Play Ball

I remain immersed in the world of baseball and fantasy baseball. Every morning begins with managing my five fantasy league teams and looking at the baseball results from the previous day. I suspect I am over doing it, but my results are good thus far.

That leaves the question: should I be spending so much time with baseball this year? The fanatic will tell me that I am a lightweight; the puritan will scratch her head and wonder from whence the phenomenon arises. The fanatic’s attitude I well understand since I am coming close to being one. I do not easily comprehend the puritan’s attitude even though I am sometimes sympathetic to it.

Everyone overdoes his or her hobbies and pastimes sometimes. Let them without sin cast the first stones.

The Cubs play the Milwaukee Brewers at 1:20 today in a big series for the Cubs this weekend. The Cubs are riding a six game winning streak, which in a way has me wondering if they still have a chance to make the playoffs. Of course, they do if they play over .600 baseball for the rest of the year.

I am rambling. Either that or I will not write at all again today.

Guess what I will be doing at 1:20 this afternoon.

Published in: on June 29, 2007 at 8:54 am  Leave a Comment  

Blocked and Distracted

I have had trouble writing the past few days. Some events have distracted me. The least of which is baseball. However, the Cubs swept all three games from the White Sox this weekend, and came back in the bottom of the ninth to beat the Rockies last night after they blew a five-run lead in the top of the ninth. You have to enjoy baseball to the maximum while it is going on even when your team sucks.

Thinking about a world without god occupies my thoughts much of the time. With the passing of Rorty, pragmatist politics and the nature of metaphorical thinking seep into my thoughts.

Summer has arrived too. Looking at the women walking along the streets in various states of undress is almost unavoidable and highly distracting.

Then there are the other things. Damn, it has been difficult writing.

Published in: on June 26, 2007 at 7:25 am  Leave a Comment  


You believe in god; I do not. I believe in mermaids; you do not. You tell me I must make a leap of faith then I will believe in god. I recommend the same strategy to you regarding your disbelief of mermaids.

Now, I laugh, go to the fridge, grab a beer, and think about now. You have no now except as it relates to a highly speculative set of propositions about a future state after you die. You take comfort in those propositions all the same.

I sip my beer. Darryl Hannah splashes about my mind.

Published in: on June 22, 2007 at 8:49 am  Comments (4)  

Who sucks worse? Cubs or White Sox?

The Cubs and White Sox play their second series against each other this year down at Sox park today. Let’s face it. Both teams suck. They are out of the running for a playoff spot. Neither team has shown they are capable of playing .500 ball.

So, what does that mean? Not a goddamned thing to a baseball nut like me. I’m betting on the Cubs for no good reason other than they are my team. Beating the White Sox this weekend and winning the season cross-town series is all the Cubs have left to shoot for.

I’ll be the guy wearing the Cubs hat and t-shirt and sitting in the bar wasting time watching baseball. I’ll be cussing up a storm too if the Cubs suck worse than the Sox.

Published in: on June 22, 2007 at 6:26 am  Leave a Comment  

Summer 2007

It is the longest day of the year—my favorite day. My plan consists of watching the Cubs vs. Rangers game this afternoon and attending a benefit this evening for a friend who recently lost the lower part of one of his legs.

Other than that, I will drift, dream, and try to be open to new events and personalities. If something interesting happens, I will write it down in my journal.

OK, time to get ready.

Published in: on June 21, 2007 at 10:29 am  Leave a Comment  

Funamentalist Moral Relativism

I have been reading my way through the new atheists: Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens. I have also been reading the writings of Hume on religion along with other classics. I do not know to what advantage the exercise might accrue, except maybe to become a little more informed about my convictions or lack there of.

I am tempted to move on to other topics, but since I am well into reading a large collection of writings about atheism, I feel duty bound to complete the reading.

What strikes me most about the large organized religions is the moral relativism contained within their holy texts along with their instructions to do what we in secular democracies consider immoral and have made illegal. Stoning people to death for apostasy comes readily to mind. Finding an objective moral code within religious texts is a heroic effort in apologetics and logic chopping. Throughout the ages, many people have spent countless years trying to make sense of it all to no avail.

To the extent that people base their moral beliefs on holy books, they have no claim to absolute and objective moral values. A capricious god may overturn their highly cherished beliefs by instructing them to do something enlightened folks consider abhorrent or unthinkable. The religious zealot, the one proclaiming access to objective values, never puts together a consistent or coherent account of those objective values. This is not to say that religious folks are the only ones guilty of this, but I would much rather be a religious skeptic searching for certainty rather than one claiming certainty for beliefs of which there is little evidence or sound argument for their value.

One continually catches President Bush claiming moral certainty along with his bankrupt moral hypocrisy. Take stem cell research. If he truly does believe that stem cell research kills a soul (according to his religion), then why does he not campaign against all stem cell research instead of only the federally funded research? He throws a bone to his most ardent religious fundamentalist supporters. No other explanation comes forth.

As a religious skeptic, this façade of moral objectivity and certainty, distresses me. Otherwise, I would not care about religious belief at all. Yet the religious fundamentalist extremists not only hate folks like me, but also hate each other even though the similarities of their moral and worldly outlooks are barely distinguishable. Some religious extremists sound less disturbing in their pronouncements because they live in secular societies that have outlawed the most blatant moral outrages enjoined by the holy books. However, I cannot help but believe that the true fundamentalist whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim would love to see me thrust into the public square and stoned to death by the true believers. That is what the holy book enjoins them to do to unbelievers.

I have yet to meet a true religious fundamentalist who has reconciled their religious beliefs and moral values with the hard won freedoms and rights accorded them under democratic secular societies. They cannot do it. All they can do is wallow in their false claims of objective moral certainty, and hate someone enough to wish public stoning were still the norm everywhere.

I do not plan on waiting around for the first religious extremist with all his attendant moral relativist baggage to cast the first stone. Some moral values really are worth protecting whether one can state an ironclad case for their objectivity. The hard one freedoms of secular democracy is one of them.

Published in: on June 21, 2007 at 9:54 am  Leave a Comment  

Rorty etc.

I could not use my laptop while traveling last week. (Do not ask why!) Although I was sometimes frustrated, I did catch up on some movie viewing and reading with my extra time.

So much am I dependent on the Internet as a news source, I did not learn that Richard Rorty died until I returned from the trip. I read many of his obituaries this morning. I have read Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, but not much else by Rorty. I think I had a surface level comprehension of what he was discussing, which is not bad for a feeble intellect such as mine.

Rorty’s pragmatism unsettles me. I am sympathetic to it, yet it jars my sense of logic and truth. I have a way to negotiate between pragmatism and strong claims about Truth. We think metaphorically. However, our metaphors creatively arise from primary metaphors and basic concepts that help us negotiate the everyday world. We both create our truths; yet possess a foundation for the creations.

That is feeble and needs elucidation, but it should suffice for a brief comment after reading Rorty’s obituaries.

Published in: on June 19, 2007 at 8:55 am  Comments (2)  

Dialing-up the hotel movies

I don’t subscribe to the premium channels my cable provider offers. Traveling allows me to catch up on a few movies and shows running on premium cable channels offered by the hotels.

This week I finally saw Munich and A History of Violence. Munich was OK.

I was mesmerized from beginning to end by A History of Violence even though it did not start playing until 2:45 in the morning and I was very tired. Well-crafted stories containing well-done stylized violence scenes always entertain me. The cheerleader fantasy oral sex scene and the violent fuck on the staircase scenes held my attention.

I saw a good slasher movie, the name of which I do not recall. Several northern college kids drive into a southern town inhabited by ghosts of townspeople massacred by Yankees during the civil war. The revenge the ghosts take upon the students, although gruesome, was nicely stylized and staged.

I saw Brick, a sort of high school gangster murder mystery. The high school student male protagonist was very cool and tough. The narrative had enough twists, turns, and violence to keep me awake from late night until early morning.

I saw the last episode of The Sopranos. Since I had only seen about two previous episodes and those the first year of the series, I had no emotional reaction. I thought the scene where the SUV backed over the mobster who had just been shot and killed at the gas station was mega-awesome. He lies on the ground as his SUV rolls backward towards him. Just as the rear tire reaches his head, the camera focuses on the bystanders watching the scene, you hear a loud crack as if the SUV had run over a coconut, and see the freaked-out reaction of the crowd.

I also saw the opening episode of the new series John from Cincinnati. It was quirky enough to grab my attention. Too bad I won’t be seeing any of the next episodes anytime soon, for I do not plan on buying premium stations anytime soon.

After thought: How could I forget? I also saw V Is for Vendetta. It was OK in the sense it held my interest most of the way through. Once again, I saw it in the late night hours while fighting off sleep.

Published in: on June 18, 2007 at 11:06 am  Leave a Comment  

Home Again

I returned from my baseball trip yesterday. The trip went well for me, but not so well for my friends as they are White Sox fans and the White Sox lost all four games that we saw them play.

The weather was nice—no rainouts—and we did some sight seeing and our fair share of drinking.

Whatever, it is back to State Street and posting on the blog. More later.

Published in: on June 18, 2007 at 9:24 am  Leave a Comment  

Baseball Road Trip

I am leaving today on a weeklong baseball trip. As you can easily imagine, I am excited. Something almost mystical arises from driving about the country and watching baseball.

Published in: on June 9, 2007 at 10:41 am  Comments (5)  

Israel vs. Palestine: do not take sides

I have changed my opinion about the US involving itself in the Israel/Palestine conflict, even the US as negotiator. Let’s face it, a significant part of the conflict arises from lethal religious extremism. Religious moderates cannot or will not reign in the excesses of their brethren. To the outsider, it seems as though the devout prefer violence and death rather than any critique of the religious origins of the conflict.

Let the religious extremists have it out for the last time. If the moderate religious apologists are victims of the conflict, that is their problem for not asserting their rights and power as the reasonable majority of opinion.

The worst thing anyone can do is take sides in the conflict. Of course, extremists will. For the rest of us, apathy is our best weapon. No one will persuade religious extremists and their apologists by critical argument or negotiation. Let them reap what they plant. Do not shed a tear for any extremist or their apologist lest they feel you sympathize with them.

Published in: on June 8, 2007 at 8:05 am  Comments (2)  

The difficulty of writing

Every act of writing is an act of violence to the world. Should I write about how she still holds me in thrall? That would do violence to the momentous issues of the day. Should I blather on about the momentous issues of the day? That would do violence to her, whom for some odd inexplicable reason I feel I love.

Why, oh why, oh why does writing have to be so damned difficult?

Published in: on June 8, 2007 at 4:19 am  Leave a Comment  

The road to religious skepticism is paved by a close reading of the Bible

I once participated in a nine-month seminar dedicated to a close reading of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). The discussion was lively, interesting, and valuable. The seminar planted the seed that grew into my religious skepticism.

The story of the fall of Jericho is particularly instructive. After Joshua has conquered the city, god commands him to kill all the civilians and animals in the city. Joshua, being a godly and righteous man, promptly obeys the command. God also instructs Joshua to take the gold and silver in the city for they are righteous in the eyes of the lord—very convenient for Joshua. These are the parts you never hear about in Sunday or Bible school.

The story is repugnant to our modern moral sensibility. Civilized countries consider such activity immoral and criminal. A humanist morality has replaced religious morality and for good reason. The religious moral codes are based on whatever god commands is right rather god commanding what is right. This is as arbitrary and relative a moral code that ever existed since it bases itself on a capricious god whose moral standard is either nonexistent or at times sadistic and murderous. Belief in god is one of the origins of evil in the world.

Ivan Karamazov said, “If god does not exist, then everything is permitted.” I wonder if the opposite is not true. The story of Jericho shows that if god exists, he permits everything.

The preponderance of evidence showing that the natural world is all that exists is what eventually converted me to religious skepticism. However, how anyone can give a close reading to the Bible and come away believing in a god dispensing divine justice eludes my imagination. The book is too crude, violent, and immoral to give it any credence. Its spirituality destroys human life and offends our moral sensibilities.

I feel good having thrown off the yolk called religion. Too bad the lash to which religion subjects us is still in play through its inspired extremists.

It is difficult not to believe religion a dangerous body of thought. Too many people are willing to kill in the name of religion, for they believe by doing so they will cross into a supernatural world whose existence possesses scant evidence, especially for those who commit murder and other atrocities.

Religion may come naturally to us, but it has outlived any usefulness it may have had if it actually had any.

Published in: on June 7, 2007 at 12:31 pm  Leave a Comment  

Brownback and Me on Science and Faith

During the Republican Presidential debates, Senator Sam Brownback indicated he did not believe in evolution. Later, he wrote a letter to the NYT op-ed section expanding his views of science and faith, and evolution in particular.

I will parse that letter if only for the fun of it by responding with a letter of my own.

Dear Senator Brownback,

You say:

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

The notion that reason and spirituality are two different realms is not true. They are reinforcing if either are to have value. The issue is how and where they reinforce each other.

According to your faith the material and spiritual order were created by the same god. That is if god exists, or god coincidently is the god in whom you believe out of the galaxy of gods and supernatural agents on display by the faithful. Of course, your brand of faith denies spirituality to the religious skeptic. The religious skeptic in your view of the cosmos is doomed to eternal torment and damnation. If that is spirituality, I want no part of it. I would rather have a spirituality based on what Robert C. Solomon calls the thoughtful love of life. Senator, your spirituality deviates from that by a wide margin. Of course, you have the privileged position of being one of god’s elect in your own mind, so it is easy for you to believe just about anything whether miracle or ruthless, vicious, violent cosmic justice. You might respond that you indeed love me and look only to my spiritual welfare. Thanks for the kind and generous gesture, but trust me, I can take care of my own spirituality without your help.

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well. The fundamental question for me is how these theories affect our understanding of the human person.

Name one thing that religious belief has ever contributed to science. Show me one scientific hypothesis in the Bible, let alone a consistent and coherent scientific theory. Science does not inject supernatural agents and phenomena into its hypotheses, method, and theories. People like you, Senator, always try to obscure that boundary. The notion that the scientist of faith is using supernatural hypotheses in her scientific work to useful advantage is ludicrous and would be a denial of reason and any sensible notion of scientific research. After seemingly drawing a line between science and spirituality earlier in your letter, you hopelessly blur the distinctions and boundaries at this point.

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

That every person has a special place in creation is a noble sentiment, Senator. Too bad mine as a religious skeptic is to live for eternity in torment and damnation according to your wonderful faith. Thanks, for showing me the love. Science, evolution in particular, does not undermine man’s essential dignity. Your imagination, Senator, undermines that dignity when scientific fact and theory conflicts with your faith based beliefs and when you dogmatically refuse evidence and reasoning. As for my being willed into existence for a purpose, please try to convince me. I am not a puppet. I don’t need your divine will for meaning to my life even if it is a result of evolution.

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

On the one hand, we have a scientific body of knowledge subject to challenge, further investigation, and refinement. On the other hand, we have your dogmas and doctrines, Senator, eternally unchangeable and not subject to experience, experiment, and evidence. Scientific endeavor must not tread on the toes of your faith. The only science we should believe is science that fits with your faith based muddled view of the cosmos. How convenient for you. It must be nice to be so damned right. I can scarcely imagine what our courts of law will become should you and your fundamentalist cohorts seize the absolute power and dominion over thought that you so ardently seek.

My religious skepticism deserves as much respect and dignity under the law as your religious faith. Why is it you so vociferously demand my respect for your faith while denigrating my spirituality? Yet you claim you will represent all Americans should you be elected rather than those whom espouse your brand of fundamentalism. Why should I trust you?

Frankly, I will be voting for a candidate who is more scientifically and spiritually literate than you are, Senator. I will also be looking for someone with a consistent set of beliefs, which you do not seem to have.



Published in: on June 7, 2007 at 8:15 am  Comments (2)  

Dazzled at Lunch

Why say more than what I can say? I had lunch with the attractive woman I met last Thursday. I was completely smitten as I watched her walk down the street to meet me. She dazzled me during lunch. It was better than the first go round, which was very nice.

I am traveling on a baseball trip next week so I cannot see her soon. Maybe it will happen when I get back. Yet it may not happen, much to my regret.

That is all I can say except her long auburn hair, brilliant smile, and gentle touch has burned an image in my mind hard to forget.

Published in: on June 6, 2007 at 8:52 pm  Leave a Comment  

Chavez Populism: where does it go from here?

Whatever one thinks of Hugo Chavez or how one feels about him, he knows how to keep himself in the news. The news media seldom situates him and his populist appeal in context. What gave rise to the Chavez phenomenon?

An elite group ruled Venezuela. They siphoned off the oil wealth of the country. While they ruled the gap between rich and poor grew wider. Many people found this eminently unfair.

Reading the news, one would believe that the populism Chavez represents was a virgin birth, rather than a creation from causal events, actions, and reactions. The news media has shoddily reported and intentionally obscured the hidden ugly and embarrassing facts, and has demonized the people who put Chavez in power. Regardless of that, one ought to be asking, whichever side one is on, what course events will take, for the current situation is a stage along the road to a either a successful or failed socialism.

The news media, being the news media, does not predict what comes next in either case. Let us say the most vociferous critics of Chavez have their way and his programs and policies fail. What is next? One might easily, and with justification, predict the return of a ruling elite siphoning off the oil wealth of the country and a return to a widening gap between rich and poor. The more unctuous and pious critics of Chavez populism will do some hand waving about true democratic reform with a neo-liberal economic foundation. One hears it often; one must stifle a yawn so as not to be rude.

The news media does not do economics well. After all, why get into all those messy and embarrassing economic statistics when one can simply report who is complaining and yelling at whom? Why bother with a presentation of the conditions that give rise to the phenomenon when the phenomenon is sensational enough on its own to keep the public bewitched and bothered?

Freedom regrettably often comes down to who is free to do what to whom. Marx tells us the ruling economic theory is always the theory of the ruling party and class. One would think that by now everyone from Wall Street to main street Podunk Center would have absorbed the lesson. Of course, disingenuousness often masks as ignorance, so one must be careful when deciding who knows what. One must always be wary and skeptical about claims for freedoms and rights. One must always ask the question: whose freedoms and what rights? This seems remarkably so with the Chavez populist phenomenon.

Meanwhile, as events take their course, we will have lively, sensational, and banal reporting of events. OK, everybody, get back to shouting.

Published in: on June 5, 2007 at 10:59 am  Comments (2)  

Mind Bowling

I want to spend the day reading Plato on laws or Hume on religion. Along with my writing, I consider reading philosophy central to the day. However, today, I will not do much writing or reading. Without those, what will I imagine, or rather how will I imagine?

Maybe, in those moments when I can concentrate, I will imagine a different life. The new life will contain plenty of writing and reading, but I might add love to it. Instead of love, I could add bowling or hiking in the mountains. My imagination already runs wild, but not as wild as when I write or read philosophy.

These late spring and early summer days strewn by the sun are best. The days of light and warmth pass all too quickly. Once they pass, the long descent into the dark days stifles the imagination and creativity. Nothing should interrupt these long light besotted days if possible.

We are not rational animals; we are imaginative and creative animals. That is what distinguishes us most from other species. The world forces itself upon us. After that, we make of it what we will, and we will make something new of it regardless of whether that is our desire or intention.

Now, where did I put the bowling ball, and where in the world do I want to roll it besides inside my head? Maybe, I can find a lover to go bowling with me.

Published in: on June 4, 2007 at 7:37 am  Comments (1)  

Plato and the educational value of the well run drinking party

In the opening passages of Plato’s The Laws, the Athenian makes the case that a well run drinking party is educational and teaches virtue, including temperance. I knew if I kept reading Plato, I would find something with which to agree.

I think I will go to the local bar this afternoon in pursuit of virtue. I’m hoisting the next one to you, Plato.

Published in: on June 3, 2007 at 1:11 pm  Leave a Comment  

The problematic alliance between religious skeptics and moderate Christians

Let us consider secularism as the belief in the separation of church and state. In that case, secularism and atheism are not the same things even though some would have us believe so. Secularism is the belief in the separation of church and state. Atheism is the belief there is no god. You can believe in one without believing in the other. Many, including religious leaders, would have you believe they are identical, different words categorizing the same sets of beliefs. If one takes definitions seriously, the conflation of the two appears a logical mistake.

One of the more interesting recent debates amongst religious skeptics is whether they should align themselves with moderate liberal Christians to oppose the conservative theocrats. The nonmilitant religious skeptic might say, “so long as the Christian left supports my Constitutional freedoms, I will join cause with them in opposing the conservative Christian theocrats.” The religious skeptic should be heartened to witness an increase in those secular Christian leftists and rightists whom more vocally oppose the excesses and illegalities of the conservative theocrats.

One, however, still hears far too many apologetics by moderate Christians for conservative Christian theocrats. Too many Christian leftists take any criticism of Christian political beliefs as an affront to their faith, or discount the threat of the conservative Christian theocrats. The record of religion policing the more violent and fanatical within their ranks is spotty at best. The secular religious skeptic might wonder, because of this, exactly whom one should ally themselves with.

One can be a nonmilitant religious skeptic or be a militant religious skeptic. Many nonmilitant religious skeptics believe that religion will not be gone soon, so one might as well contain its excesses via secularism. Militant religious skeptics often deem religion too dangerous to survive as a set of beliefs.

One cannot be a nonmilitant secularist. The value of secularism is either one you accept and cannot tolerate the loss of, or one merely is not secular. If one is a secular religious skeptic it makes better sense to make common cause with other secularists no matter where they stand on the religious spectrum. The history of religious skeptics persuading people from their religious beliefs has been a long slow process if it has worked at all.

Thus, for the secular religious skeptic, political alliances with secular Christians seem the better course when confronting the conservative Christian theocrats. It is better to secure one’s freedoms and contain the enemies of those freedoms than try to persuade the religious from their beliefs, dogmas, and doctrines—a project whose immediate chances of success are virtually nil.

Published in: on June 2, 2007 at 10:07 am  Leave a Comment  

Hitchens: god is not great

Hitchens’s God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything finally made it to the top of my reading list. Hitchens assaults every aspect of religion with erudition and wit. It is a wonderfully entertaining polemic, at least for the religious skeptic. The devout, I am sure, have other feelings about it.

Some book reviewers have taken him to task for not consulting the relevant scholarship within the philosophy of religion. That misses the point of the book. He is not trying to debate or persuade the faithful. He merely documents religion’s often wildly inconsistent sets of beliefs and its toxic nature. Those who follow religious debate and arguments have probably heard it before.

Religion is not going away anytime soon. It appears somehow religion comes naturally to the species. In the meantime, it never hurts to remind oneself of the inconsistencies and evils of religion regardless its benefits.

So, if you are looking for philosophical arguments against religion, don’t bother with the book. If you are looking for an entertaining read that stylishly, moreover, forcibly drives some of the usual points against religion home, dial up Hitchens.

Published in: on June 1, 2007 at 9:03 pm  Leave a Comment  

Chicago Baseball: time to get lucky

The Major League Baseball season is about one third complete. Things do not look well for either the Chicago White Sox or the Chicago Cubs.

Let’s study the White Sox first. Their best chance of getting into the playoffs is catching the Detroit Tigers for the Wild Card spot. The Tigers have a .566 winning percentage. Thus the White Sox, currently with a .490 w/p, must go 68-45 (.602 w/p) the rest of the season to reach a .566 w/p. The White Sox go into today with a five game losing streak. Only exuberant optimism allows one to believe they can do it.

The Cubs are in even worse shape. Their best chance is to catch Milwaukee for the division title. The Milwaukee Brewers have a .556 w/p. The Cubs, currently with a .423 w/p, must go 68-42 (.618 w/p) to catch the Brewers. The Cubs have lost 9 of their last 10 games. Yes, I grant Milwaukee is sliding a bit, but the Cubs are sliding faster.

Of course, the White Sox and Brewers might be vastly better teams than their records indicate. However, with about a third of the season over that seems improbable. Only pure luck will get the job done if they hope to make the playoffs. At least in Cubs’ case, here’s to pure luck.

“Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.”

The bright side is that my Pippin’s fantasy baseball team, the Kernels, is in first place by a wide margin.

Published in: on June 1, 2007 at 5:45 am  Leave a Comment  

Sexual Allure Trumps Politics

I met an attractive woman in the bar yesterday. We quickly hit it off very well. We discussed politics—one of those getting to know you things. We did not talk politics for long before we both realized that we were at opposite poles. That did not deter us from setting a date to get together again.

I hazard this generalization even though I am sure it is not universal. Sexual attraction trumps politics. I can hardly wait to see her again. The political thing adds to the allure. I do not feel comfortable discussing it from a personal viewpoint, yet I must explore it abstractly.

I will report later with some observations.

Published in: on June 1, 2007 at 4:32 am  Comments (2)