Politically Taking God's Name in Vain

“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Deuteronomy 5:11

Nothing frustrates me more than arguments made by Christians that we are somehow an oppressed group in the United States. Rick Perry’s latest ad is an example of what drives me so crazy about a politician pandering to some Christian voters who are ignorant enough about the facts to believe him. Oftentimes when discussing taking God’s name in vain, people are referring to those who use “God” or “Jesus Christ” as a curse word. However, I would submit that attempting to use God to falsely represent facts and to fake rage for a political argument is just as sinful. Worse, it creates an environment where actually sharing the Gospel becomes more difficult, because many people’s ideas about Christians come from people who argue as Perry does in this ad.



Myth: Obama is Waging a War on Religion
Seriously? Does Perry really think Obama is waging a war against religion? Never mistake a difference in political views as a war on religion. In America, we have no idea what a "war on religion" looks like. This charge by Perry is laughable if I didn't think many people will believe it. For anyone who questions Obama's Christian faith or his respect for religion, listen to Obama's "Call to Renewal" Speech given in 2006. Or see his White House celebrations of religious traditions, like Hanukkah, Easter and other celebrations. Christians can disagree with each other politically without accusing each other of "waging war." Perry references prayer in school (decided in 1962 by the Supreme Court when Obama was 1) as an example of Obama's war on religion. He also cites allowing homosexuals in the military as an assault on religion. These are political differences, not a war on faith. It's a shame that Perry has become so desperate as to resort to these accusations.

Myth: Kids can’t celebrate Christmas.
Where are kids not celebrating Christmas? Are students in school on Christmas day this year? No? You mean they’re off for two weeks to celebrate Christmas? This can’t be! Perry said we can’t celebrate Christmas. Oh, it’s described as a “Winter Break” so therefore they can’t celebrate Christmas? Calling it a winter break forces kids not to celebrate Christmas? That’s so ridiculous. And what are all these kids giving their teachers as presents this time of year? Winter presents? What are all the food drives and toy drives held by schools and organizations for? Winter Preparedness? Has Obama blocked "all-Christmas" radio waves from entering the schools? In order to avoid lawsuits and to include other Americans such as Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and others, school districts may refer to Christmas with the more generic “Winter” term, but why do some overreact and say that is somehow a war on religion? It's simply being respectful. When Perry says that kids can’t celebrate Christmas, he is either lying or ignorant. He’s also misrepresenting history and attempting to divide the American public.

Myth: Kids can’t pray in school
The Supreme Court ruled in Engel v Vitale that schools could not lead a compulsory prayer. It says nothing about children not being allowed to pray. Children pray in school every day - just show up on a test day. Or during the week when students gather during off-times to pray. Teachers pray in school every day. There are many teachers of faith who pray for their students by name every day. No one can stop a teacher from being in prayer for their students. Since when did Jesus require Christians to pray out loud over a speaker at the beginning of the school day? I seem to remember Jesus talking about entering a closet to pray. It is simply false to say that kids can’t pray in school. It’s a shame this falsehood continues to be told by Christians who should know better. One who believes God can be “taken out of school” or any other public place simply believes in a small god. One who is upset that a formal prayer can't be said at the beginning of the class day by the entire class misses the purpose of prayer in the first place. The moral decay in our society has no connection to whether students are led in a prayer before the school day. Instead of fighting for symbolic political victories, Christians should exert Christ’s love through their communities.

As a Christian myself, commercials like Perry’s make me sick to my stomach. It’s an attempt to falsely enrage a group for a political vote, and unfortunately, for some it will work. Perry’s ad misuses God’s name for political purposes. He cheapens Christian faith in the process. Hopefully, Christians will reject the false premises in the commercial and instead allow their words and actions to be a testimony to the love, mercy, and grace found in Jesus Christ.

Election 2012 - The Republican Field

In less than 14 months, the vote for the 2012 election will occur. In less than 4 months, the primaries will begin. With the economic conditions worse than 2008, President Obama appears to be very beatable. He is searching for any reason he can claim to be re-elected. It wouldn’t surprise me if one or two Democrats challenge him in the primary. But for right now, he is unopposed. So it’s time to turn attention to the challengers within the Republican primary. Much can change between now and January, but positions are beginning to solidify; however, I am reminded of my previous post here from 2007. On to the current participants:

Rick Perry (“The Aggie”) – Perry entered the debate the front-runner; however, his last debate performance was weak, so he needed a good showing tonight. He has a number of qualities going for him, but he seems to be weak in articulating his ideas. (It may be the Aggie in him). I have never been a Rick Perry fan. I did not support him for Governor, and I don’t care too much for his personality. But in a weird turn of events, I found myself supporting his candidacy for president over the others running. I admire Perry for defending his position on immigration, and I think he’s right. The Republican Party cannot continue to bash illegal immigration without continuing to lose the Hispanic vote. If the party loses the Hispanic vote, then welcome to becoming a minority party in the US. So, while Perry’s position is considered “soft” in a Republican primary, his position will play well among independents. However, he stumbled badly in saying that people who disagreed with him were “heartless.” Bad move – his campaign staff had to cringe at that point. In speeches, Perry seems to be adequate; however, he struggles with his words in debates, channeling Bush at times with the way he stumbles over words. While being a good debater is not a requirement to win an election, at this point in the campaign, these debates are the only chance many voters have to see the candidates. So as Perry struggles to articulate his positions, stumbles over a prepared attack on Romney, and wobbles on questions concerning foreign policy (see his answer on Pakistan), the momentum of his campaign halts and doubt enters into the minds of the voters as to how strong a candidate he is. It is evident that running for president was a recent decision, as he appears to still be trying to wing it in the debates. This has to change or he will fizzle out. In fact, he may already be fizzling. Another obstacle he faces involves convincing others that as another Texas governor who stylistically sounds like W, he will somehow be different. Of course, candidates need to earn trust of the voters. However, as an aggie, Perry must convince others that his promises and commitments will last longer than 10 months. Because, as we have learned about aggies, what they promise today may change tomorrow.

Mitt Romney (“The Overly Robotic One”) – I don’t get Mitt Romney. He’s trying way too hard to channel Reagan. But he is keeping some hair gel company in business. He gives very good answers and is extremely comfortable discussing a variety of issues. He appears to be sharp, but I get the impression that he has never struggled in life. Not that one has to, but I just wonder if he understands what people go through on a daily basis. Many of his answers seem cold. He’s polished, but he should be, he’s been running for president for over five years. However, fifteen years ago, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for Senate. He passed Romneycare which became the blueprint for Obamacare. As he began to run for president five years ago, he realized he had to change all his views. No matter how well he answers questions, I never really believe that he believes what he is saying. I think he knows what he needs to say and articulates it well, but he is very Dukakis like in his passion. He will probably be the nominee, but I just don’t get the appeal.

Michelle Bachmann (“Ms. Annoying”) – Bachmann has become insignificant. Stylistically, I cannot stand the end of Bachmann’s answers. After every answer, she squints her eyes, purses her lips, and smirks. On substance, she misrepresented history, taking the exchange between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson completely out of context. She tried to act like her accusation concerning Perry and HPV and harmful side-effects was never said. She tries to include the words “Tea Party” in every answer, and apparently she loves to say “innocent little girls” over and over. When she completes her answer, it seems like she says to herself, “Wow, that was really good. I’m proud of myself, people like me. By the way, does everyone remember that I created the Tea Party caucus in the House?”

Ron Paul (“The Crazy Uncle”) – I’m not going to waste much time on Paul. His supporters love him, but they aren’t many in number. For every good point he makes, he follows it up with an off-the-wall comment. He was strong in the debate last night, but he was not asked any foreign policy questions. Unlike Romney, I believe Paul believes every word he says.

Newt Gingrich (“The Professor”) – Newt is the smartest guy on the stage. He is articulate. And he is completely unelectable. It’s why Perry said that he wished he could mate Cain and Gingrich together to make a VP. Gingrich will find his way into the cabinet as Secretary of State in the next administration.

Herman Cain (“The-Guy-Everybody-Likes-But-Nobody-Thinks-Can-Win”) – The most confident, comfortable, articulate candidate on the stage. But when the moniker explains who he is, it reads “Former CEO of Godfather Pizza.” It is practically impossible for someone to go from a CEO of a company to the Presidency without any prior elected office experience. At the same time, everyone loves him. But since everyone also thinks he won’t win, he gets overlooked. Potentially a good VP candidate.

Rick Santorum (“The Guy Most Likely to Slash Someone’s Throat on Stage”) – Someone needs to buy a massage for Santorum. Or a drink. Or give him an aspirin so his pain goes away. He always looks angry. Relax, Rick. Take it easy. I know you have spent four years running for president and are frustrated that you are at one percent, but being angry isn’t helping you.

Jon Huntsman (“The Worst Joke Teller”) – Huntsman hopes his moderate appeal will help him in New Hampshire, which he hopes will propel him to the upper-tier. But Huntsman has hurt himself early on by attacking conservatives within the party. I like many of his positions on science and foreign policy, but he comes off as disingenuous much of the time. He is also really bad a trying to be funny as his attempts at humor always fall flat.

Gary Johnson (“The Stage Crasher”) – Did anyone know Gary Johnson was running for president? Did anyone know he was a former governor of New Mexico? I kept thinking that security accidentally let someone in last night, or that perhaps SNL had infiltrated the stage. But basically, Johnson is a younger Ron Paul. Not sure why he was included. But he had one of the best jabs of the night: “My neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs that Obama has.”

The Moderators: The job of a moderator should be clear – it’s your job to ask questions and moderate the debate. That’s it. I don’t care about word clouds, I am tired of YouTube questions, I’m not interested in how you decided the sound signal for the time limit. Just ask the questions. The less we see you, the better. You shouldn’t be so casual. Cut out the jokes. Stop giggling over your mistakes. Again, just ask the questions. You’re not running for president.

Conclusion: Romney won the debate, Perry lost. The others hope to be in the top three. Meanwhile, every day the pressure mounts on Chris Christie to get into the race. I don’t see anybody else who can shake up the field at this point.

Huckabee vs Padme and Her Young Skywalker

“One of the most troubling things is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet that boasts of, hey look, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having children and they’re doing just fine…” - Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee waded into some difficult political/cultural waters last week in questioning Natalie Portman’s pregnancy. Since she is engaged and not yet married, Huckabee felt the example she was setting of having a baby before marriage was troubling. His point was the fact that a leading indicator of poverty is single parenthood. However, he confuses his point by saying, “There aren’t really a lot of single moms out there that are making millions of dollars each year…Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and would not get healthcare.” He’s a little off on his statement. Most single moms are not poor. What he probably meant to say is that a higher percentage of single moms are in poverty (29%) than the national average (14%). So, a single mom is more likely to be in poverty than a married mom or a single dad, but “most” are not poor. So he exaggerated his argument a bit, but I understand the point he was trying to make. However, when a pro-lifer discusses pregnancy and bad examples, he or she must be very careful with the words chosen.

I wish Huckabee would have responded differently. The radio interviewer brought up Portman and mentioned that he thought it was a bad example. Then Huckabee responded with the quote at the top of this post. He could have responded more lovingly and positively. By doing so, his general point could have perhaps been better communicated to his audience. I wish he would have responded as follows:

“I would like to congratulate Natalie Portman on her engagement to her fiancé and their baby. I hope all is well and that the baby is healthy and that the delivery goes smoothly for her and the baby. This is definitely an exciting time for her. I am sure she would say the Academy Award pales in comparison to becoming a parent. Being a parent is a blessing; I wish her and her fiancé the best as they love and nurture their child and grow in their relationship as well.

“I am sure Natalie would also say how fortunate she is to be in a position where she can raise her child and not worry about finances, health care, or education. Because that is not always the case for new parents. And it is an issue our communities must address. Unfortunately, in our society, a single mom is twice as likely to live in poverty as a married mom. So we need to be mindful of the difficulties that single moms face. As someone who believes every life is of value, even life in the womb, I am grateful when women choose to give birth. Because, just as Natalie’s baby is a blessing, so is every child. So if we want to go a political route here, I think we as a society, in order to be truly pro-life, must address situations both pre-pregnancy and post-birth. We need to discuss sexuality with our children both in our churches and our schools, including sex education classes. We need to foster healthy marriages and set good examples for our children and others. We need to encourage adoption in certain circumstances and make the process more welcoming without compromising safety. We need to help poor single mothers acquire an education and develop skills that will allow them to support themselves and their families. And we need to hold the men accountable to support the children they bring into this world as well. Hopefully, with a holistic approach to this issue, we will not only lower the poverty level for single moms, but we will lower the rate of pregnancies for those not yet ready to be parents. Additionally, our overall economy will be strengthened and strains on our government will be lessened.”

I am not meaning to pick on Huckabee alone. I think he would agree with this criticism for the most part. Too often I hear people advocate for the pro-life position, only to criticize those who choose life. After all, Huckabee wouldn’t have complained about Portman’s single parenthood if she had an abortion seven months ago. But which would have been the larger tragedy? There’s just a slight disconnect there that needs to be addressed. As Christians, our reaction to single parenthood in general should be more loving and less condemning.

Significant Birthdays

There are various birthdays that are symbolic of aging/maturing/growing up. While no one ever pines for their 11th or 27th or 36th birthdays (these simply are “just another birthday” years), others are more significant. This has caused me to ponder which birthdays are the most symbolic and special. While I have experienced some of these myself, others I have to just conjecture as to their greatness. But I hope to celebrate all of these birthdays one day. Here are my Top 10 birthdays an individual can experience:

1. Sixteen – nothing compares to one’s 16th birthday. No one ever anticipates their "Sweet 32." No one ever sang “I am 28 going on 29.” Sweet Sixteen is the best birthday – the ability to have a driver’s license brings about the most freedom from one year to the next than any other birthday ever will. One goes from dependent on others for travel, to freely traveling. (Way too young, in my opinion.)

2. Twenty-one – this birthday signifies arrival to adulthood without the responsibilities of adulthood. Since one is usually still in college, this birthday allows the individual to feel like an adult without having to actually act like one. While I believe driver’s licenses are printed differently now, when I was 21, the “Under 21” stamp was officially null and void, adding to the perks of this birthday.

3. Fifty – half a century ranks as the 3rd greatest birthday year. A person can celebrate being alive for half a century, and, if in shape, can still feel young, yet can begin to get all the benefits of the elderly through AARP, discounts on meals, etc. At 50, one suddenly seems wiser than everyone 49 and younger.

4. Thirty-five – I could easily flip 50 and 35 in the rankings, but will choose to keep 35 here at #4. Our Founding Fathers, in crafting the Constitution, deemed 35 as the appropriate age for a President of the United States. I figure if Ben Franklin and James Madison thought 35 was a good age, then it must be a good age. At 35, one can run the country. To me, that is quite significant and special. A landmark birthday for sure.

5. Eighteen – It surprised me that 18 fell so low on my rankings. We do receive the right to vote at age 18, which to me is a very big deal; however, so few 18 year olds vote, so this must not be quite the perk that I think it is. It may be that being able to purchase tobacco outranks voting for many 18 year olds. I know one graduates from high school typically at age 18, but not on one’s birthday, so graduation from high school cannot contribute to the 18th birthday ranking. It is still significant though, as 18 is the unrecognized age of adulthood. Everyone over 55 considers 18 to be an adult, while everyone under 55 knows that 18 is far from adulthood.

6. One-hundred – This ranking definitely is dependent on one’s health, but to live a century is surely significant. Plus, Smuckers wishes you a happy birthday when you turn 100. However, turning 100 represents just 1% of one’s birthdays, so perhaps it falls lower on the birthday rankings. Still, a landmark that cannot be ignored.

7. Seventy-eight point four. The current life expectancy in the US is 78.4. When one reaches that age, there must be a feeling of accomplishment. However, it is difficult on a 12 month calendar to celebrate a .4 birthday. But still, if I reach my life-expectancy birthday, it will be a day of celebration that will rank in my top 10.

8. One – While a 1 year old will not remember his/her birthday, this remains the only birthday where it is cute to smash an entire cake all over your face and body. For that alone, it makes the Top 10.

9. Seventeen – One can purchase a ticket to a rated R movie. As a 17 year old, this was a big deal.

10. Whatever one’s current birthday is – While it makes little statistical sense, every birthday has to be on the Top 10 list. Being alive is a pretty good thing. I’m sure every year has its benefits and significance – 25 and car insurance(for guys), 30 and leaving the Twentysomethings, 10 and double digits, 65 and retirement, 29 and being a prime number, etc. So I’ll reserve the tenth spot for every birthday. It’s good to be alive.

Peace

I have always loved this song. This arrangement, which our church did this morning, is very powerful. This morning, this song convicted me in a new way. It brought tears to my eyes thinking about the millions and millions who do not experience "peace on earth." We should be bringing peace - to war torn nations, to poverty stricken families, to those suffering from domestic abuse and violence. We can't just wish peace into reality. We can't just ignore places where there is no peace. We, as Christians, are called by Christ to be peacemakers. I believe this peace is twofold. Peace in our souls and peace in our communities and world. At His birth, the angels called for "peace on earth." Yet today, our world is far from peace. What does it mean to be a peacemaker? At Christmas, I often think about love, joy, and hope. Those seem fairly easy to accomplish or at least to grasp. But peace seems much more daunting a task to me. So, what am I doing to bring "Peace on Earth"?

Claw and Antler Time

Now that the Texas Rangers are post-season bound, it is time to look back at my 2010 prediction. At the beginning of the season, after assessing the Rangers’ pitching and line-up and comparing them to the rest of the AL West, I predicted a 79-83 record and a 3rd place finish in the Division. Thankfully, I was off by 11 wins. Last Saturday, when the Rangers clinched the West was a happy, happy day. My kids are tired of me reminding them that the Rangers have made the playoffs.

What about the season? If at the beginning of the season I had said that Scott Feldman and Rich Harden would combine for a 12-16 record, Josh Hamilton would barely play the last month of the season, Nelson Cruz and Ian Kinsler would spend multiple stints on the DL, Vlad would hit .200 in July, Derek Holland would still be struggling, Saltalamacchia would be off the team, Chris Davis would hit .192 with 1 home run, and our catching would be pathetic offensively, I would expect this to be a down year. But somehow, in the magic that is 2010, the Rangers have taken all of that and come close to meeting Nolan Ryan’s expectation of 92 wins. Not only that, but they held a double digit lead in the West over the other three teams and may possibly possess the MVP, Manager of the Year, and Rookie of the Year.

So what of my prediction? My misses:
1. I assumed the Rangers’ starters needed a minimum of 70 wins to be postseason bound. This year, the starters went 58-51. What has compensated for this is that a number of relievers have more wins than all but three of our starters. Our starters have kept us in games that our offense has been able to win late. The 58 wins are 12 less wins than our starters had last year.

2. Scott Feldman. While I made allowance that last year was a fluke, I still predicted that he “had found his groove” and would win 16 games. Instead, he is 5-9 as a starter and 7-11 overall. He’s been terrible.

3. Wilson. I predicted a sub .500 pitcher. He has instead been the staff ace. While I don’t know if he has enough gas to make it through the postseason, he has certainly been a pleasant surprise for me this year.

4. Lewis. I did not expect him to be on the team for long this year. However, with a little run support, he could easily have 16 or 17 wins. If the offense had performed for Lewis and Lee, the starters would have been much closer to the 70 win mark.

5. AL West. I thought the West would be a good division. While my 79 win prediction would have earned the Rangers 3rd place, they would have only been 2 games out of first. The Angels underperformed, the As were pretty much what they should be, and Seattle was pathetic. The lineup they ran out there each night was awful.

My hits:
1. I predicted the failure of Rich Harden. Although, he has been even worse than I predicted.

2. Catcher and 1st base. I questioned the legitimacy of any of our first basemen and catchers. While the Rangers made trades to deal with these positions, the offense has still been lagging. I wouldn’t be surprised if the offensive production by our catchers and first basemen was the worst in the league. However, the postseason starts everything over again, so maybe this will change.

3. I questioned the overall health of the team: most notably, Hamilton and Kinsler. While it appears most of the team is now getting healthy, important pieces have been out significant time. Most alarmingly though is the current Josh Hamilton situation. Without a healthy Josh, our postseason offense is much weakened. And the guy who picked up the slack for Josh, David Murphy, is now nursing an injury. The health of the team is still a big concern going into the postseason. Hopefully Josh is healthy.

4. Hunter. I predicted he would be a great success, which for the most part he has been.

5. I thought the new ownership could make some moves to improve the team, which they have. Aside from Christian Guzman, they have made solid trades to go for it this year. That’s exciting. And it has made them better, given them a solid ace for the postseason, and kept the locker room a positive place. This is a fun team to root for.

So, I don’t know how they did it. When one looks at the offensive holes, the pitching record, and the shaky health of the team, one can only believe that this has truly been a magical year. A walk-off wild pitch, walk-off HBP, and walk-off strikeout are three examples of the baseball magic at the Ballpark. The steady leadership of Ron Washington should certainly receive a lot of credit. He has kept this young team calm, has weathered an unsettled ownership mess, and has really personified the team’s ability to come each day ready to win. While he may not be the best in-game manager, he deserves a lot of credit for where this team is. Without an unsettled ownership situation over the past year, Wash may not have survived as the manager. But he has won my respect for the way he leads the team. Josh Hamilton has been the best player in baseball. Through the Rangers’ tough stretches, Josh carried the team. I hope he can have a monster postseason. It will be a shame if the last month keeps him from being league MVP.

My postseason prediction: They will end their 9 game postseason losing streak, win at least their first postseason series, and quite possibly ride the claw and antlers all the way to the World Series win.

More specifically: Rangers will defeat the Rays 3-1. Then defeat the Twins 4-3. The defeat the Phillies 4-3 with Cliff Lee winning 3 games in the series.

Theology of a Three and Five Year Old

Every night when I tuck the girls into bed, they always ask me to sing the “Daddy Song.” I’m not sure how it came to be the “Daddy Song,” but “You Are God Alone” is the actual title. The chorus says:

“You are God Alone
From before time began
You were on Your throne
And You were God alone
And right now
In the good times and bad
You are on Your throne
And You are God alone.”

We have been singing this song at bedtime for at least a year now. But a couple of nights ago, as I was finishing up the song, Tessa, with a concerned look on her face, said, “God is not alone, he’s with Jesus.” And Claire added, “He’s also with us and everybody and every animal on earth too. He’s even with people in heaven!”

I love it. Obviously, they were hearing the song as if God were all alone, but still, I love that Tessa’s compassionate heart wanted to make sure God was not alone. And I love that Claire knows God is with her – and even with people in heaven! I like that Claire’s first reaction is to know that the God of the universe is concerned about her. He’s not just a far away God, but one that is here on earth with her.

Faith like a child. It’s beautiful. And inspiring.

Christians, Mosques, Ground Zero, Oh My!

I am a Christian, an American, and a political conservative. Because of this identity, I believe the group that wishes to build a Muslim center near Ground Zero has every right to do so. Those Christians who are political conservatives and are objecting to the mosque are failing to apply basic values to this issue. What I heard this morning on a local talk radio station was appalling. A host was calling people “stupid” and “dummies” for not objecting to the mosque. He couldn’t understand how any American would defend the building of the mosque, or religious center, near Ground Zero. Here’s why I do not oppose, and why I do defend, an Islamic group’s decision to construct a center near the site of the World Trade Center.

As I have already stated, I am a Christian. More specifically, I am a Baptist. Therefore, I believe in religious liberty. In this country, we should always protect religious rights – no matter the religion. Our Founders believed such. And Baptists at the time were the biggest supporters of religious liberty. Our Constitution and other founding documents protect our rights. Most importantly, these rights are protected for each individual, whether in the majority or minority. In this country, we don’t believe that the majority should be able to suppress the rights of others. We believe in majority rule with minority rights. No matter what the majority believes, certain rights of the individual will always be protected. One of those rights is free exercise of religion. If we allow society to restrict one group from worshiping where they wish, what stops the government from restricting others? Instead of protesting the building on an Islamic center near Ground Zero, we should be celebrating the ability of our country to protect and allow for religious freedom. As a Christian, I should cherish the idea that in America, we have the freedom to build multiple places of worship.

As a conservative, I believe in limited government. There are certain powers that the government should not have, especially in relation to our property rights. If a group owns a piece of land and they want to construct something legal on that land, the group should be allowed to do so. Conservatives talk about how the government seems too powerful today, reaching into our lives and telling us what to eat, what to drive, what kind of health insurance we should have, how much of our paycheck we need to fork over, etc. Yet, here is a case where these same conservatives think the government should tell a group of people what they should or shouldn’t do with their land. As a political conservative, I should champion the ability of a group to use private land for legal purposes, rejecting calls for the government to intervene.

Certainly, there are Muslims who think that building a mosque or religious center near Ground Zero is a bad PR move, and I may agree with that. But it also might be a bad PR move to build a mega-church in the middle of a neighborhood, or go door-to-door evangelizing during dinner time, or tell people Jesus is the Way, but because of religious liberty, we allow these practices. And I am thankful for that. If we could use Bill and Ted’s phone booth to go back in time, we should go ask Balthasar Hubmaier, as he is being burned at the stake for practicing believer’s baptism, if we should allow for minority faiths, (even faiths seen by some as threatening to society, as Hubmaier’s Anabaptists were), to construct a place of worship on private land in a country that claims to defend religious liberty.

UT=Smoke Monster, A&M=Benjamin Linus

One of the issues in “Lost” was the ability of some to manipulate others – the long con, the wormhole, the ability to have others do one’s dirty work. Now, I have already compared the saga in the Big XII to Lost in the sense that Nebraska jumping ship was equivalent to Desmond pulling the obelisk out of the shiny pool, creating mass chaos on the island. But there is another parallel for the Big XII and Lost. (Warning: many holes in this parallel, I admit, but it’s not like “Lost” didn’t have plenty of holes too.) Think of this as a “flash-sport-sideways.” In “Lost: the Big XII,” playing the part of the Smoke Monster is UT. A&M has been cast as Benjamin Linus.

Dan Beebe and a new TV contract may play the role of the obelisk, but make no mistake, the evil Smoke Monster is currently calling the shots on the Big XII island. And it is doing a masterful job as well. The Smoke Monster knows Benjamin Linus, the Smoke Monster has conned and manipulated Linus before, the Smoke Monster calls the shots, the Smoke Monster wreaks havoc across the island by flirting with other conferences, attempting to find an escape from Big XII island. But the Smoke Monster is crafty. He is able to use Benjamin Linus as his pawn to do his dirty work. Benjamin Linus holds the knife, Benjamin Linus stabs Jacob in the heart, Benjamin Linus is blamed for Jacob’s death. Benjamin Linus feels all the guilt. Meanwhile, on Big XII island, the Smoke Monster has the ability to become the hero, or attempted hero, no matter what, while cashing in huge. This Smoke Monster is superior to the Smoke Monster on the TV show. Let me explain.

UT wants more money. UT flirted with other conferences. UT can leave the Big XII. But the political fallout from killing the Big XII will be immense. So, UT cons A&M. UT acts as if it wants to save the inhabitants of Big XII island. (Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, and Missouri can fight over who plays the parts of Claire and Sayid, they willingly would follow the Smoke Monster anywhere, even if he is not planning on bringing them off the island with him.) In order to maintain political clout in the state and psychological dominance over poor Benjamin Linus (A&M), The Smoke Monster (UT) gives the knife to Ben. Here’s the con. UT wants more money without being the bad guy. Leaving for the Pac-10 without at least acting as if they want to save the Big XII would be bad, so now that A&M appears to be close to going to the SEC, UT sets them up. The Smoke Monster claims good intentions: “I want to save everyone, I promise. But it’s out of my hands.” If A&M plunges the knife into the heart of Jacob, then A&M is the bad guy for causing the death of the Big XII and forcing the break-up of the conference. If UT forces A&M to stay, then UT is the savior of the Big XII, until a better opportunity becomes available, makes more money, and continues to psychologically dominate A&M. UT in fact, would become the flash-sport-sideways version of Jack Shepard, too. Only UT could play the role of Smoke Monster and Jack Shepard at the same time. (It can be maddening.) In “Lost: The Big XII,” A&M loses no matter what. If they leave, they are responsible for the Big XII’s demise. (And they will be trounced in the SEC.) If they stay, they are under the influence of the Smoke Monster. Either way, A&M cannot escape its inferiority to UT. UT has outplayed A&M, not just on the field this time, but in the political maneuvering. It’s another brilliant move by the Smoke Monster.

The one hope for A&M: it turns out Benjamin Linus had a soul after all. However, even after the Smoke Monster was gone, Linus still played second fiddle.

My 2010 Ranger Prediction

Lifelong Ranger fans have experienced more agony than triumph. We are constantly teased with “wait until next year,” “a bat away,” “look at all this pitching coming,” “DVD,” etc. For a while now, the organization has pointed to 2010 as the breakout year. With Hicks selling the team, young talent beginning to blossom, and a strong season in ’09, many prognosticators believe 2010 will be the Rangers’ year to claim the West. Nolan Ryan expects it, Josh Hamilton predicts it, local writers seem to hope for it. So will this be the fourth season the Rangers make the playoffs?

According to the late Johnny Oates, in order to make the playoffs, the starting rotation for a MLB team must average 15 wins per starter. In other words, a team’s starters should win 75 games. That total allows the bullpen realistically to pick up additional wins which will put the team into the playoffs. Looking over the stats of the three playoff teams, he’s pretty much right on. In 1996, the starting rotation (Hill, Pavlik, Witt, Oliver, Gross, and Burkett) had 77 wins, or 15.4 wins per pitcher in a 5 man rotation. That was arguably the best Ranger team in the last 20 years. The 1998 starters (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Oliver, Loaiza, Witt, and Stottlemeyer) won 71 games and the 1999 bunch (Helling, Sele, Burkett, Morgan, Clark, Loaiza, Glynn) won only 67. While those two teams won the division, the team was swept in the playoffs both years.

Last year, the starters earned 71 victories, but did not make the playoffs. While that 71 matches the 1998 team and exceeds the 1999 team, the West is much better now than it was 10 years ago. So I think Oates’ assessment that a good team will have 5 starters averaging 15 wins each is a good indicator of the team’s success. How will our starters fair this year? Here are my predictions:

Feldman – 16 wins. He had 17 wins last year. He may match that again, but I think he will be lucky to. While I can easily see him barely reaching 10, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has found his groove.

Harden – 10 wins. In the past, Harden has been a great pitcher when healthy. However, he is never healthy. This spring, he has looked awful. I don’t expect much from him. Ten wins may be too optimistic. Hopefully, Nolan Ryan’s endurance will rub off on him, but I am not too hopeful.

Wilson – 8 wins. I have no confidence at all in this guy. He’ll pitch all year, so I assume he’ll pick up a few wins, but he will end the year with more losses than victories. 8-13.

Harrison – 8 wins. Will he stay healthy? Is he any good? I see him as a .500 pitcher.

Lewis – 7 wins. Are we really thinking a guy who had to go to Japan to find a job is suddenly going to be a great MLB pitcher?

Hunter – 12 wins. Hopefully he will get healthy and get back in the rotation soon, probably replacing a hurt Harden, an ineffective Wilson, or Lewis. He may be the team’s second best pitcher, but is currently hurt.

Total wins for starters: 61. Well short of Oates’ 75. Other spot starters might up this total to 65 or so, but still, I see the rotation short of ’09 totals and not strong enough to compete with Seattle or the Angels.

The shakiness of the rotation is only part of the problem. Kinsler is on the DL already. The catching situation is unsettled. Will Hamilton, Vlad, and Young hold up? Will Andrus have a sophomore slump? Will Chris Davis spend all year in the majors? Last year was exciting, and I am excited to see how they do this year, but realistically, I don’t see a winning team. Perhaps once the sale is official, the team can make a move or two to improve. Much will be answered in the first 20 games. Ron Washington’s teams have started slow every season. They (especially Washington) cannot afford a 7-13 start.

I am ready for the season and hope that in September I can look back at this post and be so wrong. But from my amateur assessment, I see the Rangers finishing 3rd in the division with an 79-83 record. Even so, I will be cheering for them all the way.

"C'mon You Guys Play Ball"

Next week, MLB will be in full swing. It’s a great time of year. Every team, except for the Nationals, is full of optimism. The beginning of the baseball season sparks life into every fan. How will the team do? What about the rookies and second year players? The free agents? Will they stay healthy? Hope is prevalent on Opening Day.

I’ve been thinking about memorable Ranger seasons. Two come to mind. The 1996 Rangers, the first team to go to the post-season, began the year 7-0. Will Clark, Kevin Elster, Rusty Greer, Pudge, Juan Gonzalez, Ken Hill, Roger Pavlik, Darren Oliver. The late, great Johnny Oates as manager. This was a good team – lacking a closer – which won Game 1 in the playoffs, thanks to the commanding performance of the professional bowler John Burkett, and then lost the next three to the dreaded Yankees. I still remember the gem Darren Oliver threw in Game 3, which ended in a 2-1 loss. Even with the disappointment in the post-season, which saw Mike Henneman blow saves, the 1996 Rangers remain my favorite bunch.

The other memorable Ranger team for me was the 1989 group. This was Nolan Ryan’s first year, as well as W’s first as owner, I believe. The team began 10-1. Finished the first month 17-6. (I remember this from the win-loss calendar I kept that year in my room, faithfully marking the team’s record after each game.) This was going to be the year. Ryan was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. The team was on fire. So much so, that after the initial start, Y95’s morning show created a Ranger song, which will forever be in my memory:

Verse 1:
The Rangers are ready
It’s George instead of Eddie
And Tom and Bobby have a team that’s hot.

Nolan Ryan’s quite a lad
He makes the hitters mad
Three up, thee down, we go to bat and we’re really glad

Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.

Verse 2:
There’s Inky and Sierra
Don’t forget Toby Harrah
Along with Rafael and Buddy Bell

There’s Scooter and the Bue
Bobby Witt and Franco too
Charlie Hough’s on the hill and Cecil’s in centerfield.

Chorus:
We’re talking baseball
Bring on the boys of summer
Talking baseball
Let’s have some hits and runners
And when we see a homer clear the wall
We’ll know the boys have come to play some ball
Ranger baseball, c’mon you guys play ball.

Why that has stuck in my head all these years I’ll never know. But at the beginning of every season, it is on continuous loop in the recesses of my brain. This 1989 team which began 17-6, ended the season 83-79, well out of the playoffs. But still, a memorable season.

So will the 2010 team be a memorable one? Will they win the division? Will they start fast or slow? Will Ron Washington make it through the season? I’ll blog about all of that tomorrow.

I Must Be Doing Something Right

There are moments in my life as a father when I realize, “Maybe I’m doing a pretty good job.” Like when Grant began his love for Star Wars and his dislike for the Yankees. Another one of those moments came last night. Every year during March Madness, I help our kids fill out a bracket. This began when Grant was less than 1 year old. I would set two cheerios in front of him for each team, and whichever one he grabbed first would be his selection for that game. Thus began our yearly family bracketology.

So last night, we filled out brackets. For Claire, she loved picking teams that shared names with some of her friends; hence, Xavier, Murray St., Morgan St., and Siena go pretty far in her bracket this year. Tessa decided to pick the ones that sounded cutest. Even so, they’ll probably do better than me with their picks. But what really affirmed my fatherhood is what Grant did for his picks. We initially went through the bracket together. But right before bed, he decided to redo his picks, so he wanted to take a blank bracket to bed last night with him. So I printed it off, he grabbed a pen and went to his room. About an hour later, he called us in his room – he had thoughtfully and completely filled out his bracket, including the final score of the championship game! Success. I must be doing something right.

I'm Voting For Kay

In tomorrow’s Gubernatorial Election, I will cast my vote for Kay Bailey Hutchison. Over the coming years, Hutchison is the best person to lead the Texas Government to face such issues as education, immigration, and the budget. Additionally, I will support Hutchison because of the record Perry has amassed over the last 10 years as Governor. We have never had a Governor serve as long as he has (10 years), and now he wants four more. What exactly has Perry accomplished?

1. Perry overstepped his authority and mandated the HPV vaccine for 12 year old girls. Why? Because he received money from the pharmaceutical company that produces the vaccine and because he believes that he should have more power as Governor than the Texas Constitution gives him. Without consent of the legislature and with limited testing of the vaccine, Perry decided he knew better than parents and elected members of the Legislature in issuing his proclamation. Thankfully, the Legislature acted to stop his abuse of power.

2. He tried to pressure the Comptroller to certify a budget that wasn’t manageable and threatened to overstep the Constitution again by stripping the Comptroller’s power away from her. Again, while he campaigns as a small government guy, he has acted differently as Governor.

3. He said that Texas could secede from the Union. That kind of irresponsible comment should not be tolerated from an elected official who is the figurehead of the state.

4. He believes in using eminent domain to take land away from private landowners to build a roadway no one wants.

5. He received 39% of the vote in 2006, showing how few people actually supported the job he is doing as Governor. While the Republican nominee is likely to win in November, 39% should give Republicans pause.

The Texas Government has traditionally been a friendly government that steers clear of party ideology. Since Perry became Governor, partisanship in Austin has increased. While I think Perry will win the nomination tomorrow, I believe Hutchison would make the better leader for Texas. Unfortunately, the Governor who wants more control and power has somehow been able to convince others that he is for small government. He has run a successful campaign, but I feel that once 2011 is here, Perry will revert back to his controlling style. Meanwhile, I believe the last office Hutchison will seek is Texas Governor. She has no ambitions for higher office, which means she will be more interested in meeting the needs of Texans rather than trying to impress a national committee. So, I'm voting for Kay.

Bye, Bayh, For Now

My favorite elected Democrat is leaving the Senate. Evan Bayh has surveyed the political landscape, the Democratic Party, the current administration, and the state of Indiana and has decided not to seek reelection. I think Bayh is one of the few true moderate Democrats, and I believe him when he says how frustrated he is with partisan politics and the Senate. And while he took shots at Republicans, he also took a mighty swipe and President Obama when he confessed that the government has not created one job this year and that spending is out of control. So what will Bayh do now?

I hope he is gearing up for a run for the presidency in 2012. As he sees the self-destruction of the leftward moving Democratic Party under Obama and Pelosi, I think he may be seeking to bring the party back to the “Bill Clinton” center. He may not have the fight to do so, but if he mounted a challenge against Obama in 2012, he could definitely make it interesting. Depending on whom the Republicans nominate, I would strongly consider voting for Bayh in 2012. He seems like a decent guy who truly feels that the partisan politics of Washington and the movement of the Democratic Party to the far-left are highly detrimental to our country and our future. Bayh for President in 2012!

One Year Later

What a difference a year makes! This time last year, President Obama was inaugurated, the Republican Party was dead, and everything was George W. Bush’s fault. Obama’s approval rating was close to 70 percent. As the “moderate” candidate Obama became the “liberal” President, public opinion began to shift. After the 2008 Election, many pundits wondered if America, which traditionally has been a center-right country, had shifted to a center-left country. So what happened? The administration closed Guantanamo Bay and hired lawyers to defend terrorists. Delayed responding to the escalation of war in Afghanistan, and were caught off guard by Al Qaeda’s determination to attack the country. After campaigning on reducing abortions, Obama began funding abortions overseas with tax money. Meanwhile, unemployment had risen above 10 percent, even after the $800 billion stimulus which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. The Tea Parties across the country were laughed at and ridiculed. Purple Virginia and blue New Jersey elected Republican Governors. However, this was dismissed by the administration as merely the result of poor Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party and the President ignored the warning signs and pushed ahead with an unpopular health care bill. After campaigning on openness and transparency, the Obama administration became secretive, holding Democrat only meetings behind closed doors, paying off wary Senators in exchange for their votes. President Obama’s approval rating plummeted more than any other president in modern history. Yet, somehow, the American public was still ignored.

Then, in a stunning turn of events this week, the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy in liberal Massachusetts, a state Obama won by 25 points last year, went Republican, electing Scott Brown as Senator. I still cannot fully wrap my mind around how stunning that is. The Republican Party, declared dead this time last year, won in Massachusetts of all places. Will the administration and Democrats ignore this too?

It appears so. In Robert Gibbs press conference yesterday, he tried to spin Brown’s election in Obama’s favor. Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, tried to convince the American people that the vote in Massachusetts was not about Obama’s policies, but rather, the result of – get ready – what Bush had done to the country. In an interview yesterday, Obama believes the the same thing. Is he that delusional? Arrogant? Or just in denial and shock?

As we approach November and the mid-term elections, how will the Democratic Party respond? This may serve as a good wake-up call for them to take Clinton’s practical approach and move to the center before it’s too late. But Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are much more ideological than Bill Clinton was. The Democratic leadership continues to think one of two things: a.) they just simply aren’t explaining their plans well enough, or b.) the American people are stupid. If those remain their only two thoughts, then the Democratic Party is in for a major defeat come November. Yet to be seen is whether or not the Blue Dog Democrats are truly blue dogs and able to stand up against their liberal leadership. Evan Bayh, are you there?

As for the Republicans, Scott Brown laid out a great template for the campaign. Fight against spending and new taxes – attack terrorism instead of defending it – and allow states to decide for themselves what to do about many of these major issues such as health care. What Massachusetts proved last night, and what Virginia and New Jersey proved in November, and what the polls have said all along, is that this country is still a center-right country that values limited government and individual liberty. It will be interesting to see whether Obama and the Democrats understands this over the next few months.

Grantism, Claireism, and Tessism

One day this week (following the time change), Grant came home with his school work. In his math class, the students have 1 minute to complete a page of 25 math problems. Grant usually completes them all, but this time, he had only completed about 15 of the 25. I asked him what happened and he replied, "I don't know, the minute seemed really short. I think maybe the minute got messed up because of the time change on Sunday."

Our neighbors had a Halloween light display. Our kids loved to go look at it. One time, Claire kept walking up closer and closer to their front door. I told her to come back and she replied, "Do you think I'm a burglar or something?!"

The other day, in preparation for becoming a nurse, Jessica was shadowing at one hospital and then volunteering at Mission Arlington's medical clinic. As I was taking care of the kids, Tessa asked, "Where's mommy?" Since she was doing things preparing her to be a nurse, I said, "Mommy's at work." Tessa looked at me like I was crazy and said, "Mommy's not a boy!"

Election Day 2009! Get Excited!

I’m sure everyone is well aware of the election in 11 days. You know, that one with eleven propositions to amend the Texas Constitution and a local school bond proposal? I know, it’s not as sexy as a presidential election, but these local elections affect our lives much more than the president ever will (unless you are in the military). So it is important to go vote Tuesday, November 3rd. If you don’t care to read about each proposition, here’s my general rule of thumb concerning propositions (amendments to the Texas Constitution): When in doubt, vote “AGAINST.” For bonds: When in doubt, vote "FOR." However, if you take the time to read up on the propositions, you can make a more informed vote. So here’s my take: I’ll list the proposition number, how I’m voting, and the reasons why.

Proposition 1 – FOR - Basically, this amendment allows local governments to purchase land adjacent to military bases, thus allowing a buffer zone from encroaching development that might hamper the training on the base. Voters would be able to hold local governments accountable for every purchase, which will restrict unnecessary expenditures while allowing for the governments to protect the economic benefits the bases provide for their communities. I could just as easily vote against this amendment, but due to the ultimate accountability to the voter, I will vote for it.

Proposition 2 – FOR – This amendment will protect homeowners from having their home values taxed at a higher "potential use" rate of the property rather than the current value of the property. While it could limit the amount of taxes local governments take in, I think it is only fair to tax people for what their property is currently worth as they are using it, not what it might be in the future if a developer owns it and the value explodes.

Proposition 3 – AGAINST – This amendment would take away local control of property appraisal and create a statewide standard instead. Local appraisers are trained by the state already, and the local appraiser may know more about the local issues affecting property values than the state. I guess I just prefer local government to handle this.

Proposition 4 – AGAINST – This amendment funnels money to seven universities in the state in an attempt to make them top-tier public research universities. I’m not opposed to having more top-tier public research universities in Texas, but to spread money between seven of them seems too broad of a stroke. Also, a big concern when universities become top-tier is that the focus shifts from the undergraduate student to the graduate student. I wouldn’t want to see undergrad education weakened in the process. Additionally, with our economy currently sputtering along, this money may be better spent elsewhere.

Proposition 5 – FOR – Small counties that struggle to find enough qualified people to sit on appraisal boards can partner with neighboring counties to share the process. It eases the challenge of small communities to find enough qualified personnel and allows them, if they choose, to join forces with others.

Proposition 6 – FOR – This would allow the Veterans’ Land Board to provide adequate services to Texas veterans dealing with home mortgages. I assume a veteran has earned a little extra help, so I’m for it.

Proposition 7 – FOR – This amendment allows a member of the Texas State Guard to hold another public office if they so choose. During times of disaster, this amendment would make it easier for civil officials to serve in the guard to respond to the needs of the community if they so choose.

Proposition 8 – FOR – Allows for more funding for Veterans’ hospitals in Texas. Provides hospitals that will perhaps be closer than the current ones for those in need. My one worry - I would like to make sure that the Veterans’ hospitals are providing for the needs of veterans though. I wouldn’t want to throw our money at something that is not adequately serving the veterans. So I am open to change my mind on this one.

Proposition 9 – AGAINST – This amendment would give the government too much authority to infringe upon local land owners near beaches.

Proposition 10 – FOR – This amendment lengthens the terms of emergency service board members from 2 years to 4, basically allowing for more continuity for the districts and reducing the amount of needed elections.

Proposition 11 – FOR – Although I think this amendment is a little unnecessary (we already have laws on this) and confusing (what does “enjoyment of the property by the State” mean?), it will strengthen the requirements for eminent domain to protect property owners, while also allowing for eminent domain to be used to eliminate “urban blight.”

AISD Bond Election – FOR – the money from this bond election will be distributed equally across the district, providing funds to meet the needs of the school district. A strong, vibrant, and economically sound city must have healthy schools in order to maintain and improve the satisfaction in a community. We need to pass this to keep Arlington schools as one of the best in the area.

If you read this, I hope you will be part of the 5% turnout in the election November 3rd. Every vote counts.

Don't Stress About Those Unhealthy Details

“While there remain significant details to be ironed out…” President Obama, September 9, 2009

This speech last night was what I love and hate about politics. Here’s a speech crafted well to say one thing while actually meaning another, to praise the opposition while calling them liars, to decry scare tactics while using them (“If my plan is not passed, people will die!”), and to offer a proposal without any details. This was Obama in full campaign mode. What continues to baffle and intrigue me is how people still swoon over his rhetoric when his actions don’t match up.

The key quote of the night: “While there remain significant details to be ironed out....” The President talked about his proposal, when he has not submitted a bill to Congress. In fact, there are currently up to five different bills in Congress. So which proposal is he talking about? And what details still need to be hammered out? When the President seems intent on passing a bill now, it seems to me that all the details should be hammered out by now. And I wonder just how the cost of this plan can be truly measured when “there remain significant details to be ironed out.” Details are what caused the projected deficits to escalate from $7 trillion at the start of the summer to $9 trillion currently. Details are what made the so called Stimulus bill not very stimulating. (A lack of details always makes government run programs underestimate costs and overestimate effectiveness.) Well, unfortunately, the President offered no details last night, but rather broad campaign promises and partisan attacks.

This certainly is a contentious issue. Just before the now notorious Rep. Wilson, in the middle of the speech, shouted out “You lie,” the President had called opponents to his plan liars. He said people who question the wisdom of the government’s ability to ration health care “lie, plain and simple.” Now, certainly, Rep. Wilson was wrong to shout out when he did, but so was the President in calling honest debate “lies.” Obama’s “liar, liar” accusation was referring to those who believe the President’s plan will create “death panels” – bureaucrats who will make future decisions about who gets health care, based on the idea that if this plan is going to be deficit neutral, and if everyone will be covered, then at some point, the government will have to decide who gets what care and when. The President calls that logic a lie; however, a few minutes after the President denied that bureaucrats will do this, he said that his proposal would create a “commission” which will identify “waste” in the years ahead. And how will the details of the bill define “waste”? How will the government save money in the future? What procedures will be deemed “wasteful”? While the President is correct to say there is nothing called a death panel in the proposal, the result of a commission to identify waste could easily end up doing just that. He said as much in a town hall a few months ago, when he mentioned that it didn’t make sense for the elderly to receive certain expensive treatments, but merely a pain pill instead.

One last thing, a pattern seems to be developing in Obama’s speeches and then subsequent action. He has said, “I don’t like big government” but has increased the size and scope of the government. A few months ago, he said “I have no interest in running a car company,” and then took over GM. And last night he said, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business…” Hmm.

According to President Obama, he will once and for all address health care. We’ll never have to deal with health care again as a society. Once the bill passes, he can finally declare, “It is finished.”

A Little Civility Is Good for Our Health

I’m weary of seeing footage of angry people at town halls yelling constantly at members of Congress. However, I am not naïve enough to think that this is occurring at every town hall meeting or even a majority of town hall meetings. I imagine that most town halls have civil discussions on the issue that border on boredom. But certainly, there seems to be a frenzy at a few of these meetings that grabs all the headlines. The problem? It takes the discussion off of health care and onto the protesters. It gives members of Congress the ability to simply dismiss the dissent as irrational, thus weakening the dissenting viewpoint for those discussing it rationally. For those who are overly vocal: Your point has been made. People are upset and scared about health care reform. Everybody gets that. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Now, though, ask your questions rationally. Allow the members of Congress to respond. Let’s have this debate on the merits of the bill and not on pure emotion. Win the argument with real discussion, not shouting. Because what will eventually happen, if this remains emotionally charged, is that more and more people will support the health care plan out of frustration with the protesters. It’s why Bill Clinton’s approval rating was highest during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. People had enough of the heated rhetoric and attacks and circled the wagons. It’s human nature. If the protesters aren’t cautious, they are going to cause a circling of the wagons around this health care reform as well and end up contributing to its passing rather than defeat. So chill out a little. Keep writing and calling your Representatives and Senators if you want. Keep talking to your friends. Keep attending town halls and asking questions. The argument against this particular bill appears to be winning. However, at this point, outrageous protesting at town halls only hurts the argument.

Who is Now the Most Trusted Person in America?

Walter Cronkite was considered the “Most Trusted Man in America” during his reign as the original anchorman. His coverage of such enormous events as JFK’s assassination and the moon landing are classic examples of how he earned this moniker. But with his passing, who now is considered the most trusted person in America? In our cynical culture, is it even possible anymore to have someone recognized as the most trusted person?

The Candidates for “Most Trusted Person in America”:

1. Oprah Winfrey. Pros: everyone knows who she is, she is often mentioned as one of the most influential people in our society. Cons: her ratings have recently gone down. I think it is directly related to her endorsement of Obama last spring. Who watches Oprah? Mainly women. She endorses Obama, the Hillary supporters get mad at her and the Republican women get mad at her. She had always stood above politics before the endorsement. While it helped Obama, I think it hurt her. She has also become even more self-obsessed in my estimation over the last few years (if that's possible). So while she is highly influential, could she be “the most trusted”?

2. Colin Powell. Pros: Thoughtful, well respected, fairly apolitical. Cons: the liberals dislike him because he helped lead us into the Iraq War; the conservatives don’t like him because he endorsed Obama. So his seemingly apolitical style has taken some political hits. Still a strong contender though, but his political life probably disqualifies him.

3. Charlie Gibson. Pros: delivers the news in a straightforward manner. Has been on television for years as both a serious newsman and a morning show guy. Cons: the news has become so politicized since Cronkite’s day that it is probably impossible for any news anchor to ever be considered “the most trusted.” Tom Brokaw perhaps might be included in this discussion as well, but he is rarely on anymore.

4. Tom Hanks. I heard someone on the radio throw out Hanks as a possibility. He is certainly a well respected actor, but the stigma of Hollywood is too much for any actor to overcome. But of all the actors, he probably would be the most trusted. He’s Forrest Gump, after all!

5. Rick Warren. Among evangelicals, he might not even be the pick, but he has had such a high profile lately, that he would be a candidate. But not enough people probably even know who he is to be considered “the most trusted.” Plus, he has not attained Billy Graham's stature yet.

6. Ryan Seacrest. Just kidding...kind of.

Do any of these come close to Cronkite? Are we too politicized, and do we have simply too many media outlets these days for anyone to amass enough credibility to be “The Most Trusted Person in America”? I think so. Of course, there's always Nolan Ryan.