Alcohol-free celebration

The Texas Rangers’ ginger ale-squrting celebration following their victory in the American League Divisional Series last week said more about their character than their skills on the ball diamond.

The Texas Rangers celebrate their American League Divisional Series championship with ginger ale instead of champagne.

In case you missed it, the Rangers opted out of the traditional champagne and beer-dousing that has been a staple in baseball clubhouses since the 1950s and replaced the alcohol with ginger ale as a tribute to a teammate who has struggled with alcoholism in the past.

Hard-hitting Josh Hamilton, whose penchant for long home runs was eclipsed by one for alcohol abuse, is maintaining his sobriety through diligence and his Christian faith, and knows, like any recovering alcoholic should know, that total abstinence is the only genuine solution.

When the Rangers won the American League West title a couple of weeks ago, they celebrated with champagne.  Hamilton disappeared through a back door.  After that, his teammates vowed that any future celebrations would be alcohol-free, so that Hamilton wouldn’t feel the need to excuse himself.  So last Tuesday night, after the last out of the divisional series, they broke out the ginger ale – a better choice of beverage for a lot of reasons, although there may be an infestation of ants in the locker room as they feast on the sugar residue.

The Rangers decided not to be enablers when it came to Hamilton’s temptation to indulge.  They decided to remove the temptation, modify the environment and perhaps set a precedent for other sports teams to follow. Say what you want about overpaid prima donna athletes – and much of it would be true – this is one instance where a team came together and did the right thing – right for their friend and right for all of us to see.

When it comes to alcohol abuse, our society is pitifully inept at dealing with it.  Why?  Because we’re infatuated with alcohol consumption.  It’s important to us.  I’m not sure why, but it is.  A new wave of beer commercials is now suggesting that no matter what the situation, everything will be OK as long as there’s a supply of beer around.  ”Here we go.”  And Coors?  If I have to suffer through another football season of commercials where you take a coach’s press conference quotes and turn them into beer promos, I think I’ll barf.  Enough, already!

A few years ago, I was in the checkout line at the grocery store behind a young couple with a baby.  In their cart were a few everyday grocery items, including a carton of infant formula, but what caught my eye was the 24-pack of beer in the bottom.  When all their items were scanned and the cashier announced their total, the couple realized they didn’t have enough money.  They looked through the already-bagged items to see what they could do without and decided – or the husband did, at least – that they could do without the infant formula.

“It’s too expensive anyway,” the young man said.

My disgust remains to this day.  I guess I should get over it, but it bugs me to no end.

That is why I find the actions of Texas Rangers baseball team last week so refreshing.  Maybe even trend-setting.

Tolerance is neutral

The last time I checked, fellow Americans, my right to pray to my God is written on the same sheet of paper as the Muslim’s right to pray to Allah.  I believe he’s wrong, and he believes I’m wrong, but we each have the constitutional right to believe whatever we choose and to worship however we choose.  It’s not a majority rule issue, as some seem to be insisting.

If the Muslims want to build a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero or a few blocks from Mayfield City Hall, the American thing to do is to allow it.  Allow them to get a permit, satisfy the building code requirements, comply with basic city ordinances, and build their mosque, if that’s what they decide to do.

So that’s it? We shouldn’t do anything about it? Just zip our mouths and move on?

I didn’t say that. Some folks are forgetting that for right now, at least, we have the right to say we’re right and the Muslims are wrong.  We have the right to say that our God is the true God, that Jesus saves, and that lives are made better through devotion to Jesus.  We can say that. Out loud. We can put on our church marquees that Islam is a false religion, if we so choose.

We can burn Korans, if we so choose – a hateful, stupid act of defiance that’s not backed up by any scripture that I’m aware of, but one that is nevertheless protected by our Constitution.

One of the things that make America so great, so much better than the countries that the American Muslims have emigrated from, is that we allow a free and open public forum on all types of topics, from religious beliefs to whether or not to raise school taxes on the county level.  It’s called the marketplace of ideas, and it works pretty darn well.

People often misunderstand what is meant by protected speech.  All the Constitution says is that the government – the government – cannot abridge, suppress or intimidate the exercise of free speech. It doesn’t say that free speech is free of consequences.  If you stand up at a county school board meeting and suggest they, say, dismantle the football program and melt the helmets and turn them into food wrap, you will get backlash from fellow citizens, who are exercising their right to free speech.  You’ll get booed.  You’ll be called an idiot.  You’ll be ridiculed.

That’s America. Ain’t it great?

Backlash against the proposed mosque in New York is starting to have an effect on those who want to build it there.  Maybe it won’t happen. Not because a heavy-handed government stepped in, but because everyday citizens, like you and me, offered their opinions in the marketplace of ideas. Everyday citizens said, “Look, this isn’t a good idea. Why don’t you build your mosque somewhere else?”  And maybe, maybe they will.

Religion freedom takes a slightly different tack than individual freedom of speech, especially when large congregations are involved. At present, established churches and quasi-religious institutions are tax exempt. Donors can claim deductions on their income taxes, and in many cases, that is a substantial amount of money that becomes unavailable to the government. I have this fear, that as churches become more political, where church services become political rallies and churches become known more for their political stance than for the God they claim to serve, that tax exempt status for all churches, not just the offending ones, could be revoked.

The trickle-down could even affect charitable organizations that have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

Now that would be extremism.

Home Run. Ho Hum.

Is there any sporting event more boring than the annual Home Run Derby? Every year, I try to watch it, and every year, my eyelids sag to my knees within five minutes. Please.  Are there no Wheel of Fortune reruns to watch? Or wet paint?

The thing is, I love baseball, and I can stay riveted to the screen even in a 1-0 sandbagger. You would think that the game’s biggest occurrence – the home run – would be exciting to watch when served up in heaping helpings during the Home Run Derby. Not for me.

They gather the games beefiest sluggers, throw batting practice cream puffs up to the plate, and 50,000 people, who paid scads too much for the privilege, ooh and aah at the towering drives produced under these ideal laboratory conditions.  They call them home runs, but they’re not really. Do they count for the teams these sluggers play for?  No. Are they added to the players’ home run totals, so maybe they could catch up to the likes of Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds? No. Do they count in the next evening’s All Star Game (another event with a high yawn factor)? No.

David "Big Papi" Ortiz clubs one of his 32 homers to win the 2010 Home Run Derby. He may not have 32 real home runs all season.

Ergo, those are not home runs. They’re just batting practice fly balls that sail over the fence – sacrificing a horsehide baseball and adding another $4 to the gross revenue of Rawlings and to the meager take-home pay of a Costa Rican laborer.

If there’s any drama at all, it’s whether the muscled sluggers can continue to lift the bat after 30, 40, 50 mighty swings. Ya snooze, ya lose.  Some hitters ruin themselves for the rest of the season, trying to rip homers on Home Run Derby Night, and some say “thanks, but no thanks,” when asked to participate.

Would that they all would say that.

Hate speak cuts both ways

America should know by now that televangelist Pat Robertson seems to be failing as a prophet of God.  We should have learned that back in the 90s, when Robertson took the credit for steering a hurricane away from the east coast. Would that he have prayed for the people of Haiti rather than say that the recent earthquake was their fault – or at least the fault of their ancestors, who “made a pact with the devil” a couple of centuries ago.

But here’s the thing, folks.  Pat Robertson can say what he wants.  That’s his right.

Maybe we should start ignoring both of them.

We can agree, rebut or ignore.  That’s our right.

But what also concerns me is the venom and vitriol spewing out of the mouths of pundits and columnists who openly wish something bad would happen to Pat Robertson. When Don Imus says that he would like to “pull the switch” on a public execution of Robertson, I have a problem with that.  Imus has been the poster boy for hate speech, and he continues to demonstrate why. Sports anchor-radio host-columnist-whatever Keith Olbermann was equally as acerbic in his commentary.

My question is, which is the nobler statement – Robertson’s or Imus’?

Both seem pretty despicable to me.  Both seem to divide rather than unite.  Both create a sidebar that distracts from the purpose at hand – getting help to the people of Haiti.

So let me just say to everyone, regardless of your opinion about Pat Robertson, Don Imus, Keith Olbermann, Christianity, Haitian politics, et al – we have work to do.  Peace to all, and may God’s grace, which we all surely need, shine down upon you.

And give.

Here’s a starting point, but there are many others. http://www.redcross.org/

Let’s Hear it for Civility

Incivility is the new rude.

Whatever the label, the condition is a blight on society, affecting all social strata and walks of life. It seems that the one solid principle we can all agree on is crumbling, one dusty chunk at a time.  The notion of treating one another with respect is fading, and needs to be revived.

The recent incident involving Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach, who allegedly locked an injured player in a closet for hours, is a prime example of arrogance trumping decency. Leach was fired when Texas Tech administrators could not persuade him to apologize to the player and agree to do things a little differently in the future.

Mike Leach

Leach seemed to be operating as if arrogance was an entitlement – that he can say whatever and do whatever and if other people don’t like it, tough. In one sense, he’s right – he can say what he wants in a free society without government interference.  It’s in The Bill of Rights.

But Texas Tech ain’t the government. Retaliation is allowed.  And Texas Tech chancellor Kent Hance used his right of free speech to utter these words: “You’re fired.”

I applaud Hance’s candor in a recent phone interview with ESPN.  Normally in situations like this, you get academia-speak, something like, “After meeting with Mr. Leach, it was determined that this was the best recourse for all parties, blah-blah-blah.”  No.  Hance threw the penalty flag boldly and said, “We tried talking some sense into Mike and he wouldn’t listen.” Later in the interview he said, referring to Leach’s request for a court injunction, “And when you sue your employer, it’s not going to turn out well for you.”

Texas Tech is not a stuffy, by-the-book or out-the-door environment.  The school that gave basketball coach Bobby Knight – the poster boy for incivility – a second chance demonstrated that along with the prestige of being a public figure comes a requirement to be socially accountable.

Kanye West's infamous mike-grab

The proliferation of cameras and microphones in our society, wielded by journalists and everyday citizens alike, has exposed countless episodes of incivility in recent months.  The more notable incidents include Rep. Joe Wilson’s interruption of President Obama’s speech with a “You lie!” shout-out, Kanye West’s onstage outburst during the MTV Music Awards, Serena Williams’ profanity-laced tirade at the US Open tennis match, and every May we see keynote speakers at college graduations shouted down by those who hold opposing viewpoints.

University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz calls this increase in rudeness “The New Boorishness,” and traces its roots to the Vietnam protests of the 1960s. Many sociologists agree that the correctness of a person’s side of the issue – such as Williams’ insistence that she had not double-faulted on a serve – does not excuse outrageous, demeaning eruptions.

In a way, comparing Mike Leach’s situation to these other examples is like comparing apples to oranges, but there is a commonality – our society is becoming more and more uncivil. What happened at Texas Tech was a private issue that became public when the media became involved.

You and I operate in the private realm and we see incidents of incivility almost every day.  Need an example?  Black Friday.  If you stayed home, good for you.

But take heart.  There are people who care, and there are people trying to restore civility to our society.  In 1998, Johns Hopkins University professor P.M. Forni started The Civility Project, an attempt to bring people together on grounds of respect, courtesy and dignity.  In 2002, he authored the book, “Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct”.

Lanny Davis

Even within the so-called Civility Project, there seems to be some feather-ruffling going on.  Staunch Republican Mark DeMoss, who runs a PR firm in Atlanta, has joined forces with former Clinton Administration advisor Lanny Davis in an effort they are dubbing the Civility Project.  Their goal is the same as Forni’s, and we can all hope that it doesn’t matter with them who gets the credit, as long as the job gets done.

Go to civilityproject.org and take the pledge.

I double-dog dare you.

Whether to Trust the Weatherman

Yes.

He (or she) gets it right.  More often than you think.  Way more often. 

Nothing seems to bring the amateur weathermen out of the tree bark faster than the first spate of winter weather.  More half-baked theories, repetition of hearsay and tea leaf readings emerge this time of year than at any other.  And it always amazes me how quickly these homespun ideas gain credence among the masses.

If it sounds as if I’m taking up for my meteorologist friends at the TV station, I am.  But I come armed with the truth.  And here it is: the 24-hour forecast you watch on the TV news or hear on the radio is 90 percent accurate*.  It’s still pretty good for 48- and 72-hour forecasts, but the numbers are off a bit from that lofty 90 percent mark.

I don’t know about you, but I’m more interested in knowing today’s weather today, and I’m content with the .900 batting average for my friends down the hall.  I will worry about tomorrow’s weather tomorrow.

Things are a little different, however, when you’re talking about winter weather.  An approaching snowstorm that is three days out is still a sobering thought, one that necessitates some advance preparation and may make you think twice about that trip to Aunt Clara’s in Louisville.

The weather bureau has the resources.

We depend on our local weather people, whether they’re employed by the TV or radio station or by NOAA itself, to help us know what’s coming.  (Better to prepare for a storm that may come but doesn’t than to fail to prepare for a storm that does.)

The weather bureau has the technology, training and the historical data to make strikingly accurate predictions, even as far out as a week.  So my question is, when you want to know about the weather, really know, who ya gonna call?

I’m amazed, no astounded, by the people who will act upon information delivered to them via the checkout line at the grocery store and favor it over the informed, well-researched information given to us by people whose job it is to be as accurate as possible.

“Well I heard we were supposed to get six inches.”  Yeah?  Heard from who? The cashier?  The lady with the tacky purse ahead of you in the checkout line?  The man with the dog food in his cart behind you? And they’re smarter than the meteorologist because . . . . . . . . . . . . .

When the weather gets bad, our telephone line at the TV station lights up.  I hear the pages on the intercom all day long.  ”Weather, line two.  Weather, line one.” I don’t know, but I’m  guessing that most of those calls are to either confirm hearsay or to, ahem, correct the weather people on something they obviously overlooked.

Baloney.

Now, you don’t have to go far or listen long to hear someone recount a time when the weather forecasters blew it.  ”Yeah, buddy.  I remember the time they said ‘no accumulation and we got 13 inches.”  Now that mistake may have occurred 36 years ago – or not at all – and that one occurrence has become the icon for disbelievers.  It’s repeated so often it’s become a cliche.

There was a woman interviewed on CNN yesterday who was caught off guard by the blizzard that hit the Atlantic Seaboard.  She said she had heard the snow would be no more than three inches and that when she woke up the next morning, there was nearly 18 inches on the ground.  Now, I’m thinking back to all the forecasts I’ve seen on TV this week and I’m seeing all these winter storm warnings and blizzard warnings and TV forecasters urging, pleading with people to be prepared for the deadly storm that was approaching.

Now, where this poor woman got her “only three inches” forecast, I don’t know.  The checkout line, maybe?

I have no quarrel with folklore weather forecasting and the information you get in Farmer’s Almanac.  There are things in nature that are valid indicators of what is to come, and the professionals don’t dismiss them out of hand.  It’s all part of the mix, and I think that what we see on TV is as good as it gets in the realm of weather forecasting.

The next time I’m in the checkout line and people are talking about the weather, I’ll turn a deaf ear to the lies and concentrate on sterner stuff – like the headlines on the magazine tabloids.

*http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/

http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/WinterSpring03/Forecast.htm

Also see the Wikipedia page for weather forecasting.

Happy Holidays is OK with me.

OK. Hold on to your Christmas Carol song book. This is going to be blunt.

If the local department store wants to say “Happy Holidays” instead of Merry Christmas, it’s OK with me.

I would rather hear a sincere “Happy Holidays” than a phony “Merry Christmas” any day.  Too many stores want to cash in on my Christianity as it is.  Fluffing the store with Christmas decor just to separate me and my money is not what the season is supposed to be about.

Of course, this is viewpoint is as stale as last year’s cookie crumbs.  But still valid.

As increasing numbers of cities and government entities pull away from Christmas, dismantling and stowing public Christmas displays, this may be the first phase of a general downsizing of Christmas.  Again, I’m OK with that.

I think Christmas needs to be downsized.  The celebration of Christmas ought to be special, ought to be observed only by those who feel they have something to celebrate.  If the only people who celebrated Christmas were those whose devotion to Christ was profound and obvious, this would be a much quieter place in December.

Black Friday insanity

For instance, if you’re one who fights with other customers for Black Friday specials and cusses out the cashier because the line is too long, maybe Christmas isn’t working out too well for you.  Here’s a thought – skip it next year.  Be honest with your feelings, for once in your life.  Skip it.  Skip Christmas.

If company Christmas parties turn into festivals of crudeness, alcohol abuse and having a meltdown because the bartender is closing up shop at midnight, then do us a favor and call it something other than a Christmas party.  And have it in January or something.

If the name of Jesus is a curse word for you, a handy expletive to dish out to denote surprise, frustration or anger, then here’s a word I’d like for you to forget – Christmas. Face it, you don’t understand who Jesus was, so leave Christmas alone, if you don’t mind.

If obligatory family gatherings at Christmas lead to conflicts, resentment and pledges to never have anything to do with this person or that person, then quit torturing your family and call off Christmas.  Obviously, somebody doesn’t get it.

Imagine if this idea caught on – that only those who really feel a passion for Christ and would be the only ones to have Christmas.  Wow, what a revolutionary concept! We can find a parking spot at the mall again!

Not holding my breath, mind you.

Is the damage already done?

While the outcry rages over the U.S. Preventive Task Force’s recommendation that women under 50 should get a mammography every other year, the damage may have already been done.  Women who were predisposed, for whatever reason, to skip annual breast examinations may become even more so.

The outcry among doctors and health administrators, and the back-pedaling done by the Task Force is significant, but women looking for an excuse or justification for procrastination on clinical breast exams may have found it.  Hopefully, they’re still listening to the debate as it rages.

The sad truth is, not enough women have breast examinations – period – regardless of recommendations.  According to the American Cancer Society*, only 51.2 percent of women over the age of 40 had a mammogram last year.  For exams in the past two years, the number is better – 66.5% – but still unacceptably low.

The discovery of breast cancer among women between 40-49 averages about one saved life for every 1,904 women examined**.  Not exactly a mandate for yearly exams in that age group, but what if you were that 1-in-1,904.  Or your wife?  Or your mother?  There are issues of false positives, which may result in unnecessary treatments, but false positives permeate cancer detection research in all phases and at all ages.  The percentage of false positives in this age group is no higher than with any other age group.

Time will tell if this announcement – despite the controversy and the back-pedaling – will result in fewer clinical breast exams in the affected age group (or across the board, even).

The fear is that this is the first wave of the new health care plan being considered on Capitol Hill is that women are being set up as the shock troops for a new era of reckless health care policies.  Many legislators have promised their constituents that health screenings for cancer and other deadly diseases will never be put on the auction block, that the decision to undergo a screening will always between a doctor and patient.

Let us hope they can hold the fort on that one.  Because if they can’t, health insurance, in whatever form it morphs into in the coming years, will likely pay only for screenings that are in accordance with the current recommendations.  If a women wants to have a mammography more often than  that, she will have to pay for it herself. The upshot of that is that only affluent women will be examined on a yearly basis, that women in the low-income brackets, already the most at risk, will be the ones to suffer.

In the meantime, we all need to strive to educate ourselves on health screenings, risk factors, vaccines and risk reduction procedures of all types.  Rumors and “friend-of-a-friend” horror stories about false positives, misdiagnoses, about vaccines run amuck (as with the H1N1 vaccine panic) and amateur opinions about health care should be deep-sixed and replaced with facts.

* http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/F861009_final%209-08-09.pdf

**http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped1206chapmandec06,0,7770340.column

Oh Sure, Sherlock

Basil Rathbone. For Sherlock Holmes devotees, no one else need apply for the role.

Hey, I know!  Let’s make a new Sherlock Holmes movie that’s a shoot-em-up, duke-it-out, blow-it-up, thrust-and-parry, jump-from-buildings, set-it-on-fire, wow-the-audience, special effects-o-rama festival.

Oh please.

What, no car chase scenes?  Oh wait.  That would be an anachronism.  But there is a carriage chase scene.

The latest character to be kidnapped from the pages of old books and canisters of black and white celluloid and remade in a modern movie is Sherlock Holmes.  The pipe-smoking, double-billed cap-wearing sleuth who resides at 221B Baker Street in London has been reincarnated as a James Bond-ish super detective in the new movie Sherlock Holmes, slated to hit the theaters Christmas Day.

Playing the part of Holmes is Robert Downey Jr.  Other than a similarity in their affection for mind-altering drugs, there is little in common between the character and the actor.

The original series of Sherlock Holmes movies, was made in the 1930s and early 1940s, starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as the affable Dr. Watson.  Fans of these movies were drawn in by mystery and skullduggery, rather than fist fights and gunplay, apparently the primary motive behind the new movie.

In the 56 Sherlock Holmes stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes and Watson had to use their service revolvers a total of seven times, and there was that one sword  fight.  Violence was not the draw.

The era of the thinking man’s movie is long gone, sadly.  Why?  Because no one wants to think, anymore.  Nope, we’re morons. Give us violence and explosions over substance any day.  Oh, and car chases.

Or horse and buggy chases at least.

What next, Perry Mason stopping criminals in a do-or-die slugfest in the men’s room at the county courthouse?