Hey everybody...
Merry Christmas to you. I hope it's a blessed one.
If you didn't know, I'm in TN for the next week+. My posting will be extremely light. No new houspics, cowboys reviews, or any of the like.
Feliz Navidad.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
You've got to be kidding me...
"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life," Clemens said in a statement released by his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take."
"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."
Those were statements by Roger Clemens released through his agent yesterday. What is my reaction? [Insert title of the post]. You deny using any PED but then delay addressing the evidence in the Mitchel Report (MR) that says otherwise? Then, you whine that your public life hasn't earned you the benefit of the doubt? C'mon.
Mark McGwire was a fan favorite in St. Louis...did he get the benefit of the doubt? Did Pete Rose get the benefit of the doubt when he was being questioned about betting on games?
Roger, you aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry. You can continue to whine about it if you'd like, but that will only make you look more stupid. You especially aren't going to get it if you keep handling this in such moronic fashion. Do something for crying out loud. You are handling this either like a chicken or like a baby. Why don't we just compromise between the two and say you are handling this like a baby chicken, there, that's better. Roger, you are a baby chicken.
Question for Mr. Clemens, exactly when is the "appropriate time" and what is the "appropriate way"?
I have a few suggestions that might help Clemens figure out the appropriate time and way...
Appropriate time and way #1:
You could go the Pete Rose (notice I didn't say Jose Conseco) route, and write your own confession in an autobiography, which in turn forces people to pay $25 bucks to read your confession. That way you might gather up enough chump change to pay for your attorneys, because if you are paid something around $282,900 per inning in 2007 (or whatever it is), you'd better believe your attorneys aren't going to go easy on your murse.
Appropriate time and way #2:
Start you own blog and say whatever you want to. People may read it, they may not, but who cares, right? This will at least give you a chance to say what you really want to say, instead of hiding behind carefully thought out words from your agent.
Appropriate time and way #3:
OK, I'll have to admit, if you were to simultaneously testify against yourself AND Bonds, that might be pretty cool. I don't know if you the two of you had injecting parties during the All-Star break or what not, but if you have anything against Bonds and you squeeze in your own personal confession while squeeling on Bonds, that would be the talk of the town for quite awhile.
Appropriate time and way #4:
Whine about how George and Hank Steinbrenner were beating you into submission with whips made out of diamonds. You figured injecting yourself with something a bit more potent than orange juice might help them stop...or ease the pain.
Appropriate time and way #4:
Blame it on the Mets
Appropriate time and way #5:
Blame it on the Red Sox
Appropriate time and way #6:
Explain to everyone that Mitchell and McNamee just miscommunicated. Tell the media that Mitchell conducted his interview via cell phone and McNamee began the interview sarcastically. But then tell the media that a dropped call can ruin a conversation. Then show us the commercial starring yourself. That has potential.
Appropriate time and way #7:
Say that you were just a little confused at the time.
Appropriate time and way #8:
If you are allowed to make your appearance, why not just confess to those listening at HUMBLE high school (ironicly named).
Appropriate time and way #9:
Make a movie about yourself. I'm mentally debating who the best actor would be to play a Roger Clemens role, but it's kind of tough. There are so many different routes to take, we could have a Roger Clemens played by The Rock...or we could go a totally different route and get somebody like Zac Efron. For some reason Keanu Reeves keeps coming to mind but that could be unrelated.
Appropriate time and way #10:
I'm open to suggestions. Comment or Email me if you have one.
"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."
Those were statements by Roger Clemens released through his agent yesterday. What is my reaction? [Insert title of the post]. You deny using any PED but then delay addressing the evidence in the Mitchel Report (MR) that says otherwise? Then, you whine that your public life hasn't earned you the benefit of the doubt? C'mon.
Mark McGwire was a fan favorite in St. Louis...did he get the benefit of the doubt? Did Pete Rose get the benefit of the doubt when he was being questioned about betting on games?
Roger, you aren't going to get the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry. You can continue to whine about it if you'd like, but that will only make you look more stupid. You especially aren't going to get it if you keep handling this in such moronic fashion. Do something for crying out loud. You are handling this either like a chicken or like a baby. Why don't we just compromise between the two and say you are handling this like a baby chicken, there, that's better. Roger, you are a baby chicken.
Question for Mr. Clemens, exactly when is the "appropriate time" and what is the "appropriate way"?
I have a few suggestions that might help Clemens figure out the appropriate time and way...
Appropriate time and way #1:
You could go the Pete Rose (notice I didn't say Jose Conseco) route, and write your own confession in an autobiography, which in turn forces people to pay $25 bucks to read your confession. That way you might gather up enough chump change to pay for your attorneys, because if you are paid something around $282,900 per inning in 2007 (or whatever it is), you'd better believe your attorneys aren't going to go easy on your murse.
Appropriate time and way #2:
Start you own blog and say whatever you want to. People may read it, they may not, but who cares, right? This will at least give you a chance to say what you really want to say, instead of hiding behind carefully thought out words from your agent.
Appropriate time and way #3:
OK, I'll have to admit, if you were to simultaneously testify against yourself AND Bonds, that might be pretty cool. I don't know if you the two of you had injecting parties during the All-Star break or what not, but if you have anything against Bonds and you squeeze in your own personal confession while squeeling on Bonds, that would be the talk of the town for quite awhile.
Appropriate time and way #4:
Whine about how George and Hank Steinbrenner were beating you into submission with whips made out of diamonds. You figured injecting yourself with something a bit more potent than orange juice might help them stop...or ease the pain.
Appropriate time and way #4:
Blame it on the Mets
Appropriate time and way #5:
Blame it on the Red Sox
Appropriate time and way #6:
Explain to everyone that Mitchell and McNamee just miscommunicated. Tell the media that Mitchell conducted his interview via cell phone and McNamee began the interview sarcastically. But then tell the media that a dropped call can ruin a conversation. Then show us the commercial starring yourself. That has potential.
Appropriate time and way #7:
Say that you were just a little confused at the time.
Appropriate time and way #8:
If you are allowed to make your appearance, why not just confess to those listening at HUMBLE high school (ironicly named).
Appropriate time and way #9:
Make a movie about yourself. I'm mentally debating who the best actor would be to play a Roger Clemens role, but it's kind of tough. There are so many different routes to take, we could have a Roger Clemens played by The Rock...or we could go a totally different route and get somebody like Zac Efron. For some reason Keanu Reeves keeps coming to mind but that could be unrelated.
Appropriate time and way #10:
I'm open to suggestions. Comment or Email me if you have one.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Tithing - Part 2
Sorry, I realize I'm a day or two late on presenting this. I don't really have a good excuse.
Tithing, comes from the Hebrew "ma'aser" which of course means "tenth". I often hear preachers say that you should give 10%. "If you don't give 10% you are a bad Christian." "Please give 10% so you can make God happy!"
However, since when is 10% the destination? This is the point when people point to tithing in the Old Testament, noting that the people gave 10%, thus, that is the Biblical amount we are to give. Well, let's look at Tithing in the OT to see what we find.
The Bible's first mention of tithing is in Genesis 14:20. This verse alone is kind of frustrating because of the use of the pronoun "him". Is it Abram giving a tenth to God or Abram giving a tenth to Melchizedek? I've heard this verse misinterpreted several times because of this confusion. Hebrews 7:2-4 interprets Gen 14:20 for you. Praise God for those times when the NT interprets the OT easing our confusion greatly. But back to tithing...
Abram gave 10% of his plunder to [look at Hebrews 7 for the answer :D). Thus, 10% is the biblical number, right? I feel like this is a misconception. In the Old Testament we read about multiple giving requirements which totaled well over 10%.
The Lord's Tithe - Numbers 18:21-29
The Lord's Tithe (often called the Levites Tithe) is kind of considered the base tithe. This tithe goes towards the Levite's priestly ministry. This tithe was required of everyone. It was not optional. A man who did not pay the Lord's Tithe was robbing God (Malachi 3:8). We see how how important the Lord's Tithe is in Leviticus 27:30-33, A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. The entire tithe of the herd and flock - every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod - will be holy to the Lord. He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, bot the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe - Deuteronomy 12:10-11, 17-18, 14:23-27
This was a tithe of celebration. God delivered the Israelites to the promised land Levite's ministry, the purpose of the festival Tithe was to celebrate and bring community amongst the Lord's people. This tithe was brought to a place of the Lord's choosing. If that place was too far, then they were to exchange the tithe for silver, go to the place of the Lord's choosing, then buy the cattle, sheep, etc. and rejoice in the Lord.
I'll be honest with you, this tithe seems a little odd to me, particularly when I compare it to our current state. Look at how much they have to work to give this tithe. The festival tithe requires a lot of work and traveling. But they are glad to do it! I love how the Israelites rejoiced in this tithe. I think we learn a lot about the true spirit of giving. We should rejoice when we give to our churches, charities, each other, etc. God has blessed us immensely. We mustn't forget this.
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe, 10% per year.
The Poor Tithe - Deuteronomy 14:28-29
Deut. 14:28 says, At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns. This tithe went towards those who "may come eat and be satisfied". The Levites, again, who have no inheritance, aliens, widows, fatherless, all came to enjoy this. We can see why it's called the poor tithe. This gives the chance for those to come and be provided for.
**Disclaimer**It's really tough to figure out (because we only have 2 verses of information) exactly how this tithe is broken down. It says at the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it n your towns. That could mean that it is a separate tithe, as I have listed, in addition to the other two tithes, or it could also mean every third year their tithe (The Festival Tithe) was to be used for the sole purpose of helping the poor. I've read it several times and it could go either way. Scholars seem to be as split as I am. If it is a separate tithe, then the breakdown would go as follows:
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe, 10% per year.
The Poor Tithe, 10% every third year = 3% per year
10%+10%+3% = 23% per year.
As we can see, It is possible that in the Old Testament the total tithes required as much as 23%. That's almost a fourth of what they had!
I believe giving is a journey, not a destination. There is no set chasm to arrive in, where you are giving the proper amount. Instead bugging everyone to give 10%, here is what needs to happen.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 3% to give 5%.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 5% to give 7%.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 8% to give 10%.
But as I said, 10% is not a destination. 10% is just the beginning. This is, after all, a journey.
So let's (in a loving way) encourage those giving 10% to give 12%.
Let's also (in a loving way) encourage those giving 25% to give 30%.
You see what I mean? This is a journey that the Spirit takes us on. Giving is a spiritual discipline that draws us closer to our loving father. I don't think we should put a limit on something like that. We can't say, "I'm giving 10%, I'm good to go for life".
I want to ask that question again, that I asked in part 1. Using some of the info I have provided, continue to chew on this...
Why does God want us to give?
Think about it long and hard. It goes so much deeper than "because he said so" or "because it's his money in the first place".
Think about the tithes. Ask yourself why they were required. What was God trying to communicate by requiring a sacrifice of possibly up to 23% annually?
Wrestle with that, email me or comment me a question. Think about it for awhile, more to come later.
Tithing, comes from the Hebrew "ma'aser" which of course means "tenth". I often hear preachers say that you should give 10%. "If you don't give 10% you are a bad Christian." "Please give 10% so you can make God happy!"
However, since when is 10% the destination? This is the point when people point to tithing in the Old Testament, noting that the people gave 10%, thus, that is the Biblical amount we are to give. Well, let's look at Tithing in the OT to see what we find.
The Bible's first mention of tithing is in Genesis 14:20. This verse alone is kind of frustrating because of the use of the pronoun "him". Is it Abram giving a tenth to God or Abram giving a tenth to Melchizedek? I've heard this verse misinterpreted several times because of this confusion. Hebrews 7:2-4 interprets Gen 14:20 for you. Praise God for those times when the NT interprets the OT easing our confusion greatly. But back to tithing...
Abram gave 10% of his plunder to [look at Hebrews 7 for the answer :D). Thus, 10% is the biblical number, right? I feel like this is a misconception. In the Old Testament we read about multiple giving requirements which totaled well over 10%.
The Lord's Tithe - Numbers 18:21-29
The Lord's Tithe (often called the Levites Tithe) is kind of considered the base tithe. This tithe goes towards the Levite's priestly ministry. This tithe was required of everyone. It was not optional. A man who did not pay the Lord's Tithe was robbing God (Malachi 3:8). We see how how important the Lord's Tithe is in Leviticus 27:30-33, A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. The entire tithe of the herd and flock - every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod - will be holy to the Lord. He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, bot the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe - Deuteronomy 12:10-11, 17-18, 14:23-27
This was a tithe of celebration. God delivered the Israelites to the promised land Levite's ministry, the purpose of the festival Tithe was to celebrate and bring community amongst the Lord's people. This tithe was brought to a place of the Lord's choosing. If that place was too far, then they were to exchange the tithe for silver, go to the place of the Lord's choosing, then buy the cattle, sheep, etc. and rejoice in the Lord.
I'll be honest with you, this tithe seems a little odd to me, particularly when I compare it to our current state. Look at how much they have to work to give this tithe. The festival tithe requires a lot of work and traveling. But they are glad to do it! I love how the Israelites rejoiced in this tithe. I think we learn a lot about the true spirit of giving. We should rejoice when we give to our churches, charities, each other, etc. God has blessed us immensely. We mustn't forget this.
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe, 10% per year.
The Poor Tithe - Deuteronomy 14:28-29
Deut. 14:28 says, At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns. This tithe went towards those who "may come eat and be satisfied". The Levites, again, who have no inheritance, aliens, widows, fatherless, all came to enjoy this. We can see why it's called the poor tithe. This gives the chance for those to come and be provided for.
**Disclaimer**It's really tough to figure out (because we only have 2 verses of information) exactly how this tithe is broken down. It says at the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it n your towns. That could mean that it is a separate tithe, as I have listed, in addition to the other two tithes, or it could also mean every third year their tithe (The Festival Tithe) was to be used for the sole purpose of helping the poor. I've read it several times and it could go either way. Scholars seem to be as split as I am. If it is a separate tithe, then the breakdown would go as follows:
The Lord's Tithe, 10% per year.
The Festival Tithe, 10% per year.
The Poor Tithe, 10% every third year = 3% per year
10%+10%+3% = 23% per year.
As we can see, It is possible that in the Old Testament the total tithes required as much as 23%. That's almost a fourth of what they had!
I believe giving is a journey, not a destination. There is no set chasm to arrive in, where you are giving the proper amount. Instead bugging everyone to give 10%, here is what needs to happen.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 3% to give 5%.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 5% to give 7%.
We need to (in a loving way) encourage those giving 8% to give 10%.
But as I said, 10% is not a destination. 10% is just the beginning. This is, after all, a journey.
So let's (in a loving way) encourage those giving 10% to give 12%.
Let's also (in a loving way) encourage those giving 25% to give 30%.
You see what I mean? This is a journey that the Spirit takes us on. Giving is a spiritual discipline that draws us closer to our loving father. I don't think we should put a limit on something like that. We can't say, "I'm giving 10%, I'm good to go for life".
I want to ask that question again, that I asked in part 1. Using some of the info I have provided, continue to chew on this...
Why does God want us to give?
Think about it long and hard. It goes so much deeper than "because he said so" or "because it's his money in the first place".
Think about the tithes. Ask yourself why they were required. What was God trying to communicate by requiring a sacrifice of possibly up to 23% annually?
Wrestle with that, email me or comment me a question. Think about it for awhile, more to come later.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Week 15 Analysis: 14-2
Can't say I didn't see this coming. The Cowboy's have been slacking in their past few games and the Eagles have been getting better and better lately, evidenced by the fact that their are among the few that have almost beaten the Pats.
Offense:
Romo's girlfriend, Jessica Simpson, was in attendance. Once we saw that Jessica was there, we all knew where this was going.
It reminds me of that scene in Robert Redford's, The Natural, when Roy Hobbs starts dating Kim Basinger (sorry, can't think of her character name and I'm too lazy to look it up) who becomes a curse to his game. While Basinger shows up to all of his games, Redford plays the worst baseball he ever played. Redford's attachment with Basinger continues to grow stronger, while his baseball game grows weaker. Yes, there is a correlation there. Sure enough, when the chick is out of the picture, he returns to being the phenomenal player he "naturally" (sorry, I couldn't resist) is.
We see sports movies all the time (especially those coaching movies) where the coaches say something like "No girls, they are just a distraction" or "they will distort your thinking", blah blah. I've always kind of hated that about coaching movies because it doesnt seem realistic at all to me. However, after what Romo did yesterday, they have a good argument against my theory.
Romo had the worst game of his career. No TDs, 3 INTs, completed a little over a third of his passes, fumbled twice, and sprained his thumb. He completed just 13 passes (8 to Witten, who apparently was the only one on offense who realized there was a football game to be played). Witten had 8 catches for 113 yards. The player was virtually non existent, although he has no room to whine about this one. The player was the intended receiver on all 3 of the interceptions. Owens had 2 for 37, Crayton had 2 for 54.
Running the ball wasn't much better. MB3 led the team with a whopping 37 yards (7 attempts). JuJo had...6 yards....on 6 carries...making his average calculable for one of Jenny's Pre-K students.
Please, Romo, for the sake of America's team, ditch the girl and save the hanky panky for the offseason.
Defense
It's a crying shame the offense was so bad yesterday because the defense was arguably the best we've seen all season. McNabb completed a good percentage of his passes and threw a TD, but still didn't have as many yards as Romo did on his off day. Westbrook rushed for 81 yards, but the Eagles had trouble putting it all together. The Cowboys front 7 put up a strong showing sacking McNabb 3 times and making several key third down stops along the way. The coverage completely eliminated any deep threat the Eagles may have, which forced McNabb to rely on those tailback, banana routes.
I giggled in the 4th quarter when Westbrook broke free towards the endzone, but then dropped at the one yard line. IMO, it was a smart move because that really sealed the deal. But I wonder how many fantasy football players wanted Westbrook's head for forfeiting the touchdown.
Tip of my hat to the defense. Sorry the offense had you on the field so long. But it was a good showing that we can build upon into the playoffs.
Stat of the game:
Dallas 3rd down conversions: 1-13
Offense:
Romo's girlfriend, Jessica Simpson, was in attendance. Once we saw that Jessica was there, we all knew where this was going.
It reminds me of that scene in Robert Redford's, The Natural, when Roy Hobbs starts dating Kim Basinger (sorry, can't think of her character name and I'm too lazy to look it up) who becomes a curse to his game. While Basinger shows up to all of his games, Redford plays the worst baseball he ever played. Redford's attachment with Basinger continues to grow stronger, while his baseball game grows weaker. Yes, there is a correlation there. Sure enough, when the chick is out of the picture, he returns to being the phenomenal player he "naturally" (sorry, I couldn't resist) is.
We see sports movies all the time (especially those coaching movies) where the coaches say something like "No girls, they are just a distraction" or "they will distort your thinking", blah blah. I've always kind of hated that about coaching movies because it doesnt seem realistic at all to me. However, after what Romo did yesterday, they have a good argument against my theory.
Romo had the worst game of his career. No TDs, 3 INTs, completed a little over a third of his passes, fumbled twice, and sprained his thumb. He completed just 13 passes (8 to Witten, who apparently was the only one on offense who realized there was a football game to be played). Witten had 8 catches for 113 yards. The player was virtually non existent, although he has no room to whine about this one. The player was the intended receiver on all 3 of the interceptions. Owens had 2 for 37, Crayton had 2 for 54.
Running the ball wasn't much better. MB3 led the team with a whopping 37 yards (7 attempts). JuJo had...6 yards....on 6 carries...making his average calculable for one of Jenny's Pre-K students.
Please, Romo, for the sake of America's team, ditch the girl and save the hanky panky for the offseason.
Defense
It's a crying shame the offense was so bad yesterday because the defense was arguably the best we've seen all season. McNabb completed a good percentage of his passes and threw a TD, but still didn't have as many yards as Romo did on his off day. Westbrook rushed for 81 yards, but the Eagles had trouble putting it all together. The Cowboys front 7 put up a strong showing sacking McNabb 3 times and making several key third down stops along the way. The coverage completely eliminated any deep threat the Eagles may have, which forced McNabb to rely on those tailback, banana routes.
I giggled in the 4th quarter when Westbrook broke free towards the endzone, but then dropped at the one yard line. IMO, it was a smart move because that really sealed the deal. But I wonder how many fantasy football players wanted Westbrook's head for forfeiting the touchdown.
Tip of my hat to the defense. Sorry the offense had you on the field so long. But it was a good showing that we can build upon into the playoffs.
Stat of the game:
Dallas 3rd down conversions: 1-13
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
Tithing - Part 1
I have a lot to say about the subject of tithing/giving. I've been studying it a lot in my personal study and have developed many conclusions I did not have before. In February, Brian will start a series of lessons on giving that he will preach Sunday morning, a series that will last about a month.
Instead of just posting my discoveries, I want to start with a question. Wrestle with this question for a day or so and I'll post part 2 (already written) later in the weekend (Sunday maybe?).
Take your Bibles, and wrestle with this question:
Exactly why does God want us to give to him? Is he selfish? Does he want our money just to torture us with making another sacrifice?
How does our giving display God's holiness?
OK, so perhaps that should read "wrestle with THESE questionS:" but you get the idea.
I've also got a lot more to say about the Mitchell report, but I'll do giving first, as it is more important.
Grace and Peace!
Instead of just posting my discoveries, I want to start with a question. Wrestle with this question for a day or so and I'll post part 2 (already written) later in the weekend (Sunday maybe?).
Take your Bibles, and wrestle with this question:
Exactly why does God want us to give to him? Is he selfish? Does he want our money just to torture us with making another sacrifice?
How does our giving display God's holiness?
OK, so perhaps that should read "wrestle with THESE questionS:" but you get the idea.
I've also got a lot more to say about the Mitchell report, but I'll do giving first, as it is more important.
Grace and Peace!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
still not done with Mitchell
I know I said that the names aren't the most important part of the Mitchell report. I still stand by my thesis that the Mitchell Report shouldn't be for the purpose of pointing fingers at the names of those on the list.
But why not point fingers at Bud Selig. Isn't this just as much his fault than any of the players? He's known about steroids in baseball for over a decade, but we didn't see much of an attempt to stop this back then...when the problem wasn't quite what it is today.
If you want a good read, pick up a copy of Zimbalist's In the Best Interests of Baseball
It tells you a lot about the history of Selig's reign and the long term effects of Selig's short term fixes. Without getting too far off of the subject of steroids, I found this book interesting. It's funny how short term fixes aren't good for long term. For example, what may have seemed like a good move (say, avoiding a work stoppage by coming up with a labor plan) actually was a bad move because the particular labor plan that was developed allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Zimbalist explains this better than I did, so just read it for yourself.
Anyways, I'm pointing my finger at Selig before I'm pointing towards Bonds, Clemens, etc.
In selig's speech regarding the Mitchell report, he in no way hints towards the possibility that he made a mistake several years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer (my apologies for getting biblical) that sin has consequences. The players sinned (cheated), not Selig. But Selig certainly could have done something to discipline/prevent the players at that particular time.
I see this in Youth Ministry all the time. It's like waiting for the child to become a teenager to punish him. Why wait till he is a teenager to punish him for cheating, when he has been cheating his whole life? The earlier you start, the better.
That's all for awhile, I have a christmas party to attend. So for the first time since 1:00 EST I will be away from the Mitchell report coverage on TV.
But why not point fingers at Bud Selig. Isn't this just as much his fault than any of the players? He's known about steroids in baseball for over a decade, but we didn't see much of an attempt to stop this back then...when the problem wasn't quite what it is today.
If you want a good read, pick up a copy of Zimbalist's In the Best Interests of Baseball
It tells you a lot about the history of Selig's reign and the long term effects of Selig's short term fixes. Without getting too far off of the subject of steroids, I found this book interesting. It's funny how short term fixes aren't good for long term. For example, what may have seemed like a good move (say, avoiding a work stoppage by coming up with a labor plan) actually was a bad move because the particular labor plan that was developed allowed the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. Zimbalist explains this better than I did, so just read it for yourself.
Anyways, I'm pointing my finger at Selig before I'm pointing towards Bonds, Clemens, etc.
In selig's speech regarding the Mitchell report, he in no way hints towards the possibility that he made a mistake several years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer (my apologies for getting biblical) that sin has consequences. The players sinned (cheated), not Selig. But Selig certainly could have done something to discipline/prevent the players at that particular time.
I see this in Youth Ministry all the time. It's like waiting for the child to become a teenager to punish him. Why wait till he is a teenager to punish him for cheating, when he has been cheating his whole life? The earlier you start, the better.
That's all for awhile, I have a christmas party to attend. So for the first time since 1:00 EST I will be away from the Mitchell report coverage on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
