The latest ugly manifestation of political correctness is hitting historians big time. Apparently, the use of "B.C." and "A.D." to indicate when something occurred is becoming taboo. Why? "B.C." stands for "before Christ" and "A.D." stands for "Anno Domini" ("in the year of the Lord"). Secularists and non-Christians find this less than polite, apparently. The use of "B.C.E." and "C.E." (for "Before Common Era" and "Common Era" respectively) is increasing in both written and televised parlance about all things historical.
What a load of crap!
Hey, I am all for treating people of different beliefs with as much respect as possible. However, "B.C." and "A.D." comprise a long-standing convention which is no longer of overtly religious significance. If you disagree, consider this: changing what one calls the time periods without changing the dates merely begs the question. What the heck happened that was so momentous that we made it a true dividing line in history in the first place?
Like Jesus or not, believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the only way to Eternal Salvation or not [and anyone who knows me knows I have my doubts.--Ed.], use "B.C." and "A.D." or not, or use "B.C.E." and "C.E." or not, you are still using the conventionally accepted date of Jesus' s birth as your dividing line.
Changing the names without changing the reason for them makes NO sense. Especially when "B.C.E." and "C.E." are more clunky on the tongue than "B.C." and "A.D." The suggestion of some historians, to use "B.C./B.C.E." and "A.D./C.E." is even worse, for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, and most telling for me, is this question: when will it stop? Will we have to recalculate the dates to compensate for the fact that historical evidence now suggests that Jesus was born in either 4 or 7 B.C., depending on whom you believe? How do you decide which of those dates to use as your dividing line to begin with?
And will we have to change the names of the days of the week after that? After all, unless you are a Viking (and I do not mean a Minnesotan or a Minnesota NFL team's player or fan), doesn't honoring gods like Wotan and Thor and Freia distress you?
C'mon already, people! Get your brains in gear, take a deep breath or two, and let it go. The system we have in place now is fine. You can keep your own calendar for your personal use--which I think the Chinese and the Jews already do, do they not? Isn't it presently something like the year 5700+ on either of their calendars?
But we need to have a standard frame of reference when dealing with one another, and "B.C." and "A.D." work well--and are used all over the globe. They are cultural artifacts. They tell us no more than what people in former times took as Truth. Doesn't mean we have to share those beliefs now--but we cannot change the fact that they believed it. The names of the days of the week we use illustrate exactly the same concept.
Remember: if your true concern is not offending someone else's religious sensibilities, you can't just change the names. You have to change the reason(s) behind choosing those names, too. We live quite well with the names of the days of the week as we have them now, and until recently, we have also so lived with "B.C." and "A.D." If it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it.
Besides, it would work a real hardship on Johnny Hart to stop using "B.C." now.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
La Tour de Farce Continues
Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and 7-time winner of the Tour de France, is being dogged yet again by allegations that he admitted to doping in 1986, three years before his first Tour win in 1999.
He, of course, emphatically denies the allegations.
French newspaper Le Monde says that Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified under oath that they heard Armstrong admit to doping in response to his doctors' questions while he was in the hospital in 1986, after undergoing brain surgery to remove tumors that had spread there from his testicular cancer.
I am of two minds about this. On one hand, NO competent doctor would ever ask such a question in anything other than a confidential setting. There is nothing to suggest that Armstrong's doctors were not competent. There is nothing in his medical records confirming that the doctors ever elicited such information from him, or that he volunteered such information. If Armstrong ever had made such statements, they would have been included in his medical records because such information would be critical to the course and nature of his treatment and recovery.
Besides, the man had just undergone brain surgery. I have a suspicion that his speech may not have been totally clear or coherent given what he'd just undergone. Who knows what it may have sounded like he said?
On the other hand, testicular cancer is a known risk of using steroids and other illegal doping agents. It is also a relatively rare cancer--and, I suspect, its presence played a role in outing Jason Giambi's past steroid use in major league baseball (but that's a story for another day).
In addition, the testimony from the Andreus came as part of the defense against a suit Armstrong brought against a company which was refusing to pay Armstrong a multimillion dollar bonus for his 2004 Tour win. The company lost the suit, and had to pay Armstrong the bonus plus an additional two million dollar penalty. The arbitration panel did not believe the Andreus' testimony in light of all the other evidence to the contrary.
So why would the Andreus make such questionable allegations? Armstrong says that they all at one time were good friends, but that Betsy now hated him and Frankie felt he had to support his wife. [Who knows? Maybe the company trying not to pay Armstrong promised them a lesser, but still substantial amount of money for their testimony. This is PURE speculation on my part, but someone ought to look into it.--Ed.]
I know the French press has it in for Armstrong. I know that people are capable of lying about things to an absurd degree for whatever perceived personal justifications they may have. I know that normally, one can deduce that the person who is lying is the one who has more to lose if the truth be revealed. But I cannot get past the fact that competent doctors would never ask a patient for such information in a non-confidential setting. So for now, I remain in Armstrong's corner in the face of this latest round of vitriol.
He, of course, emphatically denies the allegations.
French newspaper Le Monde says that Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy testified under oath that they heard Armstrong admit to doping in response to his doctors' questions while he was in the hospital in 1986, after undergoing brain surgery to remove tumors that had spread there from his testicular cancer.
I am of two minds about this. On one hand, NO competent doctor would ever ask such a question in anything other than a confidential setting. There is nothing to suggest that Armstrong's doctors were not competent. There is nothing in his medical records confirming that the doctors ever elicited such information from him, or that he volunteered such information. If Armstrong ever had made such statements, they would have been included in his medical records because such information would be critical to the course and nature of his treatment and recovery.
Besides, the man had just undergone brain surgery. I have a suspicion that his speech may not have been totally clear or coherent given what he'd just undergone. Who knows what it may have sounded like he said?
On the other hand, testicular cancer is a known risk of using steroids and other illegal doping agents. It is also a relatively rare cancer--and, I suspect, its presence played a role in outing Jason Giambi's past steroid use in major league baseball (but that's a story for another day).
In addition, the testimony from the Andreus came as part of the defense against a suit Armstrong brought against a company which was refusing to pay Armstrong a multimillion dollar bonus for his 2004 Tour win. The company lost the suit, and had to pay Armstrong the bonus plus an additional two million dollar penalty. The arbitration panel did not believe the Andreus' testimony in light of all the other evidence to the contrary.
So why would the Andreus make such questionable allegations? Armstrong says that they all at one time were good friends, but that Betsy now hated him and Frankie felt he had to support his wife. [Who knows? Maybe the company trying not to pay Armstrong promised them a lesser, but still substantial amount of money for their testimony. This is PURE speculation on my part, but someone ought to look into it.--Ed.]
I know the French press has it in for Armstrong. I know that people are capable of lying about things to an absurd degree for whatever perceived personal justifications they may have. I know that normally, one can deduce that the person who is lying is the one who has more to lose if the truth be revealed. But I cannot get past the fact that competent doctors would never ask a patient for such information in a non-confidential setting. So for now, I remain in Armstrong's corner in the face of this latest round of vitriol.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Questions For Which I'd Really Like Some Sensible Answers
The Supremes are at it again. In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court just said that the police do not have to "knock and announce" before implementing a search warrant. If the cops went right on in, any evidence they found pursuant to the warrant would not be excluded just because they didn't first let the occupants know they were coming. Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and the newest justice, Samuel Alito, apparently was the swing vote. The case had been argued twice, once before Sandra Day O'Connor retired, and once after. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the dissent. [So we also get a clearer picture of how the balance of power has moved to the right on the Court.--Ed.]
My question pertains to Scalia's logic. He asserted at one point in the majority opinion that since the police had a warrant, it simply didn't matter whether they "knocked and announced." If it makes no difference, why not just do it? The only answer I can come up with is that this opinion is an early volley in the extreme right wing attack to end the exclusionary rule and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. That is an answer I do not like and of which I am deeply afraid. I have to agree with Justice Kennedy in his dissent, who asserted that the exclusionary rule is settled law. Changing it now is blatant judicial activism.
Nevertheless, I'll bet the right-wingers who froth at the mouth at activist judges won't bat an eye at Scalia's opinion in this case. After all, the results agree with their predilections. So that's my next question: why can't people just be honest about their prejudices instead of hiding behind so-called "higher principles"?
Or do people really not see the contradictions in their claimed beliefs vs. their actual behavior? Are we really collectively so imprecise and uncaring? Or so dumb?
* * * * * * * * * *
This brings another subject to mind. I heard a Spanish radio announcer on NPR yesterday railing against the idea to make English the official language of the United States. His argument seemed to be that since Spanish was here already anyway, we cannot stop it, so we shouldn't even try. Besides, he claimed, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking Spanish at home, in their cars, at restaurants and grocery stores, and the like.
But that's NOT what the "English as official language" notion is about. It pertains strictly to official business, like dealings with the government at every level. An official language means only that the government's business is done in English. People in their personal lives are free to speak as they wish. What is wrong with that?
One of my uncles says it's unfair, because it takes a full three generations for immigrants to assimilate. But I'm not talking about assimilation. I'm talking about simple, basic transactions. When I lived in Germany, I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to force the Germans to deal with me in English. My German, bad as it was, would have to do. After all, I was a guest in their country. If they spoke English to me because their English was better than my German, so be it. But it's always the host's choice, not the guest's.
Don't get me wrong. I continued to use English in my personal life--it is, after all, my native tongue. Besides, I do have some heartburn about the fact that my great grandparents were so eager to assimilate that they lost their native Irish and didn't pass it along to their children and their children's children and their children's children's children. I'm as proud of my ethnic heritage as anyone. But I am an American first.
Too many people in this entire debate seem to forget that for a nation to survive, it needs a fundamental unified identity. Traditionally, language and ethnicity did the trick. But we are in the "melting pot" (personally, I prefer the idea of a "salad bowl," because the contents are diverse and clearly identified individually, but exist in harmony with the other ingredients). Language is what's left. That, and the dedication to the American ideal as expressed through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being an American is being in a certain state of mind . . . and to an awful lot of us, forcing official multilingualism on us takes away that state of mind. It makes us no longer America.
Please do not misinterpret me. I am all for multilingualism--the better we can understand each other, the less likely we are to have a world-demolishing war. But we also need to preserve the core of what America is if we are to preserve America. There are no easy answers. I do know that insisting we must yield American English is not the best way to foster understanding or to come to an answer that satisfies everyone. Or that satisfies no one, entirely. That's the genius of compromise, and that, too, is part of the essence of being American. Of course, a lot of Americans don't get that, either, so I guess I should not be surprised.
* * * * * * * * * *
I see that Tom Delay is now officially gone. Thank goodness! Not only is he corrupt. He also is one of the Americans who doesn't "get it." In his farewell to Congress, he was as defiant as ever; he said if he had it to do all over again, he'd be even less willing to compromise than he was before. For him, "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. Where the heck was he during civics classes? Not paying attention, obviously.
This whole "my way or the highway" approach to government is why we are in a lot of the mess we are in at the moment, with gridlock, deadlock, and partisan acrimony. So where are true statesmen when we need them, anyway?
My question pertains to Scalia's logic. He asserted at one point in the majority opinion that since the police had a warrant, it simply didn't matter whether they "knocked and announced." If it makes no difference, why not just do it? The only answer I can come up with is that this opinion is an early volley in the extreme right wing attack to end the exclusionary rule and eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. That is an answer I do not like and of which I am deeply afraid. I have to agree with Justice Kennedy in his dissent, who asserted that the exclusionary rule is settled law. Changing it now is blatant judicial activism.
Nevertheless, I'll bet the right-wingers who froth at the mouth at activist judges won't bat an eye at Scalia's opinion in this case. After all, the results agree with their predilections. So that's my next question: why can't people just be honest about their prejudices instead of hiding behind so-called "higher principles"?
Or do people really not see the contradictions in their claimed beliefs vs. their actual behavior? Are we really collectively so imprecise and uncaring? Or so dumb?
* * * * * * * * * *
This brings another subject to mind. I heard a Spanish radio announcer on NPR yesterday railing against the idea to make English the official language of the United States. His argument seemed to be that since Spanish was here already anyway, we cannot stop it, so we shouldn't even try. Besides, he claimed, no one is going to stop anyone from speaking Spanish at home, in their cars, at restaurants and grocery stores, and the like.
But that's NOT what the "English as official language" notion is about. It pertains strictly to official business, like dealings with the government at every level. An official language means only that the government's business is done in English. People in their personal lives are free to speak as they wish. What is wrong with that?
One of my uncles says it's unfair, because it takes a full three generations for immigrants to assimilate. But I'm not talking about assimilation. I'm talking about simple, basic transactions. When I lived in Germany, I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to force the Germans to deal with me in English. My German, bad as it was, would have to do. After all, I was a guest in their country. If they spoke English to me because their English was better than my German, so be it. But it's always the host's choice, not the guest's.
Don't get me wrong. I continued to use English in my personal life--it is, after all, my native tongue. Besides, I do have some heartburn about the fact that my great grandparents were so eager to assimilate that they lost their native Irish and didn't pass it along to their children and their children's children and their children's children's children. I'm as proud of my ethnic heritage as anyone. But I am an American first.
Too many people in this entire debate seem to forget that for a nation to survive, it needs a fundamental unified identity. Traditionally, language and ethnicity did the trick. But we are in the "melting pot" (personally, I prefer the idea of a "salad bowl," because the contents are diverse and clearly identified individually, but exist in harmony with the other ingredients). Language is what's left. That, and the dedication to the American ideal as expressed through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Being an American is being in a certain state of mind . . . and to an awful lot of us, forcing official multilingualism on us takes away that state of mind. It makes us no longer America.
Please do not misinterpret me. I am all for multilingualism--the better we can understand each other, the less likely we are to have a world-demolishing war. But we also need to preserve the core of what America is if we are to preserve America. There are no easy answers. I do know that insisting we must yield American English is not the best way to foster understanding or to come to an answer that satisfies everyone. Or that satisfies no one, entirely. That's the genius of compromise, and that, too, is part of the essence of being American. Of course, a lot of Americans don't get that, either, so I guess I should not be surprised.
* * * * * * * * * *
I see that Tom Delay is now officially gone. Thank goodness! Not only is he corrupt. He also is one of the Americans who doesn't "get it." In his farewell to Congress, he was as defiant as ever; he said if he had it to do all over again, he'd be even less willing to compromise than he was before. For him, "compromise" seems to be a dirty word. Where the heck was he during civics classes? Not paying attention, obviously.
This whole "my way or the highway" approach to government is why we are in a lot of the mess we are in at the moment, with gridlock, deadlock, and partisan acrimony. So where are true statesmen when we need them, anyway?
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Just Because You're A Super-Bowl-Winning QB Doesn't Mean You Have A Brain
I am relieved to learn that Ben Roethlisberger, the youngest quarterback to take his team (the Pittsburgh Steelers) to a Super Bowl victory, has not in fact injured his knees in the motorcycle accident in which he was involved yesterday. Early news reports said it wasn't just his face that got smashed when a car turned into the lane in which he was riding his Suzuki--and if those news reports had been correct, Roethlisberger's career may well have been over. As it is, his injuries were nothing to pooh-pooh. He broke his jaw, had several facial fractures, and lost some teeth.
All this because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Pennsylvania has no mandatory helmet law. He doesn't "feel free" when riding with a helmet on, so he won't wear one when he doesn't have to do so. And no one who is not his boss will ever tell him what to do. [Ah, excess testosterone! It can be wonderful--on the football field, ferinstance--and it can be bad news indeed--nearly everywhere else.--Ed.] Ben actually said these things on camera in an ESPN interview last year, after Kellen Winslow crashed his motorcycle and suffered probable career-ending injuries.
Ben, Ben, Ben! At the age of 24, you've achieved fame and fortune few ever experience . . . and you've mastered a complicated play book and obviously are good at making snap (pun intended) decisions on the football field . . . but you sure haven't applied your brains to your off-the-field behavior.
There are two vital things you've forgotten to consider in your need to "feel free," to wit: (1) concrete has a 100% record. It always wins. (2) You cannot control what the other people on the road are doing. You can say you are a safe and cautious rider and that you don't take chances, but you share the road with vehicles which are much heavier than your bike, and which may well be driven by drunk, drugged-out, or otherwise distracted drivers--who might not even see you before they plow their SUVs [Jay Leno once called them SubUrban assault Vehicles. He's not just funny--he's smart.--Ed] into you and your unprotected head and body.
Let's all hope that Ben learns something from what happened to him. Let's all hope that Ben doesn't take the lucky break (pun intended) that he suffered relatively minor injuries, considering, as a vindication of his need to "feel free" and ride without a helmet. Let's all hope that we never again hear the name Roethlisberger connected to news reports from outside a hospital of a horrible accident he suffered on his motorcycle.
In fine, let's all hope that Ben literally got some sense knocked into him.
All this because he wasn't wearing a helmet. Pennsylvania has no mandatory helmet law. He doesn't "feel free" when riding with a helmet on, so he won't wear one when he doesn't have to do so. And no one who is not his boss will ever tell him what to do. [Ah, excess testosterone! It can be wonderful--on the football field, ferinstance--and it can be bad news indeed--nearly everywhere else.--Ed.] Ben actually said these things on camera in an ESPN interview last year, after Kellen Winslow crashed his motorcycle and suffered probable career-ending injuries.
Ben, Ben, Ben! At the age of 24, you've achieved fame and fortune few ever experience . . . and you've mastered a complicated play book and obviously are good at making snap (pun intended) decisions on the football field . . . but you sure haven't applied your brains to your off-the-field behavior.
There are two vital things you've forgotten to consider in your need to "feel free," to wit: (1) concrete has a 100% record. It always wins. (2) You cannot control what the other people on the road are doing. You can say you are a safe and cautious rider and that you don't take chances, but you share the road with vehicles which are much heavier than your bike, and which may well be driven by drunk, drugged-out, or otherwise distracted drivers--who might not even see you before they plow their SUVs [Jay Leno once called them SubUrban assault Vehicles. He's not just funny--he's smart.--Ed] into you and your unprotected head and body.
Let's all hope that Ben learns something from what happened to him. Let's all hope that Ben doesn't take the lucky break (pun intended) that he suffered relatively minor injuries, considering, as a vindication of his need to "feel free" and ride without a helmet. Let's all hope that we never again hear the name Roethlisberger connected to news reports from outside a hospital of a horrible accident he suffered on his motorcycle.
In fine, let's all hope that Ben literally got some sense knocked into him.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Ain't Vindication Grand?
I just heard on NPR's Marketplace Morning Report that General Nutrition Centers (GNC) will stop carrying televangelist Pat Robertson's protein shake . . . because the powers that be at GNC have determined that Robertson is lying about being able to leg press 2,000 pounds.
As anyone who is reading this thing knows, I surmised last week that he was making that absurd claim in order to sell his concoction. And that's before I knew that GNC was the retailer doing the merchandising!
Pardon me while I "pat" myself on the back. (Actually, I am gloating, but I try not to be too obvious!)
As anyone who is reading this thing knows, I surmised last week that he was making that absurd claim in order to sell his concoction. And that's before I knew that GNC was the retailer doing the merchandising!
Pardon me while I "pat" myself on the back. (Actually, I am gloating, but I try not to be too obvious!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)