Pacquiao v Mayweather – the aftermath

What an interesting place that boxing occupies in the world of sports. Apparently, Mayweather took home $180 million and Pacquiao $120 million. This makes a convicted Mayweather, who has been convicted multiple times of domestic violence from 2002 to 2011 the highest paid athlete in the world. Wow.

Answer this question: When is the last time you watched or were even interested in a boxing match?

I know that I can’t even remember.

Fascinating. 

Boxing exists, day-to-day, on the fringe of sport. But, it’s still capable of generating huge, broad interest in the right circumstances. There is apparently something really iconic about boxing that draws people in even if they have never seen a single fight.

Will UFC ever enjoy such iconic status? Personally, I doubt it.

What will happen in the Alberta Election?

Alberta votes on Tuesday. As of this morning, polls indicate an NDP minority government. As of this morning, a new CBC poll indicates that the surging NDP has a lot to do with NDP leader Rachel Notley who, regardless of who Albertans intend to vote for, is held in high regard and is personally polling way ahead of her two main rivals.

 

My fearless prediction? A PC minority government.

Last election saw the Wildrose Party in the polling lead but in the privacy of the voting booth, Albertans simply could not, in sufficient numbers, vote for them. The PCs won. But, they further undermined their credibility in the months following with the excess of Alison Redford and then the collapse of the Wildrose leadership (which I think reflected badly on the PCs). Things are even stinkier for the PCs now but… well… Albertans really treasure their personal wealth. Albertans, in large numbers, feel a sense of entitlement around the revenue generated by oil. The feel that by the fluke of birth (being born over top of the oil) that they own the oil which is all an artificial distribution of wealth and the subject of another blog. And they know that the NDP will tend to reduce the overall amount of oil revenue as well as redistribute wealth. 

Remember when Greece overspend and had to reduce spending? Despite clearly being unsustainable, this didn’t stop the Greek people from rioting. Alberta is the same, except not, because Alberta is still stinking wealthy. Nonetheless, what you are seeing in these political polls is the equivalent of a Greek riot. People are angrily checking off “NDP” and “Wildrose” (instead of burning police cars). When it comes to the voting booth, though, I think they will calmly vote PC.

A PC minority.

And then Alberta politics will get very interesting. Who will bring down the PC minority? The further right Wildrose or the left NDP because these two cats aren’t going to agree on much.

One freedom of religion v. another freedom of religion

This news today…

Rick Santorum has weighed in on the debate over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act using what appears to have been the most provocative comparison he could think of. "Tolerance is a two-way street," he told CBS News yesterday, arguing that businesses should have the "ability to say we're not going to participate in certain activities that we disagree with from a religious point of view." "If you are a print shop, and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print 'God Hates Fags’ for the Westboro Baptist Church—because they hold those signs up?" he asked. "Should the government force you to do that?" Santorum described the Indiana law as a "good bill" and said he had hoped Indiana Gov. Mike Pence wouldn't amend it, the Guardian reports.

Santorum’s analogy is flawed, of course, because the hypothetical gay shop owner is not refusing this printing job claiming “freedom of religion.” Rather, he is refusing claiming, “freedom from hate speech.”

But, Santorum’s analogy does give rise to claims of freedom based on “genuinely held religious belief” because one will have a great deal of difficulty delineating between “good religious belief” and “kooky religious belief.” Simply put, religious belief is not rational and deciding between one irrational belief and another will be impossible. So, if I can show that I genuinely hold some belief or other, then it is valid, at least as far as the law goes no matter how kooky it may seem to other religions or non-believers.