Distinctions II: I Know It’s Raining ‘Cause I’m Wet

This time of year you will hear countless football analysts on T.V. saying the following: The better team usually beat the worse team.

Stunning analysis, huh?

Now you may be saying to yourself, “Self.  I’ve never heard anyone on T.V. say that at all.  They give me reasons why one team will beat another or some insight into how the game will be played.”

But if we look closer at what they say, we’ll find that they don’t really give us any analysis at all.  Let’s just start with the biggest one.

In the playoffs, the team that gets the most turnovers wins the game 94% of the time.

Okay, so I made that number up.  Still, you get the idea.  But here’s my point.  The team that forces the other team to turn the ball over IS THE BETTER TEAM!!!  If the two teams were indeed equal, then we could perhaps claim that the turnovers will win/lose the game, but they are so rarely equal.  Teams don’t win because of the turnovers.  They win because they have better players and coaches.  Turnovers are a byproduct of smarter, better coached, more athletic players.  They  don’t just occur randomly.  Most of the time they are forced when a superior player dislodges, dismembers or otherwise separates an inferior player from the ball.

Once you notice this flaw it’ll be hard not to see it.  You’re welcome.  I just ruined football broadcasts for you.  Now, you’ll never be able to hear someone say “The team with the lead at the end of the first quarter goes on to win the game 194% of the time” without thinking to yourself.  Yeah, no shit.  The team that scores the most points in the first 1/4 of the game probably scored them because they’re better than the other team.

Distinctions I

People are throwing around a lot of accusations about who’s “qualified” to do particular jobs.  Specifically, some are suggesting that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.  In an attempt to discredit Republicans in general and the McCain/Palin ticket in particular, these people suggest that her experience as mayor and then/now governor of Alaska does is not enough to make her a legitimate VP candidate.  But let’s be absolutely clear here about who benefits from such rhetoric-The Republicans.  That’s right, and the reason why is very, very simple.  Sarah Palin is ABSOULTELY 100% qualified to be Vice President.  Hell, Bush got elected President twice with less political experience, and certainly Clinton had only been a small state governor when he was elected (twice).  Her credentials are certainly in line with what it would take to be VP, and Republicans have done a pretty decent job of pointing that out.

The problem, however, is that she isn’t CAPABLE of being Vice President (see: Interviews w/Katie Couric).  Precision with diction is necessary here because there’s a big difference.  Being qualified does not mean that you’ll necessarily be any good at something, it simply means that you meet some arbitrary and fluctuating standards which rely mostly on precedent rather than meaningful accomplishment.  The problem is that people don’t want to point out that, rather than being unqualified, she’s incompetent.  It sounds meaner, somehow more personal, and so we would rather just use this vague “unqualified” designation.  But in reality it’s not an ill-spirited personal attack about the essence of Sarah Palin’s humanity.  It’s just true.  It doesn’t make her a bad person that she would be bad at this job, just as it doesn’t make seventonine bad people if we’re bad at our jobs (which, for the record, we’re not.  In fact, we rule-ask anyone).

Calling a spade a spade would stop letting the Republicans hide behind this veil of sexism and folksiness and charm.  Charm isn’t nearly as useful when people are focused on your ability (or lack thereof).  In fact, to continue with a popular metaphor, we’ll just let our old pals Jules and Vincent from Pulp Fiction take us home:

Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we’d have to be talkin’ about one charming motherfuckin’ pig. I mean he’d have to be ten times more charmin’ than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I’m sayin’?