Tuesday, April 14, 2009

'Twas the night before teabagging...

Brilliant stuff from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann:



More tea-bag humor from the Rachel Maddow show yesterday, which had Conservatives hot and bothered today.

More Conservative Stupidity

Idiots.

I have a rebuttal, but Krugman says it all here.

What's ironic is the original Boston Tea Party, the inspiration for this travesty, protested a tax cut for the East India Company, which the British government was trying to prop up by giving an unfair advantage.

Anyway, this Slate writer has a great suggestion: let's rename the Republicans the U.S. Teabagging Party.

One can only anticipate what the U.S. Teabagging Party has in store next.

Perhaps a protest of illegal immigrants with a nationwide "Do a Dirty Sanchez" day?

Or perhaps protest vegetarianism by a "Tossing Your Salad" day?

Monday, April 13, 2009

Recession-Busters

Rather than laying off employees, a New York law firm is paying associates to take some time off, while Europe is encouraging many workers to take vacations.

I also encourage you all to check out the Ed Schultz Show's Recession Busters webpage, where the popular liberal talk-show host attempts to provide his own economic stimulus solution.

Are we finally seeing some 21st century solutions to the world-wide economic downturn?

Friday, March 20, 2009

Is the NFL recession proof?

Here's a prediction: while you may hear many MLB and NBA teams lose money in 2009 and over the next few years, most NFL teams will remain profitable and recession-proof, in spite of selling increasingly more expensive tickets and merchandise.

The reason? The NFL has taken full advantage of one of the most basic economic principles: scarcity. They're mostly withholding one of the most popular entertainment products in America, and all indications are people want more. The MLB gives you 162 games, the NBA gives you 82; the NFL gives you a mere 16. On top of this, the NFL network, now broadcasting several games a year, is largely unavailable to American audiences, as is the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirecTV. You want more football, but you mostly can't get it.

This demand is clearly borne out in the ratings, and the NFL should remain tremendously profitable as long as it continues to subscribe to this ideology. Whether or not they should sell such highly-priced tickets while accepting huge sums of public financing for their stadiums is another issue, and one I'll deal with in a later post.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Who Decided the Definition of Life?

In the wake of President Obama lifting the Bush administration's bans on stem cell research, the ethics of "destroying life" to save lives has been discussed ad nauseum. Typical of the rhetoric being produced is this article by the Tribune's John Kass. After comparing the use of embryos to help treat degenerative diseases to a dying man, Kass closes with an open ended remark: "And what happens to us, as we take other lives, in order to live?"

I think the most pertinent issue here is what our operating definition of life is. Clearly, what Kass and many theologians and political conservatives refer to is human life. At the same time, we're discussing the ethics of scientific research, and in its most reduced form, all life is sustained by the metabolic processes of the living cell. From a scientist's perspective, life is defined by the ability of the cell to efficiently sustain these functions.

However, if this is our operating definition, then what we take as life, and the protections we offer it, has to be extended much further than human life. In terms of the cell, the difference between human cells and those of animals, plants, bacteria, and other organisms is not much more than variations in genetic and protein content. And yet, we don't have much of a problem destroying bacterial, yeast, plant, and animal life for the purpose of scientific research. Our understanding of life would not have been made possible without these experiments, and so we tolerate some destruction for our ultimate benefit.

What, then, makes human life different from other life? Almost all religions have a concept of soul, which is the standard in differentiating humans from everything else. This is usually what the counter arguments to stem cell research, and the sanctity of human life, refers to. And yet, in a secular society, this isn't an acceptable operating standard. Not all religions limit the concept of soul to humans only; in Hinduism, essentially every organism, from the merest Protista to the most complex animal, contains some sort of soul. On the other hand, atheists deny such a concept entirely. It would be un-Constitutional to use one soul standard over another in the United States.

Given that, our official definition for life should more closely resemble the scientific one. Stem cell opponents will argue this will lead to all sorts of human experimentation and human cloning, the sort of behavior we associate with science-fiction stories. I don't buy this. Humans appear to have built-in moral sensors, and appear to find reprehensible any experimentation involving a human well-developed enough to resemble one of our species (there are exceptions to this, and it is that minority that has helped create this debate). With stem cells, we are utilizing a mass of cells that represents about 4-5 days of growth post-fertilization. The mass can hardly be differentiated from a colony of bacterial cells, and yet contains the potential to improve the quality of life of many fully-formed human beings.

We tolerate the destruction of life continuously to benefit our species. Is this sacrifice not worth the outcome? Don't take my word for it; next time you meet a sufferer of diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, or Parkinson's, ask them how they would enjoy a life without these debilitating afflictions.

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Sports and Religion

When I first decided to blog, I resolved not to be merely reactionary, which is the modus operandi for most bloggers. My feeling is those blogs that can actually offer something new and refreshing, whether that be a product or an opinion, were those that would add the most value for consumers in this Internet Age. This is an exceptionally cynical approach and, rather than embracing it, I would encourage the rest of you to continue doing something for yourself (as most blogs and networks like facebook do).

Either way, I hope to offer something new here all the time, and I've yet to do so. The title of this post is hardly indicative of that; the role of religion in sports has been discussed ad nauseum. But that's not the direction I'm going in here.

The concept of sports fanatic is a fairly new one. In the 20th century, being a sports fanatic became an acceptable thing to be. A person can obsess over sports; it can be his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your favorite team and player and proceeding to act like a gibbering idiot at sporting events is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same feelings for that team or player. Large gatherings of 10,000+ people who share these emotions occur frequently and are socially-embraced events.

Conversely, it is quite acceptable to openly despise those who passionately follow other, opposing teams. Watching your team triumph over another on the field, diamond, pitch, or court vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of that outcome, and enables you to continue to be a jerk to those who supported the other side On the other hand, watching your team lose to the other can be a humbling, even humiliating experience (particularly when copious amounts of alcohol and testosterone are involved). Prolonged losing can lead a fan to openly question his or her own faith, and some may even jump the bandwagon (or convert) to a "winning" side.

The concept of religious fanatic... er, excuse me, devout follower is quite an older concept, perhaps 5000+ years in age. I believe the dawn of modern religion occurred when the first caveman clubbed his caveman brother on the head with a primitive mace, causing the caveman brother (not brotha, that would have been a hate crime) to see stars; this caused him to believe he was perceiving the divine, and eureka, you had religion. Quite possibly a similar event occurred repeatedly throughout history in various forms, creating the dawn of every major and minor theology known to man.

In any event, the concept of being a fervent follower of religion has been quite an acceptable thing to be for many thousands of years. A person can obsess over religion; it can become his or her lifeblood. Cloaking yourself in the official garb of your religion (skullcap, burka, robes, or nothing) and titillating yourself into a manic rage at your local church/temple/mosque is quite an acceptable past-time. In fact, it can endear you to a large group of people who share the same fervent emotions for that deity/idol/inanimate object. Large gatherings of these people occur frequently at churches, temples, and in front of rocks and are socially-embraced.

It is also quite acceptable to openly despise those who follow other deities/idols/inanimate objects. Although no physical evidence exists to support any philosophy, verbalized "pimp slaps" of one faith against others vindicates your personal faith in the possibility of being "saved" upon your death (after all, the Earth is a pretty shitty place, what with all these "other" religions and all), and enables you to continue to condemn followers of all other religions to hell. On the other hand, watching another religion triumph over yours can be a humiliating, even beheading experience (just ask the Jews circa 600 AD). Prolonged losing can lead a devotee to question his or her own faith, either on his or her own or by the sword of an opposing devotee, and some may even "convert" (or jump the bandwagon) to a "winning" deity, or risk losing their heads (or even private parts; of course, converting to a religion can also lead to loss of portions of private parts, so you're kinda screwed either way).

This provides with an interesting hypothesis about our species' behavior. The same sort of emotions govern both sports fanaticism and religious fervor, and similar physical outcomes can be achieved via both obsessions. The implication is that humans are inherently obsessive as well as insecure, and require some sort of following to be able to function normally. In an era where religious fervor has faded somewhat, it would seem sports fanaticism has stepped in to fill the void (or are the two related? Hmmm. Perhaps that is why the NFL plays its games on Sunday). Of course, sports is an easy example; people around the world have a variety of obsessions, and the concept could easily be extended to, say, pop music, culture, and political ideology (which could explain the popularity of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Rush Limbaugh). Either way, its not an encouraging sign for our civilization. The solution? I recommend Xanax.