It seems that this page is more evil than the internet commentator or back seat drivers.
I'm so evil that I'm going to let my kids go trick or treating today.
"Parents have a responsibility not to allow their children to be exposed to these evil celebrations. What might seem to some as innocent children's games is a "little fox" that can open the door to satanic influence and even demon possession in some cases. Children can be tormented with a spirit of fear that can come through this involvement that stays with them throughout their lives. It also introduces children to witchcraft, making it easier for them to become involved in cults and occultic activities."
Friday, October 31, 2003
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Not Vietnam
"The people who mounted the attacks on the Red Cross are not the Iraqi Vietcong. They are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge — a murderous band of Saddam loyalists and Al Qaeda nihilists, who are not killing us so Iraqis can rule themselves. They are killing us so they can rule Iraqis." Tom Friedman, from today's NY Times.
Hiatus
Back after a week away. I had thought I'd do some updates while away, but that didn't pan out.
I'll start you off again with something historical - George Washington's rye.
I'll start you off again with something historical - George Washington's rye.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Disaster strikes
I was supposed to be nearly in Boston by now. However, due to weather, flooded roads and a car accident (nobody hurt, Thank God), I'm still in Dublin. However, in order to guarantee making it on time tomorrow, we're leaving so early that a Newshound update will be impossible. There are plenty of blogs out there that might help you through the day. Try the Broom of Anger, Slugger O'Toole, and Belfast Gonzo.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Thanks Matt
"Coming up, Robert Fisk on Israel and Iraq". That's all I need to hear to know it's time to turn off TodayFM.
N. Ireland
I may have been premature in my "wondering" if the Newshound's days are done. Seems that may not be quite true.
We're losing the peace
"Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American." & ". . . some also blame America because they expected so much more from her".
Sobering quotes and these articles really give you pause for thought about the problems a country, even a powerful one like the US, has when they end up in charge of peoples and cultures they don't really understand. Of course, the most heartening aspect of these quotes is that they are both from Life, January 1946.
Sobering quotes and these articles really give you pause for thought about the problems a country, even a powerful one like the US, has when they end up in charge of peoples and cultures they don't really understand. Of course, the most heartening aspect of these quotes is that they are both from Life, January 1946.
N. Ireland
For seven years I've been following the minute details of N. Ireland political life on the Newshound. I can't help but wonder if today is the beginning of the end for the Newshound.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Harry Browne & Baseball
It's not often that I agree with Harry Browne, but his "review" of baseball on the radio for Saturday's Irish Times had me nodding my head in agreement several times.
First of all, Browne and I support the other New York team, the one that is not the Yankees and whose logo is not adorning the baseball caps of thousands of young Irish people, the Mets. And, we both appreciate how great baseball on the radio can be. I grew up outside the range of New York's television signals, so I spent many, many summer nights listening to the radio when I should have been watching the Love Boat or Dallas.
First of all, Browne and I support the other New York team, the one that is not the Yankees and whose logo is not adorning the baseball caps of thousands of young Irish people, the Mets. And, we both appreciate how great baseball on the radio can be. I grew up outside the range of New York's television signals, so I spent many, many summer nights listening to the radio when I should have been watching the Love Boat or Dallas.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Soccer in America is politically correct
I'm apparently not the only one who feels this way.
"In America, soccer is essentially a stultifyingly safe and politically correct suburban past-time. As a New York Times writer recently bemoaned, 'The game in the U.S. has become shorthand for happy families. A typical ad, which once might have taken baseball as a symbol of upper-middle-class values, now features a beaming child kicking a ball, with a text that begins: 'While Jessica takes an afternoon off to focus on scoring goals, her parents' Financial Advisor at Merrill Lynch focuses on meeting her family's goals.' The American game has come to be seen as a protective mother's heaven: nonviolent, suitable for children and female-friendly.' It's perhaps no wonder that the next generation of ambitious young male American athletes would rather pick up a baseball bat or watch the superbowl. Even golf is more macho than soccer." --- Andrew Sullivan, Sunday Times
"I think the flirtation that prosperous yuppie parents are presently having with soccer fits in with the rest of this execrable phenomenon of political correctness. Politically correct Americans today positively love scourging their own flesh with guilt over all the success our country has enjoyed on the global political stage, and all the rowdy fun we've had at home. So instead of taking Junior to a Little League baseball game and teaching him how to chew tobacco, spit, and then wash his mouth out with cold beer after the game, Dad packs the lad in the minivan, drives him to a soccer game, tells him afterward that it's not about winning, it's about teamwork and aerobics, and takes him to the salad bar at Wendy's on the way home. We can only pray that this aberration will soon pass.." --- Jeff Smith, Tuscon Weekly
And, although he doesn't use the term 'politically correct', it's what he's thinking:
"No other activity in life requires so much effort for so little reward. Ninety-nine per cent of the action has virtually no bearing on the outcome of the game. Herein may lie the explanation for why so many of my government-bureaucrat neighbors in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., have a love affair with soccer.
In soccer, every mother's child is above average. There's no shame in losing and a tie is the likely outcome. The game's egalitarian philosophy extends to the absurdity of giving every kid a trophy at the end of the season.
I am convinced that the ordeal of soccer teaches our kids all the wrong lessons in life. Soccer is the Marxist concept of the labor theory of value applied to sports -- which may explain why socialist nations dominate in the World Cup. The purpose of a capitalist economy is to produce the maximum output for the least amount of exertion. Soccer requires huge volumes of effort but produces no output. " --- Stephen Moore, National Review
"In America, soccer is essentially a stultifyingly safe and politically correct suburban past-time. As a New York Times writer recently bemoaned, 'The game in the U.S. has become shorthand for happy families. A typical ad, which once might have taken baseball as a symbol of upper-middle-class values, now features a beaming child kicking a ball, with a text that begins: 'While Jessica takes an afternoon off to focus on scoring goals, her parents' Financial Advisor at Merrill Lynch focuses on meeting her family's goals.' The American game has come to be seen as a protective mother's heaven: nonviolent, suitable for children and female-friendly.' It's perhaps no wonder that the next generation of ambitious young male American athletes would rather pick up a baseball bat or watch the superbowl. Even golf is more macho than soccer." --- Andrew Sullivan, Sunday Times
"I think the flirtation that prosperous yuppie parents are presently having with soccer fits in with the rest of this execrable phenomenon of political correctness. Politically correct Americans today positively love scourging their own flesh with guilt over all the success our country has enjoyed on the global political stage, and all the rowdy fun we've had at home. So instead of taking Junior to a Little League baseball game and teaching him how to chew tobacco, spit, and then wash his mouth out with cold beer after the game, Dad packs the lad in the minivan, drives him to a soccer game, tells him afterward that it's not about winning, it's about teamwork and aerobics, and takes him to the salad bar at Wendy's on the way home. We can only pray that this aberration will soon pass.." --- Jeff Smith, Tuscon Weekly
And, although he doesn't use the term 'politically correct', it's what he's thinking:
"No other activity in life requires so much effort for so little reward. Ninety-nine per cent of the action has virtually no bearing on the outcome of the game. Herein may lie the explanation for why so many of my government-bureaucrat neighbors in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., have a love affair with soccer.
In soccer, every mother's child is above average. There's no shame in losing and a tie is the likely outcome. The game's egalitarian philosophy extends to the absurdity of giving every kid a trophy at the end of the season.
I am convinced that the ordeal of soccer teaches our kids all the wrong lessons in life. Soccer is the Marxist concept of the labor theory of value applied to sports -- which may explain why socialist nations dominate in the World Cup. The purpose of a capitalist economy is to produce the maximum output for the least amount of exertion. Soccer requires huge volumes of effort but produces no output. " --- Stephen Moore, National Review
Friday, October 17, 2003
Soccer
Jon at Back Seat Drivers takes me to task for taking the Pittsburgh letter writer too seriously as the writer obviously had his tongue in his cheek. And, he's probably right. I should have waited and read that letter again later as I was punch drunk at that hour, having been up watching baseball all night (see below). {Still, people from the Pittsburgh area do take their football very seriously indeed.}
However, I still contend that FIFA's attempts at getting soccer to take off in the US are as much cultural imperialism as what Hollywood does in Europe. He says that Hollywood doesn't promote cultural imperialism, which is true. Only, there are many people in Europe who rant and rave about cultural imperialism as if MGM, Disney and Time Warner were all following some master strategy. And, again, I agree with Jon about FIFA's motivation for promoting soccer in the US - MONEY. That just happens to be exactly the same motivation for promoting Terminator in Europe.
Jon takes issue with my description of soccer as politically correct in the US. Well, that I stand over. Soccer is loved by those who would prefer the US to be less "American" and more like everywhere else. I've often heard people in America pining over soccer because it's "the global game" as if baseball and football are too parochial.
Youth soccer is generally mixed gender (which I suspect stunts the development of the American men's game, but is a great explanation for the success of American women). Boys and girls compete on the same teams under rules that, from my observation, make the game much tamer over there than what I've seen in an average school boys or school girls game over here.
Jon also says that soccer is the sport of choice where he grew up, attracting the best athletes. That could be true of my town too. I don't know the current situation there, but when I was a kid the town funded soccer, but not baseball, because soccer was mixed gender. If that isn't politically correct, then what is? I don't know if this happened (or happens) in other towns today, but that memory still rankles.
Soccer is almost non-existent in the inner cities (other than immigrant communities) or small towns from where most of the top basketball, baseball & football players come. {Last night, the NY Yankees fielded a team with 6 non-Americans and only 3 Americans in the starting line-up. Baseball is actually the sport of choice in much of Latin America and in the Far East.}
I have no doubt that as the US population continues to grow, soccer will find a niche for itself among immigrants. I applaud that. That many of these immigrants will go to see their "national" team play rather than the MSL is hardly a vote of confidence in the sport in the US.
In time, soccer may even grow into a full time big league sport. But, it's way short of that now. Although the average MLS game attracts "more than 14,000" people, the average NHL game attracts 16, 500. Each NHL team plays 40 home games (as opposed to 15 home games per team in the MSL). Total NHL attendance is close to 20m per season, whereas it's nearer to 2.2m for the MSL. {Note: there are 6 NHL teams in Canada.}
However, I still contend that FIFA's attempts at getting soccer to take off in the US are as much cultural imperialism as what Hollywood does in Europe. He says that Hollywood doesn't promote cultural imperialism, which is true. Only, there are many people in Europe who rant and rave about cultural imperialism as if MGM, Disney and Time Warner were all following some master strategy. And, again, I agree with Jon about FIFA's motivation for promoting soccer in the US - MONEY. That just happens to be exactly the same motivation for promoting Terminator in Europe.
Jon takes issue with my description of soccer as politically correct in the US. Well, that I stand over. Soccer is loved by those who would prefer the US to be less "American" and more like everywhere else. I've often heard people in America pining over soccer because it's "the global game" as if baseball and football are too parochial.
Youth soccer is generally mixed gender (which I suspect stunts the development of the American men's game, but is a great explanation for the success of American women). Boys and girls compete on the same teams under rules that, from my observation, make the game much tamer over there than what I've seen in an average school boys or school girls game over here.
Jon also says that soccer is the sport of choice where he grew up, attracting the best athletes. That could be true of my town too. I don't know the current situation there, but when I was a kid the town funded soccer, but not baseball, because soccer was mixed gender. If that isn't politically correct, then what is? I don't know if this happened (or happens) in other towns today, but that memory still rankles.
Soccer is almost non-existent in the inner cities (other than immigrant communities) or small towns from where most of the top basketball, baseball & football players come. {Last night, the NY Yankees fielded a team with 6 non-Americans and only 3 Americans in the starting line-up. Baseball is actually the sport of choice in much of Latin America and in the Far East.}
I have no doubt that as the US population continues to grow, soccer will find a niche for itself among immigrants. I applaud that. That many of these immigrants will go to see their "national" team play rather than the MSL is hardly a vote of confidence in the sport in the US.
In time, soccer may even grow into a full time big league sport. But, it's way short of that now. Although the average MLS game attracts "more than 14,000" people, the average NHL game attracts 16, 500. Each NHL team plays 40 home games (as opposed to 15 home games per team in the MSL). Total NHL attendance is close to 20m per season, whereas it's nearer to 2.2m for the MSL. {Note: there are 6 NHL teams in Canada.}
Long night
The Newshound may suffer this morning. Have been up since 1am watching baseball. It's being called one of the greatest games ever.
Please let me know if there are glaring errors.
Please let me know if there are glaring errors.
Soccer is sports terrorism
So says a letter writer to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "On a recent Friday night (a high school football night) in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, I witnessed parents allowing their children to play this anti-American sport instead of exposing them to the ritual that is high school football in western Pennsylvania."
Fascinating.
I watch a lot of soccer (although, not the past month with so much baseball on NASN) and enjoy it. However, when I was living in the US, I didn't like it and I still hope it fails to take off there.
FIFA's continued insistence on spreading soccer to the US is as much intentional cultural imperialism as anything that Hollywood does. But, in true American fashion, there are no government moves to restrict the sport's development. Instead, soccer is trying to make its way by gaining market share. It has failed, time and again, despite all the hype about the development of soccer in the US.
Soccer is the "PC" sport of choice in the US, but it has not really captured a significant market share. It remains a minor sport in terms of fans and revenues, although the kids programs continue to thrive.
The writer is also down on women's sports, for reasons that make no sense to me.
Fascinating.
I watch a lot of soccer (although, not the past month with so much baseball on NASN) and enjoy it. However, when I was living in the US, I didn't like it and I still hope it fails to take off there.
FIFA's continued insistence on spreading soccer to the US is as much intentional cultural imperialism as anything that Hollywood does. But, in true American fashion, there are no government moves to restrict the sport's development. Instead, soccer is trying to make its way by gaining market share. It has failed, time and again, despite all the hype about the development of soccer in the US.
Soccer is the "PC" sport of choice in the US, but it has not really captured a significant market share. It remains a minor sport in terms of fans and revenues, although the kids programs continue to thrive.
The writer is also down on women's sports, for reasons that make no sense to me.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
The Pope transformed the world
So says Philip Jenkins. Kevin Myers says the Pope is "quite simply the greatest living person in the world".
Sissies
India Knight, writing in the Sunday Times, says that's what we're turning out nowadays instead of boys.
Despite its shortcomings, I thought parts of this column were interesting. Her sons' friends are "feminised". Boys generally are discouraged from "roaring down the stairs brandishing weapons and playing cowboys". She notes that boys have a "pointlessly aggressive streak", which cannot be wished away.
She's right about that. Boys are aggressive. Agressive and competitive. Boys are naturally - and yes, nature, not nurture - much more aggressive and competitive than girls.
This move to lessen the aggression and competitiveness of boys is also one of the key reasons for boys falling behind in education. Boys need a much more disciplined environment. That aggression and competitiveness has to be properly focused and put to work to encourage boys to learn. All this "understanding" is only playing into boys' hands when they desire to be doing anything other than learning.
Another problem for boys in modern society is that there aren't enough of them around. From my observation, girls can be happy only when they play in small numbers. 2 or 3 at most. Boys, however, like to play (& hunt?) in packs. Modern society's smaller families have eliminated this prospect for many boys. When I was a kid, my 3 brothers and I could always find another 6 or 7 boys to play ball with. That's no longer true in most US (and I'm guessing, UK) neighborhoods. Families are smaller, houses are more spread out, both of which reduce the chance of a "pick-up" game breaking out. Boys are lucky to find another 1 or 2 boys to play with.
{One of the benefits of living in a non-descript housing estate in suburban Dublin is that there are just under 4 million children living in the 100 houses in the neighborhood. I don't think we'd get that in the US.}
Her point about books for boys not being masculine enough was interesting, only, I couldn't help wondering if boys read books. I guess I did for a while when I was a kid. I read the Hardy Boys - the first 6 or 7 were the best - but after that I have no memory of reading anything for about 4-5 years (ages 9-14). Other than the sports pages, that is.
I could live without Germain Greer's "appreciation of the beauty of young men". Also, preventing boys from expressing themselves ("girls suck") doesn't have to be because such expressions are "womanunfriendly and divisive", but because such expressions are crude and vulgar. I would discourage my son from saying "girls suck", but if he said he "can't stand girls", that would be fine by me.
Despite its shortcomings, I thought parts of this column were interesting. Her sons' friends are "feminised". Boys generally are discouraged from "roaring down the stairs brandishing weapons and playing cowboys". She notes that boys have a "pointlessly aggressive streak", which cannot be wished away.
She's right about that. Boys are aggressive. Agressive and competitive. Boys are naturally - and yes, nature, not nurture - much more aggressive and competitive than girls.
This move to lessen the aggression and competitiveness of boys is also one of the key reasons for boys falling behind in education. Boys need a much more disciplined environment. That aggression and competitiveness has to be properly focused and put to work to encourage boys to learn. All this "understanding" is only playing into boys' hands when they desire to be doing anything other than learning.
Another problem for boys in modern society is that there aren't enough of them around. From my observation, girls can be happy only when they play in small numbers. 2 or 3 at most. Boys, however, like to play (& hunt?) in packs. Modern society's smaller families have eliminated this prospect for many boys. When I was a kid, my 3 brothers and I could always find another 6 or 7 boys to play ball with. That's no longer true in most US (and I'm guessing, UK) neighborhoods. Families are smaller, houses are more spread out, both of which reduce the chance of a "pick-up" game breaking out. Boys are lucky to find another 1 or 2 boys to play with.
{One of the benefits of living in a non-descript housing estate in suburban Dublin is that there are just under 4 million children living in the 100 houses in the neighborhood. I don't think we'd get that in the US.}
Her point about books for boys not being masculine enough was interesting, only, I couldn't help wondering if boys read books. I guess I did for a while when I was a kid. I read the Hardy Boys - the first 6 or 7 were the best - but after that I have no memory of reading anything for about 4-5 years (ages 9-14). Other than the sports pages, that is.
I could live without Germain Greer's "appreciation of the beauty of young men". Also, preventing boys from expressing themselves ("girls suck") doesn't have to be because such expressions are "womanunfriendly and divisive", but because such expressions are crude and vulgar. I would discourage my son from saying "girls suck", but if he said he "can't stand girls", that would be fine by me.
NASN
I know, I know. I've been raving about this since I got it. But, anyone who has a passing interest in baseball would have found this past two weeks simply amazing. Last night's Boston vs. New York game was incredible.
If you're interested in getting the service, let me know.
It's as if I've been forced to live as a vegan for 12 years and now suddenly it's Smith & Wollensky every night.
If you're interested in getting the service, let me know.
It's as if I've been forced to live as a vegan for 12 years and now suddenly it's Smith & Wollensky every night.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Where to empty your bin
Dick suggests Joe Higgins's garden seeing as he is one of those responsible for preventing the garbage trucks from making their rounds. I had the same idea when listening to Gerry Ryan this morning.
Ryan has been insistent that "Dublin is different", which I'm willing to accept. So, why don't the citizens of Dublin come up with a new means of funding their refuse collection? I don't mind how they do it so long as I don't pay for it. I'm already paying €330 per annum to have my garbage collected. I don't have any great desire to pay more to remove Dubliners'.
Ryan has been insistent that "Dublin is different", which I'm willing to accept. So, why don't the citizens of Dublin come up with a new means of funding their refuse collection? I don't mind how they do it so long as I don't pay for it. I'm already paying €330 per annum to have my garbage collected. I don't have any great desire to pay more to remove Dubliners'.
"Please put that out"
The proposed new anti-smoking law to take effect in January will apply to the family home if you have someone working there. Home help, child minder, whatever. If someone works in your house, you will no longer be allowed to smoke in your home (at least that part of it that the home help has access to) while they're working. That's what the Health & Safety Authority are proposing.
From today's Irish Times (free to all):
If employees can agree with employers that smoking can be allowed, which seems to be the essence of what the HSA is saying here, then what if bar staff waive their rights to have the smoking ban enforced? Can they do that? I assume the public can say no, but what if 20 workers in a small office or factory all agree to allow smoking? What then?
I would have thought that either smoking is banned from the work place or it is not. If smoking is banned from the work place, then that should mean that anyone who has people working in their house would be violating the law if they allowed smoking in their home regardless of whether it bothered the house owner, any resident of the house or anyone working there.
Smoking should also be banned in any work-related part of a house that provides Bed & Breakfast. So, kitchen or any living quarters for guests would be off limits for smoking - even when there are no guests present.
I don't accept the premise that few people will complain therefore we shouldn't have any concerns about going ahead with this proposed change in the law.
From today's Irish Times (free to all):
People working in other family homes will be able to complain to the HSA about any potential breaches.I'm not sure what authority the HSA would have to enforce the proposed ban, but I had thought that the law would be such that anyone could complain about smoking - even if that person's not an employee. A nosey neighbor or (more likely) a spouse of a home worker should be able to call the smoking ban hotline.
However, the HSA spokeswoman said she did not expect many complaints from this sector.
"People who work in family homes usually have a very good working relationship with their employers," she said.
If employees can agree with employers that smoking can be allowed, which seems to be the essence of what the HSA is saying here, then what if bar staff waive their rights to have the smoking ban enforced? Can they do that? I assume the public can say no, but what if 20 workers in a small office or factory all agree to allow smoking? What then?
I would have thought that either smoking is banned from the work place or it is not. If smoking is banned from the work place, then that should mean that anyone who has people working in their house would be violating the law if they allowed smoking in their home regardless of whether it bothered the house owner, any resident of the house or anyone working there.
Smoking should also be banned in any work-related part of a house that provides Bed & Breakfast. So, kitchen or any living quarters for guests would be off limits for smoking - even when there are no guests present.
I don't accept the premise that few people will complain therefore we shouldn't have any concerns about going ahead with this proposed change in the law.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
American honors traitor
He was a war hero who changed sides in the middle of the war. Now an American wants to honor Benedict Arnold by placing a gravestone near the Arnold family crypt at a church in England.
If he had chosen to side with the British from the outset, that would be fair enough. Many people remained loyal throughout the war and did what they could to help the British. But Arnold betrayed the cause he supposedly believed in for money. He should not be honored.
If he had chosen to side with the British from the outset, that would be fair enough. Many people remained loyal throughout the war and did what they could to help the British. But Arnold betrayed the cause he supposedly believed in for money. He should not be honored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)