Miscellanea Agnostica

The problem of “link rot” has infected the World Wide Web almost from its inception. This phenomenon is especially troubling for me, since nearly all of my blog articles cite other Web material (mostly media articles). In an effort to deal with this, I’ve decided to use a service called WebCite. It caches Web pages, so they remain available, even if they’re later deleted or lost, the server they were on becomes unavailable, and so on. I plan to include links both to the live article in question, and add in the WebCite link (clearly marked as a cached page).

If you click on a link in one of my blog entries, and don’t get what I’ve described, try the cached version.

Hopefully you’ll agree this will improve this blog and ensure you will be able to see what I’m referring to in my own articles. Thank you.

Occasionally a correspondent accuses me of being “in cohoots” with Big Pharma. Of course I’m not — no one at any pharmaceutical company anywhere in the world even knows I exist, and they surely don’t give a damn what I say about anything — but the conspiracy-minded nevertheless believe that I’m a puppet of Big Pharma and the Vast Conventional-Medicine Conspiracy. Well, I’d like to contradict that, by going on the record as denouncing something a Big Pharma company did, as patently absurd on its face. (Pun intended!) This one comes from Consumer Reports via Consumerist:

Brooke Shields Has Hypotrichosis

Oh no! Brooke Shields used to have stringy, stick-figure eyelashes! I figured this out after watching Consumer Reports’ video dissection of a new commercial for Latisse, the glaucoma medication that has been rebranded as an expensive, temporary eyelash enhancer with side effects.

The referenced video is below, for your perusal:

I absolutely agree that Allergan taking a glaucoma medication and marketing it (with a large enough budget to pay for Brooke Shields!) for another — completely-frivolous — purpose, is flat-out ridiculous, if not irresponsible … it’s not as though insurance, Medicare or Medicaid are going to pay for a merely-cosmetic use of a product this expensive.

The recent Colorado Balloon debacle is an important lesson, revealing how mindlessness, stupidity, and a lack of critical-thinking skills have become pervasive in the US. I won’t get into details of this “event,” but rather, will point out how it cascaded out of control — because pretty much everyone involved ardently refused to think about what was going on.

1. The media picked up early reports without making even the slightest effort to confirm what was happening … even though the Heene family are pathological attention-lovers and their word cannot be trusted

2. Officials also took this report on its face and plunged ahead with search and rescue efforts — including nearly launching a plan to drop onto the balloon — without going to the house to find out if the child was there after all

3. The mass media and local officials are still in denial that they were duped by this family … when quite obviously, this had been a hoax right from the start (as the boy himself admitted)

4. Officials still do not know how much their overblown search and rescue effort cost, and still have no plans to try to recover those expenses

Other examples of stupidity here: Naming your son “Falcon”? Stupid. Naming your wife “Ninjawife”? Juvenile. Calling Hillary Clinton a “reptilian”? Asinine.

Need I say more?

Lesson to Americans: Next time you hear something stupid from a suspicious source, treat it as suspicious. OK?

Pardon the slight diversion from the usual topic of this blog. This does, however, touch tangentially on something I’ve mentioned many times previously, which is the infantilizing of the United States and the furious immaturity that has taken hold of public discourse in this country. I’m referring to the latest flare-up in the longstanding feud between two cable-news talking heads, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly.

Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post lays out the narrative of this feud. He exposes the vast immaturity and bone-headed stubbornness of both of these guys, their production staffs, and the networks they work for. I will leave the details of this inexcusable dust-up to Kurtz, rather than quote it here … there are too many incidents for me to go into each of them here.

Suffice it to say that both of these guys are being sanctimonious pricks. Each believes he possesses the moral authority and mandate to drive the other off the air. All attempts at trying to mitigate the childishness of their feud, have collapsed under the weight of this perceived moral authority (e.g. Olbermann believed, after the assassination of Dr Tiller, that he no longer needed to live up to their previous accord negotiated by their bosses).

Please, if anyone knows what useful purpose is served by the childish antics and hyperbolic sanctimoniousness of either O’Reilly or Olbermann, please tell me … because I’m not seeing it. I suggest that, instead of trying to reach some kind of gentleman’s agreement between their two networks, Immelt and Ailes should hire a couple of reality-show nannies to reparent these two overgrown children — and if needed, spank them until they grow the hell up.

This blog post is more light-hearted than usual but it’s something I found interesting, given my interest in early Church history and in linguistics.

Normally a spelling bee wouldn’t be something I report on. It just happens that the one that recently concluded included a reference to the early history of Christianity, something I’m an aficionado of (this report is by CNN):

Thirteen-year-old Kavya Shivashankar of Olathe, Kansas, spelled “laodicean,” Thursday night to take top honors in the 82nd annual Scripps National Spelling Bee.

The eighth-grader won $40,000 in cash and prizes for nailing the final word. Pronounced lay-odd-uh-see-an, the word means lukewarm or indifferent, particularly in matters of politics or religion.

This obscure English word comes from the name of a city in Anatolia, Laodicea. The association between this city and indecision or indifference is a result of the book of Revelation, specifically the letter Jesus dictated to the church in Laodicea, which is contained therein (Revelation 3:14-22). In it, Jesus accuses that church of being apathetic:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. (Rev 3:15-16).

Hence, anyone who’s apathetic … particular in religion … is “Laodicean” or “like the Christians of the church of Laodicea.”

Interestingly there is some Christian legend about an epistle written by Paul to the Laodicean church, first known by way of a reference in the epistle to the Colossians (in Colossians 4:16 to be precise). Exactly what this letter was, is unknown, especially since the epistle to the Colossians that first mentioned it, was itself not written by Paul but was an early- to mid-2nd century document. A forgery mentioning a document is not exactly the best testimony to its existence!

The Marcionites — an early quasi-Gnostic and therefore non-orthodox sect which, for a time, had a large following in Anatolia and in the central Empire — had an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, but its contents have since been lost. There is also a very-brief epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans, which exists only in Latin and not in Greek, Coptic, Aramaic, or any other language used by early Christians. As a document it was considered inconsequential and for the most part never accepted as canonical. In modern times there have been “Epistles to the Laodiceans” written as religious literature.

Comments on the Red Sox 2008 season:

Let’s be blunt, this year’s Bosox were not the World Series winners of last year. Many of the big names who had been responsible for last year’s success, did not do as well, this time around. The newer guys who were called upon to fill the gap certainly tried valiantly, but just could not fill it completely.

The 2008 season:

Bay: As a replacement for Ramirez, what a deal! Sure, you give up a home-run machine … but in return you get a decent hitter who can actually field the ball, and who doesn’t fake injuries, mouth off to the press like a whiny kid, or push middle-aged people around (literally). Ramirez did great for the Dodgers, to be sure … but that was in the NL West, not exactly a bastion of challenging baseball. Bay, on the other hand, improved his batting performance when he left the Pirates for the much-tougher AL East. If that doesn’t show you what he’s made of, I don’t know what will.

Pedroia: 2008 may turn out to be his “career season,” but then again, it may turn out to be a sign of much more to come. Either way he excelled all-around. If he isn’t named the AL MVP, there is no justice.

Ellsbury: What happened to this once-promising rookie? He’s a great outfielder, but suffered several long batting droughts. He’s not going to be much good if he keeps that trend up. He’s a future hall-of-famer, if he can be more consistent with the bat.

Pitching — Sox pitching was not what you’d call stellar in the last half of the season. There’s a reason the Rays took the lead in the AL East at mid-season and held it for months, and that reason was the Sox pitchers. While Lester had a no-hitter and ended the season with a great ERA, he had difficulty in the ALCS and ended up the losing pitcher, twice. Something happened to Beckett late in the season; I have no idea what, nor does anyone else, aside from some Sox talk about him sleeping wrong on his arm (huh?). Buchholz fell completely apart and was nothing like the guy who threw a no-hitter last year in his second MLB outing, although like a trouper he endured a “rehab” trip down to the minors and ended up back there. Masterson successfully converted from a starter to reliever and possibly a closer. Matsuzaka won many more games than he had any right to, given the number of hits and walks he gave up.

Injuries/Illnesses — In this department the Sox were a sad tale of woe, although aside from Ramirez’s non-injured knee(s), no one was to blame. (The jury is out on Beckett’s arm, since we don’t know what happened to it, or even if anything did.) The season got off to a poor start when a number of Sox players brought some sort of flu back with them from their early games in Japan. Ortiz’s wrist was a real setback for the Big Papi, he wasn’t quite the same after returning. It turns out Lowell was dealing with a hip problem nearly all season; only in the last few weeks did it prevent him from playing. (That Lowell played hurt only made Ramirez’s injury-fakes all the more reprehensible.) Drew’s back put him out of commission, and Lugo was sidelined from mid-season on by his own injury. There’s no doubt that, had the Bosox not been as banged-up as they were, things might well have turned out differently.

Looking forward to 2009, by functional area:

Catching — Things are rocky behind the plate for the Sox. Varitek is nearly as good a defensive catcher as there is in baseball, but his bat is anemic. He was effective in leadership and in calling pitches, but sometimes the pitchers were not able to deliver what he called. His free agency creates a problem for the Sox; he’s not worth getting into a bidding war over, but the alternative, relying on Cash, is not an attractive option either. Cash is good, but not that good, nor is he experienced enough to replace Varitek as a pitch-caller and leader. The best we can hope for is to keep Varitek another year at a modest salary, have him pick up his batting, and keep grooming Cash to replace him.

Infield — The Sox are looking good here. Youkilis is a great fielder and a very good hitter; moreover, he’s not old enough to be declining in his career. Both of these are even more true of Pedroia, who is younger still and may well even improve. Lowrie had his moments and should do well next year. Lowell, who just had surgery, was out for a few stretches of time in 2008; while his surgery suggests he’ll be back next year, one can only hope he’s as good as he was.

Outfield — Another place the Sox look good. Bay is a much better fielder than Ramirez; Crisp and Ellsbury are true athletes; and Kotsay and Drew aren’t shabby either. Their bats are not consistent, though; they all run hot and cold at times (some more than others … Bay was probably more consistent than the rest). Drew’s back may also be a problem in 2009; we can only guess how much he’ll do.

Pitching — Lester is young and I expect he will prove better in 2009. As for the rest? I don’t know. I really don’t. Matsuzaka’s tendency to load the bases is probably going to get him into trouble next year; Wakefield is getting old; and Beckett … well … I have no idea what the hell happened with him. Masterson and Papelbon are promising and will continue their success. Hopefully whatever it was that derailed Buchholz will work itself out. Aside from a few bright spots like Masterson and Papelbon (and hopefully Buchholz), Bosox pitching in 2009 doesn’t look to be all that great.

Hitting — The Sox have some of the best hitters in baseball and for the most part they promise to do well again next year … with a few exceptions. Ortiz did not crank out the homers like he used to, not even before his injury (he had a long hitting drought in April). And Ellsbury was inconsistent. Hopefully spring training will straighten him out.

Competition — The Sox are in what is easily the most competitive division in the MLB. This doesn’t look to change any time soon. 2008 was an off-year for the Yankees; do not assume they won’t come roaring back in 2009. The Rays had an unusual year, and may not prove equal to it in 2009, but they certainly won’t be the AL doormats again. The Blue Jays had an excellent second half under their un-retired winning manager Gaston; if he stays with them instead of retiring again, expect them to be in the upper ranks of the league, too.

The Bottom Line for the Red Sox in 2009:

The Sox have a great outfield and an even better infield, and they have some decent hitters. But they have problems in pitching and catching, and it’s there, in the battery, that games are won or lost. This is even more of a liability in such a competitive division. Barring an unexpectedly wonderful acquisition, or the miraculous collapse of a competitor or two, don’t expect the 2009 Red Sox even to equal their 2008 record. Their final record will be 83-79 at best.