Coach Sal

Predictions for 2012

2011-12-30T09:53:00.000-05:00

I've seen several sites here at year-end that give various predictions about the coming year. Here's a few from me, just so I can look back and check on them later:

In politics, Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination. He will pick Marco Rubio of Florida as his running mate. The GOP will hold the house and get a 50-50 split in the senate, with VP Rubio breaking ties (yep, that means Romney will win. I'll say 52-48% in the popular vote, and closer in the electoral college). However, the senate being so close will result in numerous filibusters and threats of filibusters, so we'll still have gridlock.
Economically, things will continue in our current stagflationary pattern. "Recovery" on the jobs front will continue, albeit slowly, but prices will rise. Hopefully wages will, too. (The old line about the depression was that it really wasn't so bad... IF you had a job.)
In the 2012 Olympics, an American will make the finals in at least one distance event, but will not medal. The USA 4x100 team will finally get the baton around the track, but it won't matter, as Jamaica will have a team with all three open 100 medalists on it. The USA basketball team will have less star power than 4 years ago, but will perform better, for that very reason.
In football, the USC Gamecocks will be good, but fall short of this year's 11-win season (yes, that means I'm picking a bowl win on Jan 2). I'm thinking 9 regular-season wins, with losses to LSU, Arkansas, and Florida. We beat Georgia again, but they still win the East due to their easier schedule. In traditional USC fashion, idiot fans will complain about 9-10 wins, not recognizing the amazing leap that has been made. Marcus Lattimore will be a Heisman contender, but will not win.
Clemson will win the ACC again, and lose to USC again. They will beat Boise State in the Orange Bowl. Sammy Watkins will also be a Heisman contender, but will not win.
The SEC will not win the national championship game, as their champion will not be IN the game. Southern Cal will beat Ohio State, both of whom will be undefeated at the time. The SEC champ (Alabama) will have two losses.
In the NBA, the Heat will not win a championship. Neither will the Lakers. Which is good enough for me.
With the Romney victory in 2012, the news media will rediscover that 8% unemployment is really not that good, and even when it drops, the slow pace of the drop and the amount that can be attributed to discouraged workers leaving the workforce will be noted.
The Republican party will be stupid.
In high school sports, my PG teams will have a rough year in football (but will be really good after a year), will be even better in basketball, will repeat as XC and volleyball champions, and will contend for a repeat title in track. I won't call the win, but I will predict that the top two teams will be us and Orangeburg Prep.
Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear sites. We will pretend that was a naughty thing.
Gas will cost over $4 per gallon during the summer.
As inflation rises, so will interest rates. Stocks will be sluggish, but the bond market will improve.
An offer of statehood and peace will be made to the Palestinians. They'll find a way to screw it up.

These are not entirely wild guesses--there is at least some element of reading the tea leaves involved. But I'm not betting any money on them!

Resolution Time!

2011-12-27T11:50:00.000-05:00

I took the time to look back at my resolutions for 2011, and I actually feel better about this past year than I have in a long time. Among the things I set out to do was to read the entire New Testament in the first 75 days of the year (done, never missed a day) and to run more consistently, but without a set mileage goal (but with the understanding that 500 was the baseline). The running is a point of great pride--As of today, with 5 days still to go, I not only have run 729 miles in 165 runs, I am on pace to break my previous all-time log record of 744 miles and 169 runs, set in the year 2000. This has been the most consistent I have ever been, and has paid off with good racing; I ran an-age-adjusted personal best for 5k this October. Imagine that! Run more, longer, and more often, and race better. Who would have guessed? I also put on paper (pixels) the audacious goal of trying to win a state championship in track. We did it, and in dramatic fashion. As a matter of fact, in just a little over a year we've won back-to-back-to-back titles (cross-country in fall of 2010, track in spring of 2011, cross-country in fall of 2011). Obviously, a great deal of that has to be credited to the athletes--I'd never even set such a goal without a terrific roster. And even more credit goes to my friend and co-coach Hugh, who is XC/distance coach. It's his kids who have done the heavy lifting in terms of scoring. But my satisfaction level is quite high. I don't know if I've ever worked harder on a track season, and the payoff was amazing. As a bonus, one of the results of all this success was a complete renovation of our track facility which I've been wanting for nearly a decade.

However, not everything was smooth sailing. I intended to blog more (and didn't). I intended to spend less time online and more reading "real" books. That was a non-starter. I wanted to be more thoughtful about my use of time while I was home, but instead spent too much time online or holding down a sofa. All of those were related--the things I did best were functions of discipline and consistency. The things I did worst were those in which I showed the least discipline and most auto-pilot. I'll also add that after my initial 75-day Bible reading success, I had spotty results in my daily devotions, and my prayer life has been just a mess. I've been getting up at 5:30 daily with the intention of having my quiet time, but have managed to spend up to an hour and a half reading "news," most of which is the same opinions rehashed over and over.

So, here's the plan for 2012:

I'm going back to my old Day-Timer (actually a Franklin Covey planner), and having a daily period of planning, prayer, and study. I also want to journal.
I'm cutting back on the web-surfing. I've already deleted a bunch of bookmarks that were on my "daily" list.
I'm going to "discuss" less on facebook and message boards. If I want to write out my thoughts, I'll do it here.
I think having my Nook is going to help me read more that's not online.
I want to keep up the momentum I've gained running. With only two years of 700+ miles in the past 13, it seems a stretch to plan on a third, but I'm putting it out there.
I want to spend more time and effort managing our family budget. (We do really well on this, but often "wing it." With my oldest starting college, I'd like to be more hands-on.)
I want to have more frequent and more intentional "date nights." Ann and I started doing some of this recently, and it's been great.
We're also going to try to defend that state championship in track. It'll be even harder this season, and after this year's graduation may become impossible. But the bar has been raised.

That should be about enough. Anybody else have big plans?

What I'm Reading

2011-12-26T18:01:00.000-05:00

I put together a few gift cards and got a Nook for Christmas. Very cool. This means I can have the usual dozen books on my bedside table but not have the stack so high. The best part is that most of the books I have downloaded are free or very cheap. Here's what's on tap to start the year. First, the hardcopies:

Modern Times, by Paul Johnson. (moving slowly through this one.)
My Utmost for His Highest, by Oswald Chambers (trying to do a 1-page devo before bed nightly.)
The Tangible Kingdom, by Hugh Halter (a book on rethinking church that Ann passed my way.)

Then come the ones on Nook that I'm actually currently reading:

The Bible
EntreLeadership, by Dave Ramsey (I actually paid for this one!)
Game Plan for Life, by Joe Gibbs (an old Promise Keepers book that was free.)
Matthew Henry's Method for Prayer (also free!)
Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton.

Finally, the ones I have downloaded and not looked at yet:

The Everlasting Man, by G.K. Chesterton
St. Francis of Assisi, by G.K. Chesterton (see a theme? Lots of free Chesterton!)
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu

Between the Nook and a booklight that came from my daughter, I'm set in the evenings for the near future.

Ranking Obama

2011-12-22T14:14:00.000-05:00

One of the things I do in my modern US history class is talk about relative rankings of US presidents. You may have seen some of the buzz lately over President Obama's statement in his recent CBS interview (it got edited out of what was on TV, but the transcript and unedited tape is now going around) that his domestic and foreign policy accomplishments put him in the top 4 presidents (after Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ). Obviously, plenty of right-wing bloggers have engaged in some snark over that, and rightly so. It's the sort of thing that, even if true, one should never say about himself. But let's step back, take off any bias, and think about the claim as objectively as possible. Where will Obama rank?

Let's begin with a metric. "Great" presidents are seen as successful in three areas: foreign policy, domestic policy, and political success. Note than none of these things evaluates whether I personally agree with their goals, only that they achieve (and are recognized for) success in them.

In foreign policy, Obama won the Nobel prize, but has the asterisk for the fact that he won it mostly for not being Bush (as the nominations were due literally 2 weeks after his inauguration). He also has wound down the Iraq war, albeit on the timetable arranged by Bush before his term ended, and has seen the death of Osama on his watch. You might argue that some of his "successes" involve keeping Bush-era policies he once vilified (Gitmo, rendition, predator strikes, even the Libya excursion), or that some of what he has done will backfire later. But for now, he gets credit there, if only for a "Nixon to China" scenario.

Domestically, the health care bill is a signature achievement, but faces either legislative repeal or judicial review still, and has yet to go into full effect. If it survives, it'll be big. On the economic front, the story has been pretty terrible. We can argue that it will improve and he'll get the credit, or that it would have been worse without him. But neither of those gets him any credit currently.

Politically is tougher. There are bonus points for being the first black president. Also for winning the highest percentage of the popular vote of any Democrat since LBJ. But he hasn't won reelection yet. If he does, he gets some serious points. If not, he is almost certainly relegated to the bottom half of the presidential pile. You also have to ask, "at what cost?" Bush 43 won reelection, but damaged his party's brand so badly that he put them in the doghouse going forward. That's very different than someone like Reagan, who set the table for his successor.

Once all the scores are in, here's the math of it. Only 16 men have won two elections. One of those is Nixon, so he drops below the one-termers. You probably can drop William Henry Harrison and James Garfield from the rankings due to their very short terms, and maybe Ford, as well. That leaves only 40 men to rank (since Grover Cleveland served twice). That means top 10 is also top 25%.

Top 5 are completely untouchable. That's the 4 guys on Rushmore and FDR. Next 5 or so has to include Reagan, Truman, Ike, Andy Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Madison, and Monroe, in any order you like. That gets you to 12, and you haven't even hit JFK yet. Some of these guys we may disagree on (I personally dislike Wilson, since he was a serious racist and since his win in WWI was combined with a "loss" of the postwar process that set the stage for WWII). I know others have issues with Jackson, Polk, and even Reagan. But you can't slice this list in such a way not to fill out the top quarter of all presidents with serious heavy-hitters who won wars, won landslides, and transformed their parties for generations (whether you like the party or not).

Barring some event that gives Obama a chance to shine on a huge stage that none of us would like to see (like a big war), I think that even if he maxes out his potential, he can't get much better than 15th. (Behind all of the above, JFK, Cleveland, maybe LBJ.) And that's not bad--it's a pretty deep field. If he doesn't get reelected, or worse, if some of the worst-case scenarios for him play out (loses reelection, Iraq goes south, health care gets repealed, economy stays crummy), he could easily get ranked in the high 20's.

I don't think there's much he could do to get worse than that, barring some scandal. There's a pretty firm floor down in the mid-30s with Carter, Hoover, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Pierce, and Buchanan. The media and academia loves him--he can have a Carter-like tenure and still get better press clippings.

Please note--none of this reflects my personal politics. There's no judgment based on whether I like or dislike any of these men's policies. I hate the Lakers, and detest Kobe Bryant. But I also recognize that he is one of the best players in the game. I'd love to hear from both conservative and liberal friends about whether they think I'm being fair here.

Perhaps after a couple of comments from the usual suspects I'll add some more personal editorializing in the comments. I've got plenty of opinion on this topic, but don't want to take away from what I hope is a pretty academic blog post.

Hard Work

2011-12-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

I don't know why this article amuses me so, but it does. It's a young journalist's account of working 3 weeks at Starbucks in NY. She makes it sound like the gulag. I don't want to be one of those old people who one-ups every story of hardship (that's my dad's job). But when I turned 16 and was eligible to get a job, there was never a time from then on that I didn't work. And until I finished grad school and began teaching and coaching (which is terrific, but is certainly not a 9-to-5), I worked some of the "worst" jobs imaginable. I started off washing dishes and peeling hundreds of pounds of shrimp in a local restaurant at $3.35 an hour (minimum wage back then). Then I got a job driving a school bus for $5 per hour. For a short time I doubled up and did both, then traded the shrimp-peeling for bagging groceries and stocking shelves at Winn-Dixie (back to minimum wage, but more hours). I eventually got up to almost 4 bucks there. Then I worked at a lumber yard building wood trusses. (That's where I lost the end of my thumb in a multi-bladed component saw.) In college I interned in the USC legal department, which was a great job, but helped convince me that I really didn't want to go to law school, after all. The summer before I got married, I went to a temp agency and asked for whatever they could give me that paid the most so I could actually afford a honeymoon. There were some pretty ugly day-labor gigs (the one that stands out was working on a loading dock unloading 55-gallon drums that had previously contained something really nasty... in a driving rain). But the big payday came when a local plastics factory realized that they had been low-bidder on a government contract to build fiberglass buoys for the navy, and that the job was so terrible they didn't want their own people to do it. Almost $8 per hour, but I lost about 8 pounds per day in water weight, and every t-shirt I owned was eventually discarded due to the fiberglass particles they picked up. That's in addition to the chemical fumes and burns (we wore goggles and masks while working). After the wedding, in grad school I never worked less than 2 jobs (the legal gig and a graduate assistantship in the admissions office), and sometimes as many as 4 (those two, a night job in the student health center, and a brief research assistantship). Sometimes I still have nightmares that I have showed up at the wrong workplace, and it's usually one of those (and sometimes the lumber yard for some odd reason). Of course, all of that was in addition to a full courseload in grad school, and the first semester also involved resolving an incomplete on my undergrad honors thesis.

But here's the thing--at the time I never thought it was bad. Perhaps I didn't know any better. Maybe it was because gas in my '78 Mustang was worth it. I never thought, "this builds character" or anything like that. Looking back at my old Day-Timers I am amazed at the schedule I kept, but only because middle-aged me couldn't keep up with it. I do know that now it provides some perspective. Even after 18 years of teaching, I still feel blessed to get paid to do something I really enjoy. And even in those weeks when a couple of away trips on the bus stretch the work-week out to 70 hours, I'm glad that my idea of "overtime" is coaching high school sports and not delivering pizzas.

The world has changed. My oldest son is 17 and has never held a "real job." He earns some money working at school for the athletic department (running the scoreboard for JV games and such), but it's hard to walk into a grocery store and ask for a job when you have to say, "but I have basketball practice and play practice and every other kind of commitment under the sun 24-7." As soon as the spring musical is over, he'll be working (working for pay, I mean--he has worked very hard at lots of unpaid stuff). I'm afraid this young lady who wrote the article just grew up in a time when busting your butt at Starbucks represents an unusual level of hardship. Maybe it's not her fault. But it's another example of the ongoing wussification of America. If you read the article, check out some of the comments, too. They are alternately amusing and maddening.

Political Update

2011-12-12T23:30:00.000-05:00

My buddy Mike asked not long ago, "have you picked a candidate yet?" I answered, "Yes, but I hate to spoil a blog post by telling you." So, just to keep anyone from dying of curiosity, here's my pre-primary voting plan.

First of all, I'm off the Cain Train. Not because of the allegations of infidelity--I still have zero clue as to whether any or all of those are true. But his inability to ever get a clue on foreign policy finally convinced me that he's like the dog that accidentally caught the car and had no idea what to do with it.

Secondly, although I still believe deep down that Perry must be better in real life than he is on TV, at the end of the day, you can't do a job if you can't get the job. It's like those poor guys who still think Oklahoma State should be in the national championship. They maybe should--but they blew it against IOWA freaking STATE. Likewise, Perry can't tank in three consecutive debates and expect to somehow make it to the big game.

So, like everybody else, I'm stuck with Romney vs. Gingrich. Neither is exactly my cup of tea. Either one could eventually make me regret my decision. But I'm going to stick with Romney. Here's the tortured logic--both of them suffer from a similar political affliction. They think they are the smartest guys in the room (and with some justification), and that they can operate the levers of government to make things work better than anybody else. As such, they are going to make small-government conservatives wince. I don't know which one will disappoint me the most politically, but I feel safe saying that neither one is in any way safer than the other. I actually lean toward thinking that Romney's political opportunism may work to my advantage in the current environment, as he is going to need to pander to the conservatives (and he's an expert when it comes to pandering). To quote Milton Friedman: "The trick is not to elect the right people; it is to create an environment where even the wrong people find it in their interest to do the right thing."

But the deal-breaker for me is personal integrity. At the end of the day, when either or both lets me down in a political sense, I don't want to have to look back and admit I compromised and voted for the guy with two ex-wives. Yes, Newt has asked for forgiveness. And converted to Catholicism. And a bunch of other stuff which should mitigate the situation. That's fine--and if he were a much, much better candidate than Romney, I might even be tempted to accept that. But he's not better--or at least not enough better to make me willing to sell out on such a significant matter.

That said, whichever gets the nomination will earn my vote in the general election. My conscience will not ache at all over voting for even a flawed pro-life conservative over an apparently happily-married pro-choice liberal. If the liberal in question also has his own admitted past moral failings (like cocaine use), that only makes it easier. But for now I'm sticking with the guy who has had the same wife for 40+ years, who hasn't recently changed religions (nor apparently embraced any particular flavor of theology for political advantage), and whose idea of a stiff drink is chocolate milk.

Cain, In Context

2011-11-08T15:05:00.000-05:00

So, now we've got this woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Cain. Not harassed, but assaulted--unwanted physical touching of an intimate nature, and with a level of crudity that surpasses any simple flirtation. And, to be clear, even if there WERE "only" simple flirtation, that would still be the kiss of death for me when dealing with a fellow who was (and is) not just married, but a minister.

But.

Yeah, there's a but. If it's true, it's damning. And I may have to eat crow down the road on this. But I still don't think it's true. We have a case of he-said, she-said. No witnesses, no evidence. We have affadavits that she told two people long ago that she felt uncomfortable, but provided no details (I cannot imagine my wife or girlfriend saying something like that and me just blowing it off). We have this story which is so darned weird--it seems like the whole scene could have been cut from some low-budget caricature of a documentary on sexual harassment. If you told me he had tried to steal a kiss, or whisper in her ear, or something like that, maybe. But straight for the crotch? Dude, I don't know any 17-year-olds whose game is that bad. And we've got the woman's personal history of terminations, lawsuits, bankruptcy, even dishonesty over paternity... and the presence of Gloria Allred. Any one or two of these would draw a presumption of his innocence from me. The preponderance of all of them is enough to send up a host of red flags.

But, they say, this is woman #4 (or is it 5?). But it's not. We have non-specific allegations of unspecified complaints, resulting in teeny-tiny settlements by a third party (settlements of a sort that indicates nothing, in most cases). Even what little we have heard, "gestures of a non-sexual nature," doesn't make any darned sense. I just can't string this guy up on such flimsy evidence. And some of the "gotcha" stuff doesn't do anything for me. When I read, "he said her story was 100% false, but they really DID meet!" I don't see that as bad at all. I think anyone with a middle school command of the English language can understand that he is denying the allegations of misconduct, and not claiming that the woman's every word is false, right down to "and" and "the."

However, here's what I'm NOT going to do. Despite the completely blatant double-standard involved, I'm not going to defend him on the grounds that it wasn't "really" harassment based on some legalistic parsing of the word. I'm not going to claim that it's OK because he complied with the Clinton "one free grope" rule, and quit after she said to stop. I'm not going to say that he was only flirting, or that perhaps somehow the woman involved led him on and then pulled a bait and switch. If Herman Cain, a married Christian man, made a pass, crude or otherwise, at this woman, then he is done, in my book.

Sadly, I don't think that's the case, at least not yet. But it won't matter. Without the help of a compliant media like Clinton had, this charge, even if proven 100% untrue, is fatal to Cain's campaign. I'm reminded of Casey Stengel's famous quote about baseball: "Can't anybody around here play this game anymore?" I think he would be a good vice-president. But it's not going to happen.

Maybe I'll take another look at Gingrich. For years I've always said he was unelectable because of demanding a divorce from his dying-of-cancer wife while she was in the hospital. Now it turns out that the story on that was completely false (once again, the lie can circle the globe before the truth laces up its boots). Otherwise, we're looking at Romney. Ugh.

The Cain Train

2011-11-04T15:12:00.000-05:00

I've got a few thoughts on Herman Cain and the GOP race that are not really suitable for Facebook. And since my buddy Kim says I need to blog more, here's an attempt.

First of all, this "sexual harassment" charge against Cain is terribly frustrating. For starters, I do not buy the argument that there is any racial component to it. There is, however an obvious party/ideological component. While it may be arguable that Cain (like Rubio) represents a unique threat on account of his race, and therefore is even more in need of a good Borking, I do not believe for a second that a white Republican would get treated any differently. If similar rumors swirled around Perry, Romney, or whoever, I am sure they would get the same treatment. However, a Democrat (regardless of race) would not. The evidence for this should be obvious: witness the wagon-circling and covering for not only Bill Clinton, but also John Edwards, and even Anthony Weiner (who, by the way, would possibly have gotten away with it if his name had been Anthony Smith).

The most frustrating thing is that the charges so far are without a single detail. There was an unspecified charge, and a realtively small settlement. Apparently there may have been "gestures of a not overtly sexual nature that caused discomfort." I don't have a clue what that means. I just cannot imagine any legitimate media source giving airtime or column space to a similar story about Barack Obama. The double-standard never fails to rile me up.

That said, if there really is any fire to go with the smoke, I don't want him, double standard or not. Yes, I know that Bill Clinton paid $800k to settle with Paula Jones over a genuine sexual harrassment lawsuit that had specific charges of behaviors that could not possibly be any kind of misunderstanding. And yes, I know that he not only survived his impeachment trial, but left office with a 60% approval rating and now enjoys elder statesman status, even though there were even credible allegations of rape against him. I also know that JFK and FDR were notoriously unfaithful to their wives, and wound up with their profiles on coins. But that does not mean that I therefore want that to be the standard. Even if Cain's problems came out through dirty pool, if he really is a lecherous old man, he won't get my vote. But I also won't throw him under the bus just yet. The law of sexual harassment is pretty crazy--as a teacher, I sit through annual updates on exactly where the lines are. Intent doesn't matter, and the standard of a "reasonable person" doesn't matter. If a "reasonable woman" can be made uncomfortable, even by an innocent compliment, you can be in trouble. So I'm withholding judgment on this issue for now.

But this issue is not what bugs me about Cain. What bugs me is that he's Ross Perot. He is a good businessman, and folksy, and likeable. And in a time when the professional politicians have so obviously screwed the pooch, that makes him very attractive. But he is a rank amateur. He apparently has not given 5 minutes thought to some of the key issues that would be key components of his job description were he to actually win--things like... all of foreign policy. I'm sorry, I think the current occupant of the White House should be fair warning to us that the presidency ought not to be an entry-level job.

And if it's not Cain, it's probably Romney. I really don't care much for Romney. Maybe it's the perfect hair, or the fact that he comes across as a guy (like George Bush 41) who was born to the job. Maybe it's the fact that he seems like Bill Clinton--a guy who will do or say anything the focus groups tell him if it will help him become president. And mostly it's because I feel like he's just another "progressive" with a different ideology--that he'll still be willing to use the heavy hand of government to manage every facet of our lives. It's still tyranny, but he's just a tyrant from the party I like better. Bah! I'd like to quote St. Ron: "In the current crisis, government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."

Yet Romney does seem to be squeaky clean. And perhaps if he is going to govern by opinion poll, maybe the polls of the current population will lead him to do the right things. Maybe we can get Romney with Cain as Veep (assuming no bombshells). I could imagine Cain's instincts being a good check on Romney's pragmatism, and Romney's wonkery more than making up for Cain's inexperience. It's like Rocky and Adrian: "She got gaps, and I got gaps. But together, we ain't got gaps." And I feel certain that Cain is not too week for the second spot. After all.... JOE BIDEN. Nuff said.

The NY Gay Marriage Business

2011-07-04T20:09:00.000-05:00

So long as I'm rolling, here's a few brain-droppings in reference to the recent decision by New York to allow "Gay Marriage." On the one hand, this time I'm more-or-less OK with the outcome, at least in terms of the process. The new rule was made by the duly elected legislature (even in bipartisan fashion), rather than by judicial fiat. In that sense, I can accept the new status as simply another law with which I disagree, much like the 16th, 17th, and 26th amendments. The people have spoken, and if they (we) have chosen poorly, well, they (we) get what we deserve.

That said, I still am not very happy with the process on a macro level. Much ink (pixels) has been spilled remarking on the fact that this particular decision was embraced by Republicans, and that recently, for the first time, polls indicate that upwards of half of Americans now approve of gay marriage. I feel like this evolution has been the result of some rather dishonest tactics. Way back when the Supreme Court decided the famous Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law, Justice Scalia said in his dissent that this would lead directly to redefining marriage. "Relax," traditionalists were told. It's not going to happen. Don't be paranoid. Later, when traditionalists were interested in a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage (at a time when they might have had the votes... or at least were a lot closer than we are now), we got the same story. Don't worry--the Defense of Marriage Act makes that unnecessary. Not long after there were court challenges to DOMA. And the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (itself a pro-gay law when Clinton signed it, as it removed the threat of dishonorable discharge from discreet gays). When traditionalists opposed Civil Unions as a back-door to eventual gay marriage, same story. Until, of course, the tide turned, and Civil Unions could be held up as the modern-day "separate but equal."

And why DID the tide of opinion turn? Every incremental step was hailed as a victory for tolerance and equality and modernity. Hollywood, of course, did their part. If you were to extrapolate from popular TV and movies, you would think that gays make up 20-30% of the population instead of a tenth of that. And when there were setbacks, the pro-gay side simply regrouped and charged the same hills again and again. The California Proposition 8 story is illustrative here. Every time the traditionalists won, the goal posts were moved. But this NY outcome is seen simply as the voice of the people, which should be final. I don't mind losing fair and square (well, I do mind, but I have learned to be polite about it), but I don't know of anybody who can smile when they lose a rigged game. Furthermore, the way we've gotten to this point does not do much for my confidence about any assurances given now. This NY law has a "religious freedom" clause. I'm sure that helped it pass. And considering the sum total of what has gone before, I don't doubt that it will be jettisoned as soon as the deed can be plausibly done.

Having said all of that, I think it's important to note that I don't oppose gay marriage only, or even primarily, on religious grounds. (With the one exception to that statement being that I foresee an eventual 14th vs. 1st Amendment face-off, and worry that there will eventually be limits placed on religious freedom when the young, hip, and cool gay-rights group wins out against old, boring, and square Christendom.) My big problem with re-defining marriage is that I think it is bad in the long run for society. I think the undermining of the traditional marriage relationship accelerates the decline of families and therefore society. We've already done plenty of damage with no-fault divorce and the complete loss of shame over illegitimacy. Gay "marriages" are many times more likely to not be exclusively monogamous. And once the door is thrown open to same-sex marriage, what prevents consensual adult incest, polygamy, or even straight roommates declaring themselves "married" for the purposes of tax or probate law? Please don't insult my intelligence by acting like there's no chance of that--that's what was said so long ago about gay marriage, and look where we are.

But who cares, after all? Isn't this simply about people's rights to love whoever they want? Doesn't equality trump all? I guess nowadays it does. But for most of the last 5000 years, marriage was not a license to have state-approved whoopie. It was about creating families and raising children. Marriage was what civilized men--making sure that they would protect and provide for their offspring rather than moving on to do what nature and biology wired them to do, which is impregnate as many fertile females as possible. We've already come close to destroying that model of civilization; why would we want to drive a stake through its heart?

I don't dislike gay people. Indeed, I don't like OR dislike any particular demographic group. I like a great many gay individuals, and dislike some, as well. I don't see this particular sin as being any worse than any other one (funny that we all too often are just fine with our hetero friends having sex outside of marriage, yet want to point fingers at gays as if their sin were more heinous). I'll even go so far as to say that sins of the flesh are probably a lot less corrosive than my own pride, snobbery, and hypocrisy. And when (and it's when, not if) this issue finally comes into my own circle of friends, I'll be nice about it. But I'll still think it's a bad idea. Lots of bad ideas have become law. (The lottery pops to mind!) Please don't assume I'm some sort of bigot for thinking this is one of them.

One More Stray Thought on Economics

2011-07-04T16:35:00.000-05:00

Wouldn't it be nice if we could truly run an economic experiment on the various philosophies out there without paying huge consequences for being wrong? With children, it's good to let them fail sometimes in order to learn the right lessons. (One of my favorite coaching quotes is, "Pain is God's way of saying, 'not like that, dummy!'") But I am unwilling to sit by and let my kids learn potentially fatal lessons the hard way.

Same thing with econ. I believe in my principles--if I didn't, I'd change them. But I'm willing to accept the possibility that I could be wrong. How to test and find out, though? Part of me would love to say, "Fine. Let's try it your way." And then when what I think are the inevitable results of bad math happen, my position would be vindicated. (Or the reverse!) Provided that we didn't wreck the whole Republic in the process, it might even be worth the pain.

However, the catch is that we pseudo-smart folks keep gaming the results. "Yes, the economy was good under Clinton, but only because of the GOP congress." "Bush caused the bottom to fall out of the economy. NO! It was Pelosi and Reid!" "Yeah, the stimulus didn't stimulate anything, but it would have been even worse if we hadn't done it." It's like dealing with conspiracy freaks (and I mean both sides). Every single piece of evidence supports our own positions, including the ones that don't!

I guess the other big problem is that the true consequences of bad math take lots of time to play out. Look at the whole housing bubble thing... it looked SO good from about 1995-2006, while the whole time the fuse was burning down.

Sigh...

Debt and Taxes

2011-07-04T16:17:00.000-05:00

I keep thinking I should say (write) something about the whole debt ceiling business. I've got a few semi-connected thoughts on the topic, most of them more about the process than the philosophical side. First of all, I think that the political gamesmanship just stinks. Even if we were to hit the ceiling, the secretary of the treasury can prioritize payments so that the most important stuff gets done first. All of the scare tactics about a national default are just that. However, the political calculus is that if it comes to that, Tim Geithner would be politically smarter to hold up soldiers' pay or social security checks rather than cutting a penny of mohair subsidies, corporate welfare, or any other non-essential services. I understand how it works, but it's a great deal like a hostage situation.

Secondly, the whole notion that we can't make any spending cuts without tax increases irks me, as well. I seem to recall very recently we had a chance to revert back to the Clinton-era tax rates. Indeed, doing nothing would have caused that to automatically happen. But congress passed, and the president signed, an extension of the Bush cuts. It was the politically smart thing to do at the time. Now, it's expedient to repudiate that particular cynical move. Leaving aside whether or not taxes ought to go up, the process side hacks me off.

As for whether we really SHOULD raise taxes, that's a bit of a loaded question. I think the underlying premise ought to be that we should be willing to pay for the govenment we have. Since currently we are running trillion-dollar deficits, either spending should come down, taxes should go up, or a combination. That much is simple. And it seems so perfectly reasonable that since one side hates spending cuts and the other hates tax hikes, then splitting the difference and sharing the pain would constitute compromise.

BUT--there is one little detail muddying the waters. If raising rates resulted in direct increases in revenue, that would make pretty good sense. But plenty of data exists that tax revenue is far more dynamic than that. There is a concept called Hauser's Law which suggests that, regardless of rates, the post-WWII USA has never managed to generate more than 19.5% of GDP in taxes. So it seems like what we ought to do is find the best way to get that optimum revenue (and additionally maximize GDP), while bringing spending to the same level. That might still mean we can, even should, change our rate structure. But the notion that we can just confiscate enough cash through taxation to cover spending at current levels doesn't hold much water. There's also the issue of timing--whether any tax hike, no matter how necessary, would further cripple our fragile economic recovery. If we lower GDP far enough, even taking 25% (or 30%, or 50%) of it won't make a difference. (And as a matter of math, that's part of our problem right now--we're underperforming Hauser's Law due to the recession we've been in, with spending at about 24% of GDP and revenue in the 15% range.)

I do happen to think we need tax reform. Perhaps the debt-ceiling debate could include a provision to undertake that in a big way after immediate cuts and an increase in the ceiling happen now. The current rates WILL revert back to the Clinton levels in 2 years if left alone, after all. But there's zero chance of getting the kind of reform we need in the next month. And the reform we need isn't going to be pretty. The only real way to raise the kind of revenue we really need is to hike taxes on everybody, including the middle class. Currently nearly half of all taxpayers have zero income tax liability, and the vast majority of total revenue is derived from the very top earners. Most have heard that the top 1% pay 40% of taxes. But the top 10% of earners pay about 70% of total taxes, and the top half pay over 95%. For all the talk of millionaires and billionaires and people who make $250k, we could honestly confiscate every penny those folks earned and still not balance the budget.

I'm not one of those supply-siders who thinks that every tax cut pays for itself. I believe that the Laffer Curve is correct--that a zero percent tax yields zero revenue, and that a 100% tax also yields zero revenue (by killing the economic activity being taxed). And therefore, that if tax rates are "too low," they can be raised to increase revenue--and also that if they are "too high," the reverse should be true. I don't really think our current top rate of 35% is "too high" if we're talking about maximizing revenue. (This leaves aside the moral question of whether tax rates should have a moral upper limit.) But I do not think we can ever solve our fiscal problems without broadening the tax base.

Finally, I'm skeptical of any deal that doesn't cut spending first. If memory serves, Reagan's big tax cut back in '81 was supposed to be at least partially offset by spending cuts, but the cuts didn't exactly materialize as planned. Ditto Bush 41 when he broke his "read my lips" pledge in '88. Even during the Clinton surplus years, the surplus was a combination of increased revenue from the dot-com boom and the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War. But the overall size and cost of government never came down. (Indeed, the debt never came down, either--but that's another interesting accounting story.) We all know that taxes can be raised with the stroke of a pen, or even by inertia thanks to current sunset provisions. What we haven't proven yet is that we are willing or able to cut spending. So let's do that--eat the veggies first, and then dessert for a change.

Handicapping the 2012 GOP Field

2011-05-25T14:32:00.000-05:00

The silly season is upon us--time to pick a candidate to run for president against Barack Obama. It's amusing to watch all the pundits bloviating about who does and does not have a chance. I might as well do my own bloviating. At least by putting these predictions out here early, I earn the right to say "told you so" in the off-chance that I am right. In the far more likely case that I am dead wrong, at least I'll be in good company.

For starters, Huckabee, Trump, and Daniels are out. Trump was a clown from the beginning. I'm happy to see Huck go; his personal charisma and evangelical bona fides would have made him too much of a spoiler, and almost certainly would have resulted in what I would consider one of the worst scenarios coming to pass. I wasn't a huge Daniels fan, but I have to admit that a guy who chooses not to run because he's unwilling to put his wife through the hassle is probably more qualified, character wise, than some of these folks who have wanted to be president since middle school.

Technically, Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachman are not in yet, but most folks expect them to be. The Jury is still out on Sarah Palin. If I'm Palin, I don't run. I've blogged previously on my feelings about Palin, but from a pure math perspective, she occupies the same electoral space as Bachman and Herman Cain. Even if she comes out on top in that semi-final bracket, it cripples her chances against the more "mainstream" or "establishment" side. If I were her, I'd get behind Cain and try to play kingmaker. (More on him later.)

Bachman is basically the "poor man's Palin," but I don't give her much chance. She's already been pilloried as stupid in the media (despite her multiple law degrees), and doesn't have a big enough megaphone (like a Palin or a Cain) to fight back against that. She's also widely known as a "tea party candidate," but most tea partiers like Cain a lot better.

So what about Cain? I like him. A lot. The knock on him is that he is the novelty candidate who cannot win, largely due to his lack of prior elected office. This disregards the fact that he has MUCH more genuine executive experience than either of the nominees last time, and also that just one cycle ago we elected a novelty candidate who had been a senator for about 14 minutes, 8 of which were spent campaigning for president. All the "smart" people saying he has no chance also act like Huntsman is a serious candidate, which says more about their own so-called smarts than it does about Cain's qualifications. If he can get the "tea party" populist side of the ticket to unite behind him, especially if he gets a Palin endorsement, he becomes a really interesting factor. At the very least, he could wind up VP.

That leaves the more mainstream folks. Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Huntsman. Let's start with Gingrich: not a chance. Done. Toast. Even before his most recent gaffe-fest, the whole embrassing soap opera personal life made him toxic. He will be interesting in the debates, though.

Huntsman keeps popping up as the flavor of the month for "sophisticated" folks. I don't get it. If you want a RINO with good hair, there's Romney. I think the only reason anybody is talking about Huntsman is that nobody knows enough about him yet. Once we know him as well as the others, we'll dislike him, too.

Romney is the heir-apparent in the sense that he lost the last time. He's also got good looks, crossover appeal, business sense, a history of good management, and a ton of money to spend. Unfortunately, he's also got Romneycare as an albatross around his neck. If not for that, he could overcome the "Ken doll" vibe and the overall sense of RINO squishiness. And perhaps if that were his only weakness, he could finesse it somehow. But the combination is fatal. I think all those who have annointed him the front-runner completely fail to understand the tea party phenomenon. Indeed, if he emerges as the nominee, unless he somehow manages to get a Cain or a Palin as a running mate (darned unlikely), he may be the last Republican nominee--the populist wing would likely split.

That leaves Pawlenty. He's boring. But boring can be good! We've had a celebrity/demigod president, and how's that working out? We have our own drama queen (Palin), and I think most folks can do without that. Indeed, if you go back all the way to the Clinton years, we're coming up on 20 straight years of the president being flatly hated by near half of the US population. I think a boring, wonky, "Minnesota Nice" candidate could be a welcome change from that. He's got solid executive experience, has demonstrated that he can do budget math, and has a solid conservative record without being a firebrand. He's evangelical without giving off the Huckabee televangelist vibe (and yet also hasn't run away from social issues like Daniels did with the "truce" idea). I think on the "establishment" side of the bracket, he probably emerges as the un-Romney, and unlike Romney, can plausibly reach out to the tea party side.

At the end, I'll bet we get Pawlenty, preferably with Cain at the bottom of the ticket. But the other direction would suit me fine, too.

Oxymorons

2011-05-25T12:55:00.000-05:00

I love oxymorons. Jumbo shrimp. Icy hot. ACC football. All good fun! But I was thinking last week about how we Americans often want things that simply cannot go together. The push that got this ball rolling was serving as a driver for some nice folks from our local homeless shelter to a free activity at a children's museum. (Lest you think that my own stony heart came up with this idea, no, my lovely bride was the one who volunteered, but I was happy to be involved.) Just conversing with a couple of moms and their kids on the ten-minute ride was perplexing. If you've read this intermittent blog all the way back to the beginning, you know that I struggle trying to balance the requirements of my faith with the realities of this fallen world. As a Christian, I want to help the poor, but as a teacher of history and economics, I often wonder if our "help" does any good, or even harm. Well, as I listened to these very-nice folks, what struck me is that they seem completely incapable of making economic and lifestyle decisions in their own best interest. If only I could help them--not just with a ride, or a handout, or a job, or a place to stay--but with guidance, with the ability to learn from others' mistakes, with boundaries. I support my children, but I also get a say (the deciding say) in their decision-making. If I pay the rent, and I buy the groceries, then I also get to make the rules. But we don't want that for our poor. We want to help them economically, but not take away any of their autonomy or dignity. But it doesn't work.

I teach my students in US History that our country values both liberty and security, but that the balance between them is ever-shifting. Perfect freedom isn't safe at all--imagine highways with no lanes, no speed limits, no rules, and no signals. But perfect security is not free at all--imagine that same highway with zero percent chance of a traffic fatality, with cars traveling 3 mph and made of bubble-wrap. Often when we get scared, we trade liberties for safety (whether economic freedoms, or others, like the ability to board a plane without being groped). Sometimes we go too far and, to our credit, try to go back and make it right (like with Japanese intenment in WWII). Sometimes we differ over where the balance belongs (how strong a social safety net? is the Patriot Act a good or bad idea?). But at least we seem to understand that we cannot have either liberty or security perectly.

Why then, can we not get this logic through our head on other stuff? We want $1.50 gas, but also don't want to drill where the oil is. We want high spending and also low taxes. My school wants to field 58 sports teams and yet also wants them all to be championship contenders. Pick one! But stop demanding the impossible!

Osama, Obama, and Politics

2011-05-02T12:41:00.000-05:00

Watching various friends' facebook statuses last night when the news broke that Osama Bin Laden is now at room temp and perforated, it took about an hour before anybody dared to say anything political. Even then, most of the semi-political musings were from friends who support President Obama, and were along the lines of, "wonder how they can criticize this?" Nothing rude or anything like that. A little later, some of the braver pundits were wondering aloud whether this has any impact on the election in 2012.

First of all, there's nothing to criticize. Indeed, I like Obama best when he dares to "be like Bush." Whether it was pushing an Afghan surge, supporting Petreaus, keeping Gitmo open, or increasing drone attacks in theater, I have supported him and been pleasantly surprised when he did what I consider to be "the right thing." In this case, sending SEALs in, without prior notification to Paksitan, and double-tapping OBL is something I wholeheartedly applaud.

There's also a "Nixon to China" element here. With just a couple of exceptions, there has been hardly a peep from the usual antiwar voices. What we have here is the use of intel gained from Gitmo detainees, possibly while being waterboarded, used by a special ops "kill squad" who have zero intent to capture, so a targeted assassination, and also a violation of the borders of our putative "ally," Pakistan. And it was without a doubt a great thing to do. You won't hear the vast majority of the folks who would have flayed a Bush or even a McCain for doing the same thing talk about "war crimes." And that's a good thing.

As for long-term political repercussions, I don't think it necessarily changes the picture in 2012 at all. Think about it. First of all, it's no "October surprise." Any bounce Obama gains from this will be long-gone by election day. It was about this time in 1991 that Bush 41's approval ratings were over 90% as a result of the Gulf War, and we know how that turned out. There was little chance of this election turning on foreign policy, especially with Obama essentially validating the entire Bush program (even if he has done so while holding his nose). Those who planned on voting for him anyway will have their resolve strengthened by this. Those who didn't are likely not going to change their minds over it. I'll bet that the tiny number of hawks who embrace Obama due to this success will be offset by a similarly tiny number of super-doves who abandon him for the same reason. At the end of the day, if gas is five bucks a gallon and bacon 6 bucks a pound next year, he's toast. If the economy is back on track, he's fine. Pretty much everything else is window dressing.

Regardless, today I don't care anyway. The idea that the last thing Osama ever saw was a SEAL with a cew cut and an MP5 warms my heart. Well done, Mr. President.

Trump, Obama, and Grades

2011-04-26T20:05:00.000-05:00

So... Donald Trump has now claimed that he has "heard that Obama was a terrible student," and wants to see his grades and test scores. Oh, where to begin? Let's start with disclaimers. First, now that Trump has identified himself repeatedly and vociferously with the whole "birther" business*, it cuts the legs out from under the far-more-reasonable suggestion that the grades be released. Secondly, my visceral dislike for The Donald makes it difficult for me to accept anything he says, including "2+2=4." And third, there is a steaming pile of "so what" at work here. As I recall, Nixon, Clinton, Carter, and Hoover were all stunningly brilliant. Lincoln and Truman didn't have a day of college, Reagan graduated from Eureka College, and FDR was famously described as "a second rate intellect, but a first rate temperament." And recently the JFK library released Kennedy's Harvard admissions application, on which the only noteworthy item was "Father's Name: Joseph P. Kennedy." So whether Obama is the most brilliant supra-genius after Will Ferrell in Megamind or a barely above-average fellow makes little difference.

OK. Fine. But there is the other side, too. For my entire adult life I've had to listen to almost every Republican politician called a mouth-breathing moron. Bush 43, or course. Sarah Palin. Dan Quayle. Reagan. Eisenhower, for pity's sake. Gerald Ford (I think it was Tip O'Neill who said he had played too much football without a helmet.) Those who were not stupid were crazy (Nixon, Goldwater, Cheney) or out of touch (Bush 41). I guess Reagan must have been all three. The fact that Bush 43 got his undergrad from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, and also managed to fly a jet fighter, counts for nothing. So pot, meet kettle--it is not entirely unreasonable to ask for some semblance of proof that a fellow touted as indescribably brilliant really is.

If you do any reading on this topic, you get caught in a giant loop. You have the absence of any hard evidence on the one side (with the notion that if proof of brilliance was really out there, it would have already have been trumpeted from the rooftops). On the other, you get the facts that Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law, and was President of the Harvard Law Review. Here's the thing: before 1981, making the Law Review was done 100% on grades, and the very top student was the President. Should be a slam-dunk. But after that, and before Obama's admission, they gamed the process to fix the fact that hardly any Law Review editors were women or minorities. They also made the Presidency an elected office. Does that mean that Obama was an affirmative-action Editor? Not necessarily. But if it is fair to assume that any academic credentials held by George W. Bush must have been corrupted by nepotism, why is it off-limits to wonder whether a multi-racial, multi-national son of a Harvard grad might have gotten a bump somewhere? And there is no doubt that the man is an excellent campaigner.

That still leaves off the deal with "Magna Cum Laude." That's the middle level of honors--Cum Laude is lowest, Summa Cum Laude highest. If Obama had gone to the University of SC, I could tell you for sure that he had to have a 3.75 GPA to qualify. But I don't know about Harvard. On paper, everybody who gets into Harvard is brilliant. That doesn't mean that the middle ones get a 2.0. I know that today, there is much ink spilled over grade inflation at the Ivies. I have no idea what it was like back in the late 80s. It may very well be that Obama's "Magna" means he was top 10% of his class. It might also be the case that 3/4 of the class was "Cum Laude," the top half "Magna," and the top quarter "Summa." I don't know--but to assume either one is a leap of faith, likely rooted in wishful thinking. And even if his grades were good, were they good in all classes? What I mean is, did he bust the curve on Torts 1 or Contracts, which everybody takes? Or was he mid-pack in those, but aced the sorts of electives where being smooth, and glib, and right-thinking (liberal, of course) are an advantage?

I suppose the very best answer to the question, "how smart is he" would be found by looking at standardized test scores, if only because they are taken by everybody. SATs and LSATs would be the obvious ones. And since President Obama is older than me (but not by much), I know that the SAT he would have taken would be the pre-1996 version which correlates almost perfectly with IQ. (The modern version does not--but the "old" SAT was acceptable as an entrance test for Mensa, among other things.) Now, if Obama took the PSAT (which I don't know), and if he really did have the kind of IQ that usually results in being top of your class at Harvard, you could reasonably expect him to have been a National Merit Scholar. That ranking is done entirely from the test--double your verbal score plus your math. But there are lists of National Merit winners, and Obama's not on them. Again, maybe he didn't take the PSAT. Nobody's saying he's dumb. But the hard evidence of his purported brilliance is not all that solid.

What? Don't like the sound of that? Well, here's a solution. Consistency. How about we say, "He couldn't have gotten where he is now without being pretty darned bright." And say the same thing about, say, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Or say, "Raw, testable intelligence is no predictor of leadership." And give the same benefit of the doubt to Reagan. But it seems to me that to define "intelligence" as "a quality found only among those whom I like and agree with" is not clear thinking.

*Note: If you have doubts that Obama was born in Hawaii (and I saw on a muted TV at dinner tonight that CNN now has supposedly proven that he was), just ask yourself this: if there were ANY chance that Obama were not eligible to be president, do you doubt for a second that we'd have President Hillary Clinton right now? I might could believe that men didn't land on the moon, that Oswald was a clone, and that Dick Cheney caused hurricane Katrina with his magic weather machine. But to believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton somehow decided to play nice and take one for the team is a bridge too far.

Rob Bell = Sarah Palin

2011-04-25T07:17:00.000-05:00

I finally gave in and read Love Wins, Rob Bell's controversial new book on heaven and hell. For those who don't follow intramural fights among evangelicals, Bell has come under fire for suggesting that God might not send anybody to hell. Or rather, that the opportunity to repent continues to exist even after death, and that given the time involved (eternity) and the persuasiveness of God's love, that like the million immortal monkeys with typewriters who eventually pound out Hamlet, it's possible that eventually everybody will be saved. (BTW--this is a terrible oversimplification of what he says, or rather implies, and is more-or-less from the perspective of the critics.)

I am of two minds about this whole tempest in a teapot. I'm not a huge Bell fan. I find his style grating--everything from his haircut to his glasses to the font he uses in his books screams out "Look at me! I'm edgy and cool!" The selective leaking of some of the more provocative passages from the book generated a bunch of buzz, which of course translates to more attention for Bell. And he is very careful to never actually SAY anything that can be nailed down. That gives him the cover of being able to say, "I was just asking the question" without ever owning up to an answer. What's more, the topic itself isn't even particularly original. I much prefer C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.

That said, I find my reaction to Bell almost perfectly mirrors my reaction to Sarah Palin. As I have written elsewhere, I am not a Palinista, and would prefer she not run for president. If she does, I will almost certainly not vote for her in the primaries. I think she is a genius at self-promotion, but that her very skill at that distracts from a message that less-controversial messengers might deliver better. BUT... the people who mindlessly hate her force me into her camp. I find myself supporting (or at least defending) Palin, if only because I really can't stand the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and so forth. I find myself half-smiling at the idea of her running (even winning), just because it would possibly cause Maher's head to explode on live TV.

And so it is with Bell. The sorts of "evangelical leaders" who have pretty much written him out of Christendom are of a sort that I would say have magnetic personalities--they repel me. Attacking a book one hasn't read, ripping quotes out of context, jousting at a veritable army of straw men--those things offend me even more than Bell's suspect theology. (If it even IS Bell's theology.)

Perhaps later I'll weigh in with my own views on heaven, hell, and salvation. The very short version is that I have many of the same questions Bell does, and am even willing to entertain the possibility that God can and will choose to act in a way that conflicts with what I perceive as orthodoxy. After all, He is God, and I most definitely am not. But I am also satisfied that whatever He does, it will be both merciful AND just, in a way that I am not able to do. And I also keep coming back to Romans 6:1 (Should we sin more, that grace may abound? By no means."). So I do not presume upon God's goodness or mercy, for myself or others.

Dead Blog Walking

2011-04-25T06:31:00.000-05:00

Well, it finally happened. I've still got sitemeter set up on this alleged blog, and I still get a weekly report. This week, I registered a Bluto. (Mr. Blutarsky.... ZERO. POINT. ZERO.) Can't blame anybody for not reading when I don't write. It's so much easier to post a facebook status or to join in an online argument elsewhere. Still, it's a good place to put longer stuff, and maybe I'll link it to FB if I write anything.

Step One - Clean off the Desk

2011-01-03T21:33:00.000-05:00

Most of us find our desks under a pile of stuff to do. My big tool for cleaning my desk off is a simple yellow legal pad, which becomes my "master list." Just make a pile of everything on the desk and go through it a piece at a time. Every item on the desk can either be trashed, filed, or needs something done to or with it. Obviously, the trash stuff gets thrown out. If something needs to be filed, it goes straight into a file. If no file exists, I make a new one--just a manila folder, with the title written in ink on the tab.

That leaves items requiring action. These get written on the master list. Once the task is on the list, if there are still materials on the desk required to do the task, those can get their own file folder, or can go into a single "pending" or "unfinished business" folder. Nowadays, both the list and the folder can have an electronic twin. But neither my physical nor computer desktop gets strewn with junk anymore.

To be 100% honest, neither my computer, my desk at home, nor my desk at work is completely bare. I have a couple of key desktop folders on the computer, some cubbyholes built-in on my home desk, and a stacking file tray on the corner of my desk at work. But all of these just serve to subdivide the "pending" work within easy reach.

The bigger question comes when I look at the list--what to do with this uncategorized mess? What do I do first? What do I do today? That's tomorrow's blog.

The Plan of Attack

2011-01-03T07:02:00.000-05:00

As 2011 gets underway, I am focused on getting all of my ducks properly rowed up. One of my big areas of interest over the years has been organization and time management. My plan for the next few blogs is to share a few tools and tactics that have been helpful to me in terms of staying in control.

Wrap-Up and Resolutions

2011-01-01T10:41:00.003-05:00

Looking back at 2010, I'm reasonably pleased. A year ago, I had failed to successfully read through the Bible in a year (died a horrible death in the major prophets) and had to squeeze in an extra mile before midnight on New Year's eve to get 460.5 total miles--just barely enough to maintain my 500 mile per year average going back to 1998. I was a little frightened to commit to any "SMART" goals (you know, Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, and Timely) because I wasn't sure I'd follow through. But I managed to accomplish both of my big ones--I finished the One Year Bible and ran my 500th mile on December 30th, earning New Year's Eve "off."

On the Bible side, I wish I could say that I read 365 straight days. I didn't; I had to double-up many times (in some cases, up to 4 or 5 days of reading) as momentum waxed and waned. I'm also not exactly sure how many full Bible readings I've done now. I think it's 10, but there are so many "partials" in there (New Testament only, everything but the major prophets, etc.) that I can't be 100% certain. Probably nobody else cares if it's 9 or 10. But my particular form of OCD wants it right. And as a track guy, I hate it when people exaggerate their times or distances. Regardless, that was a success.

On the running front, I'm very pleased. I ran exactly 500 miles in 126 runs. This is the most miles since 2005 (when I did 522) and the most runs since 2004 (when I did 128). I also averaged right at 4 miles per run for the first time since 2005. None of these numbers are any good--they reflect how poorly I ran between 2006 and 2009 more than any excellence this year. But it's a comeback, of a sort. Sadly, the one time I raced this year wasn't very good (40 seconds worse than the previous year's Turkey Day Run). I can blame the weather a bit (it was 20+ degrees warmer), but I really did race poorly. You'd think after 28 years of running, I'd learn how to keep my pace from falling apart. I also came mentally unglued in the last half-mile, a failure of mental toughness that I would find inexcusable in the athletes I coach. I don't mind getting older and slower, but I don't want to get less competitive on the inside.

So that leaves what to do this year. I don't really feel like doing the Old Testament again. Instead, my current plan is to use the Daily Bible, which is arranged chronologically, and to start with the October 18th reading where the New Testament begins. That will take 75 days, after which I'll set a new goal. In theory, I could do the NT four times this year, but more likely I'll pick a more focused study topic in mid-March.

For the running, I'm not sure I want to set a mileage goal (although 500 needs to be the floor for the sake of the average). But I would like to run more consistently. My 126 runs this year included very few from January through April (which, not coincidentally, is the meaty part of track season, when my own workout opportunities suffer). There were also 20 runs of less than three miles (some due to location--like the workout I did on a cruise ship at 11 laps to the mile, others because I simply warmed up with my athletes before coaching their workouts, but also plenty due to being out of shape and lazy). What I'd like to do this year is run at least 10 times every month, even the "bad" ones. I'd also like to have my average run distance come up--not necessarily by going much longer on "normal" runs (I like 4-5 for those, with once a week of 6-10 as a "long run"), but by limiting the number of tiny ones. If I did both of those things, I think I'd see my mileage get to near 600. I also intend to do some upper-body work in my school's outstanding new fitness center (and I've already started, 3 weeks ago).

As far as other resolutions, I want to spend less time online (or at least less time aimlessly online) and do more reading of real books. I also want to be more intentional with my use of my waking hours at home for the rest of the school year (which is related). I also want to encourage the Mrs. in her goals this year.

Finally, I have one big professional goal coming up: this should be the best track team I've coached in almost 10 years. It's hard to set a goal to win a championship, especially in a sport where you can't play defense. Sometimes the other guys are just faster. But I want to be 100% committed to doing what it takes for the next 5 months to put my kids in a position to win.

So... what are YOUR goals?

Fresh Starts

2011-01-01T10:15:00.003-05:00

Well, I didn't blog much in 2010. Looking back, I didn't realize the effect that Facebook would have on blogging. Being able to post a short status update and share with hundreds of people (and being able to "argue" online) was a very attractive nuisance. Blogging takes more thought and more work, and reaches a much smaller, and self-selected audience. However, FB has its limitations. I have several FB friends who post political or otherwise controversial links and statuses. Sometimes I engage them (whether in agreement or in friendly jousting). But with 400+ friends of varying backgrounds and beliefs, I have tried (I hope more-or-less successfully) to avoid posting anything that could be taken the wrong way. I feel like a FB post is sorta like hitting "reply all" on an email--do I really want everybody at work to read this?

At least with the blog, I figure if you're here, you came because you really wanted to know what I think about stuff. And anybody who is a real friend knows that I'm a conservative, and a Christian, and a history nerd, a neat freak, etc. So hopefully if you come across anything here that bugs you, well, caveat emptor.

I do love the new year (and the new semester, and the new sports season). Nothing is as encouraging as a fresh, clean calendar page (whether we're talking about a DayTimer, a gradebook, a running log, or even an Outlook page online). Doubtless something will come along to foul it up eventually (so long as there's Gamecock football). But today, hope springs eternal.

So, I'm going to start blogging again. Some personal, some political, some observations on stuff I'm reading--whatever. If you decide to read it (whether you're one of my few surviving "original" blog-readers, or a new one based on my Facebook post), perhaps you can drop me a quick comment and let me know. It'll be a month before sitemeter tells me if I'm just talking to myself.

Happy new year!

Palin, Palin, Palin!

2010-12-07T13:19:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin drives me crazy. I don't know if I have ever been more conflicted over a political figure in my lifetime. I'd like to just lay out a few threads here and see if anybody else is on board with me.

On the one hand, I liked her when she first came on the scene as McCain's running mate. She added youth and energy to the ticket, gave old and lily-white McCain a little boost in the diversity arena (which, of course, made precious little difference in '08), and was the only non-senator of the bunch (the bunch meaning Obama, McCain, Biden, and even Clinton). I also liked the fact that her pro-life credentials, as evidenced by carrying Trig to term, were far less suspect than many pro-lifers.

It didn't bother me that she was savaged so badly by the media--I'm old enough to remember pretty much every republican in my lifetime being called either stupid (Reagan, Ford, Quayle, GWB) or evil (Nixon, Cheney). Even George Bush 41 got called a wimp, despite being the youngest fighter pilot shot down in the Pacific theater of WWII. This is an old one, and it stinks. Adlai Stevenson was the "egghead" candidate in 1952 and 56, even though he didn't hardly read, and Ike was the befuddled old grandpa-type, despite being the guy who planned D-Day and former president of Columbia University.

That said, just because I thought she was good for the #2 job (particularly considering the alternative) doesn't mean that she's my first choice to be leader of the free world. I think President Obama is a great object lesson in what you get when you ignore experience and significant accomplishments in order to vote for a candidate who makes you feel good for either rhetorical or demographic reasons.

But that's where it gets difficult. It seems like if you say what I just wrote, that puts you on the side of the people (both liberals and "elite" conservatives) who act like she's stupid. And I emphatically do not want to find myself on that side. Indeed, the thing I find the most attractive about Palin is the fact that she drives certain people so nuts. If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then she and I ought to be quite friendly. She antagonizes the group of "elitists" who rub me the most wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I teach elites. By some measures of elitism, I am one of the elites (National Merit Scholar, fancy private school, honors in college, graduate degree, career in academia). But the older I get, the less I value the opinions of people who have very high opinions of their own intellect (except in very specific areas in which they are experts--I'm not sure if it was Will Rogers or Mark Twain who said, "We're all ignorant, just on different subjects.") That doesn't mean that I value ignorance, nor that I am anti-intellectual. I'm anti-snobbery. Maybe pro-humility.

So, anyway, I've described myself ever since the election as not pro-Palin, but "anti-anti-Palin." However, it seems to me that defenses of her keep coming back to a circular logic. Pain supporters keep coming back to the fact that Biden is demonstrably dumb, and/or that she is at least as smart and/or qualified as Obama. Then the conversation invariably turns to how smart he is (or isn't) and how dumb she is (or isn't), and what constitutes "smart," and his missing college transcripts, and how common sense trumps book sense (or doesn't), or how neither Reagan nor Truman were geniuses while Carter and Nixon and Hoover were all brilliant.... AAARGH!

It seems to me that this is exactly the wrong direction to take. It is possible that she is absolutely as qualified as Obama to be president, because neither one of them is qualified! The same can be said of quite a few attractive candidates. I have a man-crush on Chris Christie in New Jersey. I'm developing quite a liking for Marco Rubio in Florida. They will both be great candidates for higher office... someday. But not two years from now. And I don't want my urge to defend Palin from what I feel are unfair attacks to lead all the way to having two unqualified presidents in a row.

All that said, on the matter of "can she win," the answer is tricky. I think if she runs, she has a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. In the same way we got McCain last time... unless a single "un-Palin" emerges early, she could wind up being the winner with a plurality based on the energy of her supporters. And when (if) she runs against Obama, if the economy still stinks, the whole "she can't be any worse than what we've got" equation is a possibility. However, I think whoever is the eventual GOP nominee benefits most if the 2012 election is a referendum on 4 years of Obama. If Palin is the nominee, she'll distract from that message.

One counter-argument is that it doesn't matter--whoever is the GOP nominee will get killed in the media, called stupid, evil, theocratic, heartless, etc. Possibly true. But my personal hope is that she won't run and will jockey to be a kingmaker. However, if she does wind up the nominee, of course I'll vote for her. Crud, I voted for BOB DOLE.

I'm Trying!

2010-12-07T13:15:00.002-05:00

Facebook is killing my blog. I have plenty of blog-worthy thoughts rattling around in my head, but it is so much quicker to post a status update on FB than to compose an essay. However, I am often self-censoring on facebook, because I have a very diverse group of friends. I know I personally don't like it when people post inflammatory or controversial stuff. Sometimes I'll comment on one of those threads and I always wind up regretting it. So I don't want to be one of those folks who makes others feel similarly uncomfortable. But here... well, if you clicked over to CoachSal, then you asked for it! Anyway, I'm woking on a little something. It'll be up soon.

"Those People"

2010-08-11T12:38:00.003-05:00

One last thought, for a while. This is a thought that bled over from facebook. A "friend" from there posted a link to an article by Paul Krugman in the New York Times that I thought was terribly unfair. I won't go over the whole thing, but the part that stuck in my craw was that Krugman characterized anyone who was opposed to letting the 2001 Bush tax cuts expire as someone who would rather the poor starve than the top 2% of evil rich plutocrats lose their precious tax cuts. I pointed out that most of us (yes, us) who want the cuts to stay do so because we actually think that taxes going up during a deep recession is economically very bad. Arguments can be made on both sides as to whether that economic assumption is true or not, but to have a Nobel-prize-winning economist so baldly misstate the motives of those who disagree with him seemed to me the very definition of partisan hackery.

But here's where it got interesting. There were over 700 comments on the NYT article, and in the first 3 pages (after which I gave up), about 90% of them amounted to readers cheering Krugman for speaking the plain, obvious truth. And my comment on my friend's status was greeted with similar sentiments. It took a great deal of explaining for many folks (probably not near all) who saw the thread to conclude that I was neither stupid nor evil. Meanwhile, I was bummed that so many people on the "other side" could be so "blind."

This is repeated all over--read the comments on Hot Air or other conservative blogs and you'll get the reverse. We all think we're right (well, of course we do--if we thought we were wrong, we'd change our minds). And we surround ourselves with folks who agree with us. It reminds me of the story of Pauline Kael, a NYT columnist who reacted to the 1972 election results with, "How can Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him!" (Nixon had won 49 states and a huge popular-vote landslide.)

The older and more mellow I get, the more I'm willing to at least consider the possibility that I might be wrong. (Well, I consider the possibility, and then reject it...) This isn't just true of politics, it's true of church stuff, and finance stuff, and professional stuff. One of my ongoing resolutions is to try to at least extend a presumption of good faith to those who disagree with me.

I'm Really Glad Obama Won

2010-08-11T12:08:00.002-05:00

What? But Larry, you're supposed to be my token arch-conservative friend! Why?

Glad you asked. First of all, contrary to popular opinion, I really don't dislike President Obama that much. I disagree with a great many of his policies (which is to be expected, since he's liberal and I'm conservative). But he's not a slimeball like Clinton (whose policies, btw, were more to my liking). And I have tired of the "I hate the president" game that we've been playing in this country since the Clinton years. One of my first reasons for being glad Obama won is that he kept us from going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have liked Hillary's policies any better, and that would have only prolonged that particular drama. She also would likely have been a somewhat better player at the political game, which in the end means that his victory possibly hastens the next cycle when "my side" is ascendant.

Secondly, I'm really glad we elected our first black president. Truth be told, I almost voted for him just for that reason. He was going to win anyway, and it would have been nice to be a part of that great moment in US history. Yes, I would rather our first black president have been a conservative. I'd vote for Thomas Sowell in a heartbeat. (I was an enthusiastic supporter of a Colin Powell candidacy in 1996.) But as a kid born less than a year after Martin Luther King's assassination, who has personal experience of the lessening of racism in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and now, I'm happy about this.

Third, I'm happy because now there gets to be a genuine debate over small-government conservatism (whether you call it libertarianism, or Tea Party-ism, or whatever). If John McCain had been elected, there would not be Tea Parties. When George W. Bush was president, I hated the fact that he spent money like a drunken sailor. I have told a generation of students that he was not a fiscal conservative. But I held my nose and supported him, right up until the end, because he at least gave us Justices Roberts and Alito, and because he didn't throw in the towel on the War on Terror. And despite his (numerous) shortcomings, I have never wished that we had John Kerry as a wartime president. The same thing would have been true of a President McCain. I would have tied myself in knots trying to be happy with half a loaf--and so would most of the right. His fiscal policies would not be much different than Obama's, except maybe in scale. Finally, the frustrated small-government folks have emerged. This is good for the country in the long run.

Along the same lines, a President McCain's foreign policy would likely be near-identical to Obama's (especially in Iraq and Afghanistan). But McCain would be the target of a 24-7 drumbeat of negativity for it. We'd still be hearing daily body counts on CNN, folks would be lamenting the fact that Gitmo is still open from the rooftops, and probably Cindy Sheehan would have her own talk show. But with Obama in office, (most of) the left has taken joint-ownership of this difficult situation. Obviously, with him in office, Guantanamo is a harder issue than it once looked like. The troop withdrawal from Iraq begun under Bush continues at the exact same pace, but it gets applause rather than jeers. And it is possible for the same people who opposed both the Iraq surge and General Petreaus to now embrace both him, and a similar surge in Afghanistan. That's also good for the country.

Finally, a little perspective. There have been many comparisons of our current national doldrums with the "malaise" of the 1970s under Jimmy Carter. The end result of that was Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush, all of whom (yes, including Clinton) embraced center-right governance of one sort or another. There are many, many adults who have never actually held a job during a serious recession before. The vast majority of people under about 45 have no experience with unchecked liberal governance. I am confident enough in the strength of my positions to believe that good ideas will win out in the end. I feel strongly that in the near future, the electorate will begin making choices I like a lot better. And of course, I also believe that THAT is good for the country.

Long Time No Blog

2010-08-11T12:07:00.001-05:00

Yeah, I know. I've written a good bit on friends' facebook pages, but very little blogging. I'm going to try to do better. I've actually got a couple of thoughts I'd like to try out on whoever is still reading.

Texas Curriculum Wars

2010-05-24T09:49:00.003-05:00

As a "social studies" teacher (I abhor that phrase--I teach HISTORY), I suppose it would be a good idea for me to weigh in on the business in Texas involving the US History curriculum. For those who haven't been following the story, the Texas state school board is about two-to-one Republican over Democrat, and they have voted to change the standards that set curriculum for public schools. This is especially important because the sheer size of Texas' student body means that major textbook publishers tend to tailor their basic texts to Texas standards, so their decisions can bleed over into other states' curricula. The big"outrage" is that the board is trying to fill young students' heads with partisan conservative propaganda, or so all the mainstream media says.

A couple of general thoughts first: History textbooks are generally awful.* Even the best of them. They tell a story a mile wide and an inch deep, and are usually horribly written. Secondly, almost all history textbooks and history standards are written by history professors. And history professors are, pretty uniformly, liberal. There may not be an evil conspiracy to fill kids' heads with progressive claptrap, but there is an awful lot of groupthink, whether intentional or not. This means that, in general, any positive mention of the conservative point of view is going to run counter to the "consensus" of professional historians. Imagine if 80-90% of history profs were members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Even though their cause may have long been lost, it would still be hard to get a fair hearing for even an honest appraisal of the proposition that maybe the Union was right. Finally, the mainstream media is at least as liberal as the history professorate. So when they tell the story of this grevious evil being perpetrated by historical heretics, they are not exactly being objective observers and reporters of fact.

That brings me to these standards. Here's a link to a blog I read in which a relatively moderate Wisconsin law professor (she voted for Obama) takes the media to task for mis-stating the so-called conservative bias in the new standards (her post also links back to the actual text of the standards, which the media has not provided). The funny thing to me is that all of these horrible, outrageous offenses against sound scholarship look almost exactly like what I teach in my US history class! I call it teaching kids both sides of the story, and teaching them HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. And it runs both ways. I teach my kids that Joe McCarthy's tactics were terrible, and also that Alger Hiss really was a spy. Those two propositions are not contradictory! I also teach them that both the people who excuse McCarthyism because of their own anti-communism and those who excuse Hiss because of their anti-McCarthyism are guilty of the same error, and that this guilt, in both cases, is founded in the best of intentions. I tell them why conservatives love Reagan, and why liberals don't. And I tell them the reverse about FDR. I give the very best defenses I can for both Nixon and Carter (and believe me, that's hard to do). I tell them how both Keynsianism and Supply-Side economics work in theory, and that neither model is perfect in practice. And over and over and over again I tell them that smart, educated, patriotic people can look at the same objective facts and draw different political and philosophical conclusions. Isn't that what we want for our kids?

Despite all the sound and fury, in the end this isn't going to matter much. Most of the controversy involves the teaching of modern ideas (like the importance of Barry Goldwater to the conservative movement). The vast majority of 11th grade US History classes are going to run out of steam somewhere in the late 1950s, with everything after that jammed into a single wrap-up lesson before the final exam (which will likely be 100 multiple-choice questions on a bubble-test machine base almost entirely off of the bold-print terms from the terrible textbook). I have a full year to teach just 1865 to the present, and I still have to cut corners everywhere to get it all done.

*NOTE--There are several egregious examples of "standard" textbooks which drive me nuts. The American Pageant is used by almost every kid in AP US History in the country. In my opinion, every smart kid who gets force-fed Pageant for a year ought to be inncoulated by giving them a copy of Paul Johnson's A History of the American People for graduation. What I would really love is to see kids read Bill Bennett's America: The Last Best Hope. That will never happen, because as a Reaganite (Secretary of Education under Reagan, back from the days when "A Nation At Risk" came out and pointed out that our public schools already stank almost 30 years ago), he is seen as a "conservative" historian. Which is laughable--if kids read Bennett, they'll be taught that FDR was a great president, that Dr. King was a hero, and that the United States was actually on the right side of history in the Revolution, the Civil War, and WWII. If believing that makes you a bad historian, well, I'm guilty.

Hypocrisy, Taking the Cash, and Confirmation Hearings

2010-05-19T16:47:00.004-05:00

A story from a long time ago: the first year I taught full-time for real pay (not being a TA in grad school, etc.) was also the year my oldest son was born. My family bought our first house and our first minivan. We were as flush with cash as we have ever been, before or since (even though we make more than double what we did back then, kids are expensive). Since school starts in late August, I pretty much only got paid for 4 months in the 1994 calendar year. When tax time came, we came in below the poverty line, and qualified for the earned income child credit (and it was a decent-sized check, about $2000). Now, I'm conservative. I don't much care for the credit in principle. I really hate welfare fraud. And I cashed the check without hesitation. We didn't lie or cheat in any way, and if those were the rules, I sure as heck wasn't going to turn down the money.

Not long after, we had a statewide referendum on the lottery. I voted against it. I hate the lottery--it's a voluntary tax on those folks who can't do math, and takes money from the poor and uneducated to give to middle-class families so they can send their kids to colleges they would have attended anyway (where they, too, will become too educated to play the lottery). But in a couple of years, when my oldest goes off to college, I'll gladly take the lottery-funded scholarships.

Let's apply that to the upcoming confirmation hearings for soon-to-be Justice Kagan. Should republicans vote to confirm her? I'd love to say yes. I honestly believe that when a properly-elected president nominates a qualified person to the court, the senate ought to confirm. Scalia and Ginburg both got over 95 votes for confirmation. However, those are not the rules anymore. Bork got borked. Thomas got "a high-tech lynching." Then-senator Obama voted to filibuster Alito, and against confirming Chief Justice Roberts (both of whom are, in objective and non-ideological terms, many times more qualified than Kagan). If both sides would go back to the Scalia standard, I'd be all in favor of it. But there is nothing heroic about sticking to the Marquess of Queensbury Rules if your opponent is employing mixed martial arts.

What do you think? Am I a hypocrite, or a realist?

Woodrow Wilson and Kobe Bryant

2010-05-15T14:51:00.002-05:00

Apparently, Glenn Beck (who I don't watch) has a serious dislike of Woodrow Wilson, possibly informed by Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, which I have written about before. There are little pockets of discussion of Wilson all over the internet. (What? You haven't read them? You mean not everybody reads early 20th-century political theory for fun? Here's one from this week, just as a taste.)

It just so happens that I just finished teaching about Wilson this week. And I'm not a big fan, either. There are lots of reasons--Wilson was a racist, I think his vaunted "idealism" was rooted in a terribly naive worldview which at least partially contributed to the causes of WWII, and his espionage and sedition acts of 1918 (among other things) were, in my opinion, an example of one of the times when we as Americans did not live up to our stated principles. I could go on and on about these and other evils, real and imagined, but that's not the point.

The real reason I don't like Wilson is that I think he's overrated. If he were a bad guy and everyone agreed about it, I'd be fine with that. Or if my opinion of him were lower than most people's, but no one sang his praises, he wouldn't cross my radar screen. But what gets me is that many, many historians rank him among the best presidents. There was a great poll done by the Wall Street Journal in 2005 that ranked all the presidents from G.W. to G.W. (Washington to Bush). The thing I like about this particular poll is that they tried to balance liberals vs. conservatives, so in theory the ideology should balance out (unlike, say, the famous rankings done by the Schlessingers, which could be translated as "liberals good, conservatives bad"). I actually use that poll in my history class. But even on it, Wilson gets the #11 ranking of all time. (As an aside, you can't look at the ranking of George W. Bush with any confidence, as the poll was taken in 2005, immediately after his reelection and before the slide he took starting in 2006.)

Anyway, I understand why he gets the "near-great" designation. He was the first Democrat to win consecutive terms since Andrew Jackson. He is the guy who brought "progressivism" to the Democrats (where it would develop into modern liberalism). And you always get bonus points for winning a war, in his case WWI. Moreover, I never try to judge a president by whether or not I agree with his agenda (or else you get the Schlessinger problem). Even a liberal can respect Reagan's success, and even a conservative can respect FDR's. (And incidentally, I'm perfectly fine with FDR outranking Reagan--the 1930s depression was worse than the 1970s malaise, WWII was worse than the Cold War, and 4 landslides trump 2.) But I just happen to think that those criteria for which Wilson gets so much credit are mis-used. He only won his first term in 1912 because of the Taft vs. Teddy Roosevelt split. In neither of his two electoral college victories did he win over half of the popular vote (incidentally, the same was true of Bill Clinton, but that's just interesting trivia). And I firmly believe that although Wilson "won" the great war, he lost the peace. Moreover, I would say that it was his own ego that prevented the US ratification of thee Treaty of Versailles, and set the stage for WWII.

Anyway, historians can argue about that, and they do. But what amuses me is that I feel the exact same way about Kobe Bryant. I'm not a Kobe fan. Yes, he scores a ton of points, and yes, he has won several championships. But the main reason I don't like Kobe is because too many folks swoon and call him the best player of all time. I'm sorry--he's not the best player in today's league (that would be Lebron), he's not the best player ever at his position (that would be Michael Jordan), he wasn't the best player on his own team for four of his championships (that would be Shaq), and he's certainly not the best player in his franchise's history (behind Magic, Kareem, Shaq, possibly Jerry West, and that's not even counting the time Wilt Chamberlain was there). It just bugs the heck out of me that people walk around not knowing that, the same way they know that 2+2=4.

Oh, well. I guess that's why I blog.

Diversity on the Court

2010-05-13T05:14:00.003-05:00

A couple of funnies vis-a-vis "diversity" on the Supreme Court (noted all over the internet, not just by me). First of all, assuming (I do) that Elena Kagan will be confirmed, that will mean that every single justice spent time at either Harvard or Yale law (Ginsburg actually graduated from Columbia, but attended Harvard first). The three most recent appointees (Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito) all did their undergrad at Princeton. This will be the first time ever that three women have served on the Supreme Court at the same time, but all three of them are Ivy-League liberals from New York City (as is Scalia, except, of course, for the liberal part). And the court will have 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews, with zero protestants. Add in the fact that President Obama, of Harvard, defeated Senator Clinton, of Yale, for the right to replace President Bush, of Yale undergrad and Harvard Business, who lost the popular vote to Senator Gore, of Harvard... I sure am glad our country values diversity!

Not that I have anything against the Ivies. Indeed, my school produces its share of Ivy-leaguers, of whom we are justifiably proud. Just to rattle off a few, two of my favorite student-athletes are graduating this month, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. Just yesterday, a former favorite accosted me in the halls on campus--he just finished his freshman year at Yale. And in this year's graduating class, we have a Harvard, an MIT (who is a Presidential Scholar), and my cross-country team captain turned down Dartmouth and Columbia in favor of the full-ride scholarship at Duke.

But let's also be honest--all of these Ivy kids (and in that group I am counting the judges and politicians) fit a certain type. One does not go to that sort of school without fitting the profile. Yes, they are demonstrably smart (although a perfect SAT does not necessarily outrank one in the 96th percentile, and a perfect GPA does not necessarily put one head-and-shoulders above the nearly-perfect). They all interview well. They all have loads of extracurricular activities, properly spread around all the major categories (every single member of the group of my own students I just rattled off has some combination of athletics, fine arts, student government, and community or school service on their resume, usually in near-ludicrous proportions). But most important, they are absolute masters at playing the game.

There's nothing wrong with playing the game, beating the system, figuring out where the proper gears and levers are. It's a major life skill. But it's not farming. On a farm, there's no cramming. On a farm, making the right connections won't get you anywhere. But in an academic setting (and later, in a legal/judicial/political setting), you're dealing with a man-made system, with rules and loopholes, with social norms and expectations. A system like that is built to be manipulated by the exceptionally bright and highly motivated. As I read the various narratives about soon-to-be-Justice Kagan, I am intrigued by the plain vanilla quality of her career. It seems that she may, once at most, as an undergraduate, have expressed a somewhat controversial opinion on paper. The horror! But she has pretty much not made a single misstep that would cause her to stumble on any rung of the ladder of success. It's almost as if she has been preparing for a smooth confirmation hearing since high school. If you know these kids, that's not surprising.

But here's the thing--these kids are the best and brightest, the hard workers, and all that. But they wind up being the movers and shakers, not just in politics, but in finance, in academics, and so forth. They wind up being the ones who write the rules--rules which reward Ivy-type kids. I find it interesting that the last US president we had who didn't get an "elite" education was Ronald Reagan (of Eureka College in Tampico, Illinois). Incidentally, he's also the last president that I can remember who picked an "interesting" nominee for the court. (Although his picks still had the "elite" cred--O'Connor was 3rd in her class at Stanford; Rehnquist was first. And Scalia is an Ivy guy). You know what I'd love to see? A Supreme Court judge who was top of his or her class at the University of South Carolina School of Law. You want a judge with symapthy for the underdog? Pick a Gamecock.

SCOTUS Thoughts

2010-05-10T17:24:00.003-05:00

So, today President Obama made official what anyone with a web browser has known since last week: that Elena Kagan will be his nominee to replace John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. The narrative has already been pre-written--Kagan is the "safe" pick, and will be easily confirmed, mainly because she got 60+ votes for confirmation as Solicitor General, and because she has gotten some flak from the extreme left for not being a full-blown pinko, as they would have liked. The only small bit of controversy came when someone wrote a week ago that she would be the first openly-gay justice (which was meant to be a compliment), only to be immediately smacked down.

The media double standard never ceases to amaze me. Had George W. Bush nominated a long-time crony with no judicial experience, he would have been crucified. (Wait--he DID. And his nominee, Harriet Meiers, was eviscerated as much from the right as the left. No chance of that this time!) Still, Kagan is a smart pick. Her negligible paper trail (a couple of academic papers, and a few book reviews) will be very hard to use against her, and there is no chance that her lack of scholarship will lead to her "growing" more conservative in office in the same way that previous "stealth" candidates have grown more liberal.

I think some folks are breathlessly hoping that social conservatives like me will get all frothy over her lesbianism. Whether she is formally "out" or barely-closeted, everybody in DC knows she's gay. If you're over the age of about 20, you probably know folks like this. You know, they know you know, but it's just not a topic of conversation. For my money, that's a whole lot better than the people who can't go five minutes without dwelling on it. Once upon a time, the argument was that closeted homosexuals presented a blackmail risk. But now, the phrase of the day is "NTTAWWT." You can't blackmail someone in a culture without shame.

It is true that Kagan's sexuality could impact her jurisprudence on the issue of "gay marriage." Indeed, her only confirmation hurdle will be rooted in her joining a challenge of the Solomon Amendment (which barred colleges which will not allow US military recruiters from receiving federal funds), based primarily on her opposition to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule. (Just as a footnote: the Supreme Court struck down that case 8-0; even the most liberal judges found it frivolous.) But even that doesn't bother me. Let's face it--ever since election day 2008, every SCOTUS nominee for the next 4 years was 100% guaranteed to be pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, and in all respects the polar opposite of a Constitutional originalist. Elections have consequences. For conservatives, all we can do is hope that Antonin Scalia eats his Wheaties.

The only "good news" in this scenario, from my point of view, is that Kagan will replace John Paul Stevens. She could be a barefoot hippie in a Che Guevera shirt and still not be any more of a left-wing judge than him. Yes, we're trading a 90-year-old liberal judge for a 50-year-old liberal judge. But at the end of the day, the balance of the court remains the same (which is to say, you work your way through the entire federal court system just to hope you catch Anthony Kennedy on one of his better days).

So, sorry to disappoint if you expected me to get upset. Cronyism? Yeah. Lightweight? Yep. Cynical pandering to left-wing "diversity" group? Check. Antagonistic to my world-view? Uh-huh. But also exactly what I expected. To reference a couple of posts ago--when you expect Big Lots quality, it's hard to be disappointed.

Progressivism

2010-04-05T07:37:00.004-05:00

A while back, Glenn Beck spoke at CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee), and gave an impassioned speech that included a blistering indictment of "progressivism." (Note: I didn't watch the speech, I caught about 2 minutes of it while channel-surfing and then read various pundits pontificating about it the next day.) Beck said that the biggest threat to the modern USA is this "progressivism," and pointed out that in our last election, we had the choice between a liberal Democrat who embraces "progressivism" and a Republican whose political idol is Teddy Roosevelt, himself the father of the progressive movement. In the minute or so of the speech which I saw, Beck said (and it's been a while, so I'm sure I'm garbling the quote) that you have one party sticking a fork in your eye, and the other party telling you they'll be better because they are only going to stick a toothpick in your eye. Nice analogy.

Well, the progressive movement has been getting a lot of ink lately, and I wanted to wade in, both with some history and some opinion. Last year, Jonah Goldberg wrote a terrific book that went to #1 on the NYT best-seller list called Liberal Fascism. He took a lot of heat for the book, primarily from those who didn't read it or objected to either the title or the cover art (which features a smiley-face with a Hitler mustache). But he correctly points out that (a) our stereotype that communism is left-wing and fascism is right-wing is based on a falsehood; (b) Mussolini was beloved by the American left throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s, when he began to behave badly by invading Ethiopia and eventually ally with the Axis; and (c) that the "war socialism" of "progressive" president Woodrow Wilson during WWII was intellectually in the same vein as Italian Fascism (everything from the espionage and sedition acts to the Palmer raids to the use of propganda to the War Industries Board and food rationing).

Now, please note--Goldberg takes great pains to point out that this does NOT mean that liberals, then or now, were Nazis. But I agree with him that the root impulses behind small-f fascism (divorced from Hitlerism), the idea that Mussolini "made the trains run on time," and that this benefit was worth some small dimunition of freedom in exchange, is at the heart of what we call "progressivism." Indeed, one of my personal favorite figures of the era, the humorist Will Rogers, was quoted back in the early 1920s (long before Mussolini became a "bad guy") as saying that this dictatorship business ain't so bad, so long as you get the right dictator. I know that sounds just horrible these days, but it's also exactly what Plato said in The Republic about 2500 years earlier.

So, back to "progressivism." At the turn of the century, there were zillions of areas of American public life screaming out for "reform." Labor issues like the 8-hour day. The "temperance" issue. Political reforms such as the overgrown "spoils system" which had begun with Andy Jackson and had even led to the assassination of President Garfield. Woman suffrage. Anti-lynching laws. What to do about the new phenomenon of "big business," including such monopolies as Standard Oil, US Steel, and the railroads. Tariff reform, and the desire to replace tariff revenue with an income tax. There was not a single "movement" calling out for all of these things at once, but there were numerous reformers willing to make common cause to accomplish their own agendas. That is the world in which Theodore Roosevelt became president in 1901. And what TR said (correctly, I think), is that the USA by the turn of the 20th century had grown beyond Thomas Jefferson's wildest imagination--that we were too big, too rich, and too interconnected to remain as decentralized and laissez-faire as we had been for the previous 100 years. The best example of this that springs to mind is the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, which TR famously supported after reading "muckraker" Upton Sinclair's expose of the meat-packing industry, The Jungle. Back in the days of Jefferson, no one had to worry if their sausage was really sausage. It was bought from a local butcher. The buyer likely knew the butcher personally. He possibly knew the pig personally. But by 1906, it was a good idea to have an inspector certify that certain standards were met. (By the way--even though I'm pretty conservative, I do very much like knowing that my USDA-certified ground round is actual COW.)

Anyway, TR is the one who let the genie out of the bottle. He used the previously-toothless Sherman Antitrust Act to "bust" trusts. He established the primacy of the US government over even the biggest of big businesses (JP Morgan's Northern Securities Corporation). And, over time, he and his successors co-opted many of the populist reform movements into a big tent called "progressivism." But it was Woodrow Wilson who took it to the next level.

The trick is, Wilson did not just breeze into office and impose a smiley-face fascism-lite on the USA. He did so in the face of World War I. Now, I'm no fan of Wilson (for a variety of reasons, including his racism and the feeling that his ego and stubbornness squandered the victory of WWI and set the stage for WWII... but I'm in the minority of historians). But we need to recognize that one of the key conflicts in all of US history is trying to find the proper balance between liberty and security. We may think that our generation's struggling with the ethics of Gitmo and enhanced interogation is something new, but it's not. During the Civil War, Lincoln (arguably our greatest president) suspended civil rights. During WWI, Wilson threw political opponents in jail (Eugene Debs actually ran for president from prison). During WWII, Franklin Roosevelt interned thousands of Japanese-Americans. And after 9/11, congress passed the Patriot Act by overwhelming margins. Pretty much every time we feel threatened, whether in the face of actual war or "the moral equivalent of war" (like the Great Depression), we the people make the same choice that Italians did with Mussolini--we say, "if you'll protect us and make the trains run on time, we'll gladly dilute our liberties... just a little bit." And then, when the threat passes, we calm down, step back, and write histories about how America did not live up to her best principles.

That brings us to today and the current "crisis." Whether it was Wilson (our first and only PhD president) and his "dollar a year men," or FDR and his "brain trust" or JFK and his "best and brightest," we keep on falling into the same trap that Will Rogers did. If only we could get enough brilliant experts on the job, they could run our lives for us better than we can for ourselves. The Ivy Leagues are full of brilliant, earnest, good-hearted young people who are just SURE that they could manage this nation far better--for our own good--than simple rubes who shop at Wal-Mart. They write books like What's the Matter With Kansas, which suggests that if only ignorant Kansans knew their own self-interest better, they would be more liberal politically. And of course, our current president fits in that same academic vein--Columbia undergrad, Harvard law, instructor in a top-tier law school. So once again, we're seeing the same refrain--let us (the smart folks) run things, from GM to Health Insurance, and we'll take better care of you than you would take care of yourselves.

So, Beck has a point--the "progressive" impulse is at the heart of our diminishing freedoms. But the answer is emphatically NOT to go back to the days of rat-poop in the sausage. What we need to recognize is the trade-offs, and the laws of unintended consequences. Many very popular "progressive" ideas didn't work out as planned (prohibition comes to mind, as does the income tax, and the "war on poverty"). Not every change is "progress."

Evil Intentions

2010-04-05T07:10:00.002-05:00

A little political musing, anyone? I read entirely too many online news articles/editorials/blogs. Where I used to "read the paper," now I sit with a laptop and surf--sometimes for hours on end. I really need to scale back (and I intend to). But after I read a story, sometimes the most illuminating part of the read is the "comments" section. And this brings me to a pet peeve of mine.

If you read the comments on almost any story, article, or op-ed with even a hint of the political, you'll almost immediately get a string of ad hominem attacks that impugn the motives of the other side. To take two extremes, you have the folks who insist that our entire post-9/11 security apparatus was either rooted in Dick Cheney's desire to make Haliburton stockholders rich or George W. Bush's perverse desire to torture perfect strangers. And on the other hand, you have those who look at our current economic situation under President Obama and say that our current deficits, entitlements, etc. are out of whack on purpose because Obama/Reid/Pelosi want to bankrupt the country and usher in an age of neo-socialism.

How about we back off from that just a bit? Is it that hard to imagine that good people can reasonably disagree on principles without ulterior motives? That doesn't mean I have to agree with them--I can (and do) think that many modern liberal principles are naive and economically unsound. But I accept that some wonderful, very intelligent people hold them. I much prefer the economic theories of Hayek or Milton Friedman to John Maynard Keynes. But that doesn't mean that every Keynesian is a knave or a fool--indeed, there are plenty of Keynesians much smarter than me.

And if I can say that about my liberal friends, shouldn't I get the same benefit of the doubt in return? When a facebook friend posts an article about evil, heartless conservative shills for the insurance industry who want grandma to die for the sake of profits, I think, "do you really believe that about ME?" I just think the math doesn't work. You know me! You've known me for years! Do you think I am one of "them," or that "they" are evil, while I am simply deluded? Because I don't want to think that about you.

It's a Big Lots World

2010-04-05T06:47:00.002-05:00

I had an epiphany Saturday. I don't shop, period. That's one of the biggest benefits of being married 20 years. I occasionally go out and BUY something, but never shop. On Saturday, though, I was feeling a bit disconnected from the lovely Mrs. Sal--we had been "together" for several days, but moving around in our own little bubbles. So, in the interest of togetherness, I decided to accompany her on a trek to get Easter candy for kids who are far too big to get visits from the Easter bunny.

Well, we wound up in Big Lots. Big Lots is amazing. But not in a good way. It makes Wal-Mart look like an elite institution. Sure enough, they had candy, and they had it cheap--mission accomplished. But we had to get through the checkout line. Hooray! Another adventure!

Let's just say that the young lady checking out satisfied Big Lots customers was quite likely not the valedictorian of her class. I stood and watched, totally amazed, as she had apparent difficulty with opening plastic shopping bags. The line piled up, the helpless, hapless, clueless clerk fumbled on, and we eventually made it out safely.

But here's the amazing thing--I wasn't upset. Normally, my tolerance level for incompetence is lower than Carlsbad Caverns. But here, in Big Lots, I simply recognized that this is as good as it gets. If I had wanted excellent customer service, efficiently-moving checkout lines, or basic levels of hygiene, there is a Publix right across the parking lot. But we chose Big Lots, so there were no illusions. And then it hit me--this is the model for a much, much happier life.

All too often, I walk around upset at ignorance, incompetence, and sloth. It infuriates me that the kid at the drive-thru at my local McDonald's cannot seem to push the button that looks like a stinking cheeseburger correctly. I am amazed that a US Congressman seems to think that the island of Guam may tip over, or that 435 of them cannot do checkbook algebra. But I need to remind myself--it's a Big Lots world. Half of all people are below median intelligence (sorry, that's just math). What I need to do is lower my expectations and be pleasantly surprised when I get even Wal-Mart levels of service.

Crystal Ball, 2012

2010-02-22T20:17:00.003-05:00

Is it too early to pick the 2012 election results? Let me preface my prediction with a warning: I'm a guy who has NEVER voted for the eventual nominee in the primaries. So my analysis is worth about what you're paying for it.

That said, the GOP nominee in 2012 will be.... drum roll... MITT ROMNEY! Not necessarily because he's best, but because he's next. Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Go back as far as the eye can see... you would have to be eligible for social security to have voted for a GOP candidate who wasn't the obvious "next in line" (Goldwater, 1964). After that, it's former VP Nixon, his VP Ford, Reagan (runner-up to Ford), his VP Bush, long-time bridesmaid and Ford's running mate Dole, Bush's son Bush 43, and McCain, who was runner-up to Bush in 2000. By this logic, nobody but Romney has a chance!

Additionally, my guess at this point is that Palin doesn't run, but the chance that she might breaks up the "anybody but Romney" vote a little. I also think that unless we see miraculous economic recovery, Romney's rep as the savior of the 2002 winter Olympics and his experience as a real businessperson will look very attractive. And at the end of the day, I think more folks will embrace demonstrated academic prowess (albeit not Ivy League--he was valedictorian of BYU) over folksiness (even facile folksiness) of the sort you might see in Huckabee.

Of course, Obama will run again. The question is, can he win? That hinges on two variables. The first is whether he will pivot like Clinton toward the center. I don't see that happening, but I could be wrong. The other is whether he catches the big break of economic recovery. It doesn't even need to be his fault, but if things turn around and he can take credit for it, well, he wins. I think you can count on a very positive media environment for him; he won't have to swim upstream against NYT stories on "jobless recovery" or anything like that. But if his best answer is only "it could be even worse," well, ask Carter, Hoover, or even Van Buren how that worked out. And that's the zillion-dollar question.

I'll bet he at least makes it close. I'm just too bullish on the American people and economy to believe that we'll continue to languish in this kind of trough for two more years. We'll see!

Coupon Queen

2010-02-21T22:48:00.003-05:00

Everybody who knows me knows I think my wife is pretty awesome. She's beautiful, she's smart, she's talented, and she has a strange attraction to nerdy guys. But she's also very frugal, which is especially cool when you're trying to feed a family of five on two teachers' salaries. Lately she has become a coupon maniac. And that's a compliment. She spends a couple of hours each week planning out her purchases for groceries based on sales and coupons. There is a website called southern savers that helps her with the legwork. By this combination of brains and discipline, she has cut our monthly grocery bill by more than half!

Here's the math of it: So far this year (7 weeks), we have bought groceries with a sticker price of $1497. That's over $200 a week! (Which, in all honesty, isn't too crazy for 5 people including two teenage boys. If we drink any more milk, we'd be better off buying a cow... or a herd.) Let's break that down further. It comes out to over $900 a month, which is more than double the rent on our first two apartments, more than the mortgage on our first house, and right in the ballpark for everything but the taxes and insurance on our current house. It's two new car payments. It's 4 times the payment on our "better" car. It's more every month than my car is worth! And for all that money, every day, those boys are hungry AGAIN!

But Ann has gotten those $1497 worth of groceries for only $624. Her planning and couponing has saved us $873, or 58% off of our grocery bill. For every dollar she spends, she has saved $1.40. In other words, at this rate we'll save over $500 per month, and over $6000 on the year. (And this doesn't even count what she saves by buying never-worn brand-name clothes at thrift stores, etc.)

It really isn't a big deal about the money (although numbers are a nice way of keeping score in any game). It's about stewardship, and freedom. Making these wise decisions gives us the freedom to do jobs we love, to take summers off, to travel, to save, and especially, to give. I feel like Proverbs 21:20 is all about Ann's great stewardship. Oh, yeah. Another passage comes to mind, too.

The Law of Averages

2010-02-21T13:42:00.003-05:00

OK. I'll do one quick one. Everybody who follows my blog knows that I am obsessive about my running log. The first 15 years of my running life, including my entire high school career and through my first (and only, so far) marathon, were not logged. But I have the last 12 years painstakingly detailed. Not only have I got a spiral-bound log with every run described, but also a big excel spreadsheet with every monthly total laid out, and broken down into all the statistical gobbledygook that makes my inner nerd smile. (Who am I kidding? My inner nerd is on the outside, too!)

Well, February is the worst month of the year, on average. It's the first full month of track season, when my coaching conflicts with my own running. It's the coldest month of the year. And I have a very, very hard time breaking that rhythym. This year, I'm semi-happy to report that I am having an "above-average" February, following a slightly above-average January. But it's still not a great running month unless seen through the lens of my usual bad winters.

The good news is, if I continue on at "average" or slightly better all year, the end product will result in me continuing my annual 500+ miles (it took 6 before midnight on New Year's eve to get 6000 in the books for the last 12 years, so there's not any wiggle room). The bad news is that I don't want to be "good" for February. I want to be good by an objective standard of excellence. Running well for February is like being tall for a midget.

Still, I'll take encouragement where I can find it. At least I'm a little ahead and not behind. If I can just keep plugging away, the weather will keep improving, and spring (and summer) will be a lot easier. So if you ask, "how's your running?" The answer is, "pretty good, all things considered."

What's On My Mind

2010-02-21T13:33:00.002-05:00

Lots of topics bouncing off of each other in my brain these days, but no time to write. Here's a quick list of things I want to get to, in no particular order. The list is really just so I don't forget the topics before I get time to blog.

"progressivism" as wrongly defined by Glenn Beck
ranking the presidents
"category error," most recently demonstrated by the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building in Texas
sex in the movies
the Prodigal Son
the law of averages (about running)
predicting the 2012 presidential race
anti-anti-anti-elitism

I'm sure there were more when I sat down to type this. That's how quick these brain-droppings fly away. If any of those look interesting, keep watching this space!

Wise Words

2010-02-16T20:29:00.002-05:00

I was reading a blog/news/opinion piece last week and managed to somehow get sucked into the 200+ comments on the thread. I forget what the original topic was, or even what the website was, but one of the commenters made the following statement: "We can't keep on taxing ourselves like libertarians and demanding benefits like socialists." That stuck with me, particularly in light of some reading I've been doing lately for class on the Eisenhower adminsitration. Many politically astute people know that Reaganomics involved a big tax cut (down to 28% at its lowest point) down from the 70% top rate under JFK. Others will tell you that Reagan's cut was itself patterned after JFK's own big cut, which came down from the 90% top rate under Ike. I know that for those of us under retirement age it seems crazy, but back in our parents' childhood the Republican party was the party of green eyeshades and balanced budgets. Ike jacked taxes sky-high and also cut the military's conventional forces (while investing heavily in nuclear deterrence, which provided far more "bang for the buck"--in more ways than one). Not that Ike loved the taxes, but he felt like the 1950s economy, which was growing like gangbusters, could handle it. Both Truman and Eisenhower paid off part of the national debt, which had necessarily run up during WWII (the last president to completely pay off the debt was Andy Jackson).

Of course, that didn't last. The big-spending of the Great Society under LBJ opened the door to non-emergency deficit spending, and of course, we've all heard the horror stories of the exploding deficits during the era of Reaganomics. I will defend the Reagan deficits, at least to a point. The Reagan tax cuts were, I firmly believe, instrumental in pulling us out of the recession of the late 1970s and fueling the economic boom that persisted until just lately. Moreover, if you could have told me in 1983 when Wargames was looking a lot like a work of nonfiction (or a couple of years later, when The Day After showed by hometown of Charleston getting nuked) that the deficits we were running would finance the end of the Cold War, I would have said, "where do I sign?" And when Clinton (with a good bit of help from the '94 GOP congress) was able to run a surplus on the strength of the "peace dividend" and the internet boom, I thought that the time had come to go ahead and pay down that debt.

Of course, that was not to be. First was the dot-com bust, followed by 9/11, followed by more and more and more spending (and yes, I'm pointing the accusing finger right at old G.W. Bush and his Medicare Part D, et al.) And somehow along the way, we as a country forgot that somebody has to pay for all this. Then came our current administration, who managed to vilify Bush for 400-billion dollar deficits while at the same time proposing deficits in the trillions for as far as the eye can see, not counting whatever it might cost for a big health care entitlement.

Anyway, back to those wise words. I wish we could somehow set the clock back and both tax ourselves like libertarians and also spend like libertarians. That would be fine with me (within limits--my brand of conservatism would conserve much of the New Deal). But if that's not going to happen, I'd also be OK with actually taxing people what it costs to pay the bills. Note that I didn't say some people. You could tax every dime over $250k a year in this country at 100% and still not generate enough revenue to break even. And I'm not a fan of 40%+ (and rising) of the country having zero federal income tax burden. I'll even go so far as to say that my own family is under-taxed. We make nearly double the national average income, yet we pay hardly any federal income taxes after 5 standard exemptions, all our itemized deductions, and multiple credits. Don't get me wrong--I don't want to pay more. But I also don't think it's cool that somebody else pays the freight of citizenship for my upper-middle-class lifestyle.

What if--just imagine it--we were to just do the math and determine that social security can't get by on only 15.3% payroll tax (which it can't). Let's say 20% would do the trick (I have no idea if that's even close). So charge that. Ditto medicare. Yes, people would absolutely howl. And then we could have the necessary discussion about whether we're willing to pay that much or cut benefits, raise retirement age, means-test, or whatever other solution presents itself. But whistling past the graveyard, pretending that the bill is never going to come due, is just crazy.

Once again, my personal preference is low tax, low spending. But option number two would be that we all pay for the benefits we enjoy. Want to live like socialists, fine. Pay the bills. I'll bet that wouldn't happen--we would discover that a majority of voters would vote for freedom and corresponding personal responsibility. What we've got now is the worst of all possible worlds.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2010-02-15T16:04:00.002-05:00

There has been some buzz of late that the Obama administration may repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits openly-gay service in the US military. I have just a few thoughts on the topic.

First, DADT was itself a loosening of previous restrictions. Bill Clinton had wanted to get rid of the previous policy, which not only didn't allow gays to serve, but also asked up front about their orientation. Those who tried to serve while remaining closeted could then be drummed out of the service if they were "outed." And his hamfisted attempt at a gay-friendly effort, when combined with his overreach on Hillarycare, an "assault-weapons" ban, a never-materializing middle class tax cut, and other missteps served to undermine his image as a not-so-liberal bubba and resulted in the 1994 takeover of congress by the GOP (followed, of course, by his succesful "triangulation" and recovery on a more centrist model in his 2nd term).

Secondly, the key issue--then and now--is what is best for the military. When you enlist, you check certain "rights" at the door of boot camp. I don't give two hoots in heck about social engineering in the military. I want the army, navy, air force, and marines to be the best in the world at killing people and breaking things while serving the foreign policy goals of the USA. Period. Full stop. Whether it's gays serving openly, women in combat, or whatever, the big question simply cannot be what we think is nice. Bombs and tanks and guns are, by definition, NOT NICE. Get over it.

That said, in the past 20 years or so, American society as a whole, and the military as a part of it, have seen changes in the acceptance of gays (we'll leave aside any discussion about whether that is a sign of progress or decline), as well as an expanded role of women in combat. I read a statistic (don't remember where, so no link) that said only 51% of servicemen now say they are against gays serving, compared to more like two-thirds back when DADT was new. And it is also true that other countries have gone farther down this path, without catastrophic results.

My own take (which admittedly, comes from the biases of a 40-something hetero dude) is that the biggest issues involve fraternization and unit cohesion. People do stupid things when they are in a romantic relationship. If my wife and I served in combat together, my #1 goal, even superseding that of our mission, would be to protect her first. Whether it's straight men and women serving together or gay men and/or lesbians, the possibility of personal relationships undermining group cohesion is there. (I've heard some attack this line of thinking by saying, "are you suggesting that gays have less self-control than straights?" Answer: that's a strawman argument, as I don't want women on submarines, either, and also, yes, I'm perfectly willing to say that gay men, on average, show less self-control than hetero couples--not because they are gay, but because they are MEN, without a woman to slow them down.) I'm not super-worried about discrimination and prejudice. The military handled that with race in 1948, and can again.

What I would do, were it up to me, is find out first of all what the military thinks. If making the change will hurt enlistment numbers, how much? Is there a trade-off in terms of efficiency? What is the cost vs. the benefit? Let's be Hippocratic: first, do no harm. Assuming they say it's a go, then I would let gays serve in the exact same way that women do now. Fly a plane? No problem. Serve as an Arabic translator for military intelligence? Fine. Submarines, SEALS, or infantry? Nope. Not because you're not tough or macho enough. (Shucks, I had a female assistant coach once who was an ACC record holder in the discus... she would have made a MUCH better soldier than I would.) But because it's not worth the potential drawbacks.

Sometimes change is progress. Sometimes it is not. A battlefield is no place to be tinkering with progressive social goals.

I May Vote Democrat!

2010-02-11T18:36:00.002-05:00

Okay... got your attention yet? There is a rumor floating around that retired SC Circuit Court Judge Victor Rawl may challenge Jim DeMint for his US Senate seat. I actually like DeMint. I also probably would disagree on almost every issue with Judge Rawl. However, he's been a friend of mine for 30 years. His son was my best friend from age 11 through high school, and was best man in my wedding. Moreover, one of the best students I ever taught has developed into a future democrat policy-maker, and may wind up working on the campaign if it materializes. They say blood is thicker than water. My ties to those two may not be blood, but they are thick. So if it happens, I'll probably vote heart over head.

Of course, I doubt very seriously that a lowcountry democrat, even a really good one, could win a statewide race in SC against DeMint, whose approval rating statewide is 63%. But if, at the end of the day, it comes down to a one-vote margin, it wouldn't be too bad to have an old friend in the Senate.

A Blast From the Past

2010-02-11T18:22:00.003-05:00

The title of this post refers to me blogging (seems like a while), as well as a link I found today. The article is from "Car Lust," but it is called "Car Disgust." It features my first car, the 1973 Buick Century. I had the ugly green one with the half-vinyl top and green paisley bench seats. Unlike the one in the article, though, I had a 350 V8 (which got about 9 miles per gallon... highway. Fortunately, gas was only about 80 cents a gallon).

I keep meaning to blog more. I'm just having a hard time finding the motivation. I've got plenty of blog-worthy thoughts, on numerous topics. Perhaps if anybody is still out there reading, drop me a comment and let me know you're there. Maybe even mention topical areas you've liked before. I feel silly just rambling on and on when I'm not sure anybody is listening, or even interested.

The Long Run

2010-01-03T18:08:00.003-05:00

This past weekend, I got a chance to do something really, really cool. I served as "crew" for my brother-in-law as he ran a 12-hour ultramarathon. I've written elsewhere how close we are, and how much he inspires me. We have shared interests and been "friendly competitors" for almost 25 years now. His story leading up to this run is amazing in itself. The funny thing about MY involvement is that I almost didn't go. I made numerous excuses as to why I didn't think I should go along--most of them involving my distaste at spending 24 hours awake over New Year's Eve in the freezing cold. Finally, my wonderful wife, who is much smarter than me, convinced me to go along. It wound up being a high point of the whole year. I had figured that my main job would be to hand out water bottles every couple of laps (the course was a 1-mile loop) and maybe jog alongside a couple of times and offer encouragement near the end when Adam was in "no man's land," beyond his longest previous training run (which, by the way, was 50k, or 31 miles). Knowing Adam's mental toughness, it seemed a foregone conclusion that he would show up, run well, and meet his goals.

As it turned out, there was a lot more to the whole process than I had thought. Just the nutrition-management side was daunting; he needed about 260 liquid calories per hour... more than that meant swollen hands and feet, less meant running out of fuel and "crashing" midway through. There were two of us on the crew, but the other guy had to head back to our hotel to sleep between about 1 and 6 AM (so at least one of us was fit to drive home). Once I was on my own, it was pretty busy just getting the next dose of carb/protein/electrolyte mix ready each lap. And the "jog alongside" part went from being a very easy mile every 4 laps to eventually every other (and eventually an average of every third). As I got past my own endurance limits, I began to just barely experience a taste of what Adam was feeling. There were three "gentle rises" on the course (here in the flatlands, we call them HILLS), and as we hit the inclines, all I wanted to do was quit. But I knew that I would get the next mile or two to recover, and Adam was bravely keeping on every single loop. The effort to keep going was hard for me to muster, and near superhuman for him.

At the end of the race, he had completed 55 laps, without a single break (most of the participants in the race took planned breaks... Adam only stood still to drink his carbo-concoction). I was perversely proud of my own 18 miles, but overwhelmed at how that paled in comparison to his more than double-marathon. (As an aside, this made me think about my attitude towards God's grace... getting all proud of what "I" have accomplished, sacrificed, etc., as if it matters even a bit in comparison to the big picture of what has been done for me.)

Anyway, the weekend was awesome. Being a part of something amazing, sharing a great weekend with a kindred spirit, and sleeping the honest sleep of earned exhaustion. What a way to ring in the new year!

Resolutions 2010

2010-01-03T17:47:00.002-05:00

So, it's that time again. Write 'em down, so next year I can look 'em up and evaluate. Most of my goals are changes of degree, rather than direction.

Continue the consistency I've had the last 8 months of running. Log 500+ miles for the year, and race at least once. (Stretch goals--break 21 minutes for 5k, maybe run the Bridge Run 10k, maybe even a half-marathon?)
Read through the Bible again. (BONUS-I'm getting a new Bible! More on that later.)
Go back to my daily Bible study and prayer time first thing in the morning instead of just before bed.
Less time on the internet, more time reading real books.
Drink more water.
Pay a little more attention to what I eat.
Be more intentional about spending time with family. (Not just Ann and the kids, but also extended family. It takes effort to break the inertia and spend time with family, but I almost always feel better for doing it. Sorta like exercise, only less sweat.)
Be a good steward of my gifts--time, talent, and treasure.

That's a good start. We'll see how that feels down the road. They say that goals should be specific and measurable, and except for the 500 miles, these are pretty nebulous. But I think I'll be better off if I make just a little progress on each of these.

2009 In Review

2010-01-02T12:48:00.002-05:00

I hope to blog more this year (2010). I'll be posting some resolutions soon, but first I wanted to reflect a bit on how last year's goals came out. Looking back at December of 2008, I can see that I entered the year a bit down on the theme of personal disciplines. I had failed to achieve my goals in the areas of consistent running and Bible reading, and I was a little gun-shy about committing to more ambitious goals and falling short again. This year started off pretty aimless in both areas... I read my Bible haphazardly, usually a chapter of the New Testament at a time, every couple of days. I also began the year with 9 runs in the first 17 days of January, but none of them over 25 minutes in duration. Once my track season began, I only made it out the door 12 more times through April, including 6 runs of 20 minutes or less during spring break in an aborted comeback attempt.

In May, spring pre-season practice for cross-country began, and I discovered that my friend, Hugh, was as disgusted with his physical shape as I was. So we made a pact--we would make every practice, and run SOMETHING during that time. I'm pleased to say we kept that Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday commitment, missing only for illness or major vacation plans (the only two zero-miles weeks I have taken since then were one week of a bad chest cold and the week of my anniversary cruise). Those first runs were AWFUL. Slogging through 3-mile runs at 9-minute pace when the mind thinks you should be going farther and faster (but the body knows better) was torture. But with the added spur of a training partner and a set appointment, we plugged away all summer long.

It gradually got easier, the runs got longer and faster, and goals that had seemed impossible began to come back into focus. In November, I raced for the first time in years, at the Charleston Turkey Day Run. I did much better than I had hoped, and now feel completely rejuvenated in the running arena. As the year ended up, I realized that I was just a few miles away from logging my 6000th mile since I began keeping a log in 1998, which would keep my average at 500 miles per year. Since 400 of those miles had come since May 1, it became a matter of pride that I would get that milestone. Just before midnight on New Year's eve, I managed my 6th mile of the day (in 1-mile increments while crewing for my brother-in-law in an ultramarathon; that story will likely get a post soon, too) and hit the magic number of 460.5 for 2009, just enough to turn the odometer over.

Something similar happened with the Bible reading. We took a family vacation in July, and I packed my One Year Bible. As it turned out, the regularly-scheduled readings for that week was right where Psalms begins (that format includes twice through the Psalms per year) and also right at the beginning of Romans. Sitting on the deck of a beach house in Florida, I began the discipline of daily reading again, skipping the Old Testament, but committing to finishing the Epistles and Psalms by year's end. Just like with the running, it took a while to get it back, but coming back after some downtime was refreshing.

So, in a little while I'll be posting about my resolutions. And those resolutions will include some running and Bible-study goals. But getting to the point that I was willing to set those goals took some small successes along the way. Had I planned for a 500-mile year, or to read the whole Bible through again, I would be looking back on another year of disappointment. But instead, I see a few months of aimlessness, followed by half a year of great success. Happy 2010 to all!

Good Times

2009-11-27T10:42:00.002-05:00

I was thinking about politics and history the other day (I think about politics and history in every day ending in a "y.") It occured to me what a crummy political era we are living in. Imagine, if you will, that you had been 21 years old and able to vote for the first time in November of 1932 (because the voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until the 1970s). You would have had the opportunity to vote 4 times for FDR (arguably the #3 president of all time, after Lincoln and Washington, and the fellow whose face is on the dime), then once for Truman (traditionally seen as a top 10 president, and my favorite Democrat), twice for Eisenhower (also top 10, and on the silver dollar), and then finally JFK (not top 10, but he's on the half dollar). Even if you didn't vote for all of them, it would be hard to argue that we got a pretty good run of leadership. You would be 53 years old before you ever had to stand in a voting booth and wonder whether LBJ or Barry Goldwater was the lesser of two evils.

Contrast that with my voting experience. My first election was 1988. I voted for Bush 41, but never was a huge fan... it was more a vote against Dukakis. In 1992 and 1996 we got Clinton, whose distinction of being only the second president ever impeached will almost certainly keep him off of the currency. And of course, the alternative choices (Bush again, and Bob Dole) were of the hold-your-nose-when-you-vote variety. Then 8 years of Bush 43, who has never prompted an order for dynamite for any additions to Mt. Rushmore. The only good thing I can say about those two wins is that Gore and Kerry were just as bad as Dole had been. And then, most recently, Obama vs. Dole again. (Whoops. I meant McCain. It's so hard to keep track of which foul-tempered war hero is which.) I have gray whiskers, and I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I really, really liked. I was just a little too young to pull the lever for Reagan. But in my 40 years on the planet, he would have been the only candidate I could have taken great pride in supporting (I also was around for Nixon, Ford, and Carter... now that's an all-star team).

I don't know why the last 20 years haven't produced a Reagan, or a Truman. But I do know that watching politics these days reminds me of Casey Stengel's famous baseball quote: "Can't anybody around here play this game anymore?"

Muscle Memory

2009-11-27T10:04:00.003-05:00

Yesterday I ran our local Turkey Day Run for the first time in 9 years. This was my first race of any sort in 2 years, and only my third in the last 5. I didn't really know what to expect, but my brother-in-law kept on encouraging me over the last month as I debated whether or not to really do it. He told me, "once you pin a number to your shirt, muscle memory will do the rest."

It turns out that he was 100% right. On race day, I felt exactly like I have for every other race I've run in the past 27 years. Despite all my talk about lower expectations, running "just for fun," and all that, as soon as I pinned on a race number and laced up my racing flats, I might as well have been 17 years old again according to the butterflies in my stomach. And even though I told anybody who would listen that I really didn't expect much, and that anything under 23 minutes was an acceptable time, inside I was praying, "just let it be 21:59."

The race-day conditions were as perfect as they come. 55 degrees and overcast is what you hope for if you're a world-class guy seeking to set a record, and that's what we got. Additionally, the course is flat and fast, and the only challenge comes during a portion of the 2nd mile if there's a stiff headwind. This year was calm. My pace goals were simple--try not to be stupid in the first mile, run just under 7 minutes, and then try to hang on for dear life and average around 7's for the next two. I hit the first mile in 6:39. Although I felt like I had tried to hold back, the time scared me. I was sure I'd pay the price for that exuberance the rest of the way. I told myself, "stay steady," but mentally I reset my goals for a pair of 7:10's at best. But the second mile split said 6:53. Suddenly it was within my grasp to break 22:00 if I could just buckle down and run a 7:20 last mile. At the beginning of the third mile, a friend who runs consistently in the 21's came up from behind me. Two thoughts came to mind. First, I could tuck in with him and almost certainly meet my goal. But then another idea popped up: I haven't beaten this guy in years, and I've been ahead of him for two-thirds of the race. If I can turn it up just a notch, maybe I can pull away from him. I did, and managed to run the third mile in about 6:50. The last 200 meters is where I used to catch a lot of people, mostly because I would have too much gas left in the tank from poor pacing and because I had sprinter speed back then. Yesterday, not so much. I rolled up just a few souls in my feeble "kick," but only because I had just run one of the most evenly-paced races of my life (6:48 a mile, 21:05 total).

The numbers guy in me spent the rest of the day hoping for the results to be posted online so I could fiddle with them. I plugged my time into every online calculator imaginable. Turns out that my age-adjusted time would have been 20:10, less than a minute worse than I ran on the same course 9 years ago. I wound up placing 197th out of over 4000 finishers, and 18th in my age group (out of 188 men aged 40-44). I was also about 48th out of all the men aged 40+. None of those are great--it's the low end of what might be called "local class." Just like a decade ago, I'm right below the guys who can plausibly be called "pretty good." Indeed, the same folks I used to run with back in the 25-29 age group are still right ahead of me, by roughly the same margins. But that's fine. What's exciting is that I thought I had fallen out of that pack altogether, and it turns out that I've more or less jumped back in right where I left off.

I don't know if this means I'll get serious and try to move up in that pack, but it does validate what I've been doing for the past 7 months. The biggest difference between this "comeback" and many previous ones has been consistency. I haven't done any "workouts," I haven't even really had a training plan. But what I have done is get out the door regularly and just run (usually at a pretty easy pace). What has made that possible is having a regular "appointment" with consistent training partners. And with every run, the habit of consistency becomes stronger.

Anyway, I'm very, very pleased. This step will hopefully help me to stay motivated throughout the winter, when traditionally my training has dropped off. We'll see.

Archie Bunker, Meet Sarah Palin

2009-11-24T20:55:00.003-05:00

Sometimes two unconnected thoughts just come together. About a week ago, when Going Rogue by Sarah Palin was first making news, I participated in an online discussion on a message board I frequent. Someone asked, basically, "what's the attraction to Sarah Palin?" In a veritable ocean of partisan abuse, I actually took it upon myself to answer the question, as best I could (I'll get back to the answer in a minute).

Then today I finished up my lessons on the 1970s, which today included a whirlwind tour of the pop culture of the decade. I hit disco, movies (Jaws, Rocky, The Godfather, and Star Wars), Fonzie, MASH, and Archie Bunker. The part on All In the Family clicked in with my earlier thinking on Palin.

For those who are not old enough to have seen the show, All in the Family was one of the most cutting-edge, socially-conscious TV shows ever made. But something unexpected happened. Producer Norman Lear intended for the main character, Archie Bunker, to be an object of scorn and derision. For Lear and his social circle, nothing could be funnier than pointing and laughing at an ignorant, blue-collar, intolerant, sexist, bigoted, out-of-touch conservative from Queens. But Archie became the hero of the program. I remember watching reruns of the show with my grandfather in the late 70s and early 80s. He loved Archie. And why shouldn't he have? My grandfather was born in 1922, lived through the Great Depression and WWII ("the big one," Archie called it). Like Archie, he could see that some (not all) of the "gains" of the 60s and 70s were just foolishness. And Granddaddy never did have much time for foolishness. As it turned out, many Americans didn't see Archie as the bad guy--he was something of a spokesman for the "silent majority." (Let's not forget that over 60% of voters and 49 states chose Nixon over McGovern in 1972, even though ALL the "smart people" voted for McGovern).

That brings me back to Palin. Let me begin by saying I don't think she ought to be president. I don't think she has the requisite preparation, and an attractive personal narrative and ability to excite a crowd are no substitute for that. (Sadly, about 53% of voters apparently felt otherwise in November.) But what I do like about her is that she has all the right enemies. Not just the snobs of the left, but also the snobs of the right (I'm thinking David Brooks, for starters). She drives them absolutely batty, and that makes me happy. She also has the effect of shining a bright light on the amazing double standards at work in our modern media culture. When the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to "fact-check" her ghostwritten autobiography--more than they could spare to analyze the multi-trillion dollar health care bill in the senate --well, that says a little something. I get tired of people who think they are smarter than me defining what is the "conventional wisdom." They say Palin is dumb because she didn't go to an elite school. They also say Bush was dumb, despite the fact that he went to Yale and Harvard. But then they say that the very fact that Obama went to Columbia and Harvard is proof-positive that he's a genius. Maybe that's even correct, but it is not so just because they say so, nor is it logically consistent.

Anyway, back to Archie. I think there is a "silent majority" today, too. And maybe we/they are not sophisticated enough to know when we're being mocked, or maybe we think it's the mockers who are out of touch. We recognize that Sarah Palin and Archie Bunker are far more genuinely American than Norman Lear and David Brooks and Jon Stewart put together.

Milestone

2009-11-12T11:50:00.003-05:00

Just another quick running-related blog post. On Tuesday, I logged my 100th run of this year. This is not an amazingly high number, but it includes only about 20 runs from January 1st to May 1st (including 10 of them in early January), so it represents pretty good consistency since then. Additionally, I only managed to run less than 120 times total each of the past 3 years, so if I maintain my current regimen, I should wind up with my highest total in recent memory. Moreover, I've already logged more miles this year than either of the past two, and my average run per day is much better than what I was doing then. So, I'm running more often, more consistently, and further than I have in a long time. Admittedly, I'm also running a little slower, and I haven't done many quality "workouts." But I'm rather pleased with the numbers.

My Running History

2009-11-04T20:43:00.002-05:00

I've been exchanging emails with my brother-in-law today. He's a runner, too. Actually, we're very different kinds of runners. He's an ultra-marathoner. That means he gets more miles in one run than I do in a week. He is currently training for a 12-hour race. At that distance, you don't exactly sprint the whole way. Our emails back and forth have rotated around the fact that, in our early 40's, we're still runners, but not quite as fast as we once were (he was a sub 5-minute miler and a very good cross-country runner, and I once was a pretty good sprinter and not-horrible cross-country runner).

That led me to think of all the things I have done as a runner. It was about 27 years ago that I went out to my school's track with my dad carrying an old-fashioned stopwatch with a sweep-second hand and ran my first mile. I ran 7:26, but at the time didn't know if that was a good or a bad time. But I decided I would go out for the track team that spring, if only because there was no ball involved that I could fail to catch. They put me with the distance kids because I wasn't fast enough to be a sprinter, and I began plugging away trying to run a sub-6-minute mile. The next fall (my sophomore year), I joined the cross-country team, mainly because that's what all the track guys I looked up to did. I wasn't very good, but I got to run with some guys who were. That spring, I ran sub-6 and barely scored, but my team produced 7 state champions and an all-American, and we won the state title as a team.

My junior year I was 8th man on the cross-country team. 7 make the varsity. I was the alternate at the state meet. That spring, a combination of miles, a growth spurt, and the graduation of all those champions allowed me to contribute to the track team for the first time, and even to run the weak leg of the mile relay. I earned my first varsity letter. My senior year, I was a co-captain of the cross-country team and ran consistently in the top 7, including 5th (the last scoring spot) at state. I was the 82nd kid in the meet. In track I ran the anchor leg of the relay and set a school record in the 100 meter dash (largely due to being one of the first to run the event after the conversion to metric distances). I was a conference runner-up (twice) and ran in the lower-state championship meet. I never qualified for state in track.

In college there was never a time I considered myself to have stopped being a runner, but I didn't run consistently. I took 2nd place in the 100 two years in a row at the University of SC intramural track meet. Once a year, near my birthday, I would bench press my weight and run a mile in under 6 minutes, just to be sure I still could.

Sometime in the early 1990s I began training again. I was actually out on a run (a great hill workout) when my wife took the pregnancy test that told us we were becoming parents. The day my oldest son was born, I had to knock on my training partner's door early in the morning to get my watch, which I had left in his apartment. I had to clear splits from the previous day's run to time contractions. When I interviewed for my first teaching job, I told them I could coach track, and somehow they gave me the job. I didn't even know how to score the high jump. I just knew I liked to run.

While learning to coach, I kept running. I ran the USMC marathon in 1986. I ran a half-dozen half-marathons. I ran the Cooper River Bridge Run several times, which is one of the top ten 10k races in the USA. Once I even made the very first column of results in the tiny print of the local paper (top 600 out of about 30,000 finishers, but still over 2 miles behind the Kenyans who got the prize money). I raced dozens of local 5ks, winning a couple of small ones when the field was weak and picking up a few age-group awards. My favorite was a 6th-place award in a run called the "handicap run" which started runners in reverse order of their personal best. The lady who beat me for 5th was 80 years young and had started over 20 minutes earlier. Another 50 meters and I could have gotten her! Perhaps my favorite moment was running 5 seconds faster than my previous PR (personal record), set at the state cross-country meet in 1986, when I was 31 years old. .

The past few years I have run less and less, and slower and slower. The coaching has gone well (a couple of team state championships and about 18 individuals and relay teams, plus a re-writing of my school's record books, including re-setting the record I once held). But I've only raced twice since turning 35. Only one month of the past 11 years has gone by with zero runs (that was the month I drove 7000 miles in an RV across the USA), but I've certainly not been consistent, nor could you call what I'm doing "training." But the last 6 months have been great, and I'm flirting with running our local Thanksgiving race as my first attempt as a "masters" (age 40+) runner.

I don't know for sure what my running future holds. I'm pretty sure none of the miles will be sub-6. But I do know that it's a blessing to still be a runner.

Yesterday's Elections

2009-11-04T12:28:00.002-05:00

The blogosphere is abuzz with Monday-morning quarterbacking of the very few elections held in this odd-numbered year. We political junkies have to have something to do, I guess. A few thoghts on the matter:

I was pleased to see Christie win in NJ and McDonnell win in Virginia. They are the ones I would have voted for. But if anybody had to lose, I hate that it was Conservative Party upstart Hoffman in the New York congessional special election. Not because of any national implications or broad ideological point, but because he was (is) a regular guy, a pretty nerdy accountant, who sought to become a citizen-legislator. He almost pulled it off, too. If I could get just one constitutional amendment passed, it would likely be term limits. Nobody, from either party, needs to be a professional politician for life.

Along those same lines, the big spin, especially from the White House, is that yesterday's big wins by Republicans were emphatically NOT a referendum on Obama or his policies, but rather a symptom of broad anti-incumbent feelings. OK, I'll buy that, to a point (although if Corzine had won, I'm sure the White House would want some credit). But here's a news flash: most of the incumbents these days ARE Democrats. It's almost always easier to be the party promising "change" than the one doing the governing. Reality is a stubborn thing.

Also, what about the conventional wisdom that the election of Obama signaled the end of the Republican party, the death knell of the Reagan Revolution, etc.? How quickly we forget. I recall back when George W. Bush became the only president since FDR to have his party gain congressional seats in an off-year election (2002) and then beat Kerry in 2004 that we gave the same sort of premature eulogies for the Democrats, and folks like Karl Rove were trumpeting the soon-to-be permanent GOP majority. People really ought to read some history (or just take my class).

Now there will be lots of ink (pixels) spilled over what yesterday means for the future of Health Care Reform--particularly over whether supporting the 1993 version is what cost Democrats control of the House in 1994, or whether getting that one passed would have saved them. But at the end of the day, what will make the difference is not what the pundits (whether professionals or amateurs like me) think, or what's good for the country, or even what's good for the parties. It will come down to what the 535 senators and congressmen each individually think is in their own best interest when it comes to keeping their cushy, powerful, prestigious jobs in DC (and in the case of those whose jobs are safe, what will enlarge their own influence). And that stinks. Bah! Term limits! Impeach everybody! A pox on all their houses!

A Tale of Two Runs

2009-10-17T11:21:00.002-05:00

How to have a bad run:

Wake up to the alarm at 6 AM, still feeling like crap, about 40 hours into a 60-hour week.
Skip breakfast, make it up by drinking black coffee until noon. Get good and dehydrated.
Work through lunch.
After a long and frustrating day, grudgingly set out for practice with team at 4 PM, in 85+ degree weather and high humidity.
Covered in sweat in the first mile. Check the watch at mile 1, nearly 9 minutes. Realize this run is shot already. Fight the urge to give it up and limp home.
At 1.5 miles, turn around. 3 will be a minimally-acceptable day for the log.
Take some small satisfaction that I didn't bail out entirely or walk today.

How to have a good run:

Wake up at 8:30, no alarm, fully rested.
Have a good breakfast, and leisurely read the news for an hour.
Leave the house at 10 AM, 65 degrees, no humidity.
No sweat, no worries. Check the watch at mile 1. An effortless 8:15.
At the end of a 3-mile loop (still at effortless 8:15's), decide to do one more on account of the weather. Tack on at the end to round out 50 minutes. Logging 6 qualifies as a "long" run these days.
Feel great the rest of the day, including the satisfaction of the run plus the vague heavy-leg feeling that almost guarantees a great night's sleep.

Today was day #2. I wish every day could be like this!

Christendom

2009-10-16T10:41:00.002-05:00

This week, I got two tastes of a worship style very different from my norm. This past weekend, I attended an Episcopal church whose rector is one of my dearest friends. We're talking vestments, kneelers, and the full-on liturgy, including an infant baptism that day. (For those who don't know, my church is as "low service" as they come, and our most distinctive mark is an insistence on adult baptism by immersion.) Then later this week, my oldest son was inducted into the student vestry (the serious Christian students' group) at our (Episcopal) school. This ceremony involved the laying on of hands by the Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. (Again, my fellowship has no hierchical structure, and autonomous congregations are governed by a plurality of elders.)

What is interesting to me is that a fight is going on for the very soul of the Episcopal Church (the American branch of the worldwide Anglican communion), and the Diocese of SC, their Bishop, and my friend are at the forefront of it. The newspapers will tell you that the dispute is about the consecration of an openly gay man as a Bishop a few years ago. That is not true. The real issue is whether or not the (national) Episcopal Church does or does not believe in the historical creed of Orthodox Christianity, including not just issues of sexuality, but also the inerrancy of scripture and the belief that Jesus is the only path to eternal life. As my priest buddy says, "the gays don't bother me nearly as much as the Unitarian Universalists" (although, just for clarity's sake, he is also rock-solid in his stand on Biblical sexuality, too.) The Bishop and my friend, as well as our current school chaplains, and most of the serious SC Episcopalians I know, are the heroes in this fight, bravely standing up to their national church, a hostile media, and a permissive culture that sees them as every bit the Bible-thumping fundamentalist as I am.

Of course, there are major theological differences between us. If I thought what the Anglicans were doing was the closest thing to the will of God for His church, I would be one. But at the same time, I can tell the good guys from the bad guys. I believe in one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. So do my Episcopal friends, and we define that faith and that baptism very differently. But I'm adding them to my prayer list on the basis of the "one Lord." Perhaps, in the fullness of time, God has even allowed the current schisms within Christendom for the purpose of pushing His divided disciples into common cause. Either way, I know what side I'm on.

Tired.

2009-10-16T10:04:00.002-05:00

I've been a little worn down lately--not just physically, but spiritually, as well. Vince Lombardi once said that "fatigue makes cowards of us all." When you marry that with the idea (I think by CS Lewis, but I attribute almost any idea I like to Lewis) that courage is the chief virtue, for without it you cannot achieve any of the others, you get a potent combination--fatigue makes us (make that "me") less virtuous. In the past little while I have suffered a diminution not just of my physical strength, but my mental focus, my self-discipline, my resistance to temptation, and my patience. Yesterday, I sought help--I had a dear Christian friend (our school's chaplain) pray with and for me. Last night, I fell into bed before 8 PM, and woke up this morning at least partially rejuvenated (or at least, optimistic about the possibility of rejuvenation). Additionally, we have a long weekend at work. Some would say that the improvement in my condition is a natural result of 10 hours of sleep and a fortunate calendar coincidence. I prefer to see James 5:16 in action (the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much).

Just as an aside--I sometimes wonder what it feels like to not be a Christian. Sometimes we allow ourselves to think (wrongly, I believe) that our only two options are an abundant life in Christ (John 10:10 is one of my pet verses), or an empty, meaningless life. How many sermons have we heard where some poor soul was rescued by God from the brink of addiction or suicide? But many people I know live quite pleasant lives without faith, or with faith in something different than orthodox Christianity. How would my struggles of this week have been different without the fellowship and prayers of my friend? Would I have still gotten some sleep and felt better? Would encouragement from a secular friend have been equally helpful? I just don't know. For me, trying to imagine a life without God is like trying to envision a square circle. All I can say is, I think that those who don't have a Christ-centered life don't know what they are missing. I can imagine living in some poor 3rd-world village and being perfectly satisfied, but only because I was unaware of such cool things as air conditioning and cell phones. Indeed, all of us in the human race are in that same boat--we cannot conceive of what was lost in the Garden of Eden, and have to be as happy as we can with poor imitations.

Obama's Nobel Prize

2009-10-09T12:37:00.004-05:00

When I read the news this morning that President Obama had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, I honestly kept waiting for the punchline. I thought there must be something from Snappleface or The Onion or SNL going on. After all, nominations were due on February 1st, when Obama had been president for less than 2 weeks. But it turns out that the news is true. Although I couldn't resist the opportunity to add that little detail to my piece on Obama's similarities with Jimmy Carter, I'm really of two minds about the whole thing.

First of all, I don't want to criticize Obama. It's not like he asked for this. If there's any embarassment to be felt, it should be by the Nobel committee. And secondly, I always pull for Americans to win, whether wars, sporting events, or the World Series of Poker. To whine about this just because it's Obama strikes me as being a lot like cheering when Chicago didn't get the Olympics. If Bush had won the Nobel for his work fighting AIDS in Africa, I would have been offended had the left complained (which I'm sure they would have).

That said, this still falls into my category of "things about the modern world I hate." The other two sitting US Presidents to win this award brokered big peace treaties that stopped hot wars (Teddy Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919). Other Nobel laureates I respect include Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and Lech Walesa, just to name a few. But in recent years we've seen the "Peace" prize go to Yasser Arafat, the anti-land-mine lady (who apparently has no clue how South Korea's existence depends upon land mines in the DMZ), Jimmy Carter (who deserved a lifetime achievement award, but, like Obama, was rewarded for being hostile to Bush), and most recently Al Gore. I feel the same way about the Nobel Peace Prize that I do about the Grammys ever since Michael Jackson won more than the Beatles, or the Oscars in the last 10 or so years (come on--American Beauty vs. Gone With The Wind. Please.) While I'm at it, I also think the NBA hasn't been worth a darn since at least 1992, and even comic books aren't as good as they used to be.

So it's not about Obama. It's about us. In a world where every child gets a trophy, every rec league soccer game ends in a tie, PE classes ban dodgeball because it picks on the weak, an Boise State can be a contender for the NCAA National Championship, this is not surprising at all. Congratulations to President Obama for winning his award. Too bad the award lost its meaning long ago.

Great Health Care Article

2009-10-08T11:00:00.002-05:00

I just read this article about health care reform. I think it should be required reading for everybody interested in the subject. The author, like me, agrees 100% that we need health care reform. Until recently, she thought that meant the sort of plan currently working its way through congress. But she has just discovered some of the law of unintended consequences. Please read it.

Welcome Back, Carter!

2009-10-07T10:52:00.002-05:00

I saw that slogan on a tee-shirt recently with Barack Obama's face on it. Sadly, unless you're over 40, you may miss the joke. "Welcome Back, Kotter" was a classic 1970s TV show starring Gabe Kaplan and a very young John Travolta. Kaplan played a high school history teacher who taught the delinquent kids at his old high school (where he himself had once been one of the "sweathogs," as they were called). I've always loved this show, because my own career is so similar.

The 1970s also were the time of our 39th president, Jimmy Carter (which explains the play on words). Recently I got into a "conversation" on Facebook that I thought "blog-worthy" about the historical similarities between Carter and Obama. This is a tricky discussion, though, because Jimmy Carter is widely regarded as a failure. A 2005 survey of historians ranked him as the 34th-best president of the 43 we had experienced at that time. This is made worse by the fact that William Henry Harrison and James Garfield were nor ranked, and that he was two spots below Nixon. Of presidents in the 20th century, only Harding came in lower. So comparing our current president to Carter comes off as a cheap shot. Let me ask you to suspend the value judgements of either one, and just look at some similarities.

For starters, both were elected as the "antidote" to an unpopular Republican who wasn't even on the ticket. In 1976, with the wounds of Watergate still aching, Carter saying "I will never lie to you" was seen as the opposite of the hated Nixon. Jerry Ford, a decent fellow by all accounts, had no connection to Watergate. But Nixon had so damaged the GOP brand that "change" was the watchword of the day. Indeed, the desire to repudiate Washington in general was so strong that Carter's status as an "outsider" was seen not as inexperience, but freshness. Compare this to the 2000 election, and sub in the hated George W. Bush for Nixon, with John McCain playing the role of sacrificial lamb.

Secondly, both men came to office during a bad economy which was not of their own making. the 1970s had been experiencing stagflation and a gas crunch since back when Carter was Governor of Georgia. And it may even be true that no one could have possibly done anything about the conditions that made 1979 so bad. Likewise, Obama has the misfortune of presiding over the highest unemployment since, well, the 1970s. He didn't make it, but he'll get judged for how he handles it.

Third, in terms of leadership style, both were widely hailed as smart--Carter as a nuclear officer in the US Navy, Obama as editor of the Harvard Law Review. But both were relative novices at the game of DC politics, and struggled to get their own party (which controlled both houses of congress) to follow their leadership. Carter tried numerous economic "fixes." But the biggest knock on him was that he didn't have what it took (whether political savvy or intestinal fortitude) to make a plan, stick with it, and ride it out. Hopefully Obama gets better at that.

In terms of foreign policy, both cared deeply for the image of the USA as the "good guys" on the world stage. For Carter, this was a repudiation of Nixon's realpolitik and an embrace of human rights as a guiding principle. For Obama, it's pushing the "reset button" following 8 years of Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." Both have garnered praise for their good intentions. In Carter's case, it is said that he ignored Machiavelli's dictum regarding being loved vs. feared. Those who criticize Obama wonder the same thing aloud. Indeed, it is the same Iranian theocrats who have been a thorn in the side of both men. Both also have seen Afghanistan as a problem (albeit a very different problem).

I'm running long, but I could go on with other examples. That's enough for right now. Carter was ejected from office in a landslide in 1980, ushering in the "Reagan Revolution" and a 12-year (or more, depending upon how you see Clinton's "New Democrat" days) period of conservative ascendancy. I know many conservatives hope for a repeat--that Obama will either overreach or underachieve, and wind up discrediting liberalism for another generation.

In the long run, that might be a desired outcome (I am, after all, conservative). But I do not wish a rerun of the 1970s on my country, whether we're talking economic crisis, foreign policy weakness, polyester, or disco. If I were advising President Obama (and for some reason, he has not yet come to me for advice), I might let him know about the Costanza Principle. One more pop-culture reference: in Seinfeld, George Costanza realizes that he is a loser, and adopts a new life strategy. Whatever is his first instinct, he does the opposite, with great effects. Similarly, if Obama finds himself doing what seems Carter-esque, he needs to run, not walk, in the opposite direction. Otherwise, he runs the risk of being seen as a good fellow who makes an excellent ex-president.

What's On My Nightstand

2009-10-07T07:33:00.002-05:00

Its almost time to clean off the nightstand again, as the pile of things I have read or am currently reading is beginning to encroach upon the space required for our cool new CD-radio-alarm clock. In no particular order, here's what I'm plowing through these days:

The One Year Bible. (Only New Testament and Psalms this year.)
Tyndale's Commentary on Ephesians (that's what I'm teaching to my adult Sunday School class.)
The latest issues of Running Times, American Track and Field, and Coaching Management magazines (and the best part is, I get all of these at work).
The Warrior Elite: The Forging of SEAL Class 228. (This is a favorite I re-read every year or so. It's a day-by-day account of the BUDS training of navy SEALs back in the late 1990s. It's inspiring, encouraging, and challenging.)
The 7 Faith Tribes, by George Barna. (This is a really interesting book about the demographics of faith in the USA. I'll almost certainly be blogging some ideas provoked by it.)
A book called Coach which was on the dollar rack at Barnes & Noble. It's a series of anecdotes about the impact of coaches on players' lives. I've only barely looked at it.
Modern Times, by Paul Johnson. This is the one I'm excited about. It's one of those books I've meant to read for a while, but never got around to it. Yesterday the thought crossed my mind, and I ran to the school library and checked it out before I could put it off again.
Hour By Hour, a small book of prayers derived from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, with a personal liturgy to use for morning, noon, evening, and nighttime prayers for each day of the week. I've had it for months and still not prayed all the way through it in a week, but it's been helpful in strengthening my prayer life.

Anyway, besides the clock and my glasses, that's what needs to be dusted around these days. I probably read a lot more pixels than pages right now, but I'm going to make an effort to push away from the keyboard and spend some time with Modern Times for a while.

Faux News

2009-10-06T10:13:00.003-05:00

There was something in the news today that mirrors a facebook conversation I had with a friend last week. Yesterday, our local paper ran an editorial by Leonard Pitts that excoriated FOX News for being so biased. Responding to charges (which in this case, happen to be true) that FOX was the only network that covered the controversy around Obama advisor Van Jones until after he resigned, Pitts points out that even a stopped watch is right twice per day. He then goes on a tear about factual errors on FOX, giving examples from such leading names as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

Hey, Leonard--here's a news flash: those guys are running OPINION shows, not news reporting. Yes, FOX is a conservative channel. And their editorial views feature many more conservatives than liberals. I'll even spot you that the token liberal commentators on FOX are not the very best and brightest; whether Juan Williams from NPR, or back in the days where Alan Colmes shared airtime with Hannity, they rarely measure up the Charles Krauthammers of the world (in fairness, few pundits do). But that's true of every channel. MSNBC is at least as rabidly left as FOX is right. But what continues to gall me is that the so-called "mainstream" media, that gets to present themselves as the objective heirs of Walter Cronkite, also lean left.

Case in point: yesterday, CNN, one of the "objective" networks, ran a story doing a "fact-check" of the first-ever anti-Obama skit on Saturday Night Live. I couldn't believe it! Since 1975, SNL has done comedy. They have skewered every president since Gerald Ford. After 200 days, they FINALLY decided it was safe to poke just a little fun at Obama, and CNN has to point out that they are using hyperbole. Does anybody remember CNN doing a piece on how Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin wasn't a documentary? Did they ever step up to defend George W. Bush from criticism by SNL in the last 8 years? Of course not! So if you wonder why FOX news is the most-watched news network in the USA, here's your answer.

Don't get me wrong. FOX should not be the only news channel anybody watches, any more than National Review or The New Republic should be the only news magazine anyone reads. But the folks who run the New York Times, Newsweek, and CNN seem to think that if you only tune into them, you'll have all the news you need. Bull-hockey! The NYT editorial page leans every bit as far to the left as FOX's editorial panels do to the right. And their token "conservative," David Brooks not only has the mother of all man-crushes on Obama, his version of conservatism is about as robust as Pee Wee Herman. If that sort of editorial position calls into question the biases of FOX, why does it not do the same for "All the News That's Fit to Print?"

One last disclaimer. This is not intended so much to be a defense of FOX as an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" media. And I won't even drink the conspiracy theory kool-aid and claim that folks like CNN do it on purpose. A poll a while back showed that over 80% of journalists self-identify as liberals. (That's OK, the numbers are just as bad for history teachers.) I don't doubt that they try to play it straight, at least most of the time. But a liberal trying to be fair is still not the same as a conservative. The reverse is also true--as a conservative US history teacher, I work very hard to show both sides of the issues, and to be fair to those with whom I disagree. But it's a lot easier for me to teach the successes of the Reagan administration than to sing the praises of LBJ. In some cases, I may even go overboard in the opposite direction in an attempt to mitigate by biases. But obviously, I think my positions (on politics, economics, religion, philosophy, and SEC football) are the correct ones--if I didn't, I'd change them! Journalists are human, too (except for Olbermann).

Blame it on Rio

2009-10-05T18:04:00.002-05:00

I suppose the convergence of politics and the Olympics is a topic that I should definitely weigh in on. First of all, let me just say up front that hardly anybody who knows the Olympics ever thought Chicago would win. Rio and Madrid were heavy, heavy favorites. Also, I don't think it was in any way President Obama's fault that we "lost." Moreover, anybody who was pulling against Chicago due to some desire to see Obama fail needs a beating (although there were legitimate reasons to pull against Chicago, and certainly, this isn't nearly as bad as hoping something as serious as a war effort fails).

All that said, however, I think the Obama effort and the ensuing reaction do illustrate a few noteworthy points. First, Obama going was a political/PR mistake. Many pundits said when he left that "the fix must be in," Chicago-style, if the President and First Lady were going to fire up a million-dollar trip on Air Force One and go to Copenhagen. Obviously, they were wrong. But a pro would have/should have known the potential downside. Better to stay home and lose than risk political capital that way. And if we had won, he could have still taken credit. An alternative view is that the decision was not so much amateurish as narcissicistic. Perhaps Obama really believed that his dulcet tones would sway world opinion. Neither scenario is pretty. Equally ugly was the CNN reporter's incredulity at the announcement--as if it was utterly unbelievable that the IOC had dared to snub Obama, the USA, and the Windy City!

But most interesting to me is how popular opinion has reacted. In the grand scheme of things, this episode is nothing compared to trillion-dollar healthcare bills, major strategic changes in Afghanistan strategy, or rising unemployment. Yet this one is what gets people fired up. The next week, Saturday Night Live ran its first skit that was genuinely critical of Obama. The guy was elected almost a YEAR AGO! Perhaps it's because the American people understand sports a lot better than they do economics. But for whatever reason, somehow the Olympics going to Rio illustrates Obama's weaknesses better than anything so far.

On a more personal note, I was thinking that if the games DID come to Chicago, I might try to get a faculty grant to go and see some of the track and field events. After all, it is semi-connected to my job description. I fear that Rio would be a harder sell.

Radio Silence

2009-10-05T17:52:00.002-05:00

Well, it's been over 2 months since I've been here. I'm not sure why. I haven't stopped thinking--indeed, I've had many thoughts which I have pronounced (elsewhere) as "blog-worthy." It's not that nothing has happened in the world within my circle of concern. While I was NOT blogging, Joe Wilson yelled "you lie," the health-care debate has provoked numerous brain-droppings, Rio has beaten out Chicago for the 2016 Olympics, Sarah Palin has gone to #1 on amazon.com with a book that's not even printed yet, the Gamecocks have beaten a top 5 team at home for the first time ever, and my cross-country team has taken over the #1 rank in our league's top 10 poll (full disclosure: I help write the poll... but I don't vote on us). It's not like I've been busier than usual; I'm always busy, but I've spent plenty of time online, and I have left brain-droppings on facebook pages and message boards.

In some ways, getting out of the habit of blogging has been a lot like getting out of shape (something I have lots of experience with). You can miss a few runs, even take off a week or two "on purpose." But at some point, critical mass is reached, and you know that the process of getting back what you've lost is going to take far more effort than it would have taken to just keep up the old habit. And then the task becomes more and more daunting, even dreadful. But, just like I have so many times in the physical world, I'm lacing 'em up and attempting just a short one around the block. If anybody is still out there, perhaps leave me a comment. It will take encouragement to get over the hump.

Summer Update

2009-07-31T22:20:00.002-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that I have been pretty slack in blogging of late. Which is rather funny, seeing as how my wife will verify that I spend entirely too much time on the computer. I've had a few thoughts, on everything from health care to the economy to the Gates arrest in Cambridge, but I have refrained from spouting off for a couple of reasons. First, laziness. And secondly, I've been trying to back off a bit from politics. I still read dozens of articles, blogs, and editorials daily, but I am trying hard not to get too worked up about political stuff. It occurs to me that politics is NOT my religion. Seeing some of the folks on both sides get so worked up over these various issues as if this or that bill or political battle is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT OF OUR LIFETIME is just silly. Guys, I lived through the 1970s. Politics is cyclical. I am pretty sure how this movie comes out, and we'll be OK. Sure, I'd like it better if "my" guys won every time, but that's not how life works.

On a completely different topic, I wrote back at new year's that I was conflicted over trying to keep up my personal disciplines, both physical and spiritual. In both cases, I was loath to commit to a hard-and-fast goal after failing to achieve my stated goals for the previous year. Well, things are looking up. With the exception of one week when I was sidelined by illness, I've been really consistent with my running for 13 solid weeks. Tomorrow I plan to run for an hour for the first time in over a year (this from a guy who struggled to complete 3 miles just a few months ago). The trick (for me) is having a plan. I'm committed to running on a fixed schedule with my team, and I have a terrific training partner who will berate me mercilessly if I try to wuss out. Similarly, I am finally back on track with my daily scripture reading. My attempt to "wing it" didn't work out--some days I would read a bunch, but then I might go several days without opening my Bible. Once again, me personality demands a system. A few weeks ago I went back to my "One Year Bible" with a daily reading assignment. I am skipping the Old Testament this year. I bounced around the Gospels for the first half of the year. But since getting back on a schedule, I have gotten caught up so that I will finish all the Epistles and Psalms by year's end. I feel much, much better about that than the previous disorganized and scattershot approach.

Last of all, summer is almost over. I love summer. But after next week (when I'll be on a 19th anniversary cruise with Mrs. Sal), I'll be ready to go back. I'm ready to teach, to coach, and to get back in the rhythym of the school year. I often think I'll work until I cannot physically do so anymore--so long as I have summer to re-charge (and travel), I cannot imagine not getting just a little bit bored with retirement after a few months. That said, I'm going to really enjoy these last couple of weeks of summer. Basic economics--law of supply and demand. As the supply of paid days to read and relax dwindles, their value soars.

Sorry to be "gone" so long. I'll try to post again soon.

Car Trouble

2009-06-26T16:31:00.002-05:00

In the past month, my 1995 minivan has broken down twice at really bad times. My radiator ruptured while I was performing my duties as designated driver at a friend's bachelor party. And this week my alternator belt snapped while I was in the middle of a funeral procession. I've put about $800 into the van recently, which is pretty crummy seeing as how I'd be lucky to get $2000 if I sold it.

It dawned on me today why my van is such a piece of crap. When I turned 16, my parents bought me my first car. This was mainly so I could drive my sister and myself to school, as my Dad's office was way across town. That car was a 1973 Buick Century, puke-green in color. It had a 350 cubic inch engine (this is before they started calling 'em 5.7 liters), a vinyl top, an AM radio, and got just under 10 miles per gallon... highway (luckily, gas was bout 80 cents then). It didn't even have shoulder seat belts. The trunk could have transported at least three dead bodies, in addition to the full-size spare tire. My Dad paid $1500 for it.

Fast forward to today, and do the math. In 1985, that car, which was indisputably a clunker fit only for a teenage boy who was destined to wreck it (and I did), was 12 years old. My minivan is currently 14 years old. Moreover, if you use the Rule of 72, you figure that if inflation has run 3% since 1985, the value of the dollar has been cut in half (72 divided by 3 yields 24 years time for prices to double). So when I was 16, driving a junker, I had a car 2 years newer and worth probably $1000 more in today's dollars than I do now. THAT explains it!

As much as I like to complain about my car, I wouldn't have it any other way. If somebody were to give me a brand new Ferrari outright, it still would have to drive 4.5 miles in traffic to and from school each day and sit all that time in an unpaved parking lot. My property taxes on the minivan are $43 a year. My insurance bill is tiny. Obviously, there's no payment. And because I don't make those regular "normal" car expenses, we are free to take summers off, to travel a little, to give, and to save, and to otherwise not be "normal" in other ways. It's like Dave Ramsey says: "If you'll live like no one else, later you can LIVE like no one else." That's a helpful thing to remember when I'm fuming over the repair bills. And when this one dies, it'll be right back to another clunker.

End of an Era

2009-06-26T15:55:00.002-05:00

It's a big week in history. The death of Farrah Fawcett marks the end of the 1970s. The death of Michael Jackson marks the end of the 1980s. And today, I single-handedly put to death the 1990s. I bought a new brand of running shoes for the first time since Bill Clinton was "that new guy."

My first pair of Asics 2000-series shoes were the 2010's. I have followed with a new pair pretty much every 500 miles (for me, a little less than once a year, on average). I have loved them all, except for the 2030 model, which they radically redesigned, and which led to a severe case of plantar fasciitis. But Asics went back to the 2020 last with the 2040s, and they have made only minor changes ever since. I think I've worn every incarnation except the 2050. I somehow came in mid-season and wore the 2040 twice. Today I went in to replace my 2130s.

Let me digress and tell you about my running shoe store, The Extra Mile. It's a tiny hole in the wall in downtown Charleston, owned by two local runners, Mike and Patt Loggins. I've bought pretty much all my Asics there. My team has given me a gift certificate to the same store at the end of every season. When I walk in, it's like being Norm in the old series, Cheers. The owners call me by name, and know my brand and my size. They ask about my team and my running. I respond by asking about their triathalons. They give me a 10% discount for being such a loyal customer (and for sending hundreds of high school athletes their way over the past 15 years). I pay with my gift certificate, and usually also pick up a pair of running socks (I also only buy the exact same socks every time). It's like kabuki theater. No surprises, just how I like it.

Well, today I was flirting with the idea of doing something different. As a runner, I've had more comebacks than Madonna. About 8 weeks ago I got off my butt and got serious about my running again, and things are just starting to round into shape. My first day back it was a struggle to run 3 miles in 25 minutes. Now I'm to the point where a steady 40-minute run is a "recovery" day. This week I even did a set of half-mile repeats up a steep bridge, getting faster every rep (if it were not for a great training partner, I would have bonked on the last one). I'm determined that THIS comeback will last longer and be more consistent than some of the others, so I thought I might make a shoe change to commemorate the new, "masters level" (age 40+) Larry. But I got to the store and Mike and Patt were not there. They had some stranger running the place. No, "Hi, Coach." No, "How's your team?" No, "Same old Asics nine-and-a-halfs?" Just a blank stare and "May I help you?" Well, I chickened out.

So the new guy (who it turns out is a pretty new local coach) vanishes into the back and returns to report that they don't have my size in stock. So I'm stuck. After trying on a few different brands, I settled on the New Balance 769s. Like it or not, this conservative is getting change! Tomorrow, I'll wear them for a regular Saturday bridge run (no repeats this time, just steady over and back). The old 2130s will take their place in the rotation of grass-cutting and weed-eating shoes. (And when we work together in the yard, my oldest son will be wearing the retired 2120s, and his little brother the 2110s.)

Now don't get excited--this is not the start of a trend. I'm keeping the same haircut and the same barber. I'm still refusing to listen to any music written in the past 20 years unless it's by somebody I know. I'm not watching TV, seeing any movies nominated for Oscars, or otherwise embracing entropy. And I'm not trading in the minivan for a sports car... yet. I was blessed enough to get my trophy wife on the first try. So I suppose this is my midlife crisis. I'll report later if the shoes make any difference on the run.

Michael Jackson

2009-06-26T07:59:00.002-05:00

Well, yesterday was a bad day for celebrity deaths: Farrah Fawcett died early in the day, and Michael Jackson died last night. Poor Farrah (and Ed McMahon); their passing will forever be overshadowed by the MJ media orgy. (Little-known-fact: C.S. Lewis of Narnia fame and Aldous Huxley, who wrote Brave New World, died on the same day that JFK was shot and killed. Needless to say, the first two didn't get front-page coverage.)

First, a quick word on Farrah. I was just a bit young to have the famous poster. And I never much watched Charlie's Angels. I certainly didn't ever tune in to the various Lifetime network chick-flicks where she played various kinds of abused women. But I do remember the hair. Very, very nice hair.

As for Michael Jackson, I know it's easy to riff on what a weirdo he turned into. 1990s MJ was a freak-show, and nobody wants to admit to actually ever thinking he was cool. But if you are 40-ish, and you can remember rushing home from school to catch the MTV debut of the Thriller video, you have to admit that deep down, you liked Michael. I was never on the bandwagon, and actually felt like he was a little overrated--kinda like an NBA star who plays in a time when the league is weak. I was perturbed that the Thriller album won more Grammys than the Beatles, and also that it sucked up all the awards for 1983, beating out my favorite album of all time, Billy Joel's An Innocent Man. But even for a non-fan, it was obvious that his music was something special. I find it interesting that all the retrospective shows today are repeating the same four videos over and over: Thriller, Billy Jean, Beat It, and Bad. A few are showing brief clips of little Michael spinning around during the Jackson Five days, but otherwise it's 1984, all the time.

What happened after that--the cosmetic surgery, the Neverland Ranch and all the various pedophilia allegations, the baby-dangling, the marriage to Lisa-Marie Presley... those are footnotes. I don't doubt that over the coming weeks we'll learn that his heart attack was related to an overdose, whether intentional or accidental (much like Elvis, who only made it to 42). And then we'll have some obligatory homages at the various music awards shows, and then there will just be songs played on classic rock stations. The art, of course, will live on. But the artist will, except for a few die-hards who will update the wikipedia page, be forgotten.

Observations on the Beach

2009-06-20T09:47:00.003-05:00

I know this isn't the most original topic, but I noticed a few things on the beach yesterday. Notably, that most adults don't look very good in bathing suits (myself included). My wife says pretty much every time that we go that she'd love to have Land's End outfit everybody at Folly Beach. (She also says every time that after seeing who isn't ashamed to wear a bikini, she feels a lot better about how she looks in her modest suit... and she DOES look great!)

Anyway, here are a few observations: First, if you go to the guarded swimming area in the county park, people are uglier. This is a function of demographics--people with small children use the park, and they are not only older (and in the case of women, post-pregnancy), but also likely have less time for themselves to spend in the gym. If you're a 20-something hardbody, you're probably up at one of the unguarded surf spots. Interestingly, as your kids get older, you may actually get better looking (like Ann, who has dropped 25-30 lbs and gotten in great shape). But there's a brief window there before the other ravages of middle age sneak in, and you merely look "pretty good for a 40-year-old."

I also notice that men, in general, look better (or less bad) than women. Part of this is fashion--guys pretty much wear board shorts. If there were some old, fat guys in speedos to pair up with the women who really shouldn't be in string bikinis, that might even out. But what I notice (and I'm speaking as a guy here, so I could be wrong), is that there are very few guys who look like fitness models, but there are also not that many that make you want to avert your eyes. There's a lot of space between those two extremes of guys who look "average," with maybe some love handles or a lack of muscle tone. But "average" for a guy doesn't look that bad.

Women, on the other hand, have a very few supermodel-types (although they apparently don't come to Folly Beach), a few more who look "not bad" to "pretty good," and a large group of ladies who really ought to wear less-revealing suits. Seems like the average woman is less attractive than the average man... or at least further down the scale of what our society tells us is attractive. No wonder so many women have body issues.

I'll go a step further. Within the very small stratum of genuinely good-looking, fit women, there are only a couple of divisions: there is (1) my wife, (2) girls too young to drink, (3) girls with tattoos. Pretty much, if you see a lady who looks decent in a bathing suit who is over 21 and does not have body art, introduce yourself, because that's Ann. I think pretty much everybody under 35 these days has some sort of tattoo. I'm rather glad I'm too old for that. Several of my family members have them, and many of the ones I see look alright (and obviously, I wouldn't be seeing most of them except at the beach). But it's not my favorite style.

Anyway, that works out well for me, because when I look up from my book, I see only one girl that really interests me. Fortunately, she's not so superficial--I figure I fall into that pretty large category of forgettable males on the beach (in the sub-category of scrawny guys with crew cuts). But one thing is for sure--my local beach is not exactly Baywatch territory.

Gamecocks Top 10!

2009-06-15T08:23:00.002-05:00

Not sure if anybody but me noticed, but my USC Gamecocks placed 6th in the NCAA outdoor track and field championships. Put that in perspective--if USC had finished football season ranked #6 in the AP poll, or had made it into the Elite 8 in the NCAA basketball tournament, that would be HUGE.

USC track coach Curtis Frye may be the best coach in SC that you've never heard of. The Lady Gamecock track team owns the ONLY national title in school history, and track is one of the few programs in Columbia that ever cracks the top 10. Moreover, Frye is considered one of the best hurdle coaches in the entire United States (most impartial observers place him at #1, having coached Allen Johnson and Terrence Trammell to Olympic medals, plus numerous collegians to great success--almost 2/3 of USC's points at NCAAs came from hurdlers).

Just like in football, though, the Gamecocks' biggest drawback on the track is the amazing strength of the SEC. There are just too many big fish in our pond. The SEC had 4 of the top 10 teams (Florida 2nd, LSU 5th, USC 6th, and Arkansas 9th), plus UGA at #11. So the best USC team in school history, and the 6th-best team in the nation, couldn't even win a conference title.

Go Gamecocks!

More Controversy

2009-06-01T08:13:00.003-05:00

I've had an idea rattling around the empty space in my head for the last week, and would like to noodle it here on the blog. But I've been worried a bit to take it up, because it's such an incendiary topic, and I really, really don't want to be misunderstood. Ever since the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, there has been an undercurrent of thought about Affirmative Action--both her position in the Ricci case, in which a white firefighter was denied a promotion based on an exam because not enough minorities passed the exam, and also about whether or not her own qualifications should be viewed through the prism of Affirmative Action (henceforth abbreviated "AA"). But taking up out-loud thinking of AA opens all sorts of doors to being called racist, so I want to tread very carefully.

I have a few related thoughts about AA, largely based on my own personal experiences. I attended, and teach at, an elite, expensive, private prep school. Both as a student and as a teacher I have seen AA at work, both by my school, and by colleges in evaluating our students. But I also spent my first 5 years of teaching at an inner-city magnet school, with a student body that was 85% minority and 65%+ on the free lunch program. Into that mix of anecdotes I stir my study of history, as something of a specialist on 20th-century America. And the outcome is a conflicted mess. For a better treatment of how messy the racial spoils system has become, here's an article by one of my favorite thinkers, Victor Davis Hanson.

Let me begin with my first observation: I think there IS definitely a place for a properly-constructed form of AA as a means of leveling the playing field where there is (or has been) genuine disparity. It bothers me not a bit that last year my cousin (who teaches at one of the poorest inner-city schools in our town) had a minority student from a poor family who got a full ride to Georgetown, even though my former (white) student with very similar qualifications didn't even get in (she's at Davidson, so she came out OK). "My" kid's family gave her every advantage--money, opportunity for foreign travel, private school, an Ivy-league pedigree. The other fellow had to overcome numerous hurdles to get where he is. If I'm on Georgetown's admission board, I would favor him, too.

But secondly, and most importantly, I don't think that RACE should be the deciding factor in AA. It ought to be a more holistic system that evaluates individuals, not groups. I see this all the time at my prep school. We have some wonderful minority students who get into some great schools, and even get scholarships, because of the "diversity" they bring to campus. But some (not all) of these kids are of the same economic and social class as my Davidson kid I mentioned above. A couple of examples come to mind--there was a young lady I coached several years ago whose parents were West Indian immigrants, both professionals (lawyers, I think). She was a great student, who wound up choosing Columbia over Yale. It bugs me that Columbia was able to check a box for "diversity" by picking her, when other kids of modest means didn't get in. Even President Obama falls into this category--his dad was a Harvard-educated immigant, not the son of a sharecropper. He was raised by his white, middle-class grandparents, went to private schools, and then winds up occupying a "diversity" slot at elite universities. I'd rather that slot go to an inner-city kid (black or white, or whatever). Or a hillbilly kid. Or the son of an Asian immigrant.

But there's another wrinkle, too. That one is generational. President Obama is 8 years older than me. Judge Sotomayor is 14 years older than me. I'm not sure how much older than me Justice Thomas or General Powell are (20?). But I'm 40, and I entered elementary school in 1975. In 1975, All in the Family was cutting-edge TV. Doctor King had been dead less than 10 years. Even a child of dark-skinned immigrants (like Obama, or Powell) really would have had hurdles to overcome that I wouldn't. And certainly a southern black kid whose family history included slavery, sharecropping, etc. would have walked a very different path than me. His parents may have actually endured the hoses in Brimingham or the beatings at Selma, or at least been denied service at the front door of a resturant. I don't think it's necessarily fair to criticize people over about my age for being the beneficiaries of AA... in our childhood (and even in our young adulthood, if we're old enough), there were legitimate vestiges of discrimination that needed to be combated.

But fast-forward to the present, and that brings me to a third point. Times have changed. Nothing is a better indicator of that than the election of Barack Obama. As recently as 20 years ago, some would have said such a thing was impossible. Interracial dating and marriage is no bid deal now. I have a friend my age whose interracial marriage almost splintered his extended family 20+ years ago (on both sides). Now, Hannah Montana can have Corbin Bleu as a boyfriend on the Disney Channel, and no one bats an eye. (And that's a very good thing!) President Obama has two daughters roughly the same age as mine. Even if he had never been president, or even a senator, I think it's fair to say that if our girls were competing for the same slot in a university, you couldn't plausibly claim that my child had the advantage. Indeed, the reverse is more likely true.

Finally, there's an issue of culture and behavior which is related to class and economics that I'm not sure what to do with. Pretty much all of my friends who happen to be minorities are just like me in terms of class, culture, and family values. They are married, educated, have jobs, take their kids to little league and dance lessons, save for retirement, refinance their vinyl-siding homes when rates fall. Their kids and mine could be treated the exact same from this day forward, and no one would even blink. But my cousin's students often come from communities in which not a single person is married, nor plans to be. Part of me says that those kids need a hand up to escape their circumstances. Then the hard-hearted part of me replies, "why should we, as a society, reward bad decisions?" It's just as unfair to the middle-class black guy who puts his kid in a good school (whether by paying private tuition or buying a house in a good district) and helps with homework for 12 years to have his child leapfrogged at admission time as it would be for me.

So where does that leave me? If I could design my own AA program, I would say that for anyone under the age of say, 35 (just to be safe), race-based preferences are a thing of the past. Instead, we should follow Dr. King's advice, and judge people by the "content of their character." That judging can take into account legitimate social disadvantages based on class or economics, and should. Any takers for this new system?

NBA Woes

2009-05-26T18:01:00.004-05:00

I've gotten to the point that I hardly ever watch NBA basketball anymore. But it's the playoffs, so I'm semi-interested (and my son watches every minute he can). It is truly painful to see how far the game has fallen off since the glory days of the Dream Team.

Case in point--shooting. NOBODY CAN SHOOT THE STUPID BALL ANYMORE! I pulled up nba.com and looked up shooting percentage leaders to see if my perception was true or if I'm just turning into a grump old man. If you scan down the list, the first guy you come to who shoots half-decent and is not a bench warmer or role player is Dwight Howard, at 54%. Shortly behind him is Yao Ming, at 52%. Are you kidding me? These are not guys who are jacking up threes. They are centers! Kevin McHale shot 60% from the floor (and 80% from the line) in consecutive years. Charles Barkley made over 58% of his shots from 2-point range (and he took LOTS of jumpers). The '87 Lakers (who I hate with a passion, but you've gotta admire the skills) shot better than Yao as a team.

Same thing with assists. I remember complaining 25 years ago how the east coast refs were much tighter with assists than they were in the west. Seems like Bird or Isaiah could never get the credit that Magic or Stockton could for a nice pass. But now? Even those west coast "showtime" refs would be embarassed at the way they count them. If you compare stats from then and now, it's almost like trying to look at pre-steroid baseball cards.

Ditto the three-point shot. The three-pointer came into the NBA with Magic and Bird in 1980. Bird was the first player to ever make one in the all-star game. It was about '87 when college adopted the line. When I graduated high school, there was still no 3-pointer, and if you jacked up a 20-footer, it had better go in, or your butt was headed to the bench for a while. The long ball may have added to scoring totals and made for better comebacks, but it sure hasn't made the game any prettier. Does anybody over the age of 35 remember that time when Michael Jordan came down the court, waved off the other 4 guys on his team, and launched a 24-foot bomb? No? That's because it never happened. The one who does that is Kobe Bryant. MJ passed the ball, came off of screens, and took good shots. Today's superstars jack up treys with no conscience. Nowadays, all they do is pass into a big man on the block (who barely makes half of his shots), and then he kicks it out for a three. They repeat this until the shot clock winds down. BO-RING. When the three-pointer was new, it was rarely used. Larry Bird, who won three consecutive 3-point shootouts, made only 0.7 threes a game. Compare that to Lebron James, who has already made more threes than Bird did in his entire career.

And let's talk about Lebron. There's no doubt that he is the best player on the planet right now. And he's good--an athletic wunderkind. How does he stack up to the greats of yesteryear? Well, let's compare him to Larry Bird, who played the same position. Lebron does score about 3 points more per game (almost entirely due to the fact that he takes more shots, including the above-mentioned 3-pointers). Bird averaged more rebounds. They are almost equal in assists, but assists are a lot easier to come by these days. Bird shoots significantly better from every range: two-point, three-point, and foul shots. But most importantly, Lebron is in his 7th year in the league. He just won his first MVP, and, if (and it's looking like a BIG if) he can get past Orlando and then the Lakers, he has a chance to win his first title. By Bird's 7th year, he had three MVP awards and three championships. Lebron is a big fish in a very small, brackish pond. Compare Kobe to Jordan. ROFL. Compare Dwight Howard to Kareem. Or to Ewing. Or to Akeem. Even to a pre-geritol Shaq. ROFLMAO.

So, I'm waiting to see who wins the NBA (No Basics Association) title this year. But it's not the same. Not by far.

Justice Sotomayor

2009-05-26T12:21:00.003-05:00

Well, it's official. President Obama has made his first Supreme Court pick. The winner is (drum roll....) Sonia Sotomayor, who will be the first Hispanic justice (and third female). As should be expected from a liberal president, she promises to be a liberal justice. Therefore, as a conservative, I guess I should register pro forma disapproval. However, she replaces a member of the liberal bloc on the court, so except for the fact that she's younger, nothing really will change, balance-wise. Moreover, she has been an appeals court judge for a good while (and was approved in that appointment by a Republican-controlled senate), and was originally appointed to the bench by Bush 41 (as part of a deal that basically gave the pick to NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan). She was top of her class at Princeton and Yale, after rising from poverty in the South Bronx. And of course, there's the reality of math--if Democrats hang together, they should be able to get Donald Duck confirmed if they want to, and he doesn't even wear pants! (Of course, Donald is both white and male, so he was never considered.)

There is already talk among some conservatives that she ought to be vigorously opposed, for a variety of reasons. One is that Obama made a big deal out of "empathy" as being key to his pick, which sticks in the craw of those of us who still feel like justice should be blind. Others cite her relatively high reversal rate on the appellate bench as evidence of a willingness to attempt to legislate from the bench, and further point to the fact that she was caught on tape once saying that "courts are where policy is made." Others are quick to jump on an article written in the liberal New Republic a while back in which Jeffrey Rosen hinted that she was not an intellectual heavyweight of the caliber of a Scalia or Roberts.

None of these are the real reason why Republicans want to oppose her, though. The real reason is that they are sick and tired of the double-standard that allowed Robert Bork to get crucified back in '87, Clarence Thomas' character to be assassinated under Bush 41, and most recently, for large numbers of Democrats to vote not to confirm the obviously-well-qualified Roberts and Alito (indeed, then-Senator Obama was anti-Alito to the point of considering a filibuster). They ask, and not unreasonably, "if these are the new rules, aren't they the same for both sides?" Why should the right always be bound by the Marquess of Queensbury Rules while the left fights like an episode of MMA on Spike TV late-night?

Well, I feel that pain. I really do. And there would be a certain satisfaction factor to dishing out what we've been taking. But there's game theory at work here. This fight is unwinnable, both in terms of the votes and also on the politics. Fighting Sotomayor with the "Alito Standard" would be spun by the media as anti-woman and anti-Hispanic. Better to keep the powder dry and point back to the bipartisan, smooth, cordial treatment given her when the timing is better, or a pick really does have a chance to change the balance of the court.

All that said, I am deeply conflicted over the divide between good, even "Christian" behavior towards ideological foes and good politics. My heart wants to extend far more courtesy to our current president than George W. Bush ever got. I want to take the high road, whether on judicial confirmations, culture issues, or whatever. I don't want to stoop to the level of playing dirty. But my gut says what someone (maybe Bear Bryant) once said about SEC football: "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'." One need only look at the assaults on Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Joe the Pumber, or even Justices Roberts and Alito (not to even mention George W. Bush), to realize that there's plenty of dirty pool going on. I'm not sure that it's in the best interest of the nation for the right to roll over and die rather than sully our hands.

Last night (Memorial Day) I had the opportunity to watch the great 1941 movie Sergeant York, with Gary Cooper. Alvin York was a devout Christian (a member of the Church of Christ) from Tennessee. He pleaded not to be drafted into WWI because he did not want to kill. He was turned down because his church had no written creed that forbade war. But when he found his men penned in by machine gun fire in the Meuse-Argonne offensive, he decided that the only way to save hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives, was for him to do that which he abhorred, and take lives himself. York was one of those Tennessee sharpshooters who could handle a rifle from the time he could walk. He picked off 20 or more men before 132 Germans surrendered. York won the Congressional Medal of Honor and is one of the USA's greatest heroes. Don't get me wrong--I'm not suggesting that politics is the equivalent of physical war, and I'm not advocating a slide to the lowest common denominator. I'm also not saying that the end justifies the means. But we have to ask ourselves, in many cases, what are the consequences of our actions, and also of our inaction. In the case of this nomination, there is minimal up-side potential to resistance, and serious down-side. But that may not always be the case.

Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude

2009-05-24T21:41:00.002-05:00

One of the best things about life as a teacher (and especially as a coach) is that my world is seasonal. Some people progress from winter, to spring, to summer, to fall, and then back to winter. My year begins in the fall with cross-country and football season, progresses to basketball in the winter, and reaches fever pitch in spring with track season. But then comes summer, which is not only a time between academic classes, but also an "off season." It's also pre-season cross-country, a time when my XC-track athletes transition into easy running of base miles that will form the foundation of their fall workouts and racing.

The best thing about a new season is a fresh start. This summer represents a time like that. Lately, I haven't been making a plan, checking items off of my to-do list, or managing my goals. I've just been muddling through, hanging on for dear life. But as of this past week, "the hay's in the barn." That's a line stolen from Mark Wetmore, one of the best coaches in America, and it's what he tells his team when the work is all done and all that remains is to see the results. This next week I have to give exams, grade them, and do report cards. So I can't truly say that the work is all done. But the teaching is over. The exams are written, copied, and ready to hand out. The desk is cleared off, and the in-box is empty. The uniforms from this past season are stowed where they belong. The pressure is off.

That means a new set of challenges, but a different rhythym of life for the next 12 weeks. I've already begun my own summer mileage build-up, running with the team (just slower and shorter). I'm re-reading my favorite book on time management and goal-setting, Time Power, and tomorrow I'll spend some time updating my DayTimer. There will be projects--LOTS of projects--that will get much-deserved attention. I've got a list of books to read (hopefully some of them on a beach or by a pool). We'll spend family time together, from a vacation week in Florida to time doing yard work. And then this summer season will come to its natural end, and I'll be energized and ready to tackle yet another fall. It's going to be an exciting fall--my middle child will be in my class, our cross-country team should start the season ranked #1 in our league, and our football team begins a new era under a new coach, with lots of excitement. But all of that is off in the future. I'm excited about this season now. And that's as it should be.

Far Worse Than Gay Marriage

2009-05-15T17:57:00.003-05:00

I wrote earlier my reasons for opposing "Gay Marriage," most notably the effects it has on innocent children by weakening the traditional family model. But there is a far, far bigger problem out here in hetero-land. Word recently came out that the illegitimacy rate in the USA has climbed to 40%. This is amazing, and not in a good way. It was more than 40 years ago when Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Hillary Clinton's predecessor in NY) pointed out (correctly) that illegitimacy among the African-American community was reaching a terrible social tipping point. Then, the rate in that demographic was 25% (now it's over 70%). Just add this to my ever-growing list of signs that our society is going to hell in a handbasket.

This article by Charles Murray analyzes the rate of births to unwed mothers among white women of the previous generation (just to take the distracting factor of race out of the equation). What Murray found (then, when things were not as bad as now!) was that among educated and affluent women, having a husband precedes having a baby. But among the poor, and increasingly among working-class and even middle-class women, that model is terribly broken. Back when I started blogging, my first few posts were about poverty and its causes. One of the things I said back then that remains true today is that finishing high school, putting off marriage until after the teen years, and not reproducing while unmarried are the three-prong recipe for avoiding a life below the poverty line. It seems like a vicious cycle--a collapse of the basic family unit leads to more poverty, which in turn further undermines families.

Murray was also the author of a controversial book a few years ago called The Bell Curve. He took a lot of heat for his analysis of nature and nurture in intelligence (full disclosure--I haven't read it, just a few articles pro and con). One of the things he said that was very un-PC was that smart people tend to hang out with smart people, and therefore marry and have kids with them, creating little smart people. And that less-smart people do the same, in reverse (and they do it in greater numbers). If you accept that thesis, what you've got is my kids growing up in a home with pretty much 1950s family values, and they'll likely go to college and marry someone similar, before they have babies, and they'll keep on occupying a middle or upper rung on the ladder of social success. But more and more folks lower down the ladder don't have a father, don't know anybody with a father, and will have kids who also don't have concept of the role of a father. The social consequences of fatherlessness are severe, and pretty soon the whole ladder is structurally unsound.

Those of us (and I'm pointing at myself here) who call ourselves pro-family should not be ONLY anti-gay-marriage. We need to also be aware of the dangers of divorce and fatherlessness, and do what we can, if not to reverse the course of our decline, at least to slow it down.

Conservative Principles

2009-05-13T11:00:00.002-05:00

William F. Buckley once famously described conservatism as "standing athwart history, hollering, 'Stop!'" And there is certainly an element of truth to that. One of the jokes I frequently tell is, "I'm a conservative... there have been many changes in my lifetime, and I've been against ALL of them!" But it's only a joke. Part of the definition of conservatism is dependent upon what you are trying to conserve. A conservative in Russia may pine for the days of the old USSR, or even the Romanov dynasty. But a 21st-century American conservative would not (I'll leave alone the too-easy joke about a modern liberal's pining for communism). In my mind, what I would like to conserve includes many ideas once thought liberal. This includes not only "classical liberalism," but also the "progressive" innovations of the era of Theodore Roosevelt, some (but not all) of the New Deal of Teddy's cousin, Franklin, and the advances in race relations achieved during and after the 1960s. Reagan voted multiple times for FDR, and famously said of the Democrats, "I didn't leave the party, the party left me." And I have said many, many times that I would vote for Harry S Truman in a heartbeat.

However, I do wish that someone (anyone?) was hollering "stop!" a little louder at the direction I perceive our country to be going right now (and not just since the last election, either). I have written before that England is no longer the England she used to be. I would further say that most if not all of western Europe is far removed from the "western Christendom" that I believe gave us the greatest civilization in world history. And I worry that America is following that same path.

I rarely link to an article when I blog (under the assumption that nobody would read it anyway). But I'm making an exception. This item is a commencement speech given by Mark Steyn that may be one of the best answers to the question of why I am a conservative. It's not that long--I highly recommend it.

Hopes and Fears About Health Care Reform

2009-05-11T18:08:00.002-05:00

Major change is coming to health insurance in America, like it or not. The Obama administration has set that as a major priority, and they have the votes to do it. This may come as a shock to those of you who think of me as your token "right-wing friend," but I'm not entirely against the idea. The thing is, if we had a choice between a free-market system and the statist system we're likely going to get, I'd pick free-market every time. But what we've got right now is NOT free-market. The current system is so badly broken that change is inevitable. I just hope the change we get is an improvement.

The critics of the current system like to act like the biggest problem with our current system is the 47 million currently "without health care." I prefer the word "uninsured," as pretty much anybody can get care at free clinics and emergency rooms across the country. My own father was one of those 47 million a few years ago between the time he started receiving social security disability in excess of the limit for Medicaid, and before he had been in the system long enough to get Medicare. During that time, he spent 100+ days in Intensive Care and received emergency care worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's never paid a dime of it. And that 47 million number is badly inflated, too. Some are illegal immigrants. Some are people who actually qualify for anti-poverty programs like Medicaid and SCHIP but don't sign up (and if they do go to a hospital, they get signed up then). Some are between jobs. And a significant number are people who make enough money that they could afford a health insurance policy if they chose to sacrifice some other portion of their lifestyle (but they know they can do the same thing my Dad did if there is an emergency, and they'd rather have the money). I have read estimates that say that once all these folks are taken out of the inflated count, there are more like 10-15 million uninsured currently slipping through the cracks. If that was your only problem, you could devise a program within the current system that would fix their situation without a massive overhaul.

The biggest problem with the current system (at least as I see it), is that the costs of health insurance are just too darned high. For my family, my employer spends almost $400 a month apiece for my wife and me to have individual policies. I pay an additional $400 to cover my kids. That means that just my portion is more than a decent car payment, and the total (if I had to cover it all myself) is more than my mortgage. And in the event that we do have a claim, I still can shell out thousands in copays and deductibles. (This is an improvement, by the way--before Ann got a job with benefits, I had close to $700 a month going out in premiums--over $8000 a year if I was lucky enough to stay healthy) Moreover, every December we have a staff meeting to find out that our coverage is going down and our premiums are going up... a lot faster than our salaries. No wonder many healthy single people choose to keep the money and take their chances.

Therefore, I would welcome any change that holds down prices, and I don't even mind a mandate that everybody is required to enroll. Were it up to me, I'd have a payroll tax like we do for Social Security, so nobody gets off entirely free of charge. We could even work it in a similar way to the Social Security tax, with employers paying half of the tax. Middle-class folks like me would likely see our premiums stay similar. Employers may even see their costs drop somewhat (which should free them up to pay me more in actual salary, which I can use to pay premiums). The poor would pay little or nothing, and the rich would pay more--but nobody would have the option of sticking me with their bill and buying a new car while I drive a '95 minivan with no heat.

If that would do the trick, I'd be fine. However, I do have some worries. The old line is true--whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. Right now the big insurers pay the piper. And they stink. They will try almost anything to avoid paying the bills. When and if the federal government becomes the payer, it will become some cubicle-dweller in DC's jobs to hold down costs. And the way you hold down costs is by saying "no." If you look at the bureaucratic nightmare that Medicare is for doctors and hospitals now, just imagine how it will be when those jokers run everything. My biggest worry is what single-payer systems look like in England and Canada, where care is rationed. There are plenty of Canadians who avoid the long waits of their national system by coming to the USA and paying cash. Once we are single-payer, where are Americans supposed to go if the system is unresponsive? New Zealand? I also worry about the quality of care going down. There are already doctors who are getting out of the medical field because the money and prestige are going down and the hassle is going up. I don't see more government involvement doing anything to slow down that trend.

My biggest worry, though, is about the American people. I support a national health insurance program. And I am willing to pay a fair price for it, even if that price is the same as what I pay now (I'm assuming that I'm not quite "rich" enough to be subsidizing those who pay less at any rate greater than I'm paying to carry freeloaders now). But way too many of my fellow citizens have been thinking for a long time that somebody is going to give them "free health care." We already live in a country where almost half of workers pay no income tax. Once we open the door to goverment-provided insurance, it's easy for people to demand more and more service for less and less (or at least steady) payments. This ignores the very real economic fact of costs. Somebody has to pay for all of this, and politicians don't like math problems like that. As Maggie Thatcher famously said, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of somebody else's money." You could tax every dime of every millionaire's salary in the country at a 100% rate and couldn't raise enough revenue to support the rest of us. So make it fair. But bring it on.

Advice for the Republican Party

2009-05-11T16:52:00.002-05:00

Seems like everybody and their cousin has advice for the Republicans these days. Time magazine's cover this week shows the famous GOP elephant with the caption, "endangered species." Bloggers, pundits, and congressmen all are falling over themselves pronouncing doom for the party and prescribing numerous remedies, most of which involve abandoning various positions which conservatives have traditionally held. Most of this is based on the premise that these ideas are old, discredited, and the proximate cause for recent electoral failures--failures which include, but are not limited to, the loss of congress in '06, the election of Barack Obama this past year, and now the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrats (which, assuming the eventual seating of Al Franken in the Senate from Minnessota, means the Dems have 60 votes, and can pass any bill they want with zero chance of filibuster). Well, I'm joining in. Here's my advice:

First of all, RELAX. Read a history book sometime, for starters. US Politics is cyclical. There have been many, many times when a party (both of them) has been pronounced dead and buried. I think I recall an article or two about the collapse of the Democrats after Bush beat Kerry in '04. And then they come back... almost every time. Look at the drubbing the Republicans took starting in '74 with Watergate. They couldn't win a race for dog-catcher. And the rise of Jimmy Carter was the next big thing. Just one election later, the Reagan Revolution (more on St. Ron later). And it works both ways. After 12 years of Reagan and Bush 41, even Bill Clinton said, "the era of big government is over." Compare that pronouncement with today's budget and see if his prediction held true. It is liberalism's turn, and when their turn is up, the cycles will continue as they have before.

Secondly, the beating Republicans have taken of late are not so bad. Let's be clear--after 2+ solid years of an unpopular war, while led by one of the least-popular presidents in modern history, in the midst of the worst economic meltdown in a generation, and while running a candidate who was Bob Dole minus the charm, against one of the most charismatic campaigners of all time, assisted by a fawning media and a chance for centuries-old racial redemption, the Republicans lost the last election by 53-46%. That's not quite as bad as Bush's dad beat Dukakis. It's nothing like the hurt LBJ put on Goldwater, or that FDR put on Hoover. Shucks, in my class we don't even breathe the word "landslide" until you're well over 56%. And even if you DO win a landslide, that doesn't mean it will last--Hoover, Harding, and Nixon all won big ones, and fell from grace quicker than they rose. Shucks, by some counts, McCain was even or slightly ahead until the economy fell off the cliff!

Third, how can anybody say with a straight face that the GOP's problem lately has been that they have been TOO CONSERVATIVE? To say that Bush and the current Republicans in congress spent (and borrowed) like drunken sailors is an insult to navies full of them. They picked the absolutely least conservative figure in their primary field to run against Obama. Specter may have said that the party's march to the right was the cause of his defection, but PLEASE. The guy's a hack, who switched TO the Republicans back in '66 to win an election, and switched back now for the same reason. And the party he bolted spent tons of money in his last election to defend him against a more-conservative challenger. Consider the source.

So, what to do? Start with the Hippocratic oath: first, do no harm. Don't freak out and make wholesale changes, throwing babies out with bath water. Secondly, don't think that becoming "Democrat-lite" helps anything. If the argument is over which statist party will spend the most and trade the most cradle-to-grave cocooning for your freedoms, the GOP cannot win that bidding war. Remember poor, desperate, failed, Barry Goldwater: he said "a choice, not an echo," and "in your heart, you know he's right." Well, 61% of American's did NOT know he was right in 1964. But 16 years later, those same principles swept Reagan into office. If the ideas are right, the country will realize it in due time. If they are not right, no amount of game theory will make them so.

Finally, a word about Reagan. Conservatives and Republicans (who are often not the same people) like to say that we need a "new Reagan." That is true, to a point--we need an articulate, charismatic, optimistic spokesman for our ideals. As the old adage goes, you can't beat somethin' with nothin', and in the age of Obama, image is as important as it has ever been. But we need to be careful not to think that emulating Reagan's policies is the answer. The Cold War is over (thank God!). Tax rates are no longer at 70%. Inflation is non-existent (for now, at least). There are different issues now, and the "next Reagan" needs to be able to deal with them--immigration, health care, entitlement reform, terrorism. You can apply Reaganesque principles to these issues, but the trick is to apply them in 21st-century ways.

I know, I have not even begun to articulate what conservative principles are (or should be). Maybe I will later. Or I may write about health care. But right now I'm going to go make a grilled-cheese sandwich.

A Good Day at the Office

2009-05-02T20:16:00.002-05:00

Today was the state track meet. I'm exhausted, sunburned, and exhilarated. This has been one of the most challenging seasons of my coaching career, as my team is very, very young. When a good freshman races a good senior, the senior usually wins. There is a ton of potential among the athletes on this year's team, but we have just not had the top-end scoring punch to place well as a team. It has been necessary to adjust my sights and set more "moral victory" goals. And it certainly is good to help kids achieve personal bests, or to see a young athlete qualify for the state meet, even if that athlete is not in a position to score. But it's also hard to stay "up" when you're not winning.

Today, though, it all came together. My team peaked at just the right time, setting 23 personal-best marks. They also greatly exceeded expectations. That's one thing about a track meet--they seed you based on your previous times, so you know going in if you are the best, or third-best, or thirteenth-best, in your event. Based on our seedings, my boys should have scored 17 points and my girls 29. The boys wound up with 26 and the girls 47! This wound up being a 6th place finish for both (which is about what we expected). But when everybody does their very best job ever, it's easy to be happy.

Best of all, we had a couple of genuine WINS on the day. A sophomore girl who had never triple jumped further than 32'8" in her life uncorked a 34'2" effort on her last attempt and won gold. And my girls' 4x100 relay team, led by a senior captain who has been on this same relay since 7th grade, not only came from behind to win a state title, they also broke a school record from 8 years ago that I had thought was going to stand forever. Relays are my favorite events--when you win, 4 kids get to share the medals. And they require discipline, teamwork, and trust. Being part of their celebration today made me happy I decided against law school almost 20 years ago!

Thoughts on "Torture"

2009-04-28T19:09:00.005-05:00

OK, I've tackled gay marriage. What about the other hot topic, "torture?" Or rather, should I say, "enhanced interrogation techniques?"

Let's start with a history lesson. The tension between America's principles and security has gone on for centuries. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, even Abraham Lincoln violated important principles we hold dear in wartime because they thought it was necessary to keep America and Americans safe. That doesn't make it OK, but it does mean that the Bush administration is not the first to ever make this faustian bargain. You could even argue that when America is scared economically, we likewise surrender liberties--for example in the New Deal and in today's big-government binge. Fear causes us to do dumb things, and then later we regret them.

All that said, there are a couple of points to be made. First, we don't WANT to regret today's actions later. And I think most people (although not all) would agree that, in general, we do not want to be a nation that tortures--not even if it "works."

For that reason, I think the argument voiced by some, "it doesn't work anyway," is not important at all. If it's just plain wrong, it shouldn't matter if it works. Or, conversely, if that's your only argument, and I can convince you the techniques are effective, your point should evaporate (and I doubt that's going to happen).

And I think we all (or most of us) agree that, except posssibly in the case of a ticking nuclear time bomb in a major city, we would NEVER want to resort to things that are definitely torture--mutilation, removing fingernails with pliers, electric shocks to genitals, or causing permanent physical harm of the sort that crippled John McCain.

The trick comes with such techniques as "waterboarding." It's psychologically freaky, but our own troops volunteer for it as part of their training (so they can learn to resist it). Supposedly it was used on only a very few high-level detainees, most notably 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed, and resulted in a treasure trove of information on Al-Qaeda that may have even prevented an attack on LA.

I don't know if that rises to the level of what I'd personally call "torture." But I can understand the people who say, "if you're not sure where the line is, shouldn't we err on the side of basic human decency, and be the kind of culture that affirms our best principles and respects human rights?"

Here's the deal, though--why can't we say the EXACT SAME THING about abortion? If I say that waterboarding is a necessary evil that should be "safe, legal, and rare," I'm an inhuman monster. But if somebody else says the exact same thing about taking the lives of unborn babies, they are progressive and sophisticated. Sorry. I'm not buying. One day we MAY regret pouring water on the face of a terrorist. Or not. But I pray that one day we WILL look back on abortion like we do now on slavery--a relic of a day when we were uncivilized and barbaric.

"Gay Marriage"

2009-04-27T11:05:00.002-05:00

I have been meaning for some time to tackle the issue of "Gay Marriage." I've been putting it off, partly because it's a difficult undertaking, and partly because I don't want to screw it up. The business last week with the Miss USA girl getting grilled over it just got my wheels turning again. Here's the short version: of course, as a conservative, "fundamentalist," evangelical Christian, I think (read: believe with all my heart) that the Bible is God's word, and that, therefore, homosexual behavior (NOT inclination, behavior) is sin. As a disclaimer, let me further clarify by saying that it is only one of MANY varieties of sexual sin, and is no more or less distasteful to God than adultery, premarital/extramarital sex (does anybody even say "fornication" anymore?), and even divorce for reasons other than unfaithfulness. For us to single out gays as "worse" sinners because of any percieved "ickiness" in their behavior is to misunderstand sin. And these other behaviors are usually (or mostly) untouched by the law. So, consistency would suggest that I would adopt a similar laissez-faire attitude toward Gay Marriage. Just because I personally believe that Christianity's claims to exclusivity are 100% true does not mean that I want the US government to mandate baptism or punish apostasy, heresy, or unbelief. Why can't I leave these nice people alone?

Well, there is another layer of the onion at work in the marriage debate. Gay Marriage proponents are quick to say that allowing homosexuals to have marriage rights has no effect on the marriages of heterosexuals. I respectfully disagree. Marriage, as a legal institution, has throughout history not been about legitimizing sexual trysts between consenting adults. Marriage exists for one purpose: the raising of children into succesful adults (note: this does not mean that marriages cannot be childless, nor do I think the barren should be banned from marrying. Those outliers have negligible effect on the institution as a whole). The reason the government takes an interest in (and provides benefits to) marriage is similar to the reason they allow tax deductions for charitable giving and home ownership--they perceive a societal benefit to the practice. A great deal of research has been done on various factors that influence the strength of marriage as an institution. Some of the best work has been done regarding Scandanavia, where they are well "ahead" of us in liberalizing marriage. (If you are interested, try googling "Stanley Kurtz" and "Scandanavia" and "marriage." The main finding is this--whenever marriage is liberalized (including, by the way, the loosening of heterosexual divorce laws, or relaxations on social stigmas against cohabitation and illigitimacy), the institution itself suffers. Marriage rates drop, and the rates of children being raised in non-traditional homes rises. Again--a disclaimer: single parents, widows, blended families, etc. CAN do a wonderful job of raising families. My mother was raised in a non-traditional household. But statistically, the evidence is overwhelming that kids have the best chance of success when raised by Mom and Dad. One need only to look at the inner-cities of America to see the sad consequences of separating marriage from procreation. (You would almost think God knew what he was doing!) To the extent that legalizing Gay Marriage undermines the institution of marriage, it stops being "victimless," and begins to have victims... and the victims are future generations of children. (By the way, this is why I also think of abortion as being a more serious issue than other "social issues." In my mind, babies are good. Hurting babies is bad. Killing babies is VERY bad.)

But, you may say, if you feel that way, why don't you oppose no-fault divorce? Or, as one blogger wrote recently, "why not let gays have marriage, since we're not using it?" Actually, I DO oppose no-fault divorce (or rather, I would have, had I been old enough when that issue was being debated). But that toothpaste is already out of the tube. And just because we're doing one harmful thing to marriage doesn't mean that it logically follows that we therefore are obligated to throw away all restraint. That's like saying, "You're already speeding--why not take off your seat belt and have a beer while you're at it?"

There's also one other very important area of this debate that needs discussion. That is the area of civil rights. For many (and I do sympathize with them), this argument is about civil rights. Courts imposing gay marriage, even over the will of the people, is just like the courts striking down segregation in the 1954 Brown decision. It has been said that "gay is the new black." By that logic, those of us on the anti- side are just like those who favored Jim Crow. But there is another wrinkle, constitutionally. For those of us who are devout Christians, our first-amendment rights to free exercise of our religion--the right to speak and act in accordance with the belief that Romans chapter 1 is not just a myth--is going to bump headlong into the rights of homosexuals under the 14th amendment to be treated exactly like any other minority group. It has already begun to happen. Where gay marriage has been legalized (like Massachusetts), religious people have seen their ability to follow their consciences diminished. Catholic adoption agencies have been told they cannot opt out of providing adoption services to gay couples based on their religious beliefs (and, to their credit, they have stopped providing the services rather than go along to get along... again, with the result that more innocent children are harmed). At some point in the future, this slipperly slope leads to less religious freedom. Don't get me wrong--it may actually be good for Christendom in the long run to be more countercultural, even persecuted. but don't expect me to volunteer for it.

There are plenty of other, tangential, issues. A definition of marriage based on sexual attraction which rejects arbitrary standards such as being of opposite sexes leads directly to polygamy (2 is an arbitrary number), even incest between consenting adults (why should I not be allowed to marry my cousin or my sister, or for that matter my brother, or all three?) And society giving out benefits (such as joint-tax-filing rates or Social Security Survivors' Benefits) to people with less and less "arbitrary" requirements leads to all sorts of people lining up for them. Unless we're going to demand some sort of proof of consummation of the "marriage," why should anyone ever be single in the eyes of the tax man again? Looking back again at my mother's home: why should my grandmother and her sister, who lived together all their lives and raised a family, not be entitled to the same tax rates as two gay men or lesbian women who set up house together?

I could say lots and lots more. And none of what I would say is rooted in hate or bigotry. I've got friends who are gay, and I wouldn't want to do anything to cause them any harm or pain. But that doesn't mean that to avoid causing them pain I would be willing to accept all the consequences that go along with a redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old. If it were not for these potential consequences, I would be perfectly fine with allowing pretty much anybody to do anything with anybody that interests them, and call it by any name they like. But I'm a big believer that your right to swing your arms ends right at the end of someone else's nose.

Three Things That Tick Me Off This Week

2009-04-22T10:07:00.002-05:00

I'm trying so hard not to blog about politics like a younger version of Andy Rooney (the old curmudgeon on 60 Minutes). And each of these things that are ticking me off right now really deserve their own, longer, well-thought-out post. I'm not sure which one was the straw that broke the camel's back, but critical mass has definitely been achieved. Also, I'm trying hard not to be just a stereotypical right-winger tossing out criticism of liberals, Democrats, Obama, or whoever willy-nilly. But these three all just rubbed me the wrong way.

First, the media (and some of my colleagues) treatment of the "tea parties." Personally, Idon't get the whole "tea party" thing. Not my cup of tea (GROAN!). But to watch CNN or hear some folks talk, it's like these folks who think government spending is way out of hand are somehow out of line for even holding a rally, and that to walk around in one of these rallies is to risk being infected by toothless redneck stupidity on steroids. A fellow teacher (young, pretty, naive, and oh-so-sure she knows it all just out of grad school... a lot like me 15-20 years ago, except I was never pretty) told me she had been near the one in Charleston, and it was "scary." Look, why is it "scary" for these guys to gather, but ACORN, ANSWER, Code Pink, or pretty much every union demonstration is perfectly fine? I've written elsewhere about the demonization of conservatives (see Palin, Sarah... also "scary") and the double-standards of so-called "objective" journalism. But for whatever reason, this one just ticked me off.

On a different front, I was riled up at word that President Obama had ordered $100 million in budget cuts, and the White House was spinning it as keeping his campaign promise to cut the budget. This one was so ludicrous that even the Washington Post and New York Times had to laugh. Compared to the overall size of the budget, the stimulus package, the deficit, or the debt proposed by the same folks, $100 million dollars is statistically zero. Compared to my very middle-class household income, it is comparable to cutting our family budget by having ONE less Starbucks coffee (tall black, not a grande cappucino) for the whole year. Or maybe by not super-sizing fries one time at the McDonalds drive through. Come on! Don't insult our intelligence!

Finally, and back to elite opinion issues, I'm perturbed at the whole "Gay Marriage" flap in the Miss USA pageant the other night. I intend to blog sometime later about the whole issue (and you may even be surprised at some of what I will say then). But this time, I'm just mad about dishonesty again. Miss California was one of the finalists. They asked her what she thought about gay marriage. She was careful to provide appropriate disclaimers about how great it is that people in this country can choose, but then said that for her family, marriage was between a man and a woman. She winds up taking 2nd place overall, and the next morning the word on all the news was that she lost due to her insensitivity, and the whole "Miss USA Family" was saddened by her answer. OK--leaving aside any discussion at all about the issue itself--they ASKED HER THE DARNED QUESTION! If there was only one "right" answer, they could have given her an arithmetic problem! Something like 60% of people claim to not support gay marriage. In the state she represents, a majority of voters just voted against it. So what's so wrong with her holding that opinion? Why does a vocal minority get to decide you can't even ask certain questions? And while we're at it, isn't that the exact same answer Obama and Biden gave as candidates (because they knew it was the position held by a majority of voters)? Where was the outrage at THEIR "insensitivity"? (I know--the real answer as to why nobody cared when Obama said it is that they all know he was lying. But that's a different issue.)

I think all of these three issues bug me for a similar reason. All of them deal in some way with short-circuiting the ability for people like me to make a reasonable case for our beliefs. If numbers don't really mean anything, if anyone who deviates from "elite" opinion is scary and dangerous, and if it is taboo to even mention certain ideas, even when they are held by a majority of Americans, what is the point? As a teacher, I bend over backwards trying to give every side of every issue. I've even had parents complain that my lessons were too liberal, because I was trying so hard not to push my own opinions too much. I guess I'm turning into a dinosaur.

Pirates!

2009-04-13T11:10:00.002-05:00

Count me among those who are glad that I didn't jump on the bandwagon and start bashing the Obama administration for weakness last week when the Somali pirate crisis first got underway. Although there may be plenty of areas where I would favor far different policies regarding the military than the president (such as his plans to cut production of the F-22 or missile defense), in this case I'm very pleased to give credit where it is due. From the very beginning, I said, "get a team of SEALs to that destroyer; problem solved." Sure enough, when the order came, it was three SEALs, three shots, three dead pirates. (When I heard that THREE pirates had been killed, I did not know at the time that the fourth had already left the pirate vessel and was captured. My first thought was that there was a fourth SEAL who had somehow missed his shot, and would never hear the end of it from his brethren who wear the trident.)

There are plenty of those who were on the Obama-bashing bandwagon who are now seeking cover by pointing out that the president did not give an order to fire, he gave (twice) the captain of the USS Bainbridge the right to make the call. But life is not a Harrison Ford movie. If our civilian leaders will simply let the pros do their jobs without interference, that's fine by me.

Piracy around the horn of Africa works for the pirates because the reward outweighs the risk. Millions of dollars in ransom can be had (which goes a long way in Somalia), and most merchants would rather pay than risk trying to protect their ships. Now there is a new element in the calculus--if the target is flying the Stars and Stripes, the risk factor can be assumed to be a little higher. This may not do a thing to end international piracy, but it may very well cause US vessels to be a little safer.

Moreover, this action buys president Obama some much-needed "street cred." Whether or not he intended this violent resolution, bad actors around the world (including state and non-state actors) have to reckon with the possibility that the new guy in the White House will pull the trigger. I'm reminded of when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers in 1981. After the USSR fell, we were able to see the Soviets' notes on that situation. They took note that the new president followed through on his threats (unlike his predecessor). There is no telling how much that belief contributed to the eventual end of the Cold War. It may be a perverse logic in this fallen world, but being perceived as willing to fight often means that you will not have to do so. And likewise, the perception that you will do anything to avoid a fight often ensures that you will have to later on (see Neville Chamberlain, 1939).

One last thought--there are plenty of heroes in this story. The captured ship Captain willingly traded his own life for those of his crew. He's the real deal--a maritime Sully Sullenberger. And the SEAL snipers that stealthily joined the Bainbridge and squeezed off those three head shots... well, they are the real deal, too. I have the pleasure of having coached a recently-minted SEAL officer, and he is one of the most exceptional individuals (in terms of physical, mental, leadership, and character qualities) I have ever known. I imagine that most of the men who went through BUDS/SEAL training with him are similar, or else they would have been among the 85% of applicants who wash out. I sleep better in my safe, warm bed at night knowing that the parapets of our civilization are manned by sentries such as this. Likewise, there are bad guys around the world who sleep a little worse tonight in the same knowledge. And that's just how I want it to be.

"News"week

2009-04-11T11:33:00.002-05:00

By now most folks know that Newsweek magazine ran a cover story about the death of American Christianity. I've already done some blogging about the ingredients of American exceptionalism (including some related to Christianity), and I've said up-front that I do not think America is, or should be, a "Christian nation" in a formal sense. So that's not the direction of this post.

Likewise, it's not really a rebuttal of the story, although that would be interesting, too. The jumping off point for the story is a poll that shows that self-identification among Christians is down about 10% since 1990. Whether those who no-longer consider themselves "Christian" were previously committed disciples of Christ, or merely Americans for whom the default position was a non-commital generic Christianity is untouched. Also unexamined is the fact that the more theologically "liberal" mainline denominations are those shrinking, while the more "evangelical" groups are growing. And further ignored is whether the seeming shrinkage of the role of the "Christian right" in today's politics is the cause of, or caused by, or merely correlated with, the other cyclical elements of politics (certainly, in the age of Obama, ALL conservatives are down).

What gets me about this story is how much Newsweek seems to ENJOY it. To run a story questioning the importance and impact of Christianity on the eve of Holy Week is a slap. They have done the same thing at Christmas. Can you imagine, for even a moment, a major news magazine or TV network running a hit piece on Islam on the eve of Ramadan? Shucks, most of them wouldn't even exercise their free-speech rights to run controversial political cartoons depicting Mohammed for fear of giving offense (although there was zero hesitation by Pat Oliphant to run a glaringly anti-semitic cartoon in the Washington Post last month). Now, part of that is self-protection... radical Jews and Christians don't tend to commit acts of violence when offended at quite the same rate as radical Muslims. But there also is an underlying bias--Newsweek has become a liberal, secular opinion magazine. And that's what bothers me.

This past year, my father-in-law got a subscription to Newsweek from some magazine offer--whether Publisher's Clearing House or Reader's Digest... may have even been my daughter hawking them for Girl Scouts. He picked it because it was cheaper than Time. The most recent issue has been on his end table every Sunday when I have lunch over there, so I got to read their "reporting" throughout the election season. Never have I seen a supposedly "objective" magazine so in the tank for one side. Not only did Barack Obama get dozens of glowing cover shots (contrast with the unretouched close-up of Sarah Palin's face that showed every mole, hair, and blemish), the articles were as slanted as can be. Don't get me wrong: I like opinion magazines. I used to subscribe to National Review, but it was too expensive (and now I donate to their online site). I like to read The New Republic for liberal opinion (although I don't send them money). It doesn't bother me a bit that Fox News leans right and MSNBC leans left. But it would bother me if Rush Limbaugh lied and said he was playing it straight down the middle. Don't get me wrong--we all have biases, and I understand that most journalists are personally liberal. Walter Cronkite was a big-time lefty. But when he went to work, he was objective and honest. Too many modern "journalists" could learn something from that example.

So, when I see a hit piece on faith in Newsweek, I consider the source. But what irks me is that they present themselves to the public as "objective." And too many Americans don't know any better, so they accept the narrative put forth by the "mainstream media," hook, line, and sinker. It's easy to mislead the voting public if you've got the media in the bag.

Lower Sights, Higher Hopes

2009-04-11T09:22:00.002-05:00

Wow--so many things to blog about: Holy Week, Somali pirates, the institution of marriage, Newsweek's article on the death of Christianity... and I've got a head full of thoughts on all of them! But what is really on my mind right now is a topic I keep coming back to again and again: my ongoing struggle with personal discipline.

I just came in from a "run," if you can call it that. A little over 20 minutes at 8:30 per mile. I've done that four times this week, with an eye towards adding five minutes the next week, and the next, and so forth, throughout the summer. Someone asked me recently what I think about when I'm running. When I was competitive, I always thought about the run itself--pace, mile splits, sensory feedback on perceived exertion. Nowadays, I find myself thinking about future runs. Not these little 20-minute jogs, but how good it would (will) feel to be able to cruise along effortlessly for 5 or 6 (or more) miles. Getting from where I am now to that point seems almost unreachable, but today I had an epiphany. It doesn't hurt nearly so bad if I go slow. Perhaps I'll never again log an 8-miler in less than an hour. But I could get back to running either the 8, or the hour, if I just adjust my horizons. And there is still some hope that if I get back to the kind of aerobic shape where I can go easy for an hour, maybe I can pick up the pace a little bit on the shorter stuff.

The same thought process is working in the area of my daily spiritual disciplines. I've gone a quarter of the year and stayed caught up on my daily scripture reading. At this rate, I could finish reading through the whole Bible again by the end of the year. But I'm not really enjoying it. I'll skip a day or two, then catch up. And I'm just slogging through the Old Testament. I think the Lord will forgive me for saying that Numbers and Deuteronomy just don't fire me up (and I positively dread the idea of spending all fall in the major prophets). What I really want to do is concentrate on the New Testament, reading both more chapters and also more deeply. A buddy of mine who is 75 years old and one of the most Biblically literate people I know has told me that he can work through the New Testament 7 times a year in the same time he can do the whole Bible, and that doing so has led to him having most of the epistles near-memorized. I'm about 98% sure that I'm going that route, probably starting this Easter weekend.

I've also had a bit of a breakthrough on the topic of prayer. My good friend Karl, who is one of the chaplains at school, has shared with me a little book called Hour by Hour, which is a set of prayers for use 4 times per day (morning, noon, evening, and night). It's heavy on the liturgical side, but I have found that using it helps me to "formally" pray several times a day, while also setting the stage mentally and emotionally for more informal and personal prayer in at least one of those times. Much like the running, I find that things go better if I ease in and "warm up" slowly these days.

In every one of these cases, what I'm finding is that I'm having to adjust my lofty goals (many of which were realistic at a time when I was younger, or fitter, or had more free time, or less kids) to more realistic and more attainable levels. It takes a little pride-swallowing to slow down, to read less per day, or to lean on someone else's prayers. But it also takes a little weight off of my shoulders. I would much rather be satisfied with meeting these modified goals than constantly kicking myself for the failure to meet the old ones.

The Varieties of Religious Experience

2009-04-10T11:17:00.002-05:00

We now take a detour away from my current train of thought to focus on what's really important. For most of the Christian world, today is Good Friday, the commemoration of the crucifixion. The title of this post is stolen from the title of a 1902 book on religious pyschology by William James, but that book isn't what's on my mind. What I'm thinking about is the many varied ways in which we reach out to God.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to encounter God in two very different ways, neither of which is part of the faith tradition of "my" church. First,we had a special chapel service at my (Episcopal) school which incorporated the Good Friday liturgy and also celebrated communion as part of the Maundy Thursday service (the Last Supper). My church was formed in the 1800s in America as part of a movement hoping to "restore" first-century Christianity. One of our movement's maxims was (and is), "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible." So our forebears rejected later developments such as the liturgical calendar and feast days, and we intentionally turned away from such reformation-era innovations as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Therefore, we don't "do" Easter (or Christmas, for that matter... but Santa and the Bunny still come). However, I attended Roman Catholic and Episcopal schools as a child, and spent many years of study on the topic of the medieval church. So I have a personal affection for "high" church, for vestments, candles, processions, incense, and even old hymns on a big pipe organ. Yesterday's chapel was moving and meaningful. And there is a certain enhancement of the sense of small-c "communion" with like-minded Christians when you reflect that the same liturgy, the same prayers, the same Gospel readings (the passion according to John) were being shared word-for-word by millions of Anglicans yesterday and today. That doesn't mean I'll be suggesting we read from Archbishop Cranmer's Prayer Book when we break bread at the Summerville Church of Christ on Sunday. But reaching out to God in a "foreign tongue" had its benefits.

Then last night I had the pleasure of attending The Thorn at Seacoast Church, where my brother-in-law is a minister. Seacoast is a non-denominational community church built on the seeker-friendly "Willow Creek" model. Although theologically closer to my Church of Christ than the Anglicans, the difference in worship styles could not be more pronounced. The most obvious difference is that while one of our distinctive marks is a capella singing (based on the lack of any examples of instrumental music in the first-century church), one of Seacoast's biggest draws is its amazing worship band performing contemporary Christian rock. Not only do they celebrate Easter, but they do so with a 21st-century passion play which puts humorous dialogue in the mouth of the Apostle John. The chance of that happening in most Churches of Christ is pretty much zero.

I must say, by the way, that calling The Thorn a "passion play" is akin to calling Michael Jordan "some ballplayer." It was AMAZING, tracing the story of Jesus' victory over sin and death from the fall in the Garden of Eden to the empty tomb. My brother-in-law portrayed a "warrior angel" who fights the forces of darkness during Satan's pre-Genesis rebellion and guards the praying Christ in Gethsmane. An accomplished martial artist (black belts in two disciplines), he wielded a samurai sword in his role. I came primarily because he is one of my best friends, but I wound up spiritually strengthened and uplifted. I cried (just a little, and quite manfully) three times in an hour and a half (once during the ministry and miracles of Jesus, once during the scourging, and again as the stone rolled away).

I'm sure if members of either Seacoast or an Epsicopal church were to find themselves at my congregation, they would find some of our worship foreign (where are the vestments? where are the instruments?), but they may also find themselves strangely drawn closer to God by the simplicity of our service, and also by the differences with their own. I think if I had grown up on a liturgy, it could easily become stale and rote (as a young Presbyterian, I could mumble my way through the Lord's Prayer or Apostle's Creed with never a thought of the words). But seasoning my regular low-church diet with just a little high-church spice is spiritually very nourishing.

Happy Easter, all!

Western Civilization and "Cultural Knapsacks"

2009-04-08T13:15:00.002-05:00

In my previous post I made a blanket reference to "western civilization." What do I mean by that, and why do I consider whatever that term means to be superior to the numerous alternatives out there? (I hesitated to even type the word, "superior," for in our modern world, the only sin we still frown upon is that of intolerance. But it's out there.)

Back when I taught world history, I used to refer to a "cultural knapsack" in which a group of people would collect various customs, beliefs, behaviors, philosophies, etc. A group can pick up these elements through various kinds of cultural diffusion--when my group, which has invented, say, the wheel, interacts with your group, who has developed, shall we say, written expression--and this interaction can be through war, through trade, through love and marriage--well, at the end of the day, we both wind up with both writing and the wheel.

So what's in America's cultural knapsack? Without getting far too detailed and academic, a little democracy and logic from Greece, some representative republican stuff and codified laws from Rome, a dollop of Judeo-Christian religion stirred into the mix in the first through fifth centuries. Both Eastern and Western Europe had those. The western half of the declining Roman Empire also got some Germanic "barbarian" institutions, including such things as trial by jury and what would become chivalry. Where the Eastern empire developed more autocratically, with a strong emperor and an admixture of church and state, the west managed to become decentralized and feudal, with separation of the sacred and the secular. In my favorite medieval country, England, the nobles eventually forced their king to accept Magna Carta, and the ideas that even a king could be subject to the rule of law, and that those who pay the taxes have a voice came to be.

But that is not all. The birth pangs of proto-capitalism in the Italian Renaissance intersected quite nicely with the tumult of the Protestant Reformation. Back in merry old England, a group of reformers whose theology was rooted in Calvinism began to believe that hard work was a virtue and that material prosperity was a sign of grace for the elect. Some of them eventually despaired of their efforts to "purify" the Church of England. These Puritan pilgrims set out on ships (which would have been impossible without the scientific revolution) for the New World (also discovered by western Europeans). They landed in a place with no "ancient history" to overcome, a tabula rasa, a land that was purely "modern." Of course, they displaced the indigenous peoples (and now, thanks in part to their western sensibilities, they are civilized enough to regret it). But they put into place an experiment in creating a country anew. And they did a pretty darned good job.

Compare and contrast that with what is in other cultures' knapsacks. Our culture was born after western Christians had learned the lessons of the 1600s that killing each other over doctrine was counterproductive. The middle east has folks who still haven't figured that out. Our pilgrim forebears had the "protestant work ethic" deep in their cultural DNA. Have you ever wondered why we could drop a McDonalds into the middle of Moscow but couldn't make capitalism work there? A thousand generations of programming. Why do the Chinese not throw off the shackles of their totalitarian regime? Because there is no Magna Carta, no limited feudal Germanic king in their background. They have been dominated by the emperors, by the khans, by the Mongols, and now by the communists, but have never really been free (as we westerners understand it) at all.

Obviously, these statements apply to groups in general, certainly not to individuals. As the age-old debate of "nature vs. nurture" goes with people, so can we apply this thought process to races, cultures, and nations. Moreover, I would further postulate that there are universal truths and principles that apply regardless of your "programming." As a Christian, I would say that these principles are rooted in the will of God. To the extent that any system "works," it only does so to the extent that it is in line with ultimate reality, the laws of nature as established by the Creator.

At any rate, I believe that the unique combination of cultural "ingredients" that make up the "recipe" for the American branch of western civilization (democracy, equality, freedom of speech, thought, and religion, the rule of law) are best suited to creating a world in which we can most freely "live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." (1 Tim 2:2). And while it is far from perfect, I have no problem preferring that model over all its closest competitors.

The End of Western Civilization

2009-04-06T11:29:00.003-05:00

There was a story last week that made some of the blogs I read. Apparently, a house burned down in England. Children were trapped inside. The neighbors wanted to attempt to save the kids, but were kept from doing so by the local police (who also would not go in). The reason for this was that regulations required them to wait for the fire brigade. Somewhere, Winston Churchill is spinning like a top in his grave.

I am an Anglophile. I love Churchill, Thatcher, and even Cromwell. I love the monarchy, and I love the Queen. I love common law, the mile, and the pound sterling. I did my graduate work studying the Brits from the Normans through the Tudors. Tomorrow will be my WWII lecture where I tell my 7th graders that Churchill, radar, and the Spitfire were all that stood between civilization and darkness in 1940. But that Britain is dying.

Part of the problem is demographics--the Brits, like so many Europeans, are not reproducing. Four grandparents produce between them two children and one grandchild. The family tree is upside down. Hand-in-hand with that is immigration. Somebody has to do the work and pay the taxes if there are not enough British to do it. A lot of these immigrants are non-western. Many of them are Muslim. None are products of the thousand years of cultural sculpting that produces Brits. Then there is the increasing connection with the European continent. Believe it or not, English merchants are required by law these days to weigh out their goods in metric measures. No ounces, no pounds, no yards. It is a little thing, but profound. Bureaucrats in Belgium can exert more control over the English people than can the Queen. There is also a disturbing loss of faith. The Church of England is stronger in Nigeria than in London... the current Archbishop of Canterbury has come out in favor of Sharia Law in parts of England.

Once upon a time, the very best thing that could happen to a country was to be colonized by the British Empire. Look around the world--almost every place you find pockets of prosperity or freedom mixed among third-world squalor (from Hong Kong to India to South Africa to, well, the USA), you find a place where the Union Jack once flew.

Those days are dead and gone. And with them has gone much of western Christendom. If only there were a nation of similar fortitude to carry the banner today. If only....

On (Not) Running the Bridge

2009-04-04T09:49:00.002-05:00

Today is the Cooper River Bridge Run. At 50,000+ participants, it is one of the top ten 10k road races in the USA. Literally thousands of people who do not consider themselves runners will "run" the race, and tomorrow morning they will all be talking about it. And many of them will innocently ask, "so, did you run the bridge?" Even more will ask me, assuming that since I have a drawer full of running clothes and spend two-thirds of the year coaching runners, surely I must have participated in this local event.

But I didn't. (I did jog two easy miles in my neighborhood, but the fact that it was on race day was coincidental). I used to run the Bridge Run pretty regularly. And I raced it. When I was decent, I used to find my name in the next day's newspaper supplement on the first page, in the first column--always in the first thousand finishers, once or twice around the first 500. (Editorial note--even then, I wasn't numbered amond the serious racers... I was a full 2 miles behind the Kenyans, and well out of age-group awards. Of those 50,000 runners, less than 200 are objectively any good.)

I suppose I could run the race like everybody else. Even if I didn't train a lick, I could do the weekend-warrior thing and gut out 6.2 miles on adrenaline and muscle memory. If I went slow enough, I might even be able to walk the next day (which is more than some can say). If I got in minimal shape, I could probably still break 50 minutes, which is about where the local non-runners start to act impressed. (The days of flirting with 40 are gone!) However, I just can't seem to muster up the desire to get up early, drive downtown, park, hang out in that huge crowd, and then fight the crowds home for a t-shirt.

I am not entirely sure when I lost the drive to race. I'm pretty sure it corresponded to me getting slower and being unwilling to pay the price in training that would have been necessary to forestall decline. I keep thinking that someday it would be nice to run occasional "fun runs" again, just for the atmosphere and the experience. Maybe next year!

Personal Disciplines Update

2009-03-28T09:35:00.002-05:00

Sometimes I think I just blog to keep up with Pete and Becky. They always comment, at least. Recently, Pete posted a comment asking how my resolutions to keep up with daily Bible reading and exercising were going. So here's the answer: OK, and not so good.

On the spiritual front, I have managed to stay "caught up" with my regimen of reading, but I go in fits and starts. I'll skip a day, and then double up. I also have pushed my reading time to the evenings before bed, which explains the spottiness; the nights I get to bed relatively early and less tired, I'll catch up. The nights (like last night) when I'm totally fried, I collapse into bed and put off the reading until later. I'd really like to have a standing "appointment" to read first thing every morning, but this time of year (more on that in a minute) makes that more difficult.

Before turning attention to running (or NOT running), I also want to mention Bible study (separate from just reading daily) and also prayer. Our congregation has begun an 11-week focus on prayer which includes all the sermons and all the adult Sunday school classes. I am one of the teachers, so I have a good "external" motivation to both study and pray (although, as an aside, just because I can teach on the subject of prayer doesn't mean I still don't struggle with it personally... probably more than some of my so-called students).

As for the running, I'm almost completely off the wagon. I've run twice in the last 30 days, and both of those runs were less than 20 minutes (and painful to do, on account of my loss of fitness). I keep telling myself I need to start back up again (and to start from the very beginning, like a raw rookie). But this time of year is the meat of my coaching season, and it seems like every minute is consumed by other responsibilities. Every day I pack a bag with shorts and shoes so that I can sneak in a run between the end of school and the start of practice, and every day I find myself using that time to manage my roster, write workouts, correspond with constituents (from my AD to team moms to assistant coaches to athletes). That shouldn't be an excuse, but it's a lot easier to say "I'll do it when things let up."

All that said, I'm relatively pleased with what "out of shape" looks like (except for when I try to run and realize how slow and aerobically weak I am). My weight is holding steady at 138 lbs, my resting pulse rate remains below 60, my cholesterol is under 200, my "good" cholesterol is over 40, and all of that is without running a step or paying any attention at all to my diet. If I were getting fat (even though "fat" for a Salley is like "tall" for a midget), it might light a fire under me to hit the roads. But for now, the cost (in time, discomfort, and fatigue) of running is outweighing the consequences of not.

So, to summarize: I'm not really being "the me I want to be" at this time. But I'm also very aware of the seasonal nature of my life (some folks have winter, spring, summer and fall, I have cross-country, basketball, track, and summer vacation). I know the seasons will change very soon, and I'll have a great deal more control over my time and my priorities. Until then, I'm content to muddle through.

More Theology: Drinking and Debt

2009-03-21T09:10:00.002-05:00

In writing a day or so ago about fellowship, my mental wheels began to spin on some of the different applications of scripture by folks who all believe the same Bible is true. One of the ones that popped to mind was on the issue of drinking alcohol. Mormons, as I alluded to earlier, are teetotalers. Most evangelicals (including my own Church of Christ) frown on drinking. Most mainline protestants imbibe, or at least have no problem with those who do. And Catholics have traditionally been known as drinkers (remember the old line from the 1920 election that Democrats were the party of "rum, Romanism, and rebellion?"). Of course, these are denominational stances, and within those denominations are individuals of all sorts, including wet Baptists and dry Catholics and everything in between. (insert old joke here: Jews don't recognize Jesus as messiah. Protestants don't recognize the Pope as head of the church. And Southern Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store.)

My intention here is not to rehash the well-worn arguments on either side of this issue, nor to cause any friction. To summarize, when it comes to alcohol, we know that drinking is not condemned as sin scripturally (and Jesus famously made wine in His first miracle), but drunkenness is. And those who frown on the use of alcohol say, "better safe than sorry." One of my dearest friends who is a serious teetotaler puts it this way: "I just don't see how any good comes of it (meaning drinking)."

But here's a new wrinkle. Why don't we do the same darned thing with debt? The scripture is almost identical in tone. Debt is never condemned outright as sin, but it is called a snare, a punishment, folly--almost the exact same language that is used to describe drunkenness. Indeed, there is not a single reference to debt as a blessing in all of the Bible; it's always associated with bad results (perhaps the one counter-example is the Parable of the Talents, where the poor steward is told that he should have deposited his talent with the bankers and earned interest... but even then he is the lender, not the borrower). You could even plausibly argue that drinking is treated better scripturally than debt, as there are zero examples of Jesus ever borrowing, nor a single positive reference to the practice.

There was a time when Christendom did frown on debt. The medieval church called usury (charging interest) a sin. This led to a large number of Jews (who themselves would not borrow from each other) getting into the business of lending to Christians as capitalism began to develop (and contributed to some of our long-standing stereotypes of Jewish bankers). But society's views gradually changed, and we hammered our theology into shape to match the culture. The same thing happened in reverse with drinking--in Jesus' day, wine was common on every table. But our pilgrim/puritan forebears had other options and saw drunkenness as something to be fought. It is their theological heirs who carry the banner of the old prohibitionists, most of them unaware of the history that informs their conviction. (As an aside, this is one of my favorite observations about the Restoration movement churches: we decided back in the 1830's to unify around sola scriptura and not the "traditions of men," yet didn't notice that most of those who were unifying were coming out of Calvinist backgrounds, with all those hundreds of years of intellectual baggage informing their interpretation of scripture. No wonder we look like Baptists without an organ!)

But I digress. It just makes me think--which is potentially more harmful? Lives and families are destroyed at the extreme ends of both practices. But if you compare what our society would call "reponsible" use of both alcohol and debt, I'm not sure that I wouldn't trade a hangover that fades for a credit card balance that lingers for years. (And of course, there is the other, milder, end of the equation as well, where having a single glass of wine with dinner probably compares to a conventional home mortgage or a beer while watching a ball game is like paying off your balance in full every month). Wouldn't it be neat if in this present economy, Christians were to begin a new "temperance" movement, this time focused on consumer debt. The same teetotaler friend I quoted earlier had an opportunity to spend some time at an all-inclusive island resort recently, and he and his wife befriended another evangelical couple there. They know the couple had similar values because they were the only ones not availing themselves of the "free" drinks. I'd love to see a day when we'll be equally conspicuous for not swiping the VISA card.

Official old-school CofC disclaimer: Obviously, if I had a big problem with my church's views on drinking, I would find another church. I'm not suggesting that we become Episcopalians on the issue, I'm just thinking out loud. So if your first inclination on reading this post is to attack the "alcohol question," relax.

Who is My Brother?

2009-03-17T09:11:00.002-05:00

I was talking to my lovely wife this morning as we "read the news," which for us means both of us surfing the net (one on the desktop, one on the laptop). Our "news" includes several blogs we follow, and her blogroll includes several ladies who photo-blog about their families like she does. Many of these women are Mormons. This got us to talking about what some good friends who were Mormon said about us many years ago--we would make excellent Mormons (they intended it as a compliment, and we took it as such). Leaving aside the fact that I could neither swallow the theological differences nor would I give up coffee (in excess) and alcohol (in moderation), that got me to thinking about Christian fellowship.

Several years ago, I read a book by F. Lagard Smith called Who Is My Brother? which dealt very well with this topic. What Professor Smith said was that we tend to extend fellowship to our theological "right," but not to our "left." So, someone who is as strict as me or more so on theological issues is within my circle of fellowship, but someone who falls short of my (or my denomination's) standards is suspect. As an example--someone who has been baptized by sprinkling has no problem extending fellowship to a full-immersion guy like me, as I got even wetter. But for those of us who believe in all-over dunking, the fellow who just got a drop or two on the head as an infant may fall short of full fellowship. And at the extremely strict end, you reach groups (which includes not just some Churches of Christ, but also Roman Catholics, and even the Mormons) who may go so far as to say (or think to themselves) that the only "real" Christians are found only among their own group.

Smith approaches this from the perspective of the Churches of Christ, but anyone can do the same exercise. He sees fellowship as a series of concentric circles, all of which represent closer and closer levels of "brotherhood." The outermost circle is all human beings, made by God in His image. They are my brothers by virtue of being sons of Adam. A smaller circle inside that one is the circle of "seekers," that accept at least the possibility of a "higher power" or "universal values." They are closer to me than the moral relativists and atheists. Inside that circle is the theists. Inside that one is the monotheists. Even smaller is the "People of the Book" (Jews and Muslims, as well as Christians) who accept (in some fashion) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Inside that circle are those who in some way call themselves Christians (including Mormons and others whose theology is not orthodox). An even smaller circle is orthodox Christians. Smaller than that is the circle of protestants, then fully-immersed "restoration movement" Christians, then the non-instrumental Churches of Christ, and then, finally, at the very center of the circle is my own personal "church family," my congregation with whom I choose to break bread. Smith calls that "table fellowship."

Obviously, different groups might name their circles differently--I can imagine a circle labled "Synod" or "Presbytery" or "Diocese" or "Parish." But it seems a really good system. My closest brothers are the members of my own congregation, under the discipline and leadership of my own elders, listening to the instruction of my preacher. And there may be (and are) other congregations of "my" church right across town that I recognize as being fully in the body of Christ, but which I couldn't attend as a member without chafing.

That brings me back to my Mormon cyber-friends. What about those who are a circle or two (or more) removed from what I am prepared to say unequivocally are on theological solid ground? We may each draw that line somewhere different (and I'm pretty "liberal" by CofC standards), but almost all of us who value orthodoxy would agree that there as some point where a line is crossed and one becomes a heretic. (Yes, "heretic" is a naughty word, connoting inquistions and burnings and crusades, but it also has a genuine dictionary definition, which is what I'm trying to use here.) As someone who counts Mormons, and Jews, and Catholics, and Episcopalians, and many others among those I love, what is the proper attitude to take toward our fellowship?

I think the best attitude I've been able to noodle out comes from St. Paul, in Romans 10:1-2. He writes: " Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. (NASB)" Paul is writing specifically about Jews here, but I think the principle applies across the board. If I arrive in heaven and see someone there that I wouldn't expect based on my limited theological understanding, I should be happy that God's grace worked it out better than I could have. And I have faith in God that he'll be perfectly just as well as perfectly merciful. However, that does not remove my responsibility to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, and doesn't give me an "anything goes" attitude. I can recognize that these "brothers" are in different circles without compromising either charity or orthodoxy.

But there's one more thing, and that's common cause in our lost world. Our culture is in the grips of a life-and-death struggle, and some of my staunchest allies in that fight are folks who may be in the outer circles of my fellowship. I recall what Winston Churchill said about his alliance with Stalin: "If Adolf Hitler were to invade Hell, I should find myself forced to ally with Satan." Likewise, if Satan and the forces of this world which he controls are on the march, I find myself quite willing to ally myself with those whose theology is outside my inner circle. So whether it is making common cause with my Catholic brothers on the issue of life, my Mormon brothers on traditional marriage and "family values," with South Carolina Episcopalians as they fight a rearguard effort against an assault on scripture from their own national denomination, or with Jews in Israel resisting radical Islam, I can gladly extend the hand of fellowship outside my immediate circle of table fellowship.

Anyway, that's my thinking this morning. Haven't posted anything too thought-provoking in a while. I wonder what my "brothers" (of all sorts) think?

The Forgotten Man

2009-03-08T17:50:00.002-05:00

Back at Valentine's Day, I wanted to buy Ann something romantic. Candy, jewelry, flowers, something like that. She told me she would prefer a George Foreman grill and a day of shopping at thrift stores with no kids. That's what passes for romantic after 23 years. Then she said, "While I'm out, can I get anything for you?" (translation--I haven't gotten you anything.) Not to be outdone in our race to the ultimate levels of boring gifts, I gave her two titles to pick up at Barnes and Noble--both history books. She dropped them back off before the big shopping trip got fully underway, so I was reading within the hour. The two books were Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff (which is AWESOME), and a new book on the Great Depression called The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes. This week, while on the bus ride to and from Orlando for our class trip, I got a chance to get into The Forgotten Man. (Yes, this is the kind of thing I read for fun.)

The main thesis of the book is that there have been two competing myths about FDR and the Great Depression, each of which is at least partially untrue. The myth of the left is that Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire, "do-nothing" Republican who sat on his hands from the great crash of 1929 until FDR came along in 1932. Then FDR boldly created the New Deal and saved us from the ravages of the depression, which is why he was so convincingly re-elected in 1936 (and again in 140 and 44). The myth of the right is that FDR didn't really do anything to help with the depression--that his interference actually prolonged it--and that his policies put America on a glide path to a socialistic welfare state. In this view, the real engine that fueled the economic recovery was WWII.

According to this new book, there's plenty of credit and plenty of blame to go around. Hoover was never one to "do nothing." He actually was considered a "progressive" within the Republican party of his time. Sadly, a lot of what he did (like a huge income tax hike and the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff) made things worse. But it is true that countries in Europe that tinkered LESS with their economies emerged from the depression long before we did. That said, FDR did both good and harm. His banking and financial regulations (the FDIC, the SEC, the bank holiday) were extremely helpful in stopping some of the immediate bleeding. And Social Security was a good idea (although the current mathematics of the program need some attention, but that's a post for a different day). However, FDR did not win his landslide victory in 1936 because he had returned prosperity to America (indeed, unemployment remained high throughout his first two terms, and the stock market didn't fully recover until the 1950s). He won because he created modern interest-group politics and gave lots of groups a reason to vote for him--not the least of which was the fact that every American got a letter from the new Social Security administration in the months before the 1936 election telling them of the new benefit which would send them a check for life. Hard to compete with that! Some of the other stuff he did was actually counterproductive--the centerpiece of the New Deal was the NRA for industry and the AAA for agriculture, both of which were eventually ruled unconstitutional. And one can argue that FDR's assault on capitalists was also an attack on capital itself... which therefore stayed on the sidelines rather than re-join the market and fuel a recovery.

Anyway, it's very interesting to watch the current economic news with an eye on the past. FDR's "brain trusters" saw the depression as a great opportunity to put a bold new program in place--reforms they had dreamed about for years. In some cases those reforms had their origins in Stalin's USSR or Mussolini's Italy (and in their defense, they did not yet have the information which later would prove those experiments to be bankrupt). It was striving after all these goals that took the focus off of recovery and quite possibly prolonged the depression. Now I see the Obama administration looking at our current financial crisis and seeing the opportunity to reform health care, education, and energy/enviromental issues. Those might all be nice ideas (I won't bother dealing with those arguments now), but nobody really thinks the reason the stock market is down 50% or unemployment is up right now has anything to do with our lack of a national health care plan. I'd rather see our priorities focus on things like the financial sector and housing. Those grand reforms could wait until the economy is stronger. But it worked for FDR--he managed to win elections long enough to preside over a recovery, and then he got credit not only for shepherding the country through the depression, but also for the bold new plans. Now he is widely seen as the third-best President, after Lincoln and Washington (of course, presiding over voctory in WWII contributes a lot to that ranking, as well). Maybe Obama's gamble will pay off for him in the history books. But that ignores the "Forgotten Man" who bears the brunt of a longer-than-necessary recession.

Going Negative on Obama-nomics

2009-03-03T18:54:00.002-05:00

I have tried and tried to stay above the fray and not join in on the daily drumbeat of shooting down President Obama's every thought. After all, he won, elections have consequences, and I'm pulling for the country, regardless of who's in power. But I've got some serious heartburn over the Obama Economic Plan. We'll leave aside for a minute my philosophical disagreements over whether it is actually based on sound theory; we can just stipulate that as a conservative with a bias toward supply-side economics, I'm going to have issues. But there's no need to be dishonest, and that's what has me mad--both the administration's dishonesty and the seeming inability or unwillingness on the part of our media watchdogs to point it out.

Let's start with the sales job for the stimulus a couple of weeks ago and the budget now. Less than a month ago, Obama sold the stimulus (all $800 billion of it) based on the idea that our current crisis was the worst since 1932, and that we were on the verge of utter economic collapse unless we passed a 1000+ page bill before anybody even read it. This week, we get his budget, which projects a decent growth in the economy next year and pretty robust growth thereafter, which will thereby fund all of his (HUGE) budget priorities. So which one was it? An unprecedented crisis, or a regular recession that's near-over already? Seems like that definition changes depending upon what we're being sold at the moment.

Then there's the deficit. We were told for 8 years that Bush's deficits in the $300-400 billion range were going to be the death of the country. This past year, Bush ended his presidency by signing the $700 billion TARP bill on top of that (and on a side note--for him to do so rather than kick the can into Obama's term was something he'll never get credit for), so we got a hugely inflated deficit of over a trillion dollars. Obama follows up with his stimulus and budget package and a deficit of something like $1.75 trillion. But, he announces that he's going to "cut the deficit in HALF" by the end of his first term--and the news applauds him! Hey--a math genius I may not be, but even I can see that getting the deficit DOWN to near-double what Bush did for 7 of his 8 years is not a good thing. Oh, and if the economy recovers at anything close to the pace he projects, we can grow to that point without even doing much of anything. At which time Newsweek will probably run a cover piece on how Obama kept his bold promise, and is a "true fiscal conservative."

Then there's the budget itself. Remember how, on the campaign trail, then-candidate Obama said he would go line-by-line through the budget and find tons of savings? Well, his budget gets "savings" from two main places: raising taxes on high earners and ending the Iraq War. Well, in my house, if I get a raise, I don't count it as "savings." And to estimate you're going to "save" billions of dollars by not spending on Iraq for the next ten years is just crazy--even if Bush had a third term, those troops were coming home by the end of 2012 anyway. Obama will save maybe 18 months of Iraq expenses if he sticks to his mid-2010 exit date. I should use that same math on my family budget. I'll just assume I would have taken a $5000 cruise every summer until my kids are all out of school. Then I'll write a budget without those cruises I was never going to take in it. Voila! I just saved $40,000! That will almost get my retirement plan out of the toilet!

OK. Politicians play numbers games. I'm more-or-less OK with that. But unless you read National Review, listen to Rush Limbaugh, or watch Fox News, NOBODY in the mainstream media is calling him on these fuzzy numbers. And let's be honest here--is there anybody with three brain cells out there who believes that if McCain had won and the stock market was 2000+ points down since his election, he wouldn't be getting just crucified? What set me off to write this was making the mistake of watching NBC news tonight. Honest--you can't make stuff up this good--they followed the news of the DOW dropping below 6800 (for the first time since 1997, a drop of over 50% from a little over a year ago) with a feel-good story about how much confidence Obama was inspiring, and even compared Michelle Obama to Eleanor Roosevelt! If people have so much doggone confidence, how come my net worth is down almost a third??

I guess I'm still reasonably happy he won the election. I can imagine if McCain had won and the economy had done anything like it has so far the last month (and the first month of Obama's presidency has been the worst of any president since 1932, so it may not have even been this bad), the drumbeat of negativity from the media would have probably driven us completely off the cliff. At least with Obama in the White House, we don't have to worry about the media talking down a recovery (unless, of course, it's necessary to sell a huge spending bill, but then they can turn on a dime). And at least now I can say I didn't vote for this phony. (Full disclosure--I think McCain would have screwed me over economically, too, and then I'd only have myself to blame... but at least my tax dollars wouldn't be funding abortions and we wouldn't be climbing all over ourselves to kowtow to the Russians, but that's another post.) I survived the first Jimmy Carter presidency, so I can do another one.

Buddy, Daddies, and Dirty Harry

2009-02-28T10:44:00.002-05:00

This past week we finally had to put Buddy, our 14-year-old dog, to sleep. He was crippled and incontinent, and it was time. The process didn't take very long, but holding him while he died was one of the harder jobs I've had to do. There was never a question of who would take him. And when the vet asked, "do you want to be present?" there was never a question that I would say no. I'm the Daddy, so it was my job.

This week, AMC network has run all 5 Dirty Harry movies over and over again. I happened to be flipping channels early in the week when the original show was on, and heard "why do they call him Dirty Harry?" The answer: "He gets every dirty job that comes around." When you get married and have kids, it's easy to see some of the benefits to being a Christian husband and father. You're the "head of the household." You're "spiritual leader of the home." You have "God-given authority." Although you may be too polite to actually use the word, you're well aware that Ephesians 5 orders "submission" to your leadership. To quote Mel Brooks from History of the World, Part I, "it's good to be the king."

But there's fine print in that contract. So long as I'm dropping pop-culture references like Dennis Miller on speed, it's best summed up in the quote from Spider-Man's Uncle Ben: "with great power comes great responsibility." Being the Daddy means being the bad guy who says the final "no." It's being the one who has to say (and mean) "this spanking hurts me more than it hurts you." It's little stuff like being stuck with the crust of every half-eaten sandwich, or passing up the last donut so every kid gets the same number. And it means cradling your crippled dog while his life slips away. Someday, it'll mean putting Mary Elizabeth's hand in the hand of some boy who's almost (but not quite) good enough for her and saying, "her mother and I do."

Someone else wrote about being the king besides Mel Brooks. C.S. Lewis, in The Horse and His Boy, puts it this way, as old King Lune explains to his twin sons what it means for the eldest to wear the crown:

"Hurray! Hurray!" said Corin. "I shan't have to be King. I shan't have to be King. I'll always be a prince. It's princes have all the fun."
"And that's truer than thy brother knows, Cor," said King Lune. "For this is what it means to be King: to be first in every desperate attack and last in every desperate retreat, and when there's hunger in the land (as there must be every now and then in bad years) to wear finer clothes and laugh louder over a scantier meal than any man in your land."

Having taught nearly 1500 students, I've seen lots of kids without Daddies, plus many with not very good ones. And it must be said, God can equip single moms to do a very good job with His help. But that's a backup plan. God's original, best plan for the family still works best, in spite of all the input to the contrary from our culture. I pray I'm a good Daddy. And I pray that my boys learn the proper lessons of how to be a Daddy from my example.

Thoughts on the Stimulus Package

2009-02-14T10:52:00.002-05:00

Well, the biggest single spending bill in US history seems to have passed. Counting debt service, we're looking at $1.2 trillion. I read somewhere that you could have spent a million bucks per day since Jesus was born and still not have reached that number by now. The big question remains--will it actually stimulate the economy?

Some of it probably will. The Keynesian model of deficit spending as economic pump-priming does have some merit. Sadly, most of the spending is pegged to happen out in the future, by which time the recession we're in may be over naturally anyway. Indeed, consumer spending was up just a hair in January (not that it can't drop again). As a guy who more favors the supply-side model of economics, I was hoping for stimulative effects from the tax cuts in the bill, but the final draft comes out to only about $13 a week in tax relief for the average family (dropping to $8 in January).

Some have said in the past that the Bush Administration used the genuine crisis of 9/11 to push through the Patriot Act, enacting a grab-bag of neocon wishes using fear as an engine to get it through. I see this bill as the reverse--getting almost every liberal dream since LBJ passed so fast that there's no time to even read the whole bill while taking advantage of the fear factor of the current economy. The big differences were that the Patriot Act was passed with truly bipartisan support (300+ votes in the house, 98-1 in the senate) and included sunset provisions that had to be revisited in 5 years. This one was passed without a single genuine Republican vote (Collins, Snowe, and Specter in the senate are statistical outliers), and the effects will be with us forever. One thing you can be sure of--once government spending goes up, it never comes back down. This spending will form the new "baseline" for budget scoring from here on out. We're looking at enormous deficits as far as the eye can see.

Now, I've heard the argument that conservatives have no room to talk about deficits, as Reagan was the first president to run up a huge one, and George W. Bush similarly increased the deficit. Thrown in there for good measure is the fact that in between them, Bill Clinton actually ran a surplus. Let's examine these points.

First, Reagan DID run a huge deficit. We'll leave aside discussions of shared responsibilty for spending with the congress (Tip O'Neill and the Democrat-controlled house didn't much like budget cuts, either) and just posit that all the fault lies at the feet of Reagan's huge spending increase on the military. Fine. How did that come out? No Berlin Wall, no USSR, no Cold War. If you had offered any sane observer the option of winning the Cold War on credit in the mid 1980's we'd have taken it. Any of my older readers remember the 1987 movie The Day After? How about 1983's Wargames? Maybe Red Dawn? Rocky IV? Sting's 1986 single I Hope The Russians Love Their Children, Too? My childhood was consumed with legitimate fears of nuclear annhilation. My kids think that's ancient history. Considering the trade-off, I won't criticize the Reagan deficits.

Then there's Clinton. Again, it's true that the budget ran a surplus for a short time when he was in office. Was it because he was so fiscally responsible? Not really. After 1994 the Gingrich Republicans in the house held his feet to the fire in terms of responsibility, but even that didn't do it. Clinton had the unique opportunity to slash the defense budget after the Cold War ended (The "Peace Dividend"). Little did we know we would have use for a military again pretty soon. He also managed to preside over the birth of the internet and the dot-com boom. It's simple math--revenue up + spending down = balanced budget. Whether or not Clinton personally deserves the credit, those look like good days.

Then comes Bush. The question facing him is what to do with the surplus. By definition, if the federal government is bringing in more than they spend, that means people are paying more than they need to in taxes. He makes the call to return the stimulus to the taxpayers as a tax cut. At the time, I agreed with that philosophically. And I have much enjoyed the extra cash in my pocket. BUT... we didn't foresee the bursting of the dot-com bubble or 9/11 and the resulting increases in spending. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, I'd have rather that "extra" revenue gone toward a national "Dave Ramsey Rainy Day Fund." And face it: "compassionate conservative" Bush was no fiscal hawk. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D... he spent way too much. And yes, the Republicans in congress went along with it. This has damaged their standing to criticize now.

But here's the thing--if Bush was wrong to spend so much, and that's part of the problem, then how is the solution to do much more of the same? Or, conversely, if deficit spending is such a good idea for stimulus, then wasn't Bush doing a GOOD thing? You can't have it both ways.

OK. Back to now. I think the stimulus package is a crap sandwich. But that's the breaks. Obama and the democrats won, they've got the votes, and they get to lead. And I'm not convinced that if McCain had won that we'd be seeing any better. I can imagine a fantasyland where Mitt Romney had somehow won the GOP nomination and become president and the terms of the debate were much different (even though I didn't support Romney back in the primaries). But old Mr. "Bipartisan Maverick" likely would have embraced a similarly bad bill in his never-ending quest to reach across the aisle, and then the GOP would have had to go along or buck their own president.

So what to do? Nothing different. Pay down debt. Spend less that you make. Save. Give. Work as hard and as effectively as you can, which is the best recipe for job security. Whining doesn't help. Pray for our country.

Retroactive Fairness?

2009-02-03T09:00:00.002-05:00

There's been a little debate going on in the comments section of many right-of-center political blogs ever since the election about what is the proper way for the "loyal opposition" to treat President Obama. On the one hand, some say (and this is the group that garners my personal sympathies) that we don't want to continue the same level of vitriol that was directed at President Bush for 8 years (and, in fairness, that was also common during the Clinton administration). After 2 full terms of feeling treated unfairly, some of us on the right want to show that we can be more grown-up than that. Yet there are others who take the opposite tack. Some say, "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Others just want to use the modified Golden Rule--do unto others the same thing they did unto you. And still others say that refusing to play dirty is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight, a kind of unilateral disarmament. The other side, they say, has reaped the benefits of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" for almost a decade, and those are the new rules of the game.

Anyone who reads this blog should be able to see that I've been trying to take the high road for some time. And I don't want to be one of those who lowers the level of discourse. But I am very frustrated right now, especially with what I perceive to be a serious double-standard in the news media. Maybe it's just me, but I have this nagging feeling that if George W. Bush had nominated even ONE tax-cheat to his cabinet, he'd be getting it with both barrels (especially if that one was either going to be the boss of the IRS or his tax problems involved a limo). Yet Obama has TWO, and if you don't read National Review or watch Fox News, the silence is deafening. And how in the bloody heck did Geithner get more votes for confirmation than John Roberts???? Combine Geithner and Daschle with people like Chris Dodd and Charles Rangel and you begin to think that Leona Helmsley was in the wrong business. Likewise, if Bush had signed an executive order that "closed" Gitmo, but in reality just kicked the can down the road for a year or more, I don't think there would have been nearly the love-fest we got when Obama did the same. And now that the Obama administration has decided to continue the practice of "rendition" of terrorists (that is, sending the nastiest ones to foreign countries that don't have inconveniences like the Bill of Rights or prohibitions on torture), I'm still waiting in vain for someone (anyone?) on the left to call him a torturer like they did Bush. Indeed, I'd be willing to argue that rendition is a good bit more serious than waterboarding. But all of a sudden there is a great amount of chin-stroking in the media (and even human rights groups) about how difficult and complicated it is to keep the country safe.

But I'm also conflicted. I know you can't unring a bell. The media can't go back now and undo all their old reporting on Bush and company. And I really DON'T want to try to even it up by treating the new guy just as unfairly. Since I thought a lot of the hand-wringing about Bush's culpability for Katrina was overwrought, I am not now secretly hoping that Obama gets raked over similar coals for ignoring the ice storm in Kentucky. But I just wish someone would come out and say that these "new" rules are going to be the same for everybody from here on out, and not just be a blatant and eternal double-standard. I'd be fine with saying that we can call it even--"we" impeached Clinton (although he certainly helped), "they" savaged Bush (and again, he didn't do anything to make it too difficult). But the refs can start calling a fair game anytime now.

My Birthday Blog

2009-01-31T09:27:00.004-05:00

OK, so I'm now 40. I think it was my sister-in-law who pointed out over a week ago that this is no big deal, as I've been mentally 40 since I was 17. I'm overwhelmed at how great my family and friends have been; my mother-in-law had a treat for me every day this week (40 cookies, 40 doughnut holes, etc.), my sister brought balloons and a cake to my classroom yesterday, probably 20 of my colleagues joined me to celebrate after work yesterday (in an outing arranged entirely by my awesome wife), and about 20 more have expressed good wishes through calls, text messages, emails, and facebook. This morning I awoke to find that my daughter has made a banner and a homemade card. I must say, this is a whole lot better than we did at 39 (and I guess won't be repeated until the half-century mark)!

In keeping with the recent theme of my blogging, I thought I'd peek back across the last 10 years and see what my 30's have looked like.

I've run 5069 miles since turning 30, including several races (but none recently). One of those races (back at 30) was a faster 5k than I ran at the state finals in high school, and will likely be retired as my "PR" (personal record). I hope to approach that level in age-adjusted terms in the next decade.
I have drank approximately 912 gallons of coffee (assuming about a quart each day for 10 years). That means I've gotten 5.6 miles per gallon!
I've read the Bible cover-to-cover 6 times, 7 if you discount the major prophets (sometimes it's just tough to get through Ezekiel).
I've become a father for the third time (and the last).
I've seen both my sons baptized.
I've taught approximately 900 students (150 in my last year at Garrett, 75 a year for 10 years at Porter-Gaud).
My oldest students have themselves turned 30. Many are married and have kids. My first 7th graders will graduate from college this year. I have former students (and athletes I coached) in Ivy-League Schools, in the Navy SEALs, in college athletics, playing professional basketball in Europe, teaching school, coaching, and recently one made a perfect score on the SAT.
I've won a public-school conference track championship and 2 SCISA state titles. I've coached 18 individuals and relay teams to state titles.
I've been to a former team captain's wedding and another's funeral.
I've been to Disney World twice.
I've travelled 7000 miles cross-country in an RV.
I've left the USA for the first (and 2nd) time, taking my first cruise to the Bahamas and spending 2 weeks in Rome.
I have lived in 4 houses (one of which was a rental). I hate moving.
I have owned 4 minivans. I have never sold or traded in a vehicle (they've been given away, wrecked, or towed away, but I've never had a vehicle with a dime's resale value when I was done with it).
I've blogged 226 times, including today.

That's about enough, I guess. I look back with a sense of general satisfaction. If you've been reading this blog long enough, you know I love the movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." Now, I'm no George Bailey, but with the perspective of a little hindsight, I can say it really has been a wonderful decade.

Busy Week

2009-01-20T15:39:00.002-05:00

Just in case you think I have fallen down on my blogging (or my running) this week, it's a little bit insane right now. Today: meeting in just a minute, basketball games until 10 PM. Tomorrow: Jacob has a game. Thursday: Middle School Play. Friday: More home games, another 10 PM night. Saturday: One or both boys play, and I'm not even sure which one yet. So I'll fit in what I can this week and be happy to get it.

However--Bible reading still 20-for-20 this year.

The good news: this craziness will pass. The bad news: starting next week is the annual time when track season overlaps with basketball season. Nothing I haven't done before, but every year gets a bit tougher.

MLK Day

2009-01-19T11:34:00.002-05:00

We get today off for the "observed" birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His 80th birthday would have been the 15th. Yesterday, my daily Bible reading was in Genesis chapter 37, the story of Joseph. There is a quote from that story which is incribed on a plaque at the site of Dr. King's assassination at the Lorraine Motel, in Memphis (now the National Civil Rights Museum). It's where Joseph's brothers are planning to kill him. They said "Here cometh that dreamer. Let us slay him..., and we shall see what will become of his dreams." (Gen 37:19-20)

I'm a big fan of Dr. King. Of course, he was not a perfect man, and some of his personal failings have been well-documented. But he is one of the genuine heroes of modern American history. It is serendipitous that this week in class my students will be studying the Civil Rights Movement. How nice that it comes in a week in which we've seen Dr. King's birthday, as well as the inauguration of our first black president. What will become of his dreams, indeed!

"Time Power" for Becky

2009-01-19T10:39:00.002-05:00

I've mentioned before my long-time fascination with DayTimers and goal-setting, going back to 1987 when I was a fraternity pledge in good ol' Delta Upsilon and an alumnus introduced the concept. I got a coupon that night for 3 months of free DayTimer refills, and I haven't been without a planner since. That free sample also came with some little cards that referenced the Time Power planning system, based on a book by Charles Hobbs. I read the book, and it remains my favorite book on time management to this day. It's out of print now, but I got a used copy with a B&N gift card this Christmas.

As a parenthetical note--another of my favorite books on time is The 10 Natural Laws of Successful Time and Life Management, by Hyrum Smith. I'm pretty sure that Smith stole his stuff from Hobbs... the books are too similar for it to be coincidence, both authors are from Utah, and Hobbs book was published earlier. Smith went on to found the "Franklin Quest" company, which made a planner that looked suspiciously like a DayTimer, and later merged with Steven Covey's company that produced the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People to form the Franklin Covey corporation. But I digress.

Anyway, the key to Hobbs' system is what he calls "Unifying Principles." (Smith called them "Governing Values.") The idea is that you build a successful life like a pyramid. The base of the pyramid is conscious decision-making about what your principles and priorities are. Only when you know what you value (and in what order those principles are arranged) can you set long-term goals. The long-term goals form the next level up on the pyramid, and they, in turn, will spin off intermediate goals. Then, at the top of the pyramid is the daily stuff you write on your DayTimer page. For example, if one of your Unifying Principles is financial security, that may kick out the long-term goal to retire as a millionaire. From that naturally spins off intermediate goals like "set up 401-K" and "retire short-term debt." And from there comes the daily task of "pay $50 extra on visa bill." A real key to this system of thought is looking back at our decisions and asking, "is my walk matching up with my talk?" Anybody can SAY they value God or family or whatever above work or TV. But looking back at your expenditure of time and money will often give a clue as to what the reality is. And when there is "incongruence," as Hobbs puts it, the only two choices are to change what you say or change what you do.

One more aside--one of the things I like best about the "Time Power" model that is not covered as well in the other literature is the recognition that sometimes other people (like our boss) can have legitimate claims on our time and priorities. Although it may be necessary to make changes in our employment to bring our life into congruence, generally speaking, I don't get a chance to make progress toward my personal life goals when I'm on the clock at work. Most of what I'm talking about here is discretionary time.

Anyway, over in the post about my running log, Becky wrote that she's not quite sure what her goals should be. Let me suggest taking some time and working to figure out these "Unifying Principles." I did, probably 20 years ago. And my list has evolved very little over that time. Following is an abbreviated description of who I decided to be a long time ago. One note: these are GOALS. I make no claim as to being consistently successful in being the "me I want to be." I initially used one word for each of my principles, but each word carries some weight.

FAITH. The older I get, the more serious I get about this one. I say I put God first, and I try to mean it. And I believe that doing that makes everything else flow like it should ("seek ye first the kingdom of God, etc.")
FAMILY. After "love God," comes "love your neighbor." And my closest neighbors are my immediate family, followed by my extended family. I tell myself I would rather succeed in these first two areas and fail in all the others. Also, my role as "provider" is wrapped up in this one.
CHARACTER. This includes personal integrity, being a role-model for my kids, etc.
WISDOM. This is where my inner nerd comes in. My reading in everything from the Bible to biographies to track coaching manuals to political blogs is rooted here. But it's a conscious choice that "wisdom" is subordinate to "faith" and "character."
DISCIPLINE. I value this trait in myself and in others. It's what separates good intentions from doing what needs to be done. It's also an area of constant struggle.
SERVICE. I've thought many times that I ought to rename this one "stewardship." But it is a combination of not taking my many blessings for granted and seeking to use them constructively and not just selfishly.

Anyway, that's it. Lots of what I do is held up by these decisions made 20+ years ago. For example, my teaching and coaching is related to family (making a living), wisdom, discipline, and service. I hope my budgets are informed by faith (Biblical principles), family (again, responsibility for their well-being), wisdom, and discipline. My daily Bible reading is related to faith, wisdom, and discipline. And so forth. And when there is a conflict (say, between what looks like "wisdom" and the teachings of scripture), I decided a long time ago what order these items line up in.

One last thought. It's still possible to screw this up, if your principles are not grounded in TRUTH. There are plenty of folks out there who are just zipping along living lives in perfect congruence with faulty principles--materialism, racism, me-first. But that's a topic for another day.

Check Out My Awesome Wife!

2009-01-18T06:53:00.002-05:00

That is, check out my awesome wife's new blog. I figure most of the people who read my brain-droppings probably know about Ann's blogging, too. But just in case, I thought I'd advertise. She's made a resolution to photo-journal the entire 2009 calendar year. It's called "Project 365" and you can CLICK HERE to see what she's done so far. She's a great photographer. So far, two major themes are showing up--lots of pictures of food, and lots of shots taken in (or from) a speeding minivan.

The Tyrannny of the Log

2009-01-17T12:10:00.002-05:00

20 minutes. Maybe 21. That's all that separates a good from a bad week. Sometime before the close of business today, I need to run 2.5 miles (or more). That will achieve my goal of 4 runs this week, plus will put me at 12 total miles. A pitifully small number that I used to achieve in only one run. But 12 would be a step forward over last week's 10. The 9.5 I've currently logged this week are OK... I've gotten in one faster run (7:29 pace) and one "longer" run (30 minutes, try not to be too impressed). But if I don't get one more, the week goes down as a failure. Too bad it's so darned cold. But I'll get it. A sucessful year is a succession of successful weeks, and a successful week is a succession of successful days. And successful days are made, sometimes, 20 minutes at a time.