No News isn't Bad News for Catholics

Everyone knows the face the next performer makes after the act before them has an incredible performance. The last notes finish and the next act knows that at the end of the song the crowd is going to erupt and give a the first performer a standing ovation.  That's when the look comes.  The face goes pale, the jaw drops and the eyes get wide.  Suddenly the last thoughts in the head of the following act go from "I can knock this crowd's socks off" to telling themselves "just don't mess up."
A sinking sect of Christianity who could barely keep their head above water was now treading water calmly when Pope John Paul II passed in 2005.  Being one of the main reasons Communism couldn't survive in his native Poland during and the world the Cold War, when Pope John Paul II died he was not only loved by Catholics, but by much of the world.  This gave Catholicism the spike it needed.  He got the standing ovation.
Watching the crowds roar from the previous performance, Pope Benedict XVI took the stage after recollecting himself from what he just watched, telling himself "just don't mess up."
Pope Benedict kept the Catholic Church treading; he didn't take it to new levels, he didn't let it sink.  Very little of his work was major public news except, of course, joining Twitter.  Like any Pope, he pushed ideas he felt best reflected the ideals of the Catholic Church, made appearances and pushed for reform.  The only reason his retirement is really newsworthy is because he is the first Pope in 600 years to do so.  He felt his time has come and gone.  After Pope John Paul II's reign, the Catholic Church remains vulnerable and Pope Benedict knows that he doesn't have a plan to move it in a better direction without too much risk.
For the first time in 600 years, the Pope is hanging up his robe, and hey, after a tough act to follow, he did the most important thing.  He didn't mess up.

Valentine's Day -- When Money is in the Air

Every year, people around the world toss around millions of dollars on a very low level holiday, Valentine's Day.  People spend on everything from decent chocolates to ridiculously priced roses.  Of course, since so much money is changing hands (an estimated $14.7 billion on Valentine's Day in 2009 alone) someone has to question the morality of the entire picture.
Like many of the most celebrated holidays, there is not a very clear reason behind why a large portion of the world celebrates Valentine's Day.  Some of the earliest theories are built around the belief that the holiday arose from a Pagan fertility ritual, but others have even the Pope endorsing it as a celebration for the Saint Valentine's works.  This lack of knowledge behind why the holiday is celebrated makes people who participate morally good in a Mandevillian sense, but not so much under the ideas of such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes.
Bernard Mandeville's idea that it is morally good if and only if something leads to benefit from that person is definitely in play here.  People aren't giving life-size teddy bears with Pagan rituals on their mind, no, they're doing it with a big box of Whitman's Samplers in mind.  Clear proof that people only participate in the holiday because they will receive something.
Thinkers that do not follow this Mandevillian thought process would likely say that the holiday is only moral in the sense that you are doing good for someone else.  Unless someone is thinking about Pope Gelasius's celebration of Saint Valentine, they are being immoral.  Such holidays as Christmas are different in that they are obviously based around an event, such as the Christian Christ's birth.  People spread cheer and give usually under the principle that they received the best gift from God.  People go to church to celebrate this on Christmas.  Personally, I've never heard of anyone headed to Valentine's Day Mass.
What does all this really boil down to showing about Valentine's Day? It's a chance to give the economy a nice first quarter boost, and a time to hope there isn't any coconut in the chocolate from your valentine.

Hosting More than a Super Bowl Party

While I consider myself someone who is very involved in politics, I have, for my entire life, always chosen not to associate with a Party.  I have always considered myself an independent.  I really like some Republican presidents, and I really like some Democratic presidents.  The past presidential election I found myself clearly on one side of the political spectrum.  People who didn't know me before this most recent election season swore I was a staunch conservative.  My endorsement for Mitt Romney came early in the GOP debates.  I became a huge Romney fan and didn't feel Obama was the right candidate for the time.  I am fine sharing this now considering I was almost in-your-face about it at the time.  Being politically active, when I heard the Democratic National Convention was going to take place in my home city of Charlotte, I was interested.  I thought it would be cool to see the events unfold.  I wasn't overly excited given my stance on the Democratic candidate, but I wasn't too upset.  When I learned that Charlotte was going to lose money over the ordeal by having to make so many upgrades, I was initially upset.

Comparing Democratic National Convention coming to Charlotte to the Super Bowl going to almost any city is not a very difficult task.  Both require the local government to make certain changes to accommodate for the event, but also bring in many people who cover at least most of the costs.  Learning that Charlotte, who always seems to be needing money for many reasons (education particularly), was going to lose more money was frustrating.  As the events of the DNC began to unfold, I watched coverage on tv, since I was away at school.  It was cool seeing the places that I knew very well on national television.  That was when I realized that I was actually quite happy that the DNC came to Charlotte.

Short-term economic loss for Charlotte was inevitable, but long-term returns were more than likely.  Getting my city exposed to the world showed many people the better parts of the city; making it appeal to movers, tourists and businesses.  People around the nation learning more about Charlotte and how it is home to some of America's biggest companies, such as Bank of America, began to see the opportunity Charlotte had to offer.  Finally, seeing President Obama accept his party's nomination for a second term gave viewers an image of patriotism when they think of Charlotte.  These are all aspects that eventually pan out to an increase in Charlotte economic prosperity as well as put Charlotte on the national map.

These results are very similar to the cities that host the Super Bowl.  While New Orleans likely lost money off of hosting the Super Bowl this year, it gave the networks a chance to remind America that parts of the city still hadn't totally recovered from Hurricane Katrina.  This tactic was aimed at getting America to rally around New Orleans and continue to help our fellow countrymen.  The city brought in many tourists and exposed the benefits to viewers at home. These are all aspects that, even if they don't lead to immediate economic success, may lead to long-term payoffs and at least put a city on the map.  I saw the images of the parties on Bourbon Street after the game and I know I want to go spend my tourist dollars there.

This is why a city may be excited about a Super Bowl even if their team isn't playing, much like a kid who became excited for a National Convention even though it was for his Party.