CONTEST UPDATE

CONTEST UPDATE

Phillips Rips Cardinals, Carpenter Rips Into Ryan

Phillips Rips Cardinals, Carpenter Rips Into Ryan

My E-Mail Inbox Today

Some days are slow when it comes to important or halfway necessary e-mails in my Inbox. Today ranked up there in awesome e-mails, however. It’s only 12:30 PM and I’ve already received these two gems:

1) Hello,My name is Florance Gadu,i saw your email address today as am searching in the Internet and became intrested in you,i will also like to know you more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom I am.Here is my email address(florance_cota@yahoo.com) I believe we can move from here I am waiting.Remeber good relationship goes beyond distance and colour,honest,emotions,carer and kind that lead both ,lovers to fly highly on the wings of happines, and in all true love is all we need in life to be happy Thanks a lot for your kind attentionFlorance.

Now, I’m engaged and will be married on October 10th. But boy is this tempting. Here are a few observations I have made about this message.

a) My name is Florance Gadu
I don’t know many people named Florance, but isn’t it usually spelled Florence? Regardless, this woman stands out from other Florance’s and Florence’s in every way.

b) i saw your email address today as am searching in the Internet and became intrested in you
Perhaps this is a common practice of hers, stumbling upon e-mail addresses while searching the Internet. Probably not though, it’s obvious that we are meant to be together. She became interested in me simply by seeing my e-mail address. Who can blame her- jmwoelfel@yahoo.com – that’s a good looking address!

c) i will also like to know you more,and i want you to send an email to my email address so i can give you my picture for you to know whom I am
She’s playing hard to get. She could have just sent me a picture of herself in this introductory e-mail, but she likes the chase. My instructions are to send her an e-mail back so that she can then send me a picture of her so I will “know whom I am.” Wait a minute- do I already know her? Maybe it’s someone I see on a daily basis. Maybe this isn’t as random as she led me to first believe. It could be someone I work with, someone I pass while jogging, someone who frequents the same restaurants as I. The mystery!

d) Here is my email address(florance_cota@yahoo.com)
Her e-mail address is Florance_cota, yet she introduced herself as Florance Gadu. Of course, I assume this to be the alias she has chosen to hide her true identity from me. But how complex is this planned revelation that she has even changed her fake maiden name from Cota and adopted Gadu? This woman is deeper than one would assume.

e) I believe we can move from here I am waiting
Florance believes we can now move beyond where our relationship currently lies. Apparently we are ready for the next step. You know, the one that comes after an e-mail introducing one’s name.

f) Remeber good relationship goes beyond distance and colour,honest,emotions,carer and kind that lead both ,lovers to fly highly on the wings of happines, and in all true love is all we need in life to be happy
Ah, she speaks the language of love! I don’t know what a “happine” is, but I want to fly on the wings of them with Florence… er… Florance. She reminds me that a good relationship is more than honesty. It’s deeper than that. Florance understands what Corinne doesn’t. Sometimes true love is about lying. Oh Florance, I’ve been waiting all my life to hear from you.

2) The other e-mail I received was a notification that I had made a sale on half.com. I had sold a book called “How to Understand Your Bible” that was a requirement for one of the classes I took in college. The purchaser? Jesus Guerrero.

Survivor: The Sandra dilemma

I’ll be honest; I love Survivor. I realize that it may come with the same negative connotation that comes to my mind when I hear people talk about the latest developments on “Dancing with the Stars.” I don’t know how that is even a show, but that’s another topic. The “Heroes Vs. Villains” season just wrapped up last night on CBS. It was another great season filled with twists and turns with another disappointing ending, in my opinion. The 20th season (wow!) ended last night with Sandra winning the $1 million for the 2nd time. Sandra beat out Parvati and Russell in the final vote. Jeff only had to ready 8 votes, which I believe means that Sandra ended up with 6 of the 9 votes. Russell didn’t get a single vote despite getting to the final vote for the 2nd straight season. At the live reunion show, Russell claimed that there is a flaw in the show. To some extent, I agree with him.

The great thing about Survivor is that it is hard to argue against who ends up winning. There are always going to be those on the side of the contestant that doesn’t win that has reasons why their favorite contestant should have won. Many times those arguments do have validity and good reasons for them to feel that way. The problem is, the jury cannot get a vote wrong because- well, they’re the jury. They get to vote however they want to. There is no right or wrong way to vote. The game is set up so that those who are left on the panel get to decide who gets the money, and that’s what happened again last night. The majority of the panel wanted to give the money to Sandra.

The same thing that makes Survivor great also makes it insanely frustrating. Rarely does the person that plays the game “the best” win the $1 million. Now I realize that you can argue that the contestants who won should be considered the ones that played the game the best since they were, after all, the winners. But those of you who watch the show understand what I mean. There are some contestants that are just better at strategizing and have more control over getting themselves further in the game than others. Then there are others (ala Sandra) that get further along in the game because they are being used by the strong players for a vote. Sandra never was voted out because, well… she wasn’t a threat. She has won the game twice and has never won an individual immunity challenge. When her tribe needed to sit someone out for a challenge, they chose Sandra whenever possible. She single-handedly lost her tribe immunity challenges because she is such a liability. When it came down to forming alliances, she failed. She consistently made alliances that were voted out. She just happened to be at the bottom of the list when her alliance was being picked off one by one because, again, those doing the voting knew that she wasn’t a physical threat to them down the road and maybe they could even use her vote as time went on. Sandra failed at pretty much everything she did. She did find the last hidden immunity idol, but she didn’t even end up needing to play it. No one was scared of her.

Russell, on the other hand, is the best player I have seen at getting to the final vote. He is the best strategizer. He knows which people to pick for his alliance. He also knows when the best time is to cut ties with someone and form a new alliance. He’s the best at finding hidden immunity idols and then how and when to use them. He made a big play by giving his hidden immunity idol to Parvati at the right time to save her. He’s the best at manipulation. He knows what to say to those he knows he is voting out to make sure their vote goes where it will benefit him the most. When he finds out that someone is targeting him, he makes sure that that person is always the next person to be voted out if he feels like they are a threat. He was by far the best at getting himself to the final vote. Parvati wouldn’t have been there without Russell. Sandra wouldn’t have been there without Russell. But the same isn’t true about Russell. If Parvati wouldn’t have been on board with Russell from the beginning, she would have been gone long ago. He chose Parvati and protected her more than once. Sandra also had nothing to do with getting Russell where he was. Russell himself found a way to get to the end.

The problem for Russell is, the jury always holds a grudge. And that is where I think the closest thing to what could be considered a flaw lies. You would think that after 19 seasons of a game that the contestants would go into the game knowing that you have to lie and manipulate people to win this game. You have to. And to some extent, they do know that. They know this while they are playing and they all to some degree lie to someone, no matter how they want to justify it. For some reason though, most seem unable to distinguish between someone who lies to them in the game and that person’s character outside of the show. This is a game. This isn’t life or death. The game is that you are the last person standing at the end to win $1 million. Lives aren’t at stake if you lie or trick someone. All of those jury members who stand up and address the final 3 people lied and tried to manipulate the people who were in the final 3, they just weren’t as good at it in some cases. The funny thing is that Sandra herself on multiple occasions last night talked about how her strategy was to try and get rid of Russell many times during the game and never could. It was like she was confessing that Russell was too good at the game that she couldn’t convince anyone to vote him off no matter how hard she tried. And yet, she got 6 votes and Russell got none. Those who played with Parvati gave her the 3 votes. In essence, the Heroes did not vote for Sandra. They voted against Russell. And that’s their right, it’s just stupid.

You can tell that there is a disconnect between the viewers of the show and those that play the game. Two seasons in a row the fans voted that Russell was the player of the season while those who were beaten by him refused to vote to give him the million dollars. It was personal. They don’t like Russell. They feel like there is a code that he is breaking. What’s interesting is that there is an unwritten code that the other players feel like he should have adhered to while playing while Russell feels like there is an unwritten responsibility for them to use their votes to reward the person who played the best game. One of the contestants told Russell last night that you have to lie while playing the game but he took it too far. What? So now we’re distinguishing between what lies someone can tell? The point of the game is to get to the end and win. Why would you do anything less than to do whatever you can to win the million dollars? The purpose of the game isn’t to make friends or get people to like you. All those people that talk about giving their vote to someone because they seemed to really care about them are confused as to why they are there to play the game. It’s still their right to throw their vote away and give Sandra another million dollars for being bad at the game, but it’s just dumb.

The majority of people that watch the show on tv agree that Russell played the best game. Parvati did a great job too- she was almost impossible to beat towards the end in individual immunity challenges. I could have stomached her winning. But Sandra? Come on. What the contestants are saying is that we would rather give the money to someone that made their tribe worse off in team reward and immunity challenges, that constantly picked the wrong alliance to belong to, that was unable to vote off the only person she wanted to, that was unable to even contend in personal immunity challenges, and that regardless of how angry the Heroes were that Russell lied to them and voted them out- Sandra was right there writing their names down too—she’s the one you want to reward?

I’m waiting for the season where someone stands up at the end and says “I thought we were together but you tricked me and you’re sitting there with the chance to win the $1 million and I’m not, so you’re getting my vote because you were better at getting there than I was. You deserve to win the money because you got yourself there through hard work, strategy, and logic and you aren’t there because someone else didn’t mind you staying because you weren’t a factor in any capacity of the game except having a vote to help their cause. I may not like you as a friend in this game, but I realize that the purpose of this game is to win $1 million and you did everything you could to put yourself in that spot. I also realize that just because you played by a certain set of standards and rules in this game, it does not say anything about your character outside of this game in the real world.” If someone ever says anything along those lines, I will know that someone finally understands what it means to play Survivor.

Let’s be honest. Anyone could be a Sandra or a Courtney. There’s a million of them sitting at home with no real physical ability. And honestly, how many of us see Sandra or Courtney as someone we could be in the same room with for more than 10 minutes? It’s not like they won because they’re so gosh darn likeable.

Ultimately, you have to take into account how the winner is chosen. And you have to realize that people cannot get past being beaten and reward you for being the one to have knocked them out. If I were the show’s producer, I would seriously consider changing how the winner is chosen. I would think about giving the decision to those who watch the show. I think this would make for better tv in the long run. Think about it- aren’t the most exciting times of the show when someone makes a big play and switches alliances or blindsides another contestant? Those are the best moments that Survivor is known for. If the jury keeps rewarding those that never do anything big and are the least hated, you’re going to see less and less of those types of moves because no one wants to be the one that has offended anyone. We’ll have a bunch of sissy’s playing the game walking around asking each other what their best childhood memory is. Who cares about that? I want to see lying and betrayal! I want to see people voted off who were so sure they weren’t going home that night that they didn’t even play one of their two immunity idols! That’s why I watch the show. Don’t give the contestants motivation to play a safe game.

Who cares if you like Russell? He won what the game was set up to be. Sandra getting those votes from the jury proves that Russell was successful in the game itself. No one on that jury can honestly say that Sandra was the best player. Do you think anyone on the jury would actually say that Sandra played a better game than they did? No way. She made it further in the game because those who were voted out before her were better players. Sandra made the claim last night that being awful at the challenges was a strategy. No it isn’t or she wouldn’t have even tried, though at times I think it’d be hard to tell.

The point is this: Sandra winning for the 2nd time is a kick in the crotch to those who watch this show. It’s a byproduct of giving the jury the power to pick the winner. I understand the ramifications and the fact that the players need to take that into account while playing. I’m afraid that it’s going to ruin the entertainment value of the show eventually when players start figuring out what Russell has exploited: You can’t be the best at getting to the end and win it at the same time. Russell is right- this is a flaw. As much as it is a part of the game that the jury decides the winner, it is too contrary to the game that you are trying to promote. Change it. Give the power to the people- isn’t that one of the reasons that shows like Dancing with the Stars and American Idol have so much success? How about flipping what is done now and let the jury have a $100,000 vote for their “player of the season” and letting the people decide who should have won the game? I think that way would be less wrong… and isn’t that how things are decided on Survivor?

Redesigned Cubs/Cards blog is up!

Ok, so we are starting to really get into this Cubs/Cardinals blogging thing and have moved to a new, much better site! I'm pretty excited about it. Here's the new link:

http://theoutfieldivy.com/

If you have any baseball loving bone in you, stop on over. We LOVE discussing baseball no matter who the team!!

Carbon Dating Adam's Tree house

Noah’s ark has been in the news again recently. You can read about the latest development here. As always, there are going to be different reactions to a story like this. Some will instantly think that this is proof that what they believe is true. Others will question the legitimacy of the finding and say the evidence is faulty. Either way, one of the things about these kinds of stories is the emphasis placed on carbon dating. Carbon dating has been used by proponents of those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible and also by those who try to disprove it. Here is an example from the most recent Noah’s Ark story:

“Yeung told the South China Morning Post that a piece of wood obtained from the site was dated as 4,800 years old by a carbon-dating method in Iran. This matches with the range of years stated in the Bible, suggesting when the vessel was built.”

The idea of being able to tell how old something is based off of the organic life that surrounds the site brought about some more questions for me. It made me wonder not so much about the accuracy (though I do question that sometimes), but about the range. Wikipedia says that the range could go up to 58,000 to 62,000 years back. Here’s why I question that.

Assume that the Bible is true and is a literal, historical account. Let’s say creation happened exactly as described in Genesis. After God created everything, he created man (Adam) and put him in the “Garden.” It seems to me that God must have created a lot of creation in mid-existence, if that makes sense. In other words, I don’t think that when he made the garden that there were no grown trees or plants yet. Or when he made the animals, He must have created some of them as fully grown. When He created Adam from the ground, was he a baby? I don’t think so. And then when he created Eve out of Adam, she must have been a full grown woman as well. But how would carbon daters date things in that Garden? If they were able to take a walk through the garden, how old would science say they were? Did the trees have rings on them? Did the soil consist of broken down minerals as if they had existed and decomposed already? If we found a piece of that wood today, how old would our dating system say that it is?

It’s all hard to wrap your head around, but I think these types of questions should be considered. When you hear a scientist say that the universe or the galaxy, etc is hundreds of millions of years old- is it appropriate for them to even make that kind of statement? The truth is, regardless of what we believe to be true, we can only go back so far. Even if you don’t believe in a creation by a higher power, you can only get back to there being some type of explosion that started the chain of events that brought us to where we are today. But you can’t account for where that explosion or where the matter that started it all out came from in the first place. Something can’t come from nothing. At least I don’t believe so.

So isn’t it rational to question how accurate carbon dating could be whether you’re pro-Bible or anti-Bible? I do think that if it can ever be confirmed that this find is the remains of Noah’s ark that it would be pretty significant because it would not only validate the historical accuracy of that account in the Bible, but would also lead to important questions surrounding they “why” behind there being an ark in the first place. The fact that the Bible states that the ark ended up on Mt. Ararat is pretty significant. It’s going to be hard to explain how a boat got up that high in a mountain range where it is quite a bit higher than any other previously discovered habitation level.

Regardless, those were just some thoughts going through my head today.

NBA Payoffs, er... Playoffs

The NBA playoffs are now in full force now and I have again noticed something this year that I cannot figure out. Almost without fail, when there is a series where the team with home court advantage goes up 2-0, (no matter what the matchup is and how good the team with the lead) Game 3 is almost always a blow-out win for the lower seeded team. I would love to see the statistics of what percentage of series the team down 2 games to 0 wins Game 3 by more than 10 points.

Why does this happen? Obviously when you’re down 2-0 in a best of 7 series, Game 3 is pretty much a must win. So… do the players play harder in that game then? Or does the team that is up 2-0 play less hard? I understand that the team down 2-0 now has home court advantage for Game 3. But if you were to go back and look at the regular season, home court advantage wouldn’t normally translate into a blowout win over a superior team.



From watching the playoffs in the past, my best guess would be the conclusion that I really don’t want to come to. Money. Can you imagine how much money the networks, the NBA, the individual teams, and the respective cities themselves would miss out on if the series were shorter? A series that lasts even one game longer could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue when you add in everything that goes into each game: advertising, ticket prices, concessions, souvenirs, hotel rooms, local restaurants and bars, etc.


I’m not saying that there is some conspiracy theory in motion, but what is a better explanation other than that the players of the team behind in the series all of the sudden are able to kick things into another gear and beat the better team so often? And if that’s the case- does that comfort you or frustrate you that the team you love needs to be on the brink of elimination before they have enough motivation to play better? Do shots go in more frequently when you’re almost eliminated from a playoff round? Or if we looked inside the numbers, would we find that the number of foul shots in Game 3 has been statistically more favorable to the team that is behind in the series?

Maybe ignorance is bliss on this subject…

My Other Blog

I will still be keeping this blog as up to date as possible, but come on- it's baseball season. A couple of my buddies and I started a blog to follow the Cubs and Cardinals season this year. Myself and Aaron Monts will be covering the Cubs and Steve Judd (a Cardinals fan who lives in Chicago) will be covering the Cardinals.

I'm very excited about it! We love all things baseball and even get together every spring to do our annual fantasy baseball auction. Here's the blog site- if you're a fan of either team, you should click on that "follow" button and visit often. It is updated almost every day. Come discuss baseball with us!

http://101yearsandcounting.blogspot.com/

Mark Levin and saving lives (and boobs)

I read a pretty good article on Relevant magazine’s website called “Christianity and Health Care Reform.” To me, one of the most interesting parts of the article was the comments that followed. There were a few comments from readers that live outside of the United States. I was fascinated to read their feedback because their mindset and how they approach the idea of healthcare is completely different than those of us who live in the middle of this debate. Those who commented genuinely did not understand why there was outrage. They appreciated that health care in their country was provided for them. They couldn’t figure out why a government would not provide this service for their people. One especially couldn’t figure out why Christians would be against reform and would not want their government to get involved within this arena.

Look, I understand that there are a lot of people that are against more government involvement in our lives. And that’s fine. I’ve never seen people protest the government for providing Medicare and Medicaid for people in need. And yes, I know that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble- but that doesn’t mean that at the core that these were bad programs in the first place. I’ve never heard an outcry from the people saying we should not have these programs to take care of the elderly. Odd. But regardless- of all the arenas we would support the government (that WE elect) being involved in, why do we want to keep them out of health care?? I am tired of health care being treated as a business rather than a public service. It’s your freaking health! Should I have the right to live a more healthy life than those that can’t afford to?

Often when I am driving home from Corinne’s at night I listen to Mark Levin. He’s one of those guys that spends most of his radio show yelling in a high pitch voice about how the country is going to the crapper because Obama is a communist, etc. I try to listen to people like that so I can hear the other side of the argument so I can at least see where both sides are coming from. A couple of weeks ago, he was making the case of how awful it was going to be if we had government run health care. He relayed a story about a woman who lived somewhere in Europe and her struggles with socialized coverage. Apparently, she found out that she had breast cancer. The doctors caught it early enough and performed a mastectomy and she is now cancer free. The issue came post-surgery. In her letter, she described the self-image and self-confidence issues she was having after the procedure. She was all set to have cosmetic surgery to help her with her struggles when she received a letter in the mail from the insurance company telling her that her claim was rejected because it was considered cosmetic surgery. Levin then drove the point home- “Do you see where our country is headed? This is our future!”

As I was listening to his spiel, I couldn’t help but think that in that particular case- the health care system worked just as it should have. I sympathize with women that have had to have surgery that has left them with what they consider a less than desirable body. I personally know women that have had mastectomies. But the real issue is- what should health care cover? The immediate threat was the cancer. And the health care system treated it and covered it. She was in danger of losing her life, and as a public service she was treated. I believe the self-image problems that were left behind are real. But I agree with the insurance company- it would be cosmetic surgery. And no one is telling her that she can’t have that procedure. They’re simply saying that she will need to be the one that pays for it. And I agree. Who would be able to say where it would end? Can you say the teenage girl that struggles with depression and self-image issues because she feels she is uglier than all the other girls in school has any less valid point? Are her feelings any less real? I’ve worked with high school students and I can say from my experience in talking with them that it is a very real issue. But I don’t think that insurance paying for ways to alter your body is the answer. The better answer is a correct teaching on where beauty comes from in the first place.

I was talking to someone yesterday that is getting married next month. Her fiancé works for the state and is currently paying over $100 a month on health insurance. When he adds her to his plan after the wedding, his cost for healthcare will rise to over $400 a month. If he adds her five year old child, the cost will be over $900 A MONTH. And somehow, there is an outcry on healthcare reform. It angers me that there are so many people struggling to pay bills already and now many are spending 1/3rd of their take home pay on the ability to keep their health. Shame on us.

LOST discussion!

Some work friends and I e-mail back and forth after the weekly Lost episode to discuss what happened and how it all fits into the entire them of the show. Of course, we never really come up with answers, just more questions. But honestly, that is what makes this show so amazing. The writers are going to prove their geniusness if they can wrap together everything that is happening right now. And I'm sure they will.

I've never talked about LOST on my blog, I don't think. But I'm interested in hearing some feedback on what you think is going on. As we continue to find out more about what is happening on the island (and off the island), there seems to be two major "genres" running through the show. Faith vs. Science. I guess I just can’t figure out how the reality of what is really happening on the show is going to mesh.

The scene on the beach a few weeks ago between non-Locke and Widmore could have personified faith vs. science, the constant struggle between Jacob and MIB/non-Locke/Smokey- (whatever) is a fate vs. freewill. They have all these themes going on that need to be resolved—at least in the scope of revealing what the reality of the island is.

It is obvious that a theme in both realities is the need for balance between good and evil. The scale balanced by with a white and black rock idea on the island was echoed this week by the painting in Widmore’s office of a scale also balanced by something white and black that they made sure to keep in the screen while Desmond and Widmore were having their discussion. That part I get, I guess. That for this island and reality to exist (and really, the world), there needs to be a balance. But how time travel, electro-magnetic fields, alternate timelines, etc fit in with that and how they can either keep the good vs. evil balance or fail to do so is what I don’t understand.

What are your thoughts/predictions?

From Health Care Reform to Robin Hood. And back.

The healthcare reform bill has generated a lot of passionate dialogue lately. I admit, I have taken part of some myself. My argument has not been for one side or another, however. I honestly don't know enough about what the bill actually will do to know whether or not I support it. I do believe our healthcare system needs reform, I just don't know that this will take care of the problems we face. And I certainly don't want to blindly support the bill or blindly oppose it as I feel many do. No, my argument is for the reasons we decide to take whichever side we end up falling on.

I guess what I have come to terms with is that, for most, the issue is not health care reform at all. It is about ideology. It's about whose role it is to do what in our country. It's about what we believe we are entitled to and what we are not entitled to as Americans or even humans in general. Without trying to cover every road that this one topic can lead us down, let me sum up where I fall in the dialogue with one example:

This week I overheard someone talking about the healthcare bill passing and how upset they were. It was your typical “our country’s going down the drain, I’m scared for our children” kind of talk. She then went on to talk about how her family (who both have full time jobs) is struggling to make ends meet because they are being taxed so much and the cost of everything just keeps rising and rising. And then in the same breath, she talked about the upgrades they are making to their home, the trip to Chicago they were planning this weekend, the multiple days of golf her husband is playing this week, and the shopping she did on the West Coast a couple of weeks ago. I'm not saying that one doesn't have the right to do any of those things. But let's not kid ourselves. Most Americans are not "struggling" to make ends meet. We may be struggling to afford the nice car we drive, the big screen TV we watch, the premium cable package we subscribe to, the vacations we take, our dinners eating out, our MacBooks, IPods, IPhones, our shopping, our golf, etc. But if we were honest, most of us are not struggling to meet ends meet. But many, including this individual, truly believe they are.

It is this thinking that I question. I have heard and read many opinions about what people think about the passing of this bill- all from people that already have health insurance and have enough money to live comfortably. I have lived in my parents basement for 2 ½ years now and still believe that I live above my needs. To me, the argument should be whether or not this bill solves the problem, not a defensive stance that says we don’t want to be the ones that have to sacrifice. If an outcome of this bill is that it helps people that are lazy and don’t want to work and will leech the system, then that’s a problem. Let’s fix that. But my suspicion is even if we worked out all the kinks and started up a system that was proven only to help those that really need it is that the majority of people that are against this bill would still oppose the new system if it caused them to sacrifice their wealth.

Many believe that it should not be the governments’ role to decide where to distribute our money. And yet the United States gives more as a nation in aid than any other country in the world. When our country has continually given aid to other countries throughout our history, why have I never heard this be an issue? One could argue that we had already given the people of Haiti enough money before the hurricane—why is that ok with us? Why is it ok that after the hurricane our government stepped in and gave even more of our hard earned money?

I guess I just can’t figure out why some things are overlooked and then there’s a huge philosophical debate over one issue when it’s already been going on this whole time.

I was thinking this morning about Robin Hood, of all things. Remember what a great story that was? Remember how we rooted for him and saw him as the good guy even though he was a thief because he was giving the money to the poor? I’m not a socialist. I promise. But because of some theological beliefs I hold, I think there’s a reason we cheered for Robin Hood. I think we believe what he was doing was right. And then one day we woke up and we were rich. And then we didn’t like Robin Hood anymore.

All I’m saying is this: I think money and entitlement can make us blind. I think if we really got down to the heart of the issue and what we believed to be true, how that should work out in our day to day lives might frighten us a little.

And for those of us that are Christians and believe God is the one that allows certain people to be in power… is it possible that God continues to work out his purpose regardless of who is in office?

Let’s not get so caught up with this world that we miss the more important one that is coming.

Inglorious Basterds

I finally got around to watching Inglorious Basterds last night. I think I really liked it. There were a few pretty disgustingly graphic parts, but as usual- Tarentino did an amazing job of telling a story and setting up a climatic ending that kept me interested in how it would end. Just when you felt like the story was leading to a certain ending there was enough of a plot twist to make you nervous that it wouldn’t work out. Inglorious Basterds is a typical Tarentino movie. The movie was divided into chapters, much like Kill Bill. The storyline built up to a climactic ending scene like Reservoir Dogs. The dialogue followed the normal Tarentino patterns. The violence was gruesome and, at times, way over the top.

But there was one element that I took from this movie that I never have from any other Tarentino film. And perhaps it wasn’t intentional, but I think it was. I have really enjoyed some of Tarentino’s other films: Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2, the scene he directed in Four Rooms, etc. All of those movies had unique story lines and were entertaining to watch. But when the movie was over, that was it. There was definitely nothing to take away from those films aside from appreciation for a movie that doesn’t follow the usual rules of Hollywood films. But this one was different.

If you haven’t seen the movie, basically the 2nd half of the film is setting up for a final scene where the top four members of Hitler’s Third Reich, including Hitler himself, will be in attendance for the premiere of a new movie about a Nazi war hero who was left alone in a bell tower and killed over 200 enemy soldiers from his post over the span of 3 days. The group led by Brad Pitt’s character- The Inglorious Basterds (whose mission is to kill, and scalp, as many Nazi’s as they can) realize that this is their best shot at taking down all 4 of them at the same time and plan on blowing the building up. To complicate the storyline- the premiere is being held in a theatre owned by a Jewish woman whose entire family was killed by Nazis years earlier. She plans on locking the audience in and burning the theatre down with everyone trapped inside. Without doing the play by play of what ensues, Tarentino paints the picture of these Nazis, and especially Hitler- clapping, laughing, and celebrating during the movie premiere at the sight of the enemy soldiers being shot by the sniper in the bell tower. And then towards the end of the movie, the theatre is lit on fire and everyone in the audience runs towards the exits only to find them locked. From the balcony, two of the Basterds use machine guns and empty round after round on the Germans piling up by the doors below. Tarentino is brilliant because this type of story and this portrayal of carnage would only work in a movie like this. During that scene someone commented, “Well that’s an interesting alternate ending to what really happened.” Someone else responded, “That’s how we wished it had ended.” Don’t you think that is exactly the response Tarentino was going for? What other storyline could he have presented where the killing, and the way they were being killed (scalped, beaten with a baseball bat, etc) would make someone watching feel as though it was justified? The way the movie moves along you find yourself hoping that the plan leading up to this scene doesn’t fail. You want the theatre owner to have her revenge.

And yet, do you see the irony? They are sitting in a movie theatre watching people they feel are less than human being killed. They feel these people deserve to die. They are sickened by these people. To them, it’s not really “killing.” And there I am- sitting on the couch watching a movie theatre full of Nazis cheering and laughing as their enemies are being shot and killed. I am disgusted by this. I feel as though they deserve to die. It is as if they are less than human. And I feel relief and justice as they are trapped inside of a burning building being gunned down from above.

I once heard a speaker talk about human nature and how he knows the evil that humans are capable of. And he talked about how he knows the thoughts that go through his mind at times as well. And he wondered if he would have been any different if he was born in Nazi Germany at that point in history. And that made me think as well. Would I have believed the lie that some people were less than human and deserved to be tortured and killed? I hope not. But my lack of sympathy for the Nazis in the movie last night made think that answering that question isn’t as easy as I would like it to be.

No Room at the Inn

Have you ever tried to book a wedding at a church?

My fiancé and I are in the process of finding a place to do our wedding ceremony in October and we are having a difficult time doing so. I have worked on staff of a handful of churches and I understand that churches are in no means immune to politics. But I believe that churches have really missed the mark here. Some, like Lutheran and Catholic churches, will not even consider letting you hold a wedding in their building unless you are a member of that church (although many Catholic churches will hold fundraisers with beer tents in which they would gladly accept non-members cash- you figure it out). Other churches require you to jump through other hoops. For some, you need to attend a certain number of services before the wedding. Others require you to meet with the pastor so many times for pre-marital counseling, or require that you use their pastor or pianist, etc. in your ceremony. We were discussing the idea of requiring married couples-to-be to attend so many services before being married one day and my future mother-in-law said it was probably just a business decision. How sad that the church (universal) has given that impression.

Let’s pretend for a moment that these policies are set up with the “business” of church in mind. I assume and hope that the “business” the churches are into is making followers of Jesus. So let’s give every church the benefit of the doubt (gulp) and assume this is their primary goal. How would excluding non-members of your church from having their wedding ceremony in your church building be good for the business of making followers of Jesus? If anything, I would assume that if you opened your doors to a non-member couple and created an amazing memory for them on one of the most important days of their lives that they would always remember that church and that experience if they are looking for a church home in the future. Not to mention all the guests that attend the wedding as well. I remember always trying to think of ways to get new people into our building- whether it was for a special event, concert—anything just to get them in the door and make them feel welcome and want to come back. It’s odd being on the other end and seeking churches out and contacting them only to be turned away. What a shame.

The one reservation I could see churches having is the possible conflict on their view of what marriage is. Churches believe (as I do as well) that marriage isn’t a civil agreement but a covenant made between two people before God- an institution that God established. Perhaps (and I’m just making assumptions here) some churches don’t want to be a part of a wedding of two people if they aren’t sure that the couple is on the same page as they are in their belief of what marriage is. However, if that were the case why would a Catholic or Lutheran church first ask what our doctrinal beliefs were instead of closing it to just members? What is a member of a church, anyway? What special group does that put you in? I know for a fact that being a member of a church does not mean you have all the same beliefs as the church does. Most churches just require you to believe the certain tenants that the church as a whole believes. In my case, I went to bible college and am an ordained minister. I have worked as a minister in a couple of churches but yet can’t get married in most churches in town. Huh? I can’t express how frustrated I am with this. What an opportunity that is being missed. How sad it is that there are couples seeking out churches (perhaps for the first time in their lives) and being turned away because they’re not part of “the club.” I’m sure that’s not what the churches are trying to communicate, but I don’t see how else to take it. And for the small group of churches that do allow non-members to hold a ceremony in the building, why is there a different rate for members vs. non-members? This isn’t your local grocery store where you show your card and get a discount.

I understand what it’s like to be at a large church and constantly have to “fight” to reserve space in the building for events you want to put on. If that’s the case, put some policies on the maximum time ahead you can book a wedding so that church events take priority- because I believe they should. But churches should always remember the business of the church isn’t to make money or keep your members happy- it’s to be Jesus to the world. The church building isn’t the real church- every believer is. There’s nothing holy about the building, no matter how pretty the stained glass windows are. Whenever possible the goal should be to take as many barriers between a person and God as possible, not put more roadblocks in their way.
That’s my two cents.

Now what?

What in the world are we supposed to do about Haiti?




I know this is a touchy subject, but it’s one that I have been thinking about lately. And I don’t have any answers, just more questions. The Haitian government says that more than 111,000 people died in the earthquake. More than 600,000 people have been left homeless in and around the capital of Port-au-Prince. The pictures are devastating. It looks like a war zone and there are bodies lining the streets. Most of the city is in rubble. The people of Haiti need help. The question is: Who is responsible for helping the people of Haiti?


I know the generic answer is everyone. We are all human beings and we should help each other out in times of need. I get that. But on a practical level—what do we do now? I read online today that Hillary Clinton and foreign ministers from more than a dozen countries are going to start planning on how to rebuild Haiti. Is this our job? It is great to see the outpouring of monetary donations and time that so many people are giving to go down to Haiti and help how they can. But ultimately, is it the government of the United States or any other countries “role” or “responsibility” or whatever other terms you could use to decide how to rebuild the country?


The fact is Haiti has been susceptible to such an event like this for a long time. It appears that many people knew that something like this could happen at any time. Haiti sits in a precarious spot- In 2004m tropical storm Jeanne hit, leaving over 3000 people dead. In August/September 2008- Tropical Storm Fay, Hurricane Gustav, Hurricane Hanna, and Hurricane Ike hit. A September 2008 source listed 800,000 in need of humanitarian need after the storms. This is not the first disaster to hit Haiti- just the worst. The root of the problem isn’t the earthquake that just hit- it’s the state the country is in even without natural disasters. As of 2006, Haiti ranked 149th of 182 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index. About 80% of the population were estimated to be living in poverty in 2003. Most Haitians live on $2 or less per day. This is a country where Foreign aid makes up approximately 30–40% of the national government's budget. The largest donor is the United States. From 1990 to 2003, Haiti received more than $4 billion in aid. The United States alone had provided Haiti with 1.5 billion in aid.


I guess I don’t know where I stand with this information. We need to help each other out, but is it our government’s role to do so? Is it our government’s role to take our taxes and use it to give aid to other countries? I don’t really know. And how much is our aid doing? There’s a Corruption Perceptions Index that shows Haiti has a particularly high level of corruption. Take what you want from such a title as “corruption perceptions index,” but I looked up the chart and I don’t know how it all works but based off this chart Haiti is ranked 168 out of 180-- tied with Iran. From the pictures of the Presidential Palace compared with the slums most of the people live in—I’m not sure the money is getting where it needed to go.


My fiancé and I were in Indianapolis this weekend and went under an overpass where there were a handful of homeless people staying. It made me wonder what financial aid they are getting from the government. Would they be more likely to get aid from the United States if they moved to another country? Would we build a home for them if Indianapolis was struck by a devastating earthquake, or did they need to have one before? Because if we’re only going to indemnify people in Haiti back to their living conditions pre-quake, then they’re going to be in the same boat when the next hurricane or earthquake hits. Their city was not built to withstand a small earthquake, let alone a 7.0.


I’m not claiming to have the answers because honestly, I don’t know what the right thing to do is. There’s something about rebuilding an entire city in another country that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps an island so susceptible to hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, etc. isn’t the best place to settle. Isn’t that why private insurers won’t insure homes too close to the East coast? What kind of uproar would be caused if your homeowners insurance tripled or quadrupled because everyone in the country could be insured under the same rates? How happy would you be if you now paid $200-300 a month to insure your home just because someone decided they wanted to build a nice home on the coast of Ft. Lauderdale?


My point is, if Obama would have proposed 2 months ago that we rebuild Haiti- no one would have jumped on board. There would have been an outcry that our country that is already in huge debt with no real plan to get out of it and that is in an economic downturn right now has decided to fund the renovation of another country. And yet after the earthquake, this is exactly what we are looking at doing. Of course I feel horrible for the people that live in poverty in Haiti and whose lives have been turned upside down yet again. And the world needs to do what we can to help these people out as quickly as possible. But to what extent do we take the responsibility to rebuild? Where has our aid in the past gone? Is it right that a country relies on the rest of the world to survive on an annual basis in the first place? Did other countries step in and help us rebuild New Orleans? I honestly don’t know. What is promised to every human born into this world? At least basic needs to survive? Food, water, clothes, shelter? I’m not so sure that’s been the case. And if not, how do we decide who we give those things to? And who gets to make those decisions? Our government? Should our government tax us and then decide which countries to send aid to? Are we making a difference with the aid we send, or is it going to make the rich richer in corrupt countries where the people that need the help can’t get it? Should we start giving money to other impoverished countries that are susceptible to disasters to avoid another Haiti?


Again, these are just questions. I wish there was a “right” answer to all of these issues. What are your thoughts? Do you think we should be in control of the rebuilding process in Haiti?

Blame it on the Rain, McGwire.

A lot of athletes cheat. We get it. What is insulting are the lies they continue to feed us. Roger Clemens still denies using. Rafael Palmeiro and Miguel Tejada lied to Congress (bad idea). Sammy Sosa no speaka ingles. The list goes on and on. Few players will admit they have taken these drugs in the first place, let alone admit that they took them to become better at the sport. And for some reason, fans pretty much let them get away with it.

Everyone knew Mark McGwire used performance enhancement drugs. Well, everyone except Tony LaRussa at least. There’s so much that could be covered with the recent McGwire fiasco. I could dissect McGwire’s (and LaRussa’s for that matter) statement line by line and comment on its utter stupidity. Instead, my real issue with McGwire and the other athletes who cheat is simply this: They tried to cheat and we know it. Stop continuing to lie and insulting our intelligence.

I don’t know the science of steroids and how they work. I don’t know if you take steroids if you hit more home runs than people that don’t. I do know that when you look at the list of all time home run leaders, most of them are linked to performance enhancement drugs- so you figure it out. Is it the steroids themselves that give the athletes more power or is it because they use it in addition to working out and they heal more quickly, allowing them to build more muscle faster than the non-using player? Doctors don’t seem to know, so I’d be willing to bet the players that use them don’t either. But the point is, the players do know that the steroids give them an edge or else they wouldn’t do them. And they’re illegal and banned substances, so the players know that they aren’t suppose to use them. So if you’re using a banned substance in order to gain an edge (power wise, recovery wise, whatever), you are cheating.

This issue could go even deeper—did their cheating lead to bigger contracts and more money? Absolutely. Does it lead to more fans spending money on tickets to see you play? Does it lead to more wins for your team? More jerseys and merchandise sold for your organization? The possibilities are endless. The fact is, it has happened. Over and over. We knew it happened.

I have a tough time feeling any sympathy for McGwire and the consequences of his attempt (and in reality, success) in cheating. Seeing his interview yesterday with tears welling up in his eyes didn’t do it for me. And honestly, it would have if he would have said the right things. If he would have admitted he cheated, that’s all it would have taken. Instead, his whole interview was based around trying to convince us that he took the drugs off and on and only for health reasons because he was struggling with injuries. It was to help with the daily grind of baseball (which EVERY player also experiences). The fact is, you cheated. You used a banned substance to get an edge.

There’s nothing wrong with trying to get healthy again. Every player and person does the same thing. No one accuses you of cheating in life if you take advil when you have a headache or some anti-biotics to fight the flu. No one accuses a player of cheating if he has Lasik surgery so he can see better. Did it give those players an edge? Yeah, it did. But it’s available and legal. Do some players have an edge based off of the climate and/or facilities they grew up by and had access to? Sure. If someday steroids are legal and allowed in baseball- go for it! Bend over, here come the needles! But right now- they’re not. Find your edge in working harder than everyone else. Not by injecting yourself with a needle of cheat. And when you get caught, just admit it. You cheated. I find it hard to believe you are sorry for lying when you’re not sorry for cheating. You knew it was wrong- that’s why you hid it for 21 years.

The reason why McGwire frustrates me so much is my assumption on how he would answer these questions:

If you were never “caught” using steroids—if you had gotten away with it and were under no suspicion, would you have admitted to using?

If you had not taken the job as the Cardinals hitting coach and weren't forced back into the public eye after 5 years in hiding, would you have held this same press conference to talk about steroids?

The response of Cardinal Nation to Cubs Nation on the McGwire issue has been to turn the attention back on Sosa. Here are actual Facebook quotes:

“probably because we forgot how to speak English…o wait… who was that?”

“You know what would really be a joke, if a player ever corked his bat and when he got caught in a game said he ‘accidentally grabbed his batting practice bat.’ What would be even funnier is if said player suddenly forgot how to speak English while testifying in front of Congress on the use of steroids in baseball. J”

“Sammy is a cheat too!”

“oy yeah, JMW, and Sammy Sosa was a saint!”

Here’s what you are missing. Chicago ran Sammy Sosa out of town. I suspect that the Cubs organization knew about Sammy taking steroids and turned a blind eye to it as did every other team that was making money from the Home Run ball. It was good for business at the time and I’m very skeptical at the thought that the commissioner wasn’t aware of it either. Shortly after the corked bat debacle, the Cubs couldn’t wait to get rid of Sosa. They ended up trading him to the Orioles for pretty much nothing and ended up eating up most of his remaining contract. I certainly would not support Sosa being brought back to Chicago as a hitting coach. We’ve moved on. I don’t know how anyone can support McGwire’s return to baseball as a hitting coach! It’s like bringing Milli Vanilli on the panel of American Idol to help teach the contestants to sing.

If I have to read one more comment like this, I’m going to throw up:

“watching McGwire’s interview with Costas…Admire Big Mac more today than when I thought he was legit in ’98. Takes character to repent.”

No, in this case repenting takes a job offer that forces you to face the media after 5 years in hiding.

To be honest, I really don’t care that McGwire took steroids. Or Sosa. Or Bonds. Or Rodriguez. Or Palmerio. Or Tejada. Or (add pretty much any good player from the 90’s here). I mean, it’s disappointing to know that all these great accomplishments and exciting record-breaking events we’ve seen in baseball over the last decade have been the product of cheating. But what can we do about it? There wasn’t a good way to test the players until now. We have no way of knowing how many players actually cheated. We have no way of knowing what their numbers would have been if they hadn’t have cheated. All we can do is deal with what happened and move forward. Just don’t tell me how great you were and didn’t need the steroids. Apparently you didn’t believe that while you took them for 20 years. The last thing I want to see is you in uniform again “teaching” today’s players how to hit. Ugh.

He couldn’t be a better fit for that manager.

My Top 12 Albums of 2009

I go through cycles with the music that I listen to. I thought it'd be fun to list the albums that I listened to the most throughout 2009 so that next year I can look back and see how my taste had changed. I tried to round it to 10, but could not drop any of these off the list. So you get my top 12 albums of 2009- not that were released, but that I spent time listening to.


12. The Postal Service: Give Up
This was the first year I really listened to the Postal Service, but I really love this album. This is the closest to techno/electronic pop I will probably ever get. It's a great album to listen to when relaxing or at work. Owl City has completely copied their sound and have made a lot of money doing so.



11. Fleet Foxes, Fleet Foxes
I don't know if listening to this album makes me a hippie, but oh well. The harmonies make this album. Love it. Another great album to take in when feeling mellow.

10. John Mayer: Continuum
I hope Mayer stays in this blues/jazz type genre. I spent lots of time listening to this album. Very soothing and some meaningful lyrics. I really enjoyed the song “Stop this train” about growing up, especially the line “so scared of getting older, I’m only good at being young.”

9. Tokyo Police Club: Elephant Shell
I saw Tokyo Police Club open up for Weezer and was impressed. Yeah, they’re songs are short- the entire album is just over 30 minutes. You’ll probably either love Dave Monks’ voice or find it annoying. I loved it and loved the album. It was a good change of pace for me as far as the rest of this list goes. The album has plenty of snare drum to keep your head bobbing.

8. Sufjan Stevens:

Seven Swans, Come on feel the Illinoise!, Songs For Christmas Vol. 1-5, The Avalanche

Everyone needs to have some Sufjan available to listen to at any given moment. There’s no one better to relax to or fall asleep to, in my opinion. Sufjan has a soothing, gentle voice. His music seems to lead to introspection and an appreciation of life itself. With his five volumes of Christmas albums, I am set for life for that season.

7. Where the Wild Things Are Soundtrack
This album is performed almost in full by Karen O and the Kids. It is what you wish Danielson would sound like all the time. I’m not sure who enjoys this album more- my four year old son or me. A lot of the songs sound almost tribal and incorporate something like chanting almost. The album has an “indie” feel to it. Very enjoyable.

6. Brett Dennen: Hope for the Hopeless
I don’t know how I had missed Dennen up until this year. This album is so easy to listen to. Dennen writes personal, honest lyrics that fit perfectly with the music. The album is a little folk-y. I picture this album being played in the background when you have friends over and you’re eating appetizers off little plates and want something mellow in the background, but still want a nice groove. I have never tried it in such a setting, but I imagine its purpose would finally be realized…

5. The Decemberists, The Crane Wife

I’d describe the Decemberists as folk-y storytellers. Very original. I beg you- listen to this album. Filled with ballad after ballad that will stick in your head. It’s the kind of album that you can start singing along to the 2nd time around but you will appreciate more and more musically the dozens of times you listen to it as the catchy melodies and choruses begin to turn into a story.

4. Angels and Airwaves: I-Empire

When Tom Delonge wants to make money, he tours with Blink 182. When he wants to make good music, he records with Angels and Airwaves. He is a genius when it comes to writing melodic, anthem rock tunes. He also has the ability to paint powerful imagery with his lyrics. A couple of my favorite from this album are:
“Spread love like violence”- from the song Secret Crowds
"I will run the streets in hostile lands"- from the song Heaven

3. Hillsong United: The I Heart Revolution

These guys are the best at leading worship for a younger generation. 30 songs performed live totaling over 2 1/2 hours makes this my favorite worship album ever.

2. Ben Folds:

Way to Normal; Stems and Seeds; The Sounds of Last Night, Songs for Silverman, Rockin the Suburbs

Ok, I'm cheating again. I don't listen to any one Ben Folds substantially more than the others. I really loved his new album "Way to Normal" and saw him perform it live twice. What I actually loved even more were the"fake" versions of many of the songs that he released before the actual album. "Stems and Seeds" has all the alternate versions- some of which I like more than the real ones. "The Sounds of Last Night" is a live compilation of Folds performing some from both albums. On an album-to-album basis, it really doesn't get any better than Ben Folds.

1. Jukebox the Ghost: Let Live and Let Ghost

Yeah, I don't know how this happened either. I saw Jukebox open up for Ben Folds in February and fell in love with them instantly. Now almost a year later, I still can't stop listening to this album. Clever lyrics, catchy melodies, great harmonies-- the album is just fun. Their feelings on religion/beliefs dominate a good portion of the lyrics. I disagree with pretty much every feeling they have on religion, yet appreciate the obvious time they have spent formulating their beliefs. Oh, and the drummer looks exactly like the killer in "No Country For Old Men," so that has to be a bonus. The chorus to "Good Day" runs through my mind on pretty much a daily basis. I'm anxious to see how their next album with stack up to their debut.


Feedback on the list???