Vox Popoli

What’s the point of wasting time on it when the referee simply refuses to pay attention to the video evidence:

Bad call, bad replay review doom Vikes

The Minnesota Vikings blew a 10-point lead in Kansas City on Sunday, ultimately losing to the Chiefs, 13-10.

If not for a blown call by an official and a poor replay review of the decision, though, the outcome might have been different. In the second quarter, Vikings running back Mewelde Moore took a handoff on a play that started at the Kansas City 8. Moore deftly moved toward the line of scrimmage, then slid to the right and threw the ball to tight end Visanthe Shiancoe, who was uncovered as he came across the end zone.

The pass was a bit off the mark, but Shiancoe lunged forward to haul it in, and then rolled on the ground with his arm cradling the ball. As he celebrated the apparent touchdown, the official who watched the catch was slamming his palm toward the ground like a guy who was taking a friendly game of “Family Feud” way too seriously. No catch.

Out came the red challenge flag, as it should have. Though the available angles weren’t ideal, it was clear Shiancoe had caught the ball and gotten his radius and ulna under it. Contrary to what the keen eyes (eye roll) of the official spied, the ball did not strike the ground.

But referee Walt Anderson emerged from the booth after viewing the replays and announced to the world that the call on the field would stand.

It wasn’t the worst call I’ve ever seen, but it was up there. I simply do not understand the eagerness of NFL and professional soccer referees to disallow scoring. I loathe how they simply leap at the opportunity as if they get paid for every point they can take off the scoreboard. There was absolutely no question that Shiancoe caught the ball cleanly even prior to the review; the broadcasters were confused when the nearby official didn’t signal touchdown.

This isn’t the first time I’ve wondered if pro sports wouldn’t be better without zebras. I don’t know if the Vikings would have won anyhow, as Kelly Holcomb played the entire second half with a deer-in-the-headlights expression on his face and gave up an incredibly stupid sack at the end of the first half that cost the Vikes a critical field goal opportunity, but it certainly changed the tempo of the game.

Fred Thompson is an inept candidate. The UPDATED Michigan straw poll results:

Romney — 39

McCain — 27

Paul — 10.8

Giuliani — 10.6

Thompson — 7

This is an incredible result for several reasons. Romney’s win is no surprise — he paid for many volunteers to attend, perhaps as many as 200, and he leads in some state polls. But how about McCain finishing second, ahead of Giuliani? McCain had a lot of supporters there, but I’m told that he paid for no one…. Then there’s Thompson, [and Giuliani – VD] finishing behind Ron Paul. This is partly a reflection of his lack of an organization in Michigan, but it could also be about how bad his speech was.

Remember when it was Ron Paul who was “unelectable”? Now he’s actually beating “major” candidates… it will be interesting to see how things start shaking out once the real primary voting starts. But it’s clear that Giuliani hasn’t won over Republicans despite the elders trying to hand him the nomination and Thompson has looked more disastrous every day since he formally entered the race.

That Brits won’t commit:

More than one crime in five in London is now committed by a foreign national, raising fresh fears over the impact of immigration. Around a third of all sex offences and a half of all frauds in the capital are carried out by non-British citizens.

I’d really like to know why supporters of immigration believe that the invaded culture will change the behavior of the invaders rather than the invaders changing the invaded culture. Both historical and current evidence suggest that the latter probability is the higher one.

Perhaps the BNP should adopt a new slogan. Cut crime 20 percent! It’s clear that mass deportations are coming, it’s just a question of sooner rather than later, because the status quo is inherently unstable.

Chad the Elder talks rot on alcohol:

While I have been known to enjoy a Baileys or two in my day (or even better, creme Tequila), I share Felten’s general distrust of any drink that’s overly sweet, especially when there’s any hint of sexual innuendo in the name. Truly good cocktails don’t require a gimmicky title to make the sale.

No, they don’t require a gimmicky title, what they actually require are a) bright, shiny colors, ideally resembling Windex or radioactivity, b) ice, and c) little umbrellas. Although in a pinch, little toothpick swords will do, especially since you can also use them to challenge someone who happens to glance at your date to a duel.

Few things are more amusing than brandishing a little plastic weapon and screaming “crossed swords at dawn” at an alarmed stranger in a bar, after all. Bonus points if it’s winter and you slap them across the face with your glove first.

For dining and intelligent conversation, there is no substitute for wine, and an amaretto-laced espresso is the ideal nightcap, at least for those of us whose blood-caffeine level is permanently elevated. But cocktails are intended for fun and public consumption and should always be as obnoxious as possible.

It takes a real man to drink a chick drink.

The NYT’s description of this Flemish independence party amuses me:

“We are two different nations, an artificial state created as a buffer between big powers, and we have nothing in common except a king, chocolate and beer,” said Filip Dewinter, the leader of Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Bloc, the extreme-right, xenophobic Flemish party, in an interview. “It’s ‘bye-bye, Belgium’ time.”

I mean, why not describe Vlaams Belang as “the extreme-right, xenophobic, no-good, very-bad, sinister black-hat-wearing party” while you’re at it? And if Vlaams Belang is “extreme-right” simply for supporting Flemish independence, doesn’t that make the American revolutionaries “extreme-right” as well?

I quite like the picture of the candle-laden cake celebrating 100 days without a government. Reagan should have gone that route back when Congress shut him down. It’s a powerful testimony that central government and rule by elected politicians is totally unnecessary.

Rudolph Giuliani suddenly respects gun rights. Or rather, “gun rightth”, as he puts it:

Glossing over the less appealing line items on his gun control resume, ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani presented himself as sympathetic to the aims of the National Rifle Association and pledged, as president, to protect gun rights.

“Your right to bear armth is bathed on a reathonable degree of thafety,” he said.

He indicated that he would oppose new efforts to tighten national gun laws.

“I believe that law endforthment should focuth on enforthing the lawth that exitht on the bookth ath oppothed to pathing new exthensionth of lawth,” he said. “A perhton’th home ith their cathle. They have the right to protect themthelveth in their own home.”

Giulaini explained the lawsuit he initiated in 2000 against gun manufacturers by saying that he was “exthethive in everyway that I could think of in order to reduce crime” but said that “intervening eventth” like September 11th had caused his views to evolve. “I think that lawthuit hath gone in the direction that I don’t agree with.”

This insult to the nation’s intelligence would be aggravating, but it doesn’t really matter if Republicans are dumb enough to fall for this shyster’s timely faux Damascene transformation, since Rudolph is going to get stomped by the Lizard Queen should he win the nomination.

It’s interesting to see that Rudolph thinks Constitutional rights only apply in one’s home.

The former ESPN writer, who is remarkably sane about everything but Jeff George, cuts through much of the activist nonsense surrounding Jena:

Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span. Where was our compassion long before Bell got into this kind of trouble?

That’s the question that needed to be asked in Jena and across the country on Thursday. But it wasn’t asked because everyone has been lied to about what really transpired in the small southern town.

There was no “schoolyard fight” as a result of nooses being hung on a whites-only tree.

Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.

A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder….

It’s rarely mentioned that Bell was already on probation for assault when he was accused of participating in Barker’s attack.

The interesting thing is the way in which so many people are upset about “excessive charges” because the six thugs were forcibly prevented from killing their unconscious victim. And yet, when these barbarians end up killing someone – probably another black man – or raping someone – even odds that it’s a white woman – many of the people now complaining about the supposedly excessive charges will lament the fact that nothing was done the first two, or three, or four times that the thug was convicted of committing a violent crime.

I don’t know if the six barbarians of Jena were trying to kill the kid or not. I wasn’t there; neither were any of those who are publicly proclaiming that attempted second-degree murder charges are excessive. And while there are many good reasons to distrust the U.S. system of justice, it is beyond ludicrous to argue that numerous black men are involved in an attempt to judicially lynch a violent gang of young black men.

Although, I suppose that no one is more sick and tired of violent black criminals than those who most often suffer their depradations, the peaceful, law-abiding black community. If they did want to get rid of these young monsters-in-the-making, who could blame them?

I find Jonathan Haidt’s arguments to be interesting in light of how he is saying something very similar to one of the central points of The Irrational Atheist. After all, it’s difficult to argue for rational materialism when reason only comes into play after the fact, this is one reason why atheists like PZ are so uncomfortable with what he’s suggesting even though he is making a scientific case for moral evolution:

BLVR: So your conclusion is that while we might think that Reason or reasons are playing a big causal role in how we arrive at moral judgments, it’s actually our intuitions—fueled by our emotions—that are doing most of the work. You say in your paper that reason is the press secretary of the emotions, the ex post facto spin doctor.

JH: Yes, that’s right.

BLVR: What do you mean by that, exactly?

JH: Reason is still a part of the process. It just doesn’t play the role that we think it does. We use reason, for example, to persuade someone to share our beliefs.

If Haidt is correct, one of the primary foundations of the New Atheism, and indeed, the secular humanism they champion, is nonexistent. I suspect we are not witnessing the renaissance of Western atheism, but rather its high-water mark, as it is increasingly coming under siege from three sides, paganism, evangelical Christianity and science.

The next U.S. president isn’t ready to declare herself yet:

Hillary Clinton officially declared she’s not a lesbian – not that there’s anything wrong with that. During an interview with The Advocate to be published next week, Sean Kennedy, the gay magazine’s news and features editor, asked the presidential candidate, “How do you respond to the occasional rumor that you’re a lesbian?”

“People say a lot of things about me, so I really don’t pay any attention to it,” Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) replied. “It’s not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will say what they want to say.”

Who to believe, a professional politician or the woman who was having an affair with her husband for a dozen years? As Gennifer Flowers once declared on Hannity and Colmes – much to the obvious horror of both men – people in Little Rock have known about Hillary’s preferences for literally decades.