Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

Krauthammer Praises ‘Very Uncharacteristic,’ ‘Very Anti-Russian’ Trump Speech – Fox News Insider

VIDEO: SWAT Teams Use Water Cannons, Tear Gas at Huge G20 Protests

Kidnapper’s Truck Stalls With Abducted 6-Year-Old Boy in Front Seat

Charles Krauthammer believes thatPresident Donald Trump delivered a “great speech” in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday.

Trump spoke about a wide range of issues, including creating “stronger ties” of trade and commerce between the U.S. and Europe, affirming our commitment to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, and encouraging Europe to move away from its dependence on Russian energy resources.

Krauthammer said it was a strong contrast to Trump’s inaugural address in January.

Judge Jeanine: ‘Wackadoo’ Kim Doesn’t Care About Economic Sanctions

Scarborough Goes Off on Trump: Comments on Russia ‘Nothing Short of Disgusting’

New Poll Shows More Americans Trust the White House Than the Media

“This was a refutation – root and branch – of the ideas underlying the inaugural address, which was ‘America first, the allies are parasites, we’re now going to stick up for ourselves.’ There was none of that.”

Instead, Krauthammer said, Trump delivered an address that was an “ode” to treaties, alliances and trade.

He added that Trump went out of his way to speak about Polish history, particularly the “depredations” of the Soviet Union during both World War II and the Cold War.

“And then to top it off, he talked about the … [Russian] use of monopoly and pressure in energy resources that’s been going on,” Krauthammer said. “This was a very anti-Russian speech, very uncharacteristic of this president.”

He said the big question the Polish people will have is if Trump will take the same tone with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their first face-to-face meeting tomorrow.

Watch more above.

Who Is the Party Leader?: Dems Dodge, Deflect When Asked to Name One

‘Go Into Home Depot’: Eric Trump Blasts Media for Ignoring Economic News

Trump’s 1st Qtr. Salary to Go to Fix Antietam Battlefield

Colin Kaepernick Travels to Ghana to Find His ‘Personal Independence’

20-Year-Old Woman Gets Hateful Tweets for Cleaning Trump’s Hollywood Star

View original post here:

Krauthammer Praises ‘Very Uncharacteristic,’ ‘Very Anti-Russian’ Trump Speech – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: North Korea: The Rubicon is crossed – Santa Cruz Sentinel

Across 25 years and five administrations, we have kicked the North Korean can down the road. We are now out of road.

On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile apparently capable of hitting the United States. As yet, only Alaska. Soon, every American city.

Moreover, Pyongyang claims to have already fitted miniaturized nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles. Soon, on ICBMs.

Secretary of State Rex Tillersons initial reaction to this game changer was not encouraging. Global action is required to stop a global threat, he declared.

This, in diplo-speak, is a cry for (multilateral) help. Alas, there will be none. Because, while this is indeed a global threat, there is no such thing as global interests. There are individual national interests and they diverge. In this case, radically.

Take Russia and China. If theres to be external pressure on North Korea, it would come from them. Will it? On Tuesday, they issued a joint statement proposing a deal: North Korea freezes nuclear and missile testing in return for America abandoning large-scale joint exercises with South Korea.

This is a total nonstarter. The exercises have been the backbone of the U.S.-South Korea alliance for half a century. Abandonment would signal the end of an enduring relationship that stabilizes the region and guarantees South Korean independence. In exchange for what?

A testing freeze? The offer doesnt even pretend to dismantle North Koreas nuclear program, which has to be our minimal objective. Moreover, weve negotiated multiple freezes over the years with Pyongyang. It has violated every one.

The fact that Russia and China would, amid a burning crisis, propose such a dead-on-arrival proposal demonstrates that their real interest is not denuclearization. Their real interest is cutting America down to size by breaking our South Korean alliance and weakening our influence in the Pacific Rim.

These are going to be our partners in solving the crisis?

And yet, relying on Chinas good graces appeared to be Donald Trumps first resort for solving North Korea. Until he declared two weeks ago (by tweet, of course) that China had failed. At least I know China tried! he added.

Advertisement

They did? Trump himself tweeted out on Wednesday that Chinese trade with North Korea increased by almost 40 percent in the first quarter, forcing him to acknowledge that the Chinese havent been helping.

Indeed not. The latest North Korean missile is menacing not just because of its 4,000-mile range, but because it is road mobile. And the transporter comes from China.

In the calculus of nuclear deterrence, mobility guarantees inviolability. (The enemy cannot find, and therefore cannot pre-empt, a mobile missile.) Its a huge step forward for Pyongyang. Supplied by Beijing.

How many times must we be taught that Beijing does not share our view of denuclearizing North Korea? It prefers a divided peninsula, i.e., sustaining its client state as a guarantee against a unified Korea (possibly nuclear) allied with the West and sitting on its border.

Nukes assure regime survival. Thats why the Kims have so single-mindedly pursued them. The lessons are clear. Saddam Hussein, no nukes: hanged. Moammar Gadhafi, gave up his nuclear program: killed by his own people. The Kim dynasty, possessing an arsenal of 10-16 bombs: untouched, soon untouchable.

What are our choices? Trump has threatened that if China doesnt help well have to go it alone. If so, the choice is binary: acquiescence or war.

War is almost unthinkable, given the proximity of the Demilitarized Zone to the 10 million people of Seoul. A mere conventional war would be devastating. And could rapidly go nuclear.

Acquiescence is not unthinkable. After all, we did it when China went nuclear under Mao Zedong, whose regime promptly went insane under the Cultural Revolution.

The hope for a third alternative, getting China to do the dirty work, is mostly wishful thinking. Theres talk of sanctioning other Chinese banks. Will that really change Chinas strategic thinking? Bourgeois democracies believe that economics supersedes geostrategy. Maybe for us. But for dictatorships? Rarely.

If we want to decisively alter the strategic balance, we could return U.S. tactical nukes (withdrawn in 1991) to South Korea. Or we could encourage Japan to build a nuclear deterrent of its own. Nothing would get more quick attention from the Chinese. They would face a radically new strategic dilemma: Is preserving North Korea worth a nuclear Japan?

We do have powerful alternatives. But each is dangerous and highly unpredictable. Which is why the most likely ultimate outcome, by far, is acquiescence.

Read the original:

Charles Krauthammer: North Korea: The Rubicon is crossed – Santa Cruz Sentinel

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer Gets Personal as He Reflects on Charlie Gard Debate – Mediaite

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer got personal while discussing Charlie Gard, a 10-month-old child in London who suffers from a rare condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and is fighting for his life.

Appearing on Special Report Wednesday, Krauthammer said what he personally do and what should be done in this instance are two different things.

If I were the judge, come in, has to make a ruling, I would allow the child to die, Krauthammer said. He cant see, he cant hear, he cant speak, he cant swallow, and he has no control, he cant move, and he has terrible epilepsy.

Krauthammer, who has been paralyzed ever since a diving accident he suffered in 1972, recalled what it was like to be dependent a breathing tube.

Ive had a breathing tube in me for weeks on end as he does, and it is a life of agony and great distress, Krauthammer said. I can protest, I was an adult. He cant.

Yet Krauthammer stated that decisions about Charlie Gards life should be left up to his parents.

But Im not the objective judge. And I think theres one principle that overrides all of this. And that is, in the end, it should be the parents who decide. Youve got to have a highest authority here. It seems to me the highest authority always has to be the parents. I dont believe for a minute that there is a treatment that is going to make a difference. But if the parents want to try, let them.

President Donald Trump and Pope Francis are among those who have Tweeted their support for Charlie Gard.

Watch above, via Fox News.

[featured image via screengrab]

Follow Joe DePaolo (@joe_depaolo) on Twitter

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Go here to read the rest:

Charles Krauthammer Gets Personal as He Reflects on Charlie Gard Debate – Mediaite

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Galesburg Register-Mail

In mathematics, when youre convinced of some eternal truth but cant quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.

In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all.

Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).

But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, theres nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.

Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomsons shot heard round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees.

In 1986, the Today Show commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. I aint flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out, he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)

For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.

And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins.

Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions.

I dont feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best.

Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if hes just brought down a mastodon.

On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. It was beautiful, was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Posts Scott Allen.

When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him hes done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared.

He asked me how I was feeling, Scherzer recounted, and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me.

Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: Which eye should I look at?

Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: Look in the [expletive] brown eye!

Thats the pitching one, he jokingly told reporters after the game.

Baker left him in.

After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, Im like, Im nothing. It doesnt get lower than that.

Said Vince Lombardi, Winning isnt everything. Its the only thing. To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse.

Charles Krauthammer writes an internationally syndicated column for The Washington Post Writers Group.

Excerpt from:

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Galesburg Register-Mail

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: US Will Reach Point Where It Must Choose Between War or Accepting Nuclear North Korea – Breitbart News

On Tuesdays broadcast of the Fox News Channels Special Report, columnist Charles Krauthammer stated the United States was going to reach a point where it has to choose between war or accepting a nuclear North Korea.

Krauthammer took issue with Secretary of State Rex Tillersons statement that North Korea was a global problem becauseglobal partners are not that interested in solving it.

This is a threat to the United States, not to Russia, not to China, and therefore, as the president has said himself, were going to have to solve the problem ourselves, if we can, he said.

He added that while South Korea and Japan have an interest in preventing North Korea from going nuclear, they dont have the means to stop North Korea.

Krauthammer further argued, [W]ere being exposed as being impotent in doing this because we dont have the means to do it. The talk about a military option, I think, sounds to me, fairly empty.

[E]ither were going to act on our own, which is what the president says hell do, or, and we are approaching the point, were simply going to have to accept a nuclear North Korea, the same way that under Mao Tse-tung, who was a fairly radical anti-American communist, we accepted the fact that China went nuclear as well, he continued. At a certain point, you bow to reality and you try to live in deterrence. Its not easy. Its uncomfortable, but I think were going to reach that point where either its going to be a binary choice, you go to war, or you accept a nuclear North Korea.

Follow IanHanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Visit link:

Krauthammer: US Will Reach Point Where It Must Choose Between War or Accepting Nuclear North Korea – Breitbart News

Fair Usage Law

July 5, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.

In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anyone plays at all.

Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).

But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.

Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers yet stricken, inconsolable. So, it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So, too, for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees.

In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. “I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years, and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)

For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now, think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.

And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins.

Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions.

I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best.

Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million per year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if he’s just brought down a mastodon.

On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. “It was beautiful,” was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Post’s Scott Allen.

When Scherzer gets like that, managers actually are afraid to go out and tell him he’s done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared.

“He asked me how I was feeling,” Scherzer recounted, “and I said I still feel strong. … I still got one more hitter in me.”

Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: “Which eye should I look at?”

Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: “Look in the [expletive] brown eye!”

“That’s the pitching one,” he jokingly told reporters after the game.

After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed she was in the corner of the medical room, “literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, I’m like, ‘I’m nothing.'” It doesn’t get lower than that.

Said Vince Lombardi, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse.

More here:

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Kankakee Daily Journal

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: American kids taught ‘abnormal, anti-American’ lessons – Fox News

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told Fox News Monday night that American students are being taught “about all of the pathologies of the United States and very little of the glories.”

Krauthammer was reacting to a Fox News Poll released last week, in which 45 percent of voters said they were not proud of the United States. When the voters were broken down by party, just 39 percent of Democrats said they were proud of the United States.

FOX NEWS POLL: MOST DON’T THINK FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE PROUD OF NATION

Krauthammer explained on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that lack of American pride represented in the poll originated with the counter-cultural left in the 1960s.

“They werent just out there rioting and sitting in, they went into the professions the teaching professions, and theyve essentially taken over,” Krauthammer said. “That generation of radicals runs the universities, they run the teachers unions, they run the curricula.”

Krauthammer went on to say that the antipathy bred by educators could have devastating consequences for the future of the United States.

“In the end what brings civilizations down is when the elites lose confidence in the rightness of their cause,” he said. “We need a new generation of teachers who are not committed to this … history of the sins of our ancestors.

“Look, every civilization is founded on sins, every single one,” Krauthammer added. “Dispossession, violence, appropriation. What distinguishes civilizations are the ones who rise above it.”

Original post:

Krauthammer: American kids taught ‘abnormal, anti-American’ lessons – Fox News

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Pondering the agony of defeat – The Mercury

In mathematics, when youre convinced of some eternal truth but cant quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.

In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all.

Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).

But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, theres nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.

Advertisement

In 1986, the Today Show commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. I aint flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out, he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)

For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.

And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins.

Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions.

I dont feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best.

Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if hes just brought down a mastodon.

On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. It was beautiful, was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Posts Scott Allen.

When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him hes done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared.

He asked me how I was feeling, Scherzer recounted, and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me.

Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: Which eye should I look at?

Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: Look in the [expletive] brown eye!

Thats the pitching one, he jokingly told reporters after the game.

Baker left him in.

After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, Im like, Im nothing. It doesnt get lower than that.

Said Vince Lombardi, Winning isnt everything. Its the only thing. To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse.

Visit link:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Pondering the agony of defeat – The Mercury

Fair Usage Law

July 3, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why even play the game? – Lincoln Journal Star

In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.

In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all.

Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).

But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.

Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers — yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees.

In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused.

“I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed.

And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)

For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.

And we are talking here about professional athletes — not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins.

Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions.

I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best.

Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if he’s just brought down a mastodon.

On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling — yes, like a hungry tiger — at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. “It was beautiful,” was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Post’s Scott Allen.

When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him he’s done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared.

“He asked me how I was feeling,” Scherzer recounted, “and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me.”

Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: “Which eye should I look at?”

Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: “Look in the [expletive] brown eye!”

“That’s the pitching one,” he jokingly told reporters after the game.

After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, “literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, I’m like, ‘I’m nothing.'” It doesn’t get lower than that.

Said Vince Lombardi: “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

To which I add — conjecture — yes, but losing is worse.

Go here to read the rest:

Charles Krauthammer: Why even play the game? – Lincoln Journal Star

Fair Usage Law

July 2, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer Praises ‘Very Uncharacteristic,’ ‘Very Anti-Russian’ Trump Speech – Fox News Insider

VIDEO: SWAT Teams Use Water Cannons, Tear Gas at Huge G20 Protests Kidnapper’s Truck Stalls With Abducted 6-Year-Old Boy in Front Seat Charles Krauthammer believes thatPresident Donald Trump delivered a “great speech” in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday. Trump spoke about a wide range of issues, including creating “stronger ties” of trade and commerce between the U.S. and Europe, affirming our commitment to Article 5 of the NATO treaty, and encouraging Europe to move away from its dependence on Russian energy resources. Krauthammer said it was a strong contrast to Trump’s inaugural address in January. Judge Jeanine: ‘Wackadoo’ Kim Doesn’t Care About Economic Sanctions Scarborough Goes Off on Trump: Comments on Russia ‘Nothing Short of Disgusting’ New Poll Shows More Americans Trust the White House Than the Media “This was a refutation – root and branch – of the ideas underlying the inaugural address, which was ‘America first, the allies are parasites, we’re now going to stick up for ourselves.’ There was none of that.” Instead, Krauthammer said, Trump delivered an address that was an “ode” to treaties, alliances and trade. He added that Trump went out of his way to speak about Polish history, particularly the “depredations” of the Soviet Union during both World War II and the Cold War. “And then to top it off, he talked about the … [Russian] use of monopoly and pressure in energy resources that’s been going on,” Krauthammer said. “This was a very anti-Russian speech, very uncharacteristic of this president.” He said the big question the Polish people will have is if Trump will take the same tone with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their first face-to-face meeting tomorrow. Watch more above. Who Is the Party Leader?: Dems Dodge, Deflect When Asked to Name One ‘Go Into Home Depot’: Eric Trump Blasts Media for Ignoring Economic News Trump’s 1st Qtr. Salary to Go to Fix Antietam Battlefield Colin Kaepernick Travels to Ghana to Find His ‘Personal Independence’ 20-Year-Old Woman Gets Hateful Tweets for Cleaning Trump’s Hollywood Star

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: North Korea: The Rubicon is crossed – Santa Cruz Sentinel

Across 25 years and five administrations, we have kicked the North Korean can down the road. We are now out of road. On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile apparently capable of hitting the United States. As yet, only Alaska. Soon, every American city. Moreover, Pyongyang claims to have already fitted miniaturized nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles. Soon, on ICBMs. Secretary of State Rex Tillersons initial reaction to this game changer was not encouraging. Global action is required to stop a global threat, he declared. This, in diplo-speak, is a cry for (multilateral) help. Alas, there will be none. Because, while this is indeed a global threat, there is no such thing as global interests. There are individual national interests and they diverge. In this case, radically. Take Russia and China. If theres to be external pressure on North Korea, it would come from them. Will it? On Tuesday, they issued a joint statement proposing a deal: North Korea freezes nuclear and missile testing in return for America abandoning large-scale joint exercises with South Korea. This is a total nonstarter. The exercises have been the backbone of the U.S.-South Korea alliance for half a century. Abandonment would signal the end of an enduring relationship that stabilizes the region and guarantees South Korean independence. In exchange for what? A testing freeze? The offer doesnt even pretend to dismantle North Koreas nuclear program, which has to be our minimal objective. Moreover, weve negotiated multiple freezes over the years with Pyongyang. It has violated every one. The fact that Russia and China would, amid a burning crisis, propose such a dead-on-arrival proposal demonstrates that their real interest is not denuclearization. Their real interest is cutting America down to size by breaking our South Korean alliance and weakening our influence in the Pacific Rim. These are going to be our partners in solving the crisis? And yet, relying on Chinas good graces appeared to be Donald Trumps first resort for solving North Korea. Until he declared two weeks ago (by tweet, of course) that China had failed. At least I know China tried! he added. Advertisement They did? Trump himself tweeted out on Wednesday that Chinese trade with North Korea increased by almost 40 percent in the first quarter, forcing him to acknowledge that the Chinese havent been helping. Indeed not. The latest North Korean missile is menacing not just because of its 4,000-mile range, but because it is road mobile. And the transporter comes from China. In the calculus of nuclear deterrence, mobility guarantees inviolability. (The enemy cannot find, and therefore cannot pre-empt, a mobile missile.) Its a huge step forward for Pyongyang. Supplied by Beijing. How many times must we be taught that Beijing does not share our view of denuclearizing North Korea? It prefers a divided peninsula, i.e., sustaining its client state as a guarantee against a unified Korea (possibly nuclear) allied with the West and sitting on its border. Nukes assure regime survival. Thats why the Kims have so single-mindedly pursued them. The lessons are clear. Saddam Hussein, no nukes: hanged. Moammar Gadhafi, gave up his nuclear program: killed by his own people. The Kim dynasty, possessing an arsenal of 10-16 bombs: untouched, soon untouchable. What are our choices? Trump has threatened that if China doesnt help well have to go it alone. If so, the choice is binary: acquiescence or war. War is almost unthinkable, given the proximity of the Demilitarized Zone to the 10 million people of Seoul. A mere conventional war would be devastating. And could rapidly go nuclear. Acquiescence is not unthinkable. After all, we did it when China went nuclear under Mao Zedong, whose regime promptly went insane under the Cultural Revolution. The hope for a third alternative, getting China to do the dirty work, is mostly wishful thinking. Theres talk of sanctioning other Chinese banks. Will that really change Chinas strategic thinking? Bourgeois democracies believe that economics supersedes geostrategy. Maybe for us. But for dictatorships? Rarely. If we want to decisively alter the strategic balance, we could return U.S. tactical nukes (withdrawn in 1991) to South Korea. Or we could encourage Japan to build a nuclear deterrent of its own. Nothing would get more quick attention from the Chinese. They would face a radically new strategic dilemma: Is preserving North Korea worth a nuclear Japan? We do have powerful alternatives. But each is dangerous and highly unpredictable. Which is why the most likely ultimate outcome, by far, is acquiescence.

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer Gets Personal as He Reflects on Charlie Gard Debate – Mediaite

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer got personal while discussing Charlie Gard, a 10-month-old child in London who suffers from a rare condition called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and is fighting for his life. Appearing on Special Report Wednesday, Krauthammer said what he personally do and what should be done in this instance are two different things. If I were the judge, come in, has to make a ruling, I would allow the child to die, Krauthammer said. He cant see, he cant hear, he cant speak, he cant swallow, and he has no control, he cant move, and he has terrible epilepsy. Krauthammer, who has been paralyzed ever since a diving accident he suffered in 1972, recalled what it was like to be dependent a breathing tube. Ive had a breathing tube in me for weeks on end as he does, and it is a life of agony and great distress, Krauthammer said. I can protest, I was an adult. He cant. Yet Krauthammer stated that decisions about Charlie Gards life should be left up to his parents. But Im not the objective judge. And I think theres one principle that overrides all of this. And that is, in the end, it should be the parents who decide. Youve got to have a highest authority here. It seems to me the highest authority always has to be the parents. I dont believe for a minute that there is a treatment that is going to make a difference. But if the parents want to try, let them. President Donald Trump and Pope Francis are among those who have Tweeted their support for Charlie Gard. Watch above, via Fox News. [featured image via screengrab] Follow Joe DePaolo (@joe_depaolo) on Twitter Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Galesburg Register-Mail

In mathematics, when youre convinced of some eternal truth but cant quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached. In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all. Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause). But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, theres nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer. Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomsons shot heard round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees. In 1986, the Today Show commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. I aint flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out, he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.) For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus. And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins. Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions. I dont feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best. Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if hes just brought down a mastodon. On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. It was beautiful, was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Posts Scott Allen. When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him hes done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared. He asked me how I was feeling, Scherzer recounted, and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me. Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: Which eye should I look at? Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: Look in the [expletive] brown eye! Thats the pitching one, he jokingly told reporters after the game. Baker left him in. After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, Im like, Im nothing. It doesnt get lower than that. Said Vince Lombardi, Winning isnt everything. Its the only thing. To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse. Charles Krauthammer writes an internationally syndicated column for The Washington Post Writers Group.

Fair Usage Law

July 7, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: US Will Reach Point Where It Must Choose Between War or Accepting Nuclear North Korea – Breitbart News

On Tuesdays broadcast of the Fox News Channels Special Report, columnist Charles Krauthammer stated the United States was going to reach a point where it has to choose between war or accepting a nuclear North Korea. Krauthammer took issue with Secretary of State Rex Tillersons statement that North Korea was a global problem becauseglobal partners are not that interested in solving it. This is a threat to the United States, not to Russia, not to China, and therefore, as the president has said himself, were going to have to solve the problem ourselves, if we can, he said. He added that while South Korea and Japan have an interest in preventing North Korea from going nuclear, they dont have the means to stop North Korea. Krauthammer further argued, [W]ere being exposed as being impotent in doing this because we dont have the means to do it. The talk about a military option, I think, sounds to me, fairly empty. [E]ither were going to act on our own, which is what the president says hell do, or, and we are approaching the point, were simply going to have to accept a nuclear North Korea, the same way that under Mao Tse-tung, who was a fairly radical anti-American communist, we accepted the fact that China went nuclear as well, he continued. At a certain point, you bow to reality and you try to live in deterrence. Its not easy. Its uncomfortable, but I think were going to reach that point where either its going to be a binary choice, you go to war, or you accept a nuclear North Korea. Follow IanHanchett on Twitter@IanHanchett P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Fair Usage Law

July 5, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why do they even play the game? – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached. In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anyone plays at all. Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause). But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer. Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers yet stricken, inconsolable. So, it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So, too, for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees. In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. “I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years, and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged the final pitch was outside the strike zone.) For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now, think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus. And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins. Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions. I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best. Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million per year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if he’s just brought down a mastodon. On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. “It was beautiful,” was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Post’s Scott Allen. When Scherzer gets like that, managers actually are afraid to go out and tell him he’s done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared. “He asked me how I was feeling,” Scherzer recounted, “and I said I still feel strong. … I still got one more hitter in me.” Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: “Which eye should I look at?” Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: “Look in the [expletive] brown eye!” “That’s the pitching one,” he jokingly told reporters after the game. After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed she was in the corner of the medical room, “literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, I’m like, ‘I’m nothing.'” It doesn’t get lower than that. Said Vince Lombardi, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse.

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: American kids taught ‘abnormal, anti-American’ lessons – Fox News

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told Fox News Monday night that American students are being taught “about all of the pathologies of the United States and very little of the glories.” Krauthammer was reacting to a Fox News Poll released last week, in which 45 percent of voters said they were not proud of the United States. When the voters were broken down by party, just 39 percent of Democrats said they were proud of the United States. FOX NEWS POLL: MOST DON’T THINK FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD BE PROUD OF NATION Krauthammer explained on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that lack of American pride represented in the poll originated with the counter-cultural left in the 1960s. “They werent just out there rioting and sitting in, they went into the professions the teaching professions, and theyve essentially taken over,” Krauthammer said. “That generation of radicals runs the universities, they run the teachers unions, they run the curricula.” Krauthammer went on to say that the antipathy bred by educators could have devastating consequences for the future of the United States. “In the end what brings civilizations down is when the elites lose confidence in the rightness of their cause,” he said. “We need a new generation of teachers who are not committed to this … history of the sins of our ancestors. “Look, every civilization is founded on sins, every single one,” Krauthammer added. “Dispossession, violence, appropriation. What distinguishes civilizations are the ones who rise above it.”

Fair Usage Law

July 4, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Pondering the agony of defeat – The Mercury

In mathematics, when youre convinced of some eternal truth but cant quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached. In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all. Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause). But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, theres nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer. Advertisement In 1986, the Today Show commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. I aint flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out, he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.) For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus. And we are talking here about professional athletes not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins. Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions. I dont feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best. Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if hes just brought down a mastodon. On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling yes, like a hungry tiger at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. It was beautiful, was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Posts Scott Allen. When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him hes done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared. He asked me how I was feeling, Scherzer recounted, and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me. Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: Which eye should I look at? Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: Look in the [expletive] brown eye! Thats the pitching one, he jokingly told reporters after the game. Baker left him in. After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, Im like, Im nothing. It doesnt get lower than that. Said Vince Lombardi, Winning isnt everything. Its the only thing. To which I add conjecture yes, but losing is worse.

Fair Usage Law

July 3, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Why even play the game? – Lincoln Journal Star

In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached. In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all. Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause). But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer. Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers — yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees. In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. “I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.) For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus. And we are talking here about professional athletes — not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins. Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions. I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best. Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if he’s just brought down a mastodon. On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling — yes, like a hungry tiger — at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. “It was beautiful,” was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Post’s Scott Allen. When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him he’s done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared. “He asked me how I was feeling,” Scherzer recounted, “and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me.” Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: “Which eye should I look at?” Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: “Look in the [expletive] brown eye!” “That’s the pitching one,” he jokingly told reporters after the game. After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, “literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, I’m like, ‘I’m nothing.'” It doesn’t get lower than that. Said Vince Lombardi: “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” To which I add — conjecture — yes, but losing is worse.

Fair Usage Law

July 2, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."