Commentary summary Oct 12, 2016

Why are the NFL Ratings Down? Jim Weber has some ideas: “The League’s greed has finally caught up to it.” What’s notable in Weber’s analysis is that he makes it clear that it is not a simple problem but on with many facets covering tangible and intangible assets.

There’s been an endless amount of hand-wringing and finger pointing about the NFL’s 11% dip in TV ratings thus far this fall.

It’s Colin Kaepernick’s fault. No, it’s because of the presidential election. Wait, maybe it’s live streaming. Or the Olympics. Or the progressive sports media. Or the lack of brand-name quarterbacks. Or Deflategate. Or CTE. Or Ray Rice.

While some or all of these have obviously had an effect on viewership, no one wants to address the elephant in the room: The NFL’s on-field product just isn’t very good right now — and the root of the problem is the league’s never-ending greed.

Watching from home isn’t much better. Thanks to endless commercials, games take forever. There’s no better way to kill momentum in a game than to follow up a touchdown with a touchback sandwiched between two commercial breaks, providing a gap of almost 10 minutes in real time between real game action.

Through all this, NFL owners still have the gall to wonder, “What’s wrong with our viewers?”

James Clark says In Combat, There Isn’t Always A Choice Between Right And Wrong. The concept is that of “moral injury” but, as might be expected in these times, it isn’t the injury seen by civilians and children engaging in warfare but rather the impact on soldiers who have to deal with it. This applies to the police as well as seen in the case of the Chicago copy who got beaten because she was hesitant to draw a weapon to protect herself due to all the BLM baloney. The crime and domestic violence as an indication of succumbs to a focus on what happens to those who are there to handle it.

Rudolph’s story, featured in an upcoming book by journalist David Wood, “What Have We Done: The Moral Injury Of America’s Longest Wars,” is just one staggering example of countless moral paradoxes and pitfalls faced by those we sent off to war.

David Blankehorn describes Clinton’s Alinsky Problem—And Ours One community organizer provides some insight about Clinton, Alinsky, polarization, and political ideologies. He does suffer a bit in the ‘now it’s all Republicans fault’ syndrome, though.

in every conflict, Alinsky teaches, you need a villain, an archenemy, who you view as personally embodying all that is evil and unjust. In 1971 Alinsky summed it up this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it….One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

But here we must understand a crucial complexity. In the view of this argument’s proponents, while the actual line of descent is clearly discernible—Marx and Lenin begat Alinsky, who begat Obama and Clinton—the behavior of the players, especially on the American side, has been duplicitous and conspiratorial, intended to mislead. In short, Alinsky and his current-day heirs are not just socialists, they are secret socialists.

This isn’t just about political divides at home, consider what is going on right now with Russia.

Ed Stetzer reports on Evangelical Views of the 2016 Election: Norman Geisler on Why He’s Supporting Trump and not Changing His Mind — “Trump supporter answers common Evangelical objections.”

Two weeks ago, Dr. Norman Geisler offered his endorsement of Donald Trump as part of a series of endorsements of major and minor party candidates. I also asked the major party endorsers to come back and answer questions and respond to objections often surfaced by Evangelicals.

Some of Dr. Geisler’s get to the heart of common sense:

  • This question seems to suppose that it is wrong to change your view, even when you are wrong.
  • Whether we like it or not, when we vote for president we are not voting for Pastor-in-Chief. Rather, we are voting for Commander-in-Chief. The qualifications for the two jobs are different.
  • All the candidates engage in offensive activities, some more than others. Most evangelicals would not vote for any of them to be pastor of their church. But we are not voting for a pastor but for a politician. Many evangelicals envision an ideal candidate who is superior to the ones we have. The problem is that we do not have the choice to vote for this ideal candidate but only for the real ones that are on the ticket.

There is a lot to think about!

Comments are closed.