The Astros winning a baseball game is bigger news than 30,000 dead people

[Beefy]

30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

[VikingJuice]

30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

Typical of the Houston and American press.  I've hardly heard anything about this earthquake while I keep hearing story after story of cute girls getting murdered and numerous in depth stories of hurricane after effects.  We're so myopic as a country.

[ignom]

It didn't happen in America, so I don't care.

[VikingJuice]

It didn't happen in America, so I don't care.

That's about the size of it too.

[Beefy]

The thing is, I get that a lot of people are excited about the win and the nature of the win.  I understand that the rest of the world does not stop when major catastrophies happen elsewhere.  I get that baseball, while no longer the most favored sport in America, is still a multi-million dollar business.  And, I get that this is Texas.

I get all of that.

Still, let's break this down to the basics:

30,000 people killed vs. a baseball game.

Which one ought to be leading the front page?

To the Chronicle's credit, the story had been leading all day.  It wasn't until later when the rah-rahing suddenly became more important.

And no, I don't think it's the only paper who did it.  Nor are we the only country whose media probably did it.  Perhaps if it had hit a more modernized city or area... had more white or at least yellow people in the area... had happened somewhere not considered "third world"... maybe then...

Maybe we fulfilled our give-a-shit quotient for "lesser developed" peoples for the next few years with the tsunami. 

Maybe all that is inconsequential.  Maybe it's more about business, and how local media stand to profit more by covering large scale local events.

I don't know.

I think it's, perhaps, a combination of all of those things.  And more.

I know I'm probably no better about it than anyone else.

But I also know a baseball game shouldn't be more important.

[eo000]

But dude, it was 18 innings. That's, like, two games worth of baseball! 

[Mr. Ubiquity]

30,000... and climbing.

Thank God for priorities.

http://www.chron.com

i dont care for sports and i agree with you.  called natural selection.

[Beefy]

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

[Mr. Ubiquity]

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

well you got my vote..  will you be my president?

[nishi]

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

i think you're painting some black and white options there, myself. i mean, it's not quite either/or because there are three, but still.

i think there's a difference between being a realist and not feeling anything. like i think there's a difference between being objective and not feeling anything. mostly because i don't believe that it's humanly possible to not feel anything. feelings don't come with an on/off switch. we can choose how we respond to them, but they don't conveniently disappear just because we're not interested in them.

there's also a vast difference between the idea that everyone deserves mourning because they are human beings and the idea that everyone has the best intentions.

and the concept that good people and good things they do are "clearly in the minority" is something you'd need more data for on both sides, if you're going to take the objective approach.

[VikingJuice]

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

[Mr. Ubiquity]

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

sadly we've been doing that since we annexed ourselfs from england and have been giving everyone we didnt like the big ole FU since then.  Probably wont be able to change what politics and the courts have made standard practice, and if we try, will take be a long road to*recovery*

[VikingJuice]

And the pendulum swings... perhaps.

When I was a kid, I didn't give it a shit about anyone else, apart from maybe loathing them for some reason.  I was shallow and self-centered and quite naive.  At some point, I realized it and started trying to care about things outside my direct sphere of existence.  So I hear of things like the earthquake and it sets off some inner tragedy alarm and I get self-righteous when I hear others aren't paying it the attention I feel it deserves.

But I've been thinking.  Why should I give a shit?

I mean, as bleeding heart as I can be, I really am a misanthrope to a degree, and my dislike for general humanity is fairly well established by now.  If I don't give a crap when some mobile home park in Oklahoma is removed from the planet by a tornado, why do I care if a tsunami wipes a bunch of people I'll never know off the map?  If I don't trust the guy beside me to not be an ignorant, self-concerned pile of crap whose existence is at the expense of others, why do I care if 30,000 people got killed in an earthquake on the other side of the globe where I'll likely never see?

People, on an individual basis, tend to suck ass.  Sure, there are exceptions, and I'm grateful for each of them.  But my view stands that we're a wildly self-important, hubristic, dangerous species that will inevitably kill everything they come into contact with, including themselves.  So then why should I feel bad if natural occurrences thin out the herd?

How many of the people killed in New Orleans were truly good people?  How many were child molesters?  Thieves?  Rapists?  How many of those killed in the earthquakes beat their wives and children?  Tortured animals for fun?

There is no way to qualify the nature of these great, unknown masses.  This includes living people as well, like our active troops.  We want to hold them high as heroes because they are active duty, but human nature and history has time and again proven to us that you can't paint human nature in terms of black and white.  There are foul, nasty, shitty human beings that join the active ranks, just as there are everywhere else, and they will use whatever power they get to further being shitty human beings.

So what is a better option, then?  Choose to be an optimist and assume everyone deserves mourning, that everyone has the best intentions, and that a life of sympathy is ultimately the right way to go?  Be a pessimist, and assume the worst about everyone from the very start, ignoring the good folks and the good things they do since they are clearly the minority?  Or try and be a realist, and remain objective to the point where you no longer feel a thing?

Why is it that being self-centered, unworldly, and shallow is necessarily a bad thing?

In America, it's not.  But that's why the rest of the world thinks we're pieces of shit.  Often times, I agree with them.  America represents the best and worst of humanity.  We hide our shitty deeds behind the veil of our good ones and then break our arms patting ourselves on the back as we lie to each other about how great we all are.

sadly we've been doing that since we annexed ourselfs from england and have been giving everyone we didnt like the big ole FU since then.  Probably wont be able to change what politics and the courts have made standard practice, and if we try, will take be a long road to*recovery*

True that.

[nishi]

you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

[Mr. Ubiquity]

you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

ok silent bob   

[VikingJuice]

you guys are on the black and white roll today.

while i won't defend our 'ugly american' image - because we do a lot of crappy stuff and are smug and self-satisfied and greedy - i will disagree and say that we have not given the rest of the world the big FU since we threw tea in the harbor. like many other countries, we support what we like, we don't support what we don't like. i don't think we're alone in that, though. it's not like japan is rushing in and helping a bunch of countries out of the goodness of their hearts.

and people in other countries don't hate us the way you might think.i know that gets a great deal of press, but i have not really experienced that. i can't believe that americans are even allowed to *visit* hiroshima and nagasaki, for example. what we did to their country is, i think, unforgiveable. but that's not how they see it, and it's not just because we helped them rebuild after the war. we helped france a lot more than we helped japan, and the french still don't like us. whatever. maybe it's because we let the the japanese buy a lot of american companies and then beat the crap out of us in auto and tech production. hard to say. 

i'm not saying that we're a fantastic country, and i'm certainly not saying that we are not arrogant capitalistic bastards, because we are. but we also give away a lot more money than other countries do, even wealthy ones. do we pick the developing areas we prefer when we send aid? yes, usually. but if that were entirely true, we would never ever send aid to, say, the congo. did we take their diamonds? yes. did we probably have at least one hand in the assassination of patrice lumumba? yep. but i think you'd be hard-pressed to find any developed countries - with the possible exception of maybe switzerland or something - that don't have similar choice items in their history.

i don't know - i'm as critical of our government, our national policies and our international relations as anyone - moreso than many, in fact. i don't lie about how great we are. but the entire rest of the world does not think we're assholes. nor should they.

I think we're all arguing basically the same side of the same argument.  The only difference being who stands on what side of the America does shitty things spectrum.

And as far as the good goes, per capita, we only rank about 15th in modern countries that give to lesser countries in need during times of crisis.  I came across that interesting tidbit a few months ago and it shocked me. 

I think the point that has been lost in this back and forth about how bad or not bad America can be, is the fact that this thread was started pointing out the ridiculous way Americans have of narrowly focusing on the local and personal issues and at times, completely ignoring much bigger, much more important world issues.  And as I see it, we're guilty as charged.

[Beefy]

I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

[Beefy]

I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

[Mr. Ubiquity]

I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

blue 22

blu22

hut....hut... psyche.

[ReBurn]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

[Beefy]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

Just reading the headline made me laugh out loud.

[Jessie]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31925

Just reading the headline made me laugh out loud.

That was excellent.

[VikingJuice]

I specifically tried to avoid the black-and-white thing.  There are rarely easy answers to anything.

Except '42'.

blue 22

blu22

hut....hut... psyche.

Blue 24
Blue 24
Your mother's a whore!!

HUT HUT!!

[Beefy]

Okay, so it's well established that I could give less than your average fecal deposit about sports.  I at least appreciate football, though I don't follow it closely (what little interest I have in it is all VJ's fault).  And I'll even admit, on my list of sports I could give less than an average fecal deposit about, baseball is pretty damn low on that list.  Watching one group of adults hit balls with sticks to another group of adults... I'm sure I have something I could be tweezing.

However, I can see people enjoying it, just like any sport.  It's just not for me.

We see those articles on the Net all of the time about how ridiculous the soccer fans are in Europe and how violent and way too seriously they take that stuff.  WAY WAY over the top.  And we sit from a distance and we chuckle at them.

Well, I just got back from walking The Dud and had a message on my machine telling me that the Astros had won again tonight.  But you know what?  I already knew.

You see, just as I was walking out the door of my townhome I heard erupt some screams the like of which you simply don't hear in everyday life.  These weren't claps or woo-hoos, these were primal, vein-bursting howls.  They were coming from two streets over, and yet I could hear them as though they were just in front of me.  It's what I imagine it sounds like to hear the tormentuous cries of a person being tortured.  Though I couldn't see them, I knew instantly that they're faces were all red, that their veins bulged, straining to keep from bursting or having an aneurysm.

Way, WAY over the top, guys.  Back away from the TV and go take a walk.

I bet these guys didn't react like that when they met the love of their lives.  Or when they proposed and heard, "yes."  Or when their first child was born.  I bet there has been no moment of real benevolence or importance in their lives that was met with this level of (frightening) enthusiasm. 

You would have thought someone had just driven bamboo shoots under their fingernails, and they were loving every agonizing minute.

Fuck.  Go volunteer at a homeless shelter, get some fucking perspective.  You wanna be happy the Astros won?  Fine, be happy.  But if you're nearly giving yourself a coronary when they win, you ought to be seeking fucking professional help.

And before everyone jumps my shit, I have been to a Texans game, just to go, and had the odd cosmic quirk happen where they actually played well and won the game.  I got into it, too.  We cheered, we high fived, we did all that cliched sportsfan crap.  I was into it.  I get it.

None of us were about to blast off into the fucking sun, however.  "Yay, they won!!", not "OMFG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH *spill beer* WWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *pelvic thrust the air* FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKINNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[VikingJuice]

While I completely understand your argument, and to some degree think you're right. You miss the point.

Sure, it's quite silly that people get so enamoured with that silly thing known as sports.  After all, it's grown men, occasionally women, indulging in the most completely out of place-out of time activities.....play.  Is it ridiculous that people get paid more than teachers, cops, fireman or soldiers to play a child's game?  Sure.  Is is ridiculous that grown adults spend countless hours a week planning and orchestrating the imaginary teams that they "own" online?  Sure.  Is it ridiculous that people buy, collect, horde, trade and study thousands of dollars worth of sports cards and memorabilia that have only the actual value that another is willing to pay to relieve them of it?  Sure.

But come on!  We live in a society where every primal, animalistic, chaotic sort of behavior is not only frowned upon, it's downright taught to be socially unforgivable.  We have no real moments in life where it is considered acceptable to pound your fist in the air in triumph.  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable to roar like a caveman who just slaughtered a large beast, enough to feed his small clan.  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable that we can dance with no music, no alcohol, and no indwelling of mystical spirit(like church).  We have no moments where it is considered acceptable to revel in the moment of watching grown behemoths battle other behemoths and fight to sudden death.

But we have sports, an event that is obviously quite trite in the big scheme of life.  But none the less, it captures the hearts and imaginations of millions across this planet.  It rings like a tuning fork in the deepest level of the human psyche and it resonates in some primal place that we socially bred out of most people considered mature by the age of 10.  And it trumpets something indescribable but long forgotten deep within us all. 

In a way, at least for me, sports is the ultimate celebration of life and all it's mechanical and biological beauty.  It's the running of the most perfectly constructed machine at it highest possible level of functioning.  Sure, it's in the context of a child's game.  But that's not the point.  It's that the men and women who perform on these giant stages and in front of national and international audiences do something that we ourselves, just aren't good enough to do at this high of a level.

It's all those things and more!  It speaks to the most sophistocated aristocrat as well as the least socially developed modern neaderthal at the same time.  Its a place where a homeless man, who should be worried about being homeless and finding food and shelter, and where a rich urbanite, who should have enough sense and social conscience to make better time and use of his many financial and intellectual gifts, can sit side by side in a sports bar or bleacher somewhere, and for 3 hours, be an equal to one another.  They can speak the same language and revel in the same moment and experience.

It's the kind of thing that can bring fathers and sons together for a short time, despite the abyss of pain, suffering, and emotional neglect/abuse the resides between them.  It's the kind of thing that can be performed with such spectacle that artisans, musicians, poets and even philosophers can enjoy for three hours.  It's the kind of thing that can heal a nation's wounds in times of war and loss.  It's the kind of thing that can give entire countries a sense of international identity and pride that otherwise they would lack.

You say that these people need to get a life.  I'd argue, that in some ways, we all need that.  But in the long search for one of those myself, in the pain and misery that accompanies the often fruitless search for meaning and worth and the having of a "life" as you define it, sports provides that extra bit that gets all us fans over the hump.  And if it that joy at something trivial doesn't make sense to you, it's okay, it's not supposed to.  It doesn't even makes sense to us.  But it does make us feel good and that's still worth something.  In fact, it feels so good, that it often provides that extra umph that we all need to get through the sham and drudgery of life.

And when we howl like banshies and pound our fists in the air making noises most commonly found in the zoo adjacent to the gorilla and hyena cages, remember, that all the pain, misery, frustration, anger that weighs us down in life is coming out in these silly moments watching grown men hits balls with sticks and playing catch.  But it comes out in joy and jubilation that is not socially exceptable to express in any other place in the world except in the presence of sport.

And that my friend, is why we act the way we do.  And it's why you can find me, every single Sunday, in the house of that other famous religion in America, the sports bar.  From 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock, service is in, and I'm pumping my fist in the air and high fiving complete strangers everytime my team secures another first down on the way to a score.

PLAY BALL!!