Yes, Yes, a Thousand Times Yes!

Ok, so a little background. Jerry Jones (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) was apparently caught on amateur video ripping on former Cowboys coach Bill Parcells, as well as Tim Tebow. This made the rounds on the sports blogs, etc. I don't really give a crap about the story, but Dale Hansen's comments about the state of journalism are wonderful. I remember watching this guy as a kid growing up in Dallas and never have I respected him more than I do now.



Spot on, Dale.

Religion and Media

I've seen a few things over the past couple of weeks that have had me thinking about the dynamics of religion and media these days. As much as religion has been in the news, especially over the past 3 years (Prop 8, jihadists, Warren Jeffs, etc.) I guess it's only inevitable that mainstream media outlets would start dealing with religious themes moreso than in times past.

That said, I don't like it. Our media is saturated with opinions, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't. The problem is that, at some point long ago, consumers began relying on things like television, movies, and music not only for entertainment purposes, but for informational purposes as well. How many times have you heard someone say they like a movie because of the "message" that it sends? Or how many of our favorite singers or bands are our favorites because we agree with their politics or social agendas? When more people got their Congressional voting results from the last major elections from the Daily Show than any other news source, I think that says something.

The consequence of relying on media to shape our belief system is that it gives immense (although unintended) power to the unknown writer sitting in the corner at some Hollywood Starbucks writing a script. It also gives a lot of social and cultural capital to the producers who pull the strings. In a very real sense they become the secular version of priests and prophets. But who are these people to tell us what to think or believe? Are they any more enlightened than we are? Of course not, and most of them don't pretend to be. Our favorite musicians often make no bones about drug addiction or various social or emotional disturbances in their lives. I don't see anything from Hollywood's A-list that makes me think "wow, I should listen to them, they clearly know more about life than I do." Nevertheless, a disturbing number of consumers give credence to the views and opinions expressed in their favorite shows and movies because they are packaged in an entertaining medium that captures our attention. And if it's entertaining, it must be good, right?

I can tolerate this fallacious reasoning when it comes to societal issues, because mob mentality rarely makes sense--it is what it is. Gay marriage, health care, jobs, the environment, all that stuff. In the end, we're all human beings trying to figure out the best way to co-exist with problems and issues that begin and end with us as a society. Everyone is rightfully entitled to their opinion. Whether it makes sense or not, celebrities drive opinions because they have access to widespread means of communication and can make their opinions attractive.

You can argue that religion is a similar issue in that it deals with us as individuals and it only has as much sway in society as we let it have. But I feel like there's more to it than that. If (and this is a big "IF") we accept that a God or some omnipotent, intelligent force of some kind exists, then it seems almost ego-maniacal to think that we can fully comprehend its thoughts, methods, purposes, or reasons. If God exists and created us, He must be superior to us in such a way that we can't even begin to imagine with our relatively feeble human brains. There's no way we can ever fully understand His mind or his purposes. And so it seems to be rather presumptive to attempt to whittle religion (or, rather, what our relationship to God is) down into a few pop-culture sound bites. And yet, that's what I'm seeing when my favorite TV shows go off on their high horses about how organized religion is lunacy, or the familiar "if God existed, then He would want X, Y, or Z" As if media opinion leaders could even begin to understand the mind of God sufficiently to say something like that.

I ignore it, personally. I give it no legitimacy whatsoever. But it scares me that many people seem to. I'm not saying people consciously base their opinions on what their favorite actor says (although some do). I'm saying that certain messages pervade our culture enough (via mass media) that they begin to become commonly accepted as fact by the masses. And it concerns me when those messages begin to deal with the nature and purposes of a supposedly all-knowing and omnipotent being, yet originate from origins that are saturated with wholesale secularism.

Today...

...my government decided it would be a good idea to take more of my money than it already does and give it to others to buy health care that they most likely don't want in the first place, so that insurance companies can make bigger profits. Then my president told me it was all right because it was best for me. Because he clearly knows better than I do.

God Bless America.

Health Care Question

I want an honest answer from anybody who actually still reads this thing (and thank you, if you do, by the way!) because this is bugging me. I was talking to my brother, a student at UT-Houston Medical School, about this whole health care reform thing. Apparently Medicare expenditures have gone up nearly threefold in 8 years, from 230 billion to almost 600 billion. This is why Medicare is unsustainable, and why everyone agrees something has to change.

Now, I'm not an economist, but is there any good reason why we can't just abolish Medicare as a program, and take a portion of those funds and provide subsidies to low-income families to buy private insurance? Forget issues of fraud, etc. because those can be dealt with. Conceptually, what's the problem with this? And if it's a good idea, why is nobody talking about it?

Screw you, Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson combines everything I loathe about sensationalism, religious bigotry, and mass media into one white male. His latest antics only bolster my feelings.

Haiti just experienced probably the worst natural disaster in its history. Thousands upon thousands of men, women, and children are still lying dead in the streets. Food is scarce. Water is even more scarce. Hospitals, schools, and churches all leveled to the ground. Rescue workers from all nations are racing to the scene to help repair the untold carnage.

And Pat freaking Roberston has the gall to sit back in his comfy little chair on TV and tell his impressionable audience that this happened because Haiti swore a pact to the devil so he would free them from France's control waaaaaaaay back in the day.

I cannot adequately describe how abhorrent this is on so many different levels. It's not often that such a short statement can manage to be so offensive on so many simultaneous levels. It's irresponsible, hateful, presumptuous, arrogant, and spiteful all at the same time.

Sometimes...

...the hits just keep on coming. Ever have one of those times where nothing seems to go right in life, or some aspect of it? That's happening in law school now. The semester literally could not have ended worse. And there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. I feel like my ability is being called into serious question.

I think the biggest thing I'm going to get out of my last semester isn't any particular theory or principle or practice. It's going to be how I respond to adversity and whether I can use rejection as an effective motivator.

We'll see how I am come May, I suppose.

Journalism is Dead to Me

After this whole Tiger Woods thing, journalism is dead to me. The field I got my degree in is not the same field responsible for the trash going out masquerading as "news." So to all you bloggers, tabloid "journalists" and every other voyeuristic piece of garbage with a pen and paper, screw off. You really think it's hard news when a porn star "doesn't DENY" having an affair with someone? So now it's "journalism" to assume something is going on because there's no proof to say that it's not? You're really going to just continue to speculate and ruin someone's life out in the open like this? This isn't so much journalism as it is a new-age lynch mob. Leave it alone. You're an embarrassment to a proud profession.

No, we don't have a right to know if Tiger Woods is having an affair, or even twenty, for that matter. He doesn't need to "come clean" about anything. You all just want him to admit to something so you can drag down yet another celebrity and moan about the moral depravity in our society to feel better about your own menial lives. Meanwhile your blogs get more hits and you make more money because you post pictures of the alleged "mistresses," you get a few more minutes of national face time, and you ruin people's perception of men like me who work hard to keep their significant others happy and who would never dream of cheating.

And worst of all, you've completely ruined a man's life on nothing more than conjecture. You realize you're putting your credibility on the line because of, among other people, a porn star, a club owner, a socialite, a reality TV star, and other assorted riff-raff? This is hardly what I'd call a credible source. Have the professional and common decency to validate your sources, people! Especially when someone's reputation is at stake like this! We truly live in an absurd world when TMZ and the Daily Sun are considered "reputable" news sources by the likes of the AP and ESPN.

Meanwhile Obama just sent 30k more troops to Afghanistan, there's a flu pandemic sweeping the world, Israel and Iran are creeping closer to war, atrocities continue in Darfur, and you're worried about how many women Tiger may or may not have hooked up with? REALLY?? How can you people even look at yourself in the mirror? You're shameless, all of you.

And you've killed journalism for me.

Keith Olbermann is an Awful Human Being

Look, Glenn Beck is crazy. Like, clearly a maniac. I accept this. I usually put Keith Olbermann on the same level, although I find him somewhat more self-righteous and annoying. Maybe it's because he should have stuck with sports commentary and left politics to the better-informed. In any event, I'm more than content to let these two raging maniacs get fodder for their own shows from the other and continuously rant and rave at each other like a couple of children fighting on the playground

But now Olbermann's gone after one of my guys. According to Olbermann, Mr. Dallin H. Oaks, one of the global leaders of my church and someone whom I respect very much, both for religious and non-religious reasons, is one of the "Worst People in the World." I guess it's a kind of segment he does on his show where he puts a bunch of people on blast for saying or doing ridiculous stuff. Entertaining, right?

Well, according to Mr. Olbermann, Oaks is one of the worst people in the world because he equated the religious persecution in the wake of the Prop 8 vote to voter discrimination practices directed at blacks back in the day. So what could Oaks have possibly said to deserve such vitriol?

Oaks gave a speech at BYU-Idaho on October 13. In it, he documented what he believed was a continued assault on the open expression and practice of religion in America. As an aside, this is something I've been talking about since my first Con Law class, but that's an issue for another day. In my experience, media commentary is often wildly overblown, to the point that even Stephen Glass would have to blush. I read the whole thing to find out what exactly Oaks said. Here's the only excerpt I could find that relates to black voter discrimination:

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Okay, let's break this down. Oaks makes the argument that the Prop 8 backlash wasn't so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. Essentially, the people that lost Prop 8 weren't so much angry about religion as they were about losing. It's probably a little of both, to be honest, but I've always believed they were just mad about losing and decided to take it out on those who won.

Let's look back at voter intimidation incidents in civil-rights America. We all know that, despite being given the constitutional right to vote, blacks were often intimidated into not voting, and it took an act of Congress to get it to stop. Here we have another example of a winning party (minorities) being antagonized by a losing party (whites) after losing a democratic contest (voting amendments).

So how, exactly, is Oaks the "worst person in the world" for making this comparison? Seems like a legitimate analogy to me. Sure, African Americans experienced some of the worst discrimination in modern history. But does that mean it's not okay to draw an appropriate comparison? Sure, Mormons aren't getting lynched in the wake of Prop 8, but that's not the message Oaks was trying to send. The analogy is a philosophical one at best, not a practical one. It's a general comment that in many instances, losers in the democratic process often demonize the winners and use violence to intimidate them.

If Oaks had wanted to say that Mormons are persecuted today just as much as blacks were back in the day, I think he would have said so in clearer terms. Since when is it improper to talk about violence and intimidation in the democratic process and use one of the best-known examples in American history as a yardstick? And if this is so improper, why doesn't Olbermann make the same accusation at the gay rights groups who routinely compare themselves to blacks in the civil rights era?

Screw you, Keith Olbermann. Leave us alone.

When I Rule the World...

...I'm definitely going to make some changes around here, believe you me. Friday, I had an experience that made me add another mental policy note to my burgeoning agenda, which also includes the elimination of the E! and Bravo networks, free enchiladas for everyone on the first Friday of every month, and the beatification of Bear Grylls.

So I'm driving home from court Friday, getting stuck in a traffic jam on Brighton Ave. near Harvard Ave. For you non-Bostonians, that area of town at 5 p.m. on a Friday is positively nightmarish, a snarl of peeved motorists, careless pedestrians heading home for Miller Time, and enough CO2 emissions to make Al Gore curl up in the fetal position. I'm trying to turn left at a light that has no left-turn arrow, and traffic constantly coming the other way. While sitting about three cars back in this hopeless situation, I see a beautiful silver Acura RSX at the front of the line, evidently trying to turn left. Unfortunately, he doesn't get the chance to turn due to the massive oncoming traffic, so he does the Utah thing where he juts his nose into the intersection and waits for the light to turn red. That's fine, except he decides to actually pull a U-turn rather than turn left. He almost pulled it off, except he stopped 3 feet behind a car that was parked on the side of the road. Fearing to harm his beautiful RSX, he backed up with traffic criss-crossing behind him, while pedestrians tried to get around him on the crosswalk. The guy could have easily cleared the U-turn, but no, he had to back up like a moron. To make matters worse, I guess he needed to parallel park, so he proceeds in front of the car he almost didn't hit, and executes the most piss-poor parallel parking job I've ever seen. And by now he's got traffic coming at him on a 2-lane road, so essentially he clogs up an already-crowded Brighton Ave. such that traffic gets stuck in the intersection and I can't turn left. Idiot.

I began wondering what sort of cosmic justice would ever allow such an incompetent driver to drive such a nice car. I mean, he drives this and meanwhile, I drive this. Not too toot my own horn too much, but I think I'm a pretty freaking good driver. Where's the justice? Nowhere, that's where. Which made me think: when I'm king of the world, I'm going to impose a cap on what kind of car you can drive, depending on how well you pass a driving test. For example, if you can't make a simple U-turn, parallel park in 5 moves, or insist on driving 10 mph below the speed limit at all times, then congratulations, you get this beauty. Enjoy the accents on the side panels. If you're a reasonably competent driver who knows how to safely pass others, always pays attention, and isn't otherwise a blight on America's roadways, here you go. Nice, right? And for all you awesome drivers out there, how about something along these lines?

I think this would work out nicely, don't you? What kind of car do you think you deserve to drive?

He's Got a Point...

I shouldn't be up this early. After all, Monday morning is my one day to sleep in, between 8:30 classes and 9:00 a.m. morning call at the court house the rest of the week. This clearly did not prevent the gentleman towing a jackhammer behind his truck from blasting away around 7:00 this morning. So now I'm up about the house doing house-husband things. In between taking the wife to work and cleaning the dishes from last night, however, I wanted to take a moment and give some credit where it's due (also, I don't feel like doing dishes). Our good president Barry O. took to the small screen yesterday, making the rounds on five different shows pimping the need for health care reform. He turned in a few nice tidbits, however, about his beef with mass media. Instead of a link, I'm just going to paste the quotes he made on different shows. The original article I read was too grammatically hilarious to warrant posting, and I don't want to link to a FOX News article, which is where I found these quotes after a quick Google.

On CNN's "State of the Union": "I think it's important for the media -- you know, not to do any media-bashing here -- to recognize that right now, in this 24-hour news cycle, the easiest way to get on CNN or FOX or any of the other stations, MSNBC, is to say something rude and outrageous...And, you know, part of what I'd like to see is, is all of us reward decency and civility in our political discourse."

On ABC, to George Stephanopoulos: "I think, that, frankly, the media encourages some of the outliers in behavior, because, let's face it, the easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude. If you're just being sensible and giving people the benefit of the doubt and you're making your arguments, you don't . . . get time on the nightly news."

I have to give props to el Presidente for his comments, because he's absolutely on point here. The political discourse in this country is becoming increasingly coarse, and I think a lot of it is fueled and perpetuated by a bloodthirsty quest for ratings. People like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and whoever else you can think of wouldn't be nearly as popular if the major news outlets were more concerned with disseminating fact rather than opinion. Look, media does some wonderful things, and I think Barack Obama, if anybody, partly has the media to thank for putting him in the position that he's in. That said, it seems kind of sad to me that the news source I prefer most (BBC) doesn't even reside in the U.S. There's just too much spin, too much vitriol, and too much worthless junk that barely rises to the level of "news" and is probably better categorized as "blather." Yes, I'm talking to you too, Nancy Grace, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, and Al Gore.

You'd think (at least, I would), with comments like this, that Obama would be a little more successful with his bipartisan efforts than he has been to this point. He's been reduced to playing party politics as usual in Washington to get his agenda through, and I think that disappoints him quite a bit. It seems his efforts to extend the olive branch have gone virtually uncovered by the media, and the only comments of his that show up on the news are the ones that are more politically divisive. Now he looks just like any other president toeing the party line.

Unfortunate.

Please tell me...

why I should trust any promise the President makes about health care. Last I checked, he hasn't brought Congress together like he said he would, hasn't shown much concern for bipartisanship (the bailout was basically a party-line vote and he takes every chance to vilify the GOP), and unemployment sits around 10% when he promised it wouldn't go above 8% if we passed the bailout. Toss in the fact that he's the President, not a member of Congress. How can he possibly say with any surety that the health reform bill will or won't do what he says it will? He has no voting power, no leverage, absolutely no way to make sure this bill does what he says it will! And on top of that, he's got a vested interest in getting this thing passed, which makes it all the more likely that he would write checks that this bill can't pass. So basically, if he hasn't lived up to his rhetoric up to now, and he has a significant interest in the passage of this bill, why should I believe the promises he's making?

Rights Talk

I'm noticing more people talking about their "rights" these days, asking whether we hold our rights dear in the face of Obama's health care plan, or how people are denied their "rights" if they don't get to do this or that. I just want to get out in the open that I'm tired of people thinking they have a "right" to have or do whatever they want. I'm tired of people using rights talk to back up outlandish agendas. That goes for both sides. And I'm really tired of single-minded zealots who yak about their rights all day long and probably couldn't name the rights granted in the Bill of Rights if I asked them. Shut up, all of you, please.

Things That Need to Go

In honor of the many lists that have preceeded this one, the following is my current list of Things That Need to Go:

1. Media coverage of Brett Favre.

2. Jon and Kate. Not just the show, but specifically those two. They need to go away.

3. Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Whatever her real name is. Her.

4. The Jonas Bros.

5. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

6. Toddlers & Tiaras. Come to think of it, anybody who tries to live vicariously through their kids.

7. VH1 and everything on it. Too much to talk about here.

8. Nancy Pelosi.

9. Kia.

10. Nancy Grace.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

And by "Forum" of course, I mean, "my apartment" as I rode home on the 15 bus, or as I like to call it, the "Ghetto Express."

First, a word about the 15 to set the stage, because you really have to know about it to appreciate the awkwardness of what follows. The 15 is notorious for ferrying every skeezball/coke head/homeless guy to and fro through Denver, not to mention those people who, for lack of a better phrase, are a couple of trees short of a forest. And more unique smells waft through its corridors than the most exotic smoke shop, only they all smell awful. I generally try to avoid interaction of any kind on the bus since, in my experience, it usually devolves into a nonsensical rant, a casual request for "spare change," or an offer to hook me up with some hash. So I either listen to my music or read the paper.

I happened to be reading the paper today. There was a nice old man sitting across from me who, during a lull in the noise on the bus said "Jesus loves you all more than you'll ever know!" The guy was probably senile, but I had to agree with the sentiment. He looked at a girl next to him and said "God bless you, sweetheart." Heartwarming, right? Then from the back of the bus someone shouted "God bless Obama!"

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

There was a girl sitting across from me, greedily shoving a greasy pizza slice into her face while reclining awkwardly on her thugged-out boyfriend, who just so happened to be black. I only mention that because it adds to the awkwardness that followed.

This girl (who I can only describe as a wannabe white ghetto queen) looks at me and says lazily "Do you like Obama?"

EJECT! EJECT! GET OUTTA THERE!

I feel like it's important to note here that I try not to be elitist and I readily admit that I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, but it was pretty apparent that the education level on that bus was somewhere south of "Rhodes Scholar." You know, the kind of people who are more driven by popular opinion than rational reflection and logical discourse? Yeah, them. And if there's one thing I've learned in life after dozens of discussions with drunks on the street about George Bush and/or the Bible, it's the following:

Low Education + Loaded Topics = Bad Times

Back to my story. I had my head buried in the paper so I pretended not to notice that she was talking to me, but she asked the question again, so I felt like I had to respond. I replied, as mildly as I could, "Yeah, he's all right."

This did not deter her as I had hoped. "Did you vote for him?"

Please note that now her boyfriend, who is both black and much bigger than I, is staring at me intently. "No," I replied. I was quick to add, in my defense, that I did not vote for McCain either.

"So, you didn't vote?"

"Yeah, I voted."

This was followed by the nice old white man sitting near her breaking into a contorted expression like someone had just blown wind in his face. He proceeded to demonize McCain and all things Republican. Pretty amusing coming from the guy who serenely cooed "God bless you!" to everyone who passed off the bus. But I digress. The story only gets worse.

"Why didn't you vote for him? Was it because he was black?"

By now the entire bus is staring at me. I said no, not because he was black, and made some joke about how he was a law professor and all mine are crazy. Nobody laughed. I think it was over their heads, judging from the blank stares. Joke Fail.

"Why don't you like him?"

At this point I wondered whether it was possible to rationally outline my problems with his health care proposal, or how the stimulus hasn't delivered the lower unemployment numbers as promised, or how introducing socialist agendas into a free market economy is a difficult and often ill-advised plan. After looking at the blank stares all around me, and seeing the girl wipe pizza grease on her baby doll t-shirt, I decided that no, rational discourse would probably not be the way to go here.

Instead, I deflected and said "I'm just going to reserve judgment for now, it's too early to tell. We'll see." Then her boyfriend launched into a monologue about how Obama was going to rescue America from the worst point in it's entire history (because, you know, we've never gone through an actual depression) and how he was the savior, etc., etc. I was finally in the clear. And none too soon, because I snapped back to reality in time to notice that my stop was coming up.

Just a weird, weird experience. Wow.

Random Thought for the Day

So long as latent biases exist in America, there will never be racial or gender equality. However, so long as special interest groups created to combat those biases exist in America, there will never be racial or gender equality either, and prejudice will continue to exist. In short, I recognize the need to end prejudice in our nation, but I think special interest groups created to promote a particular ethnicity/gender are a big reason that the prejudices they claim to battle continue to exist.

The sooner we can all just agree to refer to ourselves as "American," the better off we'll be.

Nationalized Health Care...

...not sure where I stand on it. Is it a good idea to make it a right, like the Democrats seem to be pushing? I mean, if we do, what about housing, education, food, even? I mean, what's the difference, really? I'm assuming that the idea behind the whole thing is that citizens need their health in order to fully enjoy their liberty and such, and therefore it should be available to all, regardless of income. Definitely sound reasoning, and it sounds like a good idea. On a philosophical plane, the intrinsic worth of one human being, to me, isn't any greater or less than another, regardless of income. But on the subject of rights, what's the difference between health care, and, say, housing? Transportation? Education? Aren't these all things we need to enjoy our liberty? Does that mean they should all be rights too? And if they are, then the government would seem bound to provide us all with those things too. And that's socialist, right? Not that socialism is a bad thing in and of itself (it's actually probably the ideal form of government), but I think history has shown that socialism and the human condition do not mix with very good results.

Even as I write this, I'm not sure health care should even be a "right" on par with, say, a right to a trial by jury or something Constitutional along those lines. Not to get too originalist here, but our nation was founded on the principle that everyone fares in this life according to the effort they put forth. Basically, you reap what you sow (or what you make others sow, as the case often was). The incentive to work hard and be successful came from a realization that you had to earn it yourself, and the government wouldn't help you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a modicum of government charity. Things like welfare are good if properly administrated and used, as with all things, in moderation. But if the government starts giving things like health care away as a right, doesn't that, in some way, reduce the incentive we have as individuals to work our hardest and be as successful as we can? I mean, if the government is giving me what my family and I need to live, what's my only other motivation to work hard and be successful besides greed or pride?

Isn't that doubly true if we tax the rich to fund programs like these? Again, I can see the rationale--the rich have more, they can probably survive a bigger tax hit. So I understand things like a graduated tax bracket. But isn't a surtax to fund this health care bill a little too much? The typical joke is that the only ways to get rich in America are through crime and inheritance, but isn't the reality that most rich people are rich because they worked hard to get there? Or am I being too optimistic about the American work ethic? This idea to tax the rich to fund health care doesn't sit right with me. It seems like the government is blatantly taking hard-earned money over and above typical taxation to fund a program that most of these people don't want or need. Look, I'm just as middle-class as the next guy, and I doubt I'll ever be rich enough to fall into the bracket of people the Democrats want to tax for this program. But the principle of the matter is just as applicable to all--you should be able to keep the money you earn without too much government leeching off of you.

So how else do we fund it? I don't know. Nothing makes any more sense. But that doesn't mean this is a good idea either. First the stimulus, now this...I'm starting to worry that our government is getting a bit mad with power. So...I guess I answered my own question. I guess I'm against nationalized health care.

Enough, Already

Look, I know I lean more to the right than to the left on most things, but please, I'd like to ask one thing. Could right-wing America PLEASE stop referring to our President as "Barack Hussein Obama?" It's not like there's another prominent Barack Obama out there and we need to distinguish this one. The only purpose it serves is to subtly and passive-aggressively intimate that he is somehow linked with the Middle East or to some Arabic descent, and that this somehow makes him unfit to lead our nation.

HUSSEIN! That's his middle name! Hussein! He shares a name with a former Iraqi dictator to whom he can't possibly be related! That's all the proof we need! He's secretly Muslim and hates America! And if he's Muslim, he's a terrorist! He's harboring terrorists! He IS a terrorist! For heaven's sake, look at the middle name, it's all RIGHT THERE!!!! REMEMBER 9/11!!!

Never mind the fact that Hussein is basically the Arabic equivalent of "Smith." It's not like this is an uncommon name for someone, especially when a full sixth (or more) of the world is either Muslim or of some Arabic/African descent...

It makes me truly sick to see such insidious, cowardly, and willfully ignorant behavior from a member of a nation that espouses religious freedom. I can get over Bill O'Reilly or somebody like that taking such a route for sensationalism's sake. It's something I just blame on media culture and move on. But from someone who has nothing to gain from it, that disturbs me to no end. Look, I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but really...it's a middle name, people. Come on.

Steroids

I came home tonight hoping to be productive. Had a light dinner, talked to the wife for a while, went over tax stuff with my father-in-law, and I was just about to put clothes in the laundry a little while ago. Would have been nice if someone had told me the washer and dryer were gone. Now I'm stuck with no clean underwear and I'll probably have to do laundry in the bathtub. Lovely...but I digress...

I've been waiting a while for something to adequately piss me off enough to actually take the time to rant on the Internet some more about it, and I found it. Today (well, yesterday technically), reports surfaced that Sammy Sosa was roiding back in 2003. If these reports are true, it would seem that not only was Mark McGwire shrinking his testicles to hit a ball a little farther, it seems like his foil in the home run chase was juiced at some point as well. Given his proficiency with a bat, Sosa is primed to take his place with McGwire and Barry Bonds as the poster children for what is becoming known as the "Steroid Era" in Major League Baseball, and predictably, pundits far and wide wax poetic about how the game has been tarnished, the magic is gone, innocence lost, yada yada yada...

If you know me, you know I can't let this pass without taking my jabs.

I think there's a dirty little secret behind all the rhetoric. See, we Americans idolize pro athletes, for better or for worse. Game-winning touchdowns, treys at the buzzer, shootouts...these are the things that captivate us, year in and year out. And no other sport is as ingrained in our history as baseball. It's as quintessentially American as apple pie. Because of this history, we revere baseball players in a way unlike any other sport. Die hard sports fans dandle their children on their knee with stories about watching Jackie Robinson, DiMaggio, Williams, even Ripken. The idolization of baseball players is magnified more so than any other sport (although this may change as baseball continues to globalize). They stand as symbols of achievement and hard work (at least, that's how we like our heroes). Our children see this and idolize them as well, and pro athletes, baseball players included, become...wait for it...role models.

So society has arrived at a point where pro athletes are role models. Yet, Americans have an insatiable appetite for winning. We are a nation with a "winners" mentality, and the losers are left to wither in obscurity. America loves winners, that is, until they lose. And then they're out with the trash while the throngs move on to the next winner. For a pro athlete, then, your livelihood is not simply to play sports, it is to win. And at the pro level, winning means being bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than the next guy. In an era where competition at the highest level is so fierce, if an athlete wants to win, he has to take every competitive advantage he can. It's simply a bad career move not to.

Thus, we idolize pro athletes and put them in a (somewhat undeserved) position of being role models, yet at the same time society places enormous pressure on them to win, that you might say we tell them to win at all costs. Enter steroids. From a business perspective, steroids make perfect sense. A shot of HGH, a few doses of Andro, and boom, you're jacked up and going deep like never before. It's a clear competitive advantage over someone who doesn't take steroids. And until recently, they weren't illegal. They were perfectly fine to take. But the media has three big objections to this, that I can think of off the bat:

1. Taking steroids is somehow an unfair advantage. If you're not developing and training naturally, then you've got an unfair advantage over the guy who does. Ethics aside, however, is it really unfair to the other guy? Or is the other guy stupid for not taking steroids. If the point of pro sports is not just to play but to win, then I lean toward the latter. Steroids are only unfair if only a few people have access to them. Last I checked, they're about as easy to find as a fat guy at a McDonalds. Steroids do not, in other words, give players an unfair advantage.

2. Taking steroids is unethical, and these guys should be role models! This is the argument usually made by people who have kids. Unfortunately, they're often also the same people who haven't been to a Royals game in the past decade because the players suck. Ladies and gentlemen, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, pro sports, from a business perspective, is about winning. You have to win to make money. You can't ask athletes to be paragons of virtue and at the same time put such tremendous social and economic pressure on them to win. It's hypocritical. And if you're so desperate for a role model for your kids, take a look in the mirror and see if something needs changing before you go pointing the finger.

3. Finally, steroids are unnatural, and tarnish the game's pure legacy. I can almost buy this, except, when I look back at baseball's history, purity doesn't exactly stand out as a defining characteristic. Sports, baseball especially, has been marred by heinous acts of cheating and deception as far back as the Black Sox scandal in 1919, or somewhere around there. And the players? These folk heroes we adore? Ty Cobb was a foul-mouthed bigot, and Babe Ruth drank like a fish and defined the word "gluttony" in his time. Face it: the old-time heroes we revere were, in all likelihood, some of the most backward, immoral, unethical people around. I can almost guarantee that DiMaggio or Honus Wagner or Willie Mays would have used steroids if they had been readily available like they are today. I defy anyone to prove to me otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with a pro athlete using steroids; at least, there shouldn't be. It's his decision, and we should not be so naive to hold them up to an ethical standard that half of us probably wouldn't abide in a similar situation. So to all of you who think that baseball is tarnished, or forever besmirched, that's a bald-faced lie. This is just the natural progression of a game that doubles as a business where winning is the golden ticket, a ticket that is the public's to give away. If anybody's to blame in this, I suggest you take that finger you're pointing and turn it around.

Were Iran's Elections Rigged?

Methinks so. Given the voting patterns, either the pollsters were woefully misguided on their projections, or something fishy was going on behind closed doors.

Will anything come of it? Doubt it.

Yeah, it's a short post today. I'm tired. Sleep > blogging.

Is Judge Sotomayor's Deck Full of Race Cards?

Just saw an interesting post on SCOTUSblog analyzing all the race-based cases that have come across Judge Sonia Sotomayor's desk. A lot is being made about her claim that a female Latina is a better judge than a white guy. It sounds really inflammatory, probably because it is, quite frankly (imagine if the roles were reversed and she was white male saying that about a female Latina). So Tom Goldstien over at SCOTUSblog took all the cases and analyzed every single one, including unpublished opinions. That's roughly 100 cases, give or take a few. A few things that stand out to me:

1. In the 96 race-based cases documented, Judge Sotomayor's panel rejected a claim of discrimination roughly 78 times. That's an 81% rejection rate. In 10 more cases, Judge Sotomayor joined with the majority in finding some form of discrimination. Of those 10, 9 were unanimous, and several allegedly were procedural victories rather than substantive.

2. In the 75 times in which the majority rejected discrimination cases, Sotomayor only dissented twice. In one case, she even took the side of a white bigot who was distributing racist material.

3. So basically, across a span of about 100 cases, Judge Sotomayor only disagreed with her colleagues a total of 4 times. Only one of those disagreements actually involved whether discrimination had occured.

I know statistics can be easily manipulated to say whatever you want, but this study seems fairly thorough on its face. And besides that, I know people misspeak all the time, and the media is notorious for taking comments out of context or twisting them to make them as sensational as possible. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm just saying perhaps she didn't say what she intended to very clearly. And given her track record, maybe she's not as bad as some people think she is.