Ready for football
August 31, 2010
Yes, this is a non-political post. Thought I’d try that for a change! Believe it or not, I have other interests. A big example of those other interests is in sports. My favorite sport is baseball, but I also thoroughly enjoy several other sports including football. This year my interest is amplified by my participation in two fantasy leagues. For all intents and purposes, this is my first experience in fantasy football. Last year I did a couple meaningless public leagues just to get the hang of it. But this year, I actually did the drafts and am playing people I know.
Even with my amateur status, I feel I did fairly decent in the drafts. The first was an online draft with a number of friends from Twitter. This is a league that gives a full point for each reception, so I accordingly used drafting guides that emphasized this arrangement. In the end, my final roster was as follows:
QB – Brett Favre, Matt Cassel
WR – Brandon Marshall, Chad Ochocinco, Hines Ward
RB – Steven Jackson, Felix Jones
TE – Dallas Clark
WR/TE – Joshua Cribbs
WR/RB – Justin Forsett
K – Nate Kaeding
DST – Baltimore
Bench – Vincent Jackson, Jason Campbell, Chester Taylor, Nate Burleson, Phil Dawson, Miami
My second draft was last night and was an in-person offline draft with people from work. After my first draft experience, I was a little more comfortable with this one. It also helped that I knew the people better. At the end of 16 rounds and 2.5 hours, my results were as follows:
QB – Joe Flacco
WR – Larry Fitzgerald, Chad Ochocinco, Braylon Edwards
RB – Steven Jackson, Matt Forte
TE – Kellen Winslow
K – Nate Kaeding
DST – Cincinnati
Bench – Ricky Williams, Chad Henne, Kenny Britt, Kenneth Darby, Louis Murphy, Leon Washington
Of the two I feel a little better about the work league but I am too inexperienced to know for sure. Regardless, I am even more excited for football season to begin now that I have a little extra riding on it. I am ready for the 2010-2011 schedule to begin, and for the pure American goodness that is football to once again fill my Sundays.
Emotionalism vs. reason
August 26, 2010
One of the enduring things one must remember in politics is that every actor, whether conservative, liberal, or otherwise, is at base a human being. This fact is lost when many refuse to acknowledge the basic humanity of opponents. It is also lost when we don’t realize that as human beings, we are prone to make judgments based on things outside the realm of principles and logic. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but regardless, it is a fact of life.
Much can be said about this tendency to forget basic human nature. In the course of debate, it is sometimes common to both ignore the nature of opponents, or to impute to them the entirety of human failings while ceasing to be honest about one’s own. This is true on both the Left and the Right. Both sides are guilty of attempting to portray adversaries as either cold and calculating, or as enslaved to basal emotions. Each tactic serves as an effort to gain the moral high ground.
As responsible people, though, it is important that we try to avoid these tools as much as possible, and recognize the human nature of both our rivals and ourselves. We need to realize that all sides are both served and undermined by emotions and human needs and desires. While it is certainly not possible to remove ourselves from this equation, I think it is important that we at least try to keep a clear head, come back to our core beliefs, and try our darndest to make decisions based on these principles instead of our passions.
I think the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate provides an excellent example of this. Both sides have reacted and acted with much emotion, quite understandably. When the subject of 9/11 is brought up, it very reasonably brings up all manner of feelings, hearkening back to that dark day and the pain it still causes. Because of this, the debate has been very heated and personal. Leftists have tried to demonize conservatives by concluding that their objections are not out of genuine feelings but rather out of nascent Islamophobia. And conservatives have reacted with great passion, in the process saying some regrettable things and falling prey to emotionalism and pandering.
I can’t say much about the Left – their reasons for dehumanizing the Right are clear. It is a well-known tactic for liberals to assume they have a monopoly on both reason and compassion. But I do wish to say something to my conservative friends. Try, as best as you can, to remember the things you stand for. Things like treating all religions equally, not blaming the group for the actions of the few, being welcoming to all peoples, and standing for rights even for people who may disregard and despise those rights.
If we can do this, we can cool the fires that have fueled some very troubling, and yes, anti-Muslim statements. I don’t believe for a second that most conservatives hate all Muslims. But far too often in this debate we have tolerated and participated in widespread condemnation of the entire faith. The passions that this debate bring forth are understandable and healthy. But we are even better served by a cool head and sticking to our principles.
Stepping back from the mosque debate
August 23, 2010
It’s official – the mosque debate has gone too far, gotten too ugly, caused far too much anger. People who would otherwise be civil to each other have said nasty things. I myself have been guilty of this, as have several friends.
I think it’s time for all of us to step back for a minute and come to some realizations. Most importantly, it has become clear that the ideological gulf between conservatives and libertarians is nearly uncrossable. The two sides just don’t get each other. To a conservative, the mosque is clearly offensive and worth protesting. To a libertarian, this outrage is puzzling and, to many, troubling. Many on “my side” have in frustration come to the conclusion that it must be due to anti-Muslim feelings. But this cannot be the case, as far too many otherwise good people oppose the mosque.
My feelings on the subject are simple – it comes down to a matter of rights and tolerance. While the majority of conservatives are not protesting the rights issue, they are clearly making a judgment that the mosque is “not welcome” in the Ground Zero area. The reasons for this are many, but it basically comes down to seeing the mosque as an affront to those who died on 9/11. I don’t agree with this take, but that’s how they feel. And it has much more to do with the still-raw emotions of 9/11 than it does with a categorical dislike of all Muslims.
I understand these emotions. But I believe we need to take a step back, if we possibly can. We need to direct our anger at the subhuman monsters that did 9/11, and those that supported it. The builders of the “Ground Zero Mosque” have no relation to this. While we rightfully balk at the imam’s refusal to condemn Hamas, and his statements suggesting America is partly to blame for 9/11, we can’t let ourselves have a double standard when it comes to free speech. He has the right to those views, and we can’t demand more of Muslims that we would of other Americans. For example, there are many Americans who say we share some part of the blame for 9/11, including conservative icon Glenn Beck, as pointed out by the Daily Show. And yet we don’t demand they recant it or risk being protested.
All of this is to say my feelings on the subject are pretty set, and so are those of conservatives. None of us is going to budge, and every argument is going to end up with one side calling the other insensitive or intolerant. Neither is true, of course. Conservatives by and large don’t hate Muslims and libertarians are for the most part decent people. We just can’t see eye to eye on this subject. So I think it’s time to move on and focus on what we DO agree on – opposing Big Government and supporting the freedom agenda. Oh, and kicking Democrat butt in November!
Blog has been moved
August 21, 2010
I am currently in the process of moving my blog from a server hosted by GoDaddy to one on WordPress.com. I’m doing this for simplicity, to save a little money, and in hopes that it will be more reliable that the GoDaddy site. And to be honest, I wasn’t taking advantage of the other setup and all.
I migrated all my previous blogs posts/comments. I also am going to write more often and more regularly. I realize you have to start small before you get big, so I am going to work my way up and establish what will eventually become the “Brain Lemon brand.” Enjoy!
Are leftists sociopathic?
July 7, 2010
Being accustomed to the nature of political discourse, it takes a lot to shock me. Politics often brings out passion in people, and sometimes that passion gets carried away. Those on both sides can be guilty of this. But it seems to me there is an important difference between the left and right. While conservative types can certainly go too far (see birthers) I have never observed the kind of sheer callousness that seems widespread amongst the left.
Today’s example comes from NewsBusters. A woman tragically decided to take her own life. This is, most certainly, a very sad occasion and will cause terrible trauma to her family and friends. On the left, though, what was more important was her occupation – a producer for Fox News. Because of this, not only was her death not considered tragic – it was considered cause for celebration and something to encourage others do. As many of us know, Fox News is HATED by the left, for no other reason than it provides a platform for right-of-center opinion. This hatred is so intense that even a peripheral attachment to it is reason for someone to not receive even the barest empathy.
If this were the only example, we could leave it at this, but sadly it is not. Over the years there have been numerous examples of leftists exhibiting a truly disturbing lack of basic humanity regarding their political opponents. This includes frequently wishing for their deaths, wishing them ill, and demonizing viciously. Again, conservatives can be nasty too, but never to this level. One has to ask – what happens to a person that makes them feel that way against someone who simply disagrees with them?
I think the answer lies in an important distinction. While libertarians and conservatives generally tend to view liberals as OPPONENTS to be defeated, the other side tends to view us as ENEMIES. To a true liberal, the forces of the right are not simply people who disagree, but evil people that deserve to be personally harmed. It is rare for a liberal to even acknowledge the very existence of valid dissent – such dissent must always be caused by sinister motives, never founded on legitimate thought.
All of this is important to keep in mind when dealing with a full-fledged progressive. You’re not dealing with someone who wants to debate and discuss, to be questioned and reasoned with. You’re dealing with someone who, once they finds out where your views lie, thinks of you as sub-human and detestable. If you happen to be associated with a right-leaning network, group, etc., don’t expect even basic decency from the left. They are simply disturbed people, and it’s simply not worth the time and effort to argue with them. They don’t want to learn.
Do laws and principles matter anymore?
June 17, 2010
Before I write anything here, let me make one thing clear. I have no illusions about the fact that there are some things that, even if they are right, cannot or should not be said for political reasons. We live in the real world and public figures cannot always say what they honestly think because the political reality is what it is. Numerous figures have learned this lesson the hard way, most recently Rand Paul who, after making what he viewed as valid comments on the Civil Rights Act, was blasted from all corners. Paul got a very quick tutorial on what you can and cannot say, and that what you feel is not always appropriate for public viewing.
In this light, when we come today to Rep. Barton’s comments defending BP, I am fully aware that his comments are very likely stupid and damaging, from a political sense. The media and the left are already using them as a platform to deride Republicans as friends to Big Oil, and other GOP members are making distance from Barton. What I want to cover is, then, whether Barton’s comments, existing outside of a political spectrum, have any worth to them. I think looking at this is a good lesson on our current realities and what it means for those who might believe things that are not popular or well-accepted.
To begin, I do think Barton, however inelegantly, may have a point. The behavior of the Obama team regarding BP has been aggressive and often bullying. By no means should BP be immune from being treated harshly – their mistakes are going to cause massive damage and cost to the Gulf region. But doesn’t there come a point where things are pushed too far? I know it may make political sense and be popular, but does the Obama administration have the right to force them to pay into a fund without any kind of legal backing to do so? In short, can they essentially do whatever they feel like, given that the public accedes to it?
I realize this point is mainly theoretical, as reality is what it is, and as I said above, Rep. Barton’s comments may certainly be seen as stupid and foolish. But given how the Obama administration has behaved, I think there is something to be said for standing up for BP a little, however hard it may be and however ignominious BP may be at this point. We would be wise to understand that at some point, principles have to be worth something. I don’t know if this is the best example, as BP is considered such a bad guy at this point, but I feel like the point has to be made that we should not let politics make us afraid to say what is true. In this instance, if the Obama administration is indeed acting illegally, I think we should say so. We can’t just let them do what they want out of fear of being attacked.
I say all of this because I feel we have a group in power now whose first instinct is to pounce and savage opponents. They have shown no regard for law or process. We need to at some point realize this and understand that their goal is in fact to terrify us into not stating the truth. Regardless of the specific instance at hand, we must realize that these guys are essentially bullies, and mentally prepare for what will surely be many battles ahead. By standing on principle we can show them to be what they are.
Soccer and American opinion
June 12, 2010
As I write this, the World Cup is just beginning, and soccer fans both here and abroad are in heaven. And as even American sports media obsesses over this event, it is impossible to avoid, bringing out a dislike for soccer that is almost as passionate. For in America, where soccer has been promoted for decades, the sport remains quite unpopular. It helps a little bit to try and understand American positions on soccer.
First of all, it does well to reiterate the level of effort that has gone into trying to make soccer popular in the US. Many people have devoted great time and money into this goal. For as long as I can remember, sports and news media have attempted to drill into American brains how popular the sport is worldwide, how it is the “authentic” version of “football,” how all the cool countries in Europe dig it. We have been taught how uncultured we all are for not appreciating the strategy and beauty of the game. In short, there has been a lot of work put into convincing Americans to like soccer, up to and including the establishment of a professional league in the States.
And yet despite this, the game’s popularity is very limited here. In fact, perhaps the effort itself may have caused part of this. Americans can be a stubborn people and we don’t like being told what to like. Especially when we are told that international and Europeans like it. Call it silly, but Americans have a certain pride about them and a resistance to follow world opinion. Many Americans have a gut distrust of the UN, for example, and mocked John Kerry when he spoke in 2004 about following their lead.
Beyond this, though, the reasons for soccer’s unpopularity extend beyond this. The fact is, soccer is just a really boring sport. It is played on a gigantic field, meaning it takes a long time for plays to develop. It is very low scoring, with 90+ minute games often ending with just a couple goals scored. Fair or not, the players are viewed as very prone to diving and being dramatic, which I think rubs Americans the wrong way. It doesn’t help that our teams are largely made fun of even by natives (with the notable exception of the women’s teams). In the end, most Americans have very little reason to follow soccer.
All of these factors combine to form the nearly intransigent distaste for association football. I really can’t see the game ever becoming popular in the States. We resent being told we have to like it, and when we do watch it, we are bored. So what possible chance does the game have? Especially when American football is so popular, baseball (a true American game) remains big, and other sports take the rest of our time up. I, for one, have no interest in it, and I think many sports fans are the same. So could we stop trying to force it on us?
Cut off the cancer
June 5, 2010
I would like to share a small experience I had yesterday, and what I feel it means for the Tea Party movement as a whole.
Yesterday, a list that I have been on sent out one of the most ridiculous birther pieces I have yet seen. It included full-blown pictures of Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth certificate, along with the farcical assertion that his Hawaiian certificate was “forged”. I immediately emailed the list owner, asking him why he would send out this nonsense. His reaction? In what barely amounted to English, he ended up challenging me to meet him face to face, if I was “man enough”. Really – this was a reaction expected of a child, not a fully grown man.
I had to reach the conclusion, then, that at least this one group has been completely taken over by birthers, and I think that many groups around the country have suffered the same fate. They are indeed like a disease that slowly infiltrates a group, turning otherwise intelligent people into raving loons. And every group they take over quickly turns into a conspiracy-theory cesspool that has no hope of being a legitimate player in politics. It is like a cancer, and once it takes the brain, the creature is rendered useless and dead.
It is my firm position, then, that this sickness must be cut off immediately whenever it is discovered. Unfortunately, this can be tough, as it can hit even otherwise stalwart folks, who might otherwise be allies and sources of information. But once birtherism earns its place as a legitimate idea in someone’s mind, they are compromised and must be cut off for the good of the movement as a whole. If we do not remove this ugliness from our midst, it will continue to infect and eventually destroy the long-term viability of the Tea Party movement.
My policy, then, is what I would also urge others to do – when you hear someone talking about birtherism, do a little probing, and if you find that this person genuinely believes Obama is not a citizen, cut off ties. If you follow them on Twitter, unfollow them, even block them if you have to. You can argue with them if you so desire, but most likely to no avail. Their minds have been captured by what can be referred to as Obama Derangement Syndrome – that is, a tendency to believe literally insane things about Obama due to an intense personal hatred of him.
The quicker we do this, the sooner we can minimize the damage done overall. I would, then, strongly advocate a no-tolerance policy. It is the only way we can avoid becoming a laughingstock and maintain the integrity needed to be a long-term political player.
On perfection in baseball
June 2, 2010
There are a few things that animate people on Twitter like no other. In my sphere a major political event does the trick. Other potential culprits include a popular TV show, awards show, or movie. But often all of these pale compared to a major event in sports. One team winning, another losing, an amazing accomplishment, or an athlete’s stupid behavior can all get Twitter going quite well.
Tonight’s event was the near perfect game by Armando Gallaraga of the Detroit Tigers. In the next 24 hours many people will see the video, so I won’t bother posting something that will be on many sites and on TV. The short story is this – an umpire, Jim Joyce, blew a call on the final out, ruling a runner safe when he was clearly out. This blown call resulted in a single hit that destroyed the perfect game. Fans of all allegiances were justifiably outraged. Within seconds, all manner of nasty things were being said about the ump. Only after he graciously apologized for his error did the attacks die down.
Now, clearly an inevitable result of this event will be the resurrection of the debate regarding instant replay in baseball. Replay is something well known to fans of football, hockey, tennis, and other sports. Each of these sports utilizes cameras and technology to help correct erroneous calls. Fans have become completely accustomed to the football challenge especially, and the red flag that signifies such a challenge. I don’t see any significant movement in play to go back to the days before the challenge. The idea essentially amounts to this – fans want the right call to be made. With the game often on the line, being accurate is important.
With baseball, though, some fans tend to react quite differently. This is largely because baseball, unlike football or hockey, has a great deal of romance to it. It is deeply linked with American history and is viewed as a quintessentially American thing. Baseball fans, then, view any change to the game with skepticism, especially one that removes what is viewed as part of baseball’s “magic.” These fans, then, argue that instant replay expansion would destroy the crucial human element of the game. To them, the failure of the umpires to make perfect calls is one of the important parts of the game.
In my view, these fans are misguided. I can understand the need to preserve the “essence” of baseball – it is my favorite sport, after all. But fans that refuse the introduction of modern technology into baseball are ignoring the fact that such technology could potentially eliminate many of the questionable or flat-out wrong calls that plague every team. When something as meaningful as a perfect game is on the line, it is simply too big to be robbed by an obvious human error. The fans who oppose replay seem to be fetishizing this sort of preventable error, as if the baseball gods will be pleased that we kept their sport unblemished. (Though, in terms of blemishment, I’d say baseball is pretty damn damaged already by widespread steroid abuse.)
An analogy I could make here is to those who are purists in the political arena. There is a certain subset of any political group that insists on total purity, and in candidates meeting every requirement and proper opinion. They are willing to accept defeat and minority status in order to maintain such standards. In a similar way, baseball fans who oppose replay seem willing to accept that their beloved sport will be filled with easily-correctable mistakes, including earth-shattering ones like tonight’s, in order to maintain the sanctity of the sport. They are willing to see history prevented, games lost and won wrongly, records affected, and seasons changed by generally honest mistakes that could be erased. And all to preserve this sense of baseball as something more than a sport, in almost a religious fashion.
I come at it from the complete opposite direction. I’ve long thought, for instance, that computer assistance could be used in many parts of the game. While I am sure such changes won’t be adopted, I’ve thought computer-assisted strike zones and safe/out base calls could be implemented using current technology. Both of these changes would be accepted in time and eliminate a huge amount of uncertainty and frustration for players, managers, and fans. And in time, such events as occurred to tonight could be avoided entirely. The game would change, for sure, but it would be into one where winning and losing is not affected by an umpire being distracted or a constantly changing strike zone. And I, for one, think that it would be a better game for it.
Repealing DADT – an important step
May 27, 2010
Tonight brought news that the House of Representatives has approved an amendment that will repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military. For my cave-dwelling friends, this policy in effect demands that gays serving in the military must never be asked about their orientation, and in turn must never reveal it lest they be dismissed from service. The policy is a relic of an era when it was feared that open gays would cause severe disruption to the workings of the military. To that effect, it was decided that in order to still permit gays to serve, they must effectively pretend to be straight for the duration of their service.
The policy itself is wrong for many reasons. To summarize a few of the big ones:
- It accepts the premise that being gay is something that is shameful and must be hidden. This is, at base, a religious and moral judgment that has no place being used to justify policy.
- It suggests that our troops are all raging homophobes who are unable to handle gays in their midst. It also suggests troops are not smart enough to know who is gay to begin with.
- It results in the dismissal of perfectly qualified, patriotic soldiers whose only sin is not being straight. Just from a logical perspective, this seems like a silly reason to reject otherwise fine people.
These reasons could go on and on, but that has been done in other places in great detail. My own view is this – it is an outdated policy that has no place in a society that endeavors to be fair and tolerant. Those aren’t just buzzwords – we need to move towards being a country that accepts any personal choice that causes no harm to others. In that regard, repealing DADT is an important step in that direction. My hope is that we can continue this trend, though we have a long way to go.
Those opposing it need to ask themselves some serious questions. First, is your opposition based in whole or in part on a view that homosexuality is sinful and wrong? Second, if you do believe it is wrong, do you feel that this belief should be translated into public policy? If so, then you should ask yourself why you feel like you have the right to impose your views on others, and whether you truly believe in personal freedom. I’m sad to say many of my conservative friends will fall into this category.
