As IF Times

Source: News from The Associated Press

In the matter of what is proper Catholic doctrine and what isn’t, there is probably no higher authority than the Pope.  Whomever occupies that role has spent their entire life at being a scholar of the history of the teachings of the Church.  If you were on a TV show and a god question was posed of you, it’s likely that the Pope would be one of your lifeline calls.

I cast serious doubts as to whether the topic of global warming ever came up in the scholarly studies that all Catholic priests are required to master.  If it has, then all Popes before this one have been negligent by never having discussed it during their reigns.  While Pope Francis tries to link global warming to the suffering of people in poorer countries, I can think of at least one other cause of mass suffering that he can address; that of the stupidity of the products that come out of the entertainment business.

There’s plenty to address in the matter of human frailties in the world including the classic ones of greed, corruption and general evilness.  Whatever happened to the classic pleas on behalf of global poverty, starving kids and world peace? There’s no shortage of affronts to humanity that he can target with his critical words. The nebulous claims of the global warming crowd should be well down the list of issues facing mankind.  In a quote from his interview, he says,

“Those who deny this must go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly,” he said, referring to experts who blame global warming on man-made activities…”

Which scientists?  When you read that “scientists have all agreed on the science”, it should give pause to anyone, since unlike the god business, science is not about agreement, it’s about empirical evidence that can be measured. In fact, there are plenty of dissenting scientific views on global warming, but somehow, the ‘consensus’ is already in.  Well, I think many will want a recount on that consensus.  As far as speaking clearly, the only common solution that ever arises from the sage scientists are more taxes on western economies.

Imagine if football broadcasters Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth were to comment on the policies of the Catholic Church.  Interesting perhaps, but they don’t have any more credibility than the next guy.  We look to them for football opinions, not for topics clearly out of their lane.

When a figure with the gravitas of The Pope makes a pronouncement on a topic, people pay attention.  It’s not like Jennifer Lawrence or Bill Maher making inane and obtuse comments.  The Pope should be speaking from a position of knowledge and perspective.  Clearly, his expertise is in the saving of souls business, not in the saving the planet racket.  That’s for non god fearing lawyers and politicians.

link Joe Soucheray: Tim Tebows fun to watch, but his critics are even more entertaining – TwinCities.com.

There’s an old joke that used to make the rounds up here in Canada which goes like this: A rookie sous chef gets a tour of a kitchen and he notices two pots which are boiling lobster.  He notices one pot has a lid on it and the other one doesn’t.  When he asks the head chef why this is so, the chef replies, “Well one pot is boiling American lobsters, we need a lid to keep them in.  The other one has Canadian lobsters, we don’t need lids on those because if one tries to climb out, the others pull him back in…”

This anecdote has ceased to become relevant based on what we’ve seen happen to culture in the U.S. over the past dozen or so years.  Whether you were a fan of it or not, the Americans as a people used to be known for their ‘can-do’ and optimistic attitude towards things, an attitude that by comparison, Canadians used to lack.  Now it seems to have swung the other way.

A guy comes along like Tim Tebow, who by all accounts is squeaky clean, devoutly religious, is pious and deferential and is essentially the poster boy for a Wheaties box.  Instead of universal adulation, he is disparaged, derided and openly hated by much of the popular media.  Apparently, his good guy persona is an irritating affront to many.  Of course opposing athletes will always be hated, as in the case of Derik Jeter by all non Yankee fans for example.

But the hatred for Tebow is not just because he plays for the opposition, it’s genuine contempt for him as a person.   At a time when many participants in professional sports are known as much for their records with the local DA as for their records on the playing field, Tebow doesn’t fit.   If only he had a history of wife beating, drug dealing, substance abuse, dog fighting or gun violence, he’d be a much more sympathetic figure.  He’d be like everyone else.

Instead, his lack of socially dysfunctional characteristics makes him a juicy target for noted intellectual giants such as Bill Maher and Charles Barkley.  In fact, contempt for Tebow comes mostly from those who don’t even watch football.  They come from that ideologically cynical sector of society that can’t stand the idea that a successful man is driven by faith rather than crass greed and an inflated sense of self worth.  Actually, it’s as amusing to observe the rabid foaming at the mouth of his critics as it is to watch Tebow perform miraculous plays.  In the old days, they used to root for the player to make heroic plays.  Times have changed.  They definitely don’t require lids on the U.S. pots anymore.