Why Am I Bothering?

With the New York Knicks back in the playoffs--in more than just a token appearance--for the first time in ages, and with most of the East Coast games occurring--or at least starting--before I get home from work, I've taken to recording these contests.  Recording provides me with any number of advantages, including the ability to watch the game at my convenience and to fast forward through commercials.  But when I watch these recording after the games have already ended, I find myself wrestling with a philosophical quandary: Why, exactly, am I even bothering?  I mean, never, mind zipping through commercials, I could just fast forward to the end of the game--or, better yet, look up the result online.  There's something utterly pointless in rooting for a team to win a game that is already in the books at the moment of my rooting.  Of course, many of my friends would point out that rooting for a sports team is, in general, pointless.  But why subject myself to pointlessness squared?

We Don't Need No Regulation

According to an article in today's Times, even in the wake of a massive explosion in West, Texas, that killed at least 14 people, injured hundreds more, and caused millions of dollars in damage, the residents of the Lone Star State still declare a general aversion to government regulation.  The article adopted a somewhat condescending tone: "Serves those hillbillies right!"  But in fairness, the argument that better regulation would have prevented the explosion is specious at best.  No one knows what would have happened, and even the best governmental oversight still allows accidents to happen.  And if Texans prefer their regulations like they prefer their academic achievement (i.e., non-existent), I suppose that's their choice.

But:

"Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs."

You catch that last part: Three-HUNDRED times the property damage costs?  Who do you suppose pays for that?  Even if the federal government itself doesn't use taxpayer dollars to cover any of those costs (which seems unlikely to me), then the general public still ends up shelling out for these non-regulated Texan properties in the form of higher insurance rates.  Somehow seems to contradict the image of rugged self-reliance that Texans hold so dear.

Benghazi, By Golly

Perhaps I'm missing something--it's been known to happen--but I don't understand all this ongoing congressional drama over Benghazi.  Yes, what happened was horrible, tragic: Four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed last September 11 when terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.  In the heat of the moment, when events were still unfolding, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning news shows and said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video.  Subsequently, the official story changed, and the incident was classified as a planned terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda offshoot.  This has since become the accepted version of events.

Now, Congress can--and should--investigate any intelligence failures that led up to the attack.  They should demand to know whether the attacks could have been prevented, as well as whether the responses to the attacks were as effective as they could have been.  The US should do everything possible to ensure the safety of its citizens, particularly its diplomatic corps and particularly in hostile territory.  But such reasonable concerns don't seem to be the focus of the seemingly endless congressional investigations that have been going on for the last eight months.  Rather, the Congressmen--well, let's call a spade an idiot, the Republican Congressmen--seem fixated on the fact that the Obama administration initially declared the assault a spontaneous demonstration of popular unrest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack.  Why is this so scandalous?

Let's take the worst-case political scenario for the Obama administration: Let's say President Obama and his inner circle knew immediately that the attack was the work of an Al Qaeda splinter group, but they didn't want to admit this in the heat of an election campaign, as it would undermine President Obama's major accomplishment in the war on terror, namely, the elimination of Osama bin Laden.  So Obama ordered his staff to put out the word out that the source of the attack was unknown, but that, in the initial moments, they thought it was just a street protest that got out of hand.  Let's say that these Congressional investigations somehow lead to the revelation of this fact.  Well. . . so?

I mean, yes, the revelation of such naked politicking in the aftermath of such senseless violence would be offensive to say the least.  It would certainly create (or, for some, reinforce) the image of Barack Obama as nothing more than a venal politician, willing to go to great lengths to gain political advantage.  But would it really rise to the level--as some GOP inquisitors have claimed--of Watergate-plus?  Hardly.  Because when all is said and done, all that these hearings are investigating is what happened in the wake of an attack--not whether the President or his subordinates allowed an attack to happen.  I mean, it's not as if there exists some memo stating in plain English something to the effect of "Al Qaeda determined to attack in Benghazi."

Just sayin'.

My brain feels clogged, like someone poured cement into the folds, blocking anything resembling ideas.  Very frustrating.

Depression

My colleagues and I have been interviewing candidates for part-time (adjunct professor) positions, and almost all of the applicants have been disturbingly young!  I have no idea when this happened.  When I started out, almost everybody was my age or even older.  Something highly suspicious is going on in the world of higher education, is all I can say.

Hail Mary or Hail Barack?

Though it has apparently--and to my mind inexplicably--been removed, for a brief while this morning, a petition appeared on the White House's "We the People" site, imploring President Obama to order the Jacksonville Jaguars to sign quarterback Tim Tebow, recently released by the New York Jets.  As a college player, Tebow starred for the University of Florida, and he remains an idolized figure in the area, despite what can charitably be referred to as a mediocre professional career.  A couple of thoughts:

Tim Tebow's tremendous popularity is due not only--or even primarily--to his gridiron success, which peaked around 2006 anyway.  Rather, he is beloved of a certain highly vocal subset of the American populace, to wit, evangelical Christians.  Indeed, during the heyday of Tebowmania, fans across the nation made a fad of "Tebowing"--a prayerful attitude involving kneeling and  bowing one's head in one's fist.  I'd be, therefore, that the organizers of the petition, as well as many of the signatories, are members of the Christian Right--the same people, in other words, who often accuse President Obama of being a godless socialist, to say nothing of a despot in sheep's clothing who is only biding his time until he can implement his plans for world domination.  I'm glad to see, therefore, that these folks can set aside their fears of President Obama seizing control of private industry when it comes to asking him to interfere with this particular private business decision.  (Of course, the owner of the Jaguars is one Shad Khan, so he probably doesn't much appreciate good Christian values either.)

Also, if Tim Tebow is in such good graces with the Almighty, why does he need President Obama to get involved?  Couldn't God Himself just get Khan to bring Tebow to Jacksonville?  Is Obama more powerful than God?  Be careful, Tebow fans: We non-believers are likely to take the wrong message from your passionate appeals to worldly authority. 

Cool for Scandal

So unless you've been living under a rock--or, I don't know, stuck in some sort of a closet--you know that, earlier this week, Jason Collins, late of the Washington Wizards, became the first athlete in a major American team sport to come out as gay while still active--well, while still active as a player; I imagine plenty of the other athletes who have come out are still actively gay.  Collins certainly deserves credit for breaking what may be the last major civil-rights barrier in professional sports (although I can't help but notice a continued dearth of Jewish long-jumpers),  But cynics point out that Collins is, at best, a marginal player in the twilight of his career.  As a free agent, Collins is not guaranteed ever to play again unless he suits the needs of an NBA general manager.  If anything, his announcement may have helped his chances of being signed by a new team. You know  Commissioner David Stern would dearly love to see Collins on the hardcourt (snicker) next season, lest the NBA--deservedly or not--face accusations of homophobia.

How times have changed.  An NBA player reveals that he is gay and not only does he not jeopardize his career, he may well have prolonged it.  In today's Times, even while columnist Frank Bruni laments the double-standard that condemns women as sluts even while celebrating men for sexual conquests, a front-page article discusses how numerous scandal-plagued men, including libidinous subjects Eliot Spitzer and David Petraeus, have found that the road to redemption leads through the groves of academe.  It seems non-normative sexual behavior may just be the stepping stone to greater triumphs.

All of which is to say that I, the Solipsist, would hereby like to declare myself a clam fetishist.  And if you stop reading my blog--indeed, if you don't each immediately coerce at least five more people to read it--you are intolerant bastards and should be ashamed of yourselves.  I thank you for your continued support.