Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Compassion and the Decline of America
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

This past weekend, a friend of mine attended his 13-year-old son's baseball game. What he saw encapsulates a major reason many of us fear for the future of America and the West.

His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened -- was the scoreboard perhaps broken? -- and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

In order to ensure that the boys losing by a lopsided score would not feel too bad, the score was changed.

As is happening throughout America, compassion trumped all other values.

Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.

Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.

They learned that someone will bail them out when they feel bad.

They learned that they do not have to deal with disappointment in life. Instead, someone in authority will take care of them. (This is how reliance on the state for personal problems -- the worldview of the Left -- is formed early in life.)

They learned that their feelings, not objective standards, are what society deems most important.

They learned that they are not responsible for their behavior. No matter how poorly they perform, there will be no consequences -- sort of like tenure for university professors.

They also learned to think in the feminine -- with an emphasis on feelings -- rather than to cultivate their innate masculine sense that winners win and losers learn to deal with it and move on to the next game.

At the same time, the boys on the winning team learned not to try their best. Why bother?

Building character was the third value trumped by compassion. People build character far more through handling defeat than through winning. The human being grows up only when forced to deal with disappointment. We remain children until the day we take full responsibility for our lives. Our increasingly feelings-based society has created a pandemic of immaturity in our society. And there are fewer and fewer maturity-creating institutions in our society. Indeed, the opposite is more often the case. Schools, for example, keep young people immature, none more so than college, which serves primarily to postpone adulthood.

The fourth value that compassion denied here was fairness. It is remarkable how often compassion-based liberals speak of "fairness" in formulating social policy given how unfair so many of their policies are. It was entirely unfair to the winning team to have their score expunged, all their work denied. But for the compassion-first crowd, the winning team is like "the rich" who earn "too much" and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored "too many" runs to be allowed to keep them all.

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Losing honorably promotes character;
winning by fiat,bed-wetting infantilism. Ever wonder why drugs have such a strangle-hold on America? Maybe one reason is that the thrill of victory is unatainable when every idiot wins.

It makes me cringe
at the very bad lessons those boys learned that day.
The boys who won, have their hard work and the joy of their achievement snatched right out from under them.

The boys who lost do not get to examine what they did wrong, build a strong team bond to work and fight for a win harder the next time. They were robbed of the wonderful experience of working hard together to make a come back, one of the best feelings in the world.

Talk about feelings. I would think that both teams ended up feeling bad about the whole thing. The winning team ends up feeling robbed and the losing team ends up feeling guilty.

What a dumb thing to do. And even dumber if we continue down this socialist path.

Don't be fooled.
The kids know who won and they know by how much. I coached every age of youth baseball from ages 5 to 13. I coached 6 year old teams in which the players kept score even in preseason scrimmage games where there was no score put up on the score board at all, and the game did not count in the standings.

I am not writing in support of the gesture; I am simply pointing out that it doesn't work. It was ridiculous and sent the wrong message to the kids, as the author pointed out. However, the main message it sends is that adults are arbitrary and manipulative and think that their players are simpleminded.

Extend the Principle
Look I agree that garbage like this is bad. I remember my track team winning by scores of like 98-3, but that's just how it was at the time.

Anyway, comments like: "They learned that they are not responsible for their behavior. No matter how poorly they perform, there will be no consequences." Well, gee, doesn't that express the actual worldview of most public conservatives, as well as liberals and everyone in between? I'm not talking about everyday Americans who describe themselves as conservatives (and let's face, they probably cheat and lie as much as anyone else). I'm talking about people like Prager, George Bush, your congressman, whatever. All those public conservatives want to preach one standard and observe another (see, e.g., Newt Gingrich, Ted Haggard, etc.). For his part, Prager certainly would jump all over a democrat for behavior he would let slide if it were a republican. That's not principle. That's politics.

Prager is probably right about lack of responsibility. Too bad it's a problem nearly univeral in America.

Beginning of communism
This is beyond dumb and ridiculous. I wonder who really wanted the scores to be changed. I would guess it wasn't the winning team. What's the point of playing if you're going to worry about hurting the other team's feelings? Why did the parents of either team allow this to happen?

The coach's job is to teach the team how to win a game. It is NOT his job to prevent the other team's feelings from being hurt. What is the point of something like the Super Bowl, or the NBA championship, if they're going to run around not keeping score, because some dumb stupid communist is going to be offended.

Scr*w political correctness. I am so sick of it. If we allow it to continue, we'll all end up as mindless automatons with no individual thought or reasoning. This has GOT to stop.

Sportsmanship?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The coach abrogated his own responsibility to teach his team about sportsmanship.

What those kids needed to do was to seek out members of the other team and congratulate them on their successes within the game. The other team may not have won, but they got hits, scored runs, and got guys out. Compliment them on that. "Hey, that was a nice hit in the third." "Man, you really robbed me making that catch." Winners need to remember that they're going to be on the losing end themselves--nobody wins them all.

That's why winners with class make an effort to take the sting, the humiliation, away from the losers.

That "winning" coach had a golden opportunity to teach his kids about that, but he didn't. Maybe he doesn't understand it himself. Personally, I don't believe this coach should be coaching anything...not with kids, anyway.

Great column Dennis
What a perfect example of the utter lunacy of liberalism! Dennis did a great job as usual at exposing the flawed 'logic' of the left. Stories like this make you wonder which were the children and which were the adults?

And to Monty....take a deep breath dude. It must be tough going through life hating everyone equally!

Lemmings don't ambition, why do we?
Score keeping only serves one purpose: to define a winner and a loser. As such, score keeping must be eliminated so as to eradicate the concepts of winners and losers. This has nothing to do with compassion, thus Prager's points are off target. Compassion would indicate that the true goal is to look out for the feelings of our youth, and the elimination of the pain of losing is worth sacrificing the joy of winning. In reality, the feelings of the youth are irrelevant and only serve as a red herring to the actual benefits of a no-score policy.

By ridding our society of the concept of winners and losers, we ensure that ambition is properly squelched. The desire to win creates ambition, and ambition causes individuals to become selfish at the expense of the collective. No society has ever benefited from the work of self serving, ambitious men, for such attitudes only harm the collective. If a society is allowed to erode into a gathering of independent individuals that are competing with each other, then we become a bunch of renegades that are willing to to eat steak while a neighbor must settle for hamburger.

Eliminating competition helps create a society that moves together, much like a mass of lemmings. They will all move together, and not one of them will alter the course that is set by the others. No lemming thinks on its own, so they move as one cohesive group: a truly egalitarian group. This is the example we need to strive for in America, for individual thought and effort is destructive, and ridding our culture of the concept of competition is a major step in getting us up to par with the lemming.

Loyal Democrat/Big Belly
You nailed it again. I was so upset about this story I came back to it hoping to see your take on it after requesting it (your satirical response) on another thread. I just couldn't sleep, and like Big Belly, I almost couldn't believe it.

I'm still angry, but I guess I can sleep now. Thank you.

Monty shows his own lack of knowldge

MONTY writes: "For his part, Prager certainly would jump all over a democrat for behavior he would let slide if it were a republican. That's not principle. That's politics."

Monty, you obviously are not very familiar with Prager, his show or his writing. He has often come to the defense of Democrats - most notably Hillary Clinton, when she was accused of being anti-semitic - but, there are numerous examples. He also has come down hard on Republicans of misbehavior. Either it is an honest mistake on your part, because of ignorance re: Prager's history - which could be - OR you are doing a bit of manipulating of the scoreboard yourself - in order to feel better about your own partisianship. Rationalizing - moral relativism, that is the point. Prager is an equal opportunity observer.

What ever happened to the
12 run slaughter rule? We used to have that (admittedly this was a long time ago)so that there would be no great lopsided scores. If one team got 12 runs ahead of the other before the 5th inning, the game was called at the end of that inning. The intent was to prevent the utter humiliation of one team. I have been on both sides of this kind of win and I thought it was a pretty good rule.

How Old Were The Kids?
In the younger leagues they don't keep score - it is learning situation where the kids just play ball - in the older leagues they have a 10 run rule - this might not have been the case but what I can't understand is why someone would write a column about it - how does this lead to the decline of America and the West????

Lberal Compassion
Dennis finally got to the heart of the issue in his last sentence. Liberal compassion is all about selfishness. It has nothing to do about what is best for the people involved or for society, etc. It is only about the person being "compassionate" being able to "feel good about themselves".

This is the definition of selfishness. Putting your own feelings above the welfare of all others.

To me this shows the core evil of liberalism

Ron B

Reminds me of the Iraqi war
America can't acknowledge the fact that the Iraqi war has weakened the US treasury and the US military and enriched our enemies out of fear that the US troops might get their feelings hurt. It appears that little league problems growup to be big league problems.

The coach could have...
...turned this into a training moment for his all his team.After his first string ran up the score beyond,say,six runs,he could have sent his second and third stringers in to give them maximum expierience against the other teams first stringers.(Then,again,maybe he did.)

Why the continued slam at the women?
"They also learned to think in the feminine -- with an emphasis on feelings -- rather than to cultivate their innate masculine sense that winners win and losers learn to deal with it and move on to the next game. "

Why did you have to spoil a good notion by blaming it all on The Girls? Are we all ten years old and do Girls have Cooties? Are we still sitting up in the club house saying GIRLS SUCK?

I have just returned from the 12 Hours of Sebring where women competed on an equal playing field with men and a woman in an Aston Martin stood on the podium with a third place trophy and did not bawl because men won the first two places. Nobody demanded that prizes not be given. Competition is why we were there. GIRLS AS WELL AS BOYS.

So yes, it is a terrible thing when we try to pretend that when Tony George cheaeted Paul Tracy out of an Indianapolis 500 win in favour of his own hand picked driver -- and believe me, we all know he cheated and so does he -- but in no way is this the fault of GIRLS.

Girls can and do compete in every level of sports and life, and they are no more likely to insist that the score be eliminated than the boys are. AND, I have never seen a girl wham another girl over the head with a stick or a bat or ram a car off the road and call it SPORT.

So get over the nasty digs at GIRLS please. Girls Do Not Have Cooties. GIRLS DO NOT SUCK. Get over your snit and stop with the "Girls Can't Think -- Girls Can't Compete -- Girls CAN'T" mantra. If you men are becoming wussies, IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT. Stop blaming the girls.


And then....

So, what happened when the team noticed their score had been squashed? Did they grit their teeth and play on? Did they 'down tools' and walk off declaring the game null-and-void?
The coaches (remember, they're the adults here) could have agreed to end the game there-and-then. Because in sport it is great to win, but it is not necessary to humiliate your opponent.
Still, if I was on the team that was winning I'd just say, "St*ff it", and not bother coming back next week.
Sports ARE competitive, that's the main reason why they're played.

And that's a comment by one of the hated Liberals.

AudiR10
:-) Go for it girl. You tell 'em.

and to Mr. Prager. You stated, "Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results".
So it's back to the sweat-shops, child labour and soup kitchens of 100 years ago? Hanging 6-year-olds for stealing a loaf of bread? That's that fairness you want? Where do YOU draw the line?
Oops, sorry, no soup-kitchens. That's compassion for people who worked 14 hours a day and couldn't afford to feed their families.

Sports and taking a hiding
I'm not sure you can compare this kind of nonsense to communism - after all, no-one could accuse the Soviets or East Germans of not taking their sports seriously. When I was at school our rugby matches often ended in drubbings, either by us or by our opposition. Can't say I particularly enjoyed those games but on the odd ocassion when the referee stopped the game early (this only happened at more junior levels) there was never any kind of feeling that we had let the opposition off the hook or that we had got out of jail free. Kids aren't that stupid; even if the scorecard goes back to zero you know that you've been beaten like a ginger stepchild.

To CB
I think his intent in the comparison is to equate the redistribution of income under socialism to this as a redistribution of score. In both cases the desire was an equalization of the outcome. It would have been better if he had come right out and said this.

Vic
Regardless of what Prager was trying to say, I thought I 'd just defend liberals who aren't in favour of manufacturing results in kids sports. When I was young, you got the ocassional thrashing at rugby, and I guess you did at whatever sport you played. I just wanted to say that lots of liberals think that's nonsense. There is nothing wrong with showing compassion per se, but sometimes it gets distorted and turns to farce.

Violation
I'm not up on the present body of rules in Little League or Pop Warner (don't ask how long since I played Little League), but under the rules I knew, this maneuver would have resulted in the suspension of both coaches. For falsifying the score. (FTR, we had a 10-run, 8th-inning rule; if at the top of the 9th, one team was 10 runs out in front, it was declared a win. But not until then. Yes, tough Little League. But that was back when I still cared about sports. A long time ago.)

Both teams need new coaches. Period.


cheers

eon

Iraq War
The problem with the Iraq War is we did not and are not fighting this war to utterly humiliate and destroy the enemy. The Iraq War is an extension of Bush's view of compassion, that's why it is going badly. The score should be thousands of the enemy dead and few Americans. I agree that it is stupid to change the score. Life goes on. Maybe some of the kids on the losing team will redirect their energies towards something more suitable to them where they can excel, they obviously aren't much at baseball. One of my most memorable baseball memories came in a game in which we lost 14-0. After an opposing player hit a grand slam, the coach asked the infielders who could pitch. I was selected. During warmups the other team made comments that they were going to rip into me as well as I lobbed my warmup pitches. I proceeded to strike out the next three hitters.

Absurd priniciple
One need only apply this principle to other things to see how stupid it is. Suppose one cancer drug was three times more effective than another. Would we declare them equally effective, and let them be marketed, so that the scientists at the "losing" company wouldn't feel bad? Or, suppose one light bulb produced the same light as another, while consuming three times more electricity. Ought the first one be marketed as an energy saver, so the engineers who designed it wouldn't feel inferior to those at the second company? Absurd!

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
http://www.thugreport.com

two comments 1. s101 2 others
Sardine101
He said 13 year old. This means mid-school, beginning of raging hormone time (regardless of gender). Organized public school sports are going on about now, and they keep score.

All:
This sounds too much like
"From each according to his ability, too each according to his need."

I dislike the practice of the 0-0 scoreboard and accompanying thought process because stress is necessary for successful maturation, and learning coping skills.

Woman's View
If the little leagues played just for fun,then why score at all? If you play for competition, then by all means keep accurate scores. That teaches the kids something true and factual not fantasy. True compassion has nothing to do with games, in the first place, and teaching kids that they are all first,all the time, is ridiculous and probably more for the parents then for the kids. Kids are adaptable, apparently the grown-ups aren't anymore.

Vonnegut Nailed It Over 40 Years Ago
If what Prager says sounds familiar, it should. Over 40 years ago, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. struck a similar theme in Harrison Bergeron (1961).

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.


What seems to be missing from this
discussion is game theory. After all, the point of the entire thing is that baseball is a game. In this case it is a zero sum game. You have a winner and you have a loser. The object of the game is to win. It can not be fun if there is no competition because then there is no GAME. it would only be exercise.

Perhaps the namby-pamby elites of the self-esteem movement who have already ruined education are now looking to ruin sports. We will no longer score the games. We will have judges who will give numerical grades based on how well you look while fielding balls and hitting; it will become similar to ice skating.

Wow, aren't we in for a treat when the Russian judges grade baseball.

Compassionate conservatism
Our current president thinks it would be compassionate to ignore the illegal entry, document fraud, tax fraud, benefit stealing/cheating being perpetrated by illegal aliens. We the citizens of this country will be forced to pick up the tab. Just as we have been paying for the cheap labor in myriad ways for 20 years because the federal government doesn't want to be meanies and enforce the law.

What's your point?
I just a clueless liberal so you will have to tell me what the point of this post was. I think it's an allegory but I'm not sure of what.

Maybe it's that rich people have won the baseball game of life and we should celebrate their winnings rather than redistributing wealth? Or that Republicans have won the presidency and Democrats should admit defeat rather than opposing Bush.

It certainly can't have to do with academic achievement since smart people, at least in the school sense, tend to be liberal.

I learned lessons
When I played Little league ball I went from a championship team to one that was 1 and 13 the next year. I hate losing but I will tell you that I learned more from that losing year than I did at any other time playing sports. The lessons learned have served me throughout my militatry career and life. I would go so far as to say it saved my life in Vietnam.

DENNIS PRAGER
This happened to me in the UK in 1938. We had a track meet at our local juniors school and at that time I was so small they officials running the meet decided because of height deficiency I would not run with the 12 year olds but the 11 year olds. I was still the smallest kid on that team but ran and came in about midway at the finish. I felt humiliated because I had been beaten by the younger kids. If I had done badly against the 12 year olds it would not have bothered me at all. By the time we got to the ice cream an lemonade I had forgotten the whole thing and never gave it a thought over the rest of my life until I read the article. When I was discharged from the British Army in 1947 I was 6'1" tall. Tell, but skinny. Still am.

Lost Opportunity
I was one of three coaches whose team had their first year last year with the big guys. The team had been undefeated for two years in junior leagues (6-8 year olds) and was moving up as 9 and 10 year olds to play with teams primarily comprised of 11-12 year olds.

They practiced hard and spent extra time on the practice field. We told them that this year would be no picnic and that they would be a little overmatched. First game they lost 18-1, which began a losing streak of 8 games. But they slowly got better, losing a couple of close heartbreakers that they thought they were going to win.

The 9th game of the season they had their first win, beating the team by one run that had destroyed them the first game of the year.

They hung in the whole time, and you should have seen their expressions when they finally won that game. It was a tough year, discouraging at times for the team, and sometimes difficult to find the words to keep them motivated. But in many ways the season ended up being even more rewarding than the championship years when they were the top dogs. Almost all of them are coming back this year, and everyone is really looking forward to tackling it again with a year under our belts. Great experience for the kids, coaches, and parents.

To LGM
You obviously no longer have a clue.

Smart people...
...in the school sense, tend to be Liberal. As opposed to the real world sense.

I had to grit my teeth and bear all the Liberal nonsense I could stand to get my M.S. And that was in Engineering. Those brave Conservatives who manage to secure an advanced degree in one of the Liberal Arts deserve a freakin' medal.

Socialism lite
Twenty-five years ago, I was active in my son's local elementary school. From kindergarten through the second grade, great emphasis was placed upon ensuring that all the students "felt good about themselves"; to this end much effort was expended to avoid recognizing any student's abilities as being greater or lesser than any other's.

Then came the qualification exams for the Gifted-Talented program, and reality struck. The kids who didn't make the grade realized they'd been conned, and their bewilderment was evident.

I learned in sociology 101 that human beings arrange themselves into hierarchies. (Maybe in the interests of political correctness that principle is no longer taught--I don't know.)When the primary criterion for such arrangement is need rather than ability, it's a short walk to full-fledged Marxism.

Compassion is a virtue, but what's being touted as compassion in this day and age is merely hypocrisy.


compassion, suffering and wisdom
I don't think compassion is bad as a whole, just when it is misused as in the case here. Just by the fact that there are many more numbers than the #1 we will spend most of our lives being "one" of the other numbers. This is not to say that we should not strive to be our best but getting used to being number 2 or 200 is something we need to learn how to accept. The real injustice is that suffering is suffering a bad rap. Some of the most horrible times in my life have a sweet reflection about them and if someone had taken them away from me, in the name of compassion, I would be half the man I am today. There is however; a time to reach down and assist someone in need. Being able to tell when and, more importantly, how to act takes someone with a great amount of wisdom and love. Sometimes a hug and some encouragement is worth more than any amount of money. Lets sum it up like this

Compassion - Wisdom = Theft of valuable life lessons

Compassion + Wisdom = Love (one aspect of it anyway)

Let'sAllRelax
Prager is not advocating that we return to sweat shops and the like. You've missed his point if that's what you're taking from the article. The point I take from Prager is that if we deny rewards to outstanding performance, what incentive is their to improve and become better? Additionally, when we reward poor performers just for the sake of sparing their feelings, do we really serve them?

Prager uses the example of wealthy Americans. There's a mentality among liberals that wealthy people are money-grubbing, silver spoon, elitists stomping over poor to maintain their status while holding others down. Liberals would have us believe that they're evil, but really, how many Scrooges are their and how many are just hard working, ambitious, ingenuitive Americans providing for the best of their family just as anyone else would? Prager's example is classic of how liberal thought wants us to stifle hard work and ambition for the sake of making the rest feel "ok" about mediocrity. This school of thought does not serve anyone in the long run...moreover, it's detrimental in the sense that it makes people think that they deserve hand-outs in life and like Prager says, "someone will bail them out when they feel bad". That teaches people to be reliant and not self sufficient.

This article....
...deserves to be framed and hung in every public school adminstrator's office. Being part of a psychological "messiah complex", this pathological sense of compassion is designed to make those in charge feel good. All they have to do is sacrifice the children.

As these children grow, they'll continue with this feminine philosophy, and if any of them become any kind of boss or administrator, the problem will be expanded. Mr. Prager is spot-on.

Just think of this phenomenon as affirmative action for the little league. Everyone knows how well that's worked.

By the way, are we still allowed to refer to kid's baseball as "little" leagues? What about the short kids? They'll feel bad!

Reality Check
I coached travel baseball for many years and the practice of turning the scoreboard to 0-0 in a blowout was always done as a common courtesy. The score was not actually changed, it was still 35-0 or whatever, it just wasn't up on the board to rub the losing team's nose in it. But the kids knew the score and were not affected in any of the ways this article purports.

Furthermore, in the case of Little League blowouts, it is more a matter of mismatched teams that probably should not have played each other in the first place. In travel ball particularly, you can have a straight 12-year-old team playing a straight 13-year-old team, or a powerhouse organization playing a smaller, quasi-rec-league team. Such games can go on forever and have incredibly lopsided scores that unnecessarily humiliate and discourage the losing team.

I wouldn't let this practice raise your concerns about the fall of western civilization.


NOT KEEPIN SCORE
LETS SEE, WE DONT SEEM TO KEEP SCORE BY ALLOWING ILLEGALS TO CROSS OUR SOUTHERN BORDER, AND THEN PROPOSE GIVING THEM LEGAL STATUS, WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY TELLING OUR CHRISTIAN CHILDREN THAT THEY CAN NOT SPEAK ABOUT GOD, PRAY, OR BRING A BIBLE TO SCHOOL. WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY NOT HOLDING THOSE IN MILITARY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MORAL BEHAVIOR, WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY ALLOWING OUR COLLEGE PROFESSORS TO DRUM THEIR PERSONAL ONE SIDED IDEOLOGY INTO THE HEADS OF OUR 19 YEARS OLDS. WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY PUTTING ONE RACE OR GENDER AHEAD OF ANOTHER FOR JOBS OR COLLEGE ENTRY REGARLESS OF QUALIFICATIONS. WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY OUR EFFORTS TO DISTROY THE FAMILY UNIT. WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY NOT ALLOWING THE UNBORN TO COME INTO THE WORLD THAT NEEDS FRESH IDEAS AND TALENTS SO BADLY. WE DONT KEEP SCORE BY WATCHING ONE POLITICAL PARTY SIT ON THEIR HANDS WHILE THE OTHER RANTS AND RAVES ABOUT EVERY DECISON AND ACT OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTION SO THAT VERY LITTLE IS GETTING DONE THAT COULD MAKE A DIFFENCE IN THE WORLD...I WOULD SAY WE HAVE PRETTY WELL SET THE TONE FOR NOT KEEPING SCORE.

winning,losing and learning
For five years, my husband and I coached junior high age soccer for our local Parks and Rec department. We had winning seasons and losing seasons but no matter the season the kids enjoyed themselves. The kids enjoyed playing so much that they always wanted to get a group together to play indoor soccer at a local arena against very experienced traveling teams. It was expensive to play so we all pitched in to raise the money and we were able to go . Every game we got creamed but nobody got discouraged we coached the game as a learning experience.Fast forward a few years and now our boys and girls are in high school and 95% are still playing soccer on winning teams and some have been invited to play on some national high school teams.Everytime we run into one of the kids or their parents they all thank us for teaching them to never give up, to always keep learning and to face up to struggles in life.As coaches , we couldn't ask for more. I know that there are more kids like ours out there so maybe this country won't go down the tubes in the immediate future.

Liberalgoodman
"Maybe it's that rich people have won the baseball game of life and we should celebrate their winnings rather than redistributing wealth?"

Yes you have completely missed the allegory...this is totally off point of what Prager is advocating. I suggest you re-read the article because rather than getting his point you're just trying to pick a fight...and a bad one at that.

"It certainly can't have to do with academic achievement since smart people, at least in the school sense, tend to be liberal."

Yes Goodman, you are correct. All liberals are smart and all conservatives are dumb. Everybody here believes your rash generalization. Your statement doesn't advance your liberal thought at all. Your all pathos with no logos.

Equality
In typical fashion, "compassionate" liberals claim to want equal opportunity but really want equal outcomes. 0-0 indeed!

Why not the ultimate?
With modern computer technology it should be simple to change the game with an adustable scoring system. By keeping track of the ages, sex, innings played, and statistical averages of performance- runs, hits, errors- the game can be made PC!

By dynamically calculating all factors, including the play by play handicap adjustments, a bases loaded home run might score either 3.35 runs or 5.2 depending upon which team's adjustable values are being considered.

The final score might then be published as 13.35 to 11.1, for example! Think how many liberals would love this result? Of coure, the kids and zealous parents would still know that the real score was 24-7!

But, remember, it will take a few generations for us to learn how PC makes everyone an interchangeable cipher able to give up competitive nonesense in favor of universal poverty.

jeff@ruetten.us
Jeff, I don't think Prager is telling us that compassion is a bad trait to possess. Indeed, I'm certain that compassion is the highest value an individual can have towards their neighbor and that's what makes society "humane". That's why Prager's last paragragh, he says, "Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline."
Government hellbent on compassion will completely rule out justice. There must be a balance. If justice is underminded, then rule of law ceases to exist.

Jesse: yes, smart people...
.....in the school sense, tend to be Liberal. As opposed to the real world sense. Hmmm, education is all they have left, but not for long. They ought to take a look at what the colleges and universities are churning out. A yawning, uninspired, unchallenged crop of "educated" and "entitled" idiots. There are about 30 of them in a Master's program waiting to have their degree handed to them in May. If they aren't sleeping, they may hear their name called to come up on stage and accept the document that entitles them to live the life of mediocrity they have come to know as excellence and pursue careers they now have a right to. The program that never had any expectations of these students to show up, complete assigments or have the courtesy to stay awake will send these students off to the real working world having reinforced their lack of drive, committment and integrity. The point being that it starts in little league when you wipe out what may be the first opportunity for kids to learn the meaning of life isn't fair.

CaballeroKid
"Yes you have completely missed the allegory...this is totally off point of what Prager is advocating. I suggest you re-read the article..." -- That won't help. I want you to tell me what it said in one or two sentences. Remember, I'm a lazy dumb liberal who needs things spelled out very explicitly.

Dennis practices what he preaches
Being Dennis' son, I can say that he truly practices what he preaches. Recently, my younger brother bowled a 247. Aside from his ability to spin the ball, I attribute his talent to the fact that he was never allowed to bowl with bumpers (thereby inflating his score), was not allowed to quit, and my my father never threw the game.
I am sure that whenever my brother exhibited frustration, my father felt bad and probably wanted to throw the game to make him feel better. But that would have hindered his ability to get better, and would have ultimately been an act of selfishness for short-lived happiness rather than long-term success.
My brother - like I -has learned that he has the ability to do things on his own.
Thank you dad for never erasing the score.

Compassin and decline
This has everything to do with the "feminization" of American society. Isolated as we have been from war on our own soil, we have had the luxury to let this "relational" view come to the fore.

When women become in charge of school systems, the first thing they eliminate is competitive sports. They don't want competition with winners and losers, only participants. Rather than "run the race to win the wreath" as St Paul refers to, the women want everyone to hold hands and cross the finish line together!

When the Islamics arrive, lopping off heads, the feminine response will be to burst into tears and ask "why can't we just all get along?" They'll still be asking this when the 13 year olds are added to the harems and the rest clapped in burkas.

Dave Petteys

Learning from Defeat

Most good coaches will tell you that you learn from humiliating defeats. Changing scores on a scoreboard doesn't solve anything. If you allow kids to go home thinking they've actually accomplished something by just showing up, then you've lost the battle in an attempt to build character.

I played tennis in high school. I won a lot more than I lost, and I *HATED* losing. I was dispassionate about winning 6-0, 6-0. I took greater satisfaction from winning tough, tight matches than the blowouts. I think you have to develop a mindset that you may not win every game, but you have to at least work hard to get to a point where you compete and then live another day so you can eventually win.

Liberalgoodman
Just as in my first posting...in one to two sentences: "The point I take from Prager is that if we deny rewards to outstanding performance, what incentive is their to improve and become better? Additionally, when we reward poor performers just for the sake of sparing their feelings, do we really serve them?"

Just because you're liberal doesn't mean you're lazy or dumb (in your own words, right?) but being liberal is "a progressive disease" and the faster you get it treated, the better of you'll be :) I love that pun.

Overkill— Prager 26
I thought there might be more vehement protest focusing on Prager's last two paragraphs, for he at least seems to overkill his point on compassion. But hardly a whimper is heard. Maybe they couldn't see it as overkill. Maybe they'd already given up and never made it to the end of the article. Then again, maybe they did. But changed the score to 0 - 0.


Overkill— LGM 7
Two sentence summary for Liberalgoodman (the one who asked "What's the point?" and then assured everyone that smart people tend to be liberals:

"Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline." —D. Prager, last paragraph.

Happy to oblige, LG
I'll attempt to explain so even you can understand. The basis of liberalism is collectivism, and its end goal equality of outcomes. Under liberal theory, a score of 24-7 is inherently unfair to the losing team; the runs should be fairly redistributed so both have 15.5 runs. Any resistance to this scheme offers defacto evidence of the greed and depravity of the winning team.

The fly in the ointment is that neither team has any incentive to score another run, as that run will be immediately seized at the point of a gun by the oh so intelligent and compassionate liberals in the Ministry of Equitable Run Distribution. In fact, they no longer see the point of the game and go home. So the end result is that the score always remains 0-0, but the intelligent liberals in the Ministry of Communication will constantly inform them that the score is actually 40-40.

Of course, your self-deprecating identification as a "dumb liberal" is strictly tongue-in-cheek; like most liberals, you believe yourself to be more intelligent and enlightened than your knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, Wal-mart shopping conservative foes. If they were as intelligent and well-educated as you, they would of course share your beliefs. It is this odd conceit that allows the Hollywood high school dropout to mock the intelligence of Yale grad and Harvard MBA Bush, and to blank out the fact that his academic performance tops that of "geniuses" like Gore and Kerry. Yet despite the alleged collective intellectual superiority of liberals, they are unable to fathom the simple and indisputable fact that application of their theories has led to nothing but economic disaster, poverty, misery, tyranny and death.

Overkill— Christ crucified
My one concern, as a Christian, is to point out that the compassion of Jesus Christ is not merely a personal one. Nor is the system of sacrifices (and compassion) found in the Jewish religion for that matter.

I do agree with Prager’s article and main points. Compassion can be a horrible guideline for public policy. But if we ever break down the segregation between church and state (contrary to liberal slander, Christians do not want to turn America into a theocracy) we will find that the two can work together in a wonderful balance— as intended by our constitution.


call the game
"What ever happened to the"
that is the only way to fly, , , why would you want kids to have to continue playing once it was obvious they lost, , , resetting the score to 0 would be the next best thing. why is something this stupid in the news.

Gilly
I could have sworn I posted a comment to this article. Thank you for showing me that I'm not insane. Apparently my post has been lost down the Memory Hole. What the [bleep] happened?

Vic is right - consider the other side
While I generally agree with Prager, there can be another side to this.

My youngest son was on a 4th grade basketball team (he is in 2nd grade, he played up), and they were playing in a basketball tournament in Denton Texas.

The team they played had exceptional talent for 4th graders, and that team was beating my son's team very badly.

It was 30-3 at the half. Well, the other team wasn't finished. They continued to full court press, as they had the entire game, and the game ended 60-5, with the winning team full court pressing the ENTIRE GAME.

What lesson was learned here? My son asked me why they continued to full court press, when the game was obviously decided by halftime. I told him there are evil, wicked people in the world, of which that coach was one. Their own cheap thrills of dominating someone else is more important than integrity and respect for others.

The Bible teaches a just capitalism, not a dog-eat-dog capitalism. It does teach the value of mercy, which some in sports, business, and politics have sadly forgotten.

JohnGalt
Superb post. If you haven't read it already, I highly recommend you read Thomas Sowell's book, "Vision of the Anointed". I guarantee it is a book you will read more than once.

24 to 7
In a baseball game, that breaks down to 3.43 to 1, which anyone knows is still a game that has a competitive margin.

As a youth coach, I see no problem in throwing the score out when it's so lopsided that the outcome is not in doubt. It's not a reward for the losing team, or a slight to the winners, it's simply a concession that victory has been achieved and the final score is irrelevant. Continue to play in order to work on fundamentals and skills, but when it's obvious that the outcome is no longer in doubt, who cares? Not the kids.

But again, a 24-7 score in baseball doesn't rise to the level of a walkover.

Inintentional revalation
The person who wrote, "Maybe it's that rich people have won the baseball game of life and we should celebrate their winnings rather than redistributing wealth?" has demonstrated the truly pernicious position of self-styled "liberals" with respect to hard work, achievement, and results of same. Simply stated, they want no part of it.
Their position is that if a person works efficiently and diligently, and thus becomes "rich," then a large portion, if not all, of what he has rightfully earned by his own efforts, should be taken away from him and "re-distributed" to people who do not, and in many cases, will not work. The concept of re-distribution is truly evil, because it is based upon the premise that the people who's success is to be penalised, did not earn their wealth, but rather it was "distributed" to them.
True, there are people who have wealth that they inherited, or married, but these are not the ones the so-called "liberals" would take from.
Many years ago, I read "Atlas Shrugged," and although I enjoyed it as a work of fiction, I did think at the time that the charateristics and the thinking attributed to the "looters," James Taggert, Orin Boyle, Wesley Mouch, etc., was a gross exaggeration. I assumed at the time, that no real people could actually think and act as these looters did, in actually punishing the achievers upon whom society depends, in the book, Dagne Taggert, Henry Reardon, etc.
Now I read that comment, "Maybe it's that rich people have won the baseball game of life and we should celebrate their winnings rather than redistributing wealth?" and I fear for the future of this country. I read the comment of a national level politician to the effecdt that the "rich" are "the winners of life's lottery," again as if what they heave earned was actually not earned, but dropped in their laps from the sky, and I wonder what sort of society my Grandchildren will be living in when they reach adulthood
For the information of the author of that comment, in a sensible society, we should indeed celebrate the achievements of those who have become rich by their own efforts, and we should try to emulate them, not punish them. We certainly should not steal what they have earned and "re-distribute" it to those who have not achieved, in the interest of "fairness," or "equality." Life is not "fair," but hard and arbitrary. And with respect to "equality," equality of opportunity is definitely good, but artificially enforced equality of outcomes, is not. We should celebrate initiative, hard work and achievment, not penalise it, and we should never reward sloth and mediocrity.
As a final comment, if the author of the cited comment, and all those who hold those same destructive views, would concentrate their energies on working to achieve success themselves, rather than trying to penalise and steal from those who have earned more than they, the country would be far better off.

There it is folks!
Liberalgoodman's comment: It certainly can't have to do with academic achievement since smart people, at least in the school sense, tend to be liberal.

As a conservative criminal justice professor, I asked my department chair why so many on campus were liberal (He was a Brit, so he couldn't help it). He smirked a little, and basically said the same thing Liberalgoodman said. The sad thing is they all really believe they are smarter than other Americans. They haven't invented anything, they don't provide the motive force for our economy *thanks to Ayn Rand*, they don't improve anyone's life, but they have lots of theories. But one of their certainties in is their own superiority. It makes me sick on a daily basis. But the kids are another matter. I love the students, and we still grow young Americans who want to learn, who pray and love their country. I was flying back from a CJ conf in Seattle (home of the weirdoes) and met a young Marine on crutches. He was 17, had a GED, and both his parents had signed so he could get into the Marine Corps. I asked if he had injured his foot in Iraq, and he said no, he had broken it in basic training. I said I was surprised that the Corps let him stay in, and he said he had completed the crucible, so he was entitled to heal and continue. I asked how long he had wanted to be a Marine, and he answered all his life. When I mentioned all the purple haired tattooed pierced weirdoes I had just seen in Seattle, the woman sitting between us (wearing a John Lennon cap and working on her laptop) interrupted and said lots of people with purple hair were normal. I said to her "We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I prefer his haircut." We both looked at his head,and it was the best darned burr haircut you've ever seen. She had nothing more to say. Thank you Lord for these young men. Liberalgoodman, stuff it, loser.

JohnGalt
VERY eloquently put. Thank you...if you were in NYC, I would buy you a drink :)

Rand y
Liberals haven't invented anything? What gibberish. Where do you get that from? Thanks for proving that political bias in the classroom cuts both ways...

jeff@ruetten.us
Jeff, I don't think Prager is telling us that compassion is a bad trait to possess. Indeed, I'm certain that compassion is the highest value an individual can have towards their neighbor and that's what makes society "humane". That's why Prager's last paragragh, he says, "Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline."
Government hellbent on compassion will completely rule out justice. There must be a balance. If justice is underminded, then rule of law ceases to exist.

feel good theory
It reminds me of the feel good theory of education which I heard about some thirty years ago and thought was ruining education. The idea was that even if a child did not understand the subject say math it was important that he feel good about himself so he was not flunked but passed through. So you had a lot of failing students who felt good about themselves.

girls are lousy at competitive sports
Well, it did not take long for the girls to complain, proving the point. Audri and the like do not get it. When girls rule, it is the end of the warrior/empire culture.

R_Harris_OKC
I see your point, R Harris and you are correct...the scales of balance can be tipped unfavorably in either direction. That's why it's important that there be a balance of compassion and justice served. Of course we want compassionate government who look out for the little guy, but Prager is showing us how this mindset gone awry is horribly detrimental. In a government setting, compassion without justice, forces all performance to be judged equal (in order to spare all feelings) whether performance is excellent or mediocre. Now do you smell the carcass of socialism? Likewise, justice maintains that no domineering body (race, political organization, socio/economic status, etc.) is favored.

nothing more than feelings
I agree with AUdiR10- I like Dennis Prager until he starts on this "feminization" obsession of his. Basing your behavior on feelings is a flawed world view. It has nothing to do with being a woman or a man. It has nothing to do with femininity. If you look at the typical roles women have played through out history, wife, mother, and the professions dominated by women, teaching and nursing, you are looking at endeavors which demand complete suppression of one's "feelings". Mothers can't strangle the kid who hasn't slept in 30 days, much as they would like to, and nurses can't scream "ew" every time they take care of a bloody patient. In fact, Dennis, most women have spent their lives suppressing their feelings because that is the only way to survive and/or succeed. I think that most women are as practiced at controlling their feelings as most men are.
Dennis you are great- but please re-think the whole "feminization" thing. What you abhor is a revolt against rationalism that has been embraced by liberals. It has happened many times before. Remember Rousseau? He wasn't a girl.

Re: girls are lousy at competitive sport
"...end of the warrior/empire culture"? Sounds great to me! If only women ruled the world.

Posts being Flagged
Just curious,

I posted a few hours ago about my experience as a coach of a litlle league team that gradually worked their way through a losing season. No obscenity. It was posted and was up for a while but has been removed. Wasn't the Gettysburg address, but it was somewhat on point, not too long, and (I thought) totally unoffensive.

I believe some other posts were deleted as well.

Can anyone help me understand what the criteria for removal of posts is and how this happens?

John Galt
Wonderful,honest and precise evaluation of goodman's question.

By the way, Liberalgoodman? His name proves the point which I am sure he will deliberately not understand. LOL

Bob-- curious
More likely townhall is simply still having technical problems, rather than people flagging posts as offensive. Things actually seem to be a lot better today compared to what's been going on prior. A number of times I've found my posts to be missing. But I wait (hours) and eventually I find them back in place. Can't explain it. That's just the way it is as I've found it. Hope this helps.

As for criteria for flaggings. I believe flagging a post only alerts someone from TH to look at it. I do not think it automatically eliminates a posting. Just my opinion from very limited experience.

The Trees
And the trees are all kept equal
by hatchet, axe, and saw

-RUSH

nkasoff re: Absurd principle
The example of cancer drugs doesn't make for a good analogy IMO; the "most effective" drug could have serious -- even dangerous -- side effects in some people. Case in point: a popular NSAID, naproxen (Naprosyn in prescription strength or Aleve in OTC strength) helps a lot of people but I can't take it without becoming nauseated to the point of feeling worse than the original aches and pains. So I stick with aspirin which has yet to cause problems **for me.**

This business about feelings can be described by the movie title "Dumb and Dumber" and makes its characters appear to be Mensa candidates by comparison. If you can get your hands on a copy of the "That's Outrageous!" column titled "A is for Average" by Michael Crowley you can see how ridiculous it is to cater to "feelings." Schools not publishing honor rolls, schools not allowing the game of tag on school grounds because somebody is always "it," ad nauseum. Kids not being taught to excel will see more jobs moving offshore and not just because of cheap labor. Companies can't succeed on low wages alone; they need trained and motivated workers -- which they are getting in India, Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore etc.

I believe Joe Paterno said it...
"It's not my job to stop us." While I had no problem with the mercy rule, little ever disgusted me more than the "let's just forget the score and call it 1-0" decision that repeatedly popped up. I learned a lot more as a defensive back being beat deep three times in a game against Todd Marinovich and Capo Valley than I would have if he just handed the ball off. It sucked to lose, and it hurt that it was my fault, but it made me work harder the rest of the season to prove I still belonged on the field. Losing, and losing bad, made me a better player.

One of my favorite quotes is the Maryanne Williamson quote Nelson Mandella used in his inaugural address. "Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you."

I'll grant that a little league game will not cause the downfall of Western Civilization, it does serve as a symptom. How can we continue to advance if we concern ourselves with waiting for every last person to catch up? Where is the incentive for these kids to prepare, practice, and perform?

Sports ARE recreation, but they also are great environs to learn applicable life values.

LGM
"Maybe it's that rich people have won the baseball game of life and we should celebrate their winnings rather than redistributing wealth?"

Rush Limbaugh stated a great point on this during the early 90's: How many people ever got a job from a poor man?

John Galt has spoken!
Well said ..

Words like 'compassion' and 'sacrifice' have become synonymous with 'goodness'. However, the glorification of these terms has led us willingly down the sacrificial path to our own destruction.

The blogpost titled "If 'Jesus was no leftist' why are so many of his followers seduced by Socialism?", assigns the blame for this squarely on the application of religion to our economic and political lives. To read the post, click on:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/a68d177a-9aa6-4dd2-88da-b7d3053c4ccd

There is also another blogpost titled "Why we need Political Atheism" in which the following excerpt appears:

My point is that Christianity (and most other institutionalized religions) preach the virtues of self-sacrifice. There is also a tendency to glorify the downtrodden. Once ingrained with those concepts, people are programmed to accept Socialism.

Leftists have exploited this weakness. It is also the reason why good people begin their lives as leftists (it just seems like the moral high ground), until their life experiences make the blinders come off. You've heard the saying "if you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart; if you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain!"

For the entire post, click on:
http://voice.townhall.com/g/85d7133b-8b08-4bd9-9466-e5466265066a

Critical Bill
you wrote: "Liberals haven't invented anything? What gibberish. Where do you get that from?"

It was obvious from the context that he was not speaking of Liberals generally, but of the specific variety which inhabit college and University campuses, some never to leave (the perennial students, who go straight from undergrad to grad to tenure-track), who are for the most part harbored in the Humanities and the Social Sciences, (hard sciences are often a different matter), and who are again for the most part reflexively, arrogantly, self-satisfied Liberals, who think they're the sharpest tacks in the box.

Dennis posed an interesting rhetorical question the other day: what would the consequences be to American life, and the world as a whole, if every university and college Humanities and Social Sciences professor in the land resigned, to take up, say, basket weaving? What would the impact be? And conversely, what would the consequences be if every member of the U.S. Armed Forces resigned to take up civilian life?

It's an interesting question, and becomes more pointed if applied to other categories: CEOs, research scientists, Hollyweird actors... and who knows, maybe even Congressmen and Senators. ;-)

Ditto Doc5000
My youth basketball coaching experience is in line with doc's youth baseball experience. The kid on my teams always knew who won and by how much even when the score was not posted.

Feminization
As long as we are explaining in 2 sentences or less, the translation of his "feminization" simply put is: Let our boys grow up to be REAL MEN. Please spare me by trying to either define a "real man" or blather on with examples that make YOU a real man. You know what I am talking about. Look around, the real men are hard to find. If you aren't too busy trying to be metrosexual (to be PC) you are too busy trying to fit in somewhere in the hood. I feel for the single women out there now......YIKES is all I can say.

Fergus
While I appreciate your input, I think Rand y, the college professor, can answer for himself. It takes different strokes; my haridresser was dumstruck when I told her what I do for a living, she thought I must be very clever. Not only was she very wrong on that front, the world also needs hairdressers. Just as the world needs liberal arts college professors.

feminine
If you have ever listened to Dennis you would know that his comment about "the feminine" was not a slam against women, but a slam against making boys act against their masculine natures. It would be the same as having women act against their feminine natures. Feminine works best in women, not men. We dont do it right. By the same token, masculine does not work well in women. Women dont know how to be good men.

Re: Williamson
Forgot to mention, tongue firmly planted in cheek about Williamson/Mandela, but that's how people seem to best "know" it.

And Fergus
If Rand y was referring to law professors, he must also include himself in that rant because he himself is one. I suppose it takes one to know one, but I think I would leave the calling out of liberals who invent nothing to someone who does invent something. Unlike Rand y.

this atitude underpin the anti-war crowd
It wont allow us to achive total victory over our enemies.

We should of had the entire Middle East converted to Christianity rather than try and acommedate the relegion of those that continue to attack us.

It's getting so deep...
I'm putting on my hip-waders.

I can not believe that Prager would write such a worthless article. I'll keep teaching my kids compassion - the rest of you can follow Prager wherever he decides to go. You are all like reeds in the wind.

So, I guess Bush's compassion for the people of Irag wasn't the real reason for going over there then - RIGHT? Maybe it was his compassion for his cronies pocket books. Afer all, they have families to feed.

J

Dear Drs. Prager and Sowell,
Thomas Sowell's Townhall article today is about talk shows. Dennis Prager hosts exactly the kind of talk show Sowell longs for.

Dennis Prager’s Townhall article today is about “Social Justice”, a theme Sowell frequents.

I would love to hear the two of you discuss this on Dr. Prager’s radio program.

Prager’s distinctive is the respect he shows to his guests, many of whom deeply disagree with him. He tells them he "prefers clarity over agreement" and generally gives them the last word. He is not afraid to "admit" a good point or to change his mind. He likes to search back with his guest, to find underlying assumptions (visions) that surface as divergence of opinion regarding the issue at hand. Honour, civility, and logical analysis reign supreme.

My only complaint about the Dennis Prager Show is that I have never heard him interview Thomas Sowell!

Dennis Prager’s Townhall article today suggests a dichotomy: Compassion-Feminine vs. Standards-Masculine. I think Prager is correct in aligning the two modes with the two sexes. The question remains, why is the feminine mode in ascendancy? Sowell's analysis may address that.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Prager’s wonderful baseball anecdote today lines up exactly with a baseball hypothetical in Prof. Sowell’s “Search for Cosmic Justice”.

Sowell lays out two competing "visions" of the world: "unconstrained" and "constrained". He speaks of "Social Justice" as being results-oriented and plain ol' “Justice” as being standards-oriented and argues that they flow from these two competing visions of the world.

I would dearly love to hear a Prager-Sowell discussion of the similarities and differences in the dichotomies that both of you have defined.

An on-air discussion would be illuminating.


Warmest regards to you both,
Chuck Stevenson
Costa Mesa, CA

feminization
"pakprotector" said it better and more succintly than I did- the progressives are neutering men and women. The result? No great men or great women. I still prefer Mr Prager to use another term, however. "Feminization" only tells half the story.

"The Quest for Cosmic Justice", T Sowell
Correction: I said "Search". It should be "Quest".

The Quest for Cosmic Justice", Thomas Sowell, 1999.

Not "feminine"
Mr. Prager, what you describe is not a "feminine" virtue (or any sort of "virtue" at all, while we're on the subject). As a woman, I repudiate the very notion of it. My mother, her mother before her, and all of their grandmothers would be offended by this egregious behavior toward anyone, male or female, in any field of human endeavor.

It was blatantly unfair to your friend's son's team, which had earned its score fairly and had it taken away for no reason. This isn't a case of compassion--compassion is the traditional practice of showing respect to the losing team (I remember the old Little League cheer: "2-4-6-8, who do we appreciate? THE [other team]!"). This is a case of punitive action taken against a team for the offense of being better. A typically "feminine" response (not necessarily typical of me, but I could see it) would be to schedule a different sort of game the next weekend, where the other team might have an advantage, but erasing the score? No. That's just... idiotic. Idiocy is not a feminine virtue.

Jake
Typical Leftist: Prager writes very clearly, cogently, and eloquently about the imbalance in the values we teach our kids - favoring it over Honesty, Wisdom, and Fair Play - and you whine and moan that he wants to do away with Compassion entirely. Nice to see that Lefties value reading comprehension as much as ever.

To AudiR10
Who wrote:"Girls can and do compete in every level of sports and life, and they are no more likely to insist that the score be eliminated than the boys are. "

I suggest you reconsider that point. If the Olympics combined men and women into the same sports where they can compete on the same field (track, pole vault, high jump, decathalon, marathon, weight lifting, wrestling, even basketball and hockey etc) then all the winners (and all record holders BTW) would always be men. Some sports prevent equal competition. For example, men would be unable to compete in uneven bars and balance beam due to placement of their external genitalia, but women could not, due to upper/lower torso strenth imbalace and lower center of gravity, do an iron-cross on the rings, or a decent pommel horse routine.

The left thinks that equality means interchangability. Not the same, never was, never will be. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. We should not only accept the differences between the sexes, but should celebrate the differences rather than try to erase them by dumbing everything down to the lowest common demoninator.

And for the coach of the winning team: there are ways of being "sensitive" without throwing the game. Like not giving the steal sign when you are up by 15 runs, or by intentionally "taking one" for the team when the bases are loaded. Or bringing in your best closer when the other team finally scores a run. Blowouts still happen, but so do comebacks.

the flash
That's not what Audi said, though--women may not be able to compete against men in some sports fields (in others, they can and do, like equestrian competitions), but in terms of the comment and the article, the question is whether or not they'd be more likely to demand something ridiculous like erasing the score in the case of a blowout. You only have to look at women's sports to know that this isn't true. Can we really see Mia Hamm saying, "Aw, forget about the score on the Olympic gold soccer game... we should all just go home with no medal!"

You Come to Win, Not to Humiliate.
I've coached my share of youth baseball teams and I always taught my players to never humiliate their opponents. That is why after a substantial lead I stopped the players from stealing bases.

If it is clear that you are going to win, then there is no point in driving harder and harder. You do whatever it takes to win, but beyond that it involves joy in someone else's pain and that is never appropriate. This has nothing to do with not hurting your opponent's feelings, it has to do with your own character development - you don't want to become the kind of person who prefers the pain of others to the pleasure of your own accomplishments.

You don't kick a man when he's down. You don't help him up, you allow him the dignity of getting up on his own, but if you enjoy his helplessness then I suggest you see a shrink.

As for changing the score to 0-0 it was worse than keeping the score where it was. The players knew the score and resetting the scoreboard did nothing but further humiliate the losing team by implying that they could not deal with a bad loss.

Well
...this certainly suggests what should have been done about the 2004 election. Just change the score.

Doc5000 made a superb point regarding what this episode really taught the kids. They knew perfectly well that the rout of the losing team was not actually being undone by the adults' arbitrary action.

I also agree with AudiR10, as I so often do. Taking worthless -- no, damaging -- actions in service of misguided "compassion" is not a "feminine" behavior. It's a juvenile behavior.

Getting to a level of virtue that really matters -- having the humility to think of others while succeeding oneself, AND to put wins and losses in perspective -- requires the experience of both winning and losing. Wise people of both sexes know that. The key to appreciating it is maturity and wisdom, not being a male or female.

Fergie...
the shoe was thrown out and look who put it on!

Conservatives will soon rule the world.

J

Jakie
Let us know when you have an intelligent point to make.

Southpark is Gay
Just watch the Southpark is Gay episode to see what Dennis is talking about.

Apollo
posted, " after a substantial lead I stopped the players from stealing bases. If it is clear that you are going to win, then there is no point in driving harder and harder."


I remember the NFL Buffalo-Houston playoff game a few years ago where Houston led 34 - 3 at halftime. The Bills looked completely inept and wouldn't have been able to compete at the college level, much less in the NFL.

According to the Apollo Doctrine, the Oilers should have stopped throwing forward passes and simply run the ball for the last half of the game. (For those in Rio Linda, the Bills came back in the second half and won the game in OT).

The Apollo Doctrine is just as demeaning to the winners and losers. To fail to try or to diminish you efforts through some sense of compassion for the losers is simply wrong.

It demeans the efforts of the winners by telling them that being too good is bad. It demeans the losers by saying that the winners can beat you with one hand behind their back and that's how bad you are.

For a winning team to accept mediocrity as a tactic simply to avoid embarassing a loser indicates that winning the game isn't the real objective; the real objective is to feel sanctimonious.

WINNING AND LOSING
When I was raising my children I taught them to play hard and to win. I also taught them to be good losers and good winners. In life some are more successful than others. That is the bottom line.

I understand that there are some leagues that do not keep score at all. What a loss for the children.

Lynne and AudiR10 ...
When I read the article, I did not take what Prager said to be defaming to women in any way. He merely spoke a generalization that has its basis in truth. Women DO, by and large, use emotion more then logic when dealing with situations. Men tend to be more logical. Of course it's not universally true, but generally speaking. As the brother of eight sisters, I would agree with Mr. Pragers sentiments.

Ms. AudiR10, I must say this is THE first time I've read one of your posts where I disagree with you. Perhaps you became too "emotional" at reading what you perceived to be a sleight, and lost your senses. Please re-read the article with an eye toward societies emasculation of young boys and see if you don't agree.

The object is to win, not humiliate...
Apollo writes: "If it is clear that you are going to win, then there is no point in driving harder and harder."

I once read that among Japanese Go players, it is considered good form to win by a fairly small margin -- say, five or ten points.

I suspect it has its roots in the model of the game. Go represents a large-scale battle, where the object is to win territory. If you demolish your opponent, you win this battle, but you may so enrage him that your next battle is many times harder than it needs to be.

In modern times, when Go players are not also leading battles, I suspect it's simply regarded as a demonstration of lack of control.

If that had been the lesson given to the players mentioned in this article, or in apollo's basketball game, it would have been a good one.

But if the lesson is, don't be too good at what you do, or your prize will be taken away from you, it's a bad one. After all, even though the object is to win, but not humiliate, winning -- not achieving a tie score -- remains the object.

Both sides lost
Once the coach decided to change the scores, he not only denied his own team of their work, but also had the temerity to remove the score of the other team. That coach caused both teams to lose. He took points that were not his to take.

Need more clarification
Mr. Prager wrote; "His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened -- was the scoreboard perhaps broken? -- and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated."

Correct me if I am wrong but I read this as saying the person running the scoreboard changed the scoreboard display to read 0-0. I did not read anything that said the official score was changed to 0-0. Also the request to change the display on the scoreboard came from the leading team's coach. If the situation occured as I suggest then I have no issue with the decision. On the other hand if the official score was changed to 0-0 then I agree that the adults involved did more harm than good to the the kids involved.

I would bet I am right in that only the scoreboard display was changed and not the official score. This is another example of how easy it is to fool a lot of people into believing certain facts to be true when they are not. But I am not surprised because in today's world it is more important to condemn and attack the "other side" than it is to be honest.


So much for shades of gray...
In response to AudiR10 (" "Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results")

LetsAllRelax writes: "So it's back to the sweat-shops, child labour and soup kitchens of 100 years ago? Hanging 6-year-olds for stealing a loaf of bread? That's that fairness you want? Where do YOU draw the line?"

Interesting. AudiR10 (and Dennis Prager) object to a "compassionate" social policy aimed at sparing a group's feelings, and LetsAllRelax immediately jumps to an extreme position.

LetsAllRelax must be a Conservative, since he apparently can't think in terms of shades of gray, but only in the extremes of black and white.

Like Bob,
I, too, would like to know why posts are removed. My post this morning was short and without foul-speak nor rancor. It's gone.

To paraphrase what I wrote:

Leftists and/or liberals practice an ideology that is designed to make THEM feel good, regardless of who is sacrificed. In this case, the kids who played the best are offered up to their god of "compassion".

I said that every public school administrator should have Mr. Prager's article framed and on a wall in their office.

I also said that this demonstration of "compassion" is a pathology worthy of a DSM-IV-TR category in that it willfully arrests the development of people. In this case, the emotional growth and strength of children.

Lastly, I said that eliminating competition is similar to affirmative action where the top qualifiers are pushed down, diminished, eliminated or minimized to artificially elevate those who can't make the cut.

I almost forgot; I asked if we're allowed to say "little league" anymore. After all, the term might hurt some feelings.

Let's see how long this post lasts. It's 3:40 pm EST.




Former Rep
It doesn't matter if the 0-0 score was official or if it was just done to "save the children".

If these children are completely shielded from disappointment and emotional letdowns throughout their childhood, what do you think will happen when they enter adulthood? We will end up with even more adults in need of constant therapy and strung out on Prozac and all the other types of “stress reducing” medications.

I’m not advocating the emotional abuse of children; I’m just tired of people who set their children up for failure, which in turn creates future dysfunctional citizens of our society.

Can any leftist who....
...posts here explain how to motivate kids if their victories are removed by the authority figures? Where (or what) is the incentive to excel?

With the failure of socialism all over the globe due to the elimination of competition, what new reasoning are you using?

Dennis Prager
Hey, you female sports bashers bashers, we have around 50,000 people on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. We also have a girl wrestler that made the statewide championships by beating a guy. Me, I love women. Wish there were more of 'em. Would never want to wrestle a lady and lose. Well, perhaps in some situations. Just kidding.

For Honorable Democrat
This person should change their name to Honorable Comunist. No, I don't mean that as an insult but as an observation. Marx himself could have written that stuff about the collective...and did.


Sports and winning go hand in hand

Losing is an important learning experience. Steve Young and his 49ers lost a humiliating game to the Philadelphia Eagles at home back in the 90s. Later that same year the niners won the Super Bowl. Young attributed their win directly to the thumping they had taken earlier that year. He described the loss a turning point in the season.

Want a non sports analogy? Here is one: when biologists manually extract chicks from their eggs, the chicks often die. Those that survive usually grow up stunted and weak. Conversly the chicks that struggle and work, slowly breaking from their own shells have a significantly higher survivability rate. They do much better as adults also.

Losing stings, but very often it helps us to become better and stronger people. Changing the score for children to protect their feelings is much like extracting a chick from its shell: it might make you feel better but often it hinders those you wish to help.


c stevenson
A Prager-Sowell debate? yAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWN...better get the old defib fired up.

Mr. DBP - if dennis truly practices what he preaches and with his happiness hour and all - how come your parents marriage resulted in a divorce?

Chivalry in WWI
I read somewhere once about honor and chivalry in WWI dog fights. The honor was such that the object was not to kill the other pilot, merely disable the enemy plane from use. When an enemy plane was shot down and the plane was able to limp to a landing, there was no attempt to strafe the plane to kill the pilot. Just as kids need to be taught about good sportsmanship when losing, winners need to have a sense of decency and win with class.

Girls can play the Game

.....AudiR10 ....

.....I played baseball from Little League to College ...and coached for most of my adult life ...I always thought that the boys played the game and the girls were the cheerleaders ...that is ..until a friend asked me to help him coach his 12 year old daughters fast pitch softball team ...

.....I really didn't want to do it because I thought that soft ball was for sissies and I didn't know if I wanted to be on a ball field with a bunch of giggling females ...well I was wrong on both counts ...fast pitch is a tough game ...and even though the girls did giggle and talk about make-up and boys ...when they were between the lines they were little tigers ...

.....they slid into second to break up double plays and slid into a catcher blocking the plate while bare legged and wearing shorts ...they screamed and hugged each other when they won and sobbed and consoled each other when they lost ...they had more spirit and competivness than most of the boy teams I coached ...

.....most of them went on to play ball in college ...Junior college to Division One ...and I was proud of them all ...they are grown now with families of their own and I still run into them occasionally ...they are always thrilled to see me and still call me coach ...

.....So here's one for the girls ...they can play .....COLOSSUS

Changing of the Score
When I read this I see the coaches and the parents wanted the score changed? Where was the umpire? I umpired for 13 years in Little League and Pony League and the Home Plate Umpire was in charge of the game, not the coaches or parents. What has gone on here? Did the umpire agree to this? He's the one who sets the tone of the game?

reactions

Lynne & AudiR10:

I hope pakprotector clarified the "feminine" issue to your satisfaction. I didn't take Mr. Prager's characterization as a slap at women, but rather as urging boys to have confidence in their manly nature. There are some true gender differences, thank goodness, and each sex emphasizing what they do best degrades no one.
I'm half-waiting for somebody to jump in here and ask why all these men are writing so profusely. Everybody knows that female verbal ability tends to exceed our own.

I've found it fascinating that the commentary thread on this particular column has maintained a very high tone, rather than degenerating into acrimony and recrimination, as threads sometimes do. It's a pleasure to see so many posters who demonstrate the true meaning of sportsmanship: Play hard, try to win; if you lose don't get sore, if you triumph, don't gloat. As a kid, I particularly enjoyed Big Daddy Lipscomb, a huge defensive tackle in pro football who would tackle decisively, then help his opponent back to his feet when the play was completed. In an interview, Big Daddy said he didn't want the kids watching "to think he was a mean man."

I think you learn more from losing as long as it doesn't become too chronic. As a kid, I was never any good at sports that involved balls. I always felt like an idiot chasing a round, bouncing object that moved so much more swiftly than I could. Yet I can admire people who are good at it. I learned how to compete at other things that suited me better.

10 run rule
Not all leagues have that. I agree that it should applied. But the game must be offical before it applies, last inning may be making the game offical.

losing early is better...unless
If, like myself in little league, you have a kid that wins early and often, make him/her learn how to win.( many of you have mentioned this already)
Indeed, teach from a win; because loss awaits-and has no expiration date!

In my 6th of 8 years in little league, we began to complain about the quality of the trophy!

I didn't lose until my 7th year!
With that loss, I lost the fun, interest and meaning of the sport clear through the 8th year!

Wading through the verbige
I have two full time jobs and don't have time to spend the whole day reading or writing on Town Hall -- have sort of waded through the airy persiflage to see what the tenor of things was and I note that those who "reassure" us Girls that saying WE are responsible for the wussification of all the boys and men in America wasn't really meant as a slap at Girls...are missing the point. Andrew Dice Clay once remarked that girls were getting so crabby -- "You can't even go up to a girl and say NICE B**BS anymore" he complained, "without getting slugged!"

To deal with a few of the "arguments" I will say that (1) I never said that Girls and Men (it's always stated like that) should or could be placed in direct competition ALWAYS. However, in the field of sports car racing, women (NOT GIRLS) show the same cut-throat competitive nature as the men do, and are frequently more capable of coping with the physical hardships of a 12 hour endurance race than the men are.

Here is an example. A few years ago Robbie Gordon, who is a Masculine Man NA$CAR Driver, was placed on Team Volkswagen, which was captained by a woman, Jutta Kleinschmitt of Germany, to run the 15 day Paris-Dakar Rally Raid. Kleinschmitt had won this race -- the only woman ever to win -- on a level playing field against brutal odds. Gordon had never even run the race before. At about the 2/3 mark Kleinschmitt's car suffered parts failure and as is required in a Dakar Team, it was decreed that Gordon, as the junior member, must give her some parts from his car. SHE WAS THE TEAM LEADER AND A PAST DAKAR WINNER. HE WAS A ROOKIE WHO HAD NEVER RUN THE RACE AT ALL BEFORE THAT RUN. Well, Gordon started throwing a wall eyed screaming fit, throwing his helmet and cursing and flailing away! Kleinschmitt was a serious professional determined to win the race for the manufacturer who had brought them to join 600 other people on the world's toughest race. Gordon was a spoiled brat.

Which one was ACTING LIKE A GIRL?

(2) I loathe and despise stereotypes. My oldest son is and always has been a person of deep feelings, who can be steered with a feather; he lives to please people and loves to facilitate 'can't we all get along' and if you dropped him into the middle of a nest of Martians he would be President of Mars by supper time. My younger boy has little or no idea that there are other people in the world, and hates sports both to watch and to participate in them; he believes that the life of the mind is the only life and people who break his train of thought by expecting him to pick up his underwear or come to the table for supper are sort of speed bumps in his day. I would not be able to tell you which of these kids was Masculine and which was Feminized. They're both doing fine and neither of them blame Feminists or Girls when women outdo them in any particular field or game.

(3) Women make much better mechanics than men do; they can settle to picky, fiddly, exacting work much better and are excellent puzzle solvers. Men tend to bash away at things or try to overcomplicate or rush the job. Women are also used to ignoring men who think they can do everything better and shutting out their advice when it is mere showing off.

(4) IF YOU OR YOUR SON HAVE BECOME WUSSIFIED, IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. If you can't stand up for yourself, don't blame your mother, your sister, or your grandma. IT'S YOU. (And don't be surprised if your attempt to prove how masculine you are by beating up a girl meets with deadly force.)

(5) Many sports teams give performance bonuses, prizes for most runs, goals, saves, etc. hence the reason why everybody doesn't just quit and go home when the score looks like getting out of hand. If you think little Joey (or Jane) cares if Little Bobby bawls about the score -- as opposed to caring about that prize for the most runs/goals/saves/laps led, you're nuts.

Now I have to get to work. I have a race to run.

To audir10
You decry generalizations and then issue a whole stream of them. I think it's time to give up on the girl/guy bashing thing for everyone on this thread.

re: Absurd principle
In an earlier post I referred to an article by Michael Crowley about schools that oppose competition; Here it is:

http://www.rd.com/content/thats-outrageous----banning-competition-in-school/

I am an old klutz on computers so I sometimes take longer to find what I'm looking for. :-)




a question for lgm
You managed to tromp into the latrine with your statement about smart people tending to be liberal. That is so ridiculous that I don't know where to begin. It seems that many of those on welfare who have made messes of their lives tend to be liberal. If they were so smart, wouldn't they have the ability to make a decent living instead of depending on the taxpayers of this great nation?

Posts are restored, thanks Dullhammer
You're right. My post disappeared for a few hours and then miraculously reappeared.


Hope the other lost posts are restored as well, and that the site continues to pull it back together.

I feel so humiliated....
being this far down the page, can't I be put up to the top, I would feel so much better about myself, and who would be hurt. Ohhh, the humiliation of it all. How will I look in the mirror tomorrow. I may never be able to run for POTUS, what with not being able to look in the mirror to comb my hair. Please help me gain top billing, anyone, please, heeeeeeeeeelllllllppppp!

The parents were the big babies
I would bet the kids did not quit keeping score. I would also bet it was the parents whose feelings got hurt when the score got out of hand. There is a reason why people on welfare have children who grow up into a welfare recipient. Entitlement takes away ambition, which erodes hope. Those children will, likely come to believe it is okay to do poorly, at that sport, and then, the rest of their lives. Then they or at least their children will start believing they are supposed to do poorly. It reminds me of a lot of people I have known of a certain minority. They believe society is set up for them to be poor, because it allows them to not work, yet still squeak by on welfare. They have come to believe the goverment owes them a check every month. They see people with more than they have, and come up with some reason the people with more do not deserve more than they have so it is okay to even things up, even if they have to break the law to do it.They have evolved that into society being set up for them to go to jail, when the truth is society is set up for people who break the law go to jail. So, these people (I have known quite a few of them) believe it is okay for them to break the law, as long as it does not hurt anyone they think they care about. Then when they get caught, it is the people who hold them accountable that are responsible for them going to jail. I have even heard many say there is no way to make it through probation without violating because the system is set up for them to violate probation and go back to jail. They do not want to hear that probation is set up for them not to break the law, and if they do not break the law, and they do have a few extra on probation, they do not go to jail. All these foolish beliefs, I believe, stem from allowing people to think people can succeed without as much effort as chumps who go the extra mile to get ahead. Also, those who do go the extra mile ,and succeed legally, have to share their rewards with those who do not, so why work when you do not have to. Or, if you do succeed, do it illegally, so the "Man" does not know and take your money from you.

Inside Little League Baseball:

Across America this spring, as teams are formed, little league outcomes are manipulated by baseball "commissioners" using inside information and manipulated player ratings to stack team talent.

Reading Prager on baseball and society, it appears neither Prager nor any of those commenting have been "inside" of little league baseball, or faced the hardball competition within and among business "inside groups" quietly manipulating outcomes by wielding power and influence.

INSIDE BASEBALL: The Whole Story
Using inside information, the win at any cost little league "apparat" often "stack" certain teams that they or their fellow apparatchiks will ultimately coach. Worse still, these insiders alter ages, birth certificates etc.
Ergo, unbridled competition produces manipulation causing the same effect Prager bemoans in procedures and policies claiming to promote compassionate baseball and society: "...unfair results..."

In little league, the "out" apparat content themselves with the salve of the "slaughter rule," or changing the image of the on field reality by leveling the score to 0-0. Since winning is all that matters to the dominant functionaries, they are more than willing to change the image of the score. Shades of affirmative action.

In any system, manipulation by various apparats with differing motivations and agendas is a given. The central difference between individuals and groups seeking to apply their will in an arena marked by unbridled competition and individuals and groups seeking to apply their will in that same arena through social policies claiming to foster compassion is the form of the manipulation both "apparat" seek to apply. Both agenda's produce unfair outcomes. At the same time, both forms of manipulation will likely remain a characteristic of baseball as well as society.
Human nature is what it is.

Bottom Line?
Relax Mr. Prager....
Little league kids know how things work.
Far more than adults, kids know the difference between image and reality.

The Professed Reality/Image? Talent level on all teams are reasonably equally balanced.
[Team A equals Team B]
The Actual Reality? Certain teams are stacked. [Team A is not equal to Team B]

Kids also know a score of 24-7 is not the same as a score of 0-0. Of course they do. They also know only their parents and persons your age are fooled by such manipulations. Image is not reality Mr. Prager, except in Hollywood.

Critical Bill perhaps said it best:

Kids aren't that stupid; even if the scorecard goes back to zero you know that you've been beaten like a ginger stepchild.

R.D

Laughing Out Loud
I absolutely cannot believe how funny all this sound and fury is.....

Don't you know that THIS is what happens when a society embraces the fallacious, pernicious and utterly contemptible notion of Human "equality" ?
The legacy of the "civil rights" era and of the evil Lincoln strikes again !

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Baloney
As a fiscal conservative I'd stand with anyone fighting our slipping down the road to serfdom, but to find socialism in this story is to stretch the analogical rubber band to the breaking point. It is typical of those "conservatives" who define themselves not on principles but as against liberalism, and liberalism as anything they just happen to dislike and disagree with. It's baloney. It's liberal populism. And it's seen in this straw man Prager invents just so he can knock it down to popular applause. The teams knew who won, they just wanted to play ball--if play wasn't an important part of the game, you wouldn't learn by losing.

Guys and dolls
Vic was probably wise to drop the whole thing, but I do want to make the case that what Prager calls, in this instance, "feminization," ain't.

It IS more feminine to be generally more solicitous, rather than less, of people's feelings. It's also more generically feminine to assume children can deal with less, in general, rather than assuming they can deal with more -- in terms of physical challenge, disappointment, etc. (There are exceptions to every rule, and many mothers are wonderfully stern about self-discipline and mental toughness -- but on average, less inclined to promote boundaries-pushing risk-taking by their children than fathers.)

But turning a derivative idea, of the significance of feelings and relative disappointment, into the representation of abstract principle (something like, "If there's equality there's no disappointment") -- and taking action as an intended, symbolic corrective? Generic guy behavior.

Woman: Got feelings about this problem. Got lotsa feelings.

Man: Problem? Problem solved.

It's not a "feminine" approach to make a political principle of the proposition that an authority should somehow exist to rearrange all conditions that might cause us to have bad feelings. That, friends, is a CHILDISH approach.

I do think there is a genuinely feminine influence on the political landscape today: the concept of a therapeutic state. The therapeutic state doesn't bother with abstract, symbolic gestures like changing the score. It recognizes the victimized child in all of us, and proposes to sit us down and minister to us for our own good. The therapeutic approach to Prager's one-sided ball game would have been to gather for a sensing session afterward, confess feelings, have blood pressure taken, and get hugs going like The Wave.

Not everything that makes guys go "OOh, yuck" is, ipso facto, "feminine." Often enough, it's untempered extrapolation of an imprecise abstract principle, like "he hit me first" being an excuse for everything that follows. Probably the biggest difference is that women may objectively think untempered extrapolations are stupid and wrong, but don't necessarily feel personally undermined by them, as men do.

I recommend referring back to AudiR10's point #4 regarding how to avoid being personally undermined. It's an interesting masculine strength that is so easily undone by weakness.

OK, AudiR10, hit me. You probably don't fit the therapeutic profile yourself, but it's just a fact that we recognize that profile because of women. In 47 years on the earth, 20 of them in the Navy, I've never met a man who fit it.

THE TRUTH

Reminds me of Jack Nicholson's line, "You can't STAND the truth!"

Professor
The Professor gave a great lecture at Hertitage foundation in 2004, called Following the Method of Mohammad: Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terror

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/EV081204A.cfm

I missed the beginning of the Professor's appearance on the show today but it seemed to odd to me that she seemed to be so careful about what to say... almost to the point of always giving the benefit of the doubt to the non-violent POV. It just seems strange to me.

Just seems like bad sportsmanship
Running up the score 24-7 is simply bad sportsmanship. It is probably more difficult to control margin of victory once you're comfortably ahead in baseball than it is in football (where you can switch to only running plays, for example). Still, it would be interesting to know more about the game: how long were the starters in for the winning team; were they still trying to score more and more, etc.?

There is a point where being gracious in victory is important, too. Crushing kids who are still learning a game is just bad sportsmanship.

Some Wise MJan Once Said
Whatever does not kill you, only makes you stronger. But, of course there are exceptions to every rule.

Some Wise MJan Once Said
Whatever does not kill you, only makes you stronger. But, of course there are exceptions to every rule.

DP slot bounced?
Is Dennis being bounced from the 12-2 slot in Chi town for the other Dennis, Miller?

What will I do without Dennis's happiness hour? I am ruined I tell ya..ruined

general interest: solar powered bicycle

Prager's Analogy is Wrong. Here's Why
Dennis writes ... " the winning team is like "the rich" who earn "too much" and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored "too many" runs to be allowed to keep them all."

That analogy fails. Why? Simple. According to your story they took away the points from both teams. They took the same percentage of points from both teams. They took 100% of the points from both teams. The analogy Dennis should have drawn is with the conservative movement's advocacy for a flat tax. Conservatives just love the idea of flat taxes. And as a liberal, I'll abandon my "party line" and agree with you guys. Remove every corporate and personal tax loophole. Tax all individuals and corporations at exactly the same rate, be the taxes on wages, capital gains, inheritance, payroll taxes, stock dividends, sale of assets, whatever. And don't forget to remove the cap from payroll taxes. Just like we wouldn't want a progressive tax structure, let's make sure it isn't regressive either. I tell you, it's a conservative's wet dream.

The best part is that the rich would get such a soaking, because if you divide america up into three wealth groups, all with equal members (poor, middle, rich) it is currently the poor and the rich that basically tie for paying the lowest effective tax rate. It's time we quit soaking the middle class and begin to soak the rich and the poor. It's what Jesus would do, now that Dennis has identified the Prince of Peace as a poltical conservative.

Lying to Kids Does Not Raise Them Right
Amazing!

One commentator noted that the kids are smart enough to figure out what's going on and know how, but I see a bigger problem.

When the Rules of the Game are so obviously broken and distorted -- for whatever reason -- in a baseball game, what will be the next such experience? How much higher will the stakes be as the victims get older -- fudging SAT scores or qualifications for scholarships? Vote counts in political races? "Sworn" testimony in court?

There might be something to the suggested link between such experiences and the inclination to drug use -- if there is no external, rational value to be found in life, Why NOT create an artificial existence that offers pleasure and self-justification on your terms?

Thank you, Dennis, for shining the light of truth on this idiocy.

Effects are valid, Cause Isn't
Clearly, the action of the coaches was utterly stupid, and without any redeeming value. Quite possibly, all of the players left the field with many of the attitudes you suggest.

That being said, there are two problems with the conclusions Prager makes:

1) That the attitudes which he ascribes to these players can be generalized to all U.S. Citizens. Clearly, the voting public is roughly evenly divided between the political affiliations available to them. If Prager were correct, the Democratic victory last November would have been far more overwhelming than it turned out. You simply can't generalize this bizarre behavior of two individuals to the rest of America.

2) Assuming that Prager is correct (and he may well be) in his description of emotional rather than rational behavior dictating what people expect or desire from their government, to connect this to the effect of the views of the liberal party is simply nonsense -- especially, given the fact that Conservatives held substantial control over governmental policy from 1995 to 2007.

This search for simplistic explanations for very complex phenomena is characteristic of conservatives. Research to support this hypothesis can be found in this summary of a very complete study, documenting this view:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

Nit-picking...
We can comb over this article for technicalities all day if we want to, but the basic truth is undeniable. Nobody can honestly say that the occurrences described in this article are proper and appropriate. Whether they say it out loud or not, everybody knows that protecting the losers of the game from failure is a perversion of reality.

Some, sadly, are simply in favor of that perversion.

Modern liberalism is quite simply the 180-degree diametric opposition to everything that has historically made America strong. The character of our citizens is one of the most important of those things, which is why the dissenting liberals are in full support of things that undermine it...like "equality of outcome".

The forces that create modern liberalism are numerous and complex, but I believe that one of them is that some people are just uncomfortable with success. Success is a blessing and a burden, as any successful person knows. Being a winner brings responsibility, and many people don't want to be accountable for much; it's too stressful and intimidating. The possibilities for failure are too abundant.

So those that feel this way have a direct interest in diffusing the incentives for people to succeed. If no one wins, then they can never be a loser; no more stress from fear of failure, no more having to try to improve yourself.

It's possible that liberals feel that they are alone in these fears, and that successful people have been given a special gift which shields them from the paralysis that fears can incite.

Not true: successful people feel the same fears, but they aren't ruled by their emotions -- they act in spite of fear. They fail time and time again, and this tis the reason for their success.

Failure is life's best teacher. Those who fail the most, success the most.

So shileding people, especially children, from failure stunts their emotional growth like so much psychic caffeine. Learning to deal with failure is the only hope a child has for gaining the character required for success.

These children are people too. Don't deny them the opportunity to become an emotianally mature person by shileding them from the truth. Instead, teach them to embrace the lessons of failure, to feed from the motivation it provides, and to adjust their actions to grow into a more able person.

That's the kind of philosophy that can help us all.

typos..
Please excuse the various typos in the above comment.

Truth
Clearly Compassionate Conservatism was like so many marketing catch phrases. A lie that only the ignorant could embrace.

I saw this once
I was coaching a basketball team of seventh graders in Portland, OR several years ago at a private club... and they tried to do this to us.

We were in a "B" league at "THE HOOP".

I don't recall who suggested it. The other team's coach or what...

My guys were playing people who were 2 to 3 years ahead of them in physical maturity. Personally, I considered every point we scored to be a victory. When they erased the scored... they erased all of our point, too... making everyone's contribution meaningless.

I just couldn't understand... I objected and they put the score back up. My throat is still sore from all the cheering I did that game...

To continue fighting when all appears lost... it is the most important character trait you can teach.

I'm a little slower than Jared
Jared, I hadn't read Harrison Bergeron when I first read this column and your comment. After I read it, I was 100% in agreement with you. For those, like me, who didn't understand your post, I offer this analysis. But I'll start by quoting your comment to put it in context:

"If what Prager says sounds familiar, it should. Over 40 years ago, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. struck a similar theme in Harrison Bergeron (1961).

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. "

The job of the US Handicapper General is to keep everyone equal. Beautiful people wear ugly masks. People too agile or strong wear bags full of lead. Clever people wear in one ear a transmitter, through which the Handicapper General sends out various noises to keep them from concentrating on a single idea or thought. In Bergeron's world, competition is great sin.

Does this remind you of our politically correct country? (I say "country" because I live in Germany, where I don't see nearly as much PC-ism as I do at home.) Rather than striving for equal opportunity the left wants equal results. They are trying to legislate the absence of racism, sexism, ageism, and probably a few other "isms" conservative little me can't even fathom. Did you know Wikipedia actually has an entry for the word "speciesism."

Let us learn from the recently deceased and sadly missed Mr. Vonnegut. The society in "Harrison Bergeron" succeeded in eliminating competition and prejudices --everybody got the same opportunity to do everything -- and the result was fatal.

If you haven't read "Harrison Bergeron" you'll find it at http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

RAISED A LIBERAL...
I will write a million times... I wish rich liberals knew the pain I have suffered at their hands. Yes, in your nice home and Daddy's money, you do not know my Horror. Waiting for my hand-out, hating everyone who had it better than me, holding rage inside so powerful, that it almost cut a heart out.

You tell us poor trash that we are equal? But you never gave me a fair wage... your police sent me away from your neighborhoods. You said "working class hero"... but never joined me in the dish room. You told me drugs were cool... but never inhaled yourself. You told me rich white men are to blame ... but you were one of them all along.

You told me we were going to be equal, didn't you!

You lied... and left me, and millions like me... all of us hating the rich... destroying our families with our rage... absorbed with our selfish desire for a free ride.

But, in the end... your liberal greed and lust to control me did not conquer... and I am free from your slave chains...

I am... a compassionate conservative
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.