Month: December 2011

That a really good quarterback (or so I'm told) is also a devout evangelical Christian should concern no one, it seems to me. That he often displays his faith by kneeling in the middle of games strikes me as banal given the end-zone shenanigans that also go on. But it's worth noting that for Christians, it should be a problem. Prayer is not supposed to be a public event, designed to display your holiness in front of the maximum number of people. That's actually my problem with school prayer. I don't have much of a problem with it as a Constitutional matter, as long as there is an opt-out. But it does violate a core teaching of Jesus:

Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.  But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Why does a Christian publicly repudiate the God he worships? And how has the reverse of Jesus' teachings become the orthodoxy?

(Photo: Tim Tebow #15 of the Denver Broncos prays before the game against the San Diego Chargers at Qualcomm Stadium on November 27, 2011 in San Diego, California. The Broncos went on to win 16-13 in overtime. By Harry How/Getty Images.)

Readers rush to defend the breed from these readers:

Part of the reason pit bulls were so popular among dog fighters is that while they fought to the death with each other, they traditionally did not turn on their handler.  Pit bulls, like many dogs, are intensely loyal to their pack, and packs in Western culture often include their human owners and masters.  There was a reason the Little Rascals' dog was a pit bull; it was once an all-American member of the family.  However, when you take a dog with certain characteristics and add either intentionally destructing or simply inept handling and breeding, those characteristics can lead to much worse results than you’d get with another breed with a much more mellow natural disposition.

A collection of Pete the Pup's greatest hits here. Another reader:

There are numerous pit bull rescue organizations that specialize in rescuing and rehabbing pit bulls from dog fighting operations. There is a lot of debate about what should be done with rescued pit bulls because sometimes a dog can appear to be rehabilitated only to have a particular sight, sound, or memory trigger their old life – at which point they do turn aggressive. But the idea that, because of breeding, pit bulls are now genetically predisposed to aggression is malarkey. These dogs are aggressive because they have suffered. So the solution here is to seriously crack down on dog fighting – not to ban breeds.

Another:

In the name of science and statistics and plain duty, please don’t let those anecdotal stories be the last thing you say on the topic of pit bulls and dog aggression. 

Please read or link to this study conducted by U of Penn Veterinary Medicine in 2008.  They surveyed 6,000 dog owners and had many interesting findings, including this tidbit: pit bulls and Rottweilers scored average or below average in aggression.  Smaller dogs tend to be more aggressive than larger breeds (Dachsunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russells make up 1, 2 and 3 on the aggression rankings, while Basset Hounds, Golden Retrievers, Labradors, Siberian Huskies and Greyhounds were among the lowest scored). The researchers believe that "smaller breeds may be more genetically predisposed to aggressive behavior than their large counterparts because of rough handling by humans." They go on to say that bite statistics that have been released are skewed because most dog bites are not reported.

Another:

There are plenty of studies available. For example, this one concludes: "[M]ost of the factors contributing to dog bites are related to the level of responsibility exercised by dog owners". (This is especially telling to me, since my experience from the shelter abandonment intake desk is that pit bulls are extremely popular among irresponsible douchebags.)  Or this study: "The proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls increased from 20% in 1979 and 1980 to 62% in 1987 and 1988". So I think we can rule out a one-generation magical advance in aggressiveness in the breed during this period.

Finally: "Approximately 92% of fatal dog attacks involved male dogs, 94% of which were not neutered." This is probably a much stronger correlation than any single breed, yet I don't hear the same clarion call to require neutering for all dog adoptions (though we strongly encouraged it).

Another:

Well since you're taking the "plural of anecdote is data" route on this one, here's my contribution. I have loved every single pit bull I've ever met except two that were clearly raised shitty and were aggressive towards other dogs. The breed is bred to please, meaning they'll do anything and everything to garner praise.  If that means rolling over on their back so that master says "I wuv you" in a high pitched voice, they'll do that.  If that means attacking and killing something so that master says "good boy," it means that too. If master is a dipshit and doesn't train or socialize them properly, it means they'll do whatever comes naturally, which may be face biting and jugular slashing like any vicious dog (ever met an aggressive German shepherd? 10x scary).

It is hands down my favorite breed, but because Americans are by and large dipshit dog owners, it means that by and large American pit bulls are shitty dogs.

One more:

I've been a daily reader of yours for ten years, and this post about pitbulls is the first time that I've been moved to write to you.  You are going to get a lot of overheated rhetoric about these dogs on both sides so I wanted to share my experience as a pitbull owner, father and attorney.  I have owned several of these dogs, all from shelters, and the one that I currently have was taken away from her previous owner due to cruel treatment.  These are the things that I have found to be true:

1)  These are great family dogs.  They love kids and are suckers for any kind of positive attention.  They have a high pain tolerance and generally are not bothered by kids pulling their ears, etc. These dogs are great cuddlers. 

2)  They can be dog aggressive.  Dogs that were bred for generations to fight other dogs cannot always turn this off.  If dogs fight, the pit is usually going to win and is capable of killing the other dog.  I personally have found that neutered/spayed dogs properly socialized are rarely dog aggressive but owners need to be able to read their dog's body language to head off a potential fight.  I currently have a large female pitbull that goes to doggy daycare, the dogpark, and resides with another mixed breed female with no problem.  I had one before her for 12 years that would fight any dog she came into contact with but loved people.  She stayed indoors and on a leash when out and about.

3)  Dog aggression is not human aggression.  Dogs that were bred for the pit were also bred not to display human aggression.  There is someone in the pit with the dogs when they fight.  Pitbulls were never bred to be guard dogs or protection and are not very good at either.  If you want a dog to protect your home or family from human intruders, you are much better served by a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Bullmastiff, Akita, etc.  I would also note that all of these dogs are much larger than pitbulls.

4) Unfortunately a lot of shitheads own pitbulls.  They like the dog's reputation for aggressiveness and do things to foster it.

5)  A properly socialized pitbull will be the best dog you own.  They are extremely affectionate, they will be your kid's best friend, are extremely eager to please, and loyal to a fault.  The shelters are full of these wonderful dogs that are going to be put down.  These dogs aren't for everybody.  They are active, need exercise, and need to be properly socialized.  If you aren't willing to do these things, don't get a pit – you are just perpetuating a problem.  Actually, you probably shouldn't get a dog period.

Gingrich really is a classic Bush Republican:

Although campaigns often operate in the red, Gingrich’s debts are unusually high — he spent nearly $3 for every $2 he raised.

Matt Zwolinski gives a primer on Ron Paul's "one book for America," Frédéric Bastiat's The Law:

Bastiat was one who believed that charitable aid to the poor was an important virtue.  But the purpose of the law is justice, not charity.  And to use the law to achieve charitable ends inevitably perverts justice.

Yglesias and Delong plumb its depths for lefty ideas.

It's a squeaker for second place; but Paul's organization is far better than Gingrich's.

Question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com Video archive here.

A reader writes:

Andrew, I am offended by the picture you posted in the "Homo Sports Bars" piece.  It was vile and offensive and not something decent people want to look at. I mean, seriously: a Ravens fan hugging a Steelers fan??  Have you no decency??!

(For all you non-football fans out there, the two teams have one of the most bitter rivalries in the NFL.)

Yesterday, almost a hundred Shi'a were massacred in Iraq and Afghanistan on the holiest day in Shiite Islam. Iraq will soon be without any US troops; ditto Afghanistan, where the sectarian attack was the first since the fall of the Taliban. The pattern is becoming clearer as developments mount:

In the West, it is easy to concentrate on the possibilities that the Arab Spring offers for a more democratic Middle East. More disturbing is the way sectarian blocs are forming and religion is becoming the focal point of conflict. The GCC wants to expand its membership to include other Sunni monarchies, the Arab League and Sunni Turkey impose sanctions on Alawite Syria while Shi'a-majority Iraq and Hizbullah-dominated Lebanon refuse to follow their lead.

Serial adultery? Fine. Mormonism? Er …

Gingrich's favorable rating among white evangelical likely caucus-goers is 60 percent – compared to just 31 percent for Romney. Only 18 percent hold an unfavorable view of Gingrich, compared to 43 percent for Romney…. More than half of likely Republican caucus-goers (55 percent) say it is at least somewhat important a candidate share their religious beliefs, a figure that rises to 80 percent among white evangelicals. Eighty-five percent overall (including 77 percent of white evangelicals) say they would vote for a Mormon candidate, though just 67 percent say most people they know would vote for a Mormon.

Another way to put this is that 23 percent of white evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon, period. They even ranked Gingrich's personal life higher than Romney's.

Kirsten Powers collects evidence of Newt's self-understanding. My eternal favorite:

“Gingrich—primary mission: advocate of civilization, definer of civilization, teacher of the rules of civilization, arouser of those who fan civilization, organizer of the pro-civilization activists, leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.”

If someone wrote me a letter like this, I'd assume he needed mental health care. I'm particularly struck by the random insertion of false modesty with that lovely parenthesis "(possibly)". But one thing seems clear at this point: Romney cannot beat Gingrich. Only Gingrich can beat Gingrich. But can he implode before he clinches the nomination? That's the establishment GOP's last hope.