Is "History" Being Made Too Often?

Many of us who have labored through a history class will remember hearing the dire warning from all who teach history: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." So far in my life I've had no trouble remembering history, and have managed to avoid assassinating any Archdukes from Austria. In high school, however, I did find out that forgetting Geometry does in fact require one to literally repeat it.

Recently I've noticed that the term "history" or more specifically "making history" has sure been thrown around a lot. I think we're using this term a bit too casually.

When I think of making history I think of, well, history. You know, important elections, wars, major events, natural disasters, etc.

The New Jersey Nets potentially setting the NBA record for worst franchise start? I'm sorry sports fans, that is not making history.

I mean can't sports writers come up with a better phrase than making history? Do they really think a sports franchise win-loss record should be described the same way as the lunar landings?

Baseball is even worse. How often do you hear commentators gushing over a pitcher who "made history" by setting a record for the number of strikes thrown on an odd day of the week with a full moon?

The phrase is also grossly overused in politics. Yes the election of Obama was historical (indeed all Presidential elections are). But remember the night Pelosi said the House health care bill would pass, her quote was: “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history..."

I know the Dems see this whole health care debate as big deal and frankly it is. But does she really believe voting on her bill was a chance to make history?

There is one thing Pelosi and supports of her insanity should realize.

Infamy is sometimes as easily made as history.