think hard, think well

I just added some new links on recycling:

• Mike Munger:“Think Globally, Act Irrationally”
• John Tierney: “Recycling is Garbage” (New York Times, June 30, 1996)

Articles like these remind us just how gullible we often are as a public, and how careful we should be when starting government programs.

I’m also disturbed by a growing tendency among American evangelicals to embrace "progressive" causes in order to seem more compassionate. Somehow we think that if we support these different causes (particularly ones involving government action) the world will like us more.

Of course, Christians are called to be compassionate to the poor, to care for the environment, and to seek peace. But even though our goals may be similar, our presuppositions about God, man and the world affect the way we believe those goals can be accomplished. We agree on the end but dispute the efficacy or morality of the various means to that end.

The problem arises when the end becomes inextricably linked in the public consciousness with the means to the end:

1. A clean, healthy environment is good.
2. Recycling bottles, cans, glass and paper helps the environment.
3. Therefore, recycling is good.
4. Therefore, anyone who disputes the veracity of #2 is bad.

Ah, circular reasoning…

Thus the wise man, at all times and on every road, carries a mind ripe for acquisitions that ordinary folk neglect. The humblest occupation is for him a continuation of the loftiest; his formal calls are fortunate chances of investigation; his walks are voyages of discovery, what he hears and his silent answers are a dialogue that truth carries on with herself within him. Wherever he is, his inner universe is comparing itself with the other, his life with Life, his work with the incessant work of all beings; and as he comes forth from the narrow space in which his concentrated study is done, one gets the impression, not that he is leaving the true behind, but that he is throwing his door wide open so that the world may bring to him all the truth given out in its mighty activities.

– A.G. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life: Its Sprit, Conditions, Methods (p. 81)

A recent report has revealed that Pete Rose probably used a corked bat during his quest to unseat Ty Cobb as Baseball’s all-time hit king. If you know about baseball, you know that Rose received a lifetime ban for betting on the game while he was a manager: he can never play, coach or enter the Hall of Fame.

Some have argued that the sluggers from the so-called steroid era–McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc.–should likewise not be permitted to enter the Hall of Fame. There is a lot of question as to whether the writers will in fact vote for these guys when they’re up for election in a few years.

I think Rose’s transgression—betting on the game—is in a different category from those of the steroid crowd. I don’t have a problem with letting those guys in for several reasons:

• There is no conclusive evidence that “PEDs” actually enhance performance. The explosion of power in the late ‘90s can just as easily be attributed to the expansion and the dilution of the pitching talent. Even if steroids have the potential to make you stronger, that wouldn’t give me the hand-eye coordination that Bonds has. They still had to hit/throw the ball.
• A lot of the PEDs these guys were taking were not illegal or against the rules at the time. You can’t fault them for trying them, especially if their opponents were as well.
• Let’s be honest here: MLB executives are equally to blame for the steroid abuse, because they banned stuff and then didn’t test for it. That’s like a professor who gives a take-home, closed-book exam—it punishes the scrupulous and rewards the cheaters. The execs liked the HRs because they attracted (weenie) fans. Again, let’s be honest: McGwire and Sosa saved baseball after the strike.

Betting on the game affects the integrity of the contest in a different way from the way PEDs do.

When I watch a sporting event, I want to know for sure that the performers are trying their hardest and that the game will be called as fairly as possible by the officials. I expect the athletes to do all sorts of things to increase their chances of winning. Some are judged to be within the rules (training, practice, weightlifting, vitamins, cortisone shots, stealing signs while on second base, etc.) and some are judged to be outside the rules (hurting one’s opponent, taking steroids, stealing signs with binoculars from the bullpen). As a consumer of entertainment, I assume that the athletes would do all these things if they could, but the officials limit these behaviors for the purpose of improving the sport and maintaining the health of the players.

Betting one’s own sport, however, is a different matter—that casts doubt on whether the games were contested fairly. Even if Rose bet on his own teams, it will never be possible to know whether he was managing to win, or to cover the spread. Baseball was right to kick him out and keep him out. Maybe someday he should go in the HoF, but he definitely should never be involved in the sport again.

I would vote McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, Sosa et al into the HoF if their numbers and achievements were judged to be extraordinary compared to their contemporaries. Stats always have to be judged in context. That’s what makes them so much fun and yet so debatable. There’s no question that Bonds hit more HRs than Ruth. Bonds played many more games at night than Ruth did. Bonds walked many more times than Ruth did. Ruth had Lou Gehrig protecting him in the lineup for most of his career. Conversely, Ruth was a pitcher (an excellent one, BTW) for the first years of his career. He also played before the live-ball era, and played 154-game seasons.

The debates are endless. I think steroids should be part of the debate, but not the only component.

HT: The Onion.

On Friday, I received word that my paper entitled, “A ‘Perfect’ Poem: The Use of the QATAL form in the Biblical Acrostics,” will appear in the fifty-first issue of Hebrew Studies, the annual journal of the National Association of Professors of Hebrew. The date of publication is usually November or December.

This is my first academic publication, and I’m very excited as you can imagine. Rather than viewing this honor as the end of a long project that started last summer, I hope that the article becomes a stepping stone to deeper work in the Book of Lamentations.

There really is no such thing as an individual achievement. At this relatively small but still important academic milestone, it is imperative that I express my gratitude to several people. First, I’d like thank those who have taught me Hebrew at several institutions over the years: my father (Ralph), Gary Schnittjer, Karyn Traphagen, Doug Green and Mike Kelly.

Second, Brian Toews was my advisor on this project last summer, and I am grateful to him for taking time away from his busy schedule as Provost to meet with me, as well as for encouraging me to pursue the question even when the answer might have been “no.”

Next, I’m grateful to Chuck Walton, a good friend who was the first to say to me last year, “You know, have you ever thought about presenting at a conference or submitting a paper for publication?”  No, I hadn’t really, Chuck–so, thanks.

Finally, my wife, Corrie, deserves “praise in the gates” and my heartfelt gratitude for supporting me financially, spiritually and emotionally while I pursue academic work. She understood that the months that I spent working on my projects between full-time master’s work and a doctoral program were not a waste. She believes in me, and the most gratifying aspect of these small successes is that they validate her faith in me. Corrie, you are truly’ an ‘ešet ĥayil.

Next Tuesday, Californians will vote on Proposition 14, a ballot initiative designed to restructure the electoral process in the country’s largest state.

The essence of Prop 14 is to eliminate party primaries by 1) opening up the primaries to registrants of all parties (including independents and third-party registrants), and by 2) including only the two candidates with the top primary totals in the general election, irrespective of party. According to the CA Legislative Council:

This measure, which would be known as the “Top Two Primaries Act,” would provide for a “voter-nominated primary election” for each state elective office and congressional office in California, in which a voter may vote at the primary election for any candidate for a congressional or state elective office without regard to the political party preference disclosed by the candidate or the voter. The measure would further provide that a candidate for a congressional or state elective office generally may choose whether to have his or her political party preference indicated upon the ballot for that office in the manner to be provided by statute. The measure would prohibit a political party or party central committee from nominating a candidate for a congressional or state elective office at the primary, but the measure would permit a political party or party central committee to endorse, support, or oppose a candidate for congressional or state elective office. The 2 candidates receiving the 2 highest vote totals for each office at a primary election, regardless of party preference, would then compete for the office at the ensuing general election.

(Source)

There are several good arguments for this change. One argument against the current closed-primary system encourages primary candidates to move toward the fringes in order to get the support of party loyalists, who are more likely to vote in primaries. Open primaries would moderate the candidates earlier and weed out extremists.

I am a registered member of a third party in PA. I do not plan to vote in the next election. If I were a CA resident and a voter, I would be concerned about Prop 14 for several reasons.

First, I think that parties play a key role in screening and moderating candidates. I also don’t like the idea of Republicans choosing Democratic candidates, or vice-versa–if primaries are open, party registration is irrelevant. A party should decide its candidate amongst its members, and then let that candidate stand for election by the public. Different parties choose candidates in different ways (conventions, primaries, elites/delegates), and that is the prerogative of each party.

Also, I don’t think that Prop 14 will accomplish a stated goal of its proponents: to broaden the field for candidates without party support. First of all, it’s still very difficult to run a primary or a general election without a party structure; only candidates that fund their own campaigns (Corzine, Perot, Bloomberg) have a chance. Second, the fact that a party will not be guaranteed a spot on the November ballot will lead to parties suppressing a wide field of primary candidates. Here’s a hypothetical example:

• For the CA gubernatorial primary, Democrats A and B run, as well as Republicans C, D and E.
• The CA Republican establishment, knowing that Democrats outnumber Republicans in CA, fear that none of Candidates C, D or E will get into the primary Top Two, and the general election will be between two Democrats.
• The Republicans pressure D and E to drop out and support C, in exchange for higher-level positions in C’s administration.

In this situation, the new Prop-14 system would have the opposite effect of its intention. At least in a party-based, closed-primary system the primary losers usually try to unify the parties behind the winners for the general election.

The Prop-14 system increases the potential costs to the parties of tolerating diversity or dissent from within, and thus it increases the chance that the parties will take more aggressive (perhaps corrupt) steps to stamp out dissent–which is not healthy for a party or for the public.

Now that New Jersey has been awarded the Big Game® for 2014, in theory other cold-weather venues might be in play in the future. This morning, Mike & Mike on ESPN Radio were discussing the possibility of an overseas Super Bowl. Greenberg brought up London as a possibility, since there have already been NFL games played there.

Golic was skeptical that American football would catch on overseas to the degree that baseball and now basketball have. I think that he’s right, largely because of two factors: economics and sporting culture.

First, football is a very involved and capital-intensive game compared with others. To play soccer, all you need is a lot, a ball and four rocks for goalposts. Organized football requires quite a bit of equipment, at least 44 players, 5-7 officials, and a grassy field with yard markings. America is a wealthy country, but the only way that most American kids can be involved in football is through a school with an investment in a program. The US has a significant football infrastructure already: junior-high, high school, university, professionals. (This is why hockey has taken a long time to catch on in the US: the costs of equipment and practice time are prohibitively expensive.)

Second, sporting culture is different in other countries, even those that could afford to play football. In Europe, sport is primarily through independent clubs, not through schools. Football is a sport that requires many players to work together in concert, rather than just a bunch of friends in a neighborhood. A local soccer league will be more rewarding in terms of quality of play and exercise than a local football league, which would cost too much and require too much travel for less satisfaction.

What do you think? Could football catch on in Europe, India or the Middle East?

Eugæphorist, eugephorist (yu-JEE-for-ist) – n. One who distributes and promulgates Good Earth tea. (Gr ευγηφερειν: ευ- "good," γη "earth," φερειν "to carry, bear")

"I have been profligately eugæphorizing in the office, distributing tea bags to passersby."