Sports

Despite having removed "being a sports fan" from the lists of things that describe me, I have absolutely no problem with people who are sports fans. Even the "rabid" ones, but I just don't get it any more. (By the way, if you see me wearing my NY Mets cap - I know absolutely nothing about the current version of the team and only wear it as a sign that I am a New Yorker)

There's a lot of things that perplex me about sports fandom. I'll start with New York fandom, since a lot of people in my adopted state of Nebraska think that the fact that I'm not from here explains my disinterest in the local college sports teams, especially the football team.

New York Football Teams: in my view, there's only one New York NFL team, and that's the Buffalo Bills. Both the "New York" Giants and "New York" Jets play their home games in New Jersey, and have for decades. Yet New York football fans happily refer to both teams as New York teams. They're not only out in the suburbs of their eponymous city, as many sports teams are, but in a whole 'nother STATE! It's true that both teams started their existence in New York City, but the Giants have been a New Jersey team since 1976 and the Jets followed soon thereafter. 

Sports vs. Education: I fully understand that professional sports teams, and even popular college teams are good for business. It makes a certain kind of sense for donors to pour their discretionary funds into new stadiums or even for cities to offer big tax breaks rather than funding its educational institutions. Sorts fans spend money. But high school sports? I'm not criticizing the existence of high school sports, but the priority that is often placed on them. When my step-daughter was in high school she participated in several sports. Coaches thought nothing of requiring players to devote many hours to practice or to observing other teams when homework got neglected. Out of town games kept them up late on "school nights". The track team regularly pulled team members out of class to go to most-of-the-day meets. Class was sometimes cancelled to facilitate a tournament. 

The Two Sides of Criticism: Sports fans love to criticize every move a coach makes, but at the same time will get nasty if criticism comes from the wrong quarter. The fans of a team that isn't doing so well will spend hours debating the relative merits of their team's game day strategy.  They call for the coach to be fired over losses. They wait in the queue to comment on sports radio talk shows. But some fans will try to shut down criticism with the position that unless you're actually a current or former coach or player you have no grounds to criticize, because you can't do any of it yourself, so you have no grounds to point fingers. (My position is that if you have a high-profile job that depends on thousands of people being excited about your work, and you accept the adulation when you're doing well, accepting the criticism is part of the job) College sports isn't much better, although more of the anger is directed at the coaching staff since players, being students, get rotated out every few years. Some fans will defect complaints about a team's losses by pointing out that "they're just kids", while having no problem putting those same "kids" on a pedestal and subjecting them to hero worship when the team is winning. 

"It's OUR Team - Why Aren't You a Fan?": I saw this as a transplant from the East Coast to Nebraska. Even when I was a sports fan, football never interested me, so I was indifferent to the local college team. This apparently wasn't good enough. Obnoxious local fans intimated that there was something wrong with me for not enthusiastically rooting for the home team. This introduced me to a phenomenon that I'm sure exists wherever there are sports teams - the locals expect new arrivals to jettison their loyalties to their former city's teams and taking on the local boys, while locals, if they move away, fully expect to retain their team loyalties. One of those mysteries. 

The Glory Days: In any sports league, division or conference there tend to be "dynasties". One team, for various reasons, dominates and wins a few championships. These sports dynasties don't last forever though. For various reasons the top dogs get replaced by the new dogs. This leads to two differing yet related behaviors. Fans of teams who were regularly beaten by championship winners experience a sense of schadenfreude when their former tormenters aren't so good any more. While beating them while they were on top might have been an accomplishment worth bragging about, beating them years after their winning days have faded away isn't much to brag about. The other side of this is the fans of the former golden boys haven't forgotten those glory days. When they are being mocked by their opponents for being thrashed in a blowout, their retort is to brag about championships that took place before the current players were born. My own local college team is in this category. Teams that easily beat them today are giddy with celebratory excitement that they beat a struggling team with a losing record, while the loser's fans console themselves that at least they're has-beens and not never-beens despite being losers in the present. 

Loyalty Doesn't Go Both Ways: Once upon a time a player on a professional team might spend a majority of his career with one team. As a fan, it was easy to have your favorite players - you might even switch teams if the team had the audacity to trade your favorite. (My dad was a New York Rangers hockey fan. In his youth they traded his guy to the Montreal Canadiens and he became a lifelong Montreal fan) These days players are compensated better and have more opportunities to get the best deal for themselves by negotiating with different teams. They are, rightly so, more concerned with their own future and lack a loyalty and connection to the cities where they play. Many don't even live in their team's cities in the off-season. So, have fun cheering on your team, but they don't really care about you or your city.

Everyone has something that entertains them. For many that's sports - not me though! 

Science and Religion: Do They Have Objective Existence?

Not too long ago I read a Facebook post that claimed that Religion did not exist without people to believe it, but that with Science, it didn't matter whether people believed it or not. I ended up getting into an augment with a guy who attempted to "prove" (his version of) religion by repeated utilization of strawmen, goalpost moving and appeal to authority among other logical fallacies. 

There were other, more logical arguments from others, but the way that the meme was worded left a lot of room for imprecision. For example, what was meant by "religion", or for that matter "science"? There are a lot of things about religion that you have to "take on faith", i.e., there is no way to prove or disprove them. Science, on the other hand, is all about proving things, even though there's a great number of things that cannot be proven (yet), but scientists have put forth their best estimate, based on available observations. Yet "science" is not a thing, it's not a belief, it's a process for determining how things are. The thing about science is that its conclusions change in the face of new evidence. While it does take people, i.e. scientists, to work out the truth, the whole goal is to discover how things are, based ultimately on observations. The observations lead to predictions, which, if they turn out to be correct, lead to a theory of the way things are. Can a scientist draw the wrong conclusions from the evidence? Do scientists disagree among themselves as to what the underlying truth is? Yes and yes. But that underlying truth is true is what it is no matter who believes it. 

Religion, in all it's myriad forms, is also in some way an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. Unlike science, religion usually doesn't change its doctrines in the light of new evidence, but doubles down on its original explanations and attempts to make the observable facts fit the preconceived doctrine. While a true believer may insist that the existence of their god is an objective fact, in reality there is no objective test to verify the existence of any god. This would be fine if believers would be content to act on their faith, to live according to the ethical tenets allegedly handed down by their god, privately. However, many religious people insist on requiring everyone to adhere to their interpretation of their religion, and making religious texts the law of the land. Such people set out to prove scientifically that their religion is true, or at least indicate how scientific theories are not inconsistent with their religion. 

Before I go on, let me make clear that I have no problem with people basing their lives on their religion. There's a lot of good in most "holy" books, and great ethical and moral guidelines and examples of how to live a good life. I have a problem when they try to force their beliefs on the rest of us, or suggest that those who disbelieve are stupid for not believing. I look askance at those who act ethically only because a god allegedly told them to act ethically, or due to fear of divine wrath, rather than because it's the right thing to do. 

During my discussion with the aforementioned religious guy on Facebook, I was treated to all manner of attempted debunking of my points as well as attempts to "prove scientifically" that the Bible, and therefore Christianity, is true. I had made a statement that if all the adherents of a religion died and all their literature disappeared, then that religion would cease to exist. That seems pretty straightforward, but he repeatedly challenged me to prove my point, which he insisted was unscientific and without evidence. Of course it's without evidence! It hasn't happened! It's a hypothetical situation that's self-explanatory. It's axiomatic: if there's no one left who believes in a religion's tenets, and all evidence of their existence is gone, in what sense would that religion still exist? And that's the difference between science and religion in the context of objective existence: what we know about the world due to science is still true, and could still be proved to be true, if every scientist and everything written about their discoveries were to disappear from the face of the earth. It might take a while for anyone to figure it out again, but it would not be any less true. Religious belief does not exist independently of the believers. Believers might believe that it does, but they can't prove it. 

Many believers, unsatisfied with living a moral life according to the teachings of the faith's profits, want to find physical proof that their holy books are factual accounts. (It's part of their mission to impose their "truth" on the rest of us) They have gone about this in a variety of ways.

One method is by "logical" argument. My discussion opponent last week brought up Aquinas. Aquinas'  first proof stated that since we can see things changing all around us, and that each change was initiated by something else, and that chain of causation can't be infinitely long, there must be something that causes change without changing itself. According to Aquinas, this everyone understands to be God. His second proof is similar. In this proof, he observes that everything has a cause, and, like the first proof, he states that the chain of causation cannot be infinitely long. He concludes that there must be a "first cause" that was not caused by anything else. Again, like the first proof, he assumes that everyone understands that this is God. What is generally not understood about Aquinas’ “proofs” are not only not proofs, but he did not intend them to be viewed as such. Aquinas believed not only that the existence and attributes of God were not self evident, but were beyond mankind’s ability to understand. They were, on the other hand, a way to explain God “in layman’s terms”, possibly as much to himself as to anyone else. Think of a much simpler explanation (which is probably apocryphal) - St.  Patrick’s explanation of The Trinity by comparing it to a three leaf clover. The analogy didn’t prove anything, but assisted in understanding. Most attempts at “logical” proofs for God are like this: they’re less evidence-based and more like a way for a believer to convince himself, and is unlikely to convince a skeptic. Check out this link for a list of various "proofs" for God's existence. A further weakness in any "proof" is that they generally "prove" the existence of a generic creator entity. Even assuming that there must be a creator to have a creation, a first cause in order to have any effects, there is nothing to require that the creator is specifically your version. 

Those who hold to the belief that something must have created everything, or at least set in motion, subscribe to the corollary that although everything else had to have a precursor, somehow God was exempt. That God did not need to be created, that he always existed. But once you postulate that there exists something (or someone) that always existed, what prevents there from being other somethings that always existed? There are strains of theoretical physics that theorize a universe that did not have a moment of creation. 

Proofs based on archeology have become pretty popular. They’re also incredibly feeble. No one is suggesting that none of the people and places mentioned in The Bible existed. It can be confirmed that there was a Roman official named Pontius Pilate around the beginning of the Common Era. There is an inscription on a monument dating around 900 B.C. referring to "The House of David". Some of the cities mentioned in the Old Testament have been dug up. But archeology minded believers will latch on to any discovery that confirms that a place or a person existed as if that confirms everything in The Bible. Never mind all the archeology that disproves parts of The Bible, or historical records that contradict the biblical ones. Those believers will insist are wrong. Why? Because they contradict The Bible. Even if every person in The Bible can be verified to have existed, that does not confirm that the supernatural events or entities therein are real. Anyone can write a book that is set in historically verified milieus. Back in my late teens I read James Michener's book, "Centennial" as well James Clavell's "Shogun". Both made use of real people, events and locations out of history. But all of the main characters in both books were fictional and the stories were made up as well. I can't claim that the family tree in "Centennial" is accurate just because there really is a state called Colorado or a tribe called the Cheyenne. Or that the adventures of Blackthorne actually happened just because Shoguns were a real thing in 16th century Japan. To cite a more ridiculous example: Spider-Man isn't real just because I happen to know from being there that Forest Hills, Queens is a real place. 

The difference between science and religion is that science isn't attempting to explain the world by spinning plausible (for a certain value of plausible) but unprovable stories. Science is about constructing a framework that helps us understand the nuts and bolts, the "what" and the "how". That framework is looking at the world and making predictions based on what can be seen and adjusting those predictions based on ongoing observations. Religion is based on the construction of a framework more on how we want things to be, rather than how they necessarily are. Religion at its best is about hope, it's about how to live peaceably in the society of others, how to treat others, how to be the best person that it's possible to be. It's about building a philosophy that enables us to do all those things. If it helps someone to believe that all that is the plan of some invisible and objectively undetectable entity in order to be a good person, then so it is. But the best of religion doesn't require a god, it only requires that one acts in a godly way. 

Was Jesus a Lobbyist?

The other morning I came to a realization - one of those realizations that made me wonder why I hadn't realized it before. It came amidst the many laws that state legislatures are passing that have purely religious thinking as their motivation. The governor of Nebraska even characterized opposition to the laws that he championed as "diabolical"  (in the literal sense as "devilish") and "Lucifer at it's finest". I have long criticized certain laws as nothing but religious opinion that shouldn't be applied to those who don't adhere that religion, but it's obvious that legislators aren't even trying to hide the religious nature of their legislation.  

Oh yeah, the realization.

Jesus never attempted to change the laws of Judea or Rome to match up with what he was preaching.

I'm of the opinion, influenced by the books of Dr. Bart Ehrman, that Jesus was a real, historical person. No, I don't believe that he worked miracles, or rose from the dead or ascended into "heaven", but that by reading the gospels without preconceptions, and applying principles that would be applied to any other historical figure, you can determine, with a reasonable degree of confidence, what the historical Jesus preached. He was what is called an apocalyptic prophet. That means that he was predicting that the end of the world was coming pretty damn soon. One strain of Jewish thought and belief at the time was that evil powers ran the show and that at some point God would intervene to set things right. This was not a predominant mindset throughout what Christians call the Old Testament, but was a way to explain a way the fact that the Jews, time and time again, were being defeated, enslaved and beat down. How to reconcile this with the triumphantist attitudes of the earlier books? Change the rules! Jesus, as portrayed in the gospels, was clearly within this apocalypticist tradition. 

Throughout the gospels Jesus is urging his followers to change their behavior, to modify their actions so that they might be worthy to be part of the soon-to-come Kingdom of God. There's a new administration coming to town and he's telling people what they need to do to be part of it. Individually. He's not trying to change society, he's not trying to remake the culture, because he doesn't think that there will be a society or a culture - God's going to tear it all down and build a new one. He's most definitely not lobbying to have laws changed, because the legal system will have been destroyed in the near future and replaced with a heavenly regime. Even the post-ascension preaching of the apostles is focused on individual repentance and not societal change. 

Eventually, when Christians gained control of the levers of power in the Roman Empire, and eventually the kingdoms of Europe, Christianity, or at least it's outward expression, was imposed on society, but I doubt a convincing argument can be made that the conversion by the sword, or the mass conversions because the king said so, are what Jesus had in mind. 

In today's United States, there are millions of Christians who strive to live their lives as they understand Jesus wants them to live, but there are also millions of Christians who support the forcible molding of society into the image of what they think Christianity is, or should be; and they have elected representatives to make it a reality. A significant number of Americans equate Christianity with patriotism and believe that it's the mission of government to turn us into a theocracy. 

Jesus would like a word.

Bad Customer Service

Like anyone who has worked in retail or food service I've encountered rude and demanding customers and rude and incompetent workers as a customer. Having worked in retail for so long I know what good customer service looks like. I'm not going to entertain any "both sides" comments - I know that there are both sides, but today I'm talking about the customer experience. 

At one time I taught introductory customer service classes for the company that I used to work for. I explicitly debunked the old "the customer is always right" saying. The customer is not always right. With the exception of those people who come in looking for trouble, or are just entitled jerks, most customers just want what from a company, be it restaurant, or retail store, or any kind of service company, is just what the company advertises that it is providing. In addition, as the ultimate provider of the company's revenue, to be treated with a minimum of respect. Even angry customers are usually angry for a reason and can be made not angry by reasonably addressing what they're angry about. 

This morning I stormed out of a local diner, angry at escalating rudeness, confusing my family members who were with me. As a customer, and in general just as a human being, there is just so much crap that I'm willing to tolerate. My wife and I arrived at the diner where we would be meeting other family members. There were many open tables, although both of the six seaters were taken. I inquired about pushing a couple of tables together and was told, after the hostess checked with an unseen person in the back area, that they couldn't do that. I was later told that doing so would be a fire hazard - an explanation about which I was skeptical, but I figured one of the two six seaters would be open soon enough, so I was content to wait. This was the first miss on the customer service scorecard, albeit a minor one. Our request to push a few tables together was not unreasonable and could have been accommodated. They just didn't want to. 

Soon after, we found out our group might be eight, and not six. Susie attempted to relay this information to the hostess, who shrugged off her additional information. We thought, rightly so, that this information was important, since they weren't going to push tables together, and there were no tables with more than six chairs. (Customer Service violation number two: ignoring the customer) As the additional members of our troupe arrived, a six seater opened up and we were led to it by a different employee. When I asked her how our eight people (it turned out actually to be seven) she said we would have to wait and reiterated the "rule" about not pushing tables together. This new employee, who appeared to be in her early twenties, clearly was uninterested in our dilemma, punctuating her lack of assistance with eye-rolling, shoulder shrugging and rudely asking "What do you want me to do?". There's transgression number three - acting like your customer is nothing but a nuisance. I still hadn't lost it. I still wanted to eat there, so I suggested that we take two booths that were near the door, to which she responded that she didn't care what we did. Then I announced that I was eating there and started to leave. 

The original hostess attempted (a day late and a dollar short) to salvage the situation, telling us we could wait even longer for a table "back there" (wherever that was). If "back there" was an option, why were we not offered it initially? To make matters worse, the younger employee began undercutting her older co-worker's peacemaking overture by repeatedly stating "they don't want to eat here". 

But the story keeps getting better. Plan B was to drive down the road to a fast food joint. We ordered our food at a kiosk, which came out fairly quickly. Most of it anyway. A few items, including one complete meal for one of the kids, was not there, but we were assured that "they were making it" and would be out soon. (One of these items were cookies, which I'm reasonably sure they didn't make there). After most of our first round of food was consumed, one of us went up to the counter to inquire about the rest of our order. Again, assured that "they were making it". This clerk was encouraged to go check in the back to see what was taking it so long. Nope, it wasn't still being made, it had been bagged up incorrectly and given to another customer! Yes, mistakes happen, but before you give a customer a stock answer, confirm that what you're saying is in fact the correct answer. No rudeness, just incompetence and probably lack of training. 

Despite it all, it was still a pleasant outing with out of town family. 
 

Social Media Chaos

Social media. Can't live with it, can't live without it. Okay, you can live without it, but its various incarnations have become quite intertwined in our lives. Invitations to all but the most formal of events are sent out on Facebook, Twitter has become the communication medium of government officials, bands use various platforms to promote their shows...it goes on and on. 

I have become over the years a regular user of social media. I post my photos on various sites, I use Facebook as a soapbox for my political rants and Twitter has become my go-to source for information - or least links to the information. Occasionally I discover an old friend that I had lost track of, and probably never would have reconnected with if it hadn't been for the internet. This, however, is a double-edged sword.  

During my time in The Way I met many people who I had not stayed in touch with over the years. Some had left The Way before I did and I, following Way dictates, cut ties with them; others did the same to me when I left The Way. One couple that I rediscovered on Facebook were Mike and Rosemarie. Mike was the best man at my first wedding and was my roommate for about six months before then. Rosemarie was part of the group of four that I was a part of on Way assignment in 1980, and was also my roommate just before I got married. We had stopped talking when my first wife and I had temporarily left The Way in 1983. When we became active again in The Way in 1990 we found that Mike and Rosemarie had joined one of the Way offshoots. By the early 2000's I was out of The Way and so were they. I reached out to them on Facebook, but was quickly told to not have contact with them. Mike noticed a pentacle that I was wearing in my profile picture; they decided that they couldn't be in contact with someone who had rejected Jesus. Mike was also very excited about "studying" the Nephilim in the Old Testament...the kind of thing that I can only describe as the religious version of a conspiracy theory. 

Another lesson that I learned on social media is that most people with strong opinions don't want those opinions questioned or challenged. I've always been the kind of person who enjoyed a good discussion, a lively debate, even in the so-called taboo areas of religion and politics. If you want to disagree with me, do it politely, state your case logically and we can still be pals. Yet there is a subset of internet denizens who don't want their own opinions questioned, but are free with their critiques of other people's opinions. Some years ago an in-law regularly took me to task for some of what I posted on Facebook. I promised to take this person's point of view into consideration, but when the tables were turned there was an unwillingness to reciprocate. A family feud, with one of my children refusing to speak to me, continues to this day, even though the in-law in question is no longer an in-law due to divorce. 

Although I maintain a policy of inviting civil debate, I have noticed a string of former Facebook "friends" who have disappeared. I can only assume that my strong political posts have run them off. Others, who I know disagree with me, stick with me. Despite being easy going as regards to disagreements I have had to "unfriend" and block several people over the years. Fortunately not too many. The first was another in-law. During the Black Lives Matter protests in 2021 repeatedly made rude comments about the protests. Despite several attempts to get him to phrase his comments in a more civil manner, he persisted and had to be gotten rid of. There was another one just this previous year. One of my best friends from high school, part of a group of guys who I spend virtually all my free time with sent me a friend request. I was thrilled to hear from him. Most of my old teenage years buddies aren't on Facebook and this connection with the past was most welcome. It didn't last long. A retired cop, he quickly revealed himself as a Trumpist and regularly made what I call "drive by postings" - short snarky comments on my posts with no follow up or explanation, even when asked to elaborate on his statements. He got blocked after accusing me of being a sheep because I held the views that I did. 

On average through, I find social media to be a positive thing. Sure, there are times when I'm sitting right next to another person and we're both on our phones, scrolling along. But I can honestly say that those are times when I would have been reading a book, or the newspaper, or watching television anyway. Our wedding business does all of its advertising on social media;  my photography gets a lot of recognition (and occasional paying gigs) because of social media; I participated for years in an online forum for former members of my old cult.  Through social media I have been able to stay in touch with people that I have met at concerts. I can put up with the irritations - the benefits (for me) outweigh them. 

Balance

 Despite the apparent change in power balance between employers and employees, employers still act as if loyalty only runs one way: from the employee to the employer.

Of course, much of this stems from the fact that we live in a capitalist economy. Many people will instinctively think: "Of course we do, I wouldn't want to live in a socialist system". Most people don't really think about our economic system. They equate socialism with lack of freedom and think that our economic system just means "freedom". But does it?

In a capitalist economic system, capital is important, while labor is disposable. Using the example of the grocery chain where I used to work - the company's founder is given the credit for starting the company, while the thousands of people who worked for him over the decades are expected to be grateful for the opportunity to have jobs. After all, it was his money, and his hard work...blah, blah, blah. But could he have built the company to its present size (and his bank account) without those thousands of people who showed up for work every day? And not just the people stocking the shelves, but the accountants, the IT people, the specialists in bakery or Deli operations and the managers at all levels who kept things chugging along. None of those people had any stake in the profitability of the company other than the bi-weekly paycheck. (This particular company did have, for many years, an employee stock ownership plan, where a percentage of the profits were distributed to employees in the form of company stock - last year the company bought back all the employee-held stock).

This isn't unique to the company I was referring to. It's the way most companies work. We have come to view it as normal. We view it as natural that the person who comes up with the money is inarguably the person who calls the shots, while the people who make it all work are expendable, and have no rights. (And when it comes down to it, the "person with the money" isn't usually using his own money, but has taken out a loan or has investors)

Since we're unlikely to see any change to this system on a large scale, I thought that it was a good thing that the low unemployment rate was the catalyst for a change in how employees viewed their obligations to the companies that hired them. Many people viewed this change negatively, opining that "nobody wants to work anymore" or claiming that "millenials are all lazy" when it's just a matter of workers valuing their own labor more than protecting the employer's bottom line. 

What got me thinking about this today was hearing that the Human Resources Director at my former company had retired. Her long time assistant, who was presumed to be her successor, gave his two week notice at around the same time. There was apparently anger in the company's high levels about his resignation - he was dismissed immediately and not allowed to work out the two weeks. I don't know why this assistant left. It could have been that the position that he accepted was so much better that he couldn't turn it down, maybe the company was posting the open HR Director position without offering it to him, or possibly this was the culmination of years of unhappiness at his current job. But whatever his reasons, it shouldn't matter. He was leaving because, whatever the precise reasons, it was better for him and his family. 

I started out talking about loyalty. Employers expect loyalty from their employees, yet typically that loyalty is not reciprocated. How many employees show up for work one day to find that their position has been eliminated? Or that, without their consent, they are being transferred to another location? Or that their work schedule has been changed? Any of those things can happen at any time and most of the time there's no notice given, no permission asked. But when an employee wants to cut their hours, or change their schedule, that's looked upon as a problem. How about the whole concept of two-week notice? The courts have ruled that an employee who fails to give two-week notice can't have their benefits, such as vacation time, taken away, but it is almost universally looked upon as some kind of betrayal. Because employers are not expected to have any loyalty towards their employees. 

So, any time I see somebody doing what's best for themselves and their family, I applaud.