Comments for The Catholic Cricket

Comment on “Fair” by another name… by Kevin R. Siekierski

Kevin R. Siekierski — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:30:57 +0000

There are no guarantees in life (well, death and taxes, maybe). In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson claimed that our basic rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Notice the wording of that last one, it isn’t that we have the right to be happy, but we have the right to pursue our own happiness. Some people are never happy, never will be, and will always find something to complain about, something that they think is unfair.

Equality, as described by Jefferson, meant that no person is more important than any other person. No one’s rights matter more than someone else’s rights, regardless of station at birth.

As you point out, the importance of the American experiment is that everyone has the equal opportunity to live free and be happy.

Comment on Fr. Corapi and Rush to Judgement by Sharon

Sharon — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:48:14 +0000

Very well thought out Matt. I agree. I think that too many people are quick to judge. We have become a society of “guilty until proven innocent”. And we have become a people that love to gossip, which, if I remember correctly, is one of the seven deadly sins. I will pray for father as well and hope that he grows and learns from this experience, no matter whether he is guilty or innocent.

Comment on On Commercials and Half-Time Shows by Matthew Siekierski

Matthew Siekierski — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:34:18 +0000

Like I said, I didn’t see Aguilera, so I can’t comment directly on her performance. I had heard about the additional notes thing, and I find it atrocious when singers personalize the anthem…the national anthem isn’t just the words, it’s also the music, and changing it makes it not the national anthem. I fault her for personalization while at the same time forgiving her for flubbing a line.

While the football players had 11 opposing guys to help them mess up, the job of a lineman is to remain still until the ball is snapped. They’re one of 22+ guys everyone is watching, while Aguilera was the only person everyone was watching during the anthem. Different pressures.

You’re probably right that the BEP were a bad choice. It would be better if the half-time show were not an attempt to squish a rock concert in between two halves of a football game. Go back to drill teams and marching bands. Maybe a special guest singer who sings one song without a huge stage setup required, and launch off some fireworks. Have a theme (which 34 of the shows had, per Wikipedia), with a message or a tribute or something, celebrate the host city, something more than just a concert. And a short concert at that, with a huge chunk of the 30 minute halftime taken up with setup and tear-down of the stage.

Comment on On Commercials and Half-Time Shows by Kevin R. Siekierski

Kevin R. Siekierski — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:24:14 +0000

Aguilera was horrible. Yes, football players are professionals, but it’s the 11 300lb guys on the other team that help cause false starts and and interceptions. Aguilera had one job – sing the national anthem – and she couldn’t do it. Worse yet is the fact that every (younger) singer thinks they can personalize the song by adding 20,000 notes. Just sing the darn song as written. Compare Whitney Houston’s version to Christina Aguilera’s. (The exception, of course, is Marvin Gaye).

Again, the BEPs were terrible, partially because of sound issues, but mostly, they were not a good choice. They may be a good studio group, but they lacked energy and talent for a live performance.

Admittedly, I had low expectations and I found nothing objectionable. But if they’re gonna have a boring halftime show, just bring back Up With People or college marching bands.

Comment on What’s been happening in the Siekierski household by Heather Siekierski

Heather Siekierski — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:48:17 +0000

Why were there some things I read that I didn’t already know? Makes me sad. Maybe we should hang out together a little bit more.

Comment on On Politics and Future Posts by Heather Siekierski

Heather Siekierski — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:40:26 +0000

That is one of my favorite passages! Submit to me and I will submit to you!

Comment on Temperature Proxies by Matthew Siekierski

Matthew Siekierski — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:43:41 +0000

Yeah, but they would have a lot more area they could sample.
My concern about geological temperature is if it doesn’t have enough granularity. How much time has to pass for a temperature record to get recorded in rock, such that we can still read it after a few million years? Would the temperature have to remain relatively constant for a thousand years?

Comment on Temperature Proxies by Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 02:18:52 +0000

Good point. I assume they look at the mineral contents, as they do with other geological sites. They may be able to look at the aggregate data from a variety of areas to draw conclusions. But they would still be based on subset of the planet.

Comment on Obama at Notre Dame by LarryD1965

LarryD1965 — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:58:20 +0000

Hi Matthew – we had a short back and forth in the combox at Creative Minority Report earlier this week – I asked if you were still in metro Detroit.

I’m in sales, all around metro Detroit – I can’t promise anything, but I could keep my ears open around my customer base for any possibilities. Email me at lgd0708 (at) aol.com if you’re open to having a complete (but totally Catholic!) stranger help you out. Like I said, it’s not a guarantee of success, but I sell to a lot of different industries, some of whom actually might be hiring.

Peace!

Comment on Bailout Bonuses by clamrampant

clamrampant — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:04:27 +0000

Here’s my go:

It’s like a direct violation of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.,

Was it legal when they did it? Yes? Then penalizing them for having done it, whether via a retroactive criminal law (outright unconstitutional) or a retroactive tax penalty (which may have more flexibility in practice, though it shouldn’t in theory), is a violation of one of the first principles of the rule of law: that the law should be KNOWABLE.