Sports, part three

Flaw #3: Why the hell do these people get paid so much? Derek Jeter, for example, was paid a sum of $23,428,571 by the New York Yankees in 2007. How come Jeter gets so much more money just for fielding ground balls than researchers and scientists get for curing diseases or exploring other planets?

This leads to a broader question: Why are celebrities in general so much richer than the people who teach us to read and write? The people who make medicines? We can easily imagine a world without the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans – but a world without teachers? Doctors? Those that keep society moving forward and running smoothly?

The explaination for this is presumably that people like celebrities, and will pay money to see them; as a result, celebs are rich. Maybe rich celebs isn’t really the problem. But shouldn’t the people who contribute more to society than a few home runs be equally more recognized?

I’m not saying I have any idea how to bring that about, but it seems to me that it needs to be brung.

Sports, part two

Flaw #2: Flaw #2 is the question, “Is this really a sport?” We’ve all heard about Michael Phelps winning a swimming event by .01 seconds in Beijing this year. To this, I say, “Why bother?” It seems likely that Phelps and his competitors have all hit the same basic ceiling of how fast a man can move himself through the water; maybe such .01 second variations are random, the result of an involuntary twitch or the accidental position of Phelps’ toes during a flip-turn. If this is the case, again, what’s the point? If the results are essentially random, why not just flip coins for sport instead?

Sports, part one

Don’t get me wrong; I like sports. Lately, however, I’ve been pondering some of their flaws, which seem rather serious.

Flaw #1: The first flaw that comes to mind is athletes’ use of steroids. Yes, I can understand that an incredibly competitive environment drives people to cheat, but an athlete using steroids isn’t just cheating the sport, he’s cheating the folks who pay his salary: the sponsors, the fans, etc. The people who pay to see athletes pay to see them demonstrate their skill in hitting/base running/cycling/swimming etc, not to watch an artificial display of “talent” arrived at through performance-enhancing drugs. It’s as though everyone on the Tour de France gave up pedaling forever in favor of Mopeds. What’s the point?

Look for Flaw #2 tomorrow…

Sarah Palin

Really, there’s been enough said about this topic already. For your convenience, however, allow me to compile a handy Palin Fact Sheet.

-Initially voted FOR the “bridge to nowhere”

-Attempted to ban books from Alaska libraries

-Charged Alaska taxpayers some $493,000+ in travel expenses for her husband and children

-Her church is promoting a conference promising to “convert” gays into heterosexuals through prayer

-Wants to teach the vastly absurd religious notion of creationism in schools

-But, doesn’t even seem to be able to instill “basic family values” in her own daughter

-Generally unexperienced and unqualified

-Claims to be a kindred spirit to families with special needs kids, but cut funding for Alaska’s special education program by 62%

-”Hockey mom” and “(vice) president” do not go together. Like, at all.

-Her hair looks really stupid.

-She’s not going to “shake up” Washington, because the supreme court, the White House, and from ‘95-’07, Congress, are already controlled by conservatives.

-So, she also lies.

-Liars don’t make good presidents.

-Didn’t think polar bears should qualify as an endangered species.

-Wants to drill for more oil instead of addressing the fact that oil will, and is, running out

-In particular, wants to drill in caluacle sanctuaries for endangered species. Like polar bears.

-Is an insult to the intelligence of both women and Americans

-Is disliked greatly by a certain Simon, who has 2 PhD’s and ought to know

But wait! I have left out Palin’s most valuable qualification, which has, no doubt, left my readers anxious and concerned that I might be overly biased against Palin. So, to alleviate those worries, I would like to highlight this vital element of Palin’s resume:

-She hunts moose.

Yeah, that’s right. Moose.

Um.

So there.

A vastly simple argument for why we can’t be sure God does/doesn’t exist

Something that is certain is, by definition, something that cannot be otherwise. Some examples: 2+2=4; triangles have three sides; etc. These things are necessarily the case; they do not admit doubt. 2+2=3, or a 4-sided triangle, are logically incoherent.

God, on the other hand, does not necessarily exist. In other words, there is nothing at all that logically prevents God from existing or not existing. God admits of doubt; God is not necessarily the case. Now, as the title indicates, this is a weirdly simple argument, and for this reason I have both great faith in it (Occam’s razor) and I am also suspicious of it (why have I never heard it articulated like this?).

So, dear reader, your input on the validity of the preceding argumentation is welcomed. This issue, is, of course, of paramount importance for the following reason. If my argument is correct, we are justified in facing those who say, “Well, I know God does(n’t) exist,” and punching them squarely in the jaw before seeking shelter in the secure fortress of reason.*

Thanks for reading.

*I jest; by no means do I advocate the punching of morons.**

**I do, however, advocate calling them names.