And We’re Worried about Whether Bonds Took Steroids
July 31, 2007
Man, this cycling thing is getting ridiculous:
Expert Claims Tour Winner Contador Doped
I mean, last year’s winner, this guy named “Floyd” (quick: aside from Floyd Patterson, name another famous great athlete named “Floyd”…me neither. Great name for a barber, though!) got booted for doping, and then this year’s leader gets tossed last week, and some other guys the same, and now the winner, for the second year in a row, is under a cloud of suspicion. Many folks think that Lance Armstrong took steroids as well in winning, what, 6 times?
So I say, “hey, let’s just toss out the rules against doping, since they can’t seem to enforce them. I mean, it’s cycling, for Pete’s sake, you know? It’s not like it’s a major sport, so let’s add a little fun to it. Tell the boys that they can take whatever substance they like to “enhance performance”, OK? If they start growing tentacles or something, it’d just make the thing all the more fun. We could see what kind of superhuman feats could be achieved by using steroids, all displayed in the Pyrenees by a bunch of guys riding bicycles. I mean, does anyone really care?”
That, mesays, would solve this problem pronto…
I’m Not a Big Fan of these Dog-and-Pony Debates, But…
July 30, 2007
I have to agree with this letter:
The point is well-taken: if Republicans don’t participate, they’re going to either look like they’ve got something to hide, or they’re going to look like retro-fuds who aren’t in touch with contemporary culture, and allow the Dems to eat the Republicans’ lunch on the techno-savvy issue.
I was alerted to this because, thankfully, the real conservative in the field, Mike Huckabee, is going to participate.
And judging by previous performance, he’ll kick the butts of the others again.
The Largely Successful Presidency of George W. Bush
July 30, 2007
I didn’t think I’d ever write a title such as that because candidly, I’ve been pretty disillusioned with a lot of things that GWB has done (and still am, honestly). A lot of smaller items have frustrated me and fellow conservatives, and frankly, I don’t consider GWB a conservative at all; he’s a true moderate (as opposed to what are today called “moderates”, who really should be called “socialists lite” or something on that order, since today’s liberals ought to wear the label “socialists”, which is basically what they are…but I digress.). If one of them infernal pollsters were to call me (none ever has) and asked me to give my “approve/disapprove” on the Prez, I’d likely have said “disapprove”…and then I read a column a couple of weeks back that has made me rethink that; here ’tis:
Thanks, Bill, for bringing me back to at least a middle position on the President. Now, I’ve never bought into the silly Democrat talking point, mouthed as a mantra sans justification (even by at least one commenter on this blog): “Bush is the worst president in history”. Rubbish; just saying that doesn’t make it so, and I’d take GWB over the First Felon or Jimmy Peanuts any day. I’d take him over Mrs. Bill, Barack the Wonder Boy, the Prettiest Candidate, or any of the rest of the crop of Dem hopefuls for 2008, and over at least a couple/three of the GOP hopefuls as well. So he isn’t all bad by any means—but sure, he’s done some dumb stuff, and has capitulated to the libs way too many times.
Still, when we look at the big picture, there is a lot to commend GWB to history. First, the economy is roaring. “It’s the economy, stupid”, was the James Carville-inspired slogan of the First Felon’s first propaganda—and it worked. Well, if “it’s the economy, stupid”, then GWB is a quite successful president, as our economy has rebounded beautifully from both the quasi-recession that was beginning in the latter stages of the previous administration and the devastating effects of 9/11.
Second, the bigger long-term issue, and the one reason why GWB had to be elected, was the naming of Supreme Court justices. GWB has the best track record in modern history in this area (if you can discount the Harriet Miers hiccup, and I’m willing to): bottom line is that of nominations that made it to the bench, GWB is 2-for-2, a better record than any Dem, of course, but a better record than his daddy (who went 1-1, Thomas a winner but Souter a massive embarrassment) or our beloved Ronald Reagan (Scalia a winner and Rehnquist a solid choice as Chief, but O’Connor a poor choice and Kennedy mostly a disappointment, though we can at least give Reagan credit for attempting to nominate the brilliant Robert Bork, lynched by Democrats and turncoat Republican wimps). A better record than Gerry Ford, who gave us John Paul Stevens (an astonishingly poor choice) or Tricky Dick (who gave us Rehnquist and Warren Burger, but who also is responsible for Harry Blackmun). If only GWB were to get another chance, say if Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg or Stevens were to retire, we might actually get a majority of justices who are serious about the Constitution (of course at this point, the Dems would likely stall and delay and stall and delay in the hope that Mrs. Bill or whomever would get to pick the next justice). But bottom line: GWB is second-to-none in recent history in this critical area.
Third, we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11, so we must be doing something right in the war on terror. Afghanistan went well, and Iraq, despite the fact that we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place (though I’ll never buy that “Bush lied, people died”; he was operating on the same intelligence that Clinton had, and most all of the Senate went along), may yet not turn out badly; at the very least, we need to wait until September, when the report comes out, to make more decisions, and the silly Senate charade of week-before-last should be seen by all as an embarrassment.
Bottom line to Kristol: if a Republican wins in 2008, and the surge succeeds as well it might under Petraeus, Bush will be seen by history as a successful president. And while both those things are far from givens, I’m not altogether pessimistic on either count.
A Wonderful Gift
July 29, 2007
This morning, my former church, Fellowship Community EFC of Mercer, PA, held its last service in the building that I knew, for 10+ of my 13+ years there, as “home”. Next week, they move to a building in Grove City (15 minutes east), and three weeks from today, they welcome my replacement, Pastor David Harstine. My friend Throcky sent this video to me, and while it may not mean much to you, I can barely see to type these words, having watched it. If only for a tiny insight into my world, watch.
Thanks, Warren.
Two Good Guys Enshrined in Cooperstown
July 29, 2007
Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken are two good guys.
These are guys who gave their hearts and souls to the game of baseball, who not only excelled in all facets of the game, but were role models to a generation of youngsters. 
When you think of the word “class” in an athlete, you don’t have to think very long and hard before the names of both of these guys come to mind. They played hard; they played fair; they played so well that today both of them were inducted into Baseball’s Hall of Fame. Well done, gentlemen; you have richly earned your place in history.
Oh, and here, by the way, is some other “baseball player”…
The Problem with AA’s “God”
July 27, 2007
“God as I understand Him to be”, or words to that effect: that’s the idea in Alcoholics Anonymous. Now, this is not to bash AA, by any means, but merely to make a point (not really a point about AA at all, as a matter of fact, so if you’re an AA fan, I’m not dissing the organization, OK?), and to do so, I use a blog post I found yesterday:
Here’s a well-meaning guy who’s in AA (good for him) trying to battle his way back from alcohol addiction, and he’s got problems with his sponsor, who is apparently miffed that he isn’t toeing the “God line” sufficiently. He admits that he’s moved from atheism and agnosticism toward some form of belief in a higher Being, but that’s about where he is right now, and he’s confused. Well-meaning folks have written in support of him, but on this point, the general counsel seems to be, “don’t let anyone tell you what God is; you’ve got to define Him for yourself.”
Preposterous is a mild word…
Here’s how I responded, roughly: think of Michael Jordan. Now, let’s suppose that Michael Jordan didn’t actually exist, but rather was the figment of someone’s imagination. Would it be valid, if he didn’t exist, to imagine him to be a short, 
white, balding backup point guard for the Supersonics? Sure…or we could imagine him to be any of a million people doing a million potential things, most of which unrelated to NBA basketball—if Michael Jordan didn’t exist.
But if Michael Jordan does exist (and let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he does), 
then I’m not free to imagine him to be a short, white, balding backup point guard for the Supersonics. I think of him as he is—the greatest player in NBA history, tongue-a-waggin’ as he flies through the lane in his red #23 Bulls jersey, 
dunking on some poor doofus, or leaving Byron Russell grasping on the ground for a certain undergarment after he’s hit an 18-foot floater to clinch Game 6. I think of him as a guy who tormented this UVa fan during his time at UNC, and who then went on to win many NBA championships. That’s how I must think of Michael Jordan—if he exists.
It would be the height of silliness to say, “I imagine Michael Jordan to be (insert something other than who he is)”, or “Michael Jordan is whoever you believe in your heart that he is, and it’s wrong for someone else to tell you otherwise.”
Back to our subject. If God doesn’t exist, then we can imagine Him any way we darn well please. He could be one thing to you and another to me, and neither one of us would be wrong, because it’d be the equivalent of imagining the Tooth Fairy (for the record, the Tooth Fairy is about 2’6″, dressed in white, with a white wand, though I’m not sure what he’d use the wand for in making his tooth-collecting rounds). But if God does indeed exist, then it doesn’t matter a hill of beans “how I imagine Him”, or what I “conceive of Him to be”, because if He is, then He is, and all the wishful imagination in the world won’t morph Him into something other than that He is.
Just like I can’t morph Michael Jordan into a bald white guy.
We Go On, Hurting Each Other…
July 27, 2007
With apologies to Karen Carpenter, those are the words I use when I think of Tuesday’s increase in the national minimum wage. There is hardly any law on the books that is so universally supported by Americans and so undeniably bad for the poor, the ones that all our politicians (effectively all Democrats and a lot of Republicans) claim to be helping by raising the minimum wage.
It’s hard to get economists to agree on much of anything, but nearly 90% of economists agree (assumedly, all but the most rabidly-liberal among them), according to a 1998 study, that the existence of minimum wage laws destroys entry-level jobs. The late Milton Friedman called minimum-wage laws “perhaps the most anti-black law on the statute book”, because it contributes to unemployment in minority communities, and while I don’t buy the idea that unemployment causes crime—that’s a cop-out—it’s nonetheless true that people standing around unemployed will find ways to use their time, and people being what they are, some of those ways are bound to be unlawful and/or destructive. Walter Williams illustrates this further by pointing to the fact that the apartheid government of South Africa used minimum-wage laws to keep low-skilled black workers out of the workforce.
Teen employment is negatively affected by minimum-wage laws as well—according to studies, we can project that teen employment, by the time the new standard is set in July, 2009, will be harmed by 8-12%, conservatively. Thank Congress when your teenager can’t find a job because the government has made it financially impossible to hire her.
The ultimate minimum wage will be $7.25 in two years; for now, it’s only $5.85. “But families can’t live on minimum-wage jobs”, they say, which is true enough, but as irrelevant as it is true, because the percentage of breadwinners who work for minimum is tiny, and for most, there are opportunities for advancement beyond minimum if they’ll work hard and do a good job.
When you mess with the market, introducing an artificial device such as minimum-wage laws, you reap a whirlwind of unintended consequences, ones which don’t make the news; no, on the news, you’ll see folks gleaming because they’re making a few more pennies an hour than before. What you won’t see, of course, is those borderline small business owners who are faced with several options in order to comply, none of them good: raise prices on products (and lose market share to the big box stores who can absorb a minimum-wage raise more easily); let workers go, or fail to hire needed workers; cut other benefits (so that the “raise” is offset by a cuts elsewhere for workers), or, worse, going out of business—and we know that this will happen to some companies that are operating on the borderline now—granted, it probably won’t hit some too hard this year, but by 2009, small business will feel the pinch.
It’s just a matter of simple economics, easy enough for anyone who takes the time to think rationally (with their thinkers instead of their feelers) to understand. Of course, that’s asking a lot of Congress…
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
