I write this as I am looking out of the window of my home office, watching someone shovel snow off of my driveway and sidewalks. I have an ongoing agreement with this person that when it snows enough to require snow removal, he will do it--for a price. Just two years ago, I would have personally done the shoveling hours earlier--possibly even last night--before anyone had to get out of the garage and driveway this morning. But that changed on a summer day about a year and a half ago. That was the day I was pitching a Whiffle ball to my then 4-year-old grandson in his back yard. He hit a pop fly over my head, and as I turned around to track and catch it, keeping my eye on the ball, I did catch it--about one step before my foot caught the side of a stone/brick fire pit. I fell, landing on my right arm, and felt two distinct pops in my shoulder. At that point I could no longer lift my arm to my head without considerable pain. Doctor's appointments, X-rays, physical therapy, and regular shoulder exercises ensued. My goal was to be able to swing a golf club and play golf by the Spring of 2015, and I was successful in my goal.
The problem was that the shoulder was never "normal" again. I could not throw a ball overhand without pain. But the truth is that I rarely needed to do that, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. I was able to play golf virtually shoulder-pain free when my schedule permitted me to do so throughout 2015.
But as the the winter of 2015 set in and became 2016, the pain in my shoulder became more consistent, to the point where even reaching for something on a shelf had become painful. So it was back to the doctor, who gave me the news that it appears to be a shoulder impingement--combined with arthritis. He said he could give me a shot if my shoulder is really painful, but I think I'd rather deal with the shoulder pain than a needle. For the record, I hate needles when they are to be stuck into me. The doctor told me to keep taking the arthritis-formula acetaminophen daily. I also hate taking pills, but since I hate needles more (and hate the thought of surgery even more than the thought of needles), I have continued to take the acetaminophen daily--along with several other vitamins and minerals the doctor has suggested I take.
The pain is still there, but it's more of a nuisance than anything disabling. I just have to be careful not to try to do certain things that might really aggravate the situation and make the pain much worse--such as throwing a ball. I miss that.
But then I look out the window and see that in the time it's taken me to write this, the snow has been shoveled off my sidewalks and driveway--and I didn't have to leave the inside where it's warm and dry. And I am thinking that the $12 charged to me by the person who shovels the snow for me is worth it--especially because shoveling snow would almost certainly aggravate my shoulder.
At the same time, there is a part of me that has to admit that because I hate being in the snow and cold so much, even if my shoulder was "normal," I might be tempted to hire this person to clear the snow from my driveway and sidewalks and consider the $12 fee well spent. But then I would deal with my conscience questioning if I should save the $12 and just not be so lazy.
The truth is that, while I would rather have a "normal" shoulder and deal with the struggle between saving the money to have someone remove the snow and saving the money by removing the snow myself, there is indeed a part of me that is glad I don't have to feel guilty about not shoveling the snow myself. I guess that the development of the arthritis in my shoulder that keeps me from being able to shovel the snow is just part of my reluctantly accepting the aging process.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Causes
It seems that there's no shortage of important causes for people to support. It also seems that there's no shortage of people wanting to stand up for various causes. It further seems that there's no shortage of people who want to get other people to stand up for the various causes.
Recently, over approximately a 24-hour period of time, posts came across my Facebook News Feed having to do with the following causes (listed in no particular order except more or less the order in which they appeared in the News Feed):
Staying in good physical shape
Alternative energy
Support the troops
Heart Disease Awareness
The plight of Shelter Animals
How to be a Good Parent
Education reform
Preventing the spread of the Zika Virus
Orphans
Homeless Teenagers
Spousal Abuse
Banning Beyonce from future Super Bowl performances
Alternative Medicine
Healthy Relationships
Protecting Pets
Addiction
Again, those were just things that showed up within about a 24-hour period of time. Some are more important than others. Some are more controversial than others. All of them were important enough to someone to post about them. And those do not include numerous posts that were overtly about politics and religion.
For the record, I have no problem with people posting these things--including posting about politics and religion; I have the tendency to post those types of things too. But let's be realistic for a moment. While many (if not all) of the causes for which I saw posts over a 24-hour period are indeed worthy of consideration, I do not have the time, energy, or money to contribute to all of them (or maybe even any of them).
There are simply a lot of "good causes" in this world. The ones I specifically saw and mentioned from that 24-hour period on my Facebook News Feed didn't even include a number of causes for which I see posting fairly often. These include...
...GMO Foods
...Vaccines (both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine)
...Sexual Exploitation/Sex Trade
...Clothing Manufactured by Child/Slave-like Labor
...Disaster Relief
...Various Health Issues/"Epidemics"
...Texting while Driving
...Impaired Driving
...Money Management
...Visual and Fine Arts
The list could go on, and again, it does not include (at least overtly) religious or political issues. But now it's time to come to the point.
There are many different issues which deserve people's support, but every person is different. Some issues will hit "closer to home" for some people, while other people will find different issues more important. It's fine for people to make their opinions known, and to offer information that is intended to educate others about the various issues. But when doing so, my advice is to not be insulting or condescending. Give the people information, but don't get bent out of shape about it if someone disagrees or doesn't place as high of a priority on the issue as you do. Don't act like or believe that you are superior to someone else if you place higher priorities on things than they do. The truth is that there are too many issues for everyone to be interested in all of them.
Educate people, sure. Be condescending towards them, no. Insult them, absolutely not. A great principle that can certainly apply here is found in the Bible in Romans 14, which tells us not to judge other people because of what they believe, because they have to answer not to us, but to God.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if we would let God deal with people about the issues He lays upon their hearts according to His timing, instead of our pushing our personal agendas on other people and expecting them to follow our beliefs and our timing with the issues.
The bottom line is that we are ultimately answerable to God, and God alone.
Recently, over approximately a 24-hour period of time, posts came across my Facebook News Feed having to do with the following causes (listed in no particular order except more or less the order in which they appeared in the News Feed):
Staying in good physical shape
Alternative energy
Support the troops
Heart Disease Awareness
The plight of Shelter Animals
How to be a Good Parent
Education reform
Preventing the spread of the Zika Virus
Orphans
Homeless Teenagers
Spousal Abuse
Banning Beyonce from future Super Bowl performances
Alternative Medicine
Healthy Relationships
Protecting Pets
Addiction
Again, those were just things that showed up within about a 24-hour period of time. Some are more important than others. Some are more controversial than others. All of them were important enough to someone to post about them. And those do not include numerous posts that were overtly about politics and religion.
For the record, I have no problem with people posting these things--including posting about politics and religion; I have the tendency to post those types of things too. But let's be realistic for a moment. While many (if not all) of the causes for which I saw posts over a 24-hour period are indeed worthy of consideration, I do not have the time, energy, or money to contribute to all of them (or maybe even any of them).
There are simply a lot of "good causes" in this world. The ones I specifically saw and mentioned from that 24-hour period on my Facebook News Feed didn't even include a number of causes for which I see posting fairly often. These include...
...GMO Foods
...Vaccines (both pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine)
...Sexual Exploitation/Sex Trade
...Clothing Manufactured by Child/Slave-like Labor
...Disaster Relief
...Various Health Issues/"Epidemics"
...Texting while Driving
...Impaired Driving
...Money Management
...Visual and Fine Arts
The list could go on, and again, it does not include (at least overtly) religious or political issues. But now it's time to come to the point.
There are many different issues which deserve people's support, but every person is different. Some issues will hit "closer to home" for some people, while other people will find different issues more important. It's fine for people to make their opinions known, and to offer information that is intended to educate others about the various issues. But when doing so, my advice is to not be insulting or condescending. Give the people information, but don't get bent out of shape about it if someone disagrees or doesn't place as high of a priority on the issue as you do. Don't act like or believe that you are superior to someone else if you place higher priorities on things than they do. The truth is that there are too many issues for everyone to be interested in all of them.
Educate people, sure. Be condescending towards them, no. Insult them, absolutely not. A great principle that can certainly apply here is found in the Bible in Romans 14, which tells us not to judge other people because of what they believe, because they have to answer not to us, but to God.
Perhaps things would be a lot better if we would let God deal with people about the issues He lays upon their hearts according to His timing, instead of our pushing our personal agendas on other people and expecting them to follow our beliefs and our timing with the issues.
The bottom line is that we are ultimately answerable to God, and God alone.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Some Free Political Advice
I’d like to offer some free political advice as we today (February 1, 2016) are set to see the first official balloting of the 2016 Presidential campaign--the Iowa Caucus for both major political parties.
My advice is this: Look at the overall situation and don’t focus too much on minute details of one or two issues--unless those issues are far more important to you than anything else. The reality is that no candidate has been, is now, or ever will be perfect. The reality is that it is almost certain that you will not be in 100% agreement with any candidate. The reality is that the next person elected President of the United States will almost certainly be the nominee of either the Democrat or Republican Party.
I have elsewhere (http://peteshodgepodge.blogspot.com/2016/01/at-this-point-my-preferred-candidate-is.html) stated my preferred candidate (at least as of this point in time), but this writing isn’t about that. This writing is about encouraging people to make the best choices according to their own personal preferences and understandings as to what the United States of America should be, and what each person believes that the President of the United States should represent.
While issues and principles are indeed important, they should not necessarily be the “end all” aspect of supporting a Presidential candidate. Some people might align perfectly with your views on the issues, while at the same time making a bad President. Let me give this example: The person with whom I almost certainly agree most closely on political issues is the author of this writing (yes, that would be me). But I would not make a good President of the United States; there are too many characteristics and traits which I possess that would make me personally ineffective as the President of the United States. There are many, many people far more qualified to hold that office.
Accordingly, the best way for me to choose a candidate to support must include not only the candidate’s stance on the issues, but also on intangibles--such as how effectively I believe the candidate would perform the duties of President of the United States. This includes taking into consideration matters of personality, leadership, trustworthiness, and the ability to inspire people (to name a few).
When it comes to the candidate whom I am personally (thus far) supporting, I have found -- at least according to one test found this site: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/... -- that on the issues alone, I side more with one candidate than the one whom I am currently supporting. However, it is the intangibles that play an important part in my decision-making process. According to the test I mentioned, I actually agree 95% with a particular candidate (in the interest of full disclosure, I am indeed a registered Republican, so it makes sense that I personally would generally be in highest agreement with Republican rather than Democrat candidates, but for Democrats, the opposite would likely be true, and that is as it should be). However, although I agree 95% with a particular candidate on the issues (and on the importance I give to the issues), that person is not my preferred candidate. The candidate I prefer is one with whom I agree (again, according to the test) 91% of the time.
In my opinion (and according to my personal political views), the overall “candidate package” makes siding with the candidate with whom I agree 91% on the issues preferable to the candidate with whom I agree on 95% of the issues.
For the record, the test reveals that the agreement I have with the stated views on the issues ranges on the Republican side from a high of 95% to a low of 71%. As to the candidates on Democrat side, my range of agreement goes from a high of 24% to a low of 7%. I would expect that for people who generally support Democrat issues and policies, those numbers would be pretty much reversed. But that’s the way it should be.
The bottom line is this: vote according to your conscience, taking into consideration policy issues, but also giving credence to intangibles. That’s my free advice, and it’s worth every penny you’ve paid for it!
Friday, January 29, 2016
At This Point, My Preferred Candidate Is...
I'm posting this on my blog, because I want people to access this only if they are interested in my political opinion. If I would make this a Facebook post, then people who aren't interested in my political opinion--but who see my Facebook posts--would likely see political issues. This way, when I share this post on Facebook, people will see only the link to this blog, and they can choose whether or not they want to go to the blog and read it.
I do NOT apologize for having political views and for voicing those views. At the same time, since I am a pastor and a radio personality, I want to make clear that these views are my PERSONAL views, and that I am NOT speaking for the church I pastor (or the denomination--or for Christians in general, for that matter), nor am I speaking for the radio station with which I am affiliated.
Before I share the name of my preferred candidate (at least as of this point in time), I want to share some of my philosophy in my choice of candidates. The vast majority of my decision is based on the issues--my views on them as compared with the candidate's views. This doesn't include just my views on the issues themselves, but how important the particular issues are to me. At the same time--especially when it comes to choosing a candidate for President in a primary--there are intangibles I take into consideration. For me, that's part of the "full package" of a person's candidacy. Some candidates may align slightly closer with my views, but they don't have (at least in my opinion) the persona that would make them a good President of the United States.
So, here goes.
If I was a citizen of Iowa and therefore able to participate in the Iowa caucus, I would be supporting Senator Marco Rubio for President. I have found that he shares my views on a vast majority of the issues, and that he also has the intangibles that would make him a good President of the United States.
I do NOT apologize for having political views and for voicing those views. At the same time, since I am a pastor and a radio personality, I want to make clear that these views are my PERSONAL views, and that I am NOT speaking for the church I pastor (or the denomination--or for Christians in general, for that matter), nor am I speaking for the radio station with which I am affiliated.
Before I share the name of my preferred candidate (at least as of this point in time), I want to share some of my philosophy in my choice of candidates. The vast majority of my decision is based on the issues--my views on them as compared with the candidate's views. This doesn't include just my views on the issues themselves, but how important the particular issues are to me. At the same time--especially when it comes to choosing a candidate for President in a primary--there are intangibles I take into consideration. For me, that's part of the "full package" of a person's candidacy. Some candidates may align slightly closer with my views, but they don't have (at least in my opinion) the persona that would make them a good President of the United States.
So, here goes.
If I was a citizen of Iowa and therefore able to participate in the Iowa caucus, I would be supporting Senator Marco Rubio for President. I have found that he shares my views on a vast majority of the issues, and that he also has the intangibles that would make him a good President of the United States.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
An Opinion About Formal Education
It's difficult for me to try to be succinct about a large subject in a forum such as this, as succinctness can tend to come across as over-simplification. But when it comes to how we view higher education in the church, let me use one example--algebra.
Somewhere along the way, basically every institution of higher learning accepted the fact that teaching algebra was a way to train a person's mind to "think critically," and therefore made a certain amount of algebra required for any accredited degree of higher learning. But some people's brains simply aren't "wired" in such a way that algebra makes sense to them. Yet these people aren't necessarily therefore less intelligent, but they are at an extreme disadvantage in academia.
I've been told over and over again that algebra isn't so much about the math for most people as it is about training the person to think critically. I argue that algebra is training a person to think via a certain process. In other words, it's almost as though saying, "Follow this pattern, as it is the best pattern to think properly."
At the same time, it is my observation that woefully little attention is paid to history--not necessarily names and dates but causes and effects.
This is not to say that algebra is bad or that history is better, but rather illustrating that the education establishment--not so much different than other entities do--has fallen into a pattern of saying that "this is the correct way, and everybody must do it this way in order for their work to be recognized."
In the church, I am concerned if we hold too rigidly to that pattern. We need to allow room for the Holy Spirit to work in the lives of people, regardless of whether or not those people have formal educations.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Basaball's Playoff System
I confess, I have been a Cubs' fan for as long as I can remember back into my childhood. This 2015 season has been one of the rare good seasons in Cubs' baseball during my lifetime. The 97-win season equals the most wins the Cubs have had in a season during my lifetime. The last time the Cubs won more than 97 games in a season was back in 1945.
For the record, I am writing this prior to the Cubs' playoff game vs. the Pirates, so this post really has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. The two teams are quite evenly matched, and so I do not have a prediction as to which team will win. Besides, this post isn't about that; this post is about how the current playoff system could be changed for the better.
In a one-game playoff, anything can happen. Weather can be a factor. A home plate umpire can have a wide/narrow/high/low/inconsistent strike zone throughout the game. A ground ball can take a bad bounce off of a pebble. A key player can have an illness on the day of the game. Baseball isn't like pro football where there are only 16 regular season games per year. Major League Baseball's season has over ten times more games to a season than does the National Football League. It doesn't seen right that after playing baseball games on an almost daily basis for six months, two teams such as the Pirates and Cubs--who have better records than all but one of the eight MLB playoff teams--should face playoff elimination after just one game.
The first suggestion I'd like to make about the wild card playoff is that it be changed to a best two out of three. The team with the best record of the two teams would play the first game on the road, then return home for the second and (if needed) third games.
The second change I'd like to suggest is that each league's playoffs should be based primarily on team records while making a division secondary. The current system doesn't take into account a team's overall body of work throughout a season. It reminds me of the strike-interrupted 1981 season that ended up being divided into two halves, with the teams with the best record in each half making the playoffs. That year, the Cincinnati Reds had the best overall record for the entire season, but didn't make the playoffs. That was just wrong.
A team's overall season record should trump a division title if the team with the division title had a lower winning percentage than a wild card team. This season, it wouldn't have made a difference in the American League, as all three division winners had better records than both of the wild card teams. But in the National League, I believe that the playoffs should have been this way: the Western Division winning Los Angeles Dodgers (with a .568 winning percentage for the season) should have been in the first round of the playoffs with home field advantage over the Eastern Division winning New York Mets, who had a .556 winning percentage for the season. The winner of that round should then face the team with the best winning percentage for the season (the St. Louis Cardinals, at .617), while the Pirates (.605) should have home field advantage against the Cubs (.599), each for a best-of-five series. If, in the event a division winning team ends with an identical record to a wild card team, the tie breaker would go to the division winner.
As I said, this is being written prior to the Cubs-Pirates game, so regardless the outcome of that game, I hope that in the future these types of changes are implemented. I believe it would make a team's overall body of work throughout the 162-game season more meaningful than it is with the current system.
For the record, I am writing this prior to the Cubs' playoff game vs. the Pirates, so this post really has nothing to do with the outcome of the game. The two teams are quite evenly matched, and so I do not have a prediction as to which team will win. Besides, this post isn't about that; this post is about how the current playoff system could be changed for the better.
In a one-game playoff, anything can happen. Weather can be a factor. A home plate umpire can have a wide/narrow/high/low/inconsistent strike zone throughout the game. A ground ball can take a bad bounce off of a pebble. A key player can have an illness on the day of the game. Baseball isn't like pro football where there are only 16 regular season games per year. Major League Baseball's season has over ten times more games to a season than does the National Football League. It doesn't seen right that after playing baseball games on an almost daily basis for six months, two teams such as the Pirates and Cubs--who have better records than all but one of the eight MLB playoff teams--should face playoff elimination after just one game.
The first suggestion I'd like to make about the wild card playoff is that it be changed to a best two out of three. The team with the best record of the two teams would play the first game on the road, then return home for the second and (if needed) third games.
The second change I'd like to suggest is that each league's playoffs should be based primarily on team records while making a division secondary. The current system doesn't take into account a team's overall body of work throughout a season. It reminds me of the strike-interrupted 1981 season that ended up being divided into two halves, with the teams with the best record in each half making the playoffs. That year, the Cincinnati Reds had the best overall record for the entire season, but didn't make the playoffs. That was just wrong.
A team's overall season record should trump a division title if the team with the division title had a lower winning percentage than a wild card team. This season, it wouldn't have made a difference in the American League, as all three division winners had better records than both of the wild card teams. But in the National League, I believe that the playoffs should have been this way: the Western Division winning Los Angeles Dodgers (with a .568 winning percentage for the season) should have been in the first round of the playoffs with home field advantage over the Eastern Division winning New York Mets, who had a .556 winning percentage for the season. The winner of that round should then face the team with the best winning percentage for the season (the St. Louis Cardinals, at .617), while the Pirates (.605) should have home field advantage against the Cubs (.599), each for a best-of-five series. If, in the event a division winning team ends with an identical record to a wild card team, the tie breaker would go to the division winner.
As I said, this is being written prior to the Cubs-Pirates game, so regardless the outcome of that game, I hope that in the future these types of changes are implemented. I believe it would make a team's overall body of work throughout the 162-game season more meaningful than it is with the current system.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
To Attend or Not To Attend; That Is the Question...
I've been a baseball fan for as long as I can remember. Some of my earliest memories from my childhood involve baseball. Having grown up in the Chicago area, I began following the Chicago Cubs, whose home games (and most away games) were televised on WGN Television (Channel 9).
I had my first opportunity to attend a Cubs game in person when my parents took my brother and me to Wrigley Field during the 1969 season. When we attended the game (which the Cubs won, by the way, on a late-inning, go-ahead home run by Billy Williams) on August 3rd, the Cubs had been in first place the entire season. From our seats in the grandstands down the left field foul line, we watched Ron Santo after the game run to the Clubhouse door (at that time located near the left field corner at Wrigley) and click his heals 3 times. Everything was good for Cub fans at that time. But by September 10th, the Mets had passed the Cubs in the standings, and the 1969 season for the Cubs has since that time lived in infamy in the minds of most Cub fans who experienced it.
1969 for me began a personal streak of attending at least one (and often many more than one) Cubs game in person annually. That streak lasted 15 years, until I was on the road full-time with a ministry team, and was unable to attend a game that season--in 1984. I found it ironic that the first year I didn't get to attend a game was the first year in my lifetime that the Cubs actually made it to the playoffs.
Over the next four years, I found ways to attend at least one Cubs game per season in person--even if they were away games for the Cubs in Cincinnati (the closest Major League Baseball venue to where I had re-located), with my streak again stopping in the 1989 season--the next time (and second time in my life) the Cubs had made the playoffs.
After that, my ability to attend Cub games dwindled, and I've probably seen less than 10 Cub games in person in the ensuing 25 years. I do know, however, that during none of the seasons that I was able to attend a Cub game did the Cubs ever make the playoffs (despite the Cubs having made the playoffs several seasons during that time period). It got to the point where I almost felt that if I wanted the Cubs to get to the playoffs, I shouldn't attend a game.
Fast forward to 2015. The Cubs have already clinched a playoff spot. I didn't know that this would be the case a couple of months ago when my son had the opportunity to get tickets to this evening's scheduled game in Cincinnati where the Reds are to host the Cubs. I told him that sure, we should get tickets and go to the game. So, Lord willing, this evening I will get to see a Cubs game in person during a season when they are going to the playoffs--a first in my approximately 50 years (in other words, as far back as I can remember) of being a Cubs fan.
I had my first opportunity to attend a Cubs game in person when my parents took my brother and me to Wrigley Field during the 1969 season. When we attended the game (which the Cubs won, by the way, on a late-inning, go-ahead home run by Billy Williams) on August 3rd, the Cubs had been in first place the entire season. From our seats in the grandstands down the left field foul line, we watched Ron Santo after the game run to the Clubhouse door (at that time located near the left field corner at Wrigley) and click his heals 3 times. Everything was good for Cub fans at that time. But by September 10th, the Mets had passed the Cubs in the standings, and the 1969 season for the Cubs has since that time lived in infamy in the minds of most Cub fans who experienced it.
1969 for me began a personal streak of attending at least one (and often many more than one) Cubs game in person annually. That streak lasted 15 years, until I was on the road full-time with a ministry team, and was unable to attend a game that season--in 1984. I found it ironic that the first year I didn't get to attend a game was the first year in my lifetime that the Cubs actually made it to the playoffs.
Over the next four years, I found ways to attend at least one Cubs game per season in person--even if they were away games for the Cubs in Cincinnati (the closest Major League Baseball venue to where I had re-located), with my streak again stopping in the 1989 season--the next time (and second time in my life) the Cubs had made the playoffs.
After that, my ability to attend Cub games dwindled, and I've probably seen less than 10 Cub games in person in the ensuing 25 years. I do know, however, that during none of the seasons that I was able to attend a Cub game did the Cubs ever make the playoffs (despite the Cubs having made the playoffs several seasons during that time period). It got to the point where I almost felt that if I wanted the Cubs to get to the playoffs, I shouldn't attend a game.
Fast forward to 2015. The Cubs have already clinched a playoff spot. I didn't know that this would be the case a couple of months ago when my son had the opportunity to get tickets to this evening's scheduled game in Cincinnati where the Reds are to host the Cubs. I told him that sure, we should get tickets and go to the game. So, Lord willing, this evening I will get to see a Cubs game in person during a season when they are going to the playoffs--a first in my approximately 50 years (in other words, as far back as I can remember) of being a Cubs fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)