No NFL reseeding

The NFL’s competition committee is considering an absolutely horrible idea:

“I think it’s a very bad idea,” Broncos owner Pat Bowlen said about the proposal, according to the Denver Post. “Especially when you’re in a competitive division,” Bowlen said. “It can be tough to have a good record when you have so many tough teams in your division. In my mind, the AFC West is a very competitive division. The fans are into the rivalries that exist in our division.”

Under the current proposal, teams No. 3 through No. 6 would be seeded in round one of the playoffs without regard to whether they won their division. The controlling factor would be the teams’ won-loss records.

First, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it. There’s nothing wrong with the NFL playoffs, and eliminating the tradition and importance of the NFL divisions in order to have theoretically more competitive first-round games is simply stupid. There’s no guarantee that the games would be any more competitive anyhow, all this would do is eliminate the importance of winning your division and reduce the rivalry effect.

Does anyone doubt that the Seattle-St. Louis rivalry is more interesting now because they’re in the same division, even though there is no historical rivalry between the two teams? I certainly don’t pay any attention to Tampa Bay now since they’re no longer a threat to beat out the Vikings for the NFC Central, although I will readily admit that they never belonged in the old Black-and-Blue in the first place and I was glad to see them go to the NFC South.

The NFL’s four-division alignment was a great move, and it would be a shame to see them reduce the effect of establishing some good geographic rivalries for nothing. Teams that survive tough divisional battles should be rewarded, not penalized.

Mailvox: the right wing reality

RWC informs us that John Hawkins got a little carried away by what one can only presume was a very positive response to his Unbearable Hardship of Blogging While Female series:

I follow your work and often agree. I’ve usually little to add to your commentary but I felt this story is of such import that you need to see it directly. It is good to see Right Wing News focused on the things that really matter to the Right in this country.

We’re utterly doomed.

Over the years, I have occasionally felt a few pangs of regret of abandoning the political party of my Reaganite youth. This is absolutely not one of them.

Title IX science

As with the universities, the influx of women into science is having the observable result of degrading its quality. This will only increase as political pressure from women causes Title IX to be applied to science as it has been applied to sports. By way of example, consider the recent study cited by Dr. Helen, wherein a scientific researcher named Coreen concludes that the inability of women to communicate properly is indicative of a male shortcoming. As one commenter, presumably male, rightly notes:

Let me make sure I have this right, it’s men fault for not reading subtle non-verbal clues by women who REFUSE TO BE CLEAR WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION and it’s somehow a man’s fault? Anyone follow this logic? If you do, you’re a woman.

Regardless of your sex, if you fail to communicate your intentions accurately, then the fault lies solely with you. The whole study is a misconception, since even when a woman actually happens to know what her intentions are – and is willing to admit them to herself – it is often not in her interest to communicate them accurately to the other party. For example, a woman who wants a man to buy her a drink will send purposefully misleading sexual messages in order to obtain what she wants. Is it more accurate to say that the man mistaken her signal or has he been misled? In many circumstances, the whole point of non-verbal communication is to AVOID the accurate transmission of information and intent.

Spacebunny points out that signals are also culturally dependent and vary from individual to individual anyhow.

I’ve never had a problem with confusing friendly signals with sexual ones myself, mostly because I paid them no heed. If a man finds himself playing a reactive role with women, then he’s already behind the eight ball. And if she is really interested in a sexual or romantic context, there’s no need to worry about any entrail interpreting, as she will make the signal abundantly clear.

When greatness beckons

As well-loved as Pope John Paul II was, his successor, Pope Benedict XVI may one day be regarded as a far more important leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He is certainly revealing himself to possess an extremely formidable intellect. I don’t think many have yet realized that with his speech at Regensburg and his public baptism of Magdi Allam at Easter, he has responded to the decades-long advance of the Ummah by throwing down a gauntlet that is all the more serious for its non-violence. I suspect that this is not a man who thinks in terms of years, or even decades, but centuries.

European Christianity may be reduced to a few coals glowing in the ashes, but it is not dead, only marginalized. If the Catholic youth of Europe are offered a great task – to evangelize the Muslims whose restlessness threatens to push Europe into social chaos – many of them may heed the call.

As I wrote in 2005, “Now that everyone is talking about Europe’s demographic death, it is time to point out that there exists a way out: convert European Muslims to Christianity.” Today’s Europeans stem from the melting-pot of the barbarian invasions that replaced the vanishing population of the Roman Empire. The genius of the Catholic Church was to absorb them. If Benedict XVI can convert this new wave of invaders from North Africa and the Middle East, history will place him on a par with his great namesake, the founder of the monastic order the bears his name.

I can’t say how this will all turn out. But one thing I have learned from history is that its post-facto title of greatness tends to be bestowed upon those men who find themselves at the nexus of great events and rise to the occasion. Pope Benedict may be one such man, as he appears to following the very strategy that the Archbishop Peter Akinola recommended in response to the violent challenge to Nigerian Christians posed by the expanse of the Ummah there: “Make the church grow”.

Immigration is service offshoring

It doesn’t significantly benefit the economy in the UK, nor in the USA either:

While all these factors can be said to point to the advantages of immigration in specific spheres, it is not the same as saying that immigration benefits the country as a whole because some, usually the poor, lose out to the competition; and, as output rises, it is consumed by the larger population. Taking all this into account, the Lords committee is expected to conclude that “the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run”.

This key conclusion demolishes the Government’s case for large-scale immigration. If it has not been to the economic benefit of the resident population, what has been its purpose?

The truth is that large-scale immigration is of benefit to a relatively small group of business owners in the service industries, which allows them to simultaneously lower their costs as well as increase the size of their potential market. Because service industries can’t go offshore to reduce the labor costs due to their location-dependent nature, they want to bring the offshore labor to them. Hence the political pressure for mass immigration. That’s why there are Somalis in Minnesota and no doubt some other third world group in Nebraska, in order to help the service industries, they have to be spread out all over the place.

This comes at the direct expense of the much greater part of the citizenry that does not own a service industry operation. It does make the services cheaper, but at the price of lowered wages for everyone and the net effect of the increased supply is also reduced by the increased demand.

Yet we let journalists vote

Nicholas Kristof picks an odd time to begin worrying about democracy’s fundamental structural illogic:

Her broader point is that we as a nation will have difficulty making crucial decisions if we don’t have an intellectual climate that fosters an informed and reasoned debate. How can we decide on embryonic stem cells if we don’t understand biology? How can we judge whether to invade Iraq if we don’t know a Sunni from a Shiite?

The idiocy of the voting public is precisely what preserves our existing system of near-universal, but strictly limited representative democracy. It ensures that the best liars are always elected and fosters fundamentally dishonest government. Kristof probably sees no problem with his own voting, although I’ll bet he has no idea how inadequate a measure GDP is or how far off the current CPI is from measuring actual price inflation.

The masses are clueless, but specific groups within them are more short-sighted and self-centered than others. That was the whole point of limiting the vote to the least clueless 10 percent or so in the first place.

Gutenberg’s revenge

I’m not really familiar with Dane Cook, but Catkiller sends this clip which is pretty amusing, in addition to highlighting the annoyingly reliable social autism of Homo Indeus.

On a tangential note, it occurs to me that since atheists are disproporationately prone to social autism, it’s not hard to understand why so many of them have such a difficult time understanding why they are disliked so intensely by such a wide variety of people. It occurred to me that perhaps I might be able to explain this to them in terms that even the most myopic and self-centered infidel can understand.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you, the atheist, are completely correct and there is no God. Let us postulate that religion is merely an evolutionary spandrel and religious faith is merely a crutch for the intellectually weak, crippled, and cowardly.

Now, what is the normal human being’s opinion of the sort of individual who would purposefully kick out the crutch from a cripple who is leaning upon it? Indeed, what is your opinion of such an individual?

Obama and Odinga

Catkiller! brings some of the Magic Negro’s less savory connections noted by the international press to our attention.

Raila Odinga, it said, who was then the current presidential frontrunner, had promised to implement strict Islamic Sharia law if he received the Muslim vote and was elected president. Odinga had signed a secret memorandum of understanding with Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Leaders Forum, in which Odinga had allegedly stated his intention, if elected, to

“within six months, rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Sharia as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions”.

And what is Obama’s connection to Odinga? They are cousins, it seems:

Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator’s father, from western Kenya’s Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle. “He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary,” Mr Odinga said yesterday.

Mr Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.

Apparently that middle name “Hussein” may be a little more significant than originally thought… especially since the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Christianity appears to be of a severely mutated non-Western variety and Obama has declared his distance from it anyhow.

Not that the Lizard Queen is significantly more sane, as Peggy Noonan notes:

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: “Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy.” Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. “She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself.” Then she turned to his wounds. “She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood.”

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy.