for Einstein’s lack of brightness is weak indeed. To compound his error, he sets his sights on another accomplished, but supposedly not so bright physicist, Richard Feynman:
“By Feynman's high school days, the Intelligence Test had been introduced to determine just who was really "bright." Feynman, alas, was not one of these. His I.Q. was a mere 125, according to James Gleick in his biography of Feynman, Genius, which, according to his I.Q., Feynman was not.”
Obviously that particular test was inaccurate and James Gleick agrees, or presumably he wouldn’t have titled his biography of Feynman “Genius” (an excellent book, by the way).
“When Feynman applied for admission to Princeton, the graduate admission committee almost rejected him because his score on the Graduate Record Examination was so low. The GRE placed him in the bottom 7 percent on the Fine Arts part of the exam.”
I can see the admissions interview now, “Well Feynman, I see you’ve recently been awarded one of the five Putnam Fellow awards in mathematics and you also have unprecedented prefect scores on our math and physics graduate entrance exams [according to Gleick]. Your M.I.T professors say that you are the finest undergraduate they’ve had in a number of years. I think you will make a fine addition to the Princeton Graduate Physics program … uh oh, wait a minute – it says here you placed in the bottom 7 percent on the Fine Arts exam. I’m afraid we’re going to have to give this some more thought.”
No, I think not.
The context of this preposterous downplaying of the “brightness” of Einstein and Feynman is an examination of the “brightness” of President Obama. Power Line argues that “brightness” is not really enough. The likes of Einstein and Feynman achieved greatness because they, unlike President Obama, could think outside the box and look at things in ways that hadn’t occurred to the supposedly “bright” people.
This is true enough. Einstein and Feynman would not have accomplished what they did without their ability to look beyond the conventional viewpoint. But it is equally true that they would not have accomplished what they did had they not been “bright” enough to do the math.
On Tuesday they had just such a post: Frank Tipler: Was Einstein "bright"?
I expected the post to be short, something like:
“Yes indeed, Albert Einstein was bright. He was indisputably very, very, very bright.”
Bizarrely, Power Line’s correspondent, Tulane Physics Professor Frank Tipler, took the contrary view:
“Let me add Albert Einstein to the list of great men who were not "bright," but whose achievements were extraordinary, whose accomplishments changed the course of human history.”
We are agreed that Albert Einstein’s accomplishments were extraordinary and changed the course of human history. But he was not bright? Explain yourself, Professor Tipler.
“Einstein was not offered any academic or research job after he obtained his Ph.D., but instead had to go to work in the Swiss patent office.”
“One of his professors, Hermann Minkowski, who was one of the teachers unimpressed by Einstein the student, is reported to have said, ‘How could such an idiot write such papers?’”
Professor Minkowski had the man who would soon upend the foundations of physics studying under his very nose and he sees him as an “idiot”. I submit that it is Professor Minkowski who is lacking in the “brightness” department.
“Hans Einstein, who never saw Albert Einstein as the ‘great genius’ but rather as ‘dad,’ told my friend that he did not think his father was particularly bright.”
Wait a minute; a son doesn’t think his father is very bright? Why, yes, that would explain why he would never lend Hans the car on Friday nights.
Professor Tipler’s case for Einstein’s lack of brightness is weak indeed. To compound his error, he sets his sights on another accomplished, but supposedly not so bright physicist, Richard Feynman:
“By Feynman's high school days, the Intelligence Test had been introduced to determine just who was really "bright." Feynman, alas, was not one of these. His I.Q. was a mere 125, according to James Gleick in his biography of Feynman, Genius, which, according to his I.Q., Feynman was not.”
Obviously that particular test was inaccurate and James Gleick agrees, or presumably he wouldn’t have titled his biography of Feynman “Genius” (an excellent book, by the way).
“When Feynman applied for admission to Princeton, the graduate admission committee almost rejected him because his score on the Graduate Record Examination was so low. The GRE placed him in the bottom 7 percent on the Fine Arts part of the exam.”
I can see the admissions interview now, “Well Feynman, I see you’ve recently been awarded one of the five Putnam Fellow awards in mathematics and you also have unprecedented prefect scores on our math and physics graduate entrance exams [according to Gleick]. Your M.I.T professors say that you are the finest undergraduate they’ve had in a number of years. I think you will make a fine addition to the Princeton Graduate Physics program … uh oh, wait a minute – it says here you placed in the bottom 7 percent on the Fine Arts exam. I’m afraid we’re going to have to give this some more thought.”
No, I think not.
The context of this preposterous downplaying of the “brightness” of Einstein and Feynman is an examination of the “brightness” of President Obama. Power Line argues that “brightness” is not really enough. The likes of Einstein and Feynman achieved greatness because they, unlike President Obama, could think outside the box and look at things in ways that hadn’t occurred to the supposedly “bright” people.
This is true enough. Einstein and Feynman would not have accomplished what they did without their ability to look beyond the conventional viewpoint. But it is equally true that they would not have accomplished what they did had they not been “bright” enough to do the math.
Only a Man In a Funny Red Sheet
It appears that Filipino president-elect Benigno Aquino III has learned a lesson from the experiences of his fellow smoker-in-chief Barack Obama and is seeking to downplay expectations before he assumes office:
Aquino said he is currently pre-occupied with "making a very good inaugural speech (since) I am trying to understand exactly what tradition calls upon me to do."
He said he is still drafting his speech.
"The target is to be as short as possible, but all encompassing," Aquino said, adding that he will "utilize it as a means of communication to the people."
"You have to be humble to say you are not Superman and Einstein combined. You don’t have all the solutions at your fingertips," he told reporters, informing them at the same time that he intends to have a three-day break and have some soul-searching.
Superman and Einstein combined? Now that would be quite a super hero. He could turn back time by reversing the rotation of the earth and explain the scientific theory behind it.
Aquino said he is currently pre-occupied with "making a very good inaugural speech (since) I am trying to understand exactly what tradition calls upon me to do."
He said he is still drafting his speech.
"The target is to be as short as possible, but all encompassing," Aquino said, adding that he will "utilize it as a means of communication to the people."
"You have to be humble to say you are not Superman and Einstein combined. You don’t have all the solutions at your fingertips," he told reporters, informing them at the same time that he intends to have a three-day break and have some soul-searching.
Superman and Einstein combined? Now that would be quite a super hero. He could turn back time by reversing the rotation of the earth and explain the scientific theory behind it.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Interesting Times, Interesting Times
"A leader with a fresh mandate must look forward rather than pontificate on the perceived ills of the past as if to cover up an absent or deficient positive agenda for action," he said.
"The supposed 'failures' of the past are pitfalls to avoid but not 'cadavers' for repeated exhumation," he said.
"A president must succeed or fail based on his own merit and performance," he said.
Words of wisdom indeed that appear especially apt at the moment. You may be wondering who uttered them. Jim DeMint? Paul Ryan? Bobby Jindal?
How about a member of the Filipino Congress:
President-elect Benigno Aquino III should not blame outgoing President Arroyo entirely for the problems facing his administration, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said yesterday.
While it seems like there's never a dull moment in American politics these days, when it comes to intrigue, the US political scene can't hold a candle to what's going on in the Philippines right now. The plots and subplots would strain credulity if they were part of a fictional television series. But this isn't TV, it's reality.
Filipino politics should hold particular interest to Americans since the system of government is largely based on that of the United States. There are three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Sound familiar?
There are some differences too. The president is elected by popular vote, serves a six-year term, and cannot run for re-election. Unlike the US, where voters select a ticket of president and vice president, in the Philippines, the vice president is also elected by popular vote. That has lead to a most unusual situation where newly elected President Benigno Aquino III (or Noynoy) will enter office with a vice president from another party, Jejomar Binay. While it's not theoretically possible in the United States these days, ponder the possibility of President Obama and Vice President Palin. Now that would be fun, wouldn't it?
But the political fun in the Philippines is just beginning. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (or GMA as she's commonly known) is the current president of the Philippines. But on June 30th, when NoyNoy Aquino takes the oath of office and assumes the presidency, GMA will not fade away from the political spotlight. Instead she will take a seat in the House of Representatives which she won in the May election. Imagine George W. Bush not retiring to his Crawford ranch to write his memoirs after turning over the reins to President Obama, but instead becoming a Congressman from Texas.
Oh and what if instead of being married with a couple of kids, President Obama had a thirty-year-old girlfriend who was also a political figure (and doesn't cut a bad one either)?
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said it's just proper for the media to give Aquino a "honeymoon" period of at least 100 days.
"Noynoy's honeymoon with the media is a given. It's his honeymoon with Shalani that I'm waiting for," Pimentel said in jest, referring to Aquino's girlfriend, Councilor Shalani Soledad of Valenzuela City.
A disparate cast of characters, conflict, and a love interest. The elements are all in place for a storyline that soap opera writers would envy. And even a few laughs:
Sen. Joker Arroyo also appealed to Aquino's critics to give him a break.
"There should be no heckling yet. Give the guy a break," said Arroyo, who served as executive secretary during the term of Aquino's mother, the late president and people power icon Corazon Aquino.
It should come as no surprise that a joker would call for a moratorium on heckling. And yet another similarity to our own politics. They've got a Joker in the Senate and so do we.
"The supposed 'failures' of the past are pitfalls to avoid but not 'cadavers' for repeated exhumation," he said.
"A president must succeed or fail based on his own merit and performance," he said.
Words of wisdom indeed that appear especially apt at the moment. You may be wondering who uttered them. Jim DeMint? Paul Ryan? Bobby Jindal?
How about a member of the Filipino Congress:
President-elect Benigno Aquino III should not blame outgoing President Arroyo entirely for the problems facing his administration, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said yesterday.
While it seems like there's never a dull moment in American politics these days, when it comes to intrigue, the US political scene can't hold a candle to what's going on in the Philippines right now. The plots and subplots would strain credulity if they were part of a fictional television series. But this isn't TV, it's reality.
Filipino politics should hold particular interest to Americans since the system of government is largely based on that of the United States. There are three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislative branch consists of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Sound familiar?
There are some differences too. The president is elected by popular vote, serves a six-year term, and cannot run for re-election. Unlike the US, where voters select a ticket of president and vice president, in the Philippines, the vice president is also elected by popular vote. That has lead to a most unusual situation where newly elected President Benigno Aquino III (or Noynoy) will enter office with a vice president from another party, Jejomar Binay. While it's not theoretically possible in the United States these days, ponder the possibility of President Obama and Vice President Palin. Now that would be fun, wouldn't it?
But the political fun in the Philippines is just beginning. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (or GMA as she's commonly known) is the current president of the Philippines. But on June 30th, when NoyNoy Aquino takes the oath of office and assumes the presidency, GMA will not fade away from the political spotlight. Instead she will take a seat in the House of Representatives which she won in the May election. Imagine George W. Bush not retiring to his Crawford ranch to write his memoirs after turning over the reins to President Obama, but instead becoming a Congressman from Texas.
Oh and what if instead of being married with a couple of kids, President Obama had a thirty-year-old girlfriend who was also a political figure (and doesn't cut a bad one either)?
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said it's just proper for the media to give Aquino a "honeymoon" period of at least 100 days.
"Noynoy's honeymoon with the media is a given. It's his honeymoon with Shalani that I'm waiting for," Pimentel said in jest, referring to Aquino's girlfriend, Councilor Shalani Soledad of Valenzuela City.
A disparate cast of characters, conflict, and a love interest. The elements are all in place for a storyline that soap opera writers would envy. And even a few laughs:
Sen. Joker Arroyo also appealed to Aquino's critics to give him a break.
"There should be no heckling yet. Give the guy a break," said Arroyo, who served as executive secretary during the term of Aquino's mother, the late president and people power icon Corazon Aquino.
It should come as no surprise that a joker would call for a moratorium on heckling. And yet another similarity to our own politics. They've got a Joker in the Senate and so do we.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Free the Fourth!
Teresa Collett, St. Thomas professor and GOP endorsed candidate for Congress in CD4, appeared on NARN last week and the podcast is now available here. She's an impressive candidate and has the people excited about her chances, as evidenced by the many calls we received.
If you'd like to support her campaign, the best way is with her Twenty For Teresa campaign. For a mere twenty bucks (cheap), this is the kind of representation we could be sending to Washington:
Needless to say, that kind of attitude would be a marked change from the End of Rome style spending decadence of the current occupant of that Congressional seat. (Details provided in the voluminous FL Betty McCollum archives).
Of course, this pattern didn't begin with Betty McCollum. For whatever reason, St. Paul and the 4th Congressional District has been sending liberal Democrats to Congress for generations.
The year was 1946, a young lawyer named Edward Devitt was elected as the last Republican to hold that seat. An unremarkable event, as nine of the previous 14 Representatives for the district were also Republicans. However, after serving only one term, he was decisively waxed in the next election by a young whippersnapper Democrat, and St. Thomas professor, Eugene McCarthy.
A future senatorial career and presidential run based on anti-war pacifism was merely a gleam in Gene's eye in 1948. According to Thomas Roeser in his fascinating account of the 1948 Minnesota elections, the 59% - 41% result against Devitt was a result of the following dynamics:
Roeser's account of how McCarthy won the highly contentious Democratic primary is even more entertaining:
Victory through miraculous, catastrophic election judging error. Gene McCarthy was the Al Franken of his day. And on that wing and a prayer, thus began 61 years, and counting, of unbroken Democrat control of CD4.
After 10 years of McCarthy, Joseph Karth moved in for 18 years, followed by 22 years of Bruce Vento. Perhaps the most noteworthy achievement of either was from Karth, as detailed in his obituary in the Washington Post:
I'm sure all Minnesotans are shocked to learn that the Viking spacecraft was actually successful and did not crash and burn just before reaching its goal of landing on the surface.
Which brings us to Betty McCollum, over her ten years most known for such spending hits as: The More Books for Africa Act of 2009.
From McCarthy to McCollum. After six decades, even the quality of the Democrat representation (if that's what you want) has not gotten any better.
It's time for a change. If not now, when? If not her, who? Collett in 2010.
If you'd like to support her campaign, the best way is with her Twenty For Teresa campaign. For a mere twenty bucks (cheap), this is the kind of representation we could be sending to Washington:
"By many estimates, each of us owes roughly $184,000 for the nearly $13 TRILLION national debt and today’s current politicians are adding and additional $6.8 million per minute in 2010.
I am committed to reigning in government spending and expansion, while encouraging innovation and expansion by entrepreneurs and small businesses. We can return common sense and fiscal restraint to Washington D.C. this fall, but it will take everyone’s help!” -- Teresa Collett
Needless to say, that kind of attitude would be a marked change from the End of Rome style spending decadence of the current occupant of that Congressional seat. (Details provided in the voluminous FL Betty McCollum archives).
Of course, this pattern didn't begin with Betty McCollum. For whatever reason, St. Paul and the 4th Congressional District has been sending liberal Democrats to Congress for generations.
The year was 1946, a young lawyer named Edward Devitt was elected as the last Republican to hold that seat. An unremarkable event, as nine of the previous 14 Representatives for the district were also Republicans. However, after serving only one term, he was decisively waxed in the next election by a young whippersnapper Democrat, and St. Thomas professor, Eugene McCarthy.
A future senatorial career and presidential run based on anti-war pacifism was merely a gleam in Gene's eye in 1948. According to Thomas Roeser in his fascinating account of the 1948 Minnesota elections, the 59% - 41% result against Devitt was a result of the following dynamics:
The big weapon that McCarthy had in the general campaign was Devitt's vote for Taft-Hartley, which rang hollow in that heavily Democratic and union labor district. McCarthy also was helped by a heavy avalanche of Democratic votes for [Hubert Humphrey] for the Senate—and at the tag end of the campaign, for Harry
Truman. By 9:30 p.m. on election night, it was clear that McCarthy was elected--by 24,902 votes (he estimated he might win by 5,000).
Roeser's account of how McCarthy won the highly contentious Democratic primary is even more entertaining:
When the radio said that [his opponent] was ahead by 5,000 with only about 3,000 votes left to be counted--almost sure defeat--one of McCarthy's volunteers, Elizabeth Dunn suggested they say the rosary. Since everyone was Catholic and had nothing else to do they agreed including Gene.
When they were on the third decade of the Joyful Mysteries (the birth of Christ), the phone rang and Dunn answered while everyone else was praying. It was Tony Blaha, a McCarthy volunteer at the courthouse who said, "I got good news!"
When Gene took the call, Blaha told him there had been a mix-up and they had counted the 11th ward--(a Barrett stronghold)--twice. McCarthy announced it. They finished the rosary and drove down to DFL headquarters at the Lowry Hotel. Twice they stopped to pick up newspapers: one edition said Barrett won, another McCarthy. By the time they got to the Lowry, he was ahead and a few lawyers volunteered to watch his interest in the canvass--which he won by 550 votes.
Victory through miraculous, catastrophic election judging error. Gene McCarthy was the Al Franken of his day. And on that wing and a prayer, thus began 61 years, and counting, of unbroken Democrat control of CD4.
After 10 years of McCarthy, Joseph Karth moved in for 18 years, followed by 22 years of Bruce Vento. Perhaps the most noteworthy achievement of either was from Karth, as detailed in his obituary in the Washington Post:
Mr. Karth served on the House Science and Aeronautics Committee and was chairman of its subcommittee on space sciences and applications.
... a Minnesota Vikings football fan, he named the Viking spacecraft, the first space vehicle to land on Mars.
I'm sure all Minnesotans are shocked to learn that the Viking spacecraft was actually successful and did not crash and burn just before reaching its goal of landing on the surface.
Which brings us to Betty McCollum, over her ten years most known for such spending hits as: The More Books for Africa Act of 2009.
From McCarthy to McCollum. After six decades, even the quality of the Democrat representation (if that's what you want) has not gotten any better.
It's time for a change. If not now, when? If not her, who? Collett in 2010.
Follicle Follies/Milquetoast Messenger
I've noticed a few similarities with two priests from different parishes here in town.
One, their hair. They have what look to be very expensive haircuts. There is "product" present. A hairdryer looks to have been used liberally. You can imagine one of those $40 hairbrushes they sell at the salons being employed. There was copious use of a mirror, maybe even one of those hand-held kind they give you at the barber before you say "Yeah, looks great!" even if you don't think so.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a priest having hair this good. Outside of my own petty jealousy, it is simply distracting to see this kind of hair spectacle at mass. The priest is not a performer up on stage trying to kick the footlights out again (Hag reference for those who are interested). He's not up there to wow us with his showbiz 'do and mastery of mousse (btw, do people still use that stuff? Such a dated reference!). It makes the man come across as a dandy, a gallant if you will, preening and primping for social approval while our souls languish.
But the hair is only the physical manifestation of their desire to be liked, to be "one of us" to show us that they too are sinners...Attention--we realize you sin too, but quit acting like you have no insight on this topic because otherwise why are we listening to you? Both priests constantly tell us during their homilies that they "don't have all the answers"...How about starting with a FEW? The main goal of the talks seems to be about them and their desire to be seen as just another troubled, foolish sinner with no particular training on the topic that might be relevant. Yup, just one of us. That whole "Shepard" thing? Outdated. Just another lost sheep...oh well, let's have donuts!
One of the utterances I really don't care to hear from a priest is the following: "I don't know." Both of the priests I am discussing use this phrase. I. Don't. Know. Again, why am I listening to you? You don't know? What don't you know? Are you confused? What I think they mean when they say this is "It sounds old-fashioned, divisive and patriarchical to stand up here and tell you How It Is (as Jesus defined it) so I'll just water everything down into a bland stew of milquetoast feel-goodisms and tell you what great people you are who could be maybe just be a little better."
They remind me of those corporate trainers who come to your workplace to teach you about Risk Management. Sure, they'll teach you some stuff, but their most important goal is to make sure you are happy with them because you will be filling out a rating card at the end of the training.
The actual training is secondary to being likeable.
But as the kids say, whatever. It's just our souls and our lives. Go ahead and schedule your next 3 week haircut and focus on your own personal feelings of happy approval of the congregation.
That's why we're here afterall.
One, their hair. They have what look to be very expensive haircuts. There is "product" present. A hairdryer looks to have been used liberally. You can imagine one of those $40 hairbrushes they sell at the salons being employed. There was copious use of a mirror, maybe even one of those hand-held kind they give you at the barber before you say "Yeah, looks great!" even if you don't think so.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a priest having hair this good. Outside of my own petty jealousy, it is simply distracting to see this kind of hair spectacle at mass. The priest is not a performer up on stage trying to kick the footlights out again (Hag reference for those who are interested). He's not up there to wow us with his showbiz 'do and mastery of mousse (btw, do people still use that stuff? Such a dated reference!). It makes the man come across as a dandy, a gallant if you will, preening and primping for social approval while our souls languish.
But the hair is only the physical manifestation of their desire to be liked, to be "one of us" to show us that they too are sinners...Attention--we realize you sin too, but quit acting like you have no insight on this topic because otherwise why are we listening to you? Both priests constantly tell us during their homilies that they "don't have all the answers"...How about starting with a FEW? The main goal of the talks seems to be about them and their desire to be seen as just another troubled, foolish sinner with no particular training on the topic that might be relevant. Yup, just one of us. That whole "Shepard" thing? Outdated. Just another lost sheep...oh well, let's have donuts!
One of the utterances I really don't care to hear from a priest is the following: "I don't know." Both of the priests I am discussing use this phrase. I. Don't. Know. Again, why am I listening to you? You don't know? What don't you know? Are you confused? What I think they mean when they say this is "It sounds old-fashioned, divisive and patriarchical to stand up here and tell you How It Is (as Jesus defined it) so I'll just water everything down into a bland stew of milquetoast feel-goodisms and tell you what great people you are who could be maybe just be a little better."
They remind me of those corporate trainers who come to your workplace to teach you about Risk Management. Sure, they'll teach you some stuff, but their most important goal is to make sure you are happy with them because you will be filling out a rating card at the end of the training.
The actual training is secondary to being likeable.
But as the kids say, whatever. It's just our souls and our lives. Go ahead and schedule your next 3 week haircut and focus on your own personal feelings of happy approval of the congregation.
That's why we're here afterall.
Monday, June 14, 2010
The Congressman Really Wants To Know
I'm sure most have you have already seen the video of Democrat Congressman Bob Etheridge assaulting a college student who dared to approach His Highness with a camera and a question.
The video exposes what seems to be an all too common and growing sentiment in Washington DC that our elected representatives are simply not to be questioned. We are expected to shut the hell up, do what they tell us to do and ignore the fact that most of these people are thin skinned dimwits.
The Congressman has been forced to come out with a statement that, frankly, only serves to emphasize this point:
Now I know some of the lefties out there are going to argue that the intrusive part was putting a camera in the man's face but that notion is equally laughable. If Etheridge gave everybody who ever stuck a camera in his face the maniacal deathgrip headlock response that this young college student got every camera crew in DC and North Carolina would be hospitalized.
No, Congressman Bob Etheridge, Democrat from North Carolina, is a bitter and angry coward whose primary concern is most likely his re-election. Let's hope this video makes it into his opponent's campaign ad after, of course, it appears as evidence in an upcoming assault case against him.
The video exposes what seems to be an all too common and growing sentiment in Washington DC that our elected representatives are simply not to be questioned. We are expected to shut the hell up, do what they tell us to do and ignore the fact that most of these people are thin skinned dimwits.
The Congressman has been forced to come out with a statement that, frankly, only serves to emphasize this point:
“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”Couched is his apology is the implication that he was also somehow a victim. The question Etheridge was asked was simply "Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" To imply that this question is intrusive and/or partisan is absolutely laughable.
Now I know some of the lefties out there are going to argue that the intrusive part was putting a camera in the man's face but that notion is equally laughable. If Etheridge gave everybody who ever stuck a camera in his face the maniacal deathgrip headlock response that this young college student got every camera crew in DC and North Carolina would be hospitalized.
No, Congressman Bob Etheridge, Democrat from North Carolina, is a bitter and angry coward whose primary concern is most likely his re-election. Let's hope this video makes it into his opponent's campaign ad after, of course, it appears as evidence in an upcoming assault case against him.
Faith 101
One of the greatest challenges facing the Catholic Church (and all Christian churches in America for that matter) is keeping young believers active and engaged in the faith during their college years and beyond. It's an all too familiar and distressing to hear stories of those raised in faith who drift away during the critical years following high school. Some eventually do return to the church--often as a result of marriage and children--but many do not and find themselves separated from God and permanently of the secular world.
It's encouraging to learn that their are groups out there working to keep young people on the right path. Groups like Saint Paul's Outreach:
Saint Paul's Outreach was founded in 1985 by a group of Catholic young adults who felt a calling to help college students live out their Catholic faith. Over the past 25 years, thousands of students--enrolled at the University of St. Thomas, the University of Minnesota, the Ohio State University, Benedictine College, and Seton Hall University, along with many other universities--have come alive in their faith through the ministry of Saint Paul's Outreach. More than 125 alumni serve the Catholic Church as priests, religious, seminarians or novices, while others serve as teachers, business people, and lay leaders in the Church. Hundreds of others have gone on to experience fruitful marriages committed to raising their children with deep faith and strong character.
It's encouraging to learn that their are groups out there working to keep young people on the right path. Groups like Saint Paul's Outreach:
Saint Paul's Outreach was founded in 1985 by a group of Catholic young adults who felt a calling to help college students live out their Catholic faith. Over the past 25 years, thousands of students--enrolled at the University of St. Thomas, the University of Minnesota, the Ohio State University, Benedictine College, and Seton Hall University, along with many other universities--have come alive in their faith through the ministry of Saint Paul's Outreach. More than 125 alumni serve the Catholic Church as priests, religious, seminarians or novices, while others serve as teachers, business people, and lay leaders in the Church. Hundreds of others have gone on to experience fruitful marriages committed to raising their children with deep faith and strong character.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Northern Alliance Radio Network
The Northern Alliance Radio Network is back LIVE this morning at 11 AM.
After a rare and well deserved absence of 4 out of the past 5 weeks, John Hinderaker and I return to the studio to reacquaint ourselves with each other, figure out which end of the microphone to talk into, and run down the week that was.
HOT topics will include the most recent primary elections and what they portend for November, and an audio clip heavy tribute to Barrack Obama's handling of The Oil Spill.
Special guest at noon, Teresa Collett, GOP endorsed candidate for Congress in CD4. She's a Texan by birth, a St Thomas University Law Professor by trade and a vibrant, exciting candidate to face Betty McCollum in November. Is she the one to break the 64 year hammer lock the DFL has had on the Congressional seat? We'll dream the impossible dream and talk it up with Teresa Collett at noon.
Plus, as always, Loon of the Week, This Week in Gatekeeping, and much more.
Following us at 1 PM, Mitch Berg and Ed Morrissey. And, don't forget at 9 AM, The King Banaian Show over at the Patriot's sister station, KYRC (Business 1570).
Following us at 1 PM, Mitch Berg and Ed Morrissey. And, don't forget at 9 AM, The King Banaian Show over at the Patriot's sister station, KYRC (Business 1570).
Remember, The Northern Alliance Radio Network starts at 11AM Central, locally on AM1280 the Patriot. Streaming LIVE worldwide at the web site. You can join the conversation at 651-289-4488. Don't you dare miss it!
Friday, June 11, 2010
Beer of the Week (Vol. LIX)
Another edition of Beer of the Week brought to you by the warm folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help you keep on the sunny side of life. The Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin--along with a few others like the August Schell's in New Ulm, Minnesota--occupies a middle ground between craft brewers and the macro brewing giants. They're too big to truly be considered craft brewers, but they also make an effort to produce a variety of more specialized beers that few of the big boys can match. In the case of Leinenkugel, they are actually owned by mega-global-conglomerate SAB Miller. However, they've managed to maintain a sense of independence and small town brewery feel that you can experience for yourself with a tour of the Leinenkugel facility (which I've taken three or four times over the years).
Most of the Leinenkugel's offerings (the original as well as the more recent craft efforts) are pretty pedestrian. Their 1888 Bock, Fireside Nut Brown, and Summer Shandy are good beers, but there are more misses than hits in the lineup. Their most popular beers, such as Red Lager and Honey Weiss, are not that much better than your typical macros which has no doubt helped given Leinie's a bad rep among the more discerning beer drinking. Which is unfortunate, because there is some wheat to be found among the chafe. Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat to be precise.
Sky blue framed label has Leinenkugel's logo and a bundle of wheat in front of a scene featuring a gorgeous sunset over a Northwoods lake. Hard to say summer better than that.
Beer Style: Witbier Alcohol by Volume: 4.5%
COLOR (0-2): Amber gold and cloudy. 2
AROMA (0-2): Strong citrus (mostly orange) and berry. 2
HEAD (0-2): Bright white with good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Wheat and fruit flavors are both strong and nicely balanced with a little coriander too. Light-bodied, refreshing, and very drinkable. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Crisp with a smooth fruity finish. 1
OVERALL (0-6): Like many summer beers, Leinie's Sunset Wheat is not for everyone. If you don't like even the hint of fruit flavors in your beer, you won't like this offering. But the fruit is not as overpowering here as it is in some beers. Leinie's has come up with a good combination of citrus and wheat. Even though it's offered year round, Sunset Wheat really is a summer beer. Leinenkugel's bills it as "like your very own sunset in a bottle" and it comes close to living up to the hype. Leave the Honey Weiss to the pretenders and make Sunset Wheat your Leinie's summer beer of choice. 4
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 14
No Promises, No Demands
The 2010 World Cup is underway with host South Africa and Mexico squaring off on the pitch in the opening match (a nil-nil nailbiter at this point). I think it's high time for my fellow Americans to wake up and appreciate the beauty of the event. Not the alleged beauty of the sport itself mind you. No, the beauty of the United States of America being in a no lose position when it comes to the World Cup.
If we lose a match or even all of them, who really cares? 99.99% of Americans aren't going to lose any sleep if the US squad goes belly up and has an early exit. But if we happen to win--especially if we happen to beat a country that lives and dies on the outcome of that particular match--it's all gravy.
This happened back in 2002, when the USA stunned Mexico. Most Americans had no idea that their team had won and even most of those who did know were relatively indifferent. "We beat Mexico in soccer? Cool. What time is the Twins game tonight?" Meanwhile, the defeat was a crushing blow to pretty much all of Mexico. A black pall that was visible from the US southwest border states hung over the country for days. A game that meant nothing to most Americans, meant everything to Mexicans. You gotta love that.
The same scenario could be in play tomorrow when the USA meets England. An English victory is expected and if it happens, most Americans won't bat an eye. But if the US somehow beats England, it will be a catastrophic blow to English pride (what's left of it anyway) and opportunity for Americans to rub salt into the open English wound for years. Talk about a win-win. So tune in tomorrow and cheer for the US team. What have we got to lose?
If we lose a match or even all of them, who really cares? 99.99% of Americans aren't going to lose any sleep if the US squad goes belly up and has an early exit. But if we happen to win--especially if we happen to beat a country that lives and dies on the outcome of that particular match--it's all gravy.
This happened back in 2002, when the USA stunned Mexico. Most Americans had no idea that their team had won and even most of those who did know were relatively indifferent. "We beat Mexico in soccer? Cool. What time is the Twins game tonight?" Meanwhile, the defeat was a crushing blow to pretty much all of Mexico. A black pall that was visible from the US southwest border states hung over the country for days. A game that meant nothing to most Americans, meant everything to Mexicans. You gotta love that.
The same scenario could be in play tomorrow when the USA meets England. An English victory is expected and if it happens, most Americans won't bat an eye. But if the US somehow beats England, it will be a catastrophic blow to English pride (what's left of it anyway) and opportunity for Americans to rub salt into the open English wound for years. Talk about a win-win. So tune in tomorrow and cheer for the US team. What have we got to lose?
Thursday, June 10, 2010
South by Southwest
I missed most of Game Six of the Stanley Cup Finals last night. I was at the Denver Airport and managed to catch some of the second period while seated in a bar and the last six minutes of the third while standing outside it with a group of other folks waiting to board our flight. We missed the overtime of course, but from the highlights I've caught today there wasn't much to see. I'm glad that the Blackhawks won the Cup, but it's always a bit of a letdown when a deciding game ends on such a soft goal. And I would have loved to see the two teams meet again in Game Seven. Still, it was a entertaining Finals and lived up to the expectations I had going in.
The flight from Denver to Minneapolis was my first flight on Southwest. There were no Delta flights available at the time I needed and I wanted to see if Southwest lived up to their customer service hype. It's hard to judge on only flight, but my experience last night hardly wowed me. It didn't help that the flight was delayed fifty minutes so we could wait for twenty-one passengers from a connecting flight. Such situations strain your ability to empathize with your fellow man. Yes, if I was in the shoes of those passengers, I would want the airline to hold the flight for me too. But as a guy at the gate more than ready to get home, it was difficult not to harbor the selfish impulse to say "Screw 'em, let's go!"
The service from the Southwest gate agent and flight attendants was ordinary. They were a little more casual in dress and attitude than most airlines, but other than that not much different. And I'm not sure about whether I like Southwest's' free for all seating scheme either. It did make boarding a bit more orderly--especially the lining up--but whether it’s a superior method to assigning seats is hard to say. It certainly wasn't on our flight when the twenty-one connecting passengers finally arrived and had to go up and down the aisles hunting for free seats (the coveted middle seat is yours). I definitely would fly Southwest again if necessary, but last night's experience did nothing to sway me to choose them over other airlines.
If people are mad at BP for ruining the environment, they might want to ask Avis why they hate the earth so much. The last two times I've been out to Colorado on business, the rental car firm has given me honking SUVs to drive. By myself. The previous time, it was a Ford Explorer. On this trip, I was handed the keys to a Chevy Suburban which could comfortably seat fourteen. Needless to say, I had plenty of room for the only thing I brought with me; my backpack. I didn't request this type of vehicle and I didn't pay more than I would have for the intermediate car that I asked for. They must have a surplus of SUV which they're trying to make use of. I don't mind driving 'em, but for all that I use it for, a medium-sized car would better fit my vehicular needs.
The flight from Denver to Minneapolis was my first flight on Southwest. There were no Delta flights available at the time I needed and I wanted to see if Southwest lived up to their customer service hype. It's hard to judge on only flight, but my experience last night hardly wowed me. It didn't help that the flight was delayed fifty minutes so we could wait for twenty-one passengers from a connecting flight. Such situations strain your ability to empathize with your fellow man. Yes, if I was in the shoes of those passengers, I would want the airline to hold the flight for me too. But as a guy at the gate more than ready to get home, it was difficult not to harbor the selfish impulse to say "Screw 'em, let's go!"
The service from the Southwest gate agent and flight attendants was ordinary. They were a little more casual in dress and attitude than most airlines, but other than that not much different. And I'm not sure about whether I like Southwest's' free for all seating scheme either. It did make boarding a bit more orderly--especially the lining up--but whether it’s a superior method to assigning seats is hard to say. It certainly wasn't on our flight when the twenty-one connecting passengers finally arrived and had to go up and down the aisles hunting for free seats (the coveted middle seat is yours). I definitely would fly Southwest again if necessary, but last night's experience did nothing to sway me to choose them over other airlines.
If people are mad at BP for ruining the environment, they might want to ask Avis why they hate the earth so much. The last two times I've been out to Colorado on business, the rental car firm has given me honking SUVs to drive. By myself. The previous time, it was a Ford Explorer. On this trip, I was handed the keys to a Chevy Suburban which could comfortably seat fourteen. Needless to say, I had plenty of room for the only thing I brought with me; my backpack. I didn't request this type of vehicle and I didn't pay more than I would have for the intermediate car that I asked for. They must have a surplus of SUV which they're trying to make use of. I don't mind driving 'em, but for all that I use it for, a medium-sized car would better fit my vehicular needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)