Jeehaw!--Some Islamic women are becoming
"Jihadist Janes," volunteering to carry out suicide bomber missions as a way to overcome the Islamic oppression of women and promote gender equality in Islamic society. But
c'mon. Men remain firmly in charge of Jihadist Islam (indeed, of all branches of Islam) and exploit female suicide bombers just as they exploit idealistic male bombers. The goal of Jihadists is to spread Sharia law, which oppresses women in so many ways, as widely as possible. Ironically, although any contribution that "Jihadist Janes" make toward the installation of Sharia law may provide them with special rewards in heaven (73 experienced men for each, perhaps?), their contribution will only work to make it harder than
ever for women to achieve equality in Muslim society on earth.
Does karma suit ya? Former NBA star Rasheed Wallace was noted for his rants about fouls that he believed had been wrongly called on him by officials. When the player that 'Sheed had fouled proceeded to miss one or more of his awarded free throws, 'Sheed would say loudly to the officials, "Ball don't lie," implying that the missed free throw(s) demonstrated some
kind of karmic law and vindicated him. In Arizona senior tennis, where players call the lines for themselves, a server who believes his serve was called out improperly and
who then proceeds to win the point on his second serve will often say "I guess that serve was in, after all," as if some kind of natural law or divine justice reigned over the game. But c'mon. The ball doesn't lie, but it doesn't tell the truth, either. It
lacks volition and moral sensibility. It simply goes to wherever the players hit it, doing what the laws of physics require it to do. In sports, as in life generally, "What goes around comes around" is an insupportable metaphysical proposition. Following a bad call, whether a
free throw or serve is successful or not depends entirely on the skill and concentration of the player; it cannot be demonstrated that the universe has any feeling or interest
in the matter. However, it is true that a rant may make a difference by affecting players and officials psychologically. The receiver of the "bad" call may be motivated by his outburst to increase his level of energy and concentration, which may result in his success. And
the official or the player accused of making the bad call may be intimidated or feel guilty and give the next close call to the one who ranted. In sports, as in the legal
system, justice is administered by humans, not by some ethereal ethical force, and can only be approximate, not mathematical. (In televised sports, however, the approximations
are getting pretty good through the use of instant replay. In pro football, basketball, and baseball, and in college football and basketball, replays of controversial calls
provide much more certainty about their validity. To say "Camera don't lie" is going too far, but often a fresh look at a play from a different angle makes clear to both
sides the rightness or wrongness of a call. And the "Shot-Spot" review used in major tennis matches is an absolute marvel. More and more, we rely on human-invented technology, not karma, to uphold our sense of fairness.
What was that? Did you just claim that technology happens to be karma's way of working in the 21st century? Yikes! You're incorrigible!)
Call 'em as I see' em--On a related note, coaches of sports teams often say that they just want a game called fairly and accurately by the umpires or referees.
But c'mon. What they really want is that the calls favor their team. They scream and whine and carp and moan at the officials when they don't like a call that goes against them but never when a call goes against the other team. Never
in the history of basketball has a coach yelled "That was a charge! Call 'em right! Call
'em fair!" when his guy barreled over a defender but the opponent was called for a block. Never in the history of baseball has a manager yelled "That was a ball!" when an
inside pitch thrown by his pitcher was called a strike. Never in the history of football has a coach yelled "That was pass interference!" when his player collided with a
would-be receiver but no foul was called. Coaches and managers are all too happy to accept any call that works in their favor.
In football, in fact, offenses are taught to run the next play quickly after a close or controversial call in their favor before the opposing team can issue a challenge. To coaches, a bad call is not a mistake in judgment
or a misapplication of a rule, it's a decision that goes against their team.
Yabba dabba do--What do we owe non-human
species? Scientists seem pretty sure that an asteroid striking the earth some 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs and a plethora of other life-forms. Probably at least 75% of all species on the earth at that time vanished. They also say that more
than 99% of all species that ever lived are, for a variety of reasons, now extinct. And they predict, mournful of the loss and scornful of the carbon-users they hold responsible, that the disruptive power of the climate change we are now experiencing
combined with destruction of natural habitats caused by the invasion of a growing human population will probably result in the disappearance of 20-50% of all current species
by the end of this century, which in turn, they say, could mean devastation for humans. But c'mon. Had the asteroid not touched down rather heavily, there would have been no opportunity for human and other life forms to have evolved within the resultant emptied ecological niches. Only in the world of Hanna-Barbera could a Fred Flintstone have domesticated a Dino. Most humans understandably and unashamedly take the anthropocentric viewpoint
that the destruction that rocked the world enabled us to be born. Our mission is to replicate ourselves, as the Ebola virus's mission is to replicate itself. We--and Ebola--are both succeeding splendidly in the absence of the other 99% of the species that
have ever lived. Eco-systems have come, metamorphosed, and gone since life originated. Humans
are not in jeopardy because the world lost the dodo, nor will humans be in jeopardy if the world loses the sage grouse. Short of a Pluto-sized meteor striking the earth,
the human race will continue. It can probably even survive a worldwide nuclear war, should such an insane event ever occur.
Individual human lives are fragile, but the human race is not. It is supremely adaptive.
A concern for species extinction is a luxury, not a necessity. It may be that affluent western societies can afford such a luxury. It may be that a rich array of species diversity adds enough to the beauty and wonder of the world that it is worth paying for. And it may be that humbly showing a certain amount of concern for other species becomes us. But it is not necessary to our survival.
If it's broke, be patient and wait for it to fix itself--The U.S. has lost the last three Ryder Cups and six of the last seven. Blame has frequently been placed on the captains (Tom Watson, Davis Love, and Corey Pavin
in recent years). The captains? C'mon. All of the captains have been experienced golfers
with a solid knowledge of the game and the players. They are not necessarily master teachers or master psychologists, but then neither are their European counterparts. Their job is to pick two players to augment the 10 that have been determined by a ranking system and then to decide which players play in which matches (in what order they will play,
in what type of match, and with what partner in doubles matches). For this they use a combination of statistics and intuition, exactly as the Euro captains do. It's neither art nor science. It's hunch, it's guess, it's luck.
Is it camaraderie--gathering together to down a pint or two the night before a match-- that has led to the Euro success in recent years? Is
it becoming a band of brothers, all for one and one for all? Doubtful. Camaraderie and
brotherhood might help provide the courage to charge into the breach in an infantry attack, but they don't help to make putts. Is it the motivation of revenge--the Euros
seeing themselves as second-class citizens rallying together to defeat the arrogant, privileged Yanks? Is it David versus Goliath?
Doubtful. The Euros win as many PGA tournaments as the Americans do, and they are as rich, arrogant, and privileged as the Americans
are. In fact, many of them have homes in the U.S. and spend half their lives in this country. Have the Americans lost recently because they choke under pressure? Impossible to prove. Should the team selection procedure rely less on rankings and allow the captain to make more picks? Only if you believe that the captain has some kind of mystical
insight--which he doesn't. Should the Americans devote more--or less--time to practice before and during the event? Nobody knows. Just report to the first tee and play. Talent
and luck (which is not a synonym for karma!) will determine the winner.
Only in America?--In a NY Times piece called "I Nearly Died. So What?" Meghan Daum writes that, having survived a case of flea-borne typhus that had brought her close to death, she found that friends and relatives expected her to have experienced epiphanies and learned lessons, to have become a better
person, one who appreciated life more and vowed to make the best of it, who had learned to seize the day, who had learned to value the spiritual over the material, who had learned the power of love. "The redemption narrative," she says, "along with its corollary, the recovery narrative, is so beloved in our culture that even rational people tend to glom onto it.... Equal parts bedtime story, love story, and horror story, it's
a perfect example of the American preference for sentimentality and neat endings over honesty and authenticity....Americans have always been suckers for stories of triumph over adversity. But increasingly, we're obsessed not just with victory but with redemption." Daum says that no such learning occurred in her case and that she remains her old "whiny"
self. I admire that admission. Epiphanies in confessional tracts are a nickel a dozen
in these deflationary days, and the value of most of them is probably quite short-lived. But c'mon. Are Americans in general more inclined than citizens of any other country to want "neat endings over honesty and authenticity?" Surely a majority of humans everywhere
like "stories of triumph over adversity." All of the religions of the world offer some form of triumph over adversity, and most offer some form of redemption. Are Indians
or Swedes or Mexicans or Chinese in general any less sentimental than Americans in general? Cultural critics caution against the negative stereotyping of other cultures;
the same caution should be directed to the negative stereotyping of our own. The quotes cited above would be inarguable--and mercifully free of cultural cheap shots--if instead
of the words "American" and "Americans" Daum had used the words "humans" or "people." American culture critics make too many generalizations about America(!).