Welcome to Daily Contentions... Born in February 2003, DC is a daily-updated weblog covering a wide variety of issues, contemporary and timeless-- always with a unique perspective and open attitude.
So how good are each of the conferences this year? Let's look at these analyses by ESPN's Andy Glockner and Joe Lunardi which predict how many teams each conference will get in the Big Dance.
Glockner lists the teams he feels are locks and they break down as follows:
ACC, 6: Boston College, Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech Big East, 5: Georgetown, Notre Dame, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Marquette PAC-10, 5: Arizona, UCLA, USC, Washington St., Oregon SEC, 4: Florida, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee Big 12, 3: Texas A & M, Texas, and Kansas Big Ten, 2: Ohio State, Wisconsin MWC, 2: UNLV, Air Force WAC, 1: Nevada, Horizon, 1: Butler C-USA, 1: Memphis MVC, 1: Southern Illinois
Notice that's only 31 teams. The others will come from the small conference champion auto-bids and from 'maybe' teams. Lunardi, in the Bracketology page, predicts the following teams will also make it:
Big East, 3: West Virginia, Syracuse, Villanova Big Ten, 3: Michigan St., Indiana, and Illinois Big 12, 2: Kansas State, Texas Tech MVC, 2: Creighton, Missouri State PAC-10, 1: Stanford MWC, 1: BYU Horizon, 1: Wright State
Finally, the state of Indiana looks to get 3 teams in: Butler, Notre Dame, and Indiana. Purdue is a weak bubble team. The others would have to pull out conference championships.
Mainstream media misreporting matters of the Church?
By Luke
On Wednesday of last week, I linked a Times of London article describing efforts of the Anglican Church to possibly unite under the authority of the Pope. I was skeptical at the time, and as it turns out, rightfully so. According to this National Catholic Reporter article, the Times story was basically flat-out false. While a 42-page document was produced, it was merely a summary of past dealings. Here's the power 'graphs:
Can it be read as a blueprint for reunion under the authority of the pope?
Here's the first line of paragraph seven, which appears on page five of the report: "This present context, which adds to existing differences between our two communions, is not the appropriate time to enter the new formal stage of relationship envisaged by the bishops at Mississauga." That's a reference to a meeting in Canada in 2000 when representatives of the two groups had discussed the possibility of greater structural unity.
In other words, "Growing Together in Unity and Mission" unambiguously says that now is not the time for reunion under the pope. There is simply no other way to read the document -- unless, that is, you're inclined to distort it.
The NCR article then proceeds to point out numerous examples where the mainstream media, particularly in Britain, have gotten stories about the Church terribly terribly wrong.
I've gotten in the habit of watching the Oscars every year, and let me tell you, I'm glad Patton was showing on another channel this time, so I could flip back-and-forth. This goes without saying, but the Oscars broadcast was bloated as hell. Its duration, over three and a half hours, was not as problematic as the content fit into that time.
Generally, the Oscars ceremony needs to be changed to emphasize the nominated movies. This year I got the palpable feeling that these films were secondary to the pomp, banter, and self-indulgence. Sure the pomp is what makes the Oscars the Oscars, but at this point the balance has been lost.
So here's what I'd like to see less of: less banter between the award presenters before actually reading the nominations; less art bits (like this year's odd silhouette performers); less songs; less clips in the montages; and less attempts at humor sketches with the host (like this year's random gospel choir singers and Ellen's vacuuming).
And here's what I'd like to see more of: slightly longer clips of the nominated movies, so we can appreciate the art of the movies themselves; better explanations of what the awards mean and what is entailed in some of the crafts, such as costuming and cinematography; longer, more-meaningful clips in the montages.
With these changes the duration of the ceremony would not be likely to be reduced much if any, but the emphasis would be back where it should be. I'm not calling to remove all of the "fun" from the ceremony, but merely to focus it on the movies and the art of film making.
...
As to evaluating the movies themselves, I did not watch enough of the nominations to give informed criticism. So I recommend going to Commentary Track and reading its informed reviews and Oscars posts.
Don't worry; DC's not going to join the American Idol-mania that seems to grip the country every year. But I do watch it from time to time, especially the earlier episodes. For those of you not in the know, the earlier episodes are audition rounds in which the show highlights particularly bad singers who make fools out of themselves.
Now I've watched these auditions, which include the judges brutal comments, for a few years now, and I've generally gotten a kick out of how ridiculous and out-of-touch with reality some of these contestants are. But this year I've started to feel guilty for deriving any entertainment from this cruel spectacle. The main reason, it seems to me, is that the show has been even more extreme in picking out losers and even more blunt in embarrassing them.
American Idol is no longer, it seems to me, primarily a talent contest. It's a reality show designed to manipulate emotions in near-pornographic and abusive fashion. The mix has always been there. And I'm probably a fool for even hoping for some integrity in the thing. But this season, the tipping point toward complete cynicism has arrived. And that's a shame.
Anglicans to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church?
By Luke
This is very interesting news, but don't hold your breath. At this point all we have is a 42-page document by a commission setup by both churches that simply urges the two sides to explore how they might join under the Pope.
You know beer well, and you'll only drink the best beers in the world. Watered down beers disgust you, as do the people who drink them. When you drink, you tend to become a bit of a know it all - especially about subjects you don't know well. But your friends tolerate your drunken ways, because you introduce them to the best beers around.
...and I'm not referring to its financial situation.
The All Star game was an unsurprising piece of theater, but the real action was outside the arena. As of yesterday, 300 people had been arrested in NBA-related activities. Police are also investigating a fight and shooting at a hotel and a fight that shutdown a nightclub.
The NBA's problems are league-wide and systemic. This is one of the reasons that football sits unchallenged at the throne of American sports.
STOCKPORT, ENGLAND—British homosexual John Amaechi sent shockwaves throughout the sporting world last week when he announced, much to the surprise of his family and friends—in addition to NBA players and fans—that he lived a double life for five years in which he secretly worked as a professional basketball player...
According to Amaechi, who spent most of his NBA career on the bench and only averaged six points and two rebounds per game, he knew at an early age that he was different from all the "normal players" when he went undrafted out of college, was unnoticed during his first season in which he only played 28 games, and was never involved with guns, drugs, or shifty agents. Amaechi claims he never once had the urge to record a sub-par rap album...
"I had no idea," former Cavaliers teammate Terrell Brandon said. "Sure, I saw John around the Cavaliers, but I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. He was tall, yeah, but he didn't look like a basketball player. He didn't act like a basketball player. And just because he hung around with a lot of basketball players and sometimes wore flashy jewelry, that didn't necessarily mean he was one, y'know?"
Tim Hardaway of the Miami Heat flat out said, "I hate gay people," during a radio interview he gave recently. This was provoked when the radio host asked Hardaway for his thoughts on the news that former NBA player John Amaechi has come out as a homosexual. Here's the statement in context:
"First of all I wouldn't want him on my team. Second of all, if he was on my team I would really distance myself from him because I don't think that's right and I don't think he should be in the locker room when we're in the locker room.
"Well, you know, I hate gay people. I let it be known I don't like gay people. I don't like to be around gay people. I'm homophobic. It shouldn't be in the world, in the United States, I don't like it."
Andrew Sullivan likes to criticize the Bush administration of ignoring harsh realities in the Middle East, but Sullivan shows he's no stranger to such a reality-distortion zone. In this post he says he sees Sunni extremism as a bigger threat than Shia extremism and thus:
Our long-term strategy has to be: detach Persia from its fanatical religious leadership; wean ourselves off oil as much as possible; then reach out to Persia and Turkey as the two great Islamic civilizations that can control the unruly expanse between them.
How would Sullivan propose that we detach Persia from Shia radicalism? His memory must be short if he's forgotten how our last experiment in Iran ended: with a popular religious fanatic uprising. In Iraq our error was to think that a vast majority of people would want peace and civility. Why should we repeat this error in Iran?
We must stop denying that religious extremism can lead to widespread popular support for extreme terrorism-supporting regimes. Sullivan likes to quote Burke as a foundational voice on conservatism; and Burke more than anybody would have questioned the romantic notion that the popular will of a nation's people would necessitate civility.
For some inconceivable reason, Charlie Rose interviewed John Mellencamp about his thoughts on the U.S.'s actions in response to 9/11. I have 4 questions about this interview:
1. Why in the world interview John Mellencamp? 2. Why is John Mellencamp so ignorant? 3. Why is John Mellencamp such a bad singer? 4. Can Indiana disavow that John Mellencamp is from here?
Alternative title: what if there was a rape at Duke and the national media yawned?
I don't mean to sound too brazen, but the way that local and national media have reacted to this latest black-on-white rape at Duke smacks of utter racism, when viewed in respect to how they treated the Duke lacrosse case.
Check out this article for the full details... For example, papers have purposely omitted the race of the alleged rapist. Also, the school has taken no disciplinary action of its own until after the case has gone to court, in contrast to how it handled the lacrosse case: suspending the entire team before any trial.
Yes folks, we've entered the dark period: the ugly time after the Super Bowl and before the beginning of the football season in the fall. This has been punctuated lately by the drama that is the recruit signing process.
I'll sum it up for you: USC got one of the top recruits in the nation and so did ND. Florida did great. South Carolina and Alabama did better than expected. Illinois pulled in an amazing class (for Illinois) inviting speculation that Zook is up to no good. In fact, Charlie Weis implied as much in some of his comments to the press. Bad decision on his part. Stay out of the muck Charlie.
Another mini-controversy erupted over some of Weis' comments about the meaning of a oral commitment: namely, that a soft verbal is not a commitment at all. This makes sense. Until a kid's signature is down on paper, it makes little sense to pay much respect to other school's oral commits. Of course the media has completely misinterpreted his comments. Kelly Green has the detailed analysis here.
You've got your recruiting "services" harassing highschool students on a daily basis. You look at a picture of Tom Lemming and tell me if you'd want him talking to your son every day. That guy honestly looks like he should be on the FBI's website. These guys aren't really to blame because they're just servicing a demand in the economy. They're creepy and soulless, but they're really just looking to make a buck.
Then you've got a bunch of idiot prospects. They all say they're looking for a great education, and 99% of them end up at a school like LSU majoring in Sports Medicine. The recruiting services are turning them into primadonnas. Their word is good for nothing. They end up getting laid on their visit to State U and renegging on their commitments. They're just a bunch of stupid kids made worse by all this attention.
You've got your sleazeball coaches, who will say anything to get these kids to commit. They have no right to expect prospects to honor their commitments, because they'll often pull scholarship offers themselves. Recruiting without denigrating other institutions in the exception to the rule.
Then you've got the worst bunch of all... the internet fans. These are the people fueling the industry. They lust over teenage boys and then ruthlessly tear them apart when they commit to another school...
Senator John Edwards has quickly become the presidential candidate I oppose the most.
First, he has strongly positioned himself as one of the most "anti-war" Democrats, criticizing Hillary's initial support of the war in Iraq. He wants to pull out the troops, but he does not have any plan whatsoever as to how to handle the security issues in the area. When asked a few weeks ago on Meet the Press, he completely dodged the question.
Second, he has continued with his "two Americas" rhetoric. I abhor this rhetoric, because it's divisive, unproductive, and ultimately not true. He can point to the remarkable rise in income of CEO's, but they represent such a small percentage of the total population, that they hardly represent some large socioeconomic division. Even worse, he has exposed this rhetoric as empty with his hypocritical choice to build a multi-million dollar 28,000 square foot home.
Third, Edwards has hired anti-Catholic bigots on his campaign blog and he has refused to dismiss them after their hateful writings were brought to his attention. If you're a Democrat in this nation, I guess it's okay to be racist (Joe Biden) and/or anti-Catholic (John Edwards).
- Quote from Life Aquatic: "See if you can get one of these dolphins to swim under the hull and give us a look." / "Nah. Either they can't hear us, or they don't understand."
SAN DIEGO (AP) - Dozens of dolphins and sea lions trained to detect and apprehend waterborne attackers could be sent to patrol a military base in Washington state, the Navy said Monday. In a notice published in this week's Federal Register, the Navy said it needs to bolster security at Naval Base Kitsap-Bangor, on the Puget Sound close to Seattle.
The base is home to submarines, ships and laboratories and is potentially vulnerable to attack by terrorist swimmers and scuba divers, the notice states.
Several options are under consideration, but the preferred plan would be to send as many as 30 California sea lions and Atlantic Bottlenose dolphins from the Navy's Marine Mammal Program, based in San Diego.
David Kuo has a good article up on Belief.net about how abortion is increasingly coming under fire in Europe. The good news: Poland is considering a constitutional amendment to outright ban the practice; thousands marched in Paris last month against abortion; last year Italy restricted the use of RU-486; and Portugal is currently debating a law to end abortion except in cases of rape and the health of the mother.
The not-so-good news: Europe isn't leaning away from abortion out of a newfound Christian morality, but rather because of far more practical reasons. Kuo describes two distinct reasons that Europeans are moving this way. First, their social safety net is facing financial ruin because of Europe's growing age gap (far more old people than young people), which is a result of shrinking population. Second, many Europeans are increasingly feeling threatened by the continued swift influx of Muslim immigrants to the continent.
A fascinating study in the unexpected consequences of social programs...
More good news. Polling shows increased acceptance of homosexuality, especially in younger generations. Now let me temper this good news a bit with a question: is this increased acceptance due to an increase in understanding of homosexuality as an orientation rather than choice, or is it due to an increase in apathy towards morality in general?
Tentative nuclear disarmament agreement reached with North Korea
By Luke
Finally some good news. According to the article, the U.S. and North Korea will be setting up "working groups" to begin in a month's time. We'll see what progress can be made.
From the John Stossel book I'm reading (end of the first chapter):
"The clueless media, in pursuit of the scare du jour, do us a nasty disservice by focusing on the wrong things. Because of the constant parade of frightening stories, huge amounts of money and energy are spent on minuscule risks. In the meantime, millions die of malaria, thousands die from bacteria, teachers are jailed, fathers are kept away from their kids, and most everyone is frightened needlessly. There are real problems in the world. The media ought to focus on them."
Sure... Remember Ted Haggard? He is the former pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and head of the National Association of Evangelicals who was forced to resign after revelations that he paid a male prostitute to have sex with him and supply him with cocaine several times over a three year period.
At the time of the scandal he said he had struggled with his sexuality for a long time. Now, after a 3-week intensive counseling session for sexual addiction, he claims that he knows he's not gay. Obviously he's in denial.
This is quite unfortunate, as it was denial that got Haggard into so much trouble in the first place. This painful lesson is one we've seen numerous times in the past several years, such as when Representative Mark Foley publicly closeted himself and was outed for hitting on teenage pages. Denial is an ugly and destructive force.
Some have criticized the ad that aired as being homophobic:
But most of the controversy has surrounded the companion website Snickers setup for the ad. The website showed reactions of Colts and Bears players who watched the ads (showing grimacing, etc.), and it had 3 alternate endings for the ad. In the first alternate, after the two mechanics accidentally kissed, they drink motor oil to be manly. In the second, a third guy comes out and effeminately brushes his hair out of his eyes and says, "Is there room for three on this Love Boat?" In the final alternative ending, after the two mechanics kiss the beat each other up with a wrench to do something manly.
The criticism is that these ads are homophobic and encourage violence against gays. I think this criticism is overblown. The ads did not show disgust or violence against gays but rather showed two straight guys being disgusted by accidentally kissing each other. This is an important distinction. Imagine a similar commercial where a gay guy is disgusted that he accidentally kisses a girl. That commercial wouldn't be "heterophobic."
Personally, I found the ad that aired to be kindof funny. The ad's humor arose by showing the over-sensitivity of some guys and their silly attempt to restore some sense of masculinity.
Now the ad that has the two guys beat each other up with wrenches does go too far. Sure two straight guys are going to be disgusted at accidentally kissing, but such disgust should not arise to violence. This certainly sends the wrong message.
Nevertheless, Snickers has pulled the website completely, attempting to blunt any further controversy.
"The Iranian nation will celebrate stabilization and establishment of its nuclear rights during the Ten-Day Dawn, (sic)" Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying. The "ten-day dawn" in early February marks the date of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.
"When a nation decides to stand on its own feet to climb up the peaks, God helps it and that nation will embrace victory," Ahmadinejad said.
The article also says that Iran is claiming that it has developed an herbal cure for AIDS. Yeah you read that right. When a country of that size wants to go nuclear and its leadership loses rationality, we have a problem.
It's nice to see the Colts win the Super Bowl. Beyond the obvious benefits to a fan, the Colts' win last night did a couple of good things:
- The Colts are now firmly Indianapolis' team. Before this, Baltimore fans liked to argue that the Colts died when they left Baltimore on those moving trucks. No longer can they say that. The Indianapolis Colts have their own heroes and now a championship.
- Dungy and Manning will no longer have to read and hear the incessant speculation that they're incapable of winning the big one. The passion that both have for the game of football is inspiring, and both set a good example off the field as well as on.
Several weeks ago we learned that Mary Cheney is pregnant with a daughter that she and her partner Heather will raise. This inevitably has been used by both sides, but primarily by gay rights supporters, to push a political objective. Back on December 6, I noted:
...when Mary Cheney is the lesbian in question, and she's pregnant, ordinary gets thrown out the window. Some people who are ignorant about homosexuality will be forced to take a second look. That can only be a good thing.
The point I made there, a point echoed by gay rights supporters, is that Mary Cheney and Heather's decision to start a family is a positive act that will enlighten some people who currently have a negative view of homosexuality and homosexuals.
Sadly, though, some on the left are going much further. They demand that Mary speak out about her child, aggressively and explicitly making a political statement. And since Mary has not done so, they now are attacking her personally. If these people were merely on the fringe of politics, I could ignore them, but they are not.
None other than Andrew Sullivan has decried Mary Cheney for not vocalizing a political statement out of her pregnancy. On his blog today, he linked to a hatefully intolerant column by Dan Savage (who should not be confused with Michael Savage, who is Dan's political opposite) with these words of support for the column:
Dan Savage has a very well-expressed riposte to Mary Cheney's latest attempt to duck moral responsibility for her acquiescence to anti-gay bigotry among Republicans. Check it out.
So what does Dan say in his "very well-expressed riposte"? Well, take this for example:
Sorry, Mary, and fu*k you. You and your whole fu*ked-up family crawled into bed with bigots like Dobson when it suited you. And now you and your whole fu*ked-up family have some explaining to do. So welcome to the political debate, Mary...
And that's just one small part of Savage's ugly screed. But besides the emotional cursing, what is Savage's argument? It is this: Mary Cheney has helped her father's campaign; she's a Republican; Republicans are intolerant towards gays; and thus she has a duty to openly speak out against the party on the issue of gay marriage and adoption.
Her refusal to do so ("This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate...") has incensed Sullivan and Savage to call her conduct a breach of some moral duty. Their argument is ridiculous and it is a perfect example of intolerance from the left.
They are playing identity politics. You're gay, so you have to be a Democrat. You're gay, so that issue must matter to you more than any other. The truth they ignore is that other issues are of significant importance, and a person--gay or straight--should choose their politics on all of those issues, not just one. If Mary Cheney thinks that Republicans' economic and foreign policies are superior to those of Democrats, then she must balance that against the Republican party's stance on gay marriage and adoption.
I certainly do, and I revisit my political stance every day.
Further, if those on the left feel that one's sexuality and the decision to start a family are personal and private matters, then why is that thrown out the window for Mary Cheney? She forfeits her rights because she has not chosen to be a Democrat?
Finally, Sullivan and Savage miss the true significance of Mary Cheney's pregnancy and new family. The value of this actually lies in the fact that she has chosen not to vocally politicize it! Her pregnancy is significant because it is in fact mundane. The value is that people will be able to see a lesbian couple raise a child in a stable and loving environment, and that the result will in no way be inferior to heterosexual families.
If Mary had attended press conferences, written opinions pieces to major newspapers, and gone on television pushing her pregnancy as a political statement, opponents and skeptics of gay adoption would have recoiled. They would likely have viewed her pregnancy as insincere.
So I applaud Mary's approach and I am sorry that she has been the target of intolerance, from the right and left. Some of those on the left claiming to be the ultimate purveyors of tolerance should take a look in the mirror and recognize their own intolerance.
For those of you who pay attention to events happening across the pond, Britain is currently embroiled in a political "cash-for-honors" scandal. Tony Blair, already under pressure to resign his party's leadership post, has now been questioned regarding his possible role in the scandal. Don't be surprised if we have a new British PM by the end of February or March.
And when the new PM takes over, don't be surprised to see British troops begin to exit Iraq.
This was the title of the last chapter in the John Danforth book I just finished. In it, he reprints in full the 12th Chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans, and I will do so here as well: 1Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. 2Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
3For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. 4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to hisfaith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
