Various Thoughts XVI

Today – October 31, 2017 – is the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It recalls the nailing of Martin Luther's 95 theses to his church's door. What is the significance to Catholics? To Protestants? Does its appearance on Halloween indicate anything positive or negative? What was the significance of Halloween during the sixteenth century? Was Luther trying to make a point by posting his complaints on this date or was it strictly a random choice?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That was written a few days ago, but while going through old notes I found some thoughts I had written a few years ago, on November 10^th, the anniversary of Kristallnacht – much more recent, than 1517 – a time when history records numerous deaths and other evidences of vehemence rather than simply an expression of theological views. What I wrote then noted the fact that I found no mention of that more recent violent event in the New York Times. Martin Luther was an antisemite, there's no doubt about that, but he left it to others to do the dirty work.

The Times was first published in 1851 and has been owned since 1896 by a German-Jewish family. The culture of the German-Jewish community was to be American – to flount Judaism – to minimize its significance – rather than flaunt it. And though founded as a conservative organ, it is now a proudly liberal publication (it last supported a Republican for president during the Eisenhower era) and, like all good “modern liberals,” it is Pro “Palestinian” (anti-Israeli) and mildly antisemitic. That, however, isn't new. During the Holocaust the Times didn't show much interest in that historic issue. It did its own dirty work then, before, and since.

Antisemitism has existed for millennia. It wasn't started by the New York Times. But the “Gray Lady,” America's “newspaper of record,” has an obligation to be objective. It isn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Houston Astros won the World Series last night. It was the first time since their establishment in 1962. (That was the first year for the Mets as well.) In fact it was the first time that any Texas team has done that.

Over the years there has been a discrepancy in the fortunes of the various athletic teams – in baseball the real hero has been the New York Yankees, although other New York teams (including the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, the New York Mets) get a lot of attention because of this city's media predominance.

But the big driver of our sports teams – college as well as professional – is money.

Sports makes money.

That's not a surprise. You knew it. And you paid the money. Ticket sales, with prices going up annually, and the profits they produce, provide the impetus for the problem. The bigger the city, the more people who fund those profits, and the more money available for the unseemly salaries earned by sports figures.

Can there be an equalization of salaries? Should there be? Or at least an equalization of talent. Should sports “scholarships” be forbidden? Right now the attitude is that we have a free society. So suck it up and pay for the ticket.

Perhaps that's the proper position. But the economics of sports might benefit from a thorough review.

November 2,2017