on the man crush

i watched Tiger dominate yesterday. he systematically staged a comeback that culminated in an 18th hole birdie that was high drama. i don't play golf, never have, and don't see it in my future, but i like me some Tiger.

i am not sure that i like me some Tiger as much as the announcers liked them some Tiger though. i can't be sure how many times they made some kind of admiring comment about him, mainly because i was too busy flipping back to the college basketball games that were on yesterday (and yes, my bracket has finally imploded), but it got out of control at the end.

statements like, "good thing he has been lifting weights," or "this shot will take all the strength he can muster up from those hours in the gym," or "i don't like it when Tiger wears those muscle shirts; i'm more of a straight polo shirt and slacks kind of guy," or my favorite of the day, "it is a good thing Tiger can bench 450 pounds because it will take all of it right now," were regular announcing fodder. i understand that Tiger is ripped. i remember the days of his youth when he wasn't as huge and i guess couldn't bench 450 pounds, but it was out of control.

for a comparison let us consider the two following photos:

the photo on the left is ca.2000 and shows a much less muscular and strong Tiger, yet no less dominate, and the photo on the right is ca.2009 and shows a Tiger who can apparently bench 450 pounds. needless to say the announcers had a not-so-discrete man crush on Tiger. and i can be honest and say that he is an admirable selection for a man crush. the dude freaking dominates on a golf course and he is good looking. as early as the second hole i had a deep feeling in my gut that the poor kid out in front, sean o'hair, did not have a chance. i only wish Tiger had slammed his hat into the ground again like he did last year when he won the Arnold Palmer Invitational tournament on another last hole birdie.

i am just not sure that Tiger gets my top vote for my man crush. it is probably Dean Karnazes or Lance Armstrong. two equally amazing athletes to Tiger. who is your man or woman crush?

labels redux

there was a comment a couple of posts back on something that i made scant mention of, but knew the idea itself was at the very least intriguing. i mentioned that labels could perhaps have precipitated our current economic situation, in part. so before we all go off the deep end here, let's have some disclaimers:

1. i am no economist. i am armchair at best, really. so don't go looking for broad or sweepingly good economic theory here. i will simply put forth my ideas on what i believe led us to the current meltdown and rebuilding of our economy.
2. labels in my opinion were a small part in this, although i must admit -- the more i think about this, the more i become convinced our need to label things led to this in some way.
3. back to i am no economist -- let's remember that.
4. human nature will not be avoided and labels are apparent and necessary in our processing of the world, so i am not suggesting label nihilism.

disclaimers out of the way, let's start on this rabbit trail and see where it gets us!

first, i want to reiterate that labels are part of the way we make sense of the world around us. "tree" for example is a label. in an ancient philosophy class i took, my professor waxed very poetically about the label of the tree that was outside our classroom. the bottom line is this -- labels are categories that we construct in order to order the world. this is all fine and dandy until we run into the fact that some labels are destructive rather than constructive, and i am not suggesting this in a postmodern philosophical way. (believe me, we don't really want to go there). so while labels are necessary, they are not all ethical. if we can all agree on this minor point, ok it is major, then we can move on to the broader subject at hand. i am going to assume for my own well-humored sense of logic that if you keep reading, you agree. if you didn't you probably didn't just read that last sentence or this one.

second, what in the world did i mean when i said that labels in part led us to the current economic recession? recession -- a label mind you -- is the current word de jour. depression, down turn, crisis, idiocracy, greediness, and others are ones we have heard lately as well. in plain english let me say the following: our desire to label people led to financial decisions that seemed prudent to people who apparently graduated with business degrees but not degrees in risk assessment. so in non-vernacular let me restate that: the financial institutions in the mortgage, banking, and credit industries began to loan money to people who we would otherwise categorize as too risky for loans of the size they were receiving; or in other words, these supposed financial gurus who were running the companies such as AIG, Washington Mutual, etc. graduated with business undergrad degrees and MBA's but not with actuarial degrees, nor apparently did the people with the actuarial degrees think to actually asses the risk of giving people hundreds of thousands of dollars who could potentially go bankrupt today, tomorrow, or the next day despite that money.

third, so where do labels come into this anyway? i want to begin by saying that people seem to be labeled as financially secure or unsecure. we see this all the time with loans, credit applications, debt management, and interest rates. just go try to buy a car to figure this one out. without going too far down the subsequent rabbit trail, i think it suffices to say that banks and others decided that people who were heretofore labeled as financially unsecure, suddenly became secure in the wake of the advent of ARM's or adjustable rate mortgages or even worse -- balloon ARM's. this was a lending strategy that inflated the housing market and subsequently the credit market as well in order to consequently drive our economic "security" upwards. everyone seemed to profit...that is until the piper came to collect and well we all know what happened in the past, nearly, two years. so labels played a major role in my opinion of how we got to where we are.

is this incredibly over-simplified? YES. do i think that it is too simplified to have real and appropriate meaning? NO.

we like to label a lot of things in our country. see for example: liberal/conservative/independent; pro-life/pro-choice; black/white/brown/other; educated/uneducated; rich/poor; and i could go on, but i think i have made the point at least sufficiently. our affinity for these labels is great in that it gives us a very strict order in which to live our lives divided off from people on the other side of those labels, but the problem is that those labels really tell us nothing of who that person is. take for example the label pro-life. this is one that hits pretty closely home for me. however our conception of pro-life is that i am anti-abortion. and while this is true, i also want people to know that i am anti-death penalty, for geriatric care, and for the ethical treatment of humans and animals in what i would more closely call a whole-life stance rather than pro-life. of course i simply relabeled things, however i hope it at least gets closer to who i really am. my point is this -- a label is often times misleading and doesn't tell the whole story. the rest of the story, as paul harvey would say (let me say that if i had something to poor out for the brother, i would have just now), is actually meeting with, talking to, and developing a relationship with that person, whoever they are, and loving them for all their perceived and labeled faults. it is too easy to go through life huddled up with people who believe the same things i do and care about the same things i do. in what might be a very poignant thought, i recently read that the beauty of our diversified belief in this country allows us to see ourselves in others (i apologize that i don't remember where i saw this -- and it is paraphrased to be sure).

but if i get back to the original point at hand it is this: just because we relabel someone who is really not financially secure, financially secure, it doesn't mean that they really are. furthermore, our house of cards that we build on top of that relabeling will eventually come crashing down, and well...it has already.

fourth, we think the people who are at the head of the major corporations in our country are both financially savvy and in way more stressful positions than we are. all of this may be true, but it is no substitute for ethical action on anyone's part. just because i believe someone is smart, does not mean that they will act smartly in all situations or that they get some kind of accountability free pass for stupid decisions. we have for too long decided that people who deal shadily in business are just playing politics and that the working joe or jane on the other end of the their shady dealing are the unsmart and less shrewd individuals (just see the case of Enron or more recently the Madoff scheme if you think i am kidding). the reality it seems to me is that we have decided those at the top of these decision making rackets are labeled as faulty but not really at fault. which excuse me, but how about the guy who perhaps makes the most prudent decision of selling drugs to support his family? we lock them up for years and demand restitution, but for those in the Enron scheme or Madoff himself, we think restitution is out of the question and will give him a slap on the wrist, but this is where the rich/poor label is most evident: our justice system. i won't go on about that, but it is worth thinking about, if only for the mental exercise, but hopefully for a change one day in how people are represented.

fifth, and finally, labels in washington, and i mean D.C. not the state, have prevented us at times from moving toward what i believe are real solutions to problems. i do not believe that a dichotomous solution of republican or democrat will ever really lead us to a true solution to those social or institutional ills of our society. i suggest that the third way, or that way that recognizes that we are not always politically "right" (not in the political spectrum kind of way) must win the day in order for us to begin to move that way. our representatives must be expected to do what is best for the totality of the people they serve not the interests they serve or the lobbyists they serve either...of course that was the idealistic vision of our representative democracy anyway. but in the real world, it means that we can be happy without being always right or always served. for whatever reason our needs seem to take precedence in matters of politics. and what i mean to say in that regard is this: that even though i may care about the poor, i must be comfortable first in order to care about the poor second, for example. we are at base self-preservationists, and this seems to operate most acutely in the world of politics.

so labels are necessary but they are not always ethical, and that is the short way of saying that in the five points above, i at least have some semblance of logic that suggests labels got us to the economic situation we are in. we will never escape labels, but i certainly hope we can begin to see through them just a little bit more.

painting with words

my wife and i are netflix users. it allows us the maximum flexibility of renting movies and sometimes watching them immediately and sometimes sitting on them for awhile. recently we received the John Adams series that had aired on HBO in the mail and i was excited. as a history major and one interested in the revolutionary war time, i had heard that this was a well done series that maintained integrity in the details and the arch of the story.

i must admit, despite my interest in the time period, i knew relatively little about John Adams. he has frequently taken a back seat to his greatest friend and intellectual foe, Thomas Jefferson. their relationship, as portrayed well in the series, was one in which they found common purpose for ends and yet divergent means to reach those very ends. they were colleagues of the highest degree and because of their differences of opinion and political persuasion, found themselves foes at times. and in one of the bigger coincidences of history, they died on the same day, July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution.

the mini-series is based on the book John Adams by David McCullough. he is a fairly prolific and now famous author in the history world. his books are exceptionally well researched and he has a humility about him in his interviews that suggests, anyone can do this arduous task if they would just set their minds to it! when he won his second Pulitzer Prize, McCullough was described as a writer who is "painting with words" when he writes history. what a great image, for so many reasons. this was also the title of a featurette documentary about him on the dvd.

upon watching the said documentary my wife said to me, "i want him as our neighbor." i couldn't agree more. he is a congenial man. a man that introduces himself to those along the street, and he is a man who has a wealth of knowledge. he owns a writing "shack" although he says that it is his office, and therefore not a shack. it is small and secluded from his home and he has all he would need, and many of the things that we think we need are not included.

i believe my wife and i want David McCullough as our neighbor because he is a master story teller. he knows how to make the story of who we are and where we have come from into something that is both riveting and interesting. he can make those subjects we learned about long ago into something we care about again. and mostly, he exudes excitement and passion in his craft. i wonder what the world would be like if we were a little more like David McCullough day-to-day; if we cared enough to tell a story that would capture people's attention? perhaps we all need to learn to tell our own stories better, so that we can all become better neighbors.

"i have no idea where you fit!"

a student and i were chatting it up yesterday afternoon in my office. he actually had needed a copy of something that i had in my office, and i was happy to make it for him, but our conversation quickly turned to things theological. he is going to be attending my most recent alma mater and i was happy to help him with letters of reference, etc.

in the course of our conversation we covered over a great many things including my views on eschatology and salvation, what the concept of "the kingdom" means to me, and some political identifiers or labels. he informed me that he and some of his peers had been discussing a few of us older guys, alums of our fraternity, and where we stood politically and theologically. he said for several them they were easy to label. conservative, liberal, sort of moderate, and then he said the conversation turned toward me. he informed me that when my name came up and his peers asked him where he thought i stood he simply said, "i have no idea where he fits!"

labels are easy identifiers. they help us categorize people for easy use, but they can be deceptive. i told him i don't believe in traditional labels, and therefore find myself to be outside of them, generally speaking. i explained to him that on some issues i tend toward what would be considered a conservative viewpoint and on others a liberal stance. and that is ok.

after we finished talking i couldn't help but to think that part of what got us to our current economic situation has to be our need to label and adhere to those labels as though they make us and tell us who we are. and that seems to not only be trifilingly simple theology, but also simply bad logic.

the watchmen: a review

i saw the watchmen this weekend. i believe i drug two of my closest friends somewhat unwillingly, but willing enough to entertain me, to the movie. i should say upfront that i have not read the graphic novel that it comes from. i can say, however, that it is on my list o' books to read and that i do have a foundational, if only basic, working knowledge of the story. and all of this is to say that it doesn't really matter, because i am not using this space or these words to critique its accuracy to the spirit or plot of the novel or the accuracy of the character development or anything of the sort really in the movie. i want to talk about why i believe everyone should see this movie.

there is depth to the movie. and its depth, for me, lies in the quality of the examination of the human character and the theological and sociological exploration there of. within the watchmen there is an exploration of the way in which the human character is destructive and that without reform, our choices will lead us to a place of ultiamte self-destruction. add to this the enigmatic figure of dr. manhattan who at times engages with the human creation and at times wants nothing more than separation and escape, and you have not only a sincere struggle of the relationship between humans and God, but you also have an authentic and genuine depiction of what it is to desire change of a world, culture, society, and humanity in the face of evil and destructive choices that humans make. there is no simple solution for the watchmen. while there is a commitment to change and reform on the part of the watchmen to what they find to be moral and true, there is also a wavering in that commitment. is it possible that reflection on the mission can result in change in the actions of those trying to accomplish the mission? we see a spectrum within the watchmen themselves of how to effect the greatest change on the greatest number from the absolutism of rorschach to the utilitarianism of ozymandias, albeit stilted at best.

perhaps what i liked most about the movie was that it did not suggest that there was an easy or simple depiction of what is "right" or "true." there was struggle for all who were involved and there was a needed commitment. true there could be doubts, wavering, questioning of the mission and the purpose itself, but there was a deep sense of the need for change and that a better world was possible than the current reality.

the bottom line for me was this: the story is a complex layering of historical fiction with a deep vein of theological and sociological exploration that gives it a depth for reflection that is rare in most movies. there is no sense of direction for a desired outcome of thought, rather a prodding to become uncomfortable with your own positions if only for the sake of re-examination in the face of what is true, real, and authentic. and ultimately, i am left with a sense of hope that a better and different world is possible, if only due to the generation of authentic relationships built on openness, honesty, and vulnerability with one another.

oh my beloved cowboys

for better or worse i am a dallas cowboys fan. before people go all crazy telling me i just like them because they spend a lot of money, are the new york yankees of football, and are basically premadonnas...stop yourself. there are times when i too believe all of those claims. i have been a cowboys fan my whole life which is long enough to remember 1 win seasons. but to avoid my rant on why professional athletes should actually take the role-model position seriously, i will focus on a different thought today.

jerry jones is becoming al davis. not familiar with al davis? he is the long time owner of the oakland raiders. oh the glory days of the raiders! john madden calling plays and probably telling his players boom! in the play call! oh the days of bo jackson and todd marinovich...oh wait that was about the time they started to come unglued. randy moss was a raider once...remember that? in case you don't, let's just say he took the marauding image of the raiders a little too far in his approach to the game. that was before he joined the cheating patriots and apparently became part of the american sports idol duo...but again besides the point. let it suffice to say that al davis isn't all there anymore and well...it shows. today i am focusing on jerry jones losing his marbles and the cowboys delving back into first-year-of-troy-aikman's-career-pitifulness.

apparently last night, the cowboys released terrell owens. i will be the first to tell you that terrell owens is no saint. he wants the ball, and he ain't afraid to let you know that. of course, when he gets the ball over the course of his career he has been pretty damn good. 38 touchdowns in 3 seasons isn't that bad. i remember the time terrell owens stepped on the star in the center of the field and celebrated, and i actually saw him do this with the eagles in the end zone on the little star when they were waxing us. add to this, however, that we also released roy williams, the safety (oh the non-dilemma of having two roy williams on your favorite team just 24 hours ago). now roy has been hurt the past couple of seasons, and really hasn't been as good as he once was, but i attribute this to the fact that the cowboys defensive staff have lost their minds in asking him to be a cover safety. roy williams is a blitz the quarterback, stuff the run, fly over defensive linemen and deflate your red-river-shootout-win-hopes safety. so here is what i predict will happen: some team that actually thinks about things like this will actually play him in such a role and he will return to the roy williams of old, and probably make a fool of the cowboys the first time we face him on this new team.

however, my biggest piece of evidence for the jerry-jones-is-now-al-davis claim is this: we traded away a guy that started all 16 games for us last year at either cornerback or safety (anthony henry), and was pretty decent i might add (granted not great, but go back and read that...did i say great?), for a quarterback we hope never steps foot on the field to actually take a snap...because have you seen the lions the past several years? jon kitna...you are just a pawn in this poor saga of deconstruction...but pawn you must play.

i resign myself to the fact the cowboys are apparently rebuilding now that they actually had a decent team with little to no discipline. seems to me the solution was to actually have some discipline, not throw away what great talent you had in the locker room. so to my wife...who probably in the back of her head is asking why she ever became a football fan much less a cowboys fan...i apologize for the fact that during football season i scream way too much, i generally revolve my world around the cowboys schedule, and care way too much because this year is going to be rough.