February 2010 Archives

[Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here. Part two is here. Part three is here.]

Jim's take

Pick: The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)

I said:

Sridhar is trying to convince you that he's made a fuel cell without platinum, the super expensive catalytic material that has made it so hard for them to be financially viable. Except those metal plates on either side of the disk are in EVERY fuel cell, and they are NEVER platinum. Ever. The platinum is not a huge flat plate: it is micrograms of the stuff sprayed onto the central membrane. His fuel cell has platinum: it is in the inks. I guarantee it.

What I meant to say, and was instead said by former co-worker and all around smarter-than-me-guy Rick in a response on Facebook:

Assuming the technology works (which it probably does -- Google, etc, testing it), it seems to be performing in the ballpark of the best solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) in terms of stack power density [...] If it's an SOFC (and Zirconium is in "beach sand" as ZrSiO4...), it also doesn't require platinum because of the high-temperatures.

Duh. Right. Yes. Leslie Stahl mentions in the video that Sridhar based his fuel cell technology on his Mars oxygen generation technology. A quick internet search finds the title of a paper Sridhar wrote: "Oxygen Production on Mars Using Solid Oxide Electrolysis."

Electrolysis, as you might remember from high school, is when you apply an electric current across water, causing it to break up into hydrogen and oxygen (presumably Sridhar's oxygen production device would use water found in the Martian ice caps). When you operate a fuel cell, you combine oxygen and hydrogen to get water and electricity. So this is, in fact, electrolysis backwards.

Sridhar's fuel cell doesn't use platinum to catalyze the reaction. There are actually two ways to make a reaction more energetic: you can catalyze it, or you can heat it up. Solid oxide fuel cells heat it up. Really heat it up. Existing SOFCs operate between 500 and 1000 degrees Celsius. But now you have another set of problems, because that is face meltingly hot. That's almost hot enough to melt steel. So while you no longer need expensive platinum, you do need other expensive materials that can withstand that type of temperature.

However, everything else I said in the original article stands true, with one addendum: instead of platinum, you have a fuel cell that is about the same temperature as a house fire.

Reconciliation. 

 

Do you know how CHIP (children's health insurance program) passed the senate?

 

Reconciliation.  Even 'letting poor kids see a doctor sometimes' could only muster 55 votes in the Senate.

Years ago, Jim introduced Suzi and I to one of his friends from high school. During the conversation, she mentioned that she was excited because George W. Bush was going to be making an appearance at her church, and she was a big fan. Suzi and I laughed at this obviously ironic statement, because nobody our age could actually be a conservative Republican, right? Right??

Wrong, as it turned out. The moment was swept under the rug by a few moments of awkward silence, but I haven't forgotten it. I have similar moments when I hear that Dick Cheney has a public approval rating of 18%. Who are these 18% of people who approve of the job that Dick Cheney is doing, and what the hell is wrong with them?

I feel that, in the case indicting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the facts are solidly on my side. But then again, I was never inclined to like either of them, anyway. So are there facts that could redeem the argument that maybe Bush and Cheney, after all? Maybe, but according to social scientists, I would likely ignore them.

That's the case made in this NPR story that aired yesterday, and I was quite struck by the implications. The actual story doesn't talk about Bush or Cheney, but rather about how cultural cognition can explain how polls show that the global warming deniers are winning the debate in the face of a mountain of facts.

Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.

This puzzles many climate scientists -- but not some social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's beliefs.

[...]

"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.

Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it.

I encourage you to read the whole article. And if you think that NPR is a mouthpiece for the liberal agenda, feel free to reject its conclusions. I enjoy irony.

The internet has been abuzz with excitement (?) about the 60 Minutes segment from Sunday night touting the Bloom Box as "An Energy Breakthrough?" The question mark in this case doesn't so much indicate a journalist's natural skepticism as it does 60 Minutes helplessness when confronted with science, throwing up their hands in frustration. They are saying, "Hey, this guy says its an energy breakthrough, and we aren't smart enough to suss out whether or not he's full of shit so, uh, maybe?"

Fuel cells are the scheisters of the alternative energy world, milking investors of dollars with promises to be the Next Big Thing while, time after time, failing to do anything big. If PT Barnum was a scientist, he would have been big into fuel cells (no less an example of a fool being born every minute than George W. Bush declared the hydrogen economy to be the future of our energy infrastructure in his 2003 State of the Union address).

Presented without further comment.

["Dear Margo" is written twice weekly at Yahoo.com. For the original column click here.]

Dear Margo OC,

My best friend since elementary school (I'll call her CJ) is married to a man I have never liked (I'll call him Phil). Even when they dated I considered Phil overbearing and foolish. I pleaded with her not to marry him, but she did. I agreed to be her maid of honor because I wanted to be a supportive friend. Fast-forward 27 years. Her marriage is, to put it bluntly, a complete disaster. She talks constantly about leaving Phil but won't actually do it. Phil hasn't worked in four years, even though they are strapped financially. CJ is the breadwinner, and Phil does absolutely nothing but eat, complain and watch TV. For seven years CJ has been having an affair with a married co-worker. She fantasizes about a life with this man. Her 16-year-old daughter goes to counseling and regularly has anxiety attacks, which I suspect are from living in a household where verbal abuse and hostility are the norm. A couple of months ago, during one of their heated arguments, Phil slapped CJ hard across the face, leaving a bruise. CJ also started using me as a "cover" for meetings with her male friend. That was the limit for me. I told her in no uncertain terms that I would not be a party to this mess. I have not heard from her since. Did I cross the line? Am I a bad friend?

Its tough to watch luge these days. It really is. Look: it was tough enough already, right? Dudes lay motionless on a slide in ugly spandex outfits with their packages jutting skyward while they slide down an ice chute. Down they would slide, and at the end, one of them slid the fastest because of imperceptible differences in body position and speed.

But with the death of Nodar Kumaritashvili during his last warmup before the games started, luge took on another possibility: either the men would lie motionless, or they would rocket off their sled into a support beam. It was, in other words, NASCAR: down and down they would go, and once in awhile there would be a spectacular crash.

Kumaritashvili's death has cast a pall over the games, as has the response: Olympic organizers put up a 6 foot tall wooden wall where he flew off the track and issued a report blaming him for the accident. Never mind for now the inherent disconnect in blaming the athlete on one hand and then making modifications to the track on the other. Whatever the cause, an athlete died doing what he loved on the eve of achieving what would be the pinnacle of his athletic career (and very likely his life). Its like Alanis Morrissette and O. Henry had a baby and named it "this exact situation".

So: given all that has happened, imagine my surprise when Olympic luge champion Armin Zoggeler was introduced by his nickname, The Cannibal.

THE CANNIBAL. Really? Really.

Hey, guess what, THE CANNIBAL, you're in luck! This track is killing dudes left and right! DINNER IS SERVED, MOTHERFUCKERS! Jesus. I guess they couldn't find a luger with the nickname "Fatal Blunt Force Trauma" or "The Steel Support Beam"?

Via.

[Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar over the next few days. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here. Part two is here.]

Jesse's take

Best Animated Feature

Nominees: Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog, The Secret of Kells, Up

This is a surprisingly strong group. When the category was created a few years ago, some people saw it as the permanent, institutional ghetto-ization of animated features to the kid's table to make more room for the adults in the Best Picture category. But is it possible that we're seeing more high-quality animated films being produced instead? In another year I would be pulling big for Coraline. You might think 3D is a gimmick, so I encourage you to see it in 2D. The flat version remains visually inventive; the animation is breathtaking, and yes, it even manages to be a little freaky to all-grown-up me.

But I think we can all figure out that if Up doesn't win this award after getting invited to sit with the big boys in the expanded Best Picture category, then it would be a major upset. So instead let me just implore you to get over your anti-Pixar bias and see this movie. Remember that seen in Blade Runner where they do that interview to see if somebody is human? Well, in the real post-apocolyptic future when we are fighting a war against synthetic dopplegangers, we won't need a complex moral fable involving turtles. We'll just screen the first ten minutes of Up to a room full of suspects, and anybody who isn't tearing up at the end will be immediately shot in the face. Because they were either robots or sociopaths, and we don't want either of those things.

Pick: Up

In a follow-up comment to Kevin's anguished cry of frustration at politicians forming (or justifying) their position in opposition to climate change legislation based on the amount of snow outside their offices, I said that science would expect heavier snowfall in a warming world. Today in Wunder Blog, Dr. Jeff Masters explains further:

Another interesting result from the Changnon et al. (2006) paper (Figure 2) is the relationship between heavy snowstorms and the average winter temperature. For the contiguous U.S. between 1900 - 2001, the authors found that 61% - 80% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters with above normal temperatures. In other words, the old adage, "it's too cold to snow", has some truth to it. The authors also found that 61% - 85% of all heavy snowstorms of 6+ inches occurred during winters that were wetter than average.

Take climate change out of the equation for a moment, and just observe that some winters are warmer than others. All precipitation, rain or snow, requires water vapor to be in the atmosphere. The warmer the air temperature, the more water vapor the atmosphere can hold. In a relatively warm winter, when local temperature are still below the freezing mark, more snowfall would be expected.

If the average temperature before global warming was 28 degrees, and the average temperature after global warming is now 30 degrees, guess what? It's still cold enough to snow!

But even this argument gives too much credence to the cave-man level comprehension skills at work here: its warm right now, so there's global warming! It's cold right now, so global warming is a hoax! There is a difference between weather and climate. They are micro- and macro- effects. Think in terms of the economy: its bad right now, but you personally might still have a job. The economy is the climate. The job is the weather. Or maybe, as with all things, I should simply let the Daily Show explain it:

[Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar over the next few days. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. Part one is here.]

Jim's take

Pick: Christoph Waltz

I've been trying to cut down on my political/current events reading because it tends to just make me angry and depressed.  Today, I got a reminder why.

Record snowfall has buried Washington -- and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year.

"It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries "uncle," the conservative Senator  [DeMint] tweeted on Twitter.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said the blizzards that have shut down Congress have made it more difficult to argue that global warming is an imminent danger

"Where's Al Gore when we need him?" quipped Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who burst out laughing when asked about the prospect of passing cap-and-trade legislation Tuesday while the city was still digging out.

I could write a bunch here about why this is dumb as hell and a gross misunderstanding of basic science and logic, but that's Jesse's niche.  And also I suddenly need to pop some antacids.

[Jesse and Jim will be making their picks for every Oscar over the next few days. To participate in this year's ObscureCraft Oscar Pool, email your own picks to craftj2@gmail.com. The rules are here. On with the picks!]

Jesse's take

Jim, its our favorite time of year. Is this how Christians feel around Christmas? Or how Muslims feel around 9/11? We've been Oscar prognosticating for as long as we've known each other. There's something about the mixture of showbiz, art, and gambling that you can't get anywhere else. We're going to take turns picking categories and then we'll each pick a winner. In the past, our wager has been more than just a gentleman's agreement: care to make it interesting? You can let me know after we get through this first category.

The Superbowl is finally here!  Which means we all get to see new (and probably stupid) commercials.  I know that's why I watch.  But more than just commercials, the Superbowl signifies the end of the football season, especially since the Pro Bowl was moved to before the Superbowl this year.  So no more interesting NFL news until mid-April when the NFL Draft takes over a whole weekend.  Then we have to wait three more grueling months until training camps start at the end of July.  Then 4 meaningless preseason games in August, followed by the start of the 2010 season.  I CAN"T WAIT!!!

OK, so now I'll update the uninteresting Playoff Pick 'Em standings.  Due to the push in the Vikings-Saints game, only people that picked the Colts got the 4 points, thus we have:

The Suze: 13 (1-0-1 two weeks ago)
Jesse: 12 (0-1-1 two weeks ago)
Jim: 11 (0-1-1 two weeks ago)
Daytrader: 10 (1-0-1 two weeks ago)
Rose: 10 (1-0-1 two weeks ago)
Greg: 4 (0-1-1 two weeks ago)

Now for the Superbowl, the correct pick gets EIGHT points, and I'm making up BONUS POINTS!!!  Everyone tells me what they think the total score will be and the closest gets 6 points, the second closest gets 5, the third gets 4, etc.  OK...to the analysis!


New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts (-5.0)
So the Colts are technically the home team, and all that really means is that the Saints will call the coin toss.  And I guess the Colts get to decide if they want to wear their white jerseys or their colored jerseys, forcing the Saints to wear the opposite.  I'm not in the mood to look at the stats to see if the "home" team wins more Superbowls (I kinda feel like it doesn't matter), so I don't think that it's a big deal.

There are a few different things to consider in this game.  A few match-ups and question marks have been discussed so far, so I think that I should weigh in on what I think.

Colts Offense vs. Saints Defense
I think this is the most important thing that no one seems to be talking about.  During the regular season, the Jets defense was ranked #1 and the Ravens defense was ranked #3.  The Colts faced both of these teams in the playoffs and scored 30 and 20 points on these two defenses respectively.  The Saints were ranked #25 in overall defense!  It's absurd in my opinion to think that the Saints are going to shut down the Colts offense.  So I think it's safe to say that if the Saints are going to win, they need to be able to score points to keep up with the Colts.

Saints Offense vs. Colts Defense
In the regular season the Saints had the #1 ranked offense!  The Colts defense was ranked at #18.  So it looks good for the Saints to be able to score points.  The Saints two opponents so far this postseason were the Cardinals (#20 defense) and the Vikings (#6 defense), and the Saints were able to score 45 and 31 points respectively.  But against the Vikings, the Saints only gained 257 total yards (and gave up 475!).  Basically the only way that the Saints won were due to the FIVE turnovers that their defense got.  And still they only won by 3 in overtime.  Granted that the Colts defense is not as good as the Vikings, but it's clear that the Vikings outplayed the Saints, but also made more mistakes than the Saints.

The Dwight Freeney Situation
Dwight Freeney is a defensive end on the Colts who, depending on the source, tore a ligament in his right ankle in the 4th quarter (with like 2 minutes left in the game I might add) against the Jets.  Dwight Freeney is unarguably the Colts' best defensive player, and without him their pass rush is not the same.  The Colts have another very good defensive end in Robert Mathis, but he is very good because Freeney is great.  Freeney occupies consistent double-teams which allows Mathis to play one-on-one and he is good enough to beat one-on-ones.  Without Freeney, Mathis would be double-teamed.  And plus, Freeney still beats double-teams consistently.  There is great speculation to whether or not Freeney will play in this game.  This situation reminds me of Terrel Owens' situation when the Eagles played the Patriots in the Superbowl a few years back.  And Owens, who had an ankle sprain and a fractured fibula, had a GREAT game.  Might we see something similar from Freeney?  I doubt it.  I feel that this will force the Colts to blitz more on Drew Brees in order to get pressure on the Saints' quarterback, and if the Colts don't get to Brees it exposes the Colts' secondary and the Saints might be able to make some big plays.

Peyton Manning
I don't care what anyone says, but Peyton Manning is the best quarterback of this generation, not Tom Brady.  If Manning had the kind of defenses that the Patriots had in the middle of the 2000s, it would be Manning with all the Superbowls, not Brady.  Peyton Manning ALWAYS knows what the defense is planning on doing.  And he always knows how to counter it.  Peyton Manning is the greatest against the blitz.  If you bring pressure, he knows who will be open and he will get the ball to him.  In my opinion, the best way the Saints can play defense is by limiting their blitzes.  Unfortunately, I don't think the Saints will do this.  It gives the impression that you can't beat Manning if you don't blitz him, and everyone thinks that they know how to beat Peyton Manning.  I'm telling you Saints, you can't beat him with the blitz, especially not if you have the #25 defense.

Experience
I think sometimes people talk too much about playoff experience.  I don't think it's as big of a factor as people make it seem.  I think you prepare for every game in the playoffs like you do in the regular season.  You prepare to win.  But the Superbowl is different.  Because of the hype, I'm sure that it's easy to allow that pressure to get to you, especially if you've never dealt with it before.  And the Saints have NEVER dealt with it before.  This is their first Superbowl since they started in 1967.  The Colts won the Superbowl just 3 years ago.  And a good portion of that team is still intact, especially the Colts' major weapons: Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Dwight Freeney, most of the offensive line.  And this doesn't really fit into experience, but everyone is putting the Katrina pressure on the Saints.  Which is RETARDED!  That happened like 4 and a half years ago.  Get the fuck over it.  Nobody jumped all over the New York teams after 9/11.  The Yankees LOST the World Series in 2001.  And I'm sure there weren't any Red Sox fans rooting for the Yankees because of 9/11.  IT'S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!

The Saints' Special Teams
I'm only going to talk about the Saints' special teams because I only think that they have the opportunity to make a big difference on the game.  Two names: Reggie Bush and Garret Hartley.  Reggie Bush can change the game with a punt return for a touchdown (he can also be a game-changer on offense, but I think it's kinda in a similar matter), but he can also muff a punt and is prone to fumbles.  Hartley is basically a rookie kicker (he's not really, but let's just say he is).  He missed that kick against Tampa Bay in Week 16, but he hit the game-winner 40 yarder against the Vikings in OT to bring the Saints to the Superbowl.  I feel that he cannot miss kicks in this game.  If they Saints have the opportunity to score points, even via a 3 point field goal, they cannot squander those opportunities, because the Colts are going to keep on scoring.

The Prediction
I think this game will be "close".  I put that in quotes because I think if a team quickly gets down by 14 points is very much still in it because of the way that both of these teams can score points.  So if it's a 10 point win, I say it's a close game.  I also wouldn't be surprised if it's a blowout, but I think that it will be competitive for at least 3 quarters.  But I just feel that the Colts are going to win this game.  There is just only one question mark for me, and that's the status of Dwight Freeney, and I think that the Colts are going to prepare like he's not going to play.  That way if he does, then it's a bonus, not a liability.  I'm thinking that it will be a 7-14 point win by Indy, so I'm not worried about the spread.  My guess for total score is 65.

Can you name the five categories in which a Nobel Prize is given out each year? Everybody knows Peace. People have probably heard of Literature, Physics, and Chemistry. There is also one for Medicine. But in addition to these prizes, the Swedish central bank has established a sixth prize: the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

Note that the Nobel for Economics is not technically a Nobel prize, but it is given out at the same ceremony and generally regarded the same as its peers. I guess you could say its separate but equal.

The elevation of economics to the level of the other Nobel categories might seem strange to some, but I would argue that economics is just as important to our understanding of the modern world as chemistry or physics. To grasp that, you need to first understand that economics refers to more than just the economy. Economics is the study of motivations and behavior, of how and why decisions are made. It is part math, part psychology, and part statistics.

In his book "The Undercover Economist", Tim Harford explores how economics shapes the world around us. And in doing so, he gives readers insights on making better, more informed decisions. Everyday questions like why does Starbucks charge so much, why do supermarkets have coupons, and what role government should play in the economy are tackled in a rigorous, yet easily understood fashion.

More importantly, the book is fun. Reading the book is like having Harford pull back a curtain on a hidden part of how our society functions. In addition to the book, Harford writes an online blog and, to my delight, an advice column, where you can see for yourself before diving into a whole book how insightful and fun Harford is to read. In his column, Harford brings economic theory to bear on such diverse subjects as choosing a wine on a date, parenting, traffic, and sports.

The greatest compliment I can give Harford is that I would never try to write a "Somebody Else's Business" based on one of his columns - his advice is always unimpeachable.

Oscar fever is here, and I once again forgot to get my shots. Symptoms may include night sweats, an inexplicable attraction to an aged Meryl Streep, and an uncontrollable urge to praise movies about the Holocaust. And the only known cure is to participate in an Oscar pool.

Here's how it works: you send me your picks for the winners in every category. Points will be awarded for correct picks based on the following criteria:

Top prize (Best Picture): 7 points
Major categories (Best Director, Actor, Actress, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay): 4 points
Intermediate categories (Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Foreign Film, Animated Feature, Documentary Feature): 3 points
Minor categories: (Cinematography, Score, Original Song, Film Editing): 2 points
Random bullshit categories: (Everything else) 1 point

If you are anything like our prior winners Yaworm and Elisa, you can go ahead and send your picks now to craftj2@gmail.com. Or, if you are like last year's loser, Kevin, you'll want to get some expert advice. No, not from Yaworm and Elisa. From me and Jim! We'll be spending the next few days breaking down each race, and making our picks for winners and losers? Think you can beat us. Well, you are probably right. But you can't win if you don't enter!

I have never watched the Grammys start-to-finish before in my life. In fact, the only awards show I have ever sat through start-to-finish is the Oscars, for the only reason somebody sits through something that would otherwise be boring: they have gambled on the outcome.

I had not gambled on the outcome of the Grammys, although in retrospect I wish I had. Guessing the winner of various categories proved ridiculously easy, especially if either Beyonce or Taylor Swift were among the nominees. Guessing the loser of the night was also easy: whoever had to sit behind Lady Gaga and her hat made of piles and piles of sparkly triangles.

At one point I wondered aloud if, in fact, Lady Gaga and Pink had gotten into a glitter fight the night before, when Pink emerged from backstage wearing nothing but glitter and bed sheet. Then, at some point during the performance, the bed sheet disappeared, and what had been a musical performance became a sneak peak at the next Cirque du Soleil, with Pink hanging 40 feet above the audience and, improbably, shooting water everywhere. I do not remember the name of the song.


If such a show can have a highlight, it was either Stephen Colbert standing on stage reading the nominees for Song of the Year from his iPad, and then asking Jay-Z: "Oh, you didn't have one in your gift bag?" or it was Stephen Colbert's Christmas album winning for Comedy Album of the Year, and Stephen on stage asking his daughter if he was finally cool. If such a show can have a lowlight (spoiler alert: it can), then it was Taylor Swift and her unsettling lack of breasts winning award after award, with, I can only assume, Kanye chained up in the basement howling in uncontrollable, auto-tuned rage.

William Saletan on Slate has written a very informative article relating the facts surrounding the almost-abortion of Tim Tebow.

The story, apparently, is about Tim's birth in 1987, when his parents were missionaries in the Philippines. According to Pam's account in the Gainesville Sun, she contracted amoebic dysentery and went in a coma shortly before the pregnancy. To facilitate her recovery, she was given heavy-duty drugs. Afterward, doctors told her the fetus was damaged. They diagnosed her with placental abruption, a premature separation of the placenta from the uterine wall. They predicted a stillbirth and recommended abortion.

But Pam was against abortion, and she had faith in God. She refused. Today, her reward is a healthy, athletic, stellar son. "I've always been very [pro-life] because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman," Tim told reporters last week. That's the prescribed moral of the story: Choose life. Dave Andrusko, the editor of National Right to Life News, puts it eloquently: "This amazing young man is able to share his many gifts because, and only because, Pam Tebow said no to abortion and yes to life."

Saletan goes on to relay some of the statistics surrounding placental abruption, and why doctors recommended an abortion in the first place: despite being a rather rare occurrence, placental abruption is responsible for as many as 6% of all maternal deaths, and has a perinatal fatality rate (infant death within 20 weeks of delivery) 10-20 times higher than that of regular pregnancies.

What Saletan misses, I think, is the reason for the proselytizing:

[Pam Tebow] and her son are with us today not just because of courage but because of luck.

If you asked Pam and Tim why they are here, however, its not just because of luck and courage. It is because of God. Pam prayed and prayed and not only did her baby survive, he went on to win the Heismann Trophy! The only way her story could have ended better is if he won the big game only to be crucified on the goal posts by a furious road crowd (perhaps after a game against Brandeis?)

When I look at the statistics for infant and maternal mortality following a placental abruption, I see a strong case for considering the (admittedly tragic) option of abortion. When the Tebows look at it, they see 6% of mothers who just didn't pray hard enough. If you argue (like the Tebows do) that you can be saved by prayer, the logical opposite is that those who didn't pray deserved to die.