Growing up down the road from South Bend, I had always held out the desire to go to a Notre Dame football game someday. According to most people who seemed to know, that's one of the toughest tickets in the country, so I had never really made an effort to get any. Many years ago, we had some friends who were ND alums who had season tickets and told us they would let us have a couple if they ever couldn't make it to a game themselves. But that never happened - they never missed a game, at least up until the point when we moved away and lost touch.
So this year, sort of out of the blue, Nick scores some tickets from being in the right place at the right time with the right friends. And he arranged them for Tim and me, so we all got to experience the event together.
And that's the main point of the game vs. Syracuse at ND stadium this weekend. It wasn't just a football game; it was an event. I'm still in awe, and now understand a little bit more about the tradition and pageantry and mystique that are Notre Dame Football.
I've been to lots of football games. Indy Colts, Indiana, Ball State, Clemson, South Carolina, Ashland, Rose-Hulman. None measured up, from the standpoint of the overall experience, to this weekend at Notre Dame.
And I'm not really talking about the game itself. Sure, ND dominated Syracuse on the field. What put me in awe was the atmosphere, the crowd, the band, the stadium, the lights - everything was on a grand scale and exceeded just about anything I've seen before.
In South Carolina, where I obtained my Master's degree, they love their Gamecocks. I had season tickets to USC football while we lived in Columbia, and up to that point would have to say there were no other venues I had been to that were more impressive. Carolina sold out their 70 thousand plus stadium for every home game, the weather was on the whole much warmer there for football games, and Tim and I even got to sort of participate in the filming of a movie.
And the RCA Dome is a nice venue to see the Colts, even though it's about to be replaced with a whole new, more modern stadium. But pro football just isn't the same. The fans are different, there aren't any student sections, no band, no fight song or alma mater, there's just no comparison.
The whole experience was greatly enjoyed and appreciated by all three of us. Even the hike I led Nick on when trying to find the parking lot after the game wasn't enough to dampen the experience. I think I can feel my legs again today, now that I've had a chance to recover from that adventure. It involved going the wrong way in trying to find the parking lot and walking around the perimeter of the Notre Dame Campus for some untold number of miles before returning to the stadium to hop a shuttle bus for the parking lot, which was what we should have done in the first place.
Anyway, here's hoping we get another chance to return. At least I've got enough experience from the first time to use toward an even better one next time.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Smoking Rules
The Columbus City Council passed an ordinance banning smoking in all public buildings, giving exceptions to bars and private clubs. This has resulted in a group of extremely angry smokers, led by local restaurant owner Debbie Kramer, who are determined to defy the new ordinance.
I've found myself on the fence on this issue, because both sides make some sense in their arguments. But both sides also stretch the truth sometimes in their attempts to influence people to support their point of view.
I'm old enough to easily remember the bad old days when nearly everyone smoked. My father smoked, just about every adult I knew smoked, and plenty of teens smoked as well. The smoke bothered me quite a bit as a child, and those who study such things would say that my life-long allergy and asthma problems are most likely attributable to having a smoker in the house.
The basis for the new ordinance is the same as the reasons given for the statewide smoking ban in California and the many major cities who have followed suit. Secondhand smoke has been proven, at least according to "experts", to have detrimental effects similar to those that have long been known to impact smokers themselves. People who work in offices or serve in restaurants have the right to be protected from having to inhale secondhand smoke 8 hours per day, every day of their working lives.
I agree with banning smoking in offices. Back in South Carolina with the trucking company, I served on the committee that created the non-smoking policies adopted by management. Before the company banned smoking in the offices, the cubicle area in which I worked was constantly enveloped in the blue-gray haze of cigarette smoke. Walking through the cubicle maze on a typical day, it appeared as if a heavy fog had settled indoors. My sinuses seemed to never clear, I had a cough that never quite went away, my throat was always dry and scratchy, and my clothes reeked of cigarette smoke. I was often struck by the denial most smokers maintained that their smoking had any negative impact on those around them; for example, a typical smoker seems to believe that as long as they don't blow their smoke right in your face, you can't be bothered by it.
When my company went smoke-free, I was amazed at the immediate difference. Fresh air made me feel better, my coughing stopped, the scratchy throat and sinusitis went away. I didn't realize how much the smoke was impacting me until I got to experience clean air.
That didn't end the controversy, though. Going smoke-free inside the offices created a new problem. Smokers spent way too much time outdoors getting their nicotine fixes, and work wasn't getting done. Non-smokers resented the smokers, who they felt were getting away with frequent and extended breaks not available to the rest of the employees. As it was a trucking company, hardest hit were the dispatch departments. Dispatchers are expected to spend their entire shift on the phone, assigning shipments, working out directions with drivers, taking orders from customers. Suddenly they were missing calls, missing shipments, missing customer calls, because they were outside burning cigarettes for a significant part of their shift.
These days I am even more sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm in a restaurant and someone nearby lights up, I find myself irritated by their intrusion on my enjoyment of a meal. Sometimes at a sporting event someone will light up nearby and I'll send murderous thoughts his way, because his smoke is irritating me and others around him.
There are some restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections that present no problem at all for a non-smoker. The sections are partitioned from each other and ventilated such that those of us in the non-smoking section don't have to see or smell anything unpleasant from the smokers' side. But there are many restaurants that don't have a good separation between the smoking and non-smoking areas. Especially those fast-food places that still allow smoking which designate a portion of their dining room for smokers, so you could find youself sitting in the non-smoking section but next to a table in the smoking section.
Since there aren't that many places left with the open dining rooms like I described above, those that remain have become hangouts for smokers. These restaurants now cater to the smoking customer, who can't find many places these days to have a cigarette with their meal. Likewise, such establishments are generally avoided by non-smokers.
So it seems reasonable to say, why not just let things continue as they are? Who is it hurting to have mostly non-smoking restaurants, with a few other restaurants catering to smokers?
According to the City Council, the answer is because the harm is to the non-smoking server (or "waitress", if you're not PC). The young waitress who is a non-smoker probably has a family to support and works in the restaurant that caters to a large smoking clientele certainly is being exposed to unhealthy conditions and is at risk for those diseases linked to prolonged exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.
You could make a case that says these waitresses don't have to work there. Why not just get a job at a non-smoking restaurant? That might be a legitimate question, I don't know. Then again, maybe the smoking restaurant is the only place she could find a job, and she has decided to take the risk simply because she needs to work. Again, I don't know anyone in that situation firsthand, so I can't judge.
At first I thought, go ahead and ban smoking in all public buildings but exempt the bars and clubs. Because bars are places people go for the express purpose of pickling their livers and polluting their lungs, and private clubs aren't really private once the government starts poking thier nose into what they can and can't do in their own place.
But now I tend to think, if you're going to require an indoor smoking ban in all public places, why should anyone be exempted? Like Debbie Kramer rightly says, she may lose all her smoking customers to the bars, because they aren't subject to the ban. On a side note, it's long been a mystery to me how we can enact strict laws against drunk driving, yet see on any given night plenty of folks driving to and from their favorite bars.
Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to eat at any restaurant I choose without having to worry about having my meal ruined by some chain smoker a few feet away. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an ordinance was needed, because over time more and more restaurants have been voluntarily going smoke-free because that's what their customers demand. It seems to be an issue that the free market is gradually addressing without any help from the government.
As for Debbie Kramer, I wish her luck, but I believe that as long as she serves great food in a pleasant atmosphere with fast and friendly servers, she doesn't have to worry about losing customers. In fact, I suspect she might see an increase in the non-smoking clientele who might otherwise have missed her culinary offerings served in the clean air of her now smoke-free restaurant.
I've found myself on the fence on this issue, because both sides make some sense in their arguments. But both sides also stretch the truth sometimes in their attempts to influence people to support their point of view.
I'm old enough to easily remember the bad old days when nearly everyone smoked. My father smoked, just about every adult I knew smoked, and plenty of teens smoked as well. The smoke bothered me quite a bit as a child, and those who study such things would say that my life-long allergy and asthma problems are most likely attributable to having a smoker in the house.
The basis for the new ordinance is the same as the reasons given for the statewide smoking ban in California and the many major cities who have followed suit. Secondhand smoke has been proven, at least according to "experts", to have detrimental effects similar to those that have long been known to impact smokers themselves. People who work in offices or serve in restaurants have the right to be protected from having to inhale secondhand smoke 8 hours per day, every day of their working lives.
I agree with banning smoking in offices. Back in South Carolina with the trucking company, I served on the committee that created the non-smoking policies adopted by management. Before the company banned smoking in the offices, the cubicle area in which I worked was constantly enveloped in the blue-gray haze of cigarette smoke. Walking through the cubicle maze on a typical day, it appeared as if a heavy fog had settled indoors. My sinuses seemed to never clear, I had a cough that never quite went away, my throat was always dry and scratchy, and my clothes reeked of cigarette smoke. I was often struck by the denial most smokers maintained that their smoking had any negative impact on those around them; for example, a typical smoker seems to believe that as long as they don't blow their smoke right in your face, you can't be bothered by it.
When my company went smoke-free, I was amazed at the immediate difference. Fresh air made me feel better, my coughing stopped, the scratchy throat and sinusitis went away. I didn't realize how much the smoke was impacting me until I got to experience clean air.
That didn't end the controversy, though. Going smoke-free inside the offices created a new problem. Smokers spent way too much time outdoors getting their nicotine fixes, and work wasn't getting done. Non-smokers resented the smokers, who they felt were getting away with frequent and extended breaks not available to the rest of the employees. As it was a trucking company, hardest hit were the dispatch departments. Dispatchers are expected to spend their entire shift on the phone, assigning shipments, working out directions with drivers, taking orders from customers. Suddenly they were missing calls, missing shipments, missing customer calls, because they were outside burning cigarettes for a significant part of their shift.
These days I am even more sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm in a restaurant and someone nearby lights up, I find myself irritated by their intrusion on my enjoyment of a meal. Sometimes at a sporting event someone will light up nearby and I'll send murderous thoughts his way, because his smoke is irritating me and others around him.
There are some restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections that present no problem at all for a non-smoker. The sections are partitioned from each other and ventilated such that those of us in the non-smoking section don't have to see or smell anything unpleasant from the smokers' side. But there are many restaurants that don't have a good separation between the smoking and non-smoking areas. Especially those fast-food places that still allow smoking which designate a portion of their dining room for smokers, so you could find youself sitting in the non-smoking section but next to a table in the smoking section.
Since there aren't that many places left with the open dining rooms like I described above, those that remain have become hangouts for smokers. These restaurants now cater to the smoking customer, who can't find many places these days to have a cigarette with their meal. Likewise, such establishments are generally avoided by non-smokers.
So it seems reasonable to say, why not just let things continue as they are? Who is it hurting to have mostly non-smoking restaurants, with a few other restaurants catering to smokers?
According to the City Council, the answer is because the harm is to the non-smoking server (or "waitress", if you're not PC). The young waitress who is a non-smoker probably has a family to support and works in the restaurant that caters to a large smoking clientele certainly is being exposed to unhealthy conditions and is at risk for those diseases linked to prolonged exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.
You could make a case that says these waitresses don't have to work there. Why not just get a job at a non-smoking restaurant? That might be a legitimate question, I don't know. Then again, maybe the smoking restaurant is the only place she could find a job, and she has decided to take the risk simply because she needs to work. Again, I don't know anyone in that situation firsthand, so I can't judge.
At first I thought, go ahead and ban smoking in all public buildings but exempt the bars and clubs. Because bars are places people go for the express purpose of pickling their livers and polluting their lungs, and private clubs aren't really private once the government starts poking thier nose into what they can and can't do in their own place.
But now I tend to think, if you're going to require an indoor smoking ban in all public places, why should anyone be exempted? Like Debbie Kramer rightly says, she may lose all her smoking customers to the bars, because they aren't subject to the ban. On a side note, it's long been a mystery to me how we can enact strict laws against drunk driving, yet see on any given night plenty of folks driving to and from their favorite bars.
Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to eat at any restaurant I choose without having to worry about having my meal ruined by some chain smoker a few feet away. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an ordinance was needed, because over time more and more restaurants have been voluntarily going smoke-free because that's what their customers demand. It seems to be an issue that the free market is gradually addressing without any help from the government.
As for Debbie Kramer, I wish her luck, but I believe that as long as she serves great food in a pleasant atmosphere with fast and friendly servers, she doesn't have to worry about losing customers. In fact, I suspect she might see an increase in the non-smoking clientele who might otherwise have missed her culinary offerings served in the clean air of her now smoke-free restaurant.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Blissful Ignorance
It's getting to the point where I sort of wish I could join the rest of the world in their ignorance. Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" got it right. There's something to be said for having nothing more to worry about than the petty fight you're having with your significant other, what's for dinner tonight, or what you plan to wear tomorrow.
But the problem as I see it is all this shallow-minded ignorance is already leading us to our own destruction.
I don't care what political stripe you've chosen, the more important question is whether you really try to find out the truth or do you just fall for the hype?
All worked up about the so-called debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution? News flash - there are so many more serious problems in education than that! Whichever way you fall on that meaningless little debate doesn't amount to beans if you don't understand that our school systems milk taxpayers and property owners dry, only to spew out stupid, ignorant and illiterate kids that cost us even more taxes in social services to try to clean up the mess. Intelligent Design? It's a distraction simply being used by both sides to drive a wedge between "conservatives" and "liberals" and obscure what's really wrong in education.
You a Bush-hater or Bush-lover? News flash #2 - He's worthy of neither your love or your hate! He's a politician, not God, not Satan. Get a clue about the real issues out there, and when he's right, support him, and when he's wrong, be able to articulate to him and your congressional representative why he's wrong and what the policy should be instead. I say he's right on Iraq, taxes, and ANWR, and wrong on illegal immigration, trade policy, spending, healthcare and education. And I can back up those positions with actual facts - can you do the same?
Do you think other countries might be more enlightened, better places to live? Ever been to those countries? Ever had the chance to find out specifically how living standards here compare to those of your favorite foreign countries? I suggest you find out these things for yourself before making such judgements.
What do you think about religion and its place in our society? Do you believe in morality, or does even the mention of the word make you angry? Let me make another suggestion: If you think the "Religious Right" is evil and wants to turn America into some sort of theocratic Taliban-like regime, have a talk with an evangelical Christian. If you're a committed Christian who fears that persecution of the Church in America is already underway, find that same counterpart with the opposite attitude and talk with them. I believe you will both learn from each other, if you're willing to go into the discussion with an open mind.
I've become weary of the daily rants from TV, Radio, even the Net from people who are either ignorant of facts or so blinded by their political ideology that they are incapable of even separating truth from spin, let alone using facts to make an informed and independent decision about some issue or other.
Do you know the true, factual stories behind Katrina, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Iraq, DeLay, Global Warming & Kyoto, ANWR, Al Quaeda, Prisoner Abuse? I'm guessing for most the answer would be no. Or more dangerous would be those who think they know, but actually don't because they only listen to "their side", where the story's most likely been spun and distorted beyond any semblance of reality.
Let me make one more suggestion for anyone who might stumble upon this rant. Set up an experiment over the next week. Choose one or two issues that are being discussed heavily in the media these days, put aside your predisposed opinions, and go learn everything you can about it (or them). Read articles from a variety of sources in a critical manner that analyzes whether the article is dealing in fact or was written expressly to influence you with author's point of view on the subject. Watch the coverage of the issue on the network news and then on Fox news. Listen to or read blogs and website articles from both the right and left to see what each has to say about the issue.
Then sit down and figure out what you learned from the process. Which news outlet did the best job of presenting all the facts and balanced opinions from both sides? Which did the worst job? Which pundits and commentators made the most logical and reasoned arguments for their side of the controversy, and which almost completely ignored the issue and instead personally attacked high profile leaders supporting the opposite side?
It's what I did, and it set me free. But it also made me angry and frustrated as I realized that on any given issue, the vast majority of the public falls in line like sheep to whatever they are told to think by the spinmeisters they have chosen to trust. And that is why we are already losing sanity and may soon lose our way of life.
But the problem as I see it is all this shallow-minded ignorance is already leading us to our own destruction.
I don't care what political stripe you've chosen, the more important question is whether you really try to find out the truth or do you just fall for the hype?
All worked up about the so-called debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution? News flash - there are so many more serious problems in education than that! Whichever way you fall on that meaningless little debate doesn't amount to beans if you don't understand that our school systems milk taxpayers and property owners dry, only to spew out stupid, ignorant and illiterate kids that cost us even more taxes in social services to try to clean up the mess. Intelligent Design? It's a distraction simply being used by both sides to drive a wedge between "conservatives" and "liberals" and obscure what's really wrong in education.
You a Bush-hater or Bush-lover? News flash #2 - He's worthy of neither your love or your hate! He's a politician, not God, not Satan. Get a clue about the real issues out there, and when he's right, support him, and when he's wrong, be able to articulate to him and your congressional representative why he's wrong and what the policy should be instead. I say he's right on Iraq, taxes, and ANWR, and wrong on illegal immigration, trade policy, spending, healthcare and education. And I can back up those positions with actual facts - can you do the same?
Do you think other countries might be more enlightened, better places to live? Ever been to those countries? Ever had the chance to find out specifically how living standards here compare to those of your favorite foreign countries? I suggest you find out these things for yourself before making such judgements.
What do you think about religion and its place in our society? Do you believe in morality, or does even the mention of the word make you angry? Let me make another suggestion: If you think the "Religious Right" is evil and wants to turn America into some sort of theocratic Taliban-like regime, have a talk with an evangelical Christian. If you're a committed Christian who fears that persecution of the Church in America is already underway, find that same counterpart with the opposite attitude and talk with them. I believe you will both learn from each other, if you're willing to go into the discussion with an open mind.
I've become weary of the daily rants from TV, Radio, even the Net from people who are either ignorant of facts or so blinded by their political ideology that they are incapable of even separating truth from spin, let alone using facts to make an informed and independent decision about some issue or other.
Do you know the true, factual stories behind Katrina, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Iraq, DeLay, Global Warming & Kyoto, ANWR, Al Quaeda, Prisoner Abuse? I'm guessing for most the answer would be no. Or more dangerous would be those who think they know, but actually don't because they only listen to "their side", where the story's most likely been spun and distorted beyond any semblance of reality.
Let me make one more suggestion for anyone who might stumble upon this rant. Set up an experiment over the next week. Choose one or two issues that are being discussed heavily in the media these days, put aside your predisposed opinions, and go learn everything you can about it (or them). Read articles from a variety of sources in a critical manner that analyzes whether the article is dealing in fact or was written expressly to influence you with author's point of view on the subject. Watch the coverage of the issue on the network news and then on Fox news. Listen to or read blogs and website articles from both the right and left to see what each has to say about the issue.
Then sit down and figure out what you learned from the process. Which news outlet did the best job of presenting all the facts and balanced opinions from both sides? Which did the worst job? Which pundits and commentators made the most logical and reasoned arguments for their side of the controversy, and which almost completely ignored the issue and instead personally attacked high profile leaders supporting the opposite side?
It's what I did, and it set me free. But it also made me angry and frustrated as I realized that on any given issue, the vast majority of the public falls in line like sheep to whatever they are told to think by the spinmeisters they have chosen to trust. And that is why we are already losing sanity and may soon lose our way of life.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Character Flaw
Time to face facts. I have a major character flaw.
The flaw is hiding from conflict. I hate conflict and avoid it at all costs. If I see the storm brewing I run away when I should stand and fight. When important problems desperately need to be solved, I procrastinate and hope they will disappear on their own.
There are conversations I should be having. Firm statements of my position I should be making. Probing and direct questions I should be asking. Ultimatums I should be declaring.
But I won't. Maybe because I've tried before and failed miserably. Maybe because of my tendency to freeze and forget everything I know about the English language when I'm under stress. Maybe because I really don't want to find out the true answers to my questions.
I've always admired people who are direct but somehow never mean. There have been a small number of people I've met in my life who radiate self-confidence and as such seem to be able to address any issue in a calm and reasonable fashion without procrastination and without giving offense. I wonder if that's a skill I could learn, or if there's anyone who would or could teach me.
In the meantime I just keep kicking myself over cowardly ignoring the elephant in the room, unable to even point and say, "Umm, excuse me, but does anybody else see that elephant over there?"
The flaw is hiding from conflict. I hate conflict and avoid it at all costs. If I see the storm brewing I run away when I should stand and fight. When important problems desperately need to be solved, I procrastinate and hope they will disappear on their own.
There are conversations I should be having. Firm statements of my position I should be making. Probing and direct questions I should be asking. Ultimatums I should be declaring.
But I won't. Maybe because I've tried before and failed miserably. Maybe because of my tendency to freeze and forget everything I know about the English language when I'm under stress. Maybe because I really don't want to find out the true answers to my questions.
I've always admired people who are direct but somehow never mean. There have been a small number of people I've met in my life who radiate self-confidence and as such seem to be able to address any issue in a calm and reasonable fashion without procrastination and without giving offense. I wonder if that's a skill I could learn, or if there's anyone who would or could teach me.
In the meantime I just keep kicking myself over cowardly ignoring the elephant in the room, unable to even point and say, "Umm, excuse me, but does anybody else see that elephant over there?"
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The Final Football Post (for now)
This is the last of the football posts, if for no other reason than to finish what I started.
Since there's only one NFL team in Indiana, I'll extend the radius slightly to include immediate neighbors Cincinnati and Chicago. No, I won't go beyond to the Rams, Lions, and Browns, because they are further away, don't interest me much, and are pitiful teams anyway.
Fans of "Da Bears" are loving their return to their roots this season. A healthy Urlacher is leading a mean and bruising defense in keeping scores low and occasionally helping the offense with forced turnovers and defensive touchdowns. The running game is back, with Purdue rookie Kyle Orton just asked to protect the ball and hand it off to guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson.
It looks like the 2005 version of the old-time Bears, reminding us of Butkus and Plank, the Fridge and Danimal on defense. Maybe there's no Gale Sayers or Walter Payton on offense, but that ball-control running game does harken back to the traditional Bears.
Fortunately for the Bears, they get to play in probably the weakest division in the NFL. A division championship should more than satisfy their fans this year, because that's about all they will accomplish. They just aren't good enough to make it any further this year. But all the same, it is nice to see "Da Bears" back on the rise again.
Cincinnati has been getting better every year since the brought in Marvin Lewis. He's steadily brought the team from a perennial joke (they used to be called the "Ben-Gals") to a dangerous factor in the AFC. Suddenly they have a quality quarterback who's getting better with experience in Palmer, a pretty good offensive line, and some very good brash young receivers.
They're picked by many as the team most likely to hand the Colts their first loss of this season. There's no question it's going to be a game everybody will want to see, coming up in less than 2 weeks.
But let's get to the man event - the Colts. They are 8-0, just off a Monday night pasting of New England. That finally got them over their psychological barrier, having been unable to beat the Pats in Foxboro.
They look unbeatable, having finally pieced together a solid defense to go with their unstoppable offense. Teams early this season tried to stop Peyton and the offense by focusing on shutting down the passing game. The Colts responded by handing the ball to Edgerrin, who's the top running back in the NFL so far this season.
So teams started trying to stop the run. That was OK with Peyton too, he just tosses the ball to Marvin and Reggie over the top for more touchdowns.
The main question opponents of the Colts have to answer so far is, do we want to lose quickly or slowly? Line up to stop the pass and the Colts will run over you, knock you silly, and use up the clock so your offense can't get on the field. Load up on the line of scrimmage to stop the run and Peyton will run up the score on you with the pass. Neither choice seems right.
Meanwhile, the two best defensive ends in the NFL, Freeney and Mathis, will spend most of their time in your offensive backfield harassing your quarterback. You can complete passes to your wide receivers because the Colts' corners are vulnerable, but that's only if you can set up to throw before Freeney or Mathis knock you to the turf.
As impressive as the Colts are so far, they can be beaten. It will take a very good team with a talented and strong defense and an excellent balanced offense, but it can be done.
To beat the Colts, your offense must use a ball-control offense that exploits the weaknesses of the Colts' defense. Draws and screens can be effective, but you can't over-use them like the Patriots did on Monday night. Freeney especially tends to overrun the quarterback on the pass rush, and you can toss a quick screen to his side or hand off for the draw.
The passing game can also beat the Colts, as long as you can protect the quarterback long enough to get the throw out to a receiver. Quick throws on slant routes work, as do sideline routes. If you've got a mobile quarterback like Vick, you can use sprint-outs to buy time or pick up first downs with a good running quarterback.
Defensively, you have to stop the "stretch" play to Edgerrin. Watch films and practice recognizing and stopping Edgerrin before he makes it outside. Jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage to throw off their timing - New England's stragegy the past few years of jamming the receivers should still work, but be careful; if you miss jamming Marvin or Reggie at the line of scrimmage, they will most certainly end up with a wide-open touchdown catch.
The Colts are really fun to watch, and it would be a huge disappointment if they didn't make it to the Super Bowl this year. Is it possible that they could match the Dolphins' undefeated season? Yes. Is it likely? No.
This season is one for just enjoying while it lasts. It makes for a nice distraction from the drudgery of everyday life. That's why I like football.
Since there's only one NFL team in Indiana, I'll extend the radius slightly to include immediate neighbors Cincinnati and Chicago. No, I won't go beyond to the Rams, Lions, and Browns, because they are further away, don't interest me much, and are pitiful teams anyway.
Fans of "Da Bears" are loving their return to their roots this season. A healthy Urlacher is leading a mean and bruising defense in keeping scores low and occasionally helping the offense with forced turnovers and defensive touchdowns. The running game is back, with Purdue rookie Kyle Orton just asked to protect the ball and hand it off to guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson.
It looks like the 2005 version of the old-time Bears, reminding us of Butkus and Plank, the Fridge and Danimal on defense. Maybe there's no Gale Sayers or Walter Payton on offense, but that ball-control running game does harken back to the traditional Bears.
Fortunately for the Bears, they get to play in probably the weakest division in the NFL. A division championship should more than satisfy their fans this year, because that's about all they will accomplish. They just aren't good enough to make it any further this year. But all the same, it is nice to see "Da Bears" back on the rise again.
Cincinnati has been getting better every year since the brought in Marvin Lewis. He's steadily brought the team from a perennial joke (they used to be called the "Ben-Gals") to a dangerous factor in the AFC. Suddenly they have a quality quarterback who's getting better with experience in Palmer, a pretty good offensive line, and some very good brash young receivers.
They're picked by many as the team most likely to hand the Colts their first loss of this season. There's no question it's going to be a game everybody will want to see, coming up in less than 2 weeks.
But let's get to the man event - the Colts. They are 8-0, just off a Monday night pasting of New England. That finally got them over their psychological barrier, having been unable to beat the Pats in Foxboro.
They look unbeatable, having finally pieced together a solid defense to go with their unstoppable offense. Teams early this season tried to stop Peyton and the offense by focusing on shutting down the passing game. The Colts responded by handing the ball to Edgerrin, who's the top running back in the NFL so far this season.
So teams started trying to stop the run. That was OK with Peyton too, he just tosses the ball to Marvin and Reggie over the top for more touchdowns.
The main question opponents of the Colts have to answer so far is, do we want to lose quickly or slowly? Line up to stop the pass and the Colts will run over you, knock you silly, and use up the clock so your offense can't get on the field. Load up on the line of scrimmage to stop the run and Peyton will run up the score on you with the pass. Neither choice seems right.
Meanwhile, the two best defensive ends in the NFL, Freeney and Mathis, will spend most of their time in your offensive backfield harassing your quarterback. You can complete passes to your wide receivers because the Colts' corners are vulnerable, but that's only if you can set up to throw before Freeney or Mathis knock you to the turf.
As impressive as the Colts are so far, they can be beaten. It will take a very good team with a talented and strong defense and an excellent balanced offense, but it can be done.
To beat the Colts, your offense must use a ball-control offense that exploits the weaknesses of the Colts' defense. Draws and screens can be effective, but you can't over-use them like the Patriots did on Monday night. Freeney especially tends to overrun the quarterback on the pass rush, and you can toss a quick screen to his side or hand off for the draw.
The passing game can also beat the Colts, as long as you can protect the quarterback long enough to get the throw out to a receiver. Quick throws on slant routes work, as do sideline routes. If you've got a mobile quarterback like Vick, you can use sprint-outs to buy time or pick up first downs with a good running quarterback.
Defensively, you have to stop the "stretch" play to Edgerrin. Watch films and practice recognizing and stopping Edgerrin before he makes it outside. Jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage to throw off their timing - New England's stragegy the past few years of jamming the receivers should still work, but be careful; if you miss jamming Marvin or Reggie at the line of scrimmage, they will most certainly end up with a wide-open touchdown catch.
The Colts are really fun to watch, and it would be a huge disappointment if they didn't make it to the Super Bowl this year. Is it possible that they could match the Dolphins' undefeated season? Yes. Is it likely? No.
This season is one for just enjoying while it lasts. It makes for a nice distraction from the drudgery of everyday life. That's why I like football.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
College Football
The season for Indiana colleges will be over soon, and most likely only one will be playing after Thanksgiving.
How about Notre Dame? The turnaround from the last couple of years is pretty amazing. For the best illustration, just look at the USC game. Last year, basically the same ND team couldn't even stay on the field with USC. This year USC is even better and ND not only stayed on the field with them, but had them beaten until that game-ending miracle TD that allowed USC to steal the game.
Even though Charlie Weis seems to have worked miracles this season with the same guys Ty couldn't turn into winners, I do think it seems a little early to give him that juicy 10-year contract. Rumors were that the NFL was calling, and ND didn't want to lose him. Nice deal for Charlie, I suppose.
It would be hard to bet against Notre Dame for the national championship next year. They're already back in the top 10, and probably are capable of beating any team in the country this year. What the need to put them over the top next year is the same thing the Colts needed to get them (hopefully) to the Super Bowl this year: Defense.
While the USC game was awesome, the outcome has to be hung on the defense. The failure of the defense to stop USC in their last possession was an embarrassing gaffe. If Weis can upgrade the defense by next year, they will be good enough to win it all.
Specifically, ND needs better linebackers and better corner coverage. A standout defensive end couldn't hurt.
For other Indiana teams, what in the world happened to Purdue? They turned around in the opposite direction as dramatically as Notre Dame did in the positive. All of a sudden they can't stop anybody on defense and their offense is inconsistent.
The only thing I sort of take issue with coach Tiller on is his shuffling at quarterback. I think he pulled Kirsch a little too quickly, and it seemed to hurt their ability to establish consistency. But it doesn't matter all that much in the big picture, because that picture is of a defense that doesn't measure up to Division I standards.
I'm guessing that coach Tiller's going to find a way to turn things around soon.
Poor Indiana. They almost seemed exciting when they began their season with 3 wins in a row. But looking at the teams they played, I knew better than to get too excited. Then the Big Ten part of the season started and the Hoosiers came back to reality.
The Hoosiers have two bright spots. Their quarterback and primary receiver, Blake Powers and James Hardy, are a couple of very promising guys. But they can't overcome a weak running game and receiving corps that drop more balls than they catch.
But even if the offense is clicking, Indiana shares the defensive woes of their rivals in Lafayette. Perhaps even worse than Purdue. When I watched Indiana last weekend in their loss at home to Minnesota, I saw them trying to play defense with a group of boys against Minnesota's men. The middle linebacker, Killian, is really a safety. They have a decent defensive end in Adayanju, but he's not enough to rescue what essentially is an undersized team that might be competitive in Division III.
I feel for new coach Hoeppner. He has a very steep hill to climb if he ever wants to bring IU back to respectability. I like his positive attitude and goal-oriented approach, though. He is still hanging onto his goal of making it to a bowl game this year, even though it's all but impossible. He's got to recruit better athletes, get a solid strength and conditioning program installed, and coach the team to reduce the errors they've been making on the field all season. Hopefully Indiana will give him a few years to build the program - maybe he'll have a chance for success.
Ball State is a below average team that hasn't had a good season in several years. Butler is embarrassing, but at least had the sense to fire their head coach.
At least here in Indiana we have the Irish to cheer for in January.
How about Notre Dame? The turnaround from the last couple of years is pretty amazing. For the best illustration, just look at the USC game. Last year, basically the same ND team couldn't even stay on the field with USC. This year USC is even better and ND not only stayed on the field with them, but had them beaten until that game-ending miracle TD that allowed USC to steal the game.
Even though Charlie Weis seems to have worked miracles this season with the same guys Ty couldn't turn into winners, I do think it seems a little early to give him that juicy 10-year contract. Rumors were that the NFL was calling, and ND didn't want to lose him. Nice deal for Charlie, I suppose.
It would be hard to bet against Notre Dame for the national championship next year. They're already back in the top 10, and probably are capable of beating any team in the country this year. What the need to put them over the top next year is the same thing the Colts needed to get them (hopefully) to the Super Bowl this year: Defense.
While the USC game was awesome, the outcome has to be hung on the defense. The failure of the defense to stop USC in their last possession was an embarrassing gaffe. If Weis can upgrade the defense by next year, they will be good enough to win it all.
Specifically, ND needs better linebackers and better corner coverage. A standout defensive end couldn't hurt.
For other Indiana teams, what in the world happened to Purdue? They turned around in the opposite direction as dramatically as Notre Dame did in the positive. All of a sudden they can't stop anybody on defense and their offense is inconsistent.
The only thing I sort of take issue with coach Tiller on is his shuffling at quarterback. I think he pulled Kirsch a little too quickly, and it seemed to hurt their ability to establish consistency. But it doesn't matter all that much in the big picture, because that picture is of a defense that doesn't measure up to Division I standards.
I'm guessing that coach Tiller's going to find a way to turn things around soon.
Poor Indiana. They almost seemed exciting when they began their season with 3 wins in a row. But looking at the teams they played, I knew better than to get too excited. Then the Big Ten part of the season started and the Hoosiers came back to reality.
The Hoosiers have two bright spots. Their quarterback and primary receiver, Blake Powers and James Hardy, are a couple of very promising guys. But they can't overcome a weak running game and receiving corps that drop more balls than they catch.
But even if the offense is clicking, Indiana shares the defensive woes of their rivals in Lafayette. Perhaps even worse than Purdue. When I watched Indiana last weekend in their loss at home to Minnesota, I saw them trying to play defense with a group of boys against Minnesota's men. The middle linebacker, Killian, is really a safety. They have a decent defensive end in Adayanju, but he's not enough to rescue what essentially is an undersized team that might be competitive in Division III.
I feel for new coach Hoeppner. He has a very steep hill to climb if he ever wants to bring IU back to respectability. I like his positive attitude and goal-oriented approach, though. He is still hanging onto his goal of making it to a bowl game this year, even though it's all but impossible. He's got to recruit better athletes, get a solid strength and conditioning program installed, and coach the team to reduce the errors they've been making on the field all season. Hopefully Indiana will give him a few years to build the program - maybe he'll have a chance for success.
Ball State is a below average team that hasn't had a good season in several years. Butler is embarrassing, but at least had the sense to fire their head coach.
At least here in Indiana we have the Irish to cheer for in January.
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Football Post
If you're curious about what really interests me, you are about to find out.
Football!
So here's my rundown of this season (so far).
High School
I continued to follow Columbus North again this year, since I still maintain their website.
But I just made it to their home games and the game at Columbus East. No away games this year. I did ask Tim if he wanted to go with me to one of the games in Indy, but he turned me down for some girl (just kidding, Stephanie).
North clearly wasn't as good this year as their record-setting team from last year. But they weren't bad either, and have several bright spots. If they can improve in some specific areas, they could be very good again, possibly as early as next year.
They have a very promising sophomore quarterback in Mikey Hladik, who is tall and has a very good arm. The passing game, at least to one wide-out, Brandon Butler (another soph), was looking pretty good until Mike broke his collarbone. That hurt them through the rest of the season, as Brayden Barthlow came in and did a very nice job, but they had to return to mostly a rushing offense from there on.
To become an elite 5A team next year, they need to get their sophomore running back, Alex Turner, stronger and able to withstand the pounding of a whole season and avoid injury. Alex is fast and talented, and is good when there's a big hole for him to run through, but he's too easy to tackle. He needs to add strength to his speed to allow him to break tackles and get more yards on his own. The team had to convert a fullback (Matt Garman) to tight end, and Matt made a few nice receptions but lacked the size to effectively help block for the running game.
The other area they need to improve offensively is to find another reliable receiver besides Brandon Butler. Brandon put up impressive stats, at least until Mike was injured. But the other wide receivers and tight end were all but missing from the stats sheet. If the team can find reliable receivers at the other wide receiver and/or tight end to take some attention away from Brandon, they have a chance to be one of the most potent passing offenses in the state next year.
Defensively, they have lots of holes to fill. Their defensive lineman were undersized or too slow this year. Their best athlete this year, Stephen Whited, was moved from defensive end to middle linebacker. Stephen was far and away the best member of an otherwise questionable defense, accounting for about two times the tackles of the next best defensive player (Eric Bell) this season. They also had to move their best senior safety, Chris Gerth, up to linebacker this year, which helped them against the run but hurt them against the pass. Just imagine if North had enough defensive talent this year to allow Stephen and Chris to play their natural positions; I think they might still be playing in the 5A state tournament right now.
For me, the defense is the biggest question mark for North next year. The offense is going to be better with the development of Mike, Brandon, and Alex. But can they find better size and speed on the defensive line, can they replace their 3 graduating senior linebackers, and can they improve speed at corner and strength at safety? The weight room is going to have to be an important factor there.
In the meantime, I kind of feel sorry for the cross-town rivals at Columbus East. They got Seymour for their first playoff game, and got crushed by their southern neighbors. That's unfortunate for the team that went undefeated in the regular season, had very few close games throughout the year, and was ranked #1 in 4A going into the post-season. Did they get caught taking Seymour for granted? Or did Seymour just play the best game of their lives on that particular night? Maybe a little of both. Too bad for East.
Next post I think I'll review College Football.
Football!
So here's my rundown of this season (so far).
High School
I continued to follow Columbus North again this year, since I still maintain their website.
But I just made it to their home games and the game at Columbus East. No away games this year. I did ask Tim if he wanted to go with me to one of the games in Indy, but he turned me down for some girl (just kidding, Stephanie).
North clearly wasn't as good this year as their record-setting team from last year. But they weren't bad either, and have several bright spots. If they can improve in some specific areas, they could be very good again, possibly as early as next year.
They have a very promising sophomore quarterback in Mikey Hladik, who is tall and has a very good arm. The passing game, at least to one wide-out, Brandon Butler (another soph), was looking pretty good until Mike broke his collarbone. That hurt them through the rest of the season, as Brayden Barthlow came in and did a very nice job, but they had to return to mostly a rushing offense from there on.
To become an elite 5A team next year, they need to get their sophomore running back, Alex Turner, stronger and able to withstand the pounding of a whole season and avoid injury. Alex is fast and talented, and is good when there's a big hole for him to run through, but he's too easy to tackle. He needs to add strength to his speed to allow him to break tackles and get more yards on his own. The team had to convert a fullback (Matt Garman) to tight end, and Matt made a few nice receptions but lacked the size to effectively help block for the running game.
The other area they need to improve offensively is to find another reliable receiver besides Brandon Butler. Brandon put up impressive stats, at least until Mike was injured. But the other wide receivers and tight end were all but missing from the stats sheet. If the team can find reliable receivers at the other wide receiver and/or tight end to take some attention away from Brandon, they have a chance to be one of the most potent passing offenses in the state next year.
Defensively, they have lots of holes to fill. Their defensive lineman were undersized or too slow this year. Their best athlete this year, Stephen Whited, was moved from defensive end to middle linebacker. Stephen was far and away the best member of an otherwise questionable defense, accounting for about two times the tackles of the next best defensive player (Eric Bell) this season. They also had to move their best senior safety, Chris Gerth, up to linebacker this year, which helped them against the run but hurt them against the pass. Just imagine if North had enough defensive talent this year to allow Stephen and Chris to play their natural positions; I think they might still be playing in the 5A state tournament right now.
For me, the defense is the biggest question mark for North next year. The offense is going to be better with the development of Mike, Brandon, and Alex. But can they find better size and speed on the defensive line, can they replace their 3 graduating senior linebackers, and can they improve speed at corner and strength at safety? The weight room is going to have to be an important factor there.
In the meantime, I kind of feel sorry for the cross-town rivals at Columbus East. They got Seymour for their first playoff game, and got crushed by their southern neighbors. That's unfortunate for the team that went undefeated in the regular season, had very few close games throughout the year, and was ranked #1 in 4A going into the post-season. Did they get caught taking Seymour for granted? Or did Seymour just play the best game of their lives on that particular night? Maybe a little of both. Too bad for East.
Next post I think I'll review College Football.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Churches in Turmoil
So when grandpa passed away, he found himself at the gates of heaven where he was met by Saint Peter.
"Welcome, John. Let me show you around." Said Peter.
As they floated through the heavenly precincts, Saint Peter pointed out the various groups. "Here are the Lutherans, over there are the Pentecostals, there are the Methodists, that huge group over there are the Catholics, ..." and on and on as the tour of heaven continued.
Spying a small group far in the distance, John asked Peter, "Who are those people way over there by themselves?".
"Shhh, whispered Peter. Those are the Baptists. They think they're the only ones here."
Actually, the Baptists could be replaced by any Christian group you choose, because there seem to be plenty of sects these days who believe they have a monopoly on truth.
That's a sad commentary, because these days it seems to be more important for like-minded people of faith to focus less on their differences and more on their shared faith and values. While I believe many mainstream denominations have lost their way in modernistic thinking, abandoning moral absolutes in favor of secular values. But in general, most Christians can't help but agree on the foundations of their faith and recognize that a positive and united message on moral issues can be tremendously helpful in making our country a better place.
I want to share a couple of stories that illustrate some of the dysfunctional tendencies in churches I've seen first-hand.
In the Catholic church, there is theoretically a hierarchy that is to disseminate and enforce the faith and practices of the church. However, the United States Catholics have become like the petulant child of the Catholic family. Maybe it's a function of our Democratic political philosophy, but lots of American Catholics resent being told what to believe and how to conduct the liturgy by stodgy old Rome.
Illustrative of this is the local story of the music program. The church was able to hire an excellent music director who has just finished his Doctorate at Indiana University. An excellent musician, a Catholic, and an able choral director, he was making a positive impact on the music program at the local parish.
However, there were some problems from the beginning of his tenure. First, there were various ad-hoc music groups in place in the parish, which the music director was told on his first day that he was not allowed to "meddle". In fact, members of the parish staff held a particular affinity for the bluegrass-style group, which was given first choice for masses and special events without any input permitted from the new music director.
The music director was concerned about being so severely restricted in his ability to form an integrated and unified music program. But he went forward with the one group he was allowed to "meddle" with, the adult choir. The choir grew in numbers almost immediately, as members immediately responded to the chance to do high quality music under a well qualified director.
But as time went on, conflicts between the parish staff and the new music director intensified. The new music director installed a tasteful mix of music with the choir, ranging from Gregorian Chant to contemporary sacred selections. The Latin music drew a nearly immediate indignant objection from the staff, one of which told the music director that he was not permitted to use any Latin pieces in the Mass, "ever".
So he got a better offer at another, Protestant, church. And the parish no longer has a music program. The ad-hoc groups, led by the bluegrass band, are now responsible for providing music for all Masses. The choir is disbanded and disillusioned. And the parish priest apologized publicly for his non-involvement, but reallocated the music budget, refused an invitation to meet with members of the choir, and has taken no apparent steps toward replacing the music director.
That story is only one of many which, added together, explain why the parish can barely afford to pay the bills on their beautiful new church building as parishioners vote with their wallets or leave the parish for another, more Catholic, better managed place.
The second story involves the small protestant church in which I happened to be brought up. Our family were active in this church as long as we were around, and my parents stayed until they could no longer. After all those years, what could have gone wrong?
Well, in this denomination, there is complete autonomy at the local level. The national denomination sets basic theological standards and facilitates placement of pastors, but are generally hands-off when it comes to decisions made by individual churches.
A lay pastor worked in the church for several years as an associate to the senior pastor that led the church for many years. When the senior pastor retired, a search commenced for his replacement. The associate lay pastor lobbied hard to be elevated to the senior position, despite his lack of any formal training.
He was given the job on an interim basis, where he worked hard to develop a small group of devoted supporters. Through some manipulation of scheduling and a violation of the church's constitution in voting for a new pastor, he was able to get the job he coveted.
The church my family had spent so many years attending, working, building, and leading became unrecognizable. The self-styled pastor departed from the denomination's philosophies, abandoned the rules and procedures set out by the church's own constitution, and spent the church's money on unauthorized purchases.
Today there are reportedly few members left in the church. The rogue pastor is no longer there, as he was eventually forced to leave and took those of his supporters who remained with him to a new church he is trying to build. My parents attend elsewhere.
How many other similar examples of tragic stories of conflict, poor leadership, and bad management are out there? No wonder the churches are so ineffective in getting the true Christian message out to the world, as they can't even follow the message within their own church buildings?
Here's one of those times that makes me feel old, because I find myself longing for the "good old days". But they are gone.
"Welcome, John. Let me show you around." Said Peter.
As they floated through the heavenly precincts, Saint Peter pointed out the various groups. "Here are the Lutherans, over there are the Pentecostals, there are the Methodists, that huge group over there are the Catholics, ..." and on and on as the tour of heaven continued.
Spying a small group far in the distance, John asked Peter, "Who are those people way over there by themselves?".
"Shhh, whispered Peter. Those are the Baptists. They think they're the only ones here."
Actually, the Baptists could be replaced by any Christian group you choose, because there seem to be plenty of sects these days who believe they have a monopoly on truth.
That's a sad commentary, because these days it seems to be more important for like-minded people of faith to focus less on their differences and more on their shared faith and values. While I believe many mainstream denominations have lost their way in modernistic thinking, abandoning moral absolutes in favor of secular values. But in general, most Christians can't help but agree on the foundations of their faith and recognize that a positive and united message on moral issues can be tremendously helpful in making our country a better place.
I want to share a couple of stories that illustrate some of the dysfunctional tendencies in churches I've seen first-hand.
In the Catholic church, there is theoretically a hierarchy that is to disseminate and enforce the faith and practices of the church. However, the United States Catholics have become like the petulant child of the Catholic family. Maybe it's a function of our Democratic political philosophy, but lots of American Catholics resent being told what to believe and how to conduct the liturgy by stodgy old Rome.
Illustrative of this is the local story of the music program. The church was able to hire an excellent music director who has just finished his Doctorate at Indiana University. An excellent musician, a Catholic, and an able choral director, he was making a positive impact on the music program at the local parish.
However, there were some problems from the beginning of his tenure. First, there were various ad-hoc music groups in place in the parish, which the music director was told on his first day that he was not allowed to "meddle". In fact, members of the parish staff held a particular affinity for the bluegrass-style group, which was given first choice for masses and special events without any input permitted from the new music director.
The music director was concerned about being so severely restricted in his ability to form an integrated and unified music program. But he went forward with the one group he was allowed to "meddle" with, the adult choir. The choir grew in numbers almost immediately, as members immediately responded to the chance to do high quality music under a well qualified director.
But as time went on, conflicts between the parish staff and the new music director intensified. The new music director installed a tasteful mix of music with the choir, ranging from Gregorian Chant to contemporary sacred selections. The Latin music drew a nearly immediate indignant objection from the staff, one of which told the music director that he was not permitted to use any Latin pieces in the Mass, "ever".
So he got a better offer at another, Protestant, church. And the parish no longer has a music program. The ad-hoc groups, led by the bluegrass band, are now responsible for providing music for all Masses. The choir is disbanded and disillusioned. And the parish priest apologized publicly for his non-involvement, but reallocated the music budget, refused an invitation to meet with members of the choir, and has taken no apparent steps toward replacing the music director.
That story is only one of many which, added together, explain why the parish can barely afford to pay the bills on their beautiful new church building as parishioners vote with their wallets or leave the parish for another, more Catholic, better managed place.
The second story involves the small protestant church in which I happened to be brought up. Our family were active in this church as long as we were around, and my parents stayed until they could no longer. After all those years, what could have gone wrong?
Well, in this denomination, there is complete autonomy at the local level. The national denomination sets basic theological standards and facilitates placement of pastors, but are generally hands-off when it comes to decisions made by individual churches.
A lay pastor worked in the church for several years as an associate to the senior pastor that led the church for many years. When the senior pastor retired, a search commenced for his replacement. The associate lay pastor lobbied hard to be elevated to the senior position, despite his lack of any formal training.
He was given the job on an interim basis, where he worked hard to develop a small group of devoted supporters. Through some manipulation of scheduling and a violation of the church's constitution in voting for a new pastor, he was able to get the job he coveted.
The church my family had spent so many years attending, working, building, and leading became unrecognizable. The self-styled pastor departed from the denomination's philosophies, abandoned the rules and procedures set out by the church's own constitution, and spent the church's money on unauthorized purchases.
Today there are reportedly few members left in the church. The rogue pastor is no longer there, as he was eventually forced to leave and took those of his supporters who remained with him to a new church he is trying to build. My parents attend elsewhere.
How many other similar examples of tragic stories of conflict, poor leadership, and bad management are out there? No wonder the churches are so ineffective in getting the true Christian message out to the world, as they can't even follow the message within their own church buildings?
Here's one of those times that makes me feel old, because I find myself longing for the "good old days". But they are gone.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Nature vs. Nurture
Why can't we all just get along?
There's a simple question with an elusive answer.
It seems that whether it's men vs. women, conservatives vs. liberals, blacks vs. whites, jews vs. arabs, protestants vs. catholics, north vs. south; it almost seems like we're programmed for conflict.
Personally, I hate conflict, and admit to going to great lengths to avoid a fight. In many areas of dispute, if I get the opportunity to truly understand where both sides of the argument are coming from, I can often understand both sides even though my agreement is with only one. But there are some issues I have to admit I have absolutely no understanding of the argument opposite of my own. Usually in those issues I study the opposing argument and find no intelligent or logical basis.
Some examples -
Partial Birth Abortion. Those who think this procedure should continue to be protected must be terribly mis-informed or just callous. Why kill a baby that would be perfectly viable and healthy right before it's delivered, then pretend like that was just abortion and not murder simply because the baby was killed before it emerged from its mother?
What women want (from men). The eternal mystery for men. These days I think I almost understand, but the dilemma is that it may be impossible to meet the expectations of a woman. Maybe we could for awhile, but we would end up bitter, frustrated, and unhappy. And that in itself would make us fail. So we guys can try all we want, but I'm afraid we'll never quite measure up to a woman's image of the perfect man. Somebody once said that for women, the only perfect men are gay. That's a confusing thought.
Supreme Court Nomination Fights. So only a day after Bush named his choice for the Supreme Court, after the previous nominee quit, a huge fight seems to have already started. Apparently, even though the new nominee (Alito) is deemed to be well qualified for the job and was unanimously approved for his current judicial position by the same Senate, Democrats will use every procedural device they can to stop him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Affirmative Action. How giving preferential treatment to wealthy and middle-class students for entry into prestigious graduate schools just because they are black escapes me. Why give preferences to black students, when hispanics and asians and even non-native blacks don't seem to need the help? If we want to help elevate the disadvantaged, why not be color blind and offer a few preferred spots to applicants from economically deprived backgrounds?
Christian Paranoia. The liberal atheist crowd exhibits an astounding paranoia toward what they call the "Religious Right". Their apocalyptic hysterical rhetoric against Christians suggests that people who attend church and believe in Jesus Christ are worse than Islamic terrorists. How is it so terrible that people of faith exercise their rights to speak out on moral issues like abortion, homosexuality and pornography? It's bizarre to me that a huge portion of our population only see evil in those who would try to speak out against real evil.
Government as Mommy and Daddy. The liberal idea that the primary role of government is to take care of all citizens puzzles me. Did giving away free housing, food stamps, and checks to single mothers solve any problems with poverty? No, it created an entire permanent welfare underclass, while incenting young mothers to avoid marriage in order to keep their benefits. How can those who built the "projects" and whole welfare system get away with suggesting it was a success? For those who really need help, their first option should be the rest of us - churches, service clubs, etc., where they can get help finding a job, feeding and housing their families, getting back on their feet. People in the local communities are the best source of real help for the poor. My experiences as a volunteer in social services has proven to me that the absolute worst thing you can do to a poor person is give them a check. Rather, they need a boost and incentives toward self-sufficiency, not encouragement to be a freeloader.
The loss of integrity. It seems that the truth is no longer a matter of honor in our country. We can't even get the truth from the news media anymore, because they get so attached to their favored political party that they help spread spin and lies, or at least report opinion and spin as fact. Business people used to be able to work on a handshake and a verbal promise. Now, both verbal and written contracts are routinely violated whenever a businessperson believes they can gain an advantage.
One thing that is nearly impossible is finding common ground with a Bush-hating anti-war liberal. If someone wanted to make a reasonable argument that the war in Iraq was a bad idea because it's going to be very difficult to establish a stable democracy in the hotbed of Islamic radicalism, and that the various factions in Iraq will never allow a democratic government to take hold, I can listen and understand their position. I think it's a moot argument, since we're already committed to supporting a new Iraqi democracy; but I can accept it as a well-reasoned and logical argument.
But when I encounter a Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type, who goes on and on about the "illegal" war, Bush lying about WMD, its all about making Halliburton and the oil companies rich, ad nauseum, there is no chance for mutual understanding. Their entire world view relies on emotion and propaganda, and facts don't matter. I sort of pity them, because they don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to seek out the facts and put aside preconceptions and emotions long enough to at least form a reasoned opinion.
There's a simple question with an elusive answer.
It seems that whether it's men vs. women, conservatives vs. liberals, blacks vs. whites, jews vs. arabs, protestants vs. catholics, north vs. south; it almost seems like we're programmed for conflict.
Personally, I hate conflict, and admit to going to great lengths to avoid a fight. In many areas of dispute, if I get the opportunity to truly understand where both sides of the argument are coming from, I can often understand both sides even though my agreement is with only one. But there are some issues I have to admit I have absolutely no understanding of the argument opposite of my own. Usually in those issues I study the opposing argument and find no intelligent or logical basis.
Some examples -
Partial Birth Abortion. Those who think this procedure should continue to be protected must be terribly mis-informed or just callous. Why kill a baby that would be perfectly viable and healthy right before it's delivered, then pretend like that was just abortion and not murder simply because the baby was killed before it emerged from its mother?
What women want (from men). The eternal mystery for men. These days I think I almost understand, but the dilemma is that it may be impossible to meet the expectations of a woman. Maybe we could for awhile, but we would end up bitter, frustrated, and unhappy. And that in itself would make us fail. So we guys can try all we want, but I'm afraid we'll never quite measure up to a woman's image of the perfect man. Somebody once said that for women, the only perfect men are gay. That's a confusing thought.
Supreme Court Nomination Fights. So only a day after Bush named his choice for the Supreme Court, after the previous nominee quit, a huge fight seems to have already started. Apparently, even though the new nominee (Alito) is deemed to be well qualified for the job and was unanimously approved for his current judicial position by the same Senate, Democrats will use every procedural device they can to stop him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Affirmative Action. How giving preferential treatment to wealthy and middle-class students for entry into prestigious graduate schools just because they are black escapes me. Why give preferences to black students, when hispanics and asians and even non-native blacks don't seem to need the help? If we want to help elevate the disadvantaged, why not be color blind and offer a few preferred spots to applicants from economically deprived backgrounds?
Christian Paranoia. The liberal atheist crowd exhibits an astounding paranoia toward what they call the "Religious Right". Their apocalyptic hysterical rhetoric against Christians suggests that people who attend church and believe in Jesus Christ are worse than Islamic terrorists. How is it so terrible that people of faith exercise their rights to speak out on moral issues like abortion, homosexuality and pornography? It's bizarre to me that a huge portion of our population only see evil in those who would try to speak out against real evil.
Government as Mommy and Daddy. The liberal idea that the primary role of government is to take care of all citizens puzzles me. Did giving away free housing, food stamps, and checks to single mothers solve any problems with poverty? No, it created an entire permanent welfare underclass, while incenting young mothers to avoid marriage in order to keep their benefits. How can those who built the "projects" and whole welfare system get away with suggesting it was a success? For those who really need help, their first option should be the rest of us - churches, service clubs, etc., where they can get help finding a job, feeding and housing their families, getting back on their feet. People in the local communities are the best source of real help for the poor. My experiences as a volunteer in social services has proven to me that the absolute worst thing you can do to a poor person is give them a check. Rather, they need a boost and incentives toward self-sufficiency, not encouragement to be a freeloader.
The loss of integrity. It seems that the truth is no longer a matter of honor in our country. We can't even get the truth from the news media anymore, because they get so attached to their favored political party that they help spread spin and lies, or at least report opinion and spin as fact. Business people used to be able to work on a handshake and a verbal promise. Now, both verbal and written contracts are routinely violated whenever a businessperson believes they can gain an advantage.
One thing that is nearly impossible is finding common ground with a Bush-hating anti-war liberal. If someone wanted to make a reasonable argument that the war in Iraq was a bad idea because it's going to be very difficult to establish a stable democracy in the hotbed of Islamic radicalism, and that the various factions in Iraq will never allow a democratic government to take hold, I can listen and understand their position. I think it's a moot argument, since we're already committed to supporting a new Iraqi democracy; but I can accept it as a well-reasoned and logical argument.
But when I encounter a Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type, who goes on and on about the "illegal" war, Bush lying about WMD, its all about making Halliburton and the oil companies rich, ad nauseum, there is no chance for mutual understanding. Their entire world view relies on emotion and propaganda, and facts don't matter. I sort of pity them, because they don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to seek out the facts and put aside preconceptions and emotions long enough to at least form a reasoned opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)