So, Jimmie Johnson won his fifth straight Sprint Cup championship yesterday. An hour afterwards, the top story on ESPN.com was the half-finished Patriots-Colts game.
Does anyone else think that that the "Worldwide Leader in Sports" would consider a five-time, say, World Series winner to be less newsworthy than a semi-meaningful regular-season football game? That right there tells you everything you need to know about how the mainstream sporting world views NASCAR.
And - apologies to the 48 team, but their winning streak is part of the reason why. It's not just that Johnson is too predictable to love and too boring to hate. I suspect that, even if perennial most-popular-driver Dale Jr. were to knock off five championships in a row, a lot of fans would be tuning out at this point. Sports fans like underdogs and long-shots; that's what makes sport, sport.
It seems that Johnson's team is uniquely suited to take advantage of the Chase format, which essentially turns the season into a 10-race sprint at the very end. They've got it figured out, and good for them. But, as a fan, it's demoralizing to see a team lead the standings for seven months only to see the driver's lead erased. Sure, in other sports it's possible for a wild card team 10 spots out of the lead to rip off a few playoff wins and take the whole thing. But usually not the same team for five years in a row.
Several years ago, after Matt Kenseth won the [Fill in the Sponsor Here] Cup, NASCAR's brain trust devised the Chase format believing that it would be more exciting to have a tight 10 (now 12) way race to the finish. But it hasn't really worked out that way. The News & Observer reported last week that ESPN's race broadcast ratings were down 13 percent over last year. Whatever NASCAR is doing isn't working.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
You have a low opinion of what drives me crazy
All-you-can-eat buffets. Double negatives. Improper subject/verb agreement. Lazy tackling. These are things that irritate, bother and trouble me, even raise my blood pressure.
A woman (who happens to be the daughter of a conservative political figure) advancing in a TV popularity contest? Not so much.
As I wrote back when I watched my very first episode of "Dancing With the Stars," I hope Bristol Palin has a great time. People her age need a chance to get away from home for a little while and figure out who they are, even if just for a few weeks. And she's doing well, too - great legs, for one thing, and she's doing moves that aren't easy for someone with zero experience performing. I'm a card-carrying liberal and I wish Bristol all the best on "DWTS."
I think it's kind of weird that someone would assume I wouldn't. Every single person I know who's involved with politics and government (mostly liberals, but a few conservatives) is too busy organizing precincts, planning GOTV drives and figuring out a plan for the next election. Not fretting over who wins "DWTS." Who gives a shit?
Frankly, people who have literally hours to waste creating fake e-mail addresses and voting in a TV competition, and then bragging about that on a Web forum, aren't people who are going to have a large role to play in policy development anyway. Yawn.
A woman (who happens to be the daughter of a conservative political figure) advancing in a TV popularity contest? Not so much.
As I wrote back when I watched my very first episode of "Dancing With the Stars," I hope Bristol Palin has a great time. People her age need a chance to get away from home for a little while and figure out who they are, even if just for a few weeks. And she's doing well, too - great legs, for one thing, and she's doing moves that aren't easy for someone with zero experience performing. I'm a card-carrying liberal and I wish Bristol all the best on "DWTS."
I think it's kind of weird that someone would assume I wouldn't. Every single person I know who's involved with politics and government (mostly liberals, but a few conservatives) is too busy organizing precincts, planning GOTV drives and figuring out a plan for the next election. Not fretting over who wins "DWTS." Who gives a shit?
Frankly, people who have literally hours to waste creating fake e-mail addresses and voting in a TV competition, and then bragging about that on a Web forum, aren't people who are going to have a large role to play in policy development anyway. Yawn.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Does this blog make you want to smoke?
Here's a funny story: I grew up in Winston-Salem, N.C., within smelling distance of a cigarette plant where my school used to take field trips. This was before the feds cracked down on tobacco advertising, so Joe Camel was everywhere - including on a sweatshirt my grandfather, a retired RJ Reynolds employee, gave me (and which my mom never let me wear).
Not only did I not smoke until I got to college (making me a statistical freak of nature), when I did buy my first pack, it wasn't Camels, Winstons, Salems or any of my other hometown brands. They were Marlboro Lights, because that's what my roommate smoked.
Ask any smoker what got him or her to light up the first time, and you'll hear "My dad smoked, and I snuck some of his," or, "All my friends/coworkers smoked." It's possible that you'll find someone who swears up and down that a cartoon Camel looked so cool that he wanted to be just like him, but I doubt it. That's because our peers, siblings and, yes, parents, are still bigger influences on us than any advertisment.
Which is why this is dumb. I'm all for restricting tobacco ads to adults. This is a product that says right on the box that it will addict and eventually kill you, and a 15-year-old shouldn't be responsible for hooking himself, any more than that same 15-year-old should be allowed to buy a gun. There's a reason tobacco companies targeted kids at one point (to hook them early), and the government was right to keep them away from kids.
But to me the criticism of this Camel campaign feels like "let's jump on the tobacco industry no matter what they do." You have a contest playing off indie rock, driven by an age-restricted website, featuring destinations like Sturgis, S.D., and Austin, Texas. (Not, say, Disneyland.) The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Reynolds is "blatantly appeal[ing] to children." Bullshit. I have an 11-year-old nephew, and I doubt he could tell you where Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is if you offered him a hundred bucks.
Adults who want to smoke are going to smoke. A lot of kids who want to smoke will find a way to do so. The way to stop them isn't to piggy-back on a cigarette marketing campaign to get publicity for your own organization. It's to be a responsible parent, grandparent, teacher, etc., monitor your kids' Internet use, smell their breath and in general involve yourself in their lives. You know, like a grown-up.
Not only did I not smoke until I got to college (making me a statistical freak of nature), when I did buy my first pack, it wasn't Camels, Winstons, Salems or any of my other hometown brands. They were Marlboro Lights, because that's what my roommate smoked.
Ask any smoker what got him or her to light up the first time, and you'll hear "My dad smoked, and I snuck some of his," or, "All my friends/coworkers smoked." It's possible that you'll find someone who swears up and down that a cartoon Camel looked so cool that he wanted to be just like him, but I doubt it. That's because our peers, siblings and, yes, parents, are still bigger influences on us than any advertisment.
Which is why this is dumb. I'm all for restricting tobacco ads to adults. This is a product that says right on the box that it will addict and eventually kill you, and a 15-year-old shouldn't be responsible for hooking himself, any more than that same 15-year-old should be allowed to buy a gun. There's a reason tobacco companies targeted kids at one point (to hook them early), and the government was right to keep them away from kids.
But to me the criticism of this Camel campaign feels like "let's jump on the tobacco industry no matter what they do." You have a contest playing off indie rock, driven by an age-restricted website, featuring destinations like Sturgis, S.D., and Austin, Texas. (Not, say, Disneyland.) The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says Reynolds is "blatantly appeal[ing] to children." Bullshit. I have an 11-year-old nephew, and I doubt he could tell you where Williamsburg, Brooklyn, is if you offered him a hundred bucks.
Adults who want to smoke are going to smoke. A lot of kids who want to smoke will find a way to do so. The way to stop them isn't to piggy-back on a cigarette marketing campaign to get publicity for your own organization. It's to be a responsible parent, grandparent, teacher, etc., monitor your kids' Internet use, smell their breath and in general involve yourself in their lives. You know, like a grown-up.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The war at home
It’s Veterans Day, but it’s also the night before my grandmother’s funeral.
Mamaw was a lot of things – an extraordinary woman who’d surely look at me funny if she heard me say that about her: a woman who was married to the love of her life for 61 years until his death, who worked the whole time she was raising three boys, and who likely never missed a Sunday at church. Those are the things that make her extraordinary.
One of my friends reminded me that Nov. 11 used to be called Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, and it honored veterans and anyone else affected by war. And Mamaw certainly was. Her husband was a Marine MP during World War II, and her middle son, my dad, was a four-times-wounded Vietnam vet who said many times that his salvation was having a loving Christian family to come home to.
So, as we rightfully honor military veterans today, let’s not forget the families waiting and worrying back home. They may not get shot at, but they sure as hell sacrifice before, during and after combat is over. Maybe after most of all.
Mamaw was a lot of things – an extraordinary woman who’d surely look at me funny if she heard me say that about her: a woman who was married to the love of her life for 61 years until his death, who worked the whole time she was raising three boys, and who likely never missed a Sunday at church. Those are the things that make her extraordinary.
One of my friends reminded me that Nov. 11 used to be called Armistice Day or Remembrance Day, and it honored veterans and anyone else affected by war. And Mamaw certainly was. Her husband was a Marine MP during World War II, and her middle son, my dad, was a four-times-wounded Vietnam vet who said many times that his salvation was having a loving Christian family to come home to.
So, as we rightfully honor military veterans today, let’s not forget the families waiting and worrying back home. They may not get shot at, but they sure as hell sacrifice before, during and after combat is over. Maybe after most of all.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
This is what a news organization looks like
I'm not going to rehash my distaste for MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. In my opinion, he's no better than the "journalists" at Fox News. But apparently MSNBC is. Or at least they want to be.
Olbermann was suspended Friday after it came to light that he'd donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates (one of whom appeared as a guest on his show just last week). NBC News has rules barring its hosts and reporters from making political contributions without prior approval. One can argue that the rule is unfair, but presumably Olbermann knew about it and knowingly broke it. Suspension is a no-brainer.
Now, about Fox... Not only do their on-air people like Sean Hannity make political donations (including to some of the very people who appear on their shows), the network employs Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who both actively endorse and raise money for candidates. The network itself gives money to Republican organizations, including $1 million to the Republican Governors Association just this year from News Corp., Fox News' parent company.
No, this is not a "but Fox does it, too!" excuse. If you ask me, the fact that Fox News does something is an excellent reason NOT to do that very thing. When we're talking about journalistic ethics, you could do a lot worse than looking at Fox News standards and then doing the opposite.
And I'm fine with NBC News' rule about political donations for the very people its reporters are supposed to be covering objectively. For frak's sake, are we really having this debate? If you want to advocate for one politician or another, don't take a job that requires your neutrality on that very topic.
While "Countdown" is definitely an opinion-based program, Olbermann also anchored MSNBC's election night coverage this year. (I watched CNN, by the way.) That makes him a journalist, not a commentator. As a viewer, I insist that the journalists I watch investigate and report the news, not help make it.
Olbermann was suspended Friday after it came to light that he'd donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates (one of whom appeared as a guest on his show just last week). NBC News has rules barring its hosts and reporters from making political contributions without prior approval. One can argue that the rule is unfair, but presumably Olbermann knew about it and knowingly broke it. Suspension is a no-brainer.
Now, about Fox... Not only do their on-air people like Sean Hannity make political donations (including to some of the very people who appear on their shows), the network employs Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who both actively endorse and raise money for candidates. The network itself gives money to Republican organizations, including $1 million to the Republican Governors Association just this year from News Corp., Fox News' parent company.
No, this is not a "but Fox does it, too!" excuse. If you ask me, the fact that Fox News does something is an excellent reason NOT to do that very thing. When we're talking about journalistic ethics, you could do a lot worse than looking at Fox News standards and then doing the opposite.
And I'm fine with NBC News' rule about political donations for the very people its reporters are supposed to be covering objectively. For frak's sake, are we really having this debate? If you want to advocate for one politician or another, don't take a job that requires your neutrality on that very topic.
While "Countdown" is definitely an opinion-based program, Olbermann also anchored MSNBC's election night coverage this year. (I watched CNN, by the way.) That makes him a journalist, not a commentator. As a viewer, I insist that the journalists I watch investigate and report the news, not help make it.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Study proves that some people just don't get correlation vs. causality
A study by the National Forest Service found that neighborhoods with lots of trees have less crime! Hell yes! Let's plant some trees and watch our property crime disappear!
Ummmm, nope.
Let me say upfront that I have no idea what controls this survey used in order to ensure it indicates what it thinks it indicates, and there's always the UNC Geography Major caveat that comes whenever the media tries to report stats. That said, my first reaction on reading this was that the results were a little backward.
I say that because just last month I cut down a tree in front of my house because it blocked the street light that allows the whole neighborhood to see when Ted Bundy is trying to break into my house. (Don't get excited - it was a hideous deformed crepe myrtle, not a giant oak or anything.) I love living where I do, but it's just a fact that I live downtown where there's a lot of foot traffic and it's easy to, say, break into a car. Trees obscure sight lines, and better views tend to equal less petty crime, at least where I live.
Sure there might be a broken windows theory-type aspect, where lush foliage indicates that a neighborhood is better cared for and therefore less friendly to crime. But - at least the way it's being reported, this study says that merely having giant trees will deter crime. And I call BS. I need more before I conclude that more big trees = lower crime and not the other way around.
Ummmm, nope.
Let me say upfront that I have no idea what controls this survey used in order to ensure it indicates what it thinks it indicates, and there's always the UNC Geography Major caveat that comes whenever the media tries to report stats. That said, my first reaction on reading this was that the results were a little backward.
I say that because just last month I cut down a tree in front of my house because it blocked the street light that allows the whole neighborhood to see when Ted Bundy is trying to break into my house. (Don't get excited - it was a hideous deformed crepe myrtle, not a giant oak or anything.) I love living where I do, but it's just a fact that I live downtown where there's a lot of foot traffic and it's easy to, say, break into a car. Trees obscure sight lines, and better views tend to equal less petty crime, at least where I live.
Sure there might be a broken windows theory-type aspect, where lush foliage indicates that a neighborhood is better cared for and therefore less friendly to crime. But - at least the way it's being reported, this study says that merely having giant trees will deter crime. And I call BS. I need more before I conclude that more big trees = lower crime and not the other way around.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Principles are Hot!
Every time I try to start a regular feature, I get distracted and end up dropping it. So I'm just going to tell you upfront that this is NOT going to be a regular thing. But when I read about a guy (occasionally a woman, but I am straight after all) doing what I consider to be the single most attractive thing one can do, I want to highlight it. What is that sexy thing? Having principles, living them and acting on them.
First up, we have two guys I've crushed on for awhile now: Scott Fujita and Zach Galifianakis.
Fujita is an NFL linebacker currently playing for the Cleveland Browns. Jezebel has a great rundown of reasons to love Fujita, and today he added to the list by co-authoring an op-ed on the links between LGBT equality and immigration reform. Fujita speaks out on issues relating to adoption, family and reproductive choices, but he gets extra points with me for being so outspoken about LGBT rights even as he makes a living doing one of the most stereotypically "manly" jobs out there. HAWT.
I finally saw "The Hangover" a few weeks ago, and I don't mind writing that I'd kick Bradley Cooper out of bed any day for either Ed Helms or Zach Galifianakis. But Zach also gets points for growing up one county over from me in our our very rural corner of North Carolina. So part of my Zach-crush is identification. I don't know and I don't care if he was involved in cutting Mel Gibson from "The Hangover 2," but it is true that he's done some work for Growing Voices, whose projects include community development in Africa and, yes, domestic violence awareness here in N.C. Ha-aht.
I'm kind of a loudmouth myself (hence the whole "blogging into the void" thing...). While I can't tell you what Women(TM) want, I can assure you that this woman gets all warm and fuzzy when I see people stand up for something they believe in.
First up, we have two guys I've crushed on for awhile now: Scott Fujita and Zach Galifianakis.
Fujita is an NFL linebacker currently playing for the Cleveland Browns. Jezebel has a great rundown of reasons to love Fujita, and today he added to the list by co-authoring an op-ed on the links between LGBT equality and immigration reform. Fujita speaks out on issues relating to adoption, family and reproductive choices, but he gets extra points with me for being so outspoken about LGBT rights even as he makes a living doing one of the most stereotypically "manly" jobs out there. HAWT.
I finally saw "The Hangover" a few weeks ago, and I don't mind writing that I'd kick Bradley Cooper out of bed any day for either Ed Helms or Zach Galifianakis. But Zach also gets points for growing up one county over from me in our our very rural corner of North Carolina. So part of my Zach-crush is identification. I don't know and I don't care if he was involved in cutting Mel Gibson from "The Hangover 2," but it is true that he's done some work for Growing Voices, whose projects include community development in Africa and, yes, domestic violence awareness here in N.C. Ha-aht.
I'm kind of a loudmouth myself (hence the whole "blogging into the void" thing...). While I can't tell you what Women(TM) want, I can assure you that this woman gets all warm and fuzzy when I see people stand up for something they believe in.
Take a picture: it's a happy Democrat
Apparently I'm supposed to be very worried and depressed because I'm a Democrat and the Republicans regained control over the House of Representatives on Tuesday. I'm not. 'Bye, Alan Grayson, you nutball. Sorry, hot mob banker. There are even some Dems I'd have liked to see ousted - if you know any Republicans who aren't all "Let's outlaw Spanish!" I'd even vote for them. The only election result that truly disappointed me was Russ Feingold's loss in Wisconsin, but even that wasn't a shock.
Here's the thing... it was two years ago today that Barack Obama won the presidency. On that day, how many people predicted what happened Tuesday? Ok, anyone with a grasp of history knew that the House would swing back at vety the least, but my point is that a lot can change in two years. The House in particular is like the skin on a chameleon - super-reactionary because its entire membership turns over every other year. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were both re-elected after getting shellacked in the midterms only two years earlier. So don't write off Obama. He's still more popular than Congress.
I might be the only Democrat in America who thinks - or at least will admit to thinking - that this is a good thing. Obama is nowhere close to the far-left radical he's been painted as being. And now that House Republicans can plausibly take credit for anything good that happens for the next two years, I predict that we're going to see more cooperation, not less.
So Mitch McConnell should really lay off the "our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office" stuff, unless he's secretly on the DNC's attack ad-production team. Because if Tuesday's vote show anything, it's that this kind of bickering is exactly what Americans DON'T want. We aren't married to one party or another, we just want our country to work again. (Also, the Republicans salivating over the chance to start investigating anything would do well to remember the 1998 midterms, or, as I like to call it, the "We Don't Care Who Blew the President" election.)
While the federal government can't force banks to give credit or businesses to invest or expand, they can set policy that makes it easier and safer to do these things. Instead of name-calling, build roads and light rail systems and invest in tech education. Forget 2012 and think about 2062 for a second.
So I'm not too worried about the national scene. On a state level, though, I'm kind of wary. Democrats have controlled N.C.'s legislature for 112 years, and while changing power can be an opportunity for new ideas, the state Republicans don't particularly inspire me.
Here's the thing... it was two years ago today that Barack Obama won the presidency. On that day, how many people predicted what happened Tuesday? Ok, anyone with a grasp of history knew that the House would swing back at vety the least, but my point is that a lot can change in two years. The House in particular is like the skin on a chameleon - super-reactionary because its entire membership turns over every other year. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who were both re-elected after getting shellacked in the midterms only two years earlier. So don't write off Obama. He's still more popular than Congress.
I might be the only Democrat in America who thinks - or at least will admit to thinking - that this is a good thing. Obama is nowhere close to the far-left radical he's been painted as being. And now that House Republicans can plausibly take credit for anything good that happens for the next two years, I predict that we're going to see more cooperation, not less.
So Mitch McConnell should really lay off the "our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office" stuff, unless he's secretly on the DNC's attack ad-production team. Because if Tuesday's vote show anything, it's that this kind of bickering is exactly what Americans DON'T want. We aren't married to one party or another, we just want our country to work again. (Also, the Republicans salivating over the chance to start investigating anything would do well to remember the 1998 midterms, or, as I like to call it, the "We Don't Care Who Blew the President" election.)
While the federal government can't force banks to give credit or businesses to invest or expand, they can set policy that makes it easier and safer to do these things. Instead of name-calling, build roads and light rail systems and invest in tech education. Forget 2012 and think about 2062 for a second.
So I'm not too worried about the national scene. On a state level, though, I'm kind of wary. Democrats have controlled N.C.'s legislature for 112 years, and while changing power can be an opportunity for new ideas, the state Republicans don't particularly inspire me.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
King and Solomon
Remember the Biblical story of King Solomon? In what has to be the world's most f-ed up custody case, two women come to King Solomon asking him to decide who gets to keep a baby. He says, just cut it in half and you can each have a piece. (Note: when I first heard this story in Sunday School, I was dubious. I mean... really?) Anyway, the story goes that one of the women said, yeah sure, and the other said "ARE YOU FRAKKING INSANE??? DON'T CUT MY BABY IN HALF!" (Note: not a direct quote from the Bible.) And Solomon in his infinite wisdom figured that the woman who was cool with half a baby corpse (I say again... really?) was either a) not the mother, or b) possibly the actual mother, but too frakking fruitloops to be trusted with a kid anyway. Problem solved.
I've been thinking about King Solomon ever since my neighboring community, King, stepped in a local Christians vs. Constitution debate a few months ago. In a nutshell, the city added a Christian flag to its public veterans memorial; a resident (who said he's a veteran himself, btw) called them saying he objected to this on the-government-can't-give-preference-to-one-religion grounds; the city heard the same thing from the ACLU and decided to avoid a lawsuit and take the flag down; and then Bibles hit the fan.
For about a month or so now, a group of King residents has been going out to the monument every day and setting up a Christian flag, keeping vigil next to it all day. (As is their right, by the way.) Yesterday, King's town council voted - Solomon-like - to spilt the difference. A compromise will fly the various flags recognized by the U.S. military (and it is a military monument, after all), including the Christian flag.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time getting worked up over this. At no point during this drama have I gone to open my Bible or pray and been unable to do so because my faith is under attack or something. While Christians may be a majority in the U.S., our government - including our military - is and always has been secular. As I've written before, the people who created our government from scratch had a chance to make Christianity the state religion, and they didn't. That's a choice they made for a reason.
On a more general note... I realize that I'm about to piss in some cornflakes here, but it had to be said. Just know that I'm not casting judgment on others any more than I am myself. Do you ever think about WHY Jesus told his followers to pray in the dark where no one could see you, and that the people who prayed out in public were hypocrites? I think it's because being a public Christian is easy, and Jesus knew that.
It's easy to wear a cross necklace or a WWJD bracelet or - yes - to go to church every Sunday, and say to yourself, "Well, I'm done for the week." What isn't easy is to LIVE Christian values: giving, living humbly, forgoing revenge, accepting that yuo're not in charge. One Biblical story I've always struggled with is the one about the Prodigal Son - you know, where one kid screws up in every way possible, comes home in shame and his father throws a massive party to welcome him home, and the other kid, who's always done everything right, is like, WTF? Where the hell's my fatted calf?
I think what Jesus wants his followers to get is that we don't get a cookie - ahem, fatted calf - for doing what we should. And we shouldn't expect it. Following Jesus is ultimately about losing your pride, your "I got mine, so screw you" instincts. You shouldn't need a flag in a park, like your religion just won the Super Bowl or something.
The Winston-Salem Journal did some really great journalism Sunday and featured short stories about several King residents. One of them was a diner owner who said she'd gotten comments from customers because she didn't post a Christian flag in her business. She told them she'd never flown that flag before, so why would she now?
It's unpleasant to think of Christians in King who may be judging others based on what earthly emblems they choose to display - which, again, is a direct contradiction of what Jesus tells us to do. The King town council made a good decision, publicly, governmentally. I hope that my Christian neighbors make good decisions as people of faith.
I've been thinking about King Solomon ever since my neighboring community, King, stepped in a local Christians vs. Constitution debate a few months ago. In a nutshell, the city added a Christian flag to its public veterans memorial; a resident (who said he's a veteran himself, btw) called them saying he objected to this on the-government-can't-give-preference-to-one-religion grounds; the city heard the same thing from the ACLU and decided to avoid a lawsuit and take the flag down; and then Bibles hit the fan.
For about a month or so now, a group of King residents has been going out to the monument every day and setting up a Christian flag, keeping vigil next to it all day. (As is their right, by the way.) Yesterday, King's town council voted - Solomon-like - to spilt the difference. A compromise will fly the various flags recognized by the U.S. military (and it is a military monument, after all), including the Christian flag.
As a Christian myself, I have a hard time getting worked up over this. At no point during this drama have I gone to open my Bible or pray and been unable to do so because my faith is under attack or something. While Christians may be a majority in the U.S., our government - including our military - is and always has been secular. As I've written before, the people who created our government from scratch had a chance to make Christianity the state religion, and they didn't. That's a choice they made for a reason.
By the way... is "Christian flag" not an oxymoron?
I think the King town council made the best choice here. It's one that might not be popular with people who think they need a flag in a park in order to practice their faith (despite specific instructions from the head of our church to the contrary), but it was the best choice. A monument to military veterans should follow military guidelines, and that means recognizing religions other than Christianity. Unless you only want Christians to enlist in the military from now on, that is.On a more general note... I realize that I'm about to piss in some cornflakes here, but it had to be said. Just know that I'm not casting judgment on others any more than I am myself. Do you ever think about WHY Jesus told his followers to pray in the dark where no one could see you, and that the people who prayed out in public were hypocrites? I think it's because being a public Christian is easy, and Jesus knew that.
It's easy to wear a cross necklace or a WWJD bracelet or - yes - to go to church every Sunday, and say to yourself, "Well, I'm done for the week." What isn't easy is to LIVE Christian values: giving, living humbly, forgoing revenge, accepting that yuo're not in charge. One Biblical story I've always struggled with is the one about the Prodigal Son - you know, where one kid screws up in every way possible, comes home in shame and his father throws a massive party to welcome him home, and the other kid, who's always done everything right, is like, WTF? Where the hell's my fatted calf?
I think what Jesus wants his followers to get is that we don't get a cookie - ahem, fatted calf - for doing what we should. And we shouldn't expect it. Following Jesus is ultimately about losing your pride, your "I got mine, so screw you" instincts. You shouldn't need a flag in a park, like your religion just won the Super Bowl or something.
The Winston-Salem Journal did some really great journalism Sunday and featured short stories about several King residents. One of them was a diner owner who said she'd gotten comments from customers because she didn't post a Christian flag in her business. She told them she'd never flown that flag before, so why would she now?
It's unpleasant to think of Christians in King who may be judging others based on what earthly emblems they choose to display - which, again, is a direct contradiction of what Jesus tells us to do. The King town council made a good decision, publicly, governmentally. I hope that my Christian neighbors make good decisions as people of faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)