Let's See that Again

It's finally happening. I had thought it wouldn't, I had hoped it wouldn't, but here it is. This weekend the crew chief at every Major League Baseball game will have the option to use instant replay to determine a call. Oh sure, it's only to be used for disputed home-runs, fair/foul calls, and fan interference. At least for now... what about hit batsmen? balls caught/trapped in the outfield? calls at the plate? close calls at any base? The possibilities are endless. Seriously. The rationale is that this will be used for "game changing calls." This is a silly assertion at best.

Part of the beauty of baseball is that virtually any play can be be a "game changing" play. The unique combination of a lengthy game, precise rules, potential human error, and highly skilled players mean that anything can happen over the course of nine innings. On one hand, games are won on the smallest of margins. Decided by one mistake, one great catch, one clutch hit, one wild pitch, etc. On the other hand, no obstacle or error is insurmountable. Virtually no lead is enough, no pitcher too good to hit, no fielder too good for an error. Baseball is a game where there is always hope. There is not such a fine distinction between a "game changing play" and a "non-game changing play" until after the game is over.

Given that games are often decided by a single homerun, rallies are started with a single hit, and post-season glory can be denied by fan interference (eh Cub fans? OK, in the long history of the Chicago Cubs that bit of blame shifting has to take the cake for silliness), bad calls do occasionally decide games as well. We all wish this weren't the case, and I do applaud the umpires for signing on to this in the interest of a fair game. However, even MLB admits that the instances where it has allowed instant replay are quite rare. (Frankly, those "rare" instances would be cut in half if Minute-Maid Park in Houston hadn't been designed by a kindergarten class at recess) They cast this as a good thing, and it is, but it's also an argument against the use of the replay. If it's so rare, why should we bother with the cost and bother of instant replay at all? From the previously linked-to article:

"It's such an infrequent occurrence," said A's manager Bob Geren, whose club defeated the Twins, 3-2, in a homerless game at McAfee Coliseum. "The umpires are so good and you have four of them out there. Very rarely will this really be used, in my opinion."

My point exactly, then why have it? There are plenty of complaints that the game is too slow already, why add another hindrance? Baseball is a game played by humans (I guess we can talk about steroids later...) and officiated by humans. I've always liked the way disputed calls are generally handled. The umpires get together and talk about it like adults, the crew chief gives the call and the game goes on. Do we really want to turn MLB into the NFL? Where no play is complete until it has been minutely examined from every angle? Where officials, coaches, announcers, and players continually wrangle over definitions of "catch," "in bounds," etc. I for one don't want to see that happen to my beloved baseball.

Oh, I know, some of that is just sentimentality on my part, but seriously, it's just not needed. If Major League Baseball wants to address issues that affect games (and even careers) there are plenty of other issues. Inconsistent strike zones for one. Random drug testing for another.

I don't expect baseball to never change with the times, I'm not naive about the myriad of changes over the years. I do think this change, as it is now, addresses a problem that doesn't really exist in a significant way. The proposed fix to this this non-existent problem also opens the door for the further micro-management of a game that has been successfully played for well over a century without cameras making the calls. Let the players play, let the umpires officiate, lets not turn the game into a spectacle.

~Gabriel

"I'm great! Really! Seriously... come on guys..."

"Blagojevich on third term: I'm a great governor"

So read the Pantagraph headline this morning. I almost laughed out loud right here at my desk. Makes you wonder who he's trying to convince. I had to share it, just too funny. The rest of the article reads (or you can read it on the Pantagraph here):

By Associated Press

DENVER -- Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich isn't saying whether he'll run for a third term, but he calls himself "a great governor" who loves his job.

Blagojevich says: "There's more to do, and I have no reason to think I don't want to keep doing this job."

The Democratic governor has lousy poll ratings and terrible relationships with many state officials. Several Democrats are getting ready for possible gubernatorial campaigns.

Still, Blagojevich says he has a strong track record that includes expanding health care for children and working-class families.

"Lousy poll ratings and terrible relationships" indeed. This is the guy that commutes from Chicago via tax-payer funded airplane while the tax-payer funded governor's mansion sits empty in Springfield. Ask the folks up the road in Pontiac how they feel about him trying to shut down the prison while simultaneously paying lots of lawyers lots of (taxpayer?) money to keep himself out of it. I could go on and on. Nice to have a little chuckle at 5:45 in the morning.

~Gabriel

(Photo by AP)

Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

"Well I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity...uh....you know is...uh. ...above my pay grade."

What the h***?? That's the best Barack Obama can do? The question, in case you haven't heard, was "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?" Not citizenship rights, or legal rights, or anything less than... "human" rights. When does life begin? When is a baby, a baby? Obama had no answer.

According to a great post on this subject over at SpunkyHomeSchool, there are only three answers to this question:

There are only three possible answers to this question, and each one poses a problem for Obama.
a) Conception
b) Some time after conception but before birth
c) After birth

Obama could not answer any of these, because he is not convinced of the truth of any of them. He believes the answer is a bit more ambiguous, nuanced, and apparently, above his pay grade. He can't answer "a" because he is pro-"choice." He can't answer "b" because he is pro-partial birth abortion. He can't answer "c" because he has demonstrated that he does not believe ALL live births produce babies with human rights. His multiple votes and statements against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and similar attest to this fact. I have to nod in whole-hearted agreement with Rich Lowry at NRO when he says:

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is “above his pay grade.” Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he’d better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

Excellent point. Obama has made very clear by both his words and his actions (a rarity with this candidate) that he does indeed support anything that makes abortions easier to obtain. It would seem to reasonable person, that if you were unsure of the moment life begins, you wouldn't be so eager to be possibly throwing that life in the trash can. As I already stated, he opposed legislation to protect the rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) of babies born alive after being subjected to forced-labor abortions. Stated more forcefully, he encouraged the practice of leaving them to die from neglect. He has also promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act "first thing" in his administration. This would, among other things, leave all abortion issues to the federal government, rather than the states. (For an excellent summary of these issues see Ed Lasky's piece at American Thinker.)

So why didn't Obama just answer Warren's question with a simple "at birth, Rick."? That would be the accepted position of all but the most radical "pro-choice" crowd. But he IS part of the most radical end of the "pro-choice" crowd. However, I wonder if he is actually being honest when he refuses to answer the question. When I see Obama's statements on abortion, morality, Christianity and infanticide (what else can you call tossing living babies in the trash and leaving them to die?) I (like most thinking people) see statements that are generally contradictory in nature. Take some of these quotes from Obama:

I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things.
It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody
to think about.
2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.
(Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008)

Quote of note here, "How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ." People of principle do not "determine what's right at that moment," we have convictions that define right and wrong well before any such moment might arise. And no, we cannot differ. What compromise is there between life and death?
One more that's a bit more familiar:

"I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

He's talking about abortion here. He's going to teach them "first of all" about "values" and "morals." One would presume, in this context, that he means that he's going to teach them not to sleep around. But if they do? Well they certainly shouldn't be "punished" with a baby. Many things could be said here, for instance, a baby isn't "punishment, its a natural consequence of sex. The same way that exhaustion is a result of lack of sleep. But there are other issues here.
I'm a little confused as to where he gets his sense of morality. What is it based on? What objective standard does he measure his actions against? On what does he base his labeling of getting pregnant as a "mistake?" Under what moral code is it a "mistake" to become pregnant, but acceptable to abandon that same living, breathing baby? It certainly isn't part of the Christian worldview. For a great, great article on this read this post by Kyle-Anne Shiver.

So why do I think he was being honest? (well, it is a possibility anyway) The more cynical among us will no doubt say that he was dodging. He is beholden to the "choice" crowd and could not risk offending them while at the same time, he didn't want to offend his audience either. He was simply being politic. I don't doubt this may be true. However, if he was simply covering for his true convictions, then his true self is cold, calculating, without consience, without soul. Knowingly and intentionally so.

I tend to believe that he defines his words a bit differently. He lives in a postmodern world. His "convictions" are of a postmodern variety. He is hesitant to define any stance, because he doesn't believe that there is an absolute, objective standard to measure it against. He knows he might have to change that stance, and doesn't understand why that would be a problem for some. His "morals" and "values" are nebulous things. They mean different things in different circumstances. He believes everyone is this way and is confused and irritated when people question him and call him on inconsistencies.
I'm not sure that he is cold-bloodedly diabolical so much as consistent. His worldview says that it is up to each individual to decide what is "right" for themselves in a given situation. If someone chooses to get married, have a child, and raise it with love and care... well that is certainly commendable and a good moral choice, for them. If someone else has sex, becomes pregnant, and decides she doesn't want the baby... well then, a good moral society will support her choice in any way possible. Including paying for the child to be abandoned in a utility closet with the other "medical waste" with taxpayer dollars. Whether that child is alive or dead is irrelevant, we have supported the mother's "moral choice."

Most postmoderns choose to live inconsistently in order to function in society. If only Barack Obama were one of them.

~ Gabriel

Update 8/22/08: Another excellent article on Obama's rational for opposing the "Born Alive" act while in the IL Senate by Andrew Mcarthy over at NRO.

Boyhood Treasure

There comes a time in every rightly constructed boy's life that he has a raging desire to go somewhere and dig for hidden treasure.
Mark Twain

Sunday my little boy had his 2nd birthday. Happy birthday Little One.

"Open This Gate"

Let me take the occasion of Barack Obama's speech in Berlin today to remember the words of another American to give a speech in that city. An actual American President, a man, a leader with clear moral conviction and courage.

On June 12, 1987 Ronald Reagan stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and gave a speech that would, in part, define the legacy of his presidency and frame his memory in the minds of many Americans. You can read and listen to the entire speech here. Worth the time. I'll quote just a couple highlights:

...In the 1950s -- In the 1950s Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you."

But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind -- too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor...

...There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate.

Mr. Gorbachev -- Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

"Freedom is the victor." "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Fantastic stuff, well delivered lines from a man that believed them. (As an aside, there is one other politician in recent memory that still talks this way, George W. Bush. Seriously. He believes it too)
One more section, then you'll have to listen to the rest yourself. I found this especially interesting with our current situation as we struggle with how to handle the threat of terrorism and a nuclear Middle Eastern power:

While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative -- research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled; Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe.
(emphasis mine)

Excellent, just excellent. We "do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other." If only more politicians grasped this basic concept and were willing to say it out loud. It was true then, it's true now. Too many people feel that if only we dropped our guns (figuratively and literally) then suddenly our enemies would love and adore us. We have guns because we have enemies, not the other way around.

Barack Obama may be able make the press go weak in the knees with his careful speeches and PC platitudes. He may be able to strut and preen around Europe playing at being president. But it is only possible because of great leaders like Reagan who went before.

~ Gabriel

(photo: Reineke © BPA)