For the greater part of my life, I have legitimately avoided the pressure of New Year's Eve.
It's one of the days of the year that I came to dread when I was in my 20s because there was such pressure to do something "fun" - which meant, usually, some elaborate dress-up party or dinner with a show or concert. And you have to find the 'perfect' place to be at midnight, and, of course, the perfect person to be with.
I can remember one New Year's Eve in downtown Atlanta with a girl I was dating at the time. I don't remember what we'd done that night, but I remember we were going to try to be on Margaret Mitchell Square, at the intersection of Peachtree and Pryor streets, in front of the big round Coca-Cola sign that was a landmark in Atlanta for so long (until Georgia Pacific bought the building that used to be the Loew's Theatre - where Gone With The Wind premiered - and tore it down to build its corporate headquarters. However, GP insisted it be given a Peachtree Street address, requiring the city to fill in Pryor Street, and then insisted the Coca-Cola sign come down, because Georgia Pacific didn't want its corporate headquarters to be over-shadowed by another corporate logo. Can you tell I'm still bitter about that, even after all these years?)
Anyway, we were on Peachtree Street at midnight, but what I remember most was afterward we walked back through the Hyatt Regency Hotel, and I swear the lobby floor was an inch deep in alcohol. I'd never seen anything like it. We were literally splashing through the lobby. I have no idea what went on in the lobby of the Hyatt that night, but I think it was wilder than whatever happened on Peachtree.
Another time I was in New Orleans for a Sugar Bowl, and was in this old jazz bar on Bourbon Street. I wanted to be outside on Bourbon Street for midnight, but it was so packed that I wound up crossing over into the New Year wedged in the doorway of the bar (I think it was called something like the "Horseshoe Lounge;" it isn't there anymore). Such was the crush of humanity that I could neither go out into the street, nor back into the bar.
For most of my adult life, I've been on the road for New Year's Eve covering some college football bowl game. If the game I was covering wasn't actually being played on New Year's Eve, the bowl game usually had a party planned for those of us in the media. I remember I was at the Orange Bowl on New Year's Eve 1999 for the Y2K scare, at a Gloria Estefan concert - although actually I think I was back in the hospitality suite on the top floor of whatever hotel I was staying at when midnight actually rolled around.
In those days, I spent an awful lot of those kind of moments with sportswriters and sports information directors. (Someday I should recount spending Christmas Eve in the bar in the lobby of this big old classic hotel in El Paso with - of course - a bunch of sportswriters.)
Yes, I missed seeing quite a few New Year's roll in with The Trophy Wife (the 'perfect person' mentioned above). She would go to parties and I would be where ever I was, but we'd always try to make sure we were on the phone with each other at midnight of the time zone she was in.
But I can't say I missed the pressure of having to figure out what to do on those nights.
Interesting (at least to me) is the fact that I spent the first 18 or 19 New Year's Eve of my life in the same place: church.
We had what we Southern Baptists called "Watch Night" services. I think the idea was that if The Lord should decide to come back either in the final minutes of the old year or the first few minutes of the new, He'd find a bunch of us waiting for Him in church.
I don't remember much about those services. I think they probably started later than a normal evening service. But what I do remember is that at the end of the service - I think after we'd share Communion (or "The Lord's Supper" as we called it) - is that everyone would get up from their seats and circle the sanctuary/auditorium and join hands. Often, it seems like we'd be two or three or four deep around the church, the "Body" unified.
And while much of the rest of the world sang "Auld Lang Syne," we'd sing "Blest Be The Tie That Binds."
There are certain things about the church I grew up in that will stick with me forever. Not all of them are good - this was the late 1960s-early 1970s after all, and there were issues between the generations (see here).
But there was much good.
For example, I can't see a baptism without hearing "Brother Paul" Van Gorder saying, "Buried in the likeness of His death; raised in the likeness of His resurrection; to walk in newness of life" - particularly because for the longest time when I was a child I thought the last line was "to walk into the supply room." I love that phrase (the real one, not the supply room one), and still repeat it mentally at every baptism I see.
Another is that ending to the Watch Night Service, the way we sang in the New Year. Perhaps it is age, perhaps it is nostalgia, perhaps - probably - it's both. But I miss the church gathered round in a huge circle, joining hands, and welcoming in the New Year with the words:
Blest be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love;
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like to that above.
Before our Father's throne
We pour our ardent prayers;
Our fears, our hopes, our aims are one
Our comforts and our cares.
We share each other's woes,
Our mutual burdens bear;
And often for each other flows
The sympathizing tear.
When we asunder part,
It gives us inward pain;
But we shall still be joined in heart,
And hope to meet again.
You know, now that I think about it, we might actually have gathered and sang "How Great Thou Art." We sang that song a lot.
It has been a long time. Both are great songs. Maybe we sang them both.
But for tonight, this is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Happy New Year!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Christmas: Pressure to blog
I haven't written anything in awhile. I'm sorry (if you care).
For so long I wrote on deadlines, and it's nice not to have to worry about that now.
On the other hand, I feel the old newspaper pressure to keep something fresh on this blog as often as possible, just in case. I don't want anyone to come to this blog and be disappointed.
So I'm formulating some new ideas I want to get to.
One is about riding elevators. I struck me how elevators are little universes, where people come on and get off at random times, and the interaction between people on the elevators is always interesting.
Another is about family. Christmas does that to me. I started thinking about my own family, and then Jesus' family, and how unusual Jesus' family wound up being - how they doubted him!
And there is a whole blog about my review of Warhorse. Let me just say, my sons didn't want to go. I told them Steven Spielberg didn't make bad movies. They were right and I was wrong. It was really a waste of time on so many levels. But maybe I'll get to that, too.
Anyway, consider this all a 'tease' for when I have some time to write. But right now, I'm enjoying Christmas with my family. The boys are playing ping-pong on the kitchen island (see the pictures on my facebook page). I always wondered why The Trophy Wife insisted on putting in such a huge island in the kitchen, and now I understand!
Christmas was really a lot of fun, once we got everyone in the mood. We're at that stage in life where the Trophy Wife and I have to wake the kids up to open presents now. The night before, we'd actually talked about waiting until after church to open presents, but on Christmas morning the Trophy Wife woke up and couldn't stand it; she loves Christmas and family so much. So we got the kids up, fought over the attitudes of a few sluggards who didn't want to get in the spirit just yet, and had a great time.
The one gift that I thought was really odd was that ping-pong set. It was just a net, paddles and balls, and made to set up on a random flat surface. I thought it would never be used. Instead, we've played it non-stop; even while Christmas dinner was being prepared.
Funny how sometimes what seems like the most unlikely gifts turn out to be the best.
Anyway, I hope you had a Merry Christmas (whoever you are), and I feel rejuvenated and ready to write again. I hope you come back and take the time to read.
Meanwhile, the Princess Bear has returned from Brussels (When in Brussels) and returned to her Life in the Slow Lane blog (now called: Adventures of a Girl Raised in the South).
Peace and Goodwill ...
For so long I wrote on deadlines, and it's nice not to have to worry about that now.
On the other hand, I feel the old newspaper pressure to keep something fresh on this blog as often as possible, just in case. I don't want anyone to come to this blog and be disappointed.
So I'm formulating some new ideas I want to get to.
One is about riding elevators. I struck me how elevators are little universes, where people come on and get off at random times, and the interaction between people on the elevators is always interesting.
Another is about family. Christmas does that to me. I started thinking about my own family, and then Jesus' family, and how unusual Jesus' family wound up being - how they doubted him!
And there is a whole blog about my review of Warhorse. Let me just say, my sons didn't want to go. I told them Steven Spielberg didn't make bad movies. They were right and I was wrong. It was really a waste of time on so many levels. But maybe I'll get to that, too.
Anyway, consider this all a 'tease' for when I have some time to write. But right now, I'm enjoying Christmas with my family. The boys are playing ping-pong on the kitchen island (see the pictures on my facebook page). I always wondered why The Trophy Wife insisted on putting in such a huge island in the kitchen, and now I understand!
Christmas was really a lot of fun, once we got everyone in the mood. We're at that stage in life where the Trophy Wife and I have to wake the kids up to open presents now. The night before, we'd actually talked about waiting until after church to open presents, but on Christmas morning the Trophy Wife woke up and couldn't stand it; she loves Christmas and family so much. So we got the kids up, fought over the attitudes of a few sluggards who didn't want to get in the spirit just yet, and had a great time.
The one gift that I thought was really odd was that ping-pong set. It was just a net, paddles and balls, and made to set up on a random flat surface. I thought it would never be used. Instead, we've played it non-stop; even while Christmas dinner was being prepared.
Funny how sometimes what seems like the most unlikely gifts turn out to be the best.
Anyway, I hope you had a Merry Christmas (whoever you are), and I feel rejuvenated and ready to write again. I hope you come back and take the time to read.
Meanwhile, the Princess Bear has returned from Brussels (When in Brussels) and returned to her Life in the Slow Lane blog (now called: Adventures of a Girl Raised in the South).
Peace and Goodwill ...
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Merry Christmas
That's right: Merry Christmas.
For many of us, despite the shopping and parties and distractions, this is the season in which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.
Just like Christians took over a Roman holiday to "Christianize" it and celebrate Christ's birth in December (not likely to have been the actual season of His birth), these days the "Romans" of society are slowly trying to re-take the holiday and de-Christianize it.
I heard someone the other day expounding on how we need to be sensitive to those of other faiths during this time - Muslims, those of the Jewish faith, Buddhists, etc. And I agree, we should always be sensitive to those of other faiths.
But they don't celebrate Christmas, for the simple reason they don't believe that Christ is the Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world. Therefore His birth doesn't carry the significance it does for Christians.
However, they do celebrate Christmas in the sense that this is not an exclusive holiday. So people of other faith or even no faith at all decorate, put up trees, talk about Santa Claus and buy and exchange gifts and some still wish each other "Merry Christmas."
Because the national holiday, as recognized by all the states of the Union, is "Christmas."
Does that establish a state religion? Or does it simply acknowledge a day that has been and continues to be special to millions of Americans for hundreds of years. Recognizing that so many people want to be with their families on that day, governments went ahead and rather than have people show up for work grudgingly went ahead and made it a national holiday.
It wasn't always that way. The Puritans tried to outlaw the celebration of Christmas (as did England during the days of Cromwell and what was essentially a Protestant Revolution), because they felt the emphasis was inappropriate.
It wasn't a recognized national holiday until the early 1900s. Congress was expected to meet and work on Christmas Day well into the late 1800s at least.
So what government did was simply go ahead and make official what was, for many Americans, an 'unofficial' holiday. If we're cynical, we recognize that government loves to be able to appear to do things for the voting public that costs little but reaps great public reward, and creating a holiday is one of those.
Not that I'm complaining.
Yes, if we're incredibly sensitive, we see the establishment of the Christmas holiday as some kind of step into establishing a state religion - although it would appear that state religion is commerce, as what has happened is the creation of the biggest economic boom of the year which is good for businesses and therefore taxes.
But enough of that rambling.
It's Christmas. Peace on Earth, good will to all people.
And yes, to many of us it's a significant spiritual holiday.
To many more, it's a chance to party.
But hopefully you get the chance to gather with family and/or friends during this time, and realize that the greatest gift we have is the gift of relationships with other people - hopefully people we love and who love us, who we care for and who care for us, who we accept and who accept us.
Because that is the message of Christmas: God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that whoever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
That's family, that's love, that acceptance, that's a gift.
Merry Christmas.
For many of us, despite the shopping and parties and distractions, this is the season in which we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.
Just like Christians took over a Roman holiday to "Christianize" it and celebrate Christ's birth in December (not likely to have been the actual season of His birth), these days the "Romans" of society are slowly trying to re-take the holiday and de-Christianize it.
I heard someone the other day expounding on how we need to be sensitive to those of other faiths during this time - Muslims, those of the Jewish faith, Buddhists, etc. And I agree, we should always be sensitive to those of other faiths.
But they don't celebrate Christmas, for the simple reason they don't believe that Christ is the Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world. Therefore His birth doesn't carry the significance it does for Christians.
However, they do celebrate Christmas in the sense that this is not an exclusive holiday. So people of other faith or even no faith at all decorate, put up trees, talk about Santa Claus and buy and exchange gifts and some still wish each other "Merry Christmas."
Because the national holiday, as recognized by all the states of the Union, is "Christmas."
Does that establish a state religion? Or does it simply acknowledge a day that has been and continues to be special to millions of Americans for hundreds of years. Recognizing that so many people want to be with their families on that day, governments went ahead and rather than have people show up for work grudgingly went ahead and made it a national holiday.
It wasn't always that way. The Puritans tried to outlaw the celebration of Christmas (as did England during the days of Cromwell and what was essentially a Protestant Revolution), because they felt the emphasis was inappropriate.
It wasn't a recognized national holiday until the early 1900s. Congress was expected to meet and work on Christmas Day well into the late 1800s at least.
So what government did was simply go ahead and make official what was, for many Americans, an 'unofficial' holiday. If we're cynical, we recognize that government loves to be able to appear to do things for the voting public that costs little but reaps great public reward, and creating a holiday is one of those.
Not that I'm complaining.
Yes, if we're incredibly sensitive, we see the establishment of the Christmas holiday as some kind of step into establishing a state religion - although it would appear that state religion is commerce, as what has happened is the creation of the biggest economic boom of the year which is good for businesses and therefore taxes.
But enough of that rambling.
It's Christmas. Peace on Earth, good will to all people.
And yes, to many of us it's a significant spiritual holiday.
To many more, it's a chance to party.
But hopefully you get the chance to gather with family and/or friends during this time, and realize that the greatest gift we have is the gift of relationships with other people - hopefully people we love and who love us, who we care for and who care for us, who we accept and who accept us.
Because that is the message of Christmas: God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, so that whoever should believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
That's family, that's love, that acceptance, that's a gift.
Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Learning to stand up to bullies and critics
So I'm flipping channels the other day when I come across a black-and-white movie starring William Holden, June Allyson, Barbara Stanwyck, Frederick March, and just about every one of those actors who seemed to show up in every movie made in the 1950s.
It was a movie called "Executive Suite,'' although I didn't realize it until I looked it up. Turns out, according to one review, it's considered an "overlooked" drama, although it was nominated for a handful of Academy Awards. One interesting thing about the movie is that it has absolutely no musical soundtrack. And it does an outstanding job of covering issues of insider trading, board manipulation, and sexual harassment, proving that there really isn't anything new under the sun after all.
It's about a furniture company whose president dies, and the struggle ensues over who will take over and how the company will be run.
However, there was this one scene in the movie that struck me. William Holden and June Allyson's son has a big baseball game that is apparently very important to everyone in the town within which they live. It's basically a little league game - the kids look to be about 12 years old - but the stands are packed. Holden-Allyson's son is pitching, holding on to a 2-0 lead when he gives up a big hit that scores a run. Then he starts pitching to the next batter, and can't throw a strike.
Some of the adults in the stands are cheering and clapping, but some are booing.
That's right: booing! The adults - the parents of the kids playing the game - are cheering and clapping and booing and calling out what I guess was 1950s trash-talk from the stands.
Today, of course, that scene would be considered so offensive as to warrant boycotts of the movie - except that such a scene would have no more of a chance of being included in a movie today than terrorists in a movie actually being identified as being radical followers of Islam.
And then the climax of the movie involves this impassioned speech by William Holden's character in which he says the company will go back to making the kind of furniture that made the company famous, quality furniture that the workers in the factory will be proud to make and that the salesmen of that furniture will take pride in showing to potential customers.
The ending doesn't sound very exciting, I know. But the truth is, it's remarkable that there is no force or trickery or deceit but just an impassioned speech on quality and pride.
And it hits me that the qualities that William Holden stands up for are the qualities his movie-screen son learns by performing in front of a crowd of people that aren't worried about hurting his self-esteem or wounding his pride. They're simply watching a ball game, treating the kids playing like ball players; ball players who sometimes do well and sometimes don't do so well.
Today, of course, we'd have to cheer the young boy as he throws ball after ball simply for trying.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not for booing young kids at little league baseball games. But neither am I for giving everyone a trophy just for showing up and telling a kid who blows the big game, "That's all right; you did your best."
I was a kid once. I played a lot of sports. I knew when I didn't do well and I knew when I did.
But I also knew the kids that weren't very good, the ones whose parents fought to make sure there were enough "all-star'' teams so that every kid that wanted to be an all-star got to be one; that did away with trophies for first place and made sure every kid on every team got a trophy; who did away with recognition for being the best and made sure everyone was recognized for trying.
And the only kids it fooled were the kids who weren't really trying in the first place.
It occurs to me that our modern American world is being run by those people who, as children, never learned to face their own failure or to stand up in the face of negative reaction; kids whose idea of 'standing up' to the playground bully was to attach themselves to an authority figure for protection, looking to the adults to stop other kids from being so mean, and rallying around the motto "It's not fair!"
You don't learn to stand up for yourself, to face down your fears and critics, to develop confidence in yourself if you're not challenged. And honestly, is there anyone who doesn't learn more from failure than success? What was that famous story about Thomas Edison and how he failed to produce the light bulb the first 14,000 times he tried, but still considered everyone of those 14,000 failures a success because each one taught him something and got him closer to success?
Yet today's society would remove all such challenges from all of us - particularly our children - if they had their way. No wonder we're living in a society that believes government should look after us; that government is there to enforce artificially created standards that says each one of us is a success in our own right.
OK, the analogy breaks down at some point. In fact, I might actually have gotten lost in there somewhere.
The point is that in facing the school yard bully, or being put in positions where it is obvious we succeed or fail, we develop the kind of character that causes William Holden to stand up to his fellow executives, face their apparently unknown (to him) conspiracy, and win the day with an argument based on truth, self-worth, and restoring a sense of pride in what they can produce and sell.
By the way - the kid in the movie? After throwing three balls, he came back and won the game.
We don't know how. Williams Holden didn't stay for the end of the game because he had to get to the board meeting that would determine the future of the company.
But at the end he asks wife June Allyson who won and she answers, "We did."
It's one of those 1950s moments where you understand she's speaking for them all.
It was a movie called "Executive Suite,'' although I didn't realize it until I looked it up. Turns out, according to one review, it's considered an "overlooked" drama, although it was nominated for a handful of Academy Awards. One interesting thing about the movie is that it has absolutely no musical soundtrack. And it does an outstanding job of covering issues of insider trading, board manipulation, and sexual harassment, proving that there really isn't anything new under the sun after all.
It's about a furniture company whose president dies, and the struggle ensues over who will take over and how the company will be run.
However, there was this one scene in the movie that struck me. William Holden and June Allyson's son has a big baseball game that is apparently very important to everyone in the town within which they live. It's basically a little league game - the kids look to be about 12 years old - but the stands are packed. Holden-Allyson's son is pitching, holding on to a 2-0 lead when he gives up a big hit that scores a run. Then he starts pitching to the next batter, and can't throw a strike.
Some of the adults in the stands are cheering and clapping, but some are booing.
That's right: booing! The adults - the parents of the kids playing the game - are cheering and clapping and booing and calling out what I guess was 1950s trash-talk from the stands.
Today, of course, that scene would be considered so offensive as to warrant boycotts of the movie - except that such a scene would have no more of a chance of being included in a movie today than terrorists in a movie actually being identified as being radical followers of Islam.
And then the climax of the movie involves this impassioned speech by William Holden's character in which he says the company will go back to making the kind of furniture that made the company famous, quality furniture that the workers in the factory will be proud to make and that the salesmen of that furniture will take pride in showing to potential customers.
The ending doesn't sound very exciting, I know. But the truth is, it's remarkable that there is no force or trickery or deceit but just an impassioned speech on quality and pride.
And it hits me that the qualities that William Holden stands up for are the qualities his movie-screen son learns by performing in front of a crowd of people that aren't worried about hurting his self-esteem or wounding his pride. They're simply watching a ball game, treating the kids playing like ball players; ball players who sometimes do well and sometimes don't do so well.
Today, of course, we'd have to cheer the young boy as he throws ball after ball simply for trying.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not for booing young kids at little league baseball games. But neither am I for giving everyone a trophy just for showing up and telling a kid who blows the big game, "That's all right; you did your best."
I was a kid once. I played a lot of sports. I knew when I didn't do well and I knew when I did.
But I also knew the kids that weren't very good, the ones whose parents fought to make sure there were enough "all-star'' teams so that every kid that wanted to be an all-star got to be one; that did away with trophies for first place and made sure every kid on every team got a trophy; who did away with recognition for being the best and made sure everyone was recognized for trying.
And the only kids it fooled were the kids who weren't really trying in the first place.
It occurs to me that our modern American world is being run by those people who, as children, never learned to face their own failure or to stand up in the face of negative reaction; kids whose idea of 'standing up' to the playground bully was to attach themselves to an authority figure for protection, looking to the adults to stop other kids from being so mean, and rallying around the motto "It's not fair!"
You don't learn to stand up for yourself, to face down your fears and critics, to develop confidence in yourself if you're not challenged. And honestly, is there anyone who doesn't learn more from failure than success? What was that famous story about Thomas Edison and how he failed to produce the light bulb the first 14,000 times he tried, but still considered everyone of those 14,000 failures a success because each one taught him something and got him closer to success?
Yet today's society would remove all such challenges from all of us - particularly our children - if they had their way. No wonder we're living in a society that believes government should look after us; that government is there to enforce artificially created standards that says each one of us is a success in our own right.
OK, the analogy breaks down at some point. In fact, I might actually have gotten lost in there somewhere.
The point is that in facing the school yard bully, or being put in positions where it is obvious we succeed or fail, we develop the kind of character that causes William Holden to stand up to his fellow executives, face their apparently unknown (to him) conspiracy, and win the day with an argument based on truth, self-worth, and restoring a sense of pride in what they can produce and sell.
By the way - the kid in the movie? After throwing three balls, he came back and won the game.
We don't know how. Williams Holden didn't stay for the end of the game because he had to get to the board meeting that would determine the future of the company.
But at the end he asks wife June Allyson who won and she answers, "We did."
It's one of those 1950s moments where you understand she's speaking for them all.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
My dream ... it isn't creepy - is it?
I have always loved music, and singing.
We had all kinds of music in our house growing up. I can remember everything from Andy Williams to those sappy 101 Strings to my brother's Beach Boy albums. We had this one recording of Rhapsody in Blue that had all these women in bathing suits that matched in style but varied in color, standing basically waist deep in water holding these scarfs over their heads, the colors of which matched their bathing suits. I'm not sure what that had to do with Rhapsody in Blue - I guess the women were the "Rhapsody" and the water was the "blue" but I'm not sure - but I can remember listening to it over and over and studying each of the women on the cover of the album.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
I can remember riding in the car with my father, listening to Big Band music, thinking that's what adults did and that at some point in my life some internal switch would click and suddenly I'd stop liking rock and start preferring Big Band sounds. And because it seemed inevitable, I would go ahead and start listening to Big Band music on my own - Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Buddy Rich, Cab Callaway, Count Basie - while listening to Steppenwolf, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Chicago, Rare Earth ...
All of that gave me a rather eclectic taste in music - rock, country, jazz, blues, Big Band, symphonies, musicals. I have to admit I never cared much for opera, disco or techno stuff.
Anyway, in the eighth grade we started high school and I had an elective so I signed up for choir, and I loved it. I didn't tell anybody - especially not the guys I played ball with. I quit after a couple years to concentrate on who knows what, but as a senior I got back in the choir and the director heard me and said I should have never quit, that I belonged in choir.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
Anyway, I once had the opportunity to sing in a large choir that did the Hallelujah Chorus - which may have the greatest bass part ever written (well, maybe except for The Oak Ridge Boys' 'Elvira').
And then one day many years ago, I heard this:
The Roches' Hallelujah Chorus
I became enamored with the idea of doing The Hallelujah Chorus with three or four voices, a capella. I just think it would be so cool to do, and I think it sounds really good.
Alas, it's been almost 30 years since I heard The Roches. And I've never been able to convince anyone to try this.
But there's always tomorrow.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It isn't.
At least I don't think so.
We had all kinds of music in our house growing up. I can remember everything from Andy Williams to those sappy 101 Strings to my brother's Beach Boy albums. We had this one recording of Rhapsody in Blue that had all these women in bathing suits that matched in style but varied in color, standing basically waist deep in water holding these scarfs over their heads, the colors of which matched their bathing suits. I'm not sure what that had to do with Rhapsody in Blue - I guess the women were the "Rhapsody" and the water was the "blue" but I'm not sure - but I can remember listening to it over and over and studying each of the women on the cover of the album.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
I can remember riding in the car with my father, listening to Big Band music, thinking that's what adults did and that at some point in my life some internal switch would click and suddenly I'd stop liking rock and start preferring Big Band sounds. And because it seemed inevitable, I would go ahead and start listening to Big Band music on my own - Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Buddy Rich, Cab Callaway, Count Basie - while listening to Steppenwolf, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Chicago, Rare Earth ...
All of that gave me a rather eclectic taste in music - rock, country, jazz, blues, Big Band, symphonies, musicals. I have to admit I never cared much for opera, disco or techno stuff.
Anyway, in the eighth grade we started high school and I had an elective so I signed up for choir, and I loved it. I didn't tell anybody - especially not the guys I played ball with. I quit after a couple years to concentrate on who knows what, but as a senior I got back in the choir and the director heard me and said I should have never quit, that I belonged in choir.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
Anyway, I once had the opportunity to sing in a large choir that did the Hallelujah Chorus - which may have the greatest bass part ever written (well, maybe except for The Oak Ridge Boys' 'Elvira').
And then one day many years ago, I heard this:
The Roches' Hallelujah Chorus
I became enamored with the idea of doing The Hallelujah Chorus with three or four voices, a capella. I just think it would be so cool to do, and I think it sounds really good.
Alas, it's been almost 30 years since I heard The Roches. And I've never been able to convince anyone to try this.
But there's always tomorrow.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It isn't.
At least I don't think so.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
World wide high tech paranoia
Maybe I'm paranoid.
But the other day, I took my laptop into my room and plugged in the wireless card and as it was loading up and getting a signal, it kind of freaked me out.
I mean, it was like realizing that 'they' can reach you where ever you. There are these air-fingers that you can't escape from. And while sure it's a communication technique, communication is a two-way street; if you can reach out and connect to "them" at will, are you sure "they" don't have the means to reach out and connect to you at "their" will?
Then I saw this story in Scientific American (here) that says "Printers can be hacked to catch on fire." Apparently, "Two researchers at Columbia University in New York say they've found a flaw in ordinary office printers that lets hackers hijack the devices to spy on users, spread malware and even force them to overheat to the point of catching fire."
I am well-known for arguing with my GPS. That I even have GPS is a little disturbing, because I assume if my GPS is connected to some system somewhere that can identify where I am at any given moment, my speed, and calculate my estimated time of arrival, then that same machine can report where I am, how fast I am going, and where I am going.
It's why I don't want OnStar. I recognize the benefits. I hear the commercials about people who have wrecks on deserted country roads or women who go into labor miles from the nearest hospital and by connecting with OnStar, you can talk to a real person who not only will send for help but will express empathy and humor while keeping you company or connecting you to a loved one while waiting for a resolution to the situation.
But the trade-off is ... you guessed it. OnStar also has the ability to determine where I am at any given moment.
It's not like I do anything that requires secrecy. Oh, maybe there was a time when I did (then again, maybe not). It's just that I don't like Big Brother having that kind of access to my life.
If I think about the fact that every key stroke on my computer can be recorded, every web site I visit noted - well, it's enough to understand those people you read about who put tin foil over all their windows, sit in the dark, and write in-decipherable formulas and sayings on the walls, floors, and ceilings of their hovels (they always live in hovels, don't they?).
I like my privacy. I like a little solitude. I'd be happy to find that gap in the cell phone coverage area where you don't get a signal and are therefore, as long as you stay in that exact spot, untraceable.
Or at least as untraceable as anyone can be in today's high-tech world.
Except that I go crazy when I don't have access to my cell phone.
It's a dilemma.
OK, I am paranoid.
I think paranoia can be instructive in the right doses. Paranoia is a skill.
But the other day, I took my laptop into my room and plugged in the wireless card and as it was loading up and getting a signal, it kind of freaked me out.
I mean, it was like realizing that 'they' can reach you where ever you. There are these air-fingers that you can't escape from. And while sure it's a communication technique, communication is a two-way street; if you can reach out and connect to "them" at will, are you sure "they" don't have the means to reach out and connect to you at "their" will?
Then I saw this story in Scientific American (here) that says "Printers can be hacked to catch on fire." Apparently, "Two researchers at Columbia University in New York say they've found a flaw in ordinary office printers that lets hackers hijack the devices to spy on users, spread malware and even force them to overheat to the point of catching fire."
I am well-known for arguing with my GPS. That I even have GPS is a little disturbing, because I assume if my GPS is connected to some system somewhere that can identify where I am at any given moment, my speed, and calculate my estimated time of arrival, then that same machine can report where I am, how fast I am going, and where I am going.
It's why I don't want OnStar. I recognize the benefits. I hear the commercials about people who have wrecks on deserted country roads or women who go into labor miles from the nearest hospital and by connecting with OnStar, you can talk to a real person who not only will send for help but will express empathy and humor while keeping you company or connecting you to a loved one while waiting for a resolution to the situation.
But the trade-off is ... you guessed it. OnStar also has the ability to determine where I am at any given moment.
It's not like I do anything that requires secrecy. Oh, maybe there was a time when I did (then again, maybe not). It's just that I don't like Big Brother having that kind of access to my life.
If I think about the fact that every key stroke on my computer can be recorded, every web site I visit noted - well, it's enough to understand those people you read about who put tin foil over all their windows, sit in the dark, and write in-decipherable formulas and sayings on the walls, floors, and ceilings of their hovels (they always live in hovels, don't they?).
I like my privacy. I like a little solitude. I'd be happy to find that gap in the cell phone coverage area where you don't get a signal and are therefore, as long as you stay in that exact spot, untraceable.
Or at least as untraceable as anyone can be in today's high-tech world.
Except that I go crazy when I don't have access to my cell phone.
It's a dilemma.
OK, I am paranoid.
I think paranoia can be instructive in the right doses. Paranoia is a skill.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Content of character, not color of skin
Years ago, at the tail end of the height of the Civil Rights movement and the end of legalized or forced segregation, the question came up as to how we'd know when equality had been achieved.
It was an interesting question then, and continues to a certain extent to be interesting even today. How do we know when the problems of the past are behind us? Particularly when the movement to resolve those problems becomes an industry until itself?
But I distinctly remember a wise old man (and since I was only 17 "old" could have been anyone over 25) saying something that stuck with me. He said - and I'm paraphrasing - "Equality won't be when anyone can get into a restaurant regardless of the color of his skin. Equality will be when anyone can get kicked out of a restaurant and no one will think it was because of the color of his skin."
The way I interpreted that statement was to mean that when someone legitimately does something that deserves censure but can't hide behind race as the reason for that censure but instead is held accountable for his actions, then we're there.
I thought of this the other day when the story popped about the booing of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, at a NASCAR race. The first thing I heard was commentators saying that was typical of NASCAR fans, booing Mrs. Obama because she was black.
Thankfully, I also heard people say that was ridiculous, that Mrs. Obama was booed because people were expressing displeasure at her politics (and, more directly, the politics of her husband).
First let me make it clear that I don't think it is appropriate to boo anybody, and I do think the office of the President deserves respect even if we don't like the politics of the man who occupies that office. And while the First Lady is a public figure, I believe the family of the president should be respected.
And I'm not stupid. I know racism still exists.
I also know for a white guy to talk about racism is just asking for trouble. As comedian Dennis Miller once said he was so race conscious that when he did his laundry, he was afraid to separate the whites from the colors.
Mrs. Obama once famously said America is a "mean, mean country" of which she never felt proud until her husband was nominated to run for President.
But we hear that this is a racist country. That, I would argue with.
After all, is there any country that has as many laws - in many cases redundant laws - that are designed to not just promote but attempt to ensure racial equality?
Yes, this country indulged in slavery. So did just about every other country in the world at one time or another. Now, just because "they" did it does not make it right that we did it. Slavery is immoral, and we should never cease to work to eradicate it where it still exists today.
But this country has done a pretty good job of working toward that eradication. Remember, it was something like 360,000 mostly white males who died in a war that was, according to popular thinking, all about ending slavery (I would argue that the War of Northern Aggression - otherwise known as the "civil war" - was about more than that) and defending that uniquely American idea that "all men are created equal."
And it was mostly white people that voted to pass things like the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act.
According to the 2010 Census, blacks make up only 12.6 percent of the entire population of the United States. That means an awful lot of white people had to vote for Michele Obama's husband, Barack, for him to earn first the nomination of his party and then be elected President of the United States.
It's a great thing that a black man was elected President. Black kids need to see a black man who isn't famous because he can hit 70 home runs or sing and dance and doesn't call women "ho's" or cruise the streets at night looking for a fix.
Because white kids can look and see white men who also do every one of those things, too.
David Mamet, in his book "The Secret Knowledge," wrote: "is the American Government of today guilty of slavery? If so, are those African American members of the Government equally guilty? Or, are the American People alive today guilty? If so, which citizens? The Black as well as the White? Is the guilt heritable, or not? If so, then would not those (the great majority of) Americans whose ancestors did not arrive until after slavery be exempt from apology? Are the ancestors of the 300,000 white males who died to defeat slavery excepted from apology? If not, on what basis are the descendants of slaves entitled to it?"
Don't tell me this is a racist country.
Oh, there are racist people who live in this country. And those people and their attitudes are a source of continual opposition, not just by law but also by the increasing moral force of so many people in this country who have proven able to look past the color of a person's skin to judge on that person's actions or potential (not to mention how high they can jump or how fast they can run or how well they sing or act or dance or host TV shows).
That's why I believe those people at that NASCAR race did not boo Michelle Obama because she's black but because she represented a President whose policies many people don't agree with.
And that's a good thing - not that people don't agree with the President, but that they don't agree with the President because of the things he has done, not because of the color of his skin.
Without question, it was a huge step forward for this country to elect a black man to the highest political office in the land.
The next big step will be choosing to vote for or against a man or woman because of their politics, without anyone thinking it might be because of the color of their skin.
It was an interesting question then, and continues to a certain extent to be interesting even today. How do we know when the problems of the past are behind us? Particularly when the movement to resolve those problems becomes an industry until itself?
But I distinctly remember a wise old man (and since I was only 17 "old" could have been anyone over 25) saying something that stuck with me. He said - and I'm paraphrasing - "Equality won't be when anyone can get into a restaurant regardless of the color of his skin. Equality will be when anyone can get kicked out of a restaurant and no one will think it was because of the color of his skin."
The way I interpreted that statement was to mean that when someone legitimately does something that deserves censure but can't hide behind race as the reason for that censure but instead is held accountable for his actions, then we're there.
I thought of this the other day when the story popped about the booing of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, at a NASCAR race. The first thing I heard was commentators saying that was typical of NASCAR fans, booing Mrs. Obama because she was black.
Thankfully, I also heard people say that was ridiculous, that Mrs. Obama was booed because people were expressing displeasure at her politics (and, more directly, the politics of her husband).
First let me make it clear that I don't think it is appropriate to boo anybody, and I do think the office of the President deserves respect even if we don't like the politics of the man who occupies that office. And while the First Lady is a public figure, I believe the family of the president should be respected.
And I'm not stupid. I know racism still exists.
I also know for a white guy to talk about racism is just asking for trouble. As comedian Dennis Miller once said he was so race conscious that when he did his laundry, he was afraid to separate the whites from the colors.
Mrs. Obama once famously said America is a "mean, mean country" of which she never felt proud until her husband was nominated to run for President.
But we hear that this is a racist country. That, I would argue with.
After all, is there any country that has as many laws - in many cases redundant laws - that are designed to not just promote but attempt to ensure racial equality?
Yes, this country indulged in slavery. So did just about every other country in the world at one time or another. Now, just because "they" did it does not make it right that we did it. Slavery is immoral, and we should never cease to work to eradicate it where it still exists today.
But this country has done a pretty good job of working toward that eradication. Remember, it was something like 360,000 mostly white males who died in a war that was, according to popular thinking, all about ending slavery (I would argue that the War of Northern Aggression - otherwise known as the "civil war" - was about more than that) and defending that uniquely American idea that "all men are created equal."
And it was mostly white people that voted to pass things like the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act.
According to the 2010 Census, blacks make up only 12.6 percent of the entire population of the United States. That means an awful lot of white people had to vote for Michele Obama's husband, Barack, for him to earn first the nomination of his party and then be elected President of the United States.
It's a great thing that a black man was elected President. Black kids need to see a black man who isn't famous because he can hit 70 home runs or sing and dance and doesn't call women "ho's" or cruise the streets at night looking for a fix.
Because white kids can look and see white men who also do every one of those things, too.
David Mamet, in his book "The Secret Knowledge," wrote: "is the American Government of today guilty of slavery? If so, are those African American members of the Government equally guilty? Or, are the American People alive today guilty? If so, which citizens? The Black as well as the White? Is the guilt heritable, or not? If so, then would not those (the great majority of) Americans whose ancestors did not arrive until after slavery be exempt from apology? Are the ancestors of the 300,000 white males who died to defeat slavery excepted from apology? If not, on what basis are the descendants of slaves entitled to it?"
Don't tell me this is a racist country.
Oh, there are racist people who live in this country. And those people and their attitudes are a source of continual opposition, not just by law but also by the increasing moral force of so many people in this country who have proven able to look past the color of a person's skin to judge on that person's actions or potential (not to mention how high they can jump or how fast they can run or how well they sing or act or dance or host TV shows).
That's why I believe those people at that NASCAR race did not boo Michelle Obama because she's black but because she represented a President whose policies many people don't agree with.
And that's a good thing - not that people don't agree with the President, but that they don't agree with the President because of the things he has done, not because of the color of his skin.
Without question, it was a huge step forward for this country to elect a black man to the highest political office in the land.
The next big step will be choosing to vote for or against a man or woman because of their politics, without anyone thinking it might be because of the color of their skin.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Penn State, the law, and moral obligation
This isn't going to be a terribly insightful blog. It won't tell you anything you haven't heard over and over.
But maybe we can't hear it enough.
Let's talk about the law.
One aspect of this horrible Penn State case is that it has created a conversation about obligation, as in, 'what is a citizen's responsibility under the law?'
It's a great question.
It's a great question because one of the inherent problems of 'law' is that it is best at telling us what people can't do, not what people can do or even should do.
Kind of like The Ten Commandments: Thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not lie, thou shall not commit adultery ... the law is there to point out the things that we might want to do, but that we should not do.
However, if you think nobody likes being told what not to do, try telling people what they ought to do.
Nobody likes being told what is the right thing to do, because right is subjective, nebulous, almost impossible for everyone to agree on - unless it's agreeing that it's right not to murder, lie, cheat, and steal.
And because we human beings don't like being reminded of what is the right thing to do, sometimes it looks like we've all convinced ourselves that maybe it just makes more sense to do nothing than to do something.
By that I mean we all know how so many of us have decided it's not worth it to get involved. If we see an uncomfortable situation, turn away. You've heard the stories of people getting mugged on crowded city streets but there being no witnesses; of the recent story of the little girl being run over repeatedly in China and no one stopping to help.
"Stay out of my business,'' is a common enough phrase.
Helping is messy. It means getting involved. And sometimes the law seems to work against getting involved. At best, it often requires taking time away from our own lives to be involved in the lives of either the victim or the criminal (as in testifying in court); at worst, it can mean being actively punished for doing what we though was right, as in being sued for "meddling" in someone else's business or even retaliation from the accused, or friends and supporters of the accused.
Nobody likes a 'rat,' someone who tells on someone else. That's one of the earliest lessons of childhood relationships.
Plus, if we're honest, the rights of criminals sometimes seem more vigorously defended by the law than the victims or even just the rights of members of society in general to live in security.
I'm not suggesting the rights of the accused should not be protected; they should. But we all know of cases where those 'rights' have gone too far and the obviously guilty are set free on a legal technicality.
It's not easy, being free.
The problem is that while we're all so acutely aware of what's legal that we often forget what's moral; what we used to call moral law. Sometimes the law causes us to forget that every one of us has a moral obligation to protect the innocent, the victims, the defenseless, the abused.
Truthfully?
The Bible tells us the law - even the law as laid out in The Bible - is only there to point out our shortcomings. It does not have the power to change us into 'good' people, moral people, people who do the right thing.
Simply put, the law can't make people do what is right. It can only discourage people from doing what is wrong.
Doing right has to come from somewhere else. It has to come from a change of heart, of attitude, of will.
Theologians would tell us that's what Jesus does for us. Jesus even made the radical statement that He came to abolish the law.
But at the very least, it requires us as individuals, every day, to resolve to be involved in the world outside of our own lives, to be aware, to 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.'
A good society doesn't make people good.
Good people make a society good.
And all the laws, all the restrictions, all the punishments, all the best-designed plans to build a "Great Society'' in the world won't change that.
As I said in the beginning, there's nothing new here, nothing terribly profound.
It's just something I needed to be reminded of.
Because if we learned anything from Penn State, it's that sometimes the sin of omission has consequences just as great as the sin of commission.
In other words, there is a cost to both not acting, or even to acting inadequately. And it's one that, as a society, we just can't afford to keep paying.
I can't leave this without going a little further into Jesus' saying he came to abolish the law. Part of what makes Christianity so difficult is that the Bible does not spell out what we need to do to please God, unlike other religions that tell us "pray this many times a day, give this much money, do this many good deeds" and we'll find favor with God. Christianity is of the heart, meaning we allow God to work within us to convict and convince us of what we should be doing. It's much more difficult, much more challenging, and yet - in the end - much more of a complete transformation because it changes us from within.
Until that happens, however, we need the law to tell us what not to do.
And we need the examples of good people all around us showing us a better way to live.
But maybe we can't hear it enough.
Let's talk about the law.
One aspect of this horrible Penn State case is that it has created a conversation about obligation, as in, 'what is a citizen's responsibility under the law?'
It's a great question.
It's a great question because one of the inherent problems of 'law' is that it is best at telling us what people can't do, not what people can do or even should do.
Kind of like The Ten Commandments: Thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not lie, thou shall not commit adultery ... the law is there to point out the things that we might want to do, but that we should not do.
However, if you think nobody likes being told what not to do, try telling people what they ought to do.
Nobody likes being told what is the right thing to do, because right is subjective, nebulous, almost impossible for everyone to agree on - unless it's agreeing that it's right not to murder, lie, cheat, and steal.
And because we human beings don't like being reminded of what is the right thing to do, sometimes it looks like we've all convinced ourselves that maybe it just makes more sense to do nothing than to do something.
By that I mean we all know how so many of us have decided it's not worth it to get involved. If we see an uncomfortable situation, turn away. You've heard the stories of people getting mugged on crowded city streets but there being no witnesses; of the recent story of the little girl being run over repeatedly in China and no one stopping to help.
"Stay out of my business,'' is a common enough phrase.
Helping is messy. It means getting involved. And sometimes the law seems to work against getting involved. At best, it often requires taking time away from our own lives to be involved in the lives of either the victim or the criminal (as in testifying in court); at worst, it can mean being actively punished for doing what we though was right, as in being sued for "meddling" in someone else's business or even retaliation from the accused, or friends and supporters of the accused.
Nobody likes a 'rat,' someone who tells on someone else. That's one of the earliest lessons of childhood relationships.
Plus, if we're honest, the rights of criminals sometimes seem more vigorously defended by the law than the victims or even just the rights of members of society in general to live in security.
I'm not suggesting the rights of the accused should not be protected; they should. But we all know of cases where those 'rights' have gone too far and the obviously guilty are set free on a legal technicality.
It's not easy, being free.
The problem is that while we're all so acutely aware of what's legal that we often forget what's moral; what we used to call moral law. Sometimes the law causes us to forget that every one of us has a moral obligation to protect the innocent, the victims, the defenseless, the abused.
Truthfully?
The Bible tells us the law - even the law as laid out in The Bible - is only there to point out our shortcomings. It does not have the power to change us into 'good' people, moral people, people who do the right thing.
Simply put, the law can't make people do what is right. It can only discourage people from doing what is wrong.
Doing right has to come from somewhere else. It has to come from a change of heart, of attitude, of will.
Theologians would tell us that's what Jesus does for us. Jesus even made the radical statement that He came to abolish the law.
But at the very least, it requires us as individuals, every day, to resolve to be involved in the world outside of our own lives, to be aware, to 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.'
A good society doesn't make people good.
Good people make a society good.
And all the laws, all the restrictions, all the punishments, all the best-designed plans to build a "Great Society'' in the world won't change that.
As I said in the beginning, there's nothing new here, nothing terribly profound.
It's just something I needed to be reminded of.
Because if we learned anything from Penn State, it's that sometimes the sin of omission has consequences just as great as the sin of commission.
In other words, there is a cost to both not acting, or even to acting inadequately. And it's one that, as a society, we just can't afford to keep paying.
I can't leave this without going a little further into Jesus' saying he came to abolish the law. Part of what makes Christianity so difficult is that the Bible does not spell out what we need to do to please God, unlike other religions that tell us "pray this many times a day, give this much money, do this many good deeds" and we'll find favor with God. Christianity is of the heart, meaning we allow God to work within us to convict and convince us of what we should be doing. It's much more difficult, much more challenging, and yet - in the end - much more of a complete transformation because it changes us from within.
Until that happens, however, we need the law to tell us what not to do.
And we need the examples of good people all around us showing us a better way to live.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The myth of owning your own home
In one of the escalating protests between the "Occupy ... " whatever movement and government authority, I noticed one Occupier carrying a sign that said, "I will never own my own house."
Well, certainly not with that attitude!
I once felt that way, too. I remember thinking, "I'll never save enough money for an acceptable down-payment on a house." because common thinking was that you had to have 20 percent down to buy a house! Crazy, huh?
Anyway, I lucked into my first house because the people who owned it wanted to move out and allowed me to simply take over their note. Because the loan was privately held, it didn't require any money down. I think I assumed a note for something like $34,000.
I wonder if this Occupier would even consider buying a first house for $34,000?
Here's the thing, though. As I think back, I realize I've "owned" five houses, and yet not really ever owned one.
Because while my name was on the loan and I was responsible for the property, the truth is my houses have always been owned by whoever held the note - an individual, then any number of banks or mortgage companies.
Still, if I could buy a house based on what I was making working as a newspaper reporter, almost anyone with a regular job can afford a house - if they aren't trying to buy the Biltmore Estate.
Or a modest duplex in the suburbs.
Still, the underlying complaint from this Occupier was apparently the idea that was promulgated in the 1990s that it was the right of every human being - much less every American - to own their own home.
So pressure was put on banks and lenders to lend money willy-nilly (I've always wanted to use that phrase), regardless of whether people could really afford what they were buying or not. Hundreds of years of best practices when it comes to lending money were thrown out the door and suddenly lenders went out of their way to make sure people could get loans - even up to 125% of the value of what they were buying!
From worrying about saving to come up with enough money to put 10 or 20 percent down to suddenly being able to buy a house with nothing down to not just no money down but all other costs being built into the life of the loan -- it was incredible! And I should know, because I did it too.
So is there any wonder that the housing market bubbled and eventually burst? Plenty of us bought houses we really couldn't afford in the hope that somewhere in the next five years, before our interest only payments ballooned into some ridiculous interest rate that actually included paying principal.
But of course it was the fault of the banks and those evil mortgage lenders who duped us into borrowing more money than we could ever hope to pay back.
Isn't life great? There are no more "mistakes;" everything good is mine by entitlement while everything bad is somebody else's fault!
Here's the thing that really scares me, though.
With so many of those mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies, it means that the government actually holds the notes on many of our houses - and in many cases, the other loans are backed by the government as well.
One of the great historical attractions of the New World was the idea of owning land and property. Owning your own home was part of the American dream. And citizens owned the majority of the country - that is why we called it "private property" - making the government beholden to the citizenry.
Now, the government owns our houses and we the people end up paying the government for our shelter and land, which threatens to turn the system on its head. Instead of government being subservient to the citizens, we citizens are subservient to the government, which has the power to call our 'note' and take over our very homes!
That's scary - particularly when you include the new threat of "eminent domain" and the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling (Kelo v. New London) that essentially made it legal for local government to take away private property and turn it over to a private developer simply because that developer claimed he would generate more jobs and tax revenue. It's a battle that continues in many states across the nation.
For many the whole plan behind refinancing mortgages to save people's homes was to extend the life of the loan to up to 45 and 50 years. Does anybody expect to live in a house for 45 or 50 years anymore? Essentially, that means we're just renting from the government.
So the truth is, just like the above mentioned Occupier, I don't think I'll ever own my own home, either.
That's OK. Unlike the Occupier, I won't stop trying.
And if it doesn't happen, well, what the heck - I can always rent.
Or I guess I could even live in tent in a privately owned public park in the middle of New York City.
But why would I want to?
Well, certainly not with that attitude!
I once felt that way, too. I remember thinking, "I'll never save enough money for an acceptable down-payment on a house." because common thinking was that you had to have 20 percent down to buy a house! Crazy, huh?
Anyway, I lucked into my first house because the people who owned it wanted to move out and allowed me to simply take over their note. Because the loan was privately held, it didn't require any money down. I think I assumed a note for something like $34,000.
I wonder if this Occupier would even consider buying a first house for $34,000?
Here's the thing, though. As I think back, I realize I've "owned" five houses, and yet not really ever owned one.
Because while my name was on the loan and I was responsible for the property, the truth is my houses have always been owned by whoever held the note - an individual, then any number of banks or mortgage companies.
Still, if I could buy a house based on what I was making working as a newspaper reporter, almost anyone with a regular job can afford a house - if they aren't trying to buy the Biltmore Estate.
Or a modest duplex in the suburbs.
Still, the underlying complaint from this Occupier was apparently the idea that was promulgated in the 1990s that it was the right of every human being - much less every American - to own their own home.
So pressure was put on banks and lenders to lend money willy-nilly (I've always wanted to use that phrase), regardless of whether people could really afford what they were buying or not. Hundreds of years of best practices when it comes to lending money were thrown out the door and suddenly lenders went out of their way to make sure people could get loans - even up to 125% of the value of what they were buying!
From worrying about saving to come up with enough money to put 10 or 20 percent down to suddenly being able to buy a house with nothing down to not just no money down but all other costs being built into the life of the loan -- it was incredible! And I should know, because I did it too.
So is there any wonder that the housing market bubbled and eventually burst? Plenty of us bought houses we really couldn't afford in the hope that somewhere in the next five years, before our interest only payments ballooned into some ridiculous interest rate that actually included paying principal.
But of course it was the fault of the banks and those evil mortgage lenders who duped us into borrowing more money than we could ever hope to pay back.
Isn't life great? There are no more "mistakes;" everything good is mine by entitlement while everything bad is somebody else's fault!
Here's the thing that really scares me, though.
With so many of those mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies, it means that the government actually holds the notes on many of our houses - and in many cases, the other loans are backed by the government as well.
One of the great historical attractions of the New World was the idea of owning land and property. Owning your own home was part of the American dream. And citizens owned the majority of the country - that is why we called it "private property" - making the government beholden to the citizenry.
Now, the government owns our houses and we the people end up paying the government for our shelter and land, which threatens to turn the system on its head. Instead of government being subservient to the citizens, we citizens are subservient to the government, which has the power to call our 'note' and take over our very homes!
That's scary - particularly when you include the new threat of "eminent domain" and the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling (Kelo v. New London) that essentially made it legal for local government to take away private property and turn it over to a private developer simply because that developer claimed he would generate more jobs and tax revenue. It's a battle that continues in many states across the nation.
For many the whole plan behind refinancing mortgages to save people's homes was to extend the life of the loan to up to 45 and 50 years. Does anybody expect to live in a house for 45 or 50 years anymore? Essentially, that means we're just renting from the government.
So the truth is, just like the above mentioned Occupier, I don't think I'll ever own my own home, either.
That's OK. Unlike the Occupier, I won't stop trying.
And if it doesn't happen, well, what the heck - I can always rent.
Or I guess I could even live in tent in a privately owned public park in the middle of New York City.
But why would I want to?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Politically incorrect approach to picking the President.
I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why he continued to be an ardent supporter of the President, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
I again pointed out that it wasn't the role of Congress to support the President; that in fact it was part of the system of checks and balances that Congress should hold the President with some suspicion, just as the President should hold Congress with suspicion, and the American people should never forget to scrutinize the actions of both the President and Congress and do so with some suspicion. Inherently, the Founders understood there had a to be a system to stop one person or one group of people form having too much power, because power corrupts.
Eventually, because this particular supporter of the President couldn't give me something concrete on which to base his support - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told my Obama-supporting friend that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
I again pointed out that it wasn't the role of Congress to support the President; that in fact it was part of the system of checks and balances that Congress should hold the President with some suspicion, just as the President should hold Congress with suspicion, and the American people should never forget to scrutinize the actions of both the President and Congress and do so with some suspicion. Inherently, the Founders understood there had a to be a system to stop one person or one group of people form having too much power, because power corrupts.
Eventually, because this particular supporter of the President couldn't give me something concrete on which to base his support - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told my Obama-supporting friend that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Simple but radical ideas we take for granted
Interesting to listen to soon-to-be-former Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi recently.
He gave a little reminder of basic civics lesson for a Republic.
State-wide elections - including governor - were Tuesday, Nov 8, in Mississippi. Barbour, who has done the maximum two terms and so isn't running again, told a crowd in Jackson something along the lines of "I don't care who you vote for - no, that's not right. Everyone knows I'm a Republican, so I do have a preference. But what I do want is for everyone, regardless of party, to get out and vote."
Then Barbour told an interesting story about his first election as governor.
"When I won, running against the incumbent, the incumbent got 10,000 more votes than he'd gotten in the previous election when he won,'' Barbour said.
Barbour went on to say that kind of turn-out was good for him, and for Mississippi. It showed participation, and gave him as the new governor a good indication of what his mandate for office was going to be.
Essentially, what Barbour reminded me of was that numbers of votes matter. If a candidate wins by an landslide, he can be sure he has an overwhelming support for his positions and platform. He can enter office with confidence.
Likewise, if he wins by a narrow margin - and there is a large turnout of voters - the elected official knows his constituency is somewhat divided and that should help guide him going forward.
We do not live in a Democracy, where every citizen votes on every law or amendment that comes up. Such a government is unwieldy and inefficient.
We live in a Republic.
- - - - -
It's easy to forget that our government really was one founded on ideas. Nothing like it - at least in terms of scope - had ever been tried before. Parts of it, yes; and maybe smaller versions of the bigger picture.
But for most of the world's history, the power of government either belonged to those who could take it and control the people being ruled, or it belonged to those who inherited (from someone who, somewhere in the past, had demonstrated the ability to take the power and hold on).
Then came this great idea hammered out by a variety of 'thinkers' back in the late 1700s. One of their most revolutionary ideas was to turn the idea of power in government upside down with the notion that power should rest not in institutions but in individuals. No nation had ever embraced human equality and God-given individual rights as fundamental to organizing the rule of law; never had a nation recognized the sovereignty of the citizen over that of the government.
Before this, all governments' power rested either in the "divine right of kings," or else the authority that comes from brute force against the people being ruled.
But in America, the individual has always mattered above all. Power is to reside in the individual, not the government - but individuals do temporarily, and with conditions and limitations, give power to the government for the purpose of maintaining social order, the public good, and national defense.
That's just one reason why the "group think" of socialism and communism and even many in this country considered "liberal" just doesn't work. When you become concerned about "groups" of people, you lose sight of individuals.
And by looking out for the rights of 'groups,' you inevitably cripple the individual, who becomes a nameless, faceless part of that group.
For example, there is nothing wrong with saying we're going to provide a certain level of income for widows or single mothers who are having trouble taking care of their children. That's a great idea, in general.
But when you start to look at the idea in carried out individually, you see that it has had the case of causing generations to believe that's the best standard of living they can hope for; the standard they even come to depend on. And so while the bigger "group" might be build up, individual parts of that group are crippled.
How else can you explain that the number of people in this country living below what we call the poverty level has actually increased since the government declared its "War on Poverty" in the 1960s? With all the trillions spend in aid and education, shouldn't we be seeing results in terms of fewer people in poverty?
But we don't.
And I've addressed the "group vs. the individual'' concept previously, here (and the sub-link inside that link).
This is why we should always have a healthy dose of skepticism about government, while realizing the form of our government remains the best man has been able to come up with.
It just needs a return to basics.
-----------
We keep hearing this concept of "justice'' in our politicians and protesters. Even so-called conservatives buy into ideas like "economic justice."
And while I'm all for justice when it comes to dealing with individuals, this country is not and never has been about "economic justice."
This country has always been about "economic opportunity."
-------------------------------
I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
Eventually - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told him that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.
He gave a little reminder of basic civics lesson for a Republic.
State-wide elections - including governor - were Tuesday, Nov 8, in Mississippi. Barbour, who has done the maximum two terms and so isn't running again, told a crowd in Jackson something along the lines of "I don't care who you vote for - no, that's not right. Everyone knows I'm a Republican, so I do have a preference. But what I do want is for everyone, regardless of party, to get out and vote."
Then Barbour told an interesting story about his first election as governor.
"When I won, running against the incumbent, the incumbent got 10,000 more votes than he'd gotten in the previous election when he won,'' Barbour said.
Barbour went on to say that kind of turn-out was good for him, and for Mississippi. It showed participation, and gave him as the new governor a good indication of what his mandate for office was going to be.
Essentially, what Barbour reminded me of was that numbers of votes matter. If a candidate wins by an landslide, he can be sure he has an overwhelming support for his positions and platform. He can enter office with confidence.
Likewise, if he wins by a narrow margin - and there is a large turnout of voters - the elected official knows his constituency is somewhat divided and that should help guide him going forward.
We do not live in a Democracy, where every citizen votes on every law or amendment that comes up. Such a government is unwieldy and inefficient.
We live in a Republic.
- - - - -
It's easy to forget that our government really was one founded on ideas. Nothing like it - at least in terms of scope - had ever been tried before. Parts of it, yes; and maybe smaller versions of the bigger picture.
But for most of the world's history, the power of government either belonged to those who could take it and control the people being ruled, or it belonged to those who inherited (from someone who, somewhere in the past, had demonstrated the ability to take the power and hold on).
Then came this great idea hammered out by a variety of 'thinkers' back in the late 1700s. One of their most revolutionary ideas was to turn the idea of power in government upside down with the notion that power should rest not in institutions but in individuals. No nation had ever embraced human equality and God-given individual rights as fundamental to organizing the rule of law; never had a nation recognized the sovereignty of the citizen over that of the government.
Before this, all governments' power rested either in the "divine right of kings," or else the authority that comes from brute force against the people being ruled.
But in America, the individual has always mattered above all. Power is to reside in the individual, not the government - but individuals do temporarily, and with conditions and limitations, give power to the government for the purpose of maintaining social order, the public good, and national defense.
That's just one reason why the "group think" of socialism and communism and even many in this country considered "liberal" just doesn't work. When you become concerned about "groups" of people, you lose sight of individuals.
And by looking out for the rights of 'groups,' you inevitably cripple the individual, who becomes a nameless, faceless part of that group.
For example, there is nothing wrong with saying we're going to provide a certain level of income for widows or single mothers who are having trouble taking care of their children. That's a great idea, in general.
But when you start to look at the idea in carried out individually, you see that it has had the case of causing generations to believe that's the best standard of living they can hope for; the standard they even come to depend on. And so while the bigger "group" might be build up, individual parts of that group are crippled.
How else can you explain that the number of people in this country living below what we call the poverty level has actually increased since the government declared its "War on Poverty" in the 1960s? With all the trillions spend in aid and education, shouldn't we be seeing results in terms of fewer people in poverty?
But we don't.
And I've addressed the "group vs. the individual'' concept previously, here (and the sub-link inside that link).
This is why we should always have a healthy dose of skepticism about government, while realizing the form of our government remains the best man has been able to come up with.
It just needs a return to basics.
-----------
We keep hearing this concept of "justice'' in our politicians and protesters. Even so-called conservatives buy into ideas like "economic justice."
And while I'm all for justice when it comes to dealing with individuals, this country is not and never has been about "economic justice."
This country has always been about "economic opportunity."
-------------------------------
I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
Eventually - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told him that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Roll ... er, Geaux Tigers!
Watching the LSU-Alabama game Saturday night reminded me of a story.
This was back in the 1980s, when Ray Perkins was head coach at Alabama.
Perkins' had an assistant coach named George Henshaw, a really good offensive line coach and offensive coordinator. There were some injuries on the offensive line, and Alabama had one of those non-conference creampuffs the Tide used to always schedule before playing someone really good like Tennessee or LSU. So Henshaw had used that game to rest an injured starter and give a start to a young player from Huntsville.
The Tide won the game, and afterward we asked Henshaw how the new guy had played. Henshaw was complimentary, which led the sportswriter from the players' home town to ask, "So, will he start again this week?"
Henshaw drew back, like he'd been shocked.
"Oh, no,'' Henshaw said. "This week, we're playing real men!"
For all the games that have been played this college football season, clearly Saturday's 9-6 game won in overtime by LSU over Alabama was a game played between "real men."
Which leads us to the question: what now?
Clearly it was a game that lived up to everything that makes the SEC the premier conference in college football: great defense, played by men whose only reason for being in college is to prepare them for the NFL.
The two offenses aren't bad either. Neither would get confused for, say Oklahoma State. But then, Oklahoma State's offense wouldn't even look like Oklahoma State if the Cowboys had to go against an SEC defense - which, if the season unfolds as it should, will be what happens in the BCS Championship Game in January.
Here's my personal delimma. I agree, right now, that LSU and Alabama appear to be the best two teams in college football. And when you look at the current BCS standings and see that the Tide only fell from second to third after the loss, it would appear the computers and voters agree.
But I also have always believed that if you can't win your own conference, you shouldn't be playing for the national championship.
What if LSU stumbles against Arkansas?
That brings up an interesting scenario: what if LSU loses to Arkansas? Then there will be three teams with one loss, all in the same division. The tie-breaker in the SEC will go way down to the list of criteria to the one that says the team that represents the Division will be the one ranked highest in the BCS standings - unless one of the other teams is within five spots of the highest ranked team and that lower-ranked team beat the higher-ranked team.
In other words, if LSU loses to Arkansas but remains ranked ahead of the Hogs but only by, say, three spots, then Arkansas goes.
And I'll let you go on to work out all the other possibilities (which seem endless).
Anyway, as much as this Alabama ex-patriot hates to say it, I'm for LSU from here on out.
See, I grew up on the loyalty of concentric circles. That is to say, I was always for anyone in my family first; my neighborhood second; my home town third; my region fourth; followed by my state, my part of the country, my country, my hemisphere .... and so on.
So I'm not one of those people who feels like its bad for my rival to lose. I'm proud of the fact that the last two BCS Championships and the last two Heisman Trophies belong to the state of Alabama.
Just as I'm proud of the fact that the last five BCS championships belong to the SEC, and I want that to continue.
By the same token, as much as I might think a rematch would be only right, it wouldn't be.
Besides, it's so much fun to watch the SEC beat up on the best the rest of college football has to offer.
That does lead to an interesting question, however.
What if Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma, which could happen; and Stanford loses to Oregon, which could happen. Then there are a bunch of one-loss teams - including Alabama (remember, I don't count Boise or Houston; happy that they'll have undefeated seasons, but neither belongs in the BCS Championship game).
What if Oregon somehow moves back into the No. 2 spot? We've already seen LSU destroy Oregon, so no one wants to see that game again.
Actually, in that case, I'd like to see Boise get into the championship game and get destroyed by LSU, just to shut them up once and for all.
By the way, Boise State in the Big East? A Big East that is losing West Virginia (to the Big 12), Pittsburgh and Syracuse (to the ACC)?
I give Boise credit for trying to move up. I laugh the Big East that is so desperate to try to stay relevant it is willing to take a team from Idaho. Still, let's see what Boise does in the Little Big East.
Meanwhile - as much as it pains me to say it ...
Geaux Tigers.
This was back in the 1980s, when Ray Perkins was head coach at Alabama.
Perkins' had an assistant coach named George Henshaw, a really good offensive line coach and offensive coordinator. There were some injuries on the offensive line, and Alabama had one of those non-conference creampuffs the Tide used to always schedule before playing someone really good like Tennessee or LSU. So Henshaw had used that game to rest an injured starter and give a start to a young player from Huntsville.
The Tide won the game, and afterward we asked Henshaw how the new guy had played. Henshaw was complimentary, which led the sportswriter from the players' home town to ask, "So, will he start again this week?"
Henshaw drew back, like he'd been shocked.
"Oh, no,'' Henshaw said. "This week, we're playing real men!"
For all the games that have been played this college football season, clearly Saturday's 9-6 game won in overtime by LSU over Alabama was a game played between "real men."
Which leads us to the question: what now?
Clearly it was a game that lived up to everything that makes the SEC the premier conference in college football: great defense, played by men whose only reason for being in college is to prepare them for the NFL.
The two offenses aren't bad either. Neither would get confused for, say Oklahoma State. But then, Oklahoma State's offense wouldn't even look like Oklahoma State if the Cowboys had to go against an SEC defense - which, if the season unfolds as it should, will be what happens in the BCS Championship Game in January.
Here's my personal delimma. I agree, right now, that LSU and Alabama appear to be the best two teams in college football. And when you look at the current BCS standings and see that the Tide only fell from second to third after the loss, it would appear the computers and voters agree.
But I also have always believed that if you can't win your own conference, you shouldn't be playing for the national championship.
What if LSU stumbles against Arkansas?
That brings up an interesting scenario: what if LSU loses to Arkansas? Then there will be three teams with one loss, all in the same division. The tie-breaker in the SEC will go way down to the list of criteria to the one that says the team that represents the Division will be the one ranked highest in the BCS standings - unless one of the other teams is within five spots of the highest ranked team and that lower-ranked team beat the higher-ranked team.
In other words, if LSU loses to Arkansas but remains ranked ahead of the Hogs but only by, say, three spots, then Arkansas goes.
And I'll let you go on to work out all the other possibilities (which seem endless).
Anyway, as much as this Alabama ex-patriot hates to say it, I'm for LSU from here on out.
See, I grew up on the loyalty of concentric circles. That is to say, I was always for anyone in my family first; my neighborhood second; my home town third; my region fourth; followed by my state, my part of the country, my country, my hemisphere .... and so on.
So I'm not one of those people who feels like its bad for my rival to lose. I'm proud of the fact that the last two BCS Championships and the last two Heisman Trophies belong to the state of Alabama.
Just as I'm proud of the fact that the last five BCS championships belong to the SEC, and I want that to continue.
By the same token, as much as I might think a rematch would be only right, it wouldn't be.
Besides, it's so much fun to watch the SEC beat up on the best the rest of college football has to offer.
That does lead to an interesting question, however.
What if Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma, which could happen; and Stanford loses to Oregon, which could happen. Then there are a bunch of one-loss teams - including Alabama (remember, I don't count Boise or Houston; happy that they'll have undefeated seasons, but neither belongs in the BCS Championship game).
What if Oregon somehow moves back into the No. 2 spot? We've already seen LSU destroy Oregon, so no one wants to see that game again.
Actually, in that case, I'd like to see Boise get into the championship game and get destroyed by LSU, just to shut them up once and for all.
By the way, Boise State in the Big East? A Big East that is losing West Virginia (to the Big 12), Pittsburgh and Syracuse (to the ACC)?
I give Boise credit for trying to move up. I laugh the Big East that is so desperate to try to stay relevant it is willing to take a team from Idaho. Still, let's see what Boise does in the Little Big East.
Meanwhile - as much as it pains me to say it ...
Geaux Tigers.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Some folks like Jack Daniels; I like Charley - Game Day and Charley Daniels
There's a line in one of my favorite old Charley Daniel's songs that goes:
"You just go lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan and I think you're gonna finally understand. ..."
It's a patriotic song about how we Americans love to fight among ourselves, but like battlin' brothers, when an outsider tries to jump in, we put our differences aside.
I hope that continues to be true.
But the point is that nothing captures the spirit of America like Game Day.
Not necessarily the ESPN Saturday morning pre-game show, but actual Game Day.
While there are still class distinctions inside a stadium - after all, there is no denying the difference between sitting on the last row overlooking the corner of an end zone from the upper deck and the luxury box overlooking the 50-yard line - the unifying factor is fandom.
As Daniels' also sang: "'Cause we'll all stick together, and you can take that to the bank. That's the cowboys and the hippies, and the rebels and the yanks!"
You see CEOs high-fiving line workers; Republicans agreeing with Democrats; the 1 percent (whoever they are) tailgating with the 99 percent; the 'haves' mixing equally with the 'have nots.'
And it crosses all boundaries.
I have a friend who was invited on a trip to South Korea where he was treated like royalty (he was there to give golf tips to one of the most successful executives in that golf-crazy country). He returned bearing far more gifts that he would ever have imagined, and wondered if he'd have a problem getting all these gifts through customs. Landing in Hawaii, he was wearing his Alabama baseball cap with the letter "A" on it. As he and his wife got to the customs' official, the official smiled, gave my friend and his wife a cursory check, and let them through. His final words? "Roll Tide."
Another friend was on a mission trip to visit mountain villages in the Andes, in Peru. He was up there among some native Peruvians, and got into a conversation with one of the natives who'd lived for generations in relative isolation way up in the mountains. The Peruvian found out my friend was from Georgia and got excited.
"Georgia?" the Peruvian said. "How 'bout them Dawgs!"
My friend was shocked and quite honestly didn't know what to say. The Peruvian was clearly disappointed and said, "Did I saw something wrong? What does "How 'bout them Dawgs mean?"
Turns out that years before, another missionary had been to this village and told this man that if he ever met someone from Georgia to greet him with, "How 'bout them Dawgs!" And this was the first chance this man had ever had to use it.
I don't know about the salvation of this Peruvian, but certainly he understood the Gospel of Southern Football.
Everyone has their story.
The Princess Bear is studying abroad. Now, she's very much a Southern Girl (as her blog "When in Brussels: European Adventure of a Girl Raised in the South suggests) and a huge Alabama fan. She has classes over there with kids from all over America and Europe, but not always from her school (she goes to Furman). Anyway, on one of her first days there she meets a girl from Tennessee. Now back here at home, they'd obviously not get along - the Alabama-Tennessee rival is legendary. But way over in Europe? Their common ground was SEC football, and it gave them both a sense of home.
You no doubt have your story of making a connection with someone, some where, over sports.
Oh, there are Americans who don't get it, who look down their noses at sports and sports fans, who somehow feel they are above such petty diversions.
I feel sorry for them.
On no day are Americans so divided as Game Day.
On no day are Americans as unified as Game Day.
And that's America.
"You just go lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan and I think you're gonna finally understand. ..."
It's a patriotic song about how we Americans love to fight among ourselves, but like battlin' brothers, when an outsider tries to jump in, we put our differences aside.
I hope that continues to be true.
But the point is that nothing captures the spirit of America like Game Day.
Not necessarily the ESPN Saturday morning pre-game show, but actual Game Day.
While there are still class distinctions inside a stadium - after all, there is no denying the difference between sitting on the last row overlooking the corner of an end zone from the upper deck and the luxury box overlooking the 50-yard line - the unifying factor is fandom.
As Daniels' also sang: "'Cause we'll all stick together, and you can take that to the bank. That's the cowboys and the hippies, and the rebels and the yanks!"
You see CEOs high-fiving line workers; Republicans agreeing with Democrats; the 1 percent (whoever they are) tailgating with the 99 percent; the 'haves' mixing equally with the 'have nots.'
And it crosses all boundaries.
I have a friend who was invited on a trip to South Korea where he was treated like royalty (he was there to give golf tips to one of the most successful executives in that golf-crazy country). He returned bearing far more gifts that he would ever have imagined, and wondered if he'd have a problem getting all these gifts through customs. Landing in Hawaii, he was wearing his Alabama baseball cap with the letter "A" on it. As he and his wife got to the customs' official, the official smiled, gave my friend and his wife a cursory check, and let them through. His final words? "Roll Tide."
Another friend was on a mission trip to visit mountain villages in the Andes, in Peru. He was up there among some native Peruvians, and got into a conversation with one of the natives who'd lived for generations in relative isolation way up in the mountains. The Peruvian found out my friend was from Georgia and got excited.
"Georgia?" the Peruvian said. "How 'bout them Dawgs!"
My friend was shocked and quite honestly didn't know what to say. The Peruvian was clearly disappointed and said, "Did I saw something wrong? What does "How 'bout them Dawgs mean?"
Turns out that years before, another missionary had been to this village and told this man that if he ever met someone from Georgia to greet him with, "How 'bout them Dawgs!" And this was the first chance this man had ever had to use it.
I don't know about the salvation of this Peruvian, but certainly he understood the Gospel of Southern Football.
Everyone has their story.
The Princess Bear is studying abroad. Now, she's very much a Southern Girl (as her blog "When in Brussels: European Adventure of a Girl Raised in the South suggests) and a huge Alabama fan. She has classes over there with kids from all over America and Europe, but not always from her school (she goes to Furman). Anyway, on one of her first days there she meets a girl from Tennessee. Now back here at home, they'd obviously not get along - the Alabama-Tennessee rival is legendary. But way over in Europe? Their common ground was SEC football, and it gave them both a sense of home.
You no doubt have your story of making a connection with someone, some where, over sports.
Oh, there are Americans who don't get it, who look down their noses at sports and sports fans, who somehow feel they are above such petty diversions.
I feel sorry for them.
On no day are Americans so divided as Game Day.
On no day are Americans as unified as Game Day.
And that's America.
Now, let's watch a little classic Charley Daniels:
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Kustomer Kare at Krystal
I'm going to go ahead and reveal a deep dark secret.
I love the Krystal - those tiny little square burgers whose "meat" is cut thinner the average McDonald's coupon.
I grew up going to Krystal. I can remember when you could get a great breakfast a Krystal (scrambled eggs, grits, toast and juice), not to mention these killer cake donuts (plain, chocolate and vanilla icing). Once I came out of a doctors appointment in downtown Atlanta and went to a corner Krystal on Peachtree and soemthing like 16th Street (near a theatre where Alice Kooper used to play - and yes, that's "Kooper" with a "K") for a donut.
Doctors' appointments always stress me out, requiring comfort food. I sat at the corner of the counter and ordered three chocolate-covered cake donuts and a Coke. This beat-up, homeless-looking woman sat next to me and proceeded to tell me how wonderful she was sure my life was. I was 16 and not sure what her expectation of me was, so I bought three donuts for her. True charity - for me - began at Krystal!
I once won a Krystal-eating contest by downing something like 28 of those little burgers within the prescribed time line, beating the four other competitors at some long-forgotten friend's high school birthday party. I think I'd have eaten more, but they were all gone and I had the most of those empty square cartons they've always come in.
Oh, we made fun of Krystal. We laughingly called those burgers all kinds of names - "gut bombs" always seemed the most appropriate - but it didn't stop us from going on a regular basis.
What is it about a Krystal? Maybe the tiny cooked onions that permeated the beef and bread - aw, heck, let's be honest: if I was any kind of real connoisseur of food, I'd probably not be a Krystal lover. I don't know what it is that makes the little suckers so tasty, but they are.
However, I do find it amusing that for all the abuse Krystal's have taken over the years, you can now go to fancier restaurants and they serve tiny burgers they call "sliders" which are simply up-scale Krystals.
But this isn't really supposed to be about Krystals.
This is about my recent stop at a Krystal in Hattiesburg.
Just for the record, it's the one right off Highway 49, on the south side of I-59, on an access road that makes it hard to see if you don't know it's there.
I stopped in about 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon because I'd been in Jackson attending an event at which lunch was served but the lines were so long I didn't wait. Another of my sometimes unfortunate habits is that if I'm not hungry, I simply forget to eat - and then when I do get hungry, I am tempted to eat way too much.
So by the time I got hungry, I knew from past travels I was approaching the Krystal. I'd stopped there many times on my way from Birmingham to Baton Rouge or New Orleans for games and tournaments.
So here it was mid-afternoon, well after the lunch rush. In fact, they were out of sweet tea, which is key to the point of my story (if there even is one; even I'm beginning to wonder).
I went inside, placed my order with a rather bored looking girl behind the counter, and everything was normal.
But the manager was there. He greeted me when he saw me. While the girl behind the counter acted kind of bored, he jumped to fill my order. He quickly went about starting a new batch of iced tea.
Realizing it was going to take a few minutes, I said, "Hey, I'll just take a Diet Coke."
"Are you sure?" the manager said. "This will only take a few minutes."
"I know," I said. "But you can just give me a Diet Coke and I'll be on my way."
The counter girl went to get a small cup (which is what I ordered), and I heard the manager lean over and say, "Give him a large."
Now, that may not seem like a big deal. But for some reason, it really struck a chord with me.
Here was a restaurant that couldn't fill my order exactly as I wanted it, was scrambling to fill it for me in a timely manner, and when I made a change based on their not being able to fill my order, upgraded my order - so to speak - without even telling me or making a show of it.
That's called customer service.
I know increasing the size of a drink from small to large isn't that big a deal, and certainly didn't cost anyone a bunch of money. But I appreciated that the manager realized they were not able to fill my order exactly as I wanted and attempted to reward me for MY trouble.
Compare that to breakfast at the Hilton in Jackson where the wait staff was slow, got my friends' order wrong, didn't seem to care that it took too long to fill the order, and then when I went over to get a biscuit off the breakfast buffet because I was tired of waiting wanted to charge me $3.50 for one biscuit! (Although, I must admit, it was a very good biscuit.)
It's a sad state of affairs that the attitude of the manager of the Krystal in Hattiesburg screamed "we care about you and want to make you happy" while the Hilton was "why didn't you just order from the buffet to start with and save us all a lot of time and trouble."
It's nice to know that somewhere, you can still find a place that recognizes the customer doesn't have to come to your place of business and doesn't have to spend money in your establishment, so that when someone does walk in the door they want to make the customer feel like getting the order right - or making it right - matters.
Needless to say, I'll stop at that Krystal again.
But then, let's be honest.
I probably would have anyway.
Those are still the best little gut-bombs on the planet!
I love the Krystal - those tiny little square burgers whose "meat" is cut thinner the average McDonald's coupon.
I grew up going to Krystal. I can remember when you could get a great breakfast a Krystal (scrambled eggs, grits, toast and juice), not to mention these killer cake donuts (plain, chocolate and vanilla icing). Once I came out of a doctors appointment in downtown Atlanta and went to a corner Krystal on Peachtree and soemthing like 16th Street (near a theatre where Alice Kooper used to play - and yes, that's "Kooper" with a "K") for a donut.
Doctors' appointments always stress me out, requiring comfort food. I sat at the corner of the counter and ordered three chocolate-covered cake donuts and a Coke. This beat-up, homeless-looking woman sat next to me and proceeded to tell me how wonderful she was sure my life was. I was 16 and not sure what her expectation of me was, so I bought three donuts for her. True charity - for me - began at Krystal!
I once won a Krystal-eating contest by downing something like 28 of those little burgers within the prescribed time line, beating the four other competitors at some long-forgotten friend's high school birthday party. I think I'd have eaten more, but they were all gone and I had the most of those empty square cartons they've always come in.
Oh, we made fun of Krystal. We laughingly called those burgers all kinds of names - "gut bombs" always seemed the most appropriate - but it didn't stop us from going on a regular basis.
What is it about a Krystal? Maybe the tiny cooked onions that permeated the beef and bread - aw, heck, let's be honest: if I was any kind of real connoisseur of food, I'd probably not be a Krystal lover. I don't know what it is that makes the little suckers so tasty, but they are.
However, I do find it amusing that for all the abuse Krystal's have taken over the years, you can now go to fancier restaurants and they serve tiny burgers they call "sliders" which are simply up-scale Krystals.
But this isn't really supposed to be about Krystals.
This is about my recent stop at a Krystal in Hattiesburg.
Just for the record, it's the one right off Highway 49, on the south side of I-59, on an access road that makes it hard to see if you don't know it's there.
I stopped in about 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon because I'd been in Jackson attending an event at which lunch was served but the lines were so long I didn't wait. Another of my sometimes unfortunate habits is that if I'm not hungry, I simply forget to eat - and then when I do get hungry, I am tempted to eat way too much.
So by the time I got hungry, I knew from past travels I was approaching the Krystal. I'd stopped there many times on my way from Birmingham to Baton Rouge or New Orleans for games and tournaments.
So here it was mid-afternoon, well after the lunch rush. In fact, they were out of sweet tea, which is key to the point of my story (if there even is one; even I'm beginning to wonder).
I went inside, placed my order with a rather bored looking girl behind the counter, and everything was normal.
But the manager was there. He greeted me when he saw me. While the girl behind the counter acted kind of bored, he jumped to fill my order. He quickly went about starting a new batch of iced tea.
Realizing it was going to take a few minutes, I said, "Hey, I'll just take a Diet Coke."
"Are you sure?" the manager said. "This will only take a few minutes."
"I know," I said. "But you can just give me a Diet Coke and I'll be on my way."
The counter girl went to get a small cup (which is what I ordered), and I heard the manager lean over and say, "Give him a large."
Now, that may not seem like a big deal. But for some reason, it really struck a chord with me.
Here was a restaurant that couldn't fill my order exactly as I wanted it, was scrambling to fill it for me in a timely manner, and when I made a change based on their not being able to fill my order, upgraded my order - so to speak - without even telling me or making a show of it.
That's called customer service.
I know increasing the size of a drink from small to large isn't that big a deal, and certainly didn't cost anyone a bunch of money. But I appreciated that the manager realized they were not able to fill my order exactly as I wanted and attempted to reward me for MY trouble.
Compare that to breakfast at the Hilton in Jackson where the wait staff was slow, got my friends' order wrong, didn't seem to care that it took too long to fill the order, and then when I went over to get a biscuit off the breakfast buffet because I was tired of waiting wanted to charge me $3.50 for one biscuit! (Although, I must admit, it was a very good biscuit.)
It's a sad state of affairs that the attitude of the manager of the Krystal in Hattiesburg screamed "we care about you and want to make you happy" while the Hilton was "why didn't you just order from the buffet to start with and save us all a lot of time and trouble."
It's nice to know that somewhere, you can still find a place that recognizes the customer doesn't have to come to your place of business and doesn't have to spend money in your establishment, so that when someone does walk in the door they want to make the customer feel like getting the order right - or making it right - matters.
Needless to say, I'll stop at that Krystal again.
But then, let's be honest.
I probably would have anyway.
Those are still the best little gut-bombs on the planet!
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Finding Jesus on Wall Street
I don't know whether to laugh or be offended at the question posed by some CNN reporter: "Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?"
Of course, from a practical, spiritual standpoint, if you believe Jesus is indeed God incarnate, then He is already occupying Wall Street. God is omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere. I always laugh when I hear preachers or missionaries talk about "taking God to ... " where ever - deepest, darkest Africa or Pakistan or China or Hollywood. Because the truth is, as I once heard Andre Crouch say, "We brought Jesus in here with us, only to find out once we got here that He was already here!"
But of course, that's not what the question posed by CNN reporters and others really means.
The premise is, can those who are involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement find validation in their actions in Jesus?
Which is funny in that, like so many of us, CNN only seems to bring up Jesus and what He would or wouldn't do when it suits their purposes. I mean, you don't hear Anderson Cooper asking "What would Jesus do ..." about education, political scandal, environmental disaster, or in his New Year's Eve ridiculous banter with so-called "B"-lister Kathy Griffin.
Just imagine how different our news would be if Chris Mathews or Bill O'Rielly or Diane Sawyer approached every newscast with a sincere, "What would Jesus do?" approach. Even if they don't believe in Jesus, just to sincerely ask the question.
Or, for that matter, what would Mohammad do? Or Buddha?
I don't for a minute think that any of them could give a solid answer to the question, but I do think the dialogue would be healthy for all of us. After all, as founder John Adams once wrote, "religion and virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all Combinations of human society." Or, as another signer of the Declaration, Dr. Benjamin Rush, said, "the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
Of course, to have that conversation, they'd need to actually read things like the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, so they could have a basis on which to talk.
But that's the thing, particularly when most of us start to talk about Jesus - it's so much easier to just say what we "think" He would do, based on the image we have created of what He was/is like.
Of course, a God who is created in our image is not much of a god at all.
But a God who is bigger than us is frightening, because how can we even begin to understand His ways? What if He doesn't like what it is we want to do?
Let's be honest here: what if CNN asked the question, and the answer was clearly, "No, Jesus wouldn't occupy Wall Street." Do you think that would change the attitude of the news reporters toward the Occupy movement, or cause the Occupiers themselves to suddenly go, "Oh! Well ... never mind" and just slink off back home?
Even those of us who say we want to "know" Jesus approach that knowledge with some trepidation (if we're honest) because we don't change Jesus to fit our image; He changes us to fit His. And sometimes that's very uncomfortable.
Donald Miller, when he isn't waxing eloquent over sunsets and starlight and the way a Volkswagen bus rambles through the Western countryside, said of "spirituality" that "All great spirituality is subversive, including the spirituality of following Jesus. Jesus was poor because the truth is there is more to life than money, and money is only a tool. Jesus did not cower to the power of religious authority, because the religious authority was corrupt and misrepresented God. Jesus did not take a wife or even a girlfriend because there is more to life than romance and sex. Jesus did not associate his identity with a specific fashion because clothes themselves cover the truth. ..."
Basically, when we follow Jesus, Miller says (and I agree, even if I don't live it like I should), everything about our lives should become subversive because we stand against the things the world around us holds dear.
Because we humans have by nature take the good things God has given us and focus on them so strongly - like the child that is so enthralled by the birthday gift he fails to consider the giver - that we lose sight of their purpose. We focus on wealth and sex and beauty and brains and health and become obsessed with them - even with trying to make sure everyone has those things - rather than what Jesus said we should focus on, which was "glorifying God."
It's hard to glorify God when we're so caught up in glorifying humanity (which is to say ourselves).
How much of our pain is caused by worshipping those things that ultimately have no power to help us, no power to save us, no power to do much of anything but consume us?
Perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do is try to argue that God (or Jesus) is on our side. The fact is, I don't want God on my side; I want to be on God's side!
It's an interesting question, though. Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street? Would Mohammad? Would Buddha?
How would we know?
Here's one idea: read the book.
You want to know if Jesus would Occupy Wall Street?
Read the Bible and find out for yourself.
Of course, from a practical, spiritual standpoint, if you believe Jesus is indeed God incarnate, then He is already occupying Wall Street. God is omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere. I always laugh when I hear preachers or missionaries talk about "taking God to ... " where ever - deepest, darkest Africa or Pakistan or China or Hollywood. Because the truth is, as I once heard Andre Crouch say, "We brought Jesus in here with us, only to find out once we got here that He was already here!"
But of course, that's not what the question posed by CNN reporters and others really means.
The premise is, can those who are involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement find validation in their actions in Jesus?
Which is funny in that, like so many of us, CNN only seems to bring up Jesus and what He would or wouldn't do when it suits their purposes. I mean, you don't hear Anderson Cooper asking "What would Jesus do ..." about education, political scandal, environmental disaster, or in his New Year's Eve ridiculous banter with so-called "B"-lister Kathy Griffin.
Just imagine how different our news would be if Chris Mathews or Bill O'Rielly or Diane Sawyer approached every newscast with a sincere, "What would Jesus do?" approach. Even if they don't believe in Jesus, just to sincerely ask the question.
Or, for that matter, what would Mohammad do? Or Buddha?
I don't for a minute think that any of them could give a solid answer to the question, but I do think the dialogue would be healthy for all of us. After all, as founder John Adams once wrote, "religion and virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all Combinations of human society." Or, as another signer of the Declaration, Dr. Benjamin Rush, said, "the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
Of course, to have that conversation, they'd need to actually read things like the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, so they could have a basis on which to talk.
But that's the thing, particularly when most of us start to talk about Jesus - it's so much easier to just say what we "think" He would do, based on the image we have created of what He was/is like.
Of course, a God who is created in our image is not much of a god at all.
But a God who is bigger than us is frightening, because how can we even begin to understand His ways? What if He doesn't like what it is we want to do?
Let's be honest here: what if CNN asked the question, and the answer was clearly, "No, Jesus wouldn't occupy Wall Street." Do you think that would change the attitude of the news reporters toward the Occupy movement, or cause the Occupiers themselves to suddenly go, "Oh! Well ... never mind" and just slink off back home?
Even those of us who say we want to "know" Jesus approach that knowledge with some trepidation (if we're honest) because we don't change Jesus to fit our image; He changes us to fit His. And sometimes that's very uncomfortable.
Donald Miller, when he isn't waxing eloquent over sunsets and starlight and the way a Volkswagen bus rambles through the Western countryside, said of "spirituality" that "All great spirituality is subversive, including the spirituality of following Jesus. Jesus was poor because the truth is there is more to life than money, and money is only a tool. Jesus did not cower to the power of religious authority, because the religious authority was corrupt and misrepresented God. Jesus did not take a wife or even a girlfriend because there is more to life than romance and sex. Jesus did not associate his identity with a specific fashion because clothes themselves cover the truth. ..."
Basically, when we follow Jesus, Miller says (and I agree, even if I don't live it like I should), everything about our lives should become subversive because we stand against the things the world around us holds dear.
Because we humans have by nature take the good things God has given us and focus on them so strongly - like the child that is so enthralled by the birthday gift he fails to consider the giver - that we lose sight of their purpose. We focus on wealth and sex and beauty and brains and health and become obsessed with them - even with trying to make sure everyone has those things - rather than what Jesus said we should focus on, which was "glorifying God."
It's hard to glorify God when we're so caught up in glorifying humanity (which is to say ourselves).
How much of our pain is caused by worshipping those things that ultimately have no power to help us, no power to save us, no power to do much of anything but consume us?
Perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do is try to argue that God (or Jesus) is on our side. The fact is, I don't want God on my side; I want to be on God's side!
It's an interesting question, though. Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street? Would Mohammad? Would Buddha?
How would we know?
Here's one idea: read the book.
You want to know if Jesus would Occupy Wall Street?
Read the Bible and find out for yourself.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why I still love the BCS
Every year - and remember, I was a Harris Interactive Poll voter from its inception until I left the business two football seasons ago, a Heisman Trophy voter and an AP voter before that - about midway through the college football season there will be something like 10 undefeated teams, and some sportswriter (or sportswriters) go into a panic.
"There's going to be 10 undefeated teams this year!" they'll write. "This is why we need a college football playoff!"
Now, we're down to eight. Of those eight, Alabama and LSU will play each other in two weeks; Oklahoma State and Kansas State play each other that same weekend. That will eliminate two of the eight.
Of those six, Houston doesn't matter. Hate to say it, Cougars - I love ya, I really do. But the league doesn't carry any cache, and neither does the program. So good luck to you, hope you go undefeated, and we'll see you in the Sugar or Orange or Fiesta, but not the BSC Championship Game.
Of those five, Boise State shouldn't matter. The only difference between Houston and Boise State is that Boise State plays an even worse schedule that Houston, but Boise State has built up personal cache because they beat Oklahoma in a major bowl game that only mattered to Boise.
Stanford still has to play Oregon. Clemson seems to have a very good chance of going undefeated (personally, I hope the Tigers do) but still has South Carolina at the end of the year.
All I'm saying is that, as usually happens, by the end of the year we'll probably be down to only two undefeated teams that matter, and those teams will play for the BCS title.
And once again, the BCS will work.
Even as I write that, understand I'd like to see a four team playoff. We've already got the format, with the BCS championship game played a week after the "big four" of the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose bowls.
Here is what I like about college football: every game counts.
Every game in the regular season is like a playoff game. You lose just once, and you know you're in trouble. Lose twice, and except for the rare occasion, and you're pretty much out of it.
I know playoffs are exciting. And I know that professional sports realize it makes good business to expand playoffs. As a fan, I love the 'second chance' of wild card teams as much as anybody.
But let's be honest - no matter what you say, it does make the regular season less important.
If you know you can lose, if you know you can finish in second or even third place, and still get into a playoff, then winning a division or league title doesn't matter nearly as much.
I point to the NCAA mens' basketball tournament. Coaches who are honest will tell you that winning the conference title doesn't matter nearly as much as playing your way into being one of the 65 - or more - teams in the NCAA Tournament. Heck, the truth is, virtually every conference has a post-season tournament, with the automatic bid going to the winner.
So coaches know everything that happens between November and March is only to get ready for post-season play. Shoot, you could go 0-25 (or however many regular season games your team plays) but if you get hot at the right time you could then win, say, four games in the conference tournament and six in the NCAA Tournament - 10 straight games - and be crowned national champion.
That's why I love college football the way it is. I love that every game matters.
And its hard to look back over the last 19 years of college football actually trying to manufacture a "real" championship game (Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series), and say it hasn't worked. Oh, there have been teams that got left out of the championship game that probably belonged (Auburn, 2004), but it's pretty hard to argue with the teams that have wound up winning the crystal trophy.
I don't care that Boise State and Houston get left out. We all know year in and year out, the best teams play in the best conferences. If anything, I wish they'd just create that often-discussed but never acted on "Division 4," made up of the top programs that actually make money.
By the way- this idea proposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, about conferences being allowed to vote to give scholarship athletes an extra $2,000 on top of their scholarship for spending money?
Who do you think can afford that? Only the top conferences, the SECs and Big Tens and so forth.
So where will the best athletes go? Same place they always have - where the money is.
The same place the National Championship Trophy always winds up.
"There's going to be 10 undefeated teams this year!" they'll write. "This is why we need a college football playoff!"
Now, we're down to eight. Of those eight, Alabama and LSU will play each other in two weeks; Oklahoma State and Kansas State play each other that same weekend. That will eliminate two of the eight.
Of those six, Houston doesn't matter. Hate to say it, Cougars - I love ya, I really do. But the league doesn't carry any cache, and neither does the program. So good luck to you, hope you go undefeated, and we'll see you in the Sugar or Orange or Fiesta, but not the BSC Championship Game.
Of those five, Boise State shouldn't matter. The only difference between Houston and Boise State is that Boise State plays an even worse schedule that Houston, but Boise State has built up personal cache because they beat Oklahoma in a major bowl game that only mattered to Boise.
Stanford still has to play Oregon. Clemson seems to have a very good chance of going undefeated (personally, I hope the Tigers do) but still has South Carolina at the end of the year.
All I'm saying is that, as usually happens, by the end of the year we'll probably be down to only two undefeated teams that matter, and those teams will play for the BCS title.
And once again, the BCS will work.
Even as I write that, understand I'd like to see a four team playoff. We've already got the format, with the BCS championship game played a week after the "big four" of the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose bowls.
Here is what I like about college football: every game counts.
Every game in the regular season is like a playoff game. You lose just once, and you know you're in trouble. Lose twice, and except for the rare occasion, and you're pretty much out of it.
I know playoffs are exciting. And I know that professional sports realize it makes good business to expand playoffs. As a fan, I love the 'second chance' of wild card teams as much as anybody.
But let's be honest - no matter what you say, it does make the regular season less important.
If you know you can lose, if you know you can finish in second or even third place, and still get into a playoff, then winning a division or league title doesn't matter nearly as much.
I point to the NCAA mens' basketball tournament. Coaches who are honest will tell you that winning the conference title doesn't matter nearly as much as playing your way into being one of the 65 - or more - teams in the NCAA Tournament. Heck, the truth is, virtually every conference has a post-season tournament, with the automatic bid going to the winner.
So coaches know everything that happens between November and March is only to get ready for post-season play. Shoot, you could go 0-25 (or however many regular season games your team plays) but if you get hot at the right time you could then win, say, four games in the conference tournament and six in the NCAA Tournament - 10 straight games - and be crowned national champion.
That's why I love college football the way it is. I love that every game matters.
And its hard to look back over the last 19 years of college football actually trying to manufacture a "real" championship game (Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series), and say it hasn't worked. Oh, there have been teams that got left out of the championship game that probably belonged (Auburn, 2004), but it's pretty hard to argue with the teams that have wound up winning the crystal trophy.
I don't care that Boise State and Houston get left out. We all know year in and year out, the best teams play in the best conferences. If anything, I wish they'd just create that often-discussed but never acted on "Division 4," made up of the top programs that actually make money.
By the way- this idea proposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, about conferences being allowed to vote to give scholarship athletes an extra $2,000 on top of their scholarship for spending money?
Who do you think can afford that? Only the top conferences, the SECs and Big Tens and so forth.
So where will the best athletes go? Same place they always have - where the money is.
The same place the National Championship Trophy always winds up.
Monday, October 24, 2011
A Do-Nothing Government
Right up front, let me apologize if you thought, from the title of this missive, that I was going to attack the current government as a "do-nothing government;" nothing could be further from the truth.
This current government, like so many before it, is far from "do-nothing."
Very far, I'm afraid.
I know this will offend the people who are concerned about the poor and feel the government should be doing more to help them; the people who believe the political system is corrupt and the government should do something to fix it; and the people who believe the economy is a mess and the government should do something to straighten it out.
But quite honestly, at this point, I think the best thing that could happen is that the president and congress stay deadlocked, unable to get anything done.
See, I have this great faith that, eventually, people will fined the best solutions.
I've seen it over and over. Go back to the horrible tornadoes that ripped apart much of north Alabama last spring. Go through north Alabama now and you'll find the people who are still waiting for help are those who are waiting for the government and FEMA, while the areas where things are getting done - where houses are being rebuilt and lives put back together -are areas where organizations like Christian Service Mission (just to name one of many) organized churches and volunteers and regular people from all over the country and provided the means to get started successfully rebuilding lives and communities.
Visit the gulf coast of Mississippi, ground zero for Hurricane Katrina. While New Orleans - which wasn't devastated by the actual hurricane but by a levee that broke because government hadn't taken care of it - still complains about people not moving back and government not keeping its promises to rebuild the communities, in places like Pass Christian and Bay St. Louis and Long Beach ordinary people organized by civic groups and churches came in to clean up and start the rebuilding process. Every day it seems like a new road is being finished and a new business being opened. As Biloxi mayor A.J. Holloway said, "This is going to be the year of ribbon-cuttings."
In 2008, a flood in destroyed huge parts of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. FEMA predicted that 40 percent of the city would be never recover. But Cedar Rapids is back on its feet today because citizens stepped up when needed and united to save property, rebuild, restore, and get the community back on its feet.
After World War II, the poverty rate in America consistently fell, until in 1969 it was at the lowest point in almost a century at 12.1 percent. But in 1965 then-President Lyndon Johnson instituted the well-meaning War on Poverty, and despite spending more on this war than in all the wars from the Revolution to the year 2000 (roughly $16 trillion), the poverty rate has not been affected.
I read a story the other day that was written to point out the unfairness of the state of Alabama's tough anti-illegal immigration law. In it, the owner of Max's Deli in Birmingham spoke out, saying that out of fear of reprisal even his legal immigrant workers had quit. But then the story goes on to say "To replace his legal workers, who he says feel compelled to leave because of the law, (deli owner Steve) Dubrinsky said he offered one job to a woman who wouldn't take the work because she would lose her food stamps. He also said he offered a job to another person who worked two hours before quitting. 'It's easier said than done,' he said of finding new workers."
Did you get that? A unemployed woman wouldn't take the job because she would lose her government benefits! With the government providing so many free benefits, many people simply choose not to work.
And can you blame them?
Maybe you remember reading about activists in Pennsylvania who believed government should provide the poor with free cell phones. And then there is this story where Connecticut's U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro wants government to provide free diapers.
Talk about your "nanny state" - this, to me, robs people of their dignity; the dignity that comes from being able to take care of yourself and your family.
Yes, I know the argument is that these people are not in a position to take care of their families if they wanted to.
But we've seen that all the good intentions of the government to take care of people over the last 60 years has only taken care of government employees, because it creates processes that create government jobs that enrich those people who get government jobs but only continues the cycle of poverty for those who find being taken care of by the government is easier than actually taking jobs (like working in Max's Deli) that could lead to self-sufficiency, dignity, and the beginning of the end of the poverty cycle.
That's why I'd like to see a "do nothing" government.
It would hurt for awhile. But eventually, I'm convinced, good people would step up and do what they should have been doing all along, what they used to do in the 1700s and 1800s during the times of the First and Second Great Awakenings when charitable organizations sprang to life all over the country to care for the poor.
We could learn from our forefathers. From 1818 to 1824, New York's "Society for the Prevention of Pauperism" annually printed its top causes of poverty. The first three causes were ignorance, idleness, and intemperance; then came "want of economy," imprudent and hasty marriages, and lotteries; then three specific institutions: pawnbrokers, brothels, and gambling houses.
And as hard as it would be to preach those nine issues now, even in the early 1800s the 10th reason for poverty might surprise you: "charities that gave away money too freely." (Taken from "The First Annual Report of the Managers of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the City of New York, pp 12-22).
Even then, too easy subsidy of people's lives was seen as destructive, both morally and materially.
Somewhere, I read the story about a former advisor to one-time presidential candidate Michael Dukakis who said he did not give money to beggars because "I pay taxes for social workers to determine who is truly needy."
As long as government says it will solve the problem, citizens won't have to.
That's why if government would just stop, I believe even more good people would join in, and then we'd really see something good start to happen.
This current government, like so many before it, is far from "do-nothing."
Very far, I'm afraid.
I know this will offend the people who are concerned about the poor and feel the government should be doing more to help them; the people who believe the political system is corrupt and the government should do something to fix it; and the people who believe the economy is a mess and the government should do something to straighten it out.
But quite honestly, at this point, I think the best thing that could happen is that the president and congress stay deadlocked, unable to get anything done.
See, I have this great faith that, eventually, people will fined the best solutions.
I've seen it over and over. Go back to the horrible tornadoes that ripped apart much of north Alabama last spring. Go through north Alabama now and you'll find the people who are still waiting for help are those who are waiting for the government and FEMA, while the areas where things are getting done - where houses are being rebuilt and lives put back together -are areas where organizations like Christian Service Mission (just to name one of many) organized churches and volunteers and regular people from all over the country and provided the means to get started successfully rebuilding lives and communities.
Visit the gulf coast of Mississippi, ground zero for Hurricane Katrina. While New Orleans - which wasn't devastated by the actual hurricane but by a levee that broke because government hadn't taken care of it - still complains about people not moving back and government not keeping its promises to rebuild the communities, in places like Pass Christian and Bay St. Louis and Long Beach ordinary people organized by civic groups and churches came in to clean up and start the rebuilding process. Every day it seems like a new road is being finished and a new business being opened. As Biloxi mayor A.J. Holloway said, "This is going to be the year of ribbon-cuttings."
In 2008, a flood in destroyed huge parts of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. FEMA predicted that 40 percent of the city would be never recover. But Cedar Rapids is back on its feet today because citizens stepped up when needed and united to save property, rebuild, restore, and get the community back on its feet.
After World War II, the poverty rate in America consistently fell, until in 1969 it was at the lowest point in almost a century at 12.1 percent. But in 1965 then-President Lyndon Johnson instituted the well-meaning War on Poverty, and despite spending more on this war than in all the wars from the Revolution to the year 2000 (roughly $16 trillion), the poverty rate has not been affected.
I read a story the other day that was written to point out the unfairness of the state of Alabama's tough anti-illegal immigration law. In it, the owner of Max's Deli in Birmingham spoke out, saying that out of fear of reprisal even his legal immigrant workers had quit. But then the story goes on to say "To replace his legal workers, who he says feel compelled to leave because of the law, (deli owner Steve) Dubrinsky said he offered one job to a woman who wouldn't take the work because she would lose her food stamps. He also said he offered a job to another person who worked two hours before quitting. 'It's easier said than done,' he said of finding new workers."
Did you get that? A unemployed woman wouldn't take the job because she would lose her government benefits! With the government providing so many free benefits, many people simply choose not to work.
And can you blame them?
Maybe you remember reading about activists in Pennsylvania who believed government should provide the poor with free cell phones. And then there is this story where Connecticut's U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro wants government to provide free diapers.
Talk about your "nanny state" - this, to me, robs people of their dignity; the dignity that comes from being able to take care of yourself and your family.
Yes, I know the argument is that these people are not in a position to take care of their families if they wanted to.
But we've seen that all the good intentions of the government to take care of people over the last 60 years has only taken care of government employees, because it creates processes that create government jobs that enrich those people who get government jobs but only continues the cycle of poverty for those who find being taken care of by the government is easier than actually taking jobs (like working in Max's Deli) that could lead to self-sufficiency, dignity, and the beginning of the end of the poverty cycle.
That's why I'd like to see a "do nothing" government.
It would hurt for awhile. But eventually, I'm convinced, good people would step up and do what they should have been doing all along, what they used to do in the 1700s and 1800s during the times of the First and Second Great Awakenings when charitable organizations sprang to life all over the country to care for the poor.
We could learn from our forefathers. From 1818 to 1824, New York's "Society for the Prevention of Pauperism" annually printed its top causes of poverty. The first three causes were ignorance, idleness, and intemperance; then came "want of economy," imprudent and hasty marriages, and lotteries; then three specific institutions: pawnbrokers, brothels, and gambling houses.
And as hard as it would be to preach those nine issues now, even in the early 1800s the 10th reason for poverty might surprise you: "charities that gave away money too freely." (Taken from "The First Annual Report of the Managers of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the City of New York, pp 12-22).
Even then, too easy subsidy of people's lives was seen as destructive, both morally and materially.
Somewhere, I read the story about a former advisor to one-time presidential candidate Michael Dukakis who said he did not give money to beggars because "I pay taxes for social workers to determine who is truly needy."
As long as government says it will solve the problem, citizens won't have to.
That's why if government would just stop, I believe even more good people would join in, and then we'd really see something good start to happen.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Random thought
As I watched the parade at The Citadel last week, I couldn't help but think of this quote from George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." And this isn't a statement on war or peace, but rather the feeling the most men (if not most people) get when they see such a parade ....
"The men who were well enough to stand had moved across the carriage to cheer the Italians as they went past. A crutch waved out of the window; bandaged forearms made the Red Salute. It was like an allegorical picture of war; the trainload of fresh men gliding proudly up the line, the maimed men sliding slowly down, and all the while the guns on the open trucks making one's heart leap as guns always do, and reviving that pernicious feeling, so difficult to get rid of, that war is glorious after all.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
"The men who were well enough to stand had moved across the carriage to cheer the Italians as they went past. A crutch waved out of the window; bandaged forearms made the Red Salute. It was like an allegorical picture of war; the trainload of fresh men gliding proudly up the line, the maimed men sliding slowly down, and all the while the guns on the open trucks making one's heart leap as guns always do, and reviving that pernicious feeling, so difficult to get rid of, that war is glorious after all.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why stop at Wall Street? Let's Occupy art, baseball, football ....
The voice on the other end of the phone shouldn't have surprised me, but it always does.
Gadsden Jevic was back.
Gadsden is one of my oldest, and closest friends. Over the years, we grow apart, but somehow he always manages to find me and it doesn't take long before we're like twin sons from different mothers again.
Anyway, Gadsden had been off doing what Gadsden always seems to do, which is find himself in the middle of something. In this case, it was the Occupy Wall Street protests, although I'm not sure he ever actually made it to Wall Street. He might have been in Atlanta, or more likely Greensboro.
But as always, he came back having gone off the deep end - again.
And I mean, waaay off the deep end.
Gadsden came back preaching about the evils of corporate America. For example:
- CEO's should, by law, not be allowed to make more than 20 times that of the lowest paid employee of the company. For example, if your lowest employee makes $40,000 a year, the CEO can't make any more than $800,000 a year. And if the CEO wants to make more, the company has to raise the salary of the lowest-paid employee first.
-- Banks should, by law, not be allowed to have any more than a set amount of assets that is appropriately in proportion to the smallest clients. Gadsden hadn't thought this one out as well as he had the first one; or maybe he just didn't explain it to me well enough for me to remember.
But then .... then .... THEN ...
"We shouldn't stop at Wall Street,'' Gadsden said. "It should apply to every day situations. No one person is better than another. Everyone's talents and gifts should be recognized as having equal value."
Which means? Again, in Jevic's words:
"You go into the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, and see all these paintings considered 'masterpieces,''' he said. "I think they should be side-by-side with some of those from those 'starving artists' you see who sell their stuff from a rented ballroom at a Days Inn. Or with the pictures from elementary school kids who could be inspired by seeing their art hanging in a famous museum. Imagine the sense of self-worth that would give them!"
It didn't end there.
"Let's take baseball,'' my buddy went on. "What's considered an excellent batting average? .300. But this year, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera hit .344. The Mets' Jose Reyes hit .337. I think baseball should make a rule that every hit a guy gets that puts his average one point over .300 should be credited to someone who isn't hitting anywhere close to .300. What would Delmon Young have given for another couple dozen hits that might have gotten him closer to .300? A new contract, better able to take care of his family, improved sense of self-worth.
"Or football. You love college football. We know once a team wins seven games it's guaranteed a winning season and a bowl game. That's all that should matter. So take LSU or Alabama or Oklahoma- every win above their seventh should be credited to Ole Miss or Kentucky or Kansas. That way those coaches don't lose their jobs, those players feel good for giving good effort. The Alabamas and Oklahomas can continue to play hard and win games, but those wins are credited to the needy and less fortunate!"
As bizarre as Gadsden began to sound, I could see his thinking as the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street nobody-is-better-than-anybody else mentality.
Here's the thing: I knew Gadsden didn't go to hang out at one of those "Occupy ...'' movements because he believed in it. He saw it has a great place to pick up girls. That's one of the great traditions of protests: the girls are always passionate about the 'movement,' while guys realize passionate girls are emotionally vulnerable and ... well, at least that's what I've heard.
Have you listened to the way these protesters communicate? Repeating everything the 'leader' says? The first time I heard it (at the rejection of Civil Rights legend John Lewis at the Occupy Atlanta movement - see it here ) I couldn't help but think of that scene from Monty Python's “Life of Brian” where Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts to the crowd, “You are all individuals!” And the crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”
It's ridiculous, of course, like George Orwell's Animal Farm come to life.
"We have a process!" Gadsden said he chanted, along with the protesters.
Unfortunately, of course, no one knew what that process was.
Except the leaders. Of which, technically, there should be none because that would lead to the same mess the protesters were protesting.
Gadsden Jevic was back.
Gadsden is one of my oldest, and closest friends. Over the years, we grow apart, but somehow he always manages to find me and it doesn't take long before we're like twin sons from different mothers again.
Anyway, Gadsden had been off doing what Gadsden always seems to do, which is find himself in the middle of something. In this case, it was the Occupy Wall Street protests, although I'm not sure he ever actually made it to Wall Street. He might have been in Atlanta, or more likely Greensboro.
But as always, he came back having gone off the deep end - again.
And I mean, waaay off the deep end.
Gadsden came back preaching about the evils of corporate America. For example:
- CEO's should, by law, not be allowed to make more than 20 times that of the lowest paid employee of the company. For example, if your lowest employee makes $40,000 a year, the CEO can't make any more than $800,000 a year. And if the CEO wants to make more, the company has to raise the salary of the lowest-paid employee first.
-- Banks should, by law, not be allowed to have any more than a set amount of assets that is appropriately in proportion to the smallest clients. Gadsden hadn't thought this one out as well as he had the first one; or maybe he just didn't explain it to me well enough for me to remember.
But then .... then .... THEN ...
"We shouldn't stop at Wall Street,'' Gadsden said. "It should apply to every day situations. No one person is better than another. Everyone's talents and gifts should be recognized as having equal value."
Which means? Again, in Jevic's words:
"You go into the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, and see all these paintings considered 'masterpieces,''' he said. "I think they should be side-by-side with some of those from those 'starving artists' you see who sell their stuff from a rented ballroom at a Days Inn. Or with the pictures from elementary school kids who could be inspired by seeing their art hanging in a famous museum. Imagine the sense of self-worth that would give them!"
It didn't end there.
"Let's take baseball,'' my buddy went on. "What's considered an excellent batting average? .300. But this year, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera hit .344. The Mets' Jose Reyes hit .337. I think baseball should make a rule that every hit a guy gets that puts his average one point over .300 should be credited to someone who isn't hitting anywhere close to .300. What would Delmon Young have given for another couple dozen hits that might have gotten him closer to .300? A new contract, better able to take care of his family, improved sense of self-worth.
"Or football. You love college football. We know once a team wins seven games it's guaranteed a winning season and a bowl game. That's all that should matter. So take LSU or Alabama or Oklahoma- every win above their seventh should be credited to Ole Miss or Kentucky or Kansas. That way those coaches don't lose their jobs, those players feel good for giving good effort. The Alabamas and Oklahomas can continue to play hard and win games, but those wins are credited to the needy and less fortunate!"
As bizarre as Gadsden began to sound, I could see his thinking as the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street nobody-is-better-than-anybody else mentality.
Here's the thing: I knew Gadsden didn't go to hang out at one of those "Occupy ...'' movements because he believed in it. He saw it has a great place to pick up girls. That's one of the great traditions of protests: the girls are always passionate about the 'movement,' while guys realize passionate girls are emotionally vulnerable and ... well, at least that's what I've heard.
Have you listened to the way these protesters communicate? Repeating everything the 'leader' says? The first time I heard it (at the rejection of Civil Rights legend John Lewis at the Occupy Atlanta movement - see it here ) I couldn't help but think of that scene from Monty Python's “Life of Brian” where Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts to the crowd, “You are all individuals!” And the crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”
It's ridiculous, of course, like George Orwell's Animal Farm come to life.
"We have a process!" Gadsden said he chanted, along with the protesters.
Unfortunately, of course, no one knew what that process was.
Except the leaders. Of which, technically, there should be none because that would lead to the same mess the protesters were protesting.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The lesson from Stephen Garcia's father
Today's Father of the Day has to be Gary Garcia, father of now-former South Carolina quarterback Stephen Garcia.
The younger Garcia, who was a fifth-year starting quarterback for the Gamecocks, was kicked off the team this week. He'd had a very volatile relationship with both Gamecocks' fans and the South Carolina head coach Steve Spurrier, a man who has always been notoriously hard on quarterbacks (possibly because none of his ever seemed to be as good as he was and he couldn't figure out why).
Garcia had a troubled career at South Carolina, both on the field (where he could be brilliant one game and abysmal the next, never quite able to settle into either role) and off (where he'd been suspended for a variety of issues, including allegedly failing drug tests).
Garcia was finally benched after yet another horrible performance in an SEC game (completing just nine of 23 passes with two interceptions in a come-from-ahead loss to Auburn). The story is that, after being benched for Connor Shaw, he apparently failed a drug test.
However, Garcia texted a reporter who follows the team to say he was "shocked and completely flabbergasted to be honest” by his ouster.
Most people would have said they expected it, that he'd been given more than enough chances as it was, and were ready to turn their backs on Garcia - although, let's be honest: fans turned on Garcia more for his frustrating interceptions and inconsistent play than anything he may or may not have done off the field.
Garcia's father?
First, what would you do in this case if it were your son? What would your public response be?
I've seen Little League dads blow up when their son was pulled from a game, much less the father of a starting quarterback in the SEC.
Yet Gary Garcia said of his son: “He kind of made his own bed, and this is the culmination of some of those earlier mistakes. ... This has got to be the worst two weeks of his life, but it’s not going to be the worst two weeks in his life going forward, I can tell you that. You deal with trials and tribulations, and you learn from it. Hopefully, he continues to learn and grow. We’ll let the dust settle for a couple of weeks and then look at what his options are.”
Here, to me, is the key phrase: "it's not going to be the worst two weeks of his life going forward, I can tell you that."
For most of us, losing the position of starting quarterback on the college team would seem like the worst thing that could happen.
And yet the father recognized this was only a game, that his son had a long life ahead of him, and the father hoped the son would recognize the consequences for his action and learn from them.
As much as some of us think college football is the be-all, end-all of life, the truth is, there has to be more for these kids. Having spent half my life around college football, I do know kids who made their years as a college football player the high point of their lives, and everything after was either looking back, or trying to keep those days alive by capitalizing on whatever fame they'd been able to cling to from that experience.
Garcia's father knew - and certainly hoped - that Stephen's life would go on and Stephen would have a chance to accomplish so much more. And he, Gary Garcia, hoped that Stephen wouldn't become one of those people whose reaction to stress or disappointment was to hurry off to find a bottle of Jack or a dime bag of pot to dull the pain.
Lord knows there are enough "adults'' out there who do.
It won't be easy for Stephen. Chances are very good that he will never be the center of attention that he has been for the last few years, that nothing he ever does again will garner the kind of public adoration - and truthfully, even the scorn simply reflected the adoration - he has had.
Once you've had that, it's easy to feel like you're not measuring up when later successes are done in the relative obscurity within which most of us live.
The lesson I pray my kids learn is that they do not measure their own worth or measure their success by the attention they receive or the reaction of the people around them.
I pray they learn it, because Lord knows their old man struggles - and he wasn't even a starting quarterback in the SEC.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Are cheap dates really a sign of progress?
I just read it in the New York Post: the price of sex has dropped to record lows! (see cheap dates).
It says (and I quote): "Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists."
Tell me that doesn't get your attention!
Now, I hate to quote myself (yeah, sure), but this fits in exactly with something I wrote back on March 11: Inflationary Sex.
In an effort to simply save time, I'll give you the highlights of that blog:
Sex is everywhere. And it's very appealing.
And we tend to think sex is happening everywhere except, perhaps, where we are. Certainly it seems to be happening a lot more than it used to.
And maybe it is.
But a lot of things happen more than they used to. I remember when I was a kid, it was a big deal to be a millionaire. Back then, it meant something. Now, there are so many millionaires that, quite honestly, it's not as big a deal as it once was. Oh, don't get me wrong; it's still nice. I wish I was one. But being a millionaire isn't quite what it used to be.
Maybe that's because so many more people have so much money, causing money to have lost some of its value.
And you know that's true. Call it inflation. Or the devaluing of the dollar.
Economies are based on the exchange rate of the dollar, and we like to keep the value of the dollar high. But there are disagreements over how to do that: do we save it, or do we need to spend it? Yet deep down we recognize that the more dollars that are out there in the market, changing hands, the less value the dollar has, even though some people say that's the best thing for the economy.
Do you see where I'm going?
Sex is like the dollar. (In fact, there are places where you can exchange dollars for sex, but that's another story).
Back in the old days, sex didn't seem to be quite so easy, so it maintained a certain value. Oh, we talked about it, and dreamed about it, and lied about it - just like we did when it came to how much money we made - but because getting it was so elusive, it really meant something.
Which is the way God meant it to be.
Think about all those books and movies and TV shows that picture people "hooking up,'' seeking and having sex with as many people as there are episodes in a season, making sex seem about as special as finding a penny on the sidewalk.
For all that activity, in the end what almost every one of those people want is a meaningful relationship with someone. They want something special with someone special that is shared only with the two of them (and I know you can find exceptions to this idea, but even those exceptions I'd argue are people who somewhere along the way lost the ability to have a real relationship with another person; we can argue about this one later, if you'd like).
What it means is that - to borrow a phrase - we have to learn the value of the dollar.
It's not easy, because so many people think they understand the value of the dollar. They'll do anything for a buck, while at the same time throwing money away on things they believe to be "necessities'' that really aren't; things our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents never even dreamed of and got along quite fine without.
Try getting someone to "save" today, when most of us live paycheck to paycheck, or even start our lives in debt, hoping we'll get caught up someday, down the road. Economists tell us that people in America just aren't saving the way we used to, and that's a major concern for the future of the economy.
And so the dollar is cheapened and loses its value. We can see what that has done to the country.
The same thing happens when relationships between people are cheapened, and sex is traded like a commodity.
If we saved money and treated it carefully and with respect, how much better would our economy be?
If we saved sex and treated it carefully - just decided today that we'd be monogamous for the rest of our lives - think of all the trouble, not to mention disease, that would end within a generation or two. We'd be so much healthier.
This is honestly why I worry far more about the purity of my sons than my daughter. I don't know how a young woman thinks, but I know all too well how a young boy thinks, and its the exact same way young boys have thought probably since Adam first saw Eve in her birthday suit and said, "Whoa! Man!"
(Later shortened to "woman").
I know, the feminists would say it's just women behaving just like men have for thousands of years.
To which I say, yeah -- and you call that progress?
Need more? Check this out: Why do so many young women drink themselves to oblivion
It says (and I quote): "Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists."
Tell me that doesn't get your attention!
Now, I hate to quote myself (yeah, sure), but this fits in exactly with something I wrote back on March 11: Inflationary Sex.
In an effort to simply save time, I'll give you the highlights of that blog:
Sex is everywhere. And it's very appealing.
And we tend to think sex is happening everywhere except, perhaps, where we are. Certainly it seems to be happening a lot more than it used to.
And maybe it is.
But a lot of things happen more than they used to. I remember when I was a kid, it was a big deal to be a millionaire. Back then, it meant something. Now, there are so many millionaires that, quite honestly, it's not as big a deal as it once was. Oh, don't get me wrong; it's still nice. I wish I was one. But being a millionaire isn't quite what it used to be.
Maybe that's because so many more people have so much money, causing money to have lost some of its value.
And you know that's true. Call it inflation. Or the devaluing of the dollar.
Economies are based on the exchange rate of the dollar, and we like to keep the value of the dollar high. But there are disagreements over how to do that: do we save it, or do we need to spend it? Yet deep down we recognize that the more dollars that are out there in the market, changing hands, the less value the dollar has, even though some people say that's the best thing for the economy.
Do you see where I'm going?
Sex is like the dollar. (In fact, there are places where you can exchange dollars for sex, but that's another story).
Back in the old days, sex didn't seem to be quite so easy, so it maintained a certain value. Oh, we talked about it, and dreamed about it, and lied about it - just like we did when it came to how much money we made - but because getting it was so elusive, it really meant something.
Which is the way God meant it to be.
Think about all those books and movies and TV shows that picture people "hooking up,'' seeking and having sex with as many people as there are episodes in a season, making sex seem about as special as finding a penny on the sidewalk.
For all that activity, in the end what almost every one of those people want is a meaningful relationship with someone. They want something special with someone special that is shared only with the two of them (and I know you can find exceptions to this idea, but even those exceptions I'd argue are people who somewhere along the way lost the ability to have a real relationship with another person; we can argue about this one later, if you'd like).
What it means is that - to borrow a phrase - we have to learn the value of the dollar.
It's not easy, because so many people think they understand the value of the dollar. They'll do anything for a buck, while at the same time throwing money away on things they believe to be "necessities'' that really aren't; things our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents never even dreamed of and got along quite fine without.
Try getting someone to "save" today, when most of us live paycheck to paycheck, or even start our lives in debt, hoping we'll get caught up someday, down the road. Economists tell us that people in America just aren't saving the way we used to, and that's a major concern for the future of the economy.
And so the dollar is cheapened and loses its value. We can see what that has done to the country.
The same thing happens when relationships between people are cheapened, and sex is traded like a commodity.
If we saved money and treated it carefully and with respect, how much better would our economy be?
If we saved sex and treated it carefully - just decided today that we'd be monogamous for the rest of our lives - think of all the trouble, not to mention disease, that would end within a generation or two. We'd be so much healthier.
This is honestly why I worry far more about the purity of my sons than my daughter. I don't know how a young woman thinks, but I know all too well how a young boy thinks, and its the exact same way young boys have thought probably since Adam first saw Eve in her birthday suit and said, "Whoa! Man!"
(Later shortened to "woman").
I know, the feminists would say it's just women behaving just like men have for thousands of years.
To which I say, yeah -- and you call that progress?
Need more? Check this out: Why do so many young women drink themselves to oblivion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)