« Slavery, Christianity & Islam | Main | McClay in Colorado »
February 05, 2008
I Went to the Sewage Treatment Plant
Actually, it was just a shopping mall, and the sewage wasn't being treated, just being put up for sale. I hadn't been to a shopping mall in a long time, but we had to pick up something from the phone company's office, and that was in the mall, so after church on Sunday to the mall we went. It was a strange experience.
Now the weather was really splendid for this time of year, and my son and I took advantage of it later in the afternoon, riding our bikes a couple of miles into what passes for the "country" here in Rhode Island. The snow had melted and the brooks were in full spate. We stopped on a dirt road at a pond that the state stocks with trout, for kids to fish. It's a small "park," actually on the property of the man who happened to pull up alongside us in his truck. He says that the herons and a couple of beavers get most of the fish, and that the kids show up only on the special days the parks commission announces. Otherwise, nobody comes around; it's just the pond and the waterfall. "But the kids have nothing to do," he said. "Look at all the woods they've taken away," -- and he motioned towards some housing subdivisions that have sprouted up in recent years, where they used to plant corn. "And then people wonder why the kids throw rocks through windows." I didn't have the heart to tell him that he could uproot all the subdivisions he wanted and replace them with farmland and woods and streams and rocks, and the kids would still not go there, being all of them allergic to something or other to be found outdoors, peanuts or gluten or wasps or fresh air, and that if I did see a kid doing something as ambitious and imaginative as throwing a rock through a window, I'd consider it a fine day indeed.
But, as I said, that was later. The shopping mall was pretty crowded for noon on a Sunday -- I was surprised by that. A lot of things surprised me, in no particular order. I was struck by how much expense, intelligence, creativity of a sort, and sheer energy is required to make something like a shopping mall as ugly as it is. I know, from where I grew up in Pennsylvania, that there's ugly, and there's ugly. A tremendous heap of coal dust, called "culm," stacked a couple of hundred feet high like a pustule on the mountainside, is ugly. The little scrub birches that somehow manage to grow in a film of topsoil that catches in the mound's ripples only make matters worse, as do the s's of dirt bikes trailing down the sides. But it's an honest sort of ugly. It's the ugly remains of hard work. A lot of the factories where I grew up were ugly in that ungainly sweaty kind of way, when they were humming with machines; and then, when they were abandoned, and boarded over or sealed with iron grillwork, and had their windows smashed or their walls scrawled with announcements from the local boys as to certain passions older than the factories themselves, they were ugly in a sad way, as expressing the mutability of all things earthly. But neither a culm dump nor a factory with its sign dangling from one bolt is ugly in that brassy, determined way that a shopping mall is ugly. And that's not to get into the soft and not-so-soft porn everywhere (why do they call it "Victoria's Secret," when everything is out in the open?), and the absurdly overpriced clothes that don't even look good, and the franchise food, and the bells and whistles, the glamour and empty promises.
So the bike ride cleared my head a bit. Then later that night, as I'm sure many of you did, I watched the Super Bowl -- since football is, after all, the second greatest game ever invented. I was rooting for the Patriots, just because I've taken to enjoying the local enthusiasm here, but was pleased well enough to see Eli Manning gain some redemption. But aside from the football -- that sport which possesses two of the three prime features of a Great Game -- I had to watch the commercials, and noticed with some surprise that a Super Bowl Ad had come to command as much attention as a Super Bowl Team, with polls for Best Ad and offers for DVD's containing all the ads, in case you missed any. That would be like leaving the sewage treatment plant with sample bottles. Mostly I pressed the "mute" button on the zappatore, as we call it, but even at that it was hard not to notice the unrelieved ugliness of it all. People are presented as stupid, bratty, slovenly, sluttish, coarse, obnoxious, and fat -- as in a weird Hobbesian state of nature, when there's too much for everyone, and nobody has anything really meaningful to do. And yet those commercials must appeal to the viewers -- the ad men know quite well what they are doing.
In the middle ages, where we are now in my course in western civilization, a lot of places had trouble getting rid of sewage. But aside from that, what was really ugly about a medieval town? The walls? The civic buildings? The rough-and-tumble lives of pigs and chickens and dogs? The soaring cathedral? The farmland without? The open skies? The bells tolling the hours? The peddlers crying up their wares? The dresses and trousers? What does it do to people, eventually, to live among so much expensive and glaring and plastic ugliness -- as if a great red CVS sign glowered over your bed every night? And to pay handsomely for it, too.
Posted by Anthony Esolen at 10:23 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e5502b26278834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I Went to the Sewage Treatment Plant:
Comments
>>>what was really ugly about a medieval town? <<<
The disease, the infant mortality, the grinding toil of everyday life, the arbitrary power of one's superiors over one, the smells even aside from sewage, the unrelenting grime....
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Feb 5, 2008 11:33:34 AM
kids would still not go there, being all of them allergic to something or other to be found outdoors, peanuts or gluten or wasps or fresh air
It's nice to think that if my daughter had been raised in the olden' days, or had just been raised right, she wouldn't have her peanut allergy.
Posted by: Bruce Geerdes | Feb 5, 2008 11:45:04 AM
"The disease, the infant mortality, the grinding toil of everyday life, the arbitrary power of one's superiors over one, the smells even aside from sewage, the unrelenting grime...."
Sounds just like today, actually. . .
Posted by: Bob | Feb 5, 2008 11:59:48 AM
It's a niggle, but there was less "arbitrary" power over underlings in the medieval period than is commonly believed. The upper as much as the lower classes were bound by customs and obligations to each other.
On the original post, it reminded me of recently trying to research Apple laptops. I made the mistake of going to an Apple store, which around here at least are all in shopping malls. The store was packed with wall-to-wall teenagers playing with the iPods and computers. Very loud, very germy... suffice to say, I did my research and my shopping elsewhere.
Posted by: Gina | Feb 5, 2008 12:06:12 PM
Bruce,
I don't know if you're being sardonic, but if your daughter (or my sixth boy) had been raised in the olden days, they very well might not have their nut allergies. I'm a kinda/sorta immunologist--at least in how the human immune system interacts with various microbial beasties with which we live (or don't).
Some decent scientists have proposed that in the absence of environmental stimuli (i.e. a certain amount of filth/danger/pollen/bug parts) the immune system os some people gets a little too revved up and this is what causes it to over-react to innocuous particles like nut proteins. This probably has something to do with the lack of opportunity to develop a complement of modulatory cells that dampen the response.
In any case, our Tyveked homes that don't allow for a lot of free exchange of air, and our propensity to bathe, are "protecting" some of us a little too much from our environment. Rates of asthma and other autoimmune disorders have been rising for generations precisely as our daily lives have lost contact with...dirt.
At the same time, it seems likely (to me) that our clean environment has saved the lives on the other side of the immune bell curve--those whose immune systems are significantly weaker than average. In any case, I *know* that if my oldest boy had been born a generation before he had been, he probably would have died (he was a preemie). So I'm glad to live now.
But Tony is right--malls sometimes seem demonically designed. When we enter the mall before Christmas, searching for the "Bath and Body Works" products that my wife likes to get from the children, we have to avert our eyes from the Victoria's Secret display.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 5, 2008 12:16:08 PM
danger = dander (sorry)
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 5, 2008 12:17:38 PM
Sarcasm? But indeed, she probably wouldn't.'Raised right' sounds as though you think Professor Esolen is getting at you - but it certainly seems true that food allergies have been increasing at an alarming rate, and that many allergies are actually new. Anyway, your daughter certainly wouldn't have had a peanut allergy in the Middle Ages, unless she'd been born in South America, since peanuts were unknown in Europe at that stage.
Posted by: Sue Sims | Feb 5, 2008 12:26:05 PM
Sue Sims writes:
'Raised right' sounds as though you think Professor Esolen is getting at you
Well, yes, Esolen including "fresh air" in his list of allergies leads me to believe he might think allergies are overstated. Some aren't.
W.E.D. Godbold writes:
if your daughter (or my sixth boy) had been raised in the olden days, they very well might not have their nut allergies
I agree. I also agree there are some environmental reasons for the rise in allergies (hypocondriatic parents aside). A child being hobbled by an allergy isn't simply a matter of being "unambitious or unimaginative", to paraphrase Esolen.
Sorry if I'm being a bit sensitive. I agree with the derogatory tone towards malls, which I think was the point of the piece. :)
Posted by: Bruce Geerdes | Feb 5, 2008 12:41:09 PM
Victoria's Secret was so much less ugly when it was marketed to women.
Women could get long flannel nightgowns bedizened with lace and ribbons, with hems they could tuck their feet under and just enough opacity that they had to deliberately stand in front of a lit window to cancel it out. Poet's shirts. Flowing silk pajamas that cuddled the wearer all over. Enormous, fluffy, fuzzy terrycloth robes that felt even softer. Elegantly fitted skirts and tops that said, "I am on the ball and I know it," not, "Look, I have breasts! Look at my breasts! Look! Look!" Little bits of silk this and that for wearing unobtrusively under office suits--a literal secret to help a woman feel beautiful and comfortable. Even comfortable foundation garments! The catalog was full of women sipping tea, lounging, walking lazily on a beach, looking dreamily off into the blue distance, even (gasp!) curled up with books.
When they changed their line to emphasize scratchy lace underwire bras and pajamas you couldn't button to the top--things intended for the male gaze instead of women's enjoyment--I still took the catalog; they hadn't discontinued some of my favorite pieces . . . yet. Then I got the one that had an actual centerfold, featuring that model who now plays an evil cyborg spy on Battlestar Galactica having a simulated orgasm while wearing horrifically uncomfortable underclothes. I wrote a letter to the company requesting to be taken off their mailing list.
But, to get back on topic: I think the idea of deliberate ugliness in merchandise started in the early 1980s. Wasn't that about the time somebody started drawing a bloodshot, scraggly, rotten-toothed Mickey Rat for rebellious teens to put on their cars? But the rebellion is long over and ugly is the new mainstream. My husband and I don't let our kids watch most cartoons, not only because they're utterly wrong (The Grimm Adventures of Billy and Mandy comes to mind), but because they're just plain hideous. Even innocent fare such as Rugrats is ugly. The new sleeve dogs are ugly, scraggly little things that go for high prices merely because they are small--no, a Chihuahua does not have to look like an applehead doll. Miniature horses that are, by any measure of horse conformation, deformed are also sold for high prices. So are their plastic pals in The Littlest Pet Shop (ugh, those eyes, they won't stop following me). Bratz dolls aren't just prostitots; they're grotesquely distorted prostitots. Cabbage Patch dolls are still around and still uglier than tea cozies made out of used panty hose. Over on the boys' side, the hero dolls are grotesquely overmuscled like HYPP-positive quarter horses or hideous with fangs and drool, the smaller toys three-dimensional representations of toilet jokes, the very comic books created by people who cannot draw a human figure to save their lives.
If this is the mainstream to which my children must be well adjusted, then I'll raise a bunch of little elitist snobs, thanks all the same.
Posted by: Jenny Islander | Feb 5, 2008 1:03:46 PM
Tony: From the billboards on the highways, ads on trains and buses and bus stops, and at airports, television products ("Daddy, what's genital herpes? What a genital?", the store displays, the pop music rap porn I've heard while pumping gas, to the porn at the grocery check out line--the sewage is all around us.
So, I got hopeful about there being a sewage treatment plant....Alas! As you said, it was there for sale, not treatment. I think some of it would also qualify as "toxic waste."
The economy, the war on terror, these politicians will talk about. But who will touch the toxic waste clean up that's needed? Are there any genuine "environmentalists" out there who consider the moral environment as well as the physical?
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Feb 5, 2008 1:47:58 PM
Could there be a better argument for Original Sin? We can't blame the courseness of modern American life on poverty, unless by "poverty" we mean the inability to shop as much as we want at Abercrombie & Fitch. If we're inclined to ask why God may not often our prayers to supply what we lack materially, then perhaps we just need to pay a bit more attention to what we become when such prayers are answered.
In a sense my parents were blessed by being raised during the Depression. They were extremely frugal (admittedly a bit to my chagrin when I was a teenager), but with the benefit of hindsight I now greatly admire their outlook. I think a fair amount of this attitude rubbed off on me (helped perhaps by growing up in a rather poor and sparsely inhabited mountain state) and on my wife (left fatherless at age 7 with an immigrant mother with three young kids and limited English skills). But much less rubbed off on my own kids, despite our best efforts, surrounded as they were (and still are) by well-to-do Southern California suburbs and friends who rarely lack the "latest thing." What, I wonder, will my yet-to-be-born grandkids be like?
And yet I wonder how many people in America really understand that wealth and comfort can really be a source of utter spiritual disease? Do even Christians comprehend this?
Posted by: Bill R | Feb 5, 2008 2:11:12 PM
>>>But who will touch the toxic waste clean up that's needed?<<<
Laura Ingraham talks about it a lot on her radio show. A few columnists do too, such as Rebecca Hagelin, and some Christian media people. But it hasn't become a big issue, which is very distressing, as it means the vast majority of people, including parents, are just going along with the toxic culture without thinking much about it.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Feb 5, 2008 2:33:32 PM
Here's a thought people: Don't try to sweep your objections to the pornification (and uglification) of our culture under the rug when you're out with children who know how to reason. Tell them then (or shortly thereafter) what is wrong with it. (And not in a way to encourage pharisaism, either. It's not a matter of "*We're* better than *they* are," but rather a lesson on guarding the wellsprings of the heart against such assaults. (I doubt if there is a boy between the ages of 9 and 16 who will look away from a pornographic image if given a chance.)
A sign for genital herpes is a great way to emphasize the concepts of reaping and sowing, the fruit of unchastity, and the psychospiritual importance of guarding one's purity (body, certainly, but also mind/heart). Don't evade or shilly-shally; confront.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Feb 5, 2008 2:52:50 PM
Hmmmm .... the world's second greatest game? Going on the numbers of participants and devotees, I guess that makes soccer number one? Here in Melbourne, Australia, last week we had nearly 100,000 packing the stands to watch Australia play India a game of cricket!
Posted by: William Rush | Feb 5, 2008 2:56:09 PM
Methinks Professor Esolen has besmirched sewage treatment plants - they are beautiful things to, if not behold, then know exist. Where else is a cast-off of society transformed via a systematic biological "organic" process into a life supporting material (farmers love the sludge!), water that is purer than tap-water, and into gases that enable the whole operation to run on its' own? If only Malls could do something like that with everything that enters their domains!
Posted by: Tim | Feb 5, 2008 3:02:04 PM
[quote]If only Malls could do something like that with everything that enters their domains![/quote]
Soylent Green is people?
Posted by: Bob | Feb 5, 2008 3:14:11 PM
Ah Tim, you are right, of course: a sewage treatment plant is sometimes exactly what a town needs. My hometown needed one, and it changed the posture of the fish in the Lackawanna River. In my youth, the few fish that came by floated belly up; now they swim, belly down.
I didn't mean to make anybody feel bad who has a child with one of the terrible allergies. I've met people who blame their children's rotten behavior on mysterious allergies that might not even exist; but I've also met children who might go into anaphylactic shock if they ate a sandwich that had been cut with a knife recently used on peanut butter and not cleaned well enough. I'm intrigued by what Gene says, too, about our unnatural guarding against dirt...
Judy, I know that there were hard things to bear in the middle ages. Before the Black Death, though, disease was not really one of them; people were living pretty well by any standards other than our own, or those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, blessed with the healthy semiarid climate. Infant mortality is a pitiable, miserable thing -- but I'm not putting it in the category of the ugly. I guess I'm referring to man's artifacts and his confrontation with nature. And wondering what it might be like to live in a place without telephone poles.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Feb 5, 2008 3:37:18 PM
>>>I'm intrigued by what Gene says, too, about our unnatural guarding against dirt...<<<
Reminds me of a, I think "Science Friday", talk about polio; the experts all said that polio cases vastly expanded right after WWII when all sorts of new household cleaners came on the scene, reducing, on a vast scale for the first time, all sorts of natural bacteria in our homes which had hitherto provided marvelous immune system strengthening.
Unless there's evident reason for earlier action, we honor the age old tradition of the Saturday night bath for our boy. Wish I could do the same but I don't like cologne and don't speak French! We've got a friend who works for Clorox. She can't stand my dirt-can-be-our-friend talk; Clorox appears fully invested in making us paranoid about germs - seen their ads lately?
Posted by: Tim | Feb 5, 2008 4:43:23 PM
>>I guess I'm referring to man's artifacts and his confrontation with nature. And wondering what it might be like to live in a place without telephone poles.<<
Give it time. If the oil catastrophists are right, we'll find out in about 20 years. :)
Posted by: Ethan C. | Feb 5, 2008 4:58:34 PM
I think it is perilous to underestimate one of the few truly good developments of recent years, the increase in medical knowledge and skill. I was just reading an article in the Atlantic in which the author discussed the decay of the urban Northeast, but also noted that if she had been born in greater Buffalo (her native area) during its heyday, she would have been deaf at least (due to a childhood ear infection treatable only with pencillin) and probably even dead (due to asthma treatable only with a type of inhaler not available in the U.S. until 1981).
I don't know if I agree with Mr. Goldbold's theory. I think it's more than possible that peanut-allergic children of a hundred years ago ate peanuts, died, and since childhood mortality was so great in general, no one quite knew the exact reason why.
I was curious to know what Dr. Esolen thinks of the much-debated Cape Wind. Are Teddy and Patches right to consider the plan ugly?
Posted by: James Kabala | Feb 5, 2008 7:34:11 PM
But what are the three prime features of a Great Game?
Posted by: Kevin | Feb 5, 2008 11:27:09 PM
A proposal isn't proof. But you are right, those children wouldn't have peanut allergies - they'd be dead.
Half of my grandparent's siblings didn't grow up, but those who did live long. I have a great-aunt who is a spry and very alert 99. So, dirt is good? Asthma and allergies are psychosomatic? Or has God given us ways to help those damaged by the Fall, live longer?
The article in its own ways shows many of the propensities and theological errors it condemns.
One might even call it demagoguery ;-)
Posted by: labrialumn | Feb 6, 2008 1:32:42 AM
"Are there any genuine "environmentalists" out there who consider the moral environment as well as the physical?"
Posted by: Don Bosch | Feb 6, 2008 10:42:07 AM
"Are there any genuine "environmentalists" out there who consider the moral environment as well as the physical?"
Two words: Wendell Berry
(although I doubt he'd consider himself an 'environmentalist,' as he generally distances himself from that movement because of their various excesses)
Posted by: Rob G | Feb 6, 2008 10:53:04 AM
:-) I want to be Wendell Berry when I grow up. :-)
Posted by: labrialumn | Feb 6, 2008 11:28:47 AM
James,
Boy, are those plasticene windmills hideous. I think Teddy and Patches are right. I'd rather cough all day than to have to look at those things. I could be persuaded otherwise, though.
The Three Features of a Great Game:
1. You can go from losing to winning -- not tying -- in a single play. Better, you can go from losing to HAVING WON, in a single play; and this happens with some regularity (baseball, football; more rarely in basketball). In baseball you have by far the greatest number of possibilities -- from losing to still losing, but on the verge of victory; from losing to still losing, exactly the same situation; from losing to tying, on the verge of victory; from losing to tying and no more (winning run out at the plate, to extra innings we go); from losing to having won.
2. The team with the ball is on defense, not offense. So you cannot win a game by delay. Another way to put it is that baseball has no clock.
3. People of all kinds of physical shapes and sizes and athletic talents can and do participate, in well-defined roles -- so that "strategy" will include the very makeup of a team, to a degree unmatched in most sports, wherein it is incumbent upon the owners to gather the greatest athletes they can find. So, in baseball, do you trade a 30-year-old, 5 foot 9, switch-hitting shortstop who bats .310 with 5 home runs and a few walks, who can steal some bases and make most of the plays you expect a very good shortstop to make, for a 37-year-old power pitcher who went only 10-11 last year, but 17-8 the year before, with a two-year ERA of 3.20? Depends upon who else is on the team -- but you get the point. Football shares this characteristic, too.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Feb 6, 2008 2:14:39 PM
The ProJo seems to take the attitude that only self-interested rich people who go yachting off the Cape oppose the project, and as much as I dislike the Kennedys, I figured there had to be more to their side than that. I don't really have a strong position one way or the other than that.
Posted by: James Kabala | Feb 6, 2008 2:42:20 PM
The "than that" from the previous sentence somehow re-appeared at the end of the final sentence. "other" should have been the last word of the final sentence.
P.S. Does any sport besides baseball (and its cousin cricket) have the ball on defense?
Posted by: James Kabala | Feb 6, 2008 2:51:04 PM
It's not whether the Kennedys are right or wrong in the particular case of the windmills. The issue is that they are so very insistent that everybody else subject themselves to inconvenience or worse in order to carry out their vision of the way things ought to be, but they will not have their view disturbed even by clean, green energy production.
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | Feb 6, 2008 4:03:16 PM
James,
I don't know -- I've been trying to come up with another such sport for a long time now, and can't think of any. It is a really unusual feature, when you consider it -- and it goes along nicely with no clock. You can't win a baseball game by sitting; you actually have to continue to use the ball to get the offense out.
Another thing I've been thinking of: the worst thing about the NFL's sudden death overtime is the anticlimax that occurs when a team has the ball with a first down at the opponent's 15 yard line or so. The game is really over right then, barring a bad mistake on the field goal. So what do teams do? A lot of nothing. They run one into the line to center the ball. They might run two. I would like to see one of the following rule changes:
1. 8-minute overtime periods. If you're tied after the 8 minutes, you're tied, and too bad.
2. One 15-minute overtime period, first touchdown wins. No field goals allowed. Safety also wins (that would be cool).
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Feb 6, 2008 4:23:50 PM
There's also the college system, each team gets the ball on the opponent's 25-yard line. If two consecutive series still yield a tie, all touchdowns require a two-point PAT attempt. It goes quickly and gets very thrilling.
Posted by: Michael D. Harmon | Feb 6, 2008 4:50:51 PM
>>P.S. Does any sport besides baseball (and its cousin cricket) have the ball on defense?<<
For the first forty-five minutes, soccer fits the bill. (Why is that game so popular worldwide, honestly?) I'd say basketball comes close, as there is a five-second passing rule, requiring the ball be put into play, so you are effectively playing keep away from the opposing team, seeing as if they get the ball, they can score, and you cannot.
Dr. Esolen, of course, is right. Baseball and football are the two greatest games, or perhaps this is my Americanism talking. Though I dislike apple pie and only mildly favor Chevrolet over foreign autos. Mr. Harmon--agreed, college footballs overtime method is the only thing it has on the NFL, though I do wish, sincerely, that they would do a kick-off and return. Sudden death rules are bogus.
Regarding the original post, a number of years ago the local shopping mall changed its name to "The Commons," and it is a standing joke among my age group that ever since the name change, the mall has been going "downhill." What I find interesting, however, is that, after having read this post, I observe the importation of "ghetto" culture into the mall scene. Zumiez has moved up to larger retail space, there is a store dedicated to the "rap scene" called, and I'm dead serious, Thugz and in place of a markedly conservative, tasteful chain The Gap, there is now Pac Sun, marketing swimwear and general southern California kitsch year round to a place where if you see sun between October and March you consider it an amazing day. Say wha?
As I get into my old age (ha!), I find myself shopping less and less and simply buying. I go to Target because they have reasonable clothing for reasonable prices, maybe hop down to the nearby outlet mall to get a few things for dirt cheap, but I don't "look" anymore. I know where I shop, and it's not Abercrombie and Fitch (speakin' of softcore porn).
Posted by: Michael | Feb 6, 2008 5:07:32 PM
My fellow Touchstoners,
I can keep silent no longer! Soccer is by far the greatest game, nay call it by the name it has earned "the beautiful game" ..and its reputation is well deserved. In no other game are the tides of momentun so subtle, or so subject to change. Every player on the team requires both a universal skill set (accurate passing, in the air and on the ground, ball control, dribbling, etc) but also a specialized knoweldge of their position. Playing center right midfield is enormously different then playing right back (defense), not so much in the skills used but in how they are applied.
Add to this that every player on a soccer team must be a well rounded athlete (no pudgy power hitters that can't steal a base to save their life, no pitchers that can't swing a bat, no 350 pound linebacker that can't catch, no wimpy QB whose afraid to run it) All soccer players must be strong, fast, and possess fine motor skills (even the goalie).
Not only that, but the action is continuous, (no stops and starts), an offensive play often begins with a great defensive play--football has this with interceptions but baseball does not--and the skills of individuals and the skills of a team as a whole have to be well integrated. A superstar might save you some of the time, but mnay soccer teams have learned that loading up on to many big names ruins cohesion.
Plus, there are bicycle kicks. Nothing cooler than that.
Posted by: windmilltilter | Feb 7, 2008 8:50:11 AM
Meh. Soccer is hockey but on grass. In both, the ball/puck goes back and forth back and forth for hours without any scoring. Not to my taste, but the rest of the world can have it. :-)
Posted by: Bob | Feb 7, 2008 9:29:34 AM
As to sports, I assert that baseball is the apex. However, I'd be inclined to agree with Windmilltilter as to the charms of soccer over American football.I've never much liked the pace of American football--an odd objection, I know, given my love for baseball. If I want to watch teams of men tackle each other, I'll take rugby in an instant (the fact that I can't ever seem to find rugby on TV here in America is a tragedy).
I object to both basketball and cricket for the same reasons: the rules of the game are excessively slanted toward the offense, which leads to tedious scoring races. They also have the additional flaw of allowing single "superstar" players to carry their teams.
Recently, I've become more attracted to tennis, which has the character of a duel rather than a battle.
Posted by: Ethan C. | Feb 7, 2008 9:45:57 AM
Hockey has fights. And not those slap fests that count as fights in basketball, drop the gloves, one on one fights. Best game ever.
Posted by: David R | Feb 7, 2008 9:49:30 AM
Also, the NFL should definitely adopt the college overtime system--though I agree with Tony that it would be nice to have a situation in which a safety could win it!
Posted by: Ethan C. | Feb 7, 2008 10:02:13 AM
>>Add to this that every player on a soccer team must be a well rounded athlete (no pudgy power hitters that can't steal a base to save their life, no pitchers that can't swing a bat, no 350 pound linebacker that can't catch, no wimpy QB whose afraid to run it) All soccer players must be strong, fast, and possess fine motor skills (even the goalie). <<
On the other hand football allows players to be different. The offensive linemen differs in physique and ability from the running back, you differs from the tight end, who differs from the wide receivers, etc., This is more reflective of how society works, and how God created. In that sense it is better than the cookie cutter model. Also American football is more than just a group of guys tackling each other - there are strategies involved on every play. A simple 2 year running play in the first quarter maybe the reason why a 50 yard pass play works in the fourth.
Posted by: Bob G | Feb 7, 2008 10:03:08 AM
Bob,
That's like saying, "Opera is acting with music, and their voices goes up and down for a while without ending."
Acting is good--with music its good too, maybe better.
Hockey is good--with grass, lets face it, it is better. And with a ball. and without sticks.
(Field hockey really is a frankentsein's monster, isn't it?)
Posted by: windmilltilter | Feb 7, 2008 10:41:12 AM
Windmilltilter,
I think your sobriquet says it all. It is a foolish battle that you cannot win. Like your namesake, this is principally because you really are wrong. ;-) Those windmills are not giants. And these sports really are better than soccer.
"Subtle" changes in momentum? Oh, bother, why not watch golf?
Ethan,
I enjoy tennis, but, alas, I am tremendously bad at it. This is okay, though, because tennis does not have an objective score. My friend and I can both play tennis, and both be tremendously bad at it, but when I win, I still have the satisfaction of victory. Whereas with another country club sport--golf--I can play terribly, win and still know I did terribly. What's up with a "par" for the course? I think golf was designed to impress upon the groaning masses that this really was a game for gentlemen, who could afford to go home and get drunk on single malt whiskeys.
Posted by: Michael | Feb 7, 2008 2:41:25 PM
Gentlemen,
The problem is that we are talking about games. If we were talking about sport this discussion would long be over.
The purest sport is wrestling: children wrestle; dogs, bears, lions, other animals wrestle... and God wrestled with Jacob.
Ergo, wrestling is God's sport, everything else is just a game.
Posted by: Nathan | Feb 11, 2008 2:51:10 PM








Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004