Sports

One of the things that has long perplexed my allegedly rational mind was the way sports fans looked upon team loyalties. Most people root for their home team, or the team representing their local college. If there are multiple teams in one area, however, things can get interesting! When a sports fan moves to another city, their loyalties go with them - even thousands of miles away. To use a hometown example, a Nebraska football supporter will still cheer for the Huskers even after moving to Texas, California or North Carolina. But a strange thing happens when die-hard fans encounter people who have moved from elsewhere into their city: the outsiders are expected to jettison their out-of-town fandom and become cheerleaders for the local team. No one seems to notice this inconsistency.

Another item on my "sports fans mystify me" list is the fact that it is socially unacceptable to not be a fan. I encountered this the other day. A man whom I had never met asked me if I "was going to watch the game". Besides growing up in another state and not having absorbed the local football fever and fervor, I'm just, in general, not a sports fan any more. There are several reasons for this, none of them particularly earth-shaking, but I just don't care about sports any more. Well, I replied to this stranger with "No, I'm not a fan". You would've thought that I had impugned his mother's reputation or shot his dog. Some years back I turned off a game at work because people weren't working, and ended up getting an ugly phone call from a customer threatening to shop somewhere else if the game wasn't on the radio at the store because I "was in Nebraska now".

Now I do understand the attraction and the fun of rooting for your team. I get that tailgating on game day and attending the game itself are fun experiences (I've done both). There's no harm in memorizing team statistics or expressing your opinion about the coach or players. (Yes, even college players - if they can accept the adulation and hero-worship when things are going well, they can accept the criticism when things are going badly - and no, the fact that you yourself cannot perform at that level of athleticism should not prevent you from venting about shitty football). What I don't understand is when fandom (and I'm not just pointing fingers at Nebraska football fans, I'm sure that in Texas, fanaticism begins at the high school level, or younger) becomes the most important thing in a person's life. I've worked with people who, without a second thought, would have quit their jobs if forced to work on a "Football Saturday".

Being from somewhere else does not preclude me from understanding why people are sports fans; guess what? We had sports fans where I came from too. Whether your team is Husker Football, or Creighton Basketball or the Chicago Cubs, you're not unique! There are sports fans everywhere and they're all similarly crazed in their support of their team. There are also plenty of us who just don't give a shit.

Lack of Consequences

Why do people do horrible things to each other? Why do people treat other people as things? Most people have moments that they're not proud of, but what about people who are continuously and barely consciously dismissive and contemptuous of their fellow human beings? There are undoubtedly many reasons, but one stands out to me: lack of consequences.

One of the prevailing headlines this week is the accusations of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, events that are alleged to have happened when he was in high school and later in college. Let's establish that I believe his accuser Dr. Ford, as well as the subsequent accusers that have come forward. You may disagree with me, and I may be proven wrong, but why are these accusations so credible to many of us? Granted, some do not find them credible, basing their incredulity on their perception that Kavanaugh is a "good man" and "would never had done those things". But back to why I find them believable.

Why would someone wait 35+ years to level an an assault accusation, an accusation of attempted rape, on someone? The attacks upon the accuser, here in post "#MeToo" 2018, and the united disbelief and personal attacks from men in power, should shed some light upon the reasons why some women don't report sexual assaults. The risk that they won't be believed, that their own lives will be put under a microscope, that their attackers will be portrayed as the victims and that in the end the rapist will escape consequences.

And many of these predators know that they will evade consequences.

Boys from well-connected families, with access to effective lawyers and enough money to buy silence are brought up knowing that they have a highly functional safety net that will catch them and protect them if they get into trouble. Of course this doesn't mean that every rich kid is a rapist or that every wealthy family's lawyer's time is mainly spent keeping the kids out of jail. But it does mean that those who do choose to become abusers know that they will be protected and likely escape serious consequences.

Pair the perception of invulnerability of the rich with the systemic bias against rape victims, and actions such as those which Kavanaugh is accused of become all too believable.

So what if Kavanaugh is known or believed to be a good family man, sober and serious? That's now. It's not beyond the pale of possibility that someone who acted the way Kavanaugh is alleged to have acted when in high school and college could become more circumspect as he got older and considered the repercussions to his judicial career if he continued to be a drunken rapist.

It remains to be seen what the consequences of his actions will be. There appears to be only one or two Republicans who are wavering on his appointment and Kavanaugh could very well escape any consequences and become a Supreme Court Justice. 

September 11th - Why Are We Really Observing This Day?

It's September 11th again. What was, for the first few anniversaries, a solemn remembrance, has become an opportunity for political posturing and chest thumping pseudo-patriotism. That, and an opening for all the crackpot conspiracy theorists to trot out their idiotic slants on 9-11 that the rest of us have mercifully forgotten. I have grown weary of all the reminders of how tough New Yorkers are, how brilliant Giuliani was, how the Saudis betrayed us, and most of all, how invoking that horrible day becomes an excuse to push whatever agenda the politician du jour is braying about.

Then, of course, there's our embarrassment of a president.

An exclamation point? It's like he's announcing a celebration. Then the video of him double fist-pumping as he arrived at Shanksville, like it's a campaign rally or a victory party.

Every year we say "Never Forget", but have we actually learned anything in the last 17 years? We've been mired in a series of conflicts in the Middle East ever since. In Afghanistan we were supposed to drive out the Taliban and foster a democratic government. We toppled the Taliban government, but have managed to install a series of corrupt national leaders and encouraged the resurgence regional warlords, who run much of the country, the parts of it's not run by Taliban commanders anyway. We have lost a significant number of soldiers to attacks by Afghan soldiers and police; our alleged allies. In Iraq we intervened based on a purposeful misreading of the intelligence, and got sectarian fighting and ISIS for our trouble. We intervened in Libya with the result being no central government and a dead ambassador. We talked tough and supported rebels in Syria, and bombed a few airfields, but the Russians and Iranians have propped up Assad.

We've increased our military involvement around the world and curtailed civil liberties at home, but we have done nothing to address the root causes of the attacks in 2001.

We say "Never Forget", but we have.

But The Dark Comes back

One candle they say
Causes the darkness to flee
But the dark comes back

The candle burns out
The Sun sets every night
Flames turn to ashes

And the dark comes back

And casts its shadow

You can't avoid dark
What if the dark's not evil?
What if it just IS?

Not Everything is About "The Troops"

Support the troops! Don't disrespect the troops! Love the troops! I am so sick of (in certain contexts) hearing about THE TROOPS!

Before you get your lederhosen in a bunch, I want to clarify that I'm not sick of the troops. I'm grateful to them for stepping up, and that some of them put their lives on the line, and many of them lose their lives, carrying out the policies of our government. I think that whatever their motivation, they deserve a heavy dose of respect for the jobs that they do.

What I do object to is how certain politicians make every single issue about "the troops". And it's not just politicians. What got me going on this subject was a Facebook meme that I saw yesterday. It had four pictures, one of a grieving widow bent over a flag-draped coffin, a second of a paraplegic veteran in a wheelchair with the caption "This is why we stand for the anthem", the third was a military cemetary, possibly a Civil War era one, with the caption "This why we don't erase history" and fourth was an American flag with a caption stating that we are not white, black etc, we are Americans, start acting like it". What got my attention first was the "erase history" picture. This was obviously a reference to the enthusiasm for tearing down memorials to Confederate soldiers and politicians, with those opposed to it hiding their racism behind a so-called concern for preserving our history. This gave me a good idea of the mindset behind this post. But the first two pictures, with their suggestion that the "kneel for the anthem" protests were disrespectful to "the troops" was the main point.

Growing up I never associated the National Anthem with the military, despite its martial language. To me it was just a patriotic song. But those who were opposed to mostly black athletes who were attempting to bring attention to the rash of police killings of black men, many of them unarmed, made it about disrespecting "the troops". Why? Because we have come to a point in our society where members of the military are not only respected, but revered.  We can't criticize the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan because that derides the troops. We can't question the military budget because that means we don't care about the troops. A Congressman can't express doubt in the fitness of a Veterans Administration because that will deprive the troops of an advocate. Sarah Sanders claims that it inappropriate to question a retired four-star general, John Kelly. Kelly himself suggested that lawmakers "shut up and support the men and women on the front lines". He later said he felt sorry for those who haven't served and refused to take questions from anyone who didn't have a connection to a Gold Star family.

Kelly is just the highest ranking representative of the changing military culture in our country where military men and women are a warrior caste, superior to the rest of us. And think about the term "warrior". We hear it all the time in reference to soldiers. It makes me cringe. Technically it's accurate; a warrior is someone engaged or experienced in war, according to Merriam-Webster. But when I hear "warrior" I think of someone whose main purpose isn't defending the country or its interests, but a conqueror, someone whose whole life revolves around war and death, not someone who does a job and then comes home to civilian life. Our military is supposed to answerable to civilian authority. That's why the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, it's why we don't have a separate position as head of the military. And most of the time the head of the Department of Defense is a civilian, not a recently retired general like we have now, in addition to having another recently retired general as chief of staff of the White House. While military people may have a point that we civilians don't understand them, it's an equally valid point to suggest that a career "warrior" doesn't really understand what civilian life is about either.

But there is one group that can criticize the military, and that those on the right wing of American politics. You may be thinking of President Trump, and you'd be right, but it predates him. Former Secretary of State John Kerry served in Vietnam as a swift boat commander. Unlike most Naval postings in Vietnam, a swift boat wasn't anchored miles off the coast, lobbing bombs, or launching planes. A swift boat patrolled the internal rivers; rivers that were fenced in by jungle on both sides, jungle that could likely conceal the enemy. In my opinion, this had to have been the most dangerous job in the Navy, notwithstanding the many Naval pilots who were shot down and captured. Yet Kerry had his military record muddied and was called a coward by the opposition, who happened to be George W Bush, who was safe in the National Guard while Kerry was putting his life on the line.

I guess my whole point is, unless you're specifically addressing a military issue, keep the military, and respect for the troops, out of the discussion. It's nothing but an attempted guilt trip.

Confronting Rudeness

Sometimes, when some one is rude to you, or acts like an asshole, the best thing to do is ignore it. Treat it as unimportant and move on. But at other times, the way to handle it is to firmly, yet civilly, point out to the other person the error of their ways. Even though discussing anything on the internet can quickly turn into mud-slinging, even online conflicts can be defused if both sides have an interest in keeping the lines of communication open, or even if they are invested in not looking like a jerk. This can take place if the two combatants know each other "in real life", or even if not, when keeping a forum conflict-free outweighs petty point-scoring.

There have been several situations lately where I decided to not just let it go.

My personal policy, whether in face-to-face conversations, or online encounters, is to never engage in name-calling or questioning of the other person's intelligence. This includes correcting grammar, although I make exceptions for people who call other people stupid or uneducated, people who correct other people's grammar, and the President of the Unites States.

In an online discussion on a Facebook wedding vendor page the other day Susie gave her opinion about how to handle a certain situation. Now this wasn't a political discussion, it wasn't a religious discussion, nor did it involve the "correct" toppings for authentic pizza. She gave her opinion, which was the informal policy of our wedding officiant business. There was nothing shocking about what she posted, yet another commenter, rather than just posting her own approach, attacked Susie's; and corrected her grammar.

I had Susie invite me to this group just so I could respond! I admit that I was a bit biting in my response, but didn't stoop to name-calling, although I did find a misspelled word (offiiciant) and pointed it out to her. The next morning she posted a comment that she was out of line and deleted her comments; later Susie received a message apologizing. (It wasn't a real great apology, but we'll take what we can get).

But the point is not to be the avenging angel, striking down the rude, but to give rude people the opportunity to see that they are rude, and the chance to change.

Truth

At one time in my life I worried a lot about Truth, yeah, with a capital "T". In my late teens I was beginning to question my family's religion, not because I thought that there was anything particularly wrong with it, but I had begun to be exposed to other religions: other Christian denominations as well as Judaism, Buddhism, and Taoism. There were a lot of options, and no one was doing an effective job of explaining to me why our religion was the ultimate truth, or even best of the bunch. It was about this time that I encountered a group of Christians who claimed that they could explain why what they believed was the ultimate truth.

This group literally interpreted the Bible, at least when it suited them. They documented everything that they believed from the Bible. For quite a few years I was pretty confident that I knew the truth, or if I didn't know it right off, I could figure it out with enough Bible study. What I didn't know at the time was that these guys were pretty shitty Biblical researchers. They acted like they understood Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, the Biblical languages, but, other than a tiny minority, knew just enough to transliterate the Greek & Hebrew characters and how to read definitions in a concordance. Even then they made unwarranted leaps of illogic and defined words in a way that would have surprised anyone who actually spoke those languages. Their understanding of English grammar, syntax and definitions was shoddy as well (they thought "research" meant to "search again"). It took me many years, but I finally figured out that their answers were bogus. But my big mistake wasn't that I was taken in by people who didn't properly interpret the Bible, but that I was taken in by the idea that the Bible was delivered in some fashion by God.

One of the "Big Ideas" to come out of the Protestant Reformation was sola scriptura or 'scripture alone'. This was the concept that what we know about God does not come from man's teaching, but from the pages of the Bible alone. This makes a certain kind of sense, it provides a written standard by which we can ascertain whether what we believe is true. We then are free from men's opinions about what is true. Or are we?

The early Christians saw the problem with this. By early, I mean the Christian Church as it existed from 200 A.D. and following. Back then there was no "The Bible". Sure, parts of what we now call The Bible were being written as early as 50 A.D.; other parts were written over 100 years later. But so were other books, letter, treatises, gospels and apocalypses that were treated by some Christians as equal or superior to what ended up being included in the Bible. Many of these writings, including (in my opinion) many  that are now considered scripture, were written to either back up a particular point of view or debunk some other faction's point of view. And there were a lot of factions. As one faction gradually gained ascendancy, its leaders had to devise a way to promote and codify their own doctrine while casting the opposing views as heresy. This is where apostolic succession came about. It was assumed that Jesus transmitted truth to his apostles, who faithfully passed on the teachings to their followers who in turn accurately taught their followers. The unbroken line from one generation of leaders to the next was the guarantor of truth, not what was written. The leadership several generations removed from Jesus was deciding what Jesus said and what he meant and how it was to be applied. Far from being an inerrant "Word of God" it was a collection, at best, of what various men wrote about their experience of the divine; at worst it was a collection of factional pamphlets. Maybe it was inspired by God, but maybe not, there was really no way to know for sure.

So much for Truth.

The group that I had belonged to was of the opinion that you just had to read the Bible, and it would interpret itself (I'm oversimplifying). But what this group and so many others who believe that they have The Truth because they read the Bible fail to address is why, if just reading the Bible is all it takes, there are so many versions of The Truth. Well, some address it by claiming that these others aren't real Christians, or they're not actually reading the Bible, or demons are involved somehow. But what's really happening is that the Bible is so confusing and contradictory that it would be surprising if there weren't variant interpretations. People handle the contradictions in various ways. Some, who hold the view that the Bible is without error, will attempt to explain away every error, sometimes in ways that are reminiscent of pretzels. The Bible becomes literal, except when it's inconvenient, then it's metaphorical; irregular definitions are given prominence, and interpretations are shoehorned in to make them fit.  But most people don't think this way; they actually don't think about the Bible all that much, except as something that they vaguely think of as the source of their vision of God.

While the fundamentalists and evangelicals and literalists are, as I was once upon a time, very concerned about Truth, the average Christian doesn't give Truth much thought.  They "believe in God", they pray, they're pretty sure that they're going to Heaven when they die (although some people brag about going to Hell, because they're such rebel bad-asses), maybe tack on a few extras like going to church or "being a good person". They either don't know or don't care about things like the wrathful God of the Old Testament, and certainly don't want to hear about it, and might tell you "that's not the God that I worship". For the most part, their picture of God, Jesus, the afterlife, etc. is based on what they think it ought to be, not on any actual part of the Bible. For example, how many times have you heard a person refer to a deceased loved one as "looking down on them" or as their "guardian angel". Where do those concepts come from? Not the Bible. What about the gyrations people go through to explain how prayer works (or doesn't work)? People invent the God, the Jesus, the Heaven that they want, that fits into their worldview. People even get mad at God for allowing suffering, even though suffering is clearly part of our lot in life...according to the Bible. Most people make up their own religion; they just put familiar labels on it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

As long as you're not claiming that Christianity is The Truth when you're not even following any interpretation of  the Biblical version of Christianity, but your own made-up version, and  looking down your nose at non-Christians because you think that they are following man-made religion or philosophy, then I have no problem with you. What most people who gravitate to alternative religions, or to no religion, are doing, is thinking through what worldview works for them, whether that is Atheism, Buddhism, Humanism, Paganism or Pastafarianism, and making it their own. Most Christians are doing the same thing, only with a designer label on the home made hand bag.

There is no One True Path. If following a certain faith or philosophy makes you a better person, or helps you to make sense of the world, then that is your truth, and may or may not translate into a truth for someone else.