"Can You Please Hold?"

As I was working at the counter of the pro shop at the golf course, two customers walked in and needed me to process their transactions. Just then, the phone rang.  The other two staff people were in a meeting, so I answered the phone while trying to process the transaction of the first customer.  The person on the phone wanted to schedule tee-times.  Then the second phone line into the golf course rang.  I knew that I could only speak on one phone line at a time, so I answered the second line with the golf course name and said, "Can you please hold for a moment?" expecting the normal "Sure," or "OK" that I will usually hear when I have to answer the phone in similar circumstances.  Instead, I heard, "Well, this is [the electric company]*, so I prefer not." Well, since I was not the person who would have to speak with them, I said so, and had to put them on hold anyway.

Ironic, isn't it?  Maybe next time I call [the electric company]* and someone asks me (of course, only after navigating the seemingly endless numbers of recorded prompts in order to actually speak to a real person) if I can hold, I should say, "Well this is one of your customers, so I prefer not."

* text in brackets replaces the name of the actual electric company

Education and Academia

There is a difference between education and Academia. 

Education is the process and art of teaching and learning; Academia is the worshiping of education and educational accomplishments.

We need to focus more on true education and less on trying to attain the goals of Academia.

Presidential Vulgarity

Vulgarity by Presidents is not new. President Truman was lambasted by many for things he said, but often applauded by others for stating his mind (the band Chicago came out with a song in the 1970's called "Harry Truman" which extolled the former President's ways, including that he would "call a spade a spade").  The press even published what were considered by many at the time to be risque photographs of Mr. Truman (during the short time he served as Vice-President) posing at a piano with movie star Lauren Bacall.

Many people were shocked by the vulgarity that went on in President Nixon's White House when the recordings that became part of the Watergate scandal were released. Then it was discovered that President Lyndon Johnson also had recordings from his days in the White House, and his vulgarities were arguably worse. It has been reported that he even displayed his private parts during a White House meeting while declaring that those private parts were something that the communists would never get.

One big difference these days seems to be that anything that President Trump says in meetings somehow gets to the press. Also, he often seems to not care what people say about what he says. He also seems to purposely push the envelope knowing that he'll get reactions--positive reactions from some people and negative ones from other people with the same comments.

Personally, I don't see the need for the vulgarity. I generally do not use it, because I generally don't think it is necessary, and I feel I can express myself just fine without it. I wish the the President of the United States would refrain from that type of language, but the reality is that history shows us that the current President is not the first one who has used it.

A Life-Long Cub Fan's Perspective Half-Way Through The 2017 Season

Just past the half-way point in this season, it's time for some historical perspective.

We should all try to remember that as much as 2016 was a magical year for the Cubs in that they finally won the World Series after a 108-year drought, the regular season was pretty special, too. No Cub team in most Cub fans' lifetimes won as many games as did the 2016 Cubs. So just for a moment, let's take the 2016 season out of the mix.

In 2014, after 82 games, the Cubs were in last place in their division, 13.5 games out of first place.

In 2015, after 83 games (game numbers 82 and 83 were part of a double header, so I'm using the end of the day standings), the Cubs were in third place, 7.5 games out of first in their division.

And in 2015 at that point in the season, Cub fans were generally deliriously happy with the team's prospects of making the playoffs (albeit most likely through a wildcard spot), and even having a chance to go to the World Series.

Now at the same point of the 2017 season, the Cubs are in second place,  just 2.5 games out of first in their division. Winning the division would give them a better shot at advancing in the playoffs than did singe wildcard "play-in" game in 2015, where anything can happen to change the outcome of that lone game.

Yet it seems as though many Cub fans are down about this season. Granted, the 2017 team has not played nearly as well as the 2016 team did, but the truth is that throughout Major League Baseball history, only a very, very small percentage of teams played as well as (i.e., played to a better record than) the 2016 Chicago Cubs.

2016 was a magical season for many reasons. The Cubs got a lot of good breaks. Other then the nearly season-long injury to Kyle Schwarber and the several weeks that Dexter Fowler was out with a mid-season injury, there really was no significant amount of time lost to injury by the key players. Most teams will not have seasons that injury-free, and also will not have a season where a team gets so many other breaks that go predominantly in that team's favor.

So here in 2017, the Cubs have not thus far had the same type of magical season. Simply looking at things injury-wise, we can see that three key players--Jason Heyward, Ben Zobrist, and Kyle Hendricks--have all been on the disabled list at the same time. Three regulars on the DL at once is generally going to be a blow to any ball club.

Breaks have been going against the Cubs more in 2017 than they did in 2016. For instance, while Schwarber's hitting woes and subsequent demotion have been caused by many things, my observation is that many of his problems began when he was victimized numerous times by bad calls on balls and strikes. He has a great batting eye, and a few too many pitches that were actually out of the strike zone were called strikes on him. The natural consequence of this would be for him to lose confidence in his batting eye and expand his strike zone. Then when things start to go wrong because of those consequences, the natural tendency is to start pressing, and that brings about even more bad results.

The 2017 Cubs are not the same team as were the 2016 Cubs. The 2017 Cubs especially miss Fowler, David Ross, and Aroldis Chapman. Albert Almora Jr. and John Jay do not bring as much to the team as Fowler did. The recently departed Miguel Montero did not bring as much to the team as a backup catcher and clubhouse leader as Ross did. Wade Davis does not bring as much spark to the closer's role as Chapman did.

And yet, here the 2017 Cubs stand at just 2.5 games out of the division lead just past the half-way point of the season. I hope that people will take a step back and remember just how special the 2016 season was for the Chicago Cubs, and just how unusual it was for any team--including the Cubs--to do as well during the regular season as did the 2016 Cubs.

Then take time to remember that 2017 is an entirely different season, and had it not been for the magical year of 2016, Cub fans would be very happy to see their team only 2.5 games out of first place at this point in the season, and very hopeful that a division championship (and hopefully a playoff run leading to a World Championship) would be in the offing.

There's still a lot of baseball left to be played in 2017. Let's enjoy it.

Time To Quit The Name-calling

As I write this, as of the most recent information I have heard, Congressman Scalise is still in critical condition after having been shot yesterday.  First and foremost, we should all hope and pray for his recovery.

Some people have begun to call for a gentler tone when it comes to political talk.  A great example is this commentary by Scott Pelley of CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-scott-pelley-attack-foreseeable-predictable-self-inflicted/

Mr. Pelley makes some very good points.  But part of the problem is that each "side" tends to think that the other "side" is worse.

There's nothing wrong with debating policy, goals, and possible avenues to reach those goals.  In fact, good debate is a positive thing.  However, the reality is that both "sides" are guilty of straying from the merits (and/or lack thereof) of various policies and into the realm of verbal attacks and name-calling against the people who hold opposing views.

Beginning nearly two years ago--well prior to the determination of the nominees for President during the 2016 campaign--I started keeping track for a while of some of the different verbal name-calling that I was seeing on Facebook. I made note of name-calling in posts that might be deemed political, keeping track of when liberals used the name-calling tactic and when conservatives used the name-calling tactic.  Here's what I found:

Conservatives said of liberals:

…This is an evil man

…this idiot

…these creeps

…a distraction from the other traitor

…Libtard

…douchebag

…Dumb A** (edited by me)

…nut case

 Liberals said of conservatives:
…poor dumb SOB’s;

...ignorant white dudes

…a very crafty greedy evil man

…Knuckleheads

…These people are stupid beyond belief

…lunatics

…he’s just so….icky!

…moron…blathering idiot…unelectable turkey…

…angry misanthrope

…idiots

…such a buffoon

…Ludicrous, cheap, uninformed, and sleazy

…F****** sociopath (edited by me)

…this turd

…the idiot

Basically, both "sides" have been guilty.

 I hope that Americans will continue to debate ideas and philosophies.  I also hope that we will cease to resort to name-calling and verbal attacks against those with whom we may disagree.

One Final Slap In The Face

The setting: Xenia, OH -- the intersection of W. Main St. and King St.  I can't begin to count the number of times I've had to stop for a red light at that intersection while driving on Main St. when there was no cross traffic.  It's likely that in years (or perhaps decades) past, there was a legitimate need for a traffic light at that intersection.  But in the five-plus years I have personally been passing King St. on Main St. on a more or less regular basis, very rare has been the time when traffic patterns have warranted a traffic light there.  In fact, I'd said in the past that being stopped by that traffic light almost seemed like an insult.  So several weeks ago, when a road sign was erected stating that the traffic signal would be removed on June 12, 2017, I was very happy to see that sign.

As my schedule developed, it turned out that I had to drive down Main St. and pass through that intersection at about 7:15 on the morning of June 12th. As I was about a block away from King St., the light was green, and I figured that it was still too early in the day for the signal to have been removed.  I also thought that perhaps--just perhaps--I might avoid getting stopped by that light the one final time it would have the opportunity to stop me.

But it was not to be.  The light turned yellow when I was about a half block away from King St., and I had to stop for the light one last time.  The entire time the light was red for me, there was absolutely no cross traffic.  When I saw the light at the next intersection about a block ahead turn green with a left turn arrow--the intersection where I would need to turn left--I may have experienced a very, very, slight temptation to just go through the King St. intersection against the red light, but I had also noticed in my rear view mirror that the vehicle behind mine was being driven by one of the city's finest.  So as I sat at that intersection and waited for that blasted red light at King St. to turn green for me one last time, I also looked at the light a block ahead and hoped that it would stay green long enough for me to get through it once I had my (hopefully) final opportunity to simply sit idle and take in the ambiance of the Main St.-King St. intersection. Finally the light turned green, just a few moments before the light at the next intersection turned yellow, meaning I'd have to wait for about another minute and a half before I could make my left turn.  And as timing would have it, once I turned left, traffic patterns were such that I got stopped at three of the next four traffic lights after I made my turn.

It was one final slap in the face from that unneeded traffic light--one final insult.  I haven't had to drive through that intersection again since yesterday morning; I hope that traffic signal was actually taken down as scheduled yesterday.  I have one final thing to say to it: good riddance. 

Another Terrorist Attack; My Response As A Christian

Another terrorist attack has killed multiple people.  As a Christian, I must decide what I should do.

Of course, I should pray for the victims who are still alive, and pray for their loved ones.  I should pray for the loved ones of those victims who have died.  And yes, I should pray for the terrorists that are still living who aided and abetted this catastrophe.

Some Christians want to simply say, "Yes, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."  I actually do believe that.  Those are the words of Jesus, as found in the Bible.  I believe them.  As a follower of Jesus, I want to do as He instructs.

If only it was that simple.

I want to follow my Lord's example.  Yet some things aren't cut and dried as to just how I should act and/or respond as a Christian.

I heard a sermon recently--before this most recent terrorist attack--in which the preacher said basically that if we are Christians, we should not wish harm or death to a group of people because of who they are.  While technically I agree, in reality, it's more complicated than that.  Ideally, I want everyone to come to Christ.  I want everyone to know His love, grace, forgiveness, and mercy. 

I also want the terrorists to stop the killing.  And experience tells me that in this world infected and affected by sin, the terrorists won't stop the killing unless their hearts are changed.  Until that time, they will be bent on killing anyone who disagrees with them and their philosophies. 

I pray that I am never in the position of being a victim of violent terrorism.  I pray that my loved ones and other people whom I know aren't victims of violent terrorism.  I pray that people whom I don't know aren't victims of violent terrorism. So I have two end goals.  First and foremost, I should desire that those who espouse the radical Islamist views would turn instead to Jesus Christ.  At the same time, I must love other people--including those who might become potential victims of radical Islamist terrorism.

I remember hearing another sermon by the now late Rev. Ralph Brown not long after the radical Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001.  Rev. Brown said that while it is true that we are to love our enemies and not seek to kill, we can be equally as guilty of killing if we have a way to prevent people from being killed but do nothing to stop it.

The problem in this world that is (I will say it again) infected and affected by sin is that sometimes we are left with no perfect choices.  In fact we can be left with two choices, both of which are less than desirable.  In this case, do I "love my enemies" by "turning the other cheek" and letting them continue to commit terrorist acts against anyone who disagrees with their radical Islamist philosophy--including children?  Or do I stand for protecting the potential victims of radical Islamist terrorism (hopefully even before the terrorists have the opportunity to commit their acts of terrorism) by doing all I can to stop them, even if it means supporting actions that might (or even likely will) result in their deaths, in order to prevent the deaths of even larger numbers of people whom the terrorists are trying to kill?

To my brothers and sisters in Christ who stand for the idealism of turning the other cheek, I honor your decision and your commitment to the ideal.  If that is how the indwelling Holy Spirit is leading you to react to this situation, by all means, please follow as He leads.  The apostle Paul clearly pointed out in the Book of Romans that you will not answer to me or to any other human being, but to God.  Please, follow as He leads you.

However, please understand that I, too, have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in me.  And since I heard Rev. Brown's sermon over a decade and a half ago, I have sensed the Holy Spirit leading me to see the Islamist terrorist situation as one of the many ways in which this world does not function as God originally designed it to function, and that therefore I must support the efforts of those who will do whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists from carrying out their attacks that will kill and injure many people--even if doing whatever is necessary to stop the terrorists results in their deaths.

It's not a perfect solution, but we don't live in a perfect world.  I do not long for the deaths of the terrorists; I long for their terrorist attacks against those with whom they disagree to stop.  I am standing up for the lives and safety of those who would or could be victims of terrorism, hopefully preventing those people from being victims at all.

In my heart, this is my response as a Christian, even if other brothers and sisters in Christ may not have the same response.  My heart is heavy for the Islamic terrorists.  I sincerely hope they will turn to Christ Jesus.  But unless and until they do, I believe that it is a legitimate Christian response to do everything possible to stop them from inuring and killing others.

May God have mercy on us.