My friend Jon once asked me, “How do you know that God exists?” “How do you know that that Christianity is true?” The most truthful answer I could give him (although I’m sure it didn’t answer what he was really asking), the truest answer I could give him, in many ways, the only answer I could give, was, God has revealed it to me. In fact, Jon said, “That’s what everybody says. I hate that answer.” Now I sound like a mystic and best, and a nutcase at worst, and many of you think those are the same thing, but I can attest to you that I have never heard the audible voice of God. Nor have I had any sort of vision of Him, or an angel. But I don’t deny the spiritual nature of this knowledge of the truth of Christianity. I remember the day I realized that it was true, that Jesus is God, and that He died for my sins, and rose again; I remember it more vividly than any other day in life, and I tell you in the same intuitive way in which women just know stuff, in that way that aggravates the more analytical male animal, I knew it was true. The only other experience I’ve had that was as spiritual as that, was the day that my soul was lit up with the sudden realization upon reading Psalm 33, that compared to the ultimate reality of God, and his omnipresent yet transcendent pervasiveness over an infinite universe, and that the glory which represents this reality, the glory which forces me to my knees, is only a representation of the ultimate reality, that compared to that I am utterly insignificant, thus, hardly worthy of claiming existence, that God considered me an existing person, and not only existing, but significant; I fell with my face on the floor, and physically could not get up. I could not move! Now I had to ask, what it was that made me realize this? It wasn’t a thought I had after a long logical and progressive line of thought. It was not induced or deduced from anything. This doesn’t mean that it might not have been just my imagination on overload. It could’ve been. The point is, if it isn’t my imagination, that is, if it is not all in my head, then it must have been God.
No doubt the skeptic will read the last paragraph and vomit. Jon is a skeptic. That’s why he was annoyed with my answer to his question. I gave him a spiritual answer to a skeptical question. So let me at least address his question skeptically. Go read the philosophy guys at Notre Dame.
I’ll say this before I completely cop out. I am not claiming that the only knowledge that someone can have to God is spiritual or anti-intellectual, or that the only path to a knowledge of God is spiritual or ethereal, that there is no intellectual realization of the truth claims of Christianity. I am not skilled enough to argue for the position in a way that would not have me merely repeating the arguments of greater men and women. Whether or not a purely intellectual approach to religion can lead one to God is a major philosophical issue in our times. My hunch is that it’s true to believe in God, and false to be an atheist. And you can get someone as far as admitting that Christianity is a coherent belief system, but as far as human persuasion is a violent endeavor, that is you cannot make people believe anything really, the Holy Spirit of God takes that role, and does it without any violence, but in the pure unutterable form of epiphany. So that when someone says that they know God, they are not talking about knowing God in a way that comforts a skeptic. Skepticism’s range in eternity is as infinite as anything. There’s always a deeper question. But if Christianity is going to be worthy of acceptance, it has to have a rational coherence. I don’t believe that any true skeptic who asks me how I know that my Christianity is true will ever be close to anything but completely dissatisfied with the answer I give.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Christian Anarchy (Subversion?)
I just can't find the quote, and I'm tired of scouring the pages of the book looking for it. So I'll do what all grade-schoolers do when they are writing a paper, except I'll give the credit. I will paraphrase.
"Christian anarchist", sociologist, and theologian Jacques Ellul says in his book, "Presence of the Kingdom", that the Christians job in the world is not to bring peace, or bring the world to completion, but that all her practical efforts should be directed towards showing the world the deficiency of their own godless attempts to bring peace on earth, in hopes that in seeing the debunk nature of their ultimately futile attempts, they will turn to God"
I compare this to a quote from popular culture, sprung from the lips of 2008's hero, the Joker, as portrayed by the late Heath Ledger, "The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. They're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
Is that essentially what Ellul says the Christians job is; to "show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are"? Before going on, Ellul makes it clear that the Christian's attempts to show the "schemers" how pathetic their attempts are directed towards a real goal; the goal of showing that all things are really under the Lordship of Christ. The Joker's goal is simply to show the so called "order" is in fact "chaotic" by consistent in his own chaotic way of living. That's the only moral base. And it seems to be based simply on his own belief or lack thereof in an authentic morality.
Still I think comparing Ellul's "anarchy" with Joker's nihilism/anarchy is an interesting prospect. For the concepts nihilism and anarchy seem not to be so easily equated with a Christian worldview. Well, I think nihilism is obviously out of the question for a Christian, but what about "anarchy". Strictly related to politics, anarchy is not a Christian option any more than nihilism is in reference to philosophy, but the idea that our role in the world, nay, our efforts are not directly related to making converts, but to representing a worldview, that idea is neatly related to anarchy in that the mode of communication is not as direct as it is subversive.
Still, in relation to Christianity, culturally speaking (not necessarily theologically speaking) if anarchy is the appeal or the turn-off there is reason to suspect that one is looking for a merely convenient Christianity, or for those who are turned off that they have already accepted a different worldly form for their own convenient version of the faith, and are therefore revolted by an opposite suggestion.
So the questions hanging in the air are: What is the nature of the Christian's political and cultural relationship to the world? If it's not anarchic, (and I truly believe that is a terrible term) is it subversive? I'm not sure if I think Christianity itself is subversive. That is as an ideal. But when one honestly compares or rather contrasts the ideals set forth in Scripture to what he sees in the world, he should see a marked difference; not in confession, for most think it’s good to be good, but in action, especially when the rubber meets the road. The truth is that Scripture is not the dominate factor in our culture in the individual's decision at any given moment. The Scripture may hold sway over the general ethos of the culture, but when the ethos of being content runs into the ethos of caring for your family, a mediate ethos is created, making a mockery of Scripture while having the audacity to use it for the decision's defense. That mediate ethos in the situation above may be called, "stewardship", so that one unthinkingly continues fueling his culture's economy, to the detriment of his brothers and sisters for the sake of an apparently superior sister, namely his wife, never minding the Gospel's multiple statements concerning the new family order.
I am not making any absolute statements about what Christian's should or should not be doing. Nor am I by the example offered suggesting that men and women leave their spouses in the dust. But merely pointing out the difference between a mind led by the Spirit as revealed in Scripture and a mind led by the world giving lip service to the letters of the Scripture, ignoring the spirit. And I am suggesting that to the extent in which we are willing to obey the Spirit of the Scripture we will by default be in some way subversive. I think this is also the heart of Dr. Ellul's theological machinations. As for the Joker, he simply hates everyone.
"Christian anarchist", sociologist, and theologian Jacques Ellul says in his book, "Presence of the Kingdom", that the Christians job in the world is not to bring peace, or bring the world to completion, but that all her practical efforts should be directed towards showing the world the deficiency of their own godless attempts to bring peace on earth, in hopes that in seeing the debunk nature of their ultimately futile attempts, they will turn to God"
I compare this to a quote from popular culture, sprung from the lips of 2008's hero, the Joker, as portrayed by the late Heath Ledger, "The mob has plans. The cops have plans. Gordon's got plans. They're schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. I'm not a schemer. I try to show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."
Is that essentially what Ellul says the Christians job is; to "show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are"? Before going on, Ellul makes it clear that the Christian's attempts to show the "schemers" how pathetic their attempts are directed towards a real goal; the goal of showing that all things are really under the Lordship of Christ. The Joker's goal is simply to show the so called "order" is in fact "chaotic" by consistent in his own chaotic way of living. That's the only moral base. And it seems to be based simply on his own belief or lack thereof in an authentic morality.
Still I think comparing Ellul's "anarchy" with Joker's nihilism/anarchy is an interesting prospect. For the concepts nihilism and anarchy seem not to be so easily equated with a Christian worldview. Well, I think nihilism is obviously out of the question for a Christian, but what about "anarchy". Strictly related to politics, anarchy is not a Christian option any more than nihilism is in reference to philosophy, but the idea that our role in the world, nay, our efforts are not directly related to making converts, but to representing a worldview, that idea is neatly related to anarchy in that the mode of communication is not as direct as it is subversive.
Still, in relation to Christianity, culturally speaking (not necessarily theologically speaking) if anarchy is the appeal or the turn-off there is reason to suspect that one is looking for a merely convenient Christianity, or for those who are turned off that they have already accepted a different worldly form for their own convenient version of the faith, and are therefore revolted by an opposite suggestion.
So the questions hanging in the air are: What is the nature of the Christian's political and cultural relationship to the world? If it's not anarchic, (and I truly believe that is a terrible term) is it subversive? I'm not sure if I think Christianity itself is subversive. That is as an ideal. But when one honestly compares or rather contrasts the ideals set forth in Scripture to what he sees in the world, he should see a marked difference; not in confession, for most think it’s good to be good, but in action, especially when the rubber meets the road. The truth is that Scripture is not the dominate factor in our culture in the individual's decision at any given moment. The Scripture may hold sway over the general ethos of the culture, but when the ethos of being content runs into the ethos of caring for your family, a mediate ethos is created, making a mockery of Scripture while having the audacity to use it for the decision's defense. That mediate ethos in the situation above may be called, "stewardship", so that one unthinkingly continues fueling his culture's economy, to the detriment of his brothers and sisters for the sake of an apparently superior sister, namely his wife, never minding the Gospel's multiple statements concerning the new family order.
I am not making any absolute statements about what Christian's should or should not be doing. Nor am I by the example offered suggesting that men and women leave their spouses in the dust. But merely pointing out the difference between a mind led by the Spirit as revealed in Scripture and a mind led by the world giving lip service to the letters of the Scripture, ignoring the spirit. And I am suggesting that to the extent in which we are willing to obey the Spirit of the Scripture we will by default be in some way subversive. I think this is also the heart of Dr. Ellul's theological machinations. As for the Joker, he simply hates everyone.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Football/Celebrity Culture
Done being Bill Simmons. For all of you reading this who were looking for picks this week I'll give to you but I won't give an explanation. The Bears and the Jets are getting 3.5. I'm taking the Packers, and the Jets. That's it. Just so you know.
I almost just went on a tirade about Anne Hathaway being cast to play Catwoman. I recalled the tirade I ushered against Lebron James, and then had this thought? Wait. These are people. I've heard people argue that if folks like Hathaway and Lebron are going to have public personas' then they shouldn't complain when they are bashed. They should accept bashing with the same grain of salt with which they accept praise. To be fair, many celebrities bask in negative press, because "all press is good press". I agree with all of this. I don't want to hear celebrities complaining about being bashed. They basically ask for it. None of this means that I have to bash them. Opinions, decisions, and actions are open to be criticized, but I feel that me, a non-member of the media has as much right to bash someone I don't know on my blog as I do my personal friend. It's not talking about them behind their back. But its still gossip. It's like hanging flyers all over your high school about who so and so slept with when they were drunk Saturday. I realize that these people will never hear me, and don't care about my little blog, and that I have an infinitesimal influence upon global culture, but its the principal. The honest truth is that we act as if these people are not people. We act like they're ideas, that just pop up on screens, or make noise on i-pods. It's true that they ask for it many times, but that is said, I suspect, as a rationalization for saying things about our fellow human beings that we would never say about our worst enemy. Well, we might say it about our worst enemy, but the point is that our entertainers exist in another world for most people. They are gods. We like some of them, we don't like others. They're invisible, but they're real. We offer them the sacrifice of our time, and often our praise. They often exist as idealistic figures of the people we would like to be, never minding the fact that they are usually acting, and that includes musicians. They are at heart entertainers. If they are not our gods, they are at least our muses. I have some more critiques of modern American culture based on these kinds of observations. For now this will suffice.
Also, I wouldn't mind the Bears winning the Superbowl. Anybody but the Steelers. And also the Jets would be annoying. I already have to listen to one of my best, but most obnoxious friends gloating about their Fantasy Football victory until next December. I'd rather not listen to Rex Ryan all that time either. Wait, did I just bash Ryan. Well, I'll say if he has a problem with what I said he can comment on this blog, and I'll say it to his cyberface.
I almost just went on a tirade about Anne Hathaway being cast to play Catwoman. I recalled the tirade I ushered against Lebron James, and then had this thought? Wait. These are people. I've heard people argue that if folks like Hathaway and Lebron are going to have public personas' then they shouldn't complain when they are bashed. They should accept bashing with the same grain of salt with which they accept praise. To be fair, many celebrities bask in negative press, because "all press is good press". I agree with all of this. I don't want to hear celebrities complaining about being bashed. They basically ask for it. None of this means that I have to bash them. Opinions, decisions, and actions are open to be criticized, but I feel that me, a non-member of the media has as much right to bash someone I don't know on my blog as I do my personal friend. It's not talking about them behind their back. But its still gossip. It's like hanging flyers all over your high school about who so and so slept with when they were drunk Saturday. I realize that these people will never hear me, and don't care about my little blog, and that I have an infinitesimal influence upon global culture, but its the principal. The honest truth is that we act as if these people are not people. We act like they're ideas, that just pop up on screens, or make noise on i-pods. It's true that they ask for it many times, but that is said, I suspect, as a rationalization for saying things about our fellow human beings that we would never say about our worst enemy. Well, we might say it about our worst enemy, but the point is that our entertainers exist in another world for most people. They are gods. We like some of them, we don't like others. They're invisible, but they're real. We offer them the sacrifice of our time, and often our praise. They often exist as idealistic figures of the people we would like to be, never minding the fact that they are usually acting, and that includes musicians. They are at heart entertainers. If they are not our gods, they are at least our muses. I have some more critiques of modern American culture based on these kinds of observations. For now this will suffice.
Also, I wouldn't mind the Bears winning the Superbowl. Anybody but the Steelers. And also the Jets would be annoying. I already have to listen to one of my best, but most obnoxious friends gloating about their Fantasy Football victory until next December. I'd rather not listen to Rex Ryan all that time either. Wait, did I just bash Ryan. Well, I'll say if he has a problem with what I said he can comment on this blog, and I'll say it to his cyberface.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Picking the Games
I've never done this before. And I'm super stoked about it. I really should have went into sports broadcasting. I'm going to pick the games this week using the line.
First things first; Baltimore is getting 3 points. This is the easiest game to pick because everyone knows that the team who wins will not win by more than three points. It's a coin flip game anyway. I'm going with Baltimore and I'll explain a little more later, but for now it will suffice to say that Pittsburgh could easily win, but I doubt they win by more than three.
Second; Green Bay is getting 2.5. Green Bay is hot. I love Aaron Rodgers. I love the Packers defense. I really just like the Packers. I picked them to win the Super Bowl. But... Everyone, and I mean everyone is going with the Pack, and that's just way to suspicious. The three main areas that help us all pick these games is QB: Push with a slight advantage to Ryan at home. DEF: Packers. Coach: Microscopic advantage to McCarthy when considering experience in big games, but you have to impressed with Smith's job in Atlanta in just three years. So the Packers win definitively in the defensive category, and barely in the Coaching department, but I still think that the ATL is a huge home field advantage, and although it hammers against my reason, for the reason that everyone likes the dog in this one, I'm taking, ever so reluctantly, the Falcons to cover.
Third; Seattle is getting 10. Seattle has 11 men this week. Seattle is 8-9. Seattle is coming off an emotional win. If Seattle wins, it won't be by much. If they lose, we know it will be massive. Considering all this, and my gut (which always hates the Seachickens) a no brainer pick for the Bears and I'm taking the points.
Last: The Jets are getting 8.5. Think about this. What's the least amount of points that the beastly Pats offense could put up? The absolute least? I say 24. What is the most that Mark Sanchez, in the freezing cold, who had a terrible game last week against the Colts indoors, could put up on a somewhat equal defense, even if they ran all over them. I say 17. Consider that the football gods love Rex Ryan which closes the current 7 point gap by 4. So now we're down to three. But we've just determined the most the Jets could score and the least the Pats could score. Considering all of that, and the Rex Ryan factor we've determined a 4 point Patriots victory, but let's be a little more objective. I really think the Pats will put up 31, and I think the max the Jets could score is 17, so to meet in the middle lets add another 3.5 to the 4 we have for the Jets, and after all that we have... the Jets covering? Yeah, the Jets covering. All because of the Rex Ryan factor? Does the Rex Ryan factor cause him to make a game closer, or just win? Hmm... I say the Jets cover but barely.
First things first; Baltimore is getting 3 points. This is the easiest game to pick because everyone knows that the team who wins will not win by more than three points. It's a coin flip game anyway. I'm going with Baltimore and I'll explain a little more later, but for now it will suffice to say that Pittsburgh could easily win, but I doubt they win by more than three.
Second; Green Bay is getting 2.5. Green Bay is hot. I love Aaron Rodgers. I love the Packers defense. I really just like the Packers. I picked them to win the Super Bowl. But... Everyone, and I mean everyone is going with the Pack, and that's just way to suspicious. The three main areas that help us all pick these games is QB: Push with a slight advantage to Ryan at home. DEF: Packers. Coach: Microscopic advantage to McCarthy when considering experience in big games, but you have to impressed with Smith's job in Atlanta in just three years. So the Packers win definitively in the defensive category, and barely in the Coaching department, but I still think that the ATL is a huge home field advantage, and although it hammers against my reason, for the reason that everyone likes the dog in this one, I'm taking, ever so reluctantly, the Falcons to cover.
Third; Seattle is getting 10. Seattle has 11 men this week. Seattle is 8-9. Seattle is coming off an emotional win. If Seattle wins, it won't be by much. If they lose, we know it will be massive. Considering all this, and my gut (which always hates the Seachickens) a no brainer pick for the Bears and I'm taking the points.
Last: The Jets are getting 8.5. Think about this. What's the least amount of points that the beastly Pats offense could put up? The absolute least? I say 24. What is the most that Mark Sanchez, in the freezing cold, who had a terrible game last week against the Colts indoors, could put up on a somewhat equal defense, even if they ran all over them. I say 17. Consider that the football gods love Rex Ryan which closes the current 7 point gap by 4. So now we're down to three. But we've just determined the most the Jets could score and the least the Pats could score. Considering all of that, and the Rex Ryan factor we've determined a 4 point Patriots victory, but let's be a little more objective. I really think the Pats will put up 31, and I think the max the Jets could score is 17, so to meet in the middle lets add another 3.5 to the 4 we have for the Jets, and after all that we have... the Jets covering? Yeah, the Jets covering. All because of the Rex Ryan factor? Does the Rex Ryan factor cause him to make a game closer, or just win? Hmm... I say the Jets cover but barely.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Rhetoric Concerning Harsh Rhetoric is Harsh
I don't do politics. Usually. I vote. I have opinions. But mostly I'm disgusted by the influence that talking heads and entertainment pundits have over the hopes, fears, and political zeitgeist of our nation. That's why I don't do politics. Call me cynical, but I wonder how much actual news is on the news anymore. I say, with all seriousness, and I'm not joking, that the news program most worth the American's time is not really a news program. It's the Daily News with John Stewart. It may be liberal, but it does exactly what somebody needs to do; point out the glaring, numerous, and silly inconsistencies and hypocrisies of modern American society.
Americans have an uncanny propensity for debate . And the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are awesome things. With that said, there is something the American people are forgetting these days that is fundamental to their being American; it's okay to strongly disagree. Your enemy is the person who wants to harm you, not the person who simply disagrees with you. As Americans we believe we can talk this out. And as a blogger, I do not purport to give any official or expert opinion, but as an American consider myself well within my rights to share an opinion and hope that those who disagree will comment and that not have to worry about being physically sabotaged, and that maybe we can have a cup of coffee, or (gasp), be friends. The bruising of your ego is not an occasion for hate, but for appreciation. Also, I hope that those who feel as strongly as I do, do not take me as a prophet, but would take a little bit of time to objectively analyze my comments. This seems to be too much to ask in today's political/entertainment climate. Preaching to the choir is as in vogue in the news as it is in churches. I think a lot of you like being in the choir, not only do I prefer to be in the pew, I don' t think you harmonize very well these days. So I may be at the pulpit today, but I'd like the choir to go sit down please.
So I realize that USA Today is a liberal publication. Now I ask, if you have a problem with left-leaning publications, is it because it's not conservative, or because it's biased. They ran a story on the shootings in Arizona with the headline: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand? with the sub-headline: "Shootings fuel debate on tenor of rhetoric". In the article there is a quote from Rep. James Clyburn, (D) from S. Carolina. He said he worries about the effect of words on "people who may not be clicking on all cylinders" Apparently many Democrats have voiced concerns that the heated and sometimes incendiary comments from right-wing programming is to some degree sparking a dangerous angst among anti-government, ultra-right wing, folks. Republican aide to Sarah Palin is quoted as saying, "This is a terrible politicization of a tragedy" I think she's right. So kudos to USA Today for publishing it. The aide (Mansour) also said "Craziness is not an ideology". Yeah that's true, but most crazy people have an ideology. Mansour does a fantastic job of de-politicizing the issue. (That's sarcasm)
I'm not going to mention anything about how familiar this whole discussion is. How about Marlyn Manson, or Eminem, getting blamed for school shootings and youth violence, and all the lefties saying, "craziness is not an ideology", and the righties, responding that it's not worth the risk, that censorship in this case is necessary to protect individuals? Talk about role reversals. And the truth is that there really is no objective way to measure how much influence Eminem has on already disturbed individuals, or whether his music has the ability to turn otherwise normal people into crazy violent people, but to deny that it has an influence on that basis is ludicrous, so Ms. Mansour, let's be fair. We shan't blame Limbaugh and Beck for the shootings, but to deny that their daily rhetorical programs have a substantial effect on the political mood of our culture is again ludicrous.
If only Beck, Limbaugh, Matthews, and Olbermen were merely sharing opinions and allowing for us to decide. But unfortunately we don't seem to have the patience for discussion. We listen to Beck because he agrees with us, and dismiss Olbermen as unworthy of our attention or we listen to Matthews and dismiss Limbaugh, because hearing an opposite opinion than ours, as opposed to actually sharpening us, we believe today that hearing an opposite opinion will corrupt us. What is this? The middle ages? (And for anyone who wants to claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, let us consider the most popular political entertainers: liberal: Matthews, (moderate) Olbermen, and just to be nice, Stewart, and Colbert, although they shouldn't really count. Conservative: Beck, O'Reilly, (moderate) Hannity, Rush. If I count Stewart and Colbert, it's even. If I don't, well it looks like the conservative bias wins. But then they are the newspapers, and magazines. Granted. But I'd like you to name 3 journalist from Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report) The problem is compounded when none of these people we're listening is even trying to pretend that they trying to be objective. They are shamelessly persuading us. Not that there is not room for opinion based shows on the news, but when we take their obviously spun viewpoints as the way it is, they become not mere talking heads from whom we may gain perspective, but iconoclasts who hold an enormously un-American influence over the thoughts and speech of we 21st century lazy Americans (if we can be truly called that anymore). As opposed to saying, "I already agree with Beck, and what he says is how it is", let us leave the middle ages now and ask one basic fundamental question, "is what he says the pure truth, or is there an angle?" Of course there's an angle.
The article was titled: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand?" It's a rhetorical question with a simple and straight forward answer. And in the midst of this tragedy it is right to do some self-evaluation, and see what it's potential causes are. Let us also reason together here. To call someone out for politicizing is usually politicizing. It hurts the said cause. This was was out of hand before anyone lost of life, and its problems are not primarily pragmatic. American politics are supposed to be heated, discussion based, and often hairy and difficult. But not nasty. Americans believe that almost everything can be talked out. But if we are really going to "talk" we're going to listen to the other side, be willing to change our own opinion, and leave our ego's at the door. I don't think its about procuring our own political power. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, its about the fact that we can learn to exist as a society with sometimes grossly differing opinions. In America, the belief in freedom of speech supersedes every other belief, and freedom of speech is best protected in honest attempts at objectivity and the willingness to break bread with your political opposite. This is my mere opinion. The Gospel is found in someone else's writings.
Americans have an uncanny propensity for debate . And the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are awesome things. With that said, there is something the American people are forgetting these days that is fundamental to their being American; it's okay to strongly disagree. Your enemy is the person who wants to harm you, not the person who simply disagrees with you. As Americans we believe we can talk this out. And as a blogger, I do not purport to give any official or expert opinion, but as an American consider myself well within my rights to share an opinion and hope that those who disagree will comment and that not have to worry about being physically sabotaged, and that maybe we can have a cup of coffee, or (gasp), be friends. The bruising of your ego is not an occasion for hate, but for appreciation. Also, I hope that those who feel as strongly as I do, do not take me as a prophet, but would take a little bit of time to objectively analyze my comments. This seems to be too much to ask in today's political/entertainment climate. Preaching to the choir is as in vogue in the news as it is in churches. I think a lot of you like being in the choir, not only do I prefer to be in the pew, I don' t think you harmonize very well these days. So I may be at the pulpit today, but I'd like the choir to go sit down please.
So I realize that USA Today is a liberal publication. Now I ask, if you have a problem with left-leaning publications, is it because it's not conservative, or because it's biased. They ran a story on the shootings in Arizona with the headline: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand? with the sub-headline: "Shootings fuel debate on tenor of rhetoric". In the article there is a quote from Rep. James Clyburn, (D) from S. Carolina. He said he worries about the effect of words on "people who may not be clicking on all cylinders" Apparently many Democrats have voiced concerns that the heated and sometimes incendiary comments from right-wing programming is to some degree sparking a dangerous angst among anti-government, ultra-right wing, folks. Republican aide to Sarah Palin is quoted as saying, "This is a terrible politicization of a tragedy" I think she's right. So kudos to USA Today for publishing it. The aide (Mansour) also said "Craziness is not an ideology". Yeah that's true, but most crazy people have an ideology. Mansour does a fantastic job of de-politicizing the issue. (That's sarcasm)
I'm not going to mention anything about how familiar this whole discussion is. How about Marlyn Manson, or Eminem, getting blamed for school shootings and youth violence, and all the lefties saying, "craziness is not an ideology", and the righties, responding that it's not worth the risk, that censorship in this case is necessary to protect individuals? Talk about role reversals. And the truth is that there really is no objective way to measure how much influence Eminem has on already disturbed individuals, or whether his music has the ability to turn otherwise normal people into crazy violent people, but to deny that it has an influence on that basis is ludicrous, so Ms. Mansour, let's be fair. We shan't blame Limbaugh and Beck for the shootings, but to deny that their daily rhetorical programs have a substantial effect on the political mood of our culture is again ludicrous.
If only Beck, Limbaugh, Matthews, and Olbermen were merely sharing opinions and allowing for us to decide. But unfortunately we don't seem to have the patience for discussion. We listen to Beck because he agrees with us, and dismiss Olbermen as unworthy of our attention or we listen to Matthews and dismiss Limbaugh, because hearing an opposite opinion than ours, as opposed to actually sharpening us, we believe today that hearing an opposite opinion will corrupt us. What is this? The middle ages? (And for anyone who wants to claim that the media is overwhelmingly liberal, let us consider the most popular political entertainers: liberal: Matthews, (moderate) Olbermen, and just to be nice, Stewart, and Colbert, although they shouldn't really count. Conservative: Beck, O'Reilly, (moderate) Hannity, Rush. If I count Stewart and Colbert, it's even. If I don't, well it looks like the conservative bias wins. But then they are the newspapers, and magazines. Granted. But I'd like you to name 3 journalist from Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report) The problem is compounded when none of these people we're listening is even trying to pretend that they trying to be objective. They are shamelessly persuading us. Not that there is not room for opinion based shows on the news, but when we take their obviously spun viewpoints as the way it is, they become not mere talking heads from whom we may gain perspective, but iconoclasts who hold an enormously un-American influence over the thoughts and speech of we 21st century lazy Americans (if we can be truly called that anymore). As opposed to saying, "I already agree with Beck, and what he says is how it is", let us leave the middle ages now and ask one basic fundamental question, "is what he says the pure truth, or is there an angle?" Of course there's an angle.
The article was titled: "Have nasty politics gotten out of hand?" It's a rhetorical question with a simple and straight forward answer. And in the midst of this tragedy it is right to do some self-evaluation, and see what it's potential causes are. Let us also reason together here. To call someone out for politicizing is usually politicizing. It hurts the said cause. This was was out of hand before anyone lost of life, and its problems are not primarily pragmatic. American politics are supposed to be heated, discussion based, and often hairy and difficult. But not nasty. Americans believe that almost everything can be talked out. But if we are really going to "talk" we're going to listen to the other side, be willing to change our own opinion, and leave our ego's at the door. I don't think its about procuring our own political power. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, its about the fact that we can learn to exist as a society with sometimes grossly differing opinions. In America, the belief in freedom of speech supersedes every other belief, and freedom of speech is best protected in honest attempts at objectivity and the willingness to break bread with your political opposite. This is my mere opinion. The Gospel is found in someone else's writings.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Still Rampaging and Waiting for Someone to Engage
The BCS is goofy and money-driven, and every 7 years the wrong team wins the championship, but the team that allegedly should have at least had a chance still gets a huge chunk of money and national notoriety and school pride, but must hear it from the media day in and day out that they deserve more, because the media wants a champion for whatever reason, not realizing that it will inevitably soften the best regular season in the sports.
So in one sardonic run-sentence, I have effectively stated my confused position. Because if I knew nothing about the BCS and somebody told me they decided the college football championship based on a mathematical equation, and the votes of men and women who do not strap on a uniform, I would say, "that's stupid". And I also understand that its not really about the game or the kids, but the money, and no matter how many cowardly, pragmatists want to say, "That's just how it is", can never convince me that "that's how it should be". Call me a moralist, but I'm not ashamed of purity. There's a part of me that wants to see a playoff, that sees the ridiculousness of the current system, and then a part of me that wants people to enjoy a few good bowl games that mean everything to the kids in them. Did you see the Freshmen from 6-7 Tennessee crying after a loss in the Music City Bowl?
I am not frustrated with people that want to see a playoff, but with the line of thinking that dominates the anti-BCS mob in the media. Exhibit A: High on rhetoric, low on logic, it's ESPN columnist, Rick Reilly.
He says, "TCU's 21-19 win over arguably the hottest team in college football -- Wisconsin -- Saturday in the Rose Bowl means the Horned Frogs are undefeated and untied and unwelcome in the BCS "Doesn't Prove A Damn Thing Game" in Glendale."
Wow. Talk about overstated.
Again, "The Horned Frogs' perfect 13-0 season was rendered pointless by The Greedheads Who Run College Football."
Pointless? They won the freakin Rose Bowl! They have 9,000 kids go to their private school. This was a huge win for TCU.
And again, "They say with this system, "every game counts." Except of course, TCU's epic win over Wisconsin to stay undefeated Saturday. Counts exactly as much as a rainbow to Stevie Wonder."
I still think the Rose Bowl counts.
And yet again, "Just another day in college football -- the Chrysler K Car of sport -- the only place in the world where athletes have to shrug and say, 'Well, I guess we just have to settle for an undefeated season," as a few Horned Frogs did after the game Saturday. "Today we proved that we have just as good players as anybody else in the country,' said Horned Frogs QB Andy Dalton, who won't get the chance to prove another thing -- that they're better.
Okay, there's a difference between champion and "best team in the country". College Football fans are hampered by the unreasonable desire to see the best team. Granted, there is not as much parody in College Football as there is in the NFL, but you start getting near the top, anybody can beat anybody on any given day. The reason that the system is broken is not because it makes teams like TCU's season "pointless" but the reason the system is broken is that it thrives under the illusion that we ought to be searching for the "best team". No, we ought to be searching for a champion. TCU does deserve a shot. But you don't know if they got screwed, because you don't have a playoff system. My point is not that we shouldn't have a playoff, but if you're argument for a playoff is based on the idea that mid-majors are getting screwed, you're as blind as the BCS that believes it can gauge greatness on an irrational SOS stat.
And when I think about it in this light. I don't really want a playoff. Because the only way to do it is to make a set amount of conferences, eliminate "mid-majors", do away with the computer and the voting, and have eight major conferences, and have the winners play it off in the tournament.
Or,
Get over the whole "national championship thing" and like the kids, put all your emotional stock in your bowl game. Who knows college football might be fun again? I could go either way. But please just stop whining about how TCU is getting screwed. If they got killed by Auburn by 65, everyone would be like "oh". And how do you know they wouldn't have.
So in one sardonic run-sentence, I have effectively stated my confused position. Because if I knew nothing about the BCS and somebody told me they decided the college football championship based on a mathematical equation, and the votes of men and women who do not strap on a uniform, I would say, "that's stupid". And I also understand that its not really about the game or the kids, but the money, and no matter how many cowardly, pragmatists want to say, "That's just how it is", can never convince me that "that's how it should be". Call me a moralist, but I'm not ashamed of purity. There's a part of me that wants to see a playoff, that sees the ridiculousness of the current system, and then a part of me that wants people to enjoy a few good bowl games that mean everything to the kids in them. Did you see the Freshmen from 6-7 Tennessee crying after a loss in the Music City Bowl?
I am not frustrated with people that want to see a playoff, but with the line of thinking that dominates the anti-BCS mob in the media. Exhibit A: High on rhetoric, low on logic, it's ESPN columnist, Rick Reilly.
He says, "TCU's 21-19 win over arguably the hottest team in college football -- Wisconsin -- Saturday in the Rose Bowl means the Horned Frogs are undefeated and untied and unwelcome in the BCS "Doesn't Prove A Damn Thing Game" in Glendale."
Wow. Talk about overstated.
Again, "The Horned Frogs' perfect 13-0 season was rendered pointless by The Greedheads Who Run College Football."
Pointless? They won the freakin Rose Bowl! They have 9,000 kids go to their private school. This was a huge win for TCU.
And again, "They say with this system, "every game counts." Except of course, TCU's epic win over Wisconsin to stay undefeated Saturday. Counts exactly as much as a rainbow to Stevie Wonder."
I still think the Rose Bowl counts.
And yet again, "Just another day in college football -- the Chrysler K Car of sport -- the only place in the world where athletes have to shrug and say, 'Well, I guess we just have to settle for an undefeated season," as a few Horned Frogs did after the game Saturday. "Today we proved that we have just as good players as anybody else in the country,' said Horned Frogs QB Andy Dalton, who won't get the chance to prove another thing -- that they're better.
Okay, there's a difference between champion and "best team in the country". College Football fans are hampered by the unreasonable desire to see the best team. Granted, there is not as much parody in College Football as there is in the NFL, but you start getting near the top, anybody can beat anybody on any given day. The reason that the system is broken is not because it makes teams like TCU's season "pointless" but the reason the system is broken is that it thrives under the illusion that we ought to be searching for the "best team". No, we ought to be searching for a champion. TCU does deserve a shot. But you don't know if they got screwed, because you don't have a playoff system. My point is not that we shouldn't have a playoff, but if you're argument for a playoff is based on the idea that mid-majors are getting screwed, you're as blind as the BCS that believes it can gauge greatness on an irrational SOS stat.
And when I think about it in this light. I don't really want a playoff. Because the only way to do it is to make a set amount of conferences, eliminate "mid-majors", do away with the computer and the voting, and have eight major conferences, and have the winners play it off in the tournament.
Or,
Get over the whole "national championship thing" and like the kids, put all your emotional stock in your bowl game. Who knows college football might be fun again? I could go either way. But please just stop whining about how TCU is getting screwed. If they got killed by Auburn by 65, everyone would be like "oh". And how do you know they wouldn't have.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Don't Get It
I'm missing something. Nothing is self-evident to everyone. That's what makes things so difficult. I need to hear the reasoning of folks who are not outraged that there's a 7-9 team in the playoffs who gets a first round home game, and two 10-6 teams are out of it? Here's what I've heard. "You win your division you're in." What? Why? That's not an answer that's a restatement of the problem. Why should it be that way? If you can answer me that, that would be an answer.
To me divisions exist to maintain and forge rivalries (which is sweet), and to keep teams from traveling all over the country, except the Cowboys, (which is fine by me as well.) If you disallow the Seahawks this year, you still have you're division battles, and the tie-breaker's can still go to the team with the best divisional record. But also, you would not get a chance to have a NFC West Championship. That's the one downside. But to me missing this year's NFC West Championship is like missing this year's professional lacrosse championship. I can live with that. I'd much rather not see the Bucs and Giants miss the playoffs than miss the "compelling" Rams and Seahawks battle out for the league's coveted, "most mediocre title". No, not even "mediocre", more like, "Not as bad as ten other teams title" The NFL HAS to change this. It is self-evident to me. Apparently to others it's self-evident that you win your division, you're in. I don't know. Win at least 9 games in a 16 game season and you're in. Sounds reasonable to me.
To me divisions exist to maintain and forge rivalries (which is sweet), and to keep teams from traveling all over the country, except the Cowboys, (which is fine by me as well.) If you disallow the Seahawks this year, you still have you're division battles, and the tie-breaker's can still go to the team with the best divisional record. But also, you would not get a chance to have a NFC West Championship. That's the one downside. But to me missing this year's NFC West Championship is like missing this year's professional lacrosse championship. I can live with that. I'd much rather not see the Bucs and Giants miss the playoffs than miss the "compelling" Rams and Seahawks battle out for the league's coveted, "most mediocre title". No, not even "mediocre", more like, "Not as bad as ten other teams title" The NFL HAS to change this. It is self-evident to me. Apparently to others it's self-evident that you win your division, you're in. I don't know. Win at least 9 games in a 16 game season and you're in. Sounds reasonable to me.
The Beauty of Words
I went to Ohio for Christmas. I read nothing but a sermon, and my Bible. I ate too much. And watched an embarrassing amount of television. In short I splurged. And as much as I think my metabolism is paying for it, my IQ is paying even more. The television is so subtle in its brain draining effort, but the effects are felt today. I have nothing to say in my blog except this, and at least I know that going forward, as I try to regain the 6 IQ points I lost, that I have enough of a vocabulary to say nothing in a paragraph, unlike lesser mortals who can say nothing in mere nanoseconds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
