My Take On Interracial Relationships
M.D. Wright
2.23.09
First of all, my opinion on this is rather simple, so this will be brief. I'm trying to get back into blog mode. I took a month off basically to handle ultra-important things. However, being back in school, you meet new people, hear new estories... I mean, stories ha and it gets you to thinking.
Of late, I have heard a LOT of White women (friends of mine, specifically) tell me that they love dating Black men. I ask them, "But why Black? Why stop there?" ha. The response I get is shocking, because I never heard this before in my life:
"Well, I just don't find the great majority of White guys attractive. AT ALL."
Wow.
I never heard it before and to this day I don't know what to think when I ehar that; particularly when I've had a couple of them flirt with me. It's pretty hilarious.
I've heard other female friends who are White say it is merely a product of their upbringing -- that they grew up mostly around Blacks and Hispanics.
OK.
I bring that up, because an interesting dynamic is being developed as a result of this rather recent paradigm shift. Oh, the White is Right philosophy is still in full effect (especially in the minds of the parents of young women who aren't Black -- in reference to their daughters dating or potentially marrying Black men), let's not fool ourselves here. I've overheard several parental squabbles (usually the father beefin', because the mother sometimse has a few skeletons in her closet if you know what I mean ha).
I have several dudes that I am cool with, a few of them friends of mine who have pulled women of EVERY ethnicity. I will not incriminate myself here by speaking about my foibles and journey while forming the Rainbow Coalition ha but I will say that being a Black man in the eyes of women under 45 isn't the terrible thing it USED to be dear God. It's not gone, nor will it ever be, but that stigma isn't as strong.
Meanwhile, on the other front, I have noticed how this affects relationships between Black men and Black women. I'm the first to admit, I don't give a rat's culo who ANYONE dates nor what their motives are for doing so. If only more people used that mindset good heavens. Anyway, for the most part, I will say my female friends who are Black (about 2/3 of the total) are not your typical ones who get all up in arms even at the sight of a Black guy with a non-Black woman. Thank God. I wouldn't stand for hearing that bullshit anyway. However, much credit to them, because it makes me respect them even more than I already do (they know who they are).
Nevertheless, there is one set of guys here who should be addressed: the guy who is extremely shy, or geeky/nerdy/dorky/homely (or ugly, if you want to be UNpolitically correct ha) guy who stands no chance with 90% of the Black female population. You want to know what caused me to write this blog? LOOKNIG AT BLAKE GRIFFIN'S PARENTS DEAR GOD. His dad probably wouldn't have gotten a second look from 3/4 of the Black women he grew up with. Meanwhile, the woman he married is White (nothing special to write home about herself, but ok...) and they are happy together. Or so it seems. I just wonder, when a guy - even if he's not shy or any of those other qualities (but nonetheless just as smart as those guys while maintaining social equilibrium) manages to get overlooked by the same women, how's he supposed to react when he gets the Gas Face from those who ultimately ends up with the woman(en) who will accept him as is and won't try to change him into "more cool" or make him something that he's not so that she will feel comfortable bringing him around her girls and her family?
Feel free to offer input. This is one of my rare open-ended blog discussions ha. Blame this one on the Kansas/Oklahoma game Dear God.
As politically incorrect as I wanna be.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Affirmative Action & "The Independent Woman" Phenomenon
Affirmative Action & "The Independent Woman" Phenomenon
M.D. Wright
2.18.09
As most of us know, Affirmative Action is 30 (actually 31) years old now. Many barked and griped about it during its inception (which is always the case when change occurs). Over time, those who did the barking and griping shifted as respective quotas were fulfilled and special interest groups' concerns were assuaged. One undeniable fact about Affirmative Action is who it has benefitted MOST in these thirty-odd years. Women.
Segue.
In the past decade or so, there has been a surge in the use of the term "Independent Woman" -- particularly amongst Black women, and to a lesser degree lower/working class White women and a few Latinas. It is an interesting phenomenon, given the fact that the social landscape and the corporate dynamic has shifted greatly since 1990. There has been a palpable paradigm shift within the United States, within each respective "race" (I hate the term, as you all know), nationality/ethnicity and even subgroups within each ethnicity.
Now, what I must point out for those who don't know me personally -- I'm as progressive socially as they come. I'm no wayward liberal by any stretch, but I am ALL for equal rights, treatment and opportunities for men and women. Indeed, the Capitalist regime, which does not even count women unless they are actually working in some capacity within any of the social institutions is SLANTED AGAINST the "traditional" woman. In this regard, more women are needed within the corporate hierarchy; even if economists would argue that there is not enough "capital" to salary all the new workers.
But I digress.
The effect Affirmative Action has had is not the issue. These are statistics that cannot be argued by anyone: chauvinist pigs, radical feminists, etc. The INDEPENDENT WOMAN movement, however -- is a different story.
Nowadays, you hear this term bandied about as much as "Hi, how are you doing?" in casual greetings dear God. And while I personally don't have a problem with it (it's often laughable to hear some women use the term given that they are living on government assistance and treat every man that comes near them like last week's refuse), it has become highly annoying to hear it when anything resembling the "oppressive" nature of previous social institutions such as "traditional" marriage is broached in conversation. The notion that a woman "needs" a man anymore is out. Self is in. God put marriage in place with the hierarchy for a reason. For Christian women to go about tossing this phrase freely is what disturbs me more than those who are not Christian and therefore not beholden to fulfill what it is God's Word explicitly states.
Again, I digress. This is one of my favourite topics of late.
With so many songs like "She's Got Her Own/Independent Woman", "Irreplaceable", "Diva", and what have you... where does it end?
The ONLY problem I really have with this new wave of social movement is the fact that one MAJOR fact seems to get lost in all of this:
Women have benefited most from Affirmative Action; particularly upwardly mobile Middle Class/Educated Black and White women. On the flipside of that coin, men of all ethnicities are not getting jobs that they normally got. That is fine. If the women filling the roles are qualified, I have zero problem with this. I've said this before. However, if, on one hand, a man is expected to fulfill "traditional" roles, while a woman is trying everything she can to break from that traditional mold, there is going to be a great schism. A dichotomy forms. Men and women are forced to take divergent paths, instead of similar paths (another in the long list of reasons why you have so many disgruntled single women who have everything materially, but lack a man -- of which she only views as an accessory instead of the critical cornerstone in her life [and vice-versa she for him] that God designed).
Now, more than ever, men aren't even given the opportunity to BE men anymore. There are so many sociological reasons for this. I don't have the time to go into them in this post. But when you can't earn a decent wage, or even get a job (in 2009's economy), what is a man supposed to do? Educated or not? Especially Black men, when they aren't locked up, dead or on the corner? I almost pity Black women in that (for those who want to marry a Black man) WHO do they have to choose from? Dear God.
Nonetheless, I hear a lot of women saying "no bitchassness in 2009" and other phrases to that effect, saying that men should step it up and do better. For those who aren't statistics, but are busting their tails and aren't able to realize their dreams, such utterances are misguided. In addition to that, aren't women supposed to support and uplift men as brothers, even if they're not romantically involved or married? What happened there? Especially within the Black community, where this is amplified? It is just interesting to hear those who scream this phrase the loudest and the most often are failing to realize what success they've achieved (for the most part, not ALL -- as I NEVER use the term "all" and make broad, sweeping generalizations) whether it be college education, career, business, even positions in church came as a result of Affirmative Action. It appears those in this current generation; especially those born SINCE 1978 have forgotten what their mothers and grandmothers, aunts and older cousins had to go through just to get their feet in the door; whereas women outnumber men in college nationwide, and therefore, along with the successful pressuring from special interest groups, have better opportunities to get jobs, start businesses, become heads of organizations and realize unprecedented success. I will never make an excuse for a man who resorts to hustling and risking getting a criminal record "just to survive" -- it is still a CHOICE, and in this information age, there are many legitimate means to earn a living; so it is not an excuse anymore. However, given that men, especially Black men, are getting passed over for jobs now more than ever in favor of the very women who are mockingly telling them to "step it up" and "no bitchassness in 2009" or "stop complaining about what you can't do/what job you can't get" -- it is very curious that this fact is being ignored.
We will see how 2009 changes this.
M.D. Wright
2.18.09
As most of us know, Affirmative Action is 30 (actually 31) years old now. Many barked and griped about it during its inception (which is always the case when change occurs). Over time, those who did the barking and griping shifted as respective quotas were fulfilled and special interest groups' concerns were assuaged. One undeniable fact about Affirmative Action is who it has benefitted MOST in these thirty-odd years. Women.
Segue.
In the past decade or so, there has been a surge in the use of the term "Independent Woman" -- particularly amongst Black women, and to a lesser degree lower/working class White women and a few Latinas. It is an interesting phenomenon, given the fact that the social landscape and the corporate dynamic has shifted greatly since 1990. There has been a palpable paradigm shift within the United States, within each respective "race" (I hate the term, as you all know), nationality/ethnicity and even subgroups within each ethnicity.
Now, what I must point out for those who don't know me personally -- I'm as progressive socially as they come. I'm no wayward liberal by any stretch, but I am ALL for equal rights, treatment and opportunities for men and women. Indeed, the Capitalist regime, which does not even count women unless they are actually working in some capacity within any of the social institutions is SLANTED AGAINST the "traditional" woman. In this regard, more women are needed within the corporate hierarchy; even if economists would argue that there is not enough "capital" to salary all the new workers.
But I digress.
The effect Affirmative Action has had is not the issue. These are statistics that cannot be argued by anyone: chauvinist pigs, radical feminists, etc. The INDEPENDENT WOMAN movement, however -- is a different story.
Nowadays, you hear this term bandied about as much as "Hi, how are you doing?" in casual greetings dear God. And while I personally don't have a problem with it (it's often laughable to hear some women use the term given that they are living on government assistance and treat every man that comes near them like last week's refuse), it has become highly annoying to hear it when anything resembling the "oppressive" nature of previous social institutions such as "traditional" marriage is broached in conversation. The notion that a woman "needs" a man anymore is out. Self is in. God put marriage in place with the hierarchy for a reason. For Christian women to go about tossing this phrase freely is what disturbs me more than those who are not Christian and therefore not beholden to fulfill what it is God's Word explicitly states.
Again, I digress. This is one of my favourite topics of late.
With so many songs like "She's Got Her Own/Independent Woman", "Irreplaceable", "Diva", and what have you... where does it end?
The ONLY problem I really have with this new wave of social movement is the fact that one MAJOR fact seems to get lost in all of this:
Women have benefited most from Affirmative Action; particularly upwardly mobile Middle Class/Educated Black and White women. On the flipside of that coin, men of all ethnicities are not getting jobs that they normally got. That is fine. If the women filling the roles are qualified, I have zero problem with this. I've said this before. However, if, on one hand, a man is expected to fulfill "traditional" roles, while a woman is trying everything she can to break from that traditional mold, there is going to be a great schism. A dichotomy forms. Men and women are forced to take divergent paths, instead of similar paths (another in the long list of reasons why you have so many disgruntled single women who have everything materially, but lack a man -- of which she only views as an accessory instead of the critical cornerstone in her life [and vice-versa she for him] that God designed).
Now, more than ever, men aren't even given the opportunity to BE men anymore. There are so many sociological reasons for this. I don't have the time to go into them in this post. But when you can't earn a decent wage, or even get a job (in 2009's economy), what is a man supposed to do? Educated or not? Especially Black men, when they aren't locked up, dead or on the corner? I almost pity Black women in that (for those who want to marry a Black man) WHO do they have to choose from? Dear God.
Nonetheless, I hear a lot of women saying "no bitchassness in 2009" and other phrases to that effect, saying that men should step it up and do better. For those who aren't statistics, but are busting their tails and aren't able to realize their dreams, such utterances are misguided. In addition to that, aren't women supposed to support and uplift men as brothers, even if they're not romantically involved or married? What happened there? Especially within the Black community, where this is amplified? It is just interesting to hear those who scream this phrase the loudest and the most often are failing to realize what success they've achieved (for the most part, not ALL -- as I NEVER use the term "all" and make broad, sweeping generalizations) whether it be college education, career, business, even positions in church came as a result of Affirmative Action. It appears those in this current generation; especially those born SINCE 1978 have forgotten what their mothers and grandmothers, aunts and older cousins had to go through just to get their feet in the door; whereas women outnumber men in college nationwide, and therefore, along with the successful pressuring from special interest groups, have better opportunities to get jobs, start businesses, become heads of organizations and realize unprecedented success. I will never make an excuse for a man who resorts to hustling and risking getting a criminal record "just to survive" -- it is still a CHOICE, and in this information age, there are many legitimate means to earn a living; so it is not an excuse anymore. However, given that men, especially Black men, are getting passed over for jobs now more than ever in favor of the very women who are mockingly telling them to "step it up" and "no bitchassness in 2009" or "stop complaining about what you can't do/what job you can't get" -- it is very curious that this fact is being ignored.
We will see how 2009 changes this.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monthly Book Review: Suggestions For My February Readings
Monthly Book Review: Suggestions For My February Readings
M.D. Wright
1.29.09
I am going to pick up Faith Evans' autobiography today, and MAYBE the Joe Torre anthology on Tuesday, but does anyone else have suggestions for good reads? (Particularly sports, political, church or music-related). However, I will consider any GOOD read.
For my author friends on Facebook, please send me your titles!
What have you...
M.D. Wright
1.29.09
I am going to pick up Faith Evans' autobiography today, and MAYBE the Joe Torre anthology on Tuesday, but does anyone else have suggestions for good reads? (Particularly sports, political, church or music-related). However, I will consider any GOOD read.
For my author friends on Facebook, please send me your titles!
What have you...
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Unwritten Man Laws
The Unwritten Man Laws
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
I'm actually going to start this out blank. Feel free to add your own "rules".
What have you...
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
I'm actually going to start this out blank. Feel free to add your own "rules".
What have you...
Status Is Everything
Status Is Everything
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
Let me tell you something. You can be a big, fat, ugly, crusty, purple something-or-another, but if you have money, fame, status and power, women will not care.
I look at some of these guys who are pulling women (read: mostly hoes) left and right -- no matter the arena: pro sports, music industry, church, etc. and I had to wonder.
If you are always on TV as an athlete... or a rapper/R&B singer... or top flight actor... or a pastor in church, women view you as something to behold and want you for themselves; despite all the competition from women with like minds. It's hilarious to watch it (especially in the face of women who swear up and down that it is not so).
Look at T.D. Jakes. Would he get a second look from ANYONE if he wasn't who he was?
Or Dwyane Wade, who looks like he gets his arse beat at the bar every night before a game? Dude's lip is busted and he has the Isiah Thomas eyebrow cuts; but when they "won" (refs STOLE) the NBA Title in 2006, chicks was throwing their panties at this guy. Dear God.
I almost wonder what it would be like if I were famous. I just hope I'm married to the GOD-ORDAINED WOMAN for me if it happens, because I'm definitely not chasing status. It makes women do crazy things.
What have you... (if you disagree).
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
Let me tell you something. You can be a big, fat, ugly, crusty, purple something-or-another, but if you have money, fame, status and power, women will not care.
I look at some of these guys who are pulling women (read: mostly hoes) left and right -- no matter the arena: pro sports, music industry, church, etc. and I had to wonder.
If you are always on TV as an athlete... or a rapper/R&B singer... or top flight actor... or a pastor in church, women view you as something to behold and want you for themselves; despite all the competition from women with like minds. It's hilarious to watch it (especially in the face of women who swear up and down that it is not so).
Look at T.D. Jakes. Would he get a second look from ANYONE if he wasn't who he was?
Or Dwyane Wade, who looks like he gets his arse beat at the bar every night before a game? Dude's lip is busted and he has the Isiah Thomas eyebrow cuts; but when they "won" (refs STOLE) the NBA Title in 2006, chicks was throwing their panties at this guy. Dear God.
I almost wonder what it would be like if I were famous. I just hope I'm married to the GOD-ORDAINED WOMAN for me if it happens, because I'm definitely not chasing status. It makes women do crazy things.
What have you... (if you disagree).
"Notorious" Film Review
"Notorious" Film Review
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
"Notorious" -- a biopic about the life and times of Christopher G.L. Wallace -- was released to public theatres on January 16, 2009. I recently had the opportunity to view it and I'm prepared to offer a review.
As a kid who followed BIG from the bottom to the pinnacle of his career (bought Ready to Die on CD AND cassette, and bought Life After Death THREE TIMES on CD) -- plus being a teenager when he came out, I have a great appreciation for his music and what it meant to those of us who just gobbled it up back then.
I won't get into nostalgia and this will be a brief review.
The actors were very well-versed and played the roles almost verbatim to what took place back from '91 until the end on March 9, 1997.
The director did not take liberties and stuck to the truth (at least as was told by those who witnessed it first-hand and what the media outlets were doing). I appreciated that. Seeing some of the scenes that I am familiar with having lived in Brooklyn years ago, it was very good to see how well the director re-created the scenes and used actors who were convincing enough to cause people who were of age at the time to at least reflect back on the actual people themselves.
I would definitely say the movie had excellent pace, the proper level of rawness, drama and poignancy that would make this a classic. The ending was perfect, all things considered.
I will admit that I had very low expectations about this movie. I was wrong. I say it is a must-see for those who haven't seen it. It is a good memory piece and worth watching several times over the years like some of the other classics from back in the day.
Grade: A-
M.D. Wright
1.25.09
"Notorious" -- a biopic about the life and times of Christopher G.L. Wallace -- was released to public theatres on January 16, 2009. I recently had the opportunity to view it and I'm prepared to offer a review.
As a kid who followed BIG from the bottom to the pinnacle of his career (bought Ready to Die on CD AND cassette, and bought Life After Death THREE TIMES on CD) -- plus being a teenager when he came out, I have a great appreciation for his music and what it meant to those of us who just gobbled it up back then.
I won't get into nostalgia and this will be a brief review.
The actors were very well-versed and played the roles almost verbatim to what took place back from '91 until the end on March 9, 1997.
The director did not take liberties and stuck to the truth (at least as was told by those who witnessed it first-hand and what the media outlets were doing). I appreciated that. Seeing some of the scenes that I am familiar with having lived in Brooklyn years ago, it was very good to see how well the director re-created the scenes and used actors who were convincing enough to cause people who were of age at the time to at least reflect back on the actual people themselves.
I would definitely say the movie had excellent pace, the proper level of rawness, drama and poignancy that would make this a classic. The ending was perfect, all things considered.
I will admit that I had very low expectations about this movie. I was wrong. I say it is a must-see for those who haven't seen it. It is a good memory piece and worth watching several times over the years like some of the other classics from back in the day.
Grade: A-
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Complainers?
Complainers?
M.D. Wright
1.24.09
Just a quick, passing thought.
Why do people like to openly complain about their "haters"? Ignore them or allow them to motivate you, if need be. Quit complaining about them. If you're doing anything worthwhile, PEOPLE WILL TALK. If you're a worthless douchebag, PEOPLE WILL TALK. If you're in college and haven't learned this, please catch up. You're behind, buddy.
And in regards to people on facebook who are "strange" and "stalk" others, or are just "friend requests out of the blue"... there is what is called a BLOCK feature on Facebook. Use it. Mini-feed is full of people complaining about this. Resolve it and shut your f'n face, as Walt Kowalski said in "Gran Torino".
Oh yeahhhhh
M.D. Wright
1.24.09
Just a quick, passing thought.
Why do people like to openly complain about their "haters"? Ignore them or allow them to motivate you, if need be. Quit complaining about them. If you're doing anything worthwhile, PEOPLE WILL TALK. If you're a worthless douchebag, PEOPLE WILL TALK. If you're in college and haven't learned this, please catch up. You're behind, buddy.
And in regards to people on facebook who are "strange" and "stalk" others, or are just "friend requests out of the blue"... there is what is called a BLOCK feature on Facebook. Use it. Mini-feed is full of people complaining about this. Resolve it and shut your f'n face, as Walt Kowalski said in "Gran Torino".
Oh yeahhhhh
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Personal Update
Personal Update
M.D. Wright
1.21.09
Okay, I'm down to my last semester as an undergraduate student. I am elated because I am sick of school blocking me from doing the things I could be doing in those hours. I have so many business and residual income ventures in mind, but can never find the time nor capital to put them into action.
Now I will be able to -- at least for three months starting May 16, 2009. Dear God.
I have six classes this semester, which sounds like a lot, but it's not bad. 1) They're not really difficult and I have had classes with all the professors except two. Five of the classes are Sociology and the other is Biology. Not bad at all. I just wish this whole car-buying, apartment-hunting, job-applying, law/masters-applying ordeal did not come with it. My life has been increasingly complex since the spring 2006 semester and I can't even given any real time to homework and papers. Yikes.
Graduation is May 15, 2009. I may have to stay in Greensboro (good Lord) until the lease is up at whatever apartment complex I end up living in (July 31) and again, I need a job ASAP. A car is absolutely NECESSARY.
Anyone who has tabs on a Honda Accord for sale, please let me know.
More updates to come in the coming weeks.
What have you...
M.D. Wright
1.21.09
Okay, I'm down to my last semester as an undergraduate student. I am elated because I am sick of school blocking me from doing the things I could be doing in those hours. I have so many business and residual income ventures in mind, but can never find the time nor capital to put them into action.
Now I will be able to -- at least for three months starting May 16, 2009. Dear God.
I have six classes this semester, which sounds like a lot, but it's not bad. 1) They're not really difficult and I have had classes with all the professors except two. Five of the classes are Sociology and the other is Biology. Not bad at all. I just wish this whole car-buying, apartment-hunting, job-applying, law/masters-applying ordeal did not come with it. My life has been increasingly complex since the spring 2006 semester and I can't even given any real time to homework and papers. Yikes.
Graduation is May 15, 2009. I may have to stay in Greensboro (good Lord) until the lease is up at whatever apartment complex I end up living in (July 31) and again, I need a job ASAP. A car is absolutely NECESSARY.
Anyone who has tabs on a Honda Accord for sale, please let me know.
More updates to come in the coming weeks.
What have you...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Super Bowl XLIII: Grand Central Terminal Edition - All Passengers Please Exit, Watch The Closing Doors Please
Super Bowl XLIII: Grand Central Terminal Edition - All Passengers Please Exit, Watch The Closing Doors Please
M.D. Wright
1.21.09
Ahhhh, so the season comes to an end on February 1. I hate to see the NFL season go dear God. But at least I have college ball and just three weeks until Pitchers & Catchers report. Call me a maverick if you want, but in my book, the Cards should NOT be 'dogs here. I will explain...
SUPER BOWL XLIII
Arizona Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
Money Line: ARZ (+220), PIT (-260)
Line: PIT -7
Over/Under: 46.5
So Vegas likes PIT? I think that line is ridiculous and the result of Steeler fans outnumbering Cardinal fans 15:1 nationwide. Vegas likes this. It gives them more room for error and the over/under is not a reach. They will come to regret this, though, because the Steelers will not cover.
Early suggestion: TAKE THE CARDS AND THE OVER!!! Anyone who thinks this game is going UNDER with THAT offense (PIT/PHI = wash, in terms of defence -- Cards put up 30+ on 1) a good defence in the Fulcons... 2) a VERY GOOD defence in the Panthers and 3) a GREAT defence in the Iggles. Do you see the pattern? They are not going to stop the Cardinals. Who can cover Larry Fitzgerald? Alicia Keys sang the answer to you throughout 2008. You already know.
The NFL is about matchups. Not "history" and "omens" when almost none of these guys playing on February 1, 2009 WERE THERE!!! Throw that nonsense out. Anyone who has played football on any level knows it is all about individual matchups and units matching up. It also comes down to coaching decisions and abilities to think quickly. Since this is the last game, I'm going to go all out and give a position by position analysis, even down to the coaches.
Coaches
PIT: Head Coach Mike Tomlin
ARZ: Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt
These guys each have two years of head coaching experience under their belts and pretty much cancel each other out. Neither has an advantage over the other at this point.
Advantage: PUSH
PIT: Offensive Coordinator Bruce Arians
ARZ: Offensive Coordinator Todd Haley
Arians' game plan is certainly very conservative. PIT fancies the running game (although Roethlisberger passes more lately than ever). Todd Haley masterminded an explosive offence that was atop the NFC in scoring this year. Enough said.
Advantage: ARZ
PIT: Defensive Coordinator Dick LeBeau
ARZ: Defensive Coordinator Clancy Pendergast
Dick LeBeau has been in the NFL longer than Pendergast, Whisenhunt and Haley COMBINED. This is the guy who revolutionized the 3-4 defence and helped implement the Zone Blitz and other schemes that we see today. Even though they have an impregnable defence, the Cards WILL score 27 points on them. More on that later.
Pendergast has had the Cards playing defence as they did the first half of the season, and they will need to continue playing the way they have for the first 2 1/2 games they have played great defence in this playoffs. The Cards are active and have a half dozen real playmakers (Dockett, Berry, Dansby, LaBoy, Rolle, Rodgers-Cromartie (DRC) -- as well as Hood). PIT is a great unit overall, but they have no more big playmakers than ARZ does. This is why I do not believe the Steelers should be heavily favored.
Advantage: PIT
PIT: Special Teams Coach Bob Ligashesky
ARZ: Special Teams Coach Kevin Spencer
The Cards are definitely more active on the defensive side of special teams. The Steelers are just steady. Nothing impressive.
Advantage: PUSH
Quarterbacks
PIT: Ben Roethlisberger.
ARZ: Kurt Warner.
Kurt actually WON a Super Bowl, and went to another which they could have won. This is his third. Roethlisberger rode Jerome Bettis, the defence's coattails and WOEFUL officiating to his Super Bowl "win" in 2005. Kurt is staggeringly accurate, even in the face of a great defence (see last week vs. PHI). 7 likes to keep every play alive to get on SportsCenter. He will throw 2 INT in this game. 2009 ARZ = 2008 NYG -- except in reverse, the Offense gets all the publicity for the Cards, and rightfully so, but that's not ALL that does it for them. Much like the 2008 Giants' defence. The 2008 Giants' offence was very good in its own right, but people liked to focus on the defence. The 2009 Cards' defence is very, VERY good.
Advantage: ARZ (heavy).
Running Backs
PIT: Willie Parker, Mewelde Moore, Gary Russell.
ARZ: Edgerrin James, Tim Hightower, JJ Arrington.
Parker is a potential game-breaker, but he won't be doing any of that against the Cardinals' defence on Super Bowl Sunday. Edge has been getting totes of late and he can at least keep the Steelers' defence honest against the run; which sets up the Cards' passing game. The other guys are a wash, as they pretty much do the exact same things.
Advantage: PUSH.
Fullbacks
Neither team really uses theirs. Every now and then the Cards pass to Terrelle Smith.
Advantage: PUSH.
Tight Ends
PIT: Heath Miller.
ARZ: Leonard Pope.
Miller is a better all-around player; he blocks, catches, and runs better than Pope who commits silly penalties too often -- and drops passes that he should catch 99% of the time.
Advantage: PIT.
Wide Receivers
PIT: Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes, Nate Washington, Limas Sweed.
ARZ: Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Steve Breaston, Jerheme Urban.
Larry Fitzgerald is the best WR in the NFL. Anquan Boldin is not far behind. Steve Breaston is already very good at working the slot. No one on PIT can cover Fitzgerald. That's a given. If they double him, Boldin and Breaston can run free. Get it?
Ward is very good at agitating defensive players with his constant smiling (which comes off as taunting and rubs people the wrong way). He's the best blocking WR in the NFL (Muhammad a close 2nd). Holmes is a do-it-all guy who even returns punts. Washington is a possession receiver with great speed (rarity) and Sweed is emerging.
Advantage: ARZ (only on the strength of Fitzgerald).
Offensive Line
PIT: Max Starks, Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig, Darnell Stapleton, Willie Colon (Ah Ah, Oh No)
ARZ: Mike Gandy, Reggie Wells, Lyle Sendlehein, Deuce Lutui, Levi Brown
PIT: They lost a couple of starters, but are still very good. Starks = best on the line.
ARZ: Underrated unit that plays together and pass blocks better than any team not named Philadelphia or New York Giants. Mike Gandy and Max Starks = Push.
Advantage: PUSH
Defensive Line
PIT: Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, Brett Keisel
ARZ: Bert Berry, Antonio Smith, Darnell Dockett (From?!), Bryan Robinson
Considering PIT runs a 3-4, their line is more about run stuffing and dominating the point of attack. Their linebackers make more plays. ARZ's defencive line sets up the back seven.
Advantage: ARZ (slight)
Linebackers
PIT: LaMarr Woodley, James Farrior, Larry Foote, James Harrison
ARZ: Chike Okeafor/Travis LaBoy (both switch up playing OLB and DE), Karlos Dansby, Gerald Hayes
The Blitzburg linebackers lived up to their billing against this year. There isn't a better corps than this. The Cards are young and up and coming, but they cannot generate the pressure that the Steelers can.
Advantage: PIT
Defensive Secondary
PIT: Ike Taylor, DeShea Townsend, Ryan Clark, Troy Polamalu
ARZ: Roderick Hood, Adrian Wilson, Antrel Rolle, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie
Taylor and Townsend are lackeys. Taylor's game doesn't match his talk. Clark is a hard hitter (he's been doing a lot more of what he did to McGahee; but total clean/legal -- all year). Polamula, while good, is not as omnipresent as Steeler fans like to think.
Everyone in the Cards' defensive backfield has big play potential
Advantage: ARZ (slight - on the strength of DRC).
Kicking Game/Special Teams
Wash, although if Rackers kicks another ball out of bounds, it could spell doom. Reed is a solid kicker. Not spectacular. Both teams return games are decent.
Advantage: PUSH
Based upon this, and the aforementioned FACT that no one can cover Larry Fitzgerald, I believe the Cards can and will make a few more plays than the Steelers.
Call:
Arizona 27
Pittsburgh 21
SEE YA IN AUGUST!
M.D. Wright
1.21.09
Ahhhh, so the season comes to an end on February 1. I hate to see the NFL season go dear God. But at least I have college ball and just three weeks until Pitchers & Catchers report. Call me a maverick if you want, but in my book, the Cards should NOT be 'dogs here. I will explain...
SUPER BOWL XLIII
Arizona Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
Money Line: ARZ (+220), PIT (-260)
Line: PIT -7
Over/Under: 46.5
So Vegas likes PIT? I think that line is ridiculous and the result of Steeler fans outnumbering Cardinal fans 15:1 nationwide. Vegas likes this. It gives them more room for error and the over/under is not a reach. They will come to regret this, though, because the Steelers will not cover.
Early suggestion: TAKE THE CARDS AND THE OVER!!! Anyone who thinks this game is going UNDER with THAT offense (PIT/PHI = wash, in terms of defence -- Cards put up 30+ on 1) a good defence in the Fulcons... 2) a VERY GOOD defence in the Panthers and 3) a GREAT defence in the Iggles. Do you see the pattern? They are not going to stop the Cardinals. Who can cover Larry Fitzgerald? Alicia Keys sang the answer to you throughout 2008. You already know.
The NFL is about matchups. Not "history" and "omens" when almost none of these guys playing on February 1, 2009 WERE THERE!!! Throw that nonsense out. Anyone who has played football on any level knows it is all about individual matchups and units matching up. It also comes down to coaching decisions and abilities to think quickly. Since this is the last game, I'm going to go all out and give a position by position analysis, even down to the coaches.
Coaches
PIT: Head Coach Mike Tomlin
ARZ: Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt
These guys each have two years of head coaching experience under their belts and pretty much cancel each other out. Neither has an advantage over the other at this point.
Advantage: PUSH
PIT: Offensive Coordinator Bruce Arians
ARZ: Offensive Coordinator Todd Haley
Arians' game plan is certainly very conservative. PIT fancies the running game (although Roethlisberger passes more lately than ever). Todd Haley masterminded an explosive offence that was atop the NFC in scoring this year. Enough said.
Advantage: ARZ
PIT: Defensive Coordinator Dick LeBeau
ARZ: Defensive Coordinator Clancy Pendergast
Dick LeBeau has been in the NFL longer than Pendergast, Whisenhunt and Haley COMBINED. This is the guy who revolutionized the 3-4 defence and helped implement the Zone Blitz and other schemes that we see today. Even though they have an impregnable defence, the Cards WILL score 27 points on them. More on that later.
Pendergast has had the Cards playing defence as they did the first half of the season, and they will need to continue playing the way they have for the first 2 1/2 games they have played great defence in this playoffs. The Cards are active and have a half dozen real playmakers (Dockett, Berry, Dansby, LaBoy, Rolle, Rodgers-Cromartie (DRC) -- as well as Hood). PIT is a great unit overall, but they have no more big playmakers than ARZ does. This is why I do not believe the Steelers should be heavily favored.
Advantage: PIT
PIT: Special Teams Coach Bob Ligashesky
ARZ: Special Teams Coach Kevin Spencer
The Cards are definitely more active on the defensive side of special teams. The Steelers are just steady. Nothing impressive.
Advantage: PUSH
Quarterbacks
PIT: Ben Roethlisberger.
ARZ: Kurt Warner.
Kurt actually WON a Super Bowl, and went to another which they could have won. This is his third. Roethlisberger rode Jerome Bettis, the defence's coattails and WOEFUL officiating to his Super Bowl "win" in 2005. Kurt is staggeringly accurate, even in the face of a great defence (see last week vs. PHI). 7 likes to keep every play alive to get on SportsCenter. He will throw 2 INT in this game. 2009 ARZ = 2008 NYG -- except in reverse, the Offense gets all the publicity for the Cards, and rightfully so, but that's not ALL that does it for them. Much like the 2008 Giants' defence. The 2008 Giants' offence was very good in its own right, but people liked to focus on the defence. The 2009 Cards' defence is very, VERY good.
Advantage: ARZ (heavy).
Running Backs
PIT: Willie Parker, Mewelde Moore, Gary Russell.
ARZ: Edgerrin James, Tim Hightower, JJ Arrington.
Parker is a potential game-breaker, but he won't be doing any of that against the Cardinals' defence on Super Bowl Sunday. Edge has been getting totes of late and he can at least keep the Steelers' defence honest against the run; which sets up the Cards' passing game. The other guys are a wash, as they pretty much do the exact same things.
Advantage: PUSH.
Fullbacks
Neither team really uses theirs. Every now and then the Cards pass to Terrelle Smith.
Advantage: PUSH.
Tight Ends
PIT: Heath Miller.
ARZ: Leonard Pope.
Miller is a better all-around player; he blocks, catches, and runs better than Pope who commits silly penalties too often -- and drops passes that he should catch 99% of the time.
Advantage: PIT.
Wide Receivers
PIT: Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes, Nate Washington, Limas Sweed.
ARZ: Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Steve Breaston, Jerheme Urban.
Larry Fitzgerald is the best WR in the NFL. Anquan Boldin is not far behind. Steve Breaston is already very good at working the slot. No one on PIT can cover Fitzgerald. That's a given. If they double him, Boldin and Breaston can run free. Get it?
Ward is very good at agitating defensive players with his constant smiling (which comes off as taunting and rubs people the wrong way). He's the best blocking WR in the NFL (Muhammad a close 2nd). Holmes is a do-it-all guy who even returns punts. Washington is a possession receiver with great speed (rarity) and Sweed is emerging.
Advantage: ARZ (only on the strength of Fitzgerald).
Offensive Line
PIT: Max Starks, Chris Kemoeatu, Justin Hartwig, Darnell Stapleton, Willie Colon (Ah Ah, Oh No)
ARZ: Mike Gandy, Reggie Wells, Lyle Sendlehein, Deuce Lutui, Levi Brown
PIT: They lost a couple of starters, but are still very good. Starks = best on the line.
ARZ: Underrated unit that plays together and pass blocks better than any team not named Philadelphia or New York Giants. Mike Gandy and Max Starks = Push.
Advantage: PUSH
Defensive Line
PIT: Aaron Smith, Casey Hampton, Brett Keisel
ARZ: Bert Berry, Antonio Smith, Darnell Dockett (From?!), Bryan Robinson
Considering PIT runs a 3-4, their line is more about run stuffing and dominating the point of attack. Their linebackers make more plays. ARZ's defencive line sets up the back seven.
Advantage: ARZ (slight)
Linebackers
PIT: LaMarr Woodley, James Farrior, Larry Foote, James Harrison
ARZ: Chike Okeafor/Travis LaBoy (both switch up playing OLB and DE), Karlos Dansby, Gerald Hayes
The Blitzburg linebackers lived up to their billing against this year. There isn't a better corps than this. The Cards are young and up and coming, but they cannot generate the pressure that the Steelers can.
Advantage: PIT
Defensive Secondary
PIT: Ike Taylor, DeShea Townsend, Ryan Clark, Troy Polamalu
ARZ: Roderick Hood, Adrian Wilson, Antrel Rolle, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie
Taylor and Townsend are lackeys. Taylor's game doesn't match his talk. Clark is a hard hitter (he's been doing a lot more of what he did to McGahee; but total clean/legal -- all year). Polamula, while good, is not as omnipresent as Steeler fans like to think.
Everyone in the Cards' defensive backfield has big play potential
Advantage: ARZ (slight - on the strength of DRC).
Kicking Game/Special Teams
Wash, although if Rackers kicks another ball out of bounds, it could spell doom. Reed is a solid kicker. Not spectacular. Both teams return games are decent.
Advantage: PUSH
Based upon this, and the aforementioned FACT that no one can cover Larry Fitzgerald, I believe the Cards can and will make a few more plays than the Steelers.
Call:
Arizona 27
Pittsburgh 21
SEE YA IN AUGUST!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
NFL Week 20: Champeenship Weekend
NFL Week 20: Champeenship Weekend
M.D. Wright
1.17.09
Who knew? Who knew the Giants and Titans would be sitting home and the Cardinals and Eagles would be battling for a championship? The NFL, where (calls that go against you at HOME and your QB sucks playing in the wind) happens.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals
University of Phoenix Stadium
Glendale, Arizona
Line: PHI -3.5
Over/Under: 47
Throw out the Thanksgiving game for four reasons: 1) it was a short week, 2) the Cardinals were traveling east, 3) the Cardinals were playing a completely different style of football and 4) the Cards didn't die, so it didn't count.
Again, the Cards went to Philly seemingly thinking they'd just pass the ball and win the game. They didn't seem prepared and with a game plan in place. They were struggling with their identity. The Iggles began their run of playing better football that night (after McNabb had his worst game ever the week before -- something Iggle fans conveniently forget; along with the fact he was unspectacular the rest of the season before that except when they were playing the dregs of the NFL). I have yet to see anyone in the Iggles' secondary who can match up with WR Larry Fitzgerald and if WR Anquan Boldin plays, the Iggles are in trouble. RB Edgerrin James is being given touches (finally) and that forces teams to play the Cards honestly. That means Jim Johnson's patented blitzes will have to be timed properly, because with Fitzgerald, Boldin AND WR Steve Breaston running routes, there will be one-on-one coverage quite often and mismatches that favor the Cardinals in each of those instances.
Many people are blindly picking Philly on the strength of the first game played and that's just foolish. The Cards' defence is active and will take advantage of McNabb's inevitably errant throws. Given that RB Brian Westbrook is nowhere near 100% for the game, I do not see him being a major factor (see last week's game vs. NYG as evidence). I believe the Cards win handily.
Call:
Philadelphia 20
Arizona 35
---
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Baltimore Ravens vs. Pittsburgh Steelers
Heinz Field
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Line: PIT -6
Over/Under: 34
Two things off the bat: the Steelers have NO BUSINESS being favored by 6 (if at all, given the nature of their wins earlier in the season -- more on that in a second) and this game is DEFINITELY going under.
The Steelers won on a last minute FG by K Jeff Reed that BARELY made it within the uprights in the first meeting. In the second meeting, the Steelers won because of a bogus catch by WR Sanantonio (Santonio) Holmes that was called a touchdown. Whatever. Regardless of that, the Steelers did not win either game in convincing fashion. Given this fact, why are they favored by so many? Also, why are so many people quick to say they are going to win solely because "they won both games and they're at home"? That's lazy. I do not see them winning this game. QB Joe Flacco knows how to get rid of the ball. QB Ben Roethlisberger DOESN'T. The Ravens will definitely get after Roethlisberger all game and harass him into bad throws. The Steelers' WRs know how to find a spot in the zones between the LBs and DBs and sit down, but Roethlisberger will have to be precise in order for the Steelers to take advantange. RB Willie Parker has had two very good games leading up to this one, but I doubt he cracks 75 yards. The Ravens merely need to run the ball to control the clock, not necessarily to break 20, 30 yard runs (which will be there on Woodley's side as he tends to overpursue). It's going to come down to whose back seven can make more plays and create turnovers. And the team with ED REED in its back seven has a better chance of doing that.
Call:
Baltimore 17
Pittsburgh 10
---
Baltimore vs. Arizona
Battle of the Birds
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
February 1, 2009
6:26 PM
Ha!
M.D. Wright
1.17.09
Who knew? Who knew the Giants and Titans would be sitting home and the Cardinals and Eagles would be battling for a championship? The NFL, where (calls that go against you at HOME and your QB sucks playing in the wind) happens.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Philadelphia Eagles vs. Arizona Cardinals
University of Phoenix Stadium
Glendale, Arizona
Line: PHI -3.5
Over/Under: 47
Throw out the Thanksgiving game for four reasons: 1) it was a short week, 2) the Cardinals were traveling east, 3) the Cardinals were playing a completely different style of football and 4) the Cards didn't die, so it didn't count.
Again, the Cards went to Philly seemingly thinking they'd just pass the ball and win the game. They didn't seem prepared and with a game plan in place. They were struggling with their identity. The Iggles began their run of playing better football that night (after McNabb had his worst game ever the week before -- something Iggle fans conveniently forget; along with the fact he was unspectacular the rest of the season before that except when they were playing the dregs of the NFL). I have yet to see anyone in the Iggles' secondary who can match up with WR Larry Fitzgerald and if WR Anquan Boldin plays, the Iggles are in trouble. RB Edgerrin James is being given touches (finally) and that forces teams to play the Cards honestly. That means Jim Johnson's patented blitzes will have to be timed properly, because with Fitzgerald, Boldin AND WR Steve Breaston running routes, there will be one-on-one coverage quite often and mismatches that favor the Cardinals in each of those instances.
Many people are blindly picking Philly on the strength of the first game played and that's just foolish. The Cards' defence is active and will take advantage of McNabb's inevitably errant throws. Given that RB Brian Westbrook is nowhere near 100% for the game, I do not see him being a major factor (see last week's game vs. NYG as evidence). I believe the Cards win handily.
Call:
Philadelphia 20
Arizona 35
---
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP
Baltimore Ravens vs. Pittsburgh Steelers
Heinz Field
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Line: PIT -6
Over/Under: 34
Two things off the bat: the Steelers have NO BUSINESS being favored by 6 (if at all, given the nature of their wins earlier in the season -- more on that in a second) and this game is DEFINITELY going under.
The Steelers won on a last minute FG by K Jeff Reed that BARELY made it within the uprights in the first meeting. In the second meeting, the Steelers won because of a bogus catch by WR Sanantonio (Santonio) Holmes that was called a touchdown. Whatever. Regardless of that, the Steelers did not win either game in convincing fashion. Given this fact, why are they favored by so many? Also, why are so many people quick to say they are going to win solely because "they won both games and they're at home"? That's lazy. I do not see them winning this game. QB Joe Flacco knows how to get rid of the ball. QB Ben Roethlisberger DOESN'T. The Ravens will definitely get after Roethlisberger all game and harass him into bad throws. The Steelers' WRs know how to find a spot in the zones between the LBs and DBs and sit down, but Roethlisberger will have to be precise in order for the Steelers to take advantange. RB Willie Parker has had two very good games leading up to this one, but I doubt he cracks 75 yards. The Ravens merely need to run the ball to control the clock, not necessarily to break 20, 30 yard runs (which will be there on Woodley's side as he tends to overpursue). It's going to come down to whose back seven can make more plays and create turnovers. And the team with ED REED in its back seven has a better chance of doing that.
Call:
Baltimore 17
Pittsburgh 10
---
Baltimore vs. Arizona
Battle of the Birds
Raymond James Stadium
Tampa, Florida
February 1, 2009
6:26 PM
Ha!
Friday, January 16, 2009
He Said-She Said: Showing Interest Without Causing Lust
He Said-She Said: Showing Interest Without Causing Lust
Cliff Young & Laura MacCorkle
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer & Senior Editor
EDITOR’S NOTE: Each He Said-She Said column features a question from a Crosswalk.com reader with responses from a male and female point of view. If you’ve got a question about anything related to singleness, please CLICK HERE to submit (selected questions will be posted anonymously).
QUESTION: I am a middle-aged woman and a strong follower of Christ. I have had sexual addiction problems and never had a “real” date—it had always been just straight to the bed. While I know that some of my flirtatious behavior at times is totally wrong, God give us the desire to be sexual and I believe being flirtatious is okay. How does a woman let a man know that she is interested in him and not cause lust?
HE SAID: By the manner in which you phrased your question, there appears to be a number of issues you are struggling with besides not knowing how to show a man you are interested in him. Lust, ungodly relationships, flirting and sexual temptations are common battles even for those who are strong followers of Christ. These can be many of our biggest obstacles to godliness.
Paul gives us the following counsel for our relationships:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him (1 Thess. 4:3-6a).
In regards to having had sexual addiction problems, nearly all addictions—including those of a sexual nature—necessitate the need for professionals to guide you through. Most recovery programs set up a “step” program to follow in order to gain control over the compulsion. Many addictions are never completely defeated, but rather carefully managed throughout a lifetime.
Likewise, in order to maintain a discipline of purity in our lives, we must set up our own personal step program which includes accountability, prayer, Scripture memorization, and barriers to temptations. Our lack of restraint will not only cause emotional and spiritual harm to ourselves, but also impact those we interact with.
According to Wikipedia.org:
* Flirting is a form of human interaction between two people, expressing a romantic and/or sexual interest.
* Sex addicts repeatedly and compulsively try to connect with others through highly impersonal intimate behaviors … empty affairs. …
Flirtatious behavior, as you mention in your question, can be used in a manner that is totally wrong. Flirtation, although flattering for some, can arouse certain behavior that is contrary to how God wants us to live our lives. You have experienced the results of how it can negatively contribute to those who may not have the same values, morals, and control that you desire.
Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 6:12).
“Harmless” flirtation may be permissible; however it is not beneficial to those who are susceptible to sexual temptation. We, as Christians, must know our own limitations and those of our brothers so we don’t cause either to fall into temptation.
I agree that God gave us the desire to be sexual. He created us as sexual beings for the purpose of glorifying Him and procreating within the borders and covenant of marriage. However we must only engage in sex within these boundaries.
Before letting a guy know you are interested in him, I would suggest you ask yourself a few questions to determine what are your reasons for wanting to do so.
* Why am I interested in him? Is it just something (a) physical or (b) because he is a godly man?
* What impression do I want to give to him? I am a (a) flirt or (b) a godly woman?
* What am I seeking from the relationship? A (a) one night stand or a (b) serious relationship?
If you answer "a" to any of these questions, it might be best not to let the guy know you have thoughts about him. However, if you can honestly answer "b," there are many ways in which to let a guy know you find him intriguing.
You can show interest in him by asking what his dreams are, what he likes to do, what the Lord is calling him to do, and how God has used him in the past. Showing interest in who he is can be more flattering than showing your willingness to have an impersonal intimate encounter with him.
Share who you are and why you are a strong follower of God. Let him know your dreams and desires the Lord has placed on your heart rather than sharing your intimate being. If he is truly a man after God’s own heart, he will respect you, find you more attractive and be after your heart more so than if he spent the night with you.
An unmarried woman (or man) or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit (1 Cor. 7:34).
SHE SAID: This is a great question. I’m glad you are taking responsibility for your actions and your role in not causing a man to lust.
Yes, God did create us to be sexual beings. But to act inappropriately on our desires is to act in opposition to God’s plan. To delight in one another and to become one (sexually, and I think emotionally, too) is purposed only for marriage (Gen. 2:24).
Outside of marriage, we must exhibit self-control when it comes to sex and our desires. We can admire one another and want to get to know someone better and show interest. But we must stop short of crossing over into or inciting lust (Matt. 5:27-30).
So, practically speaking, what does that look like?
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Rom. 15.1-4).
Because you’ve acknowledged that you’ve struggled with sexual sin in the past, you can definitely understand (perhaps more than most) and can “bear” with what kind of struggle your brothers in Christ are going through in maintaining sexual purity. Also, regardless of where you are in your own recovery process, you are still susceptible to stumbling as well (so keep that in mind, no matter how “strong” you might feel).
You also indicate your understanding that a woman should not do anything that would cause a man to stumble. So, through your own missteps and subsequent spiritual growth, you, my friend, are light-years ahead of many of your peers in regards to your sensitivity toward this issue.
If you asked any number of men what causes them to lust, I’m sure you would get varied answers. But here are some examples to get you thinking:
* Clothing that is too low-cut or too tight. Are you unsure if how you present yourself is too tempting to a man? Ask your trusted friends (or perhaps a male family member, too) for some honest feedback. What may seem appropriate to you and just “very tailored” or “well fitting” could be too revealing and a stumbling block to another.
* Lengthy late-night conversations. Whether on the phone or in-person and in a secluded location, things said when it’s dark, past your bedtime and with no one else around can quickly lead to inappropriate thoughts or way-too-intimate words being spoken.
* Physical touch gone overboard. A backrub or a cuddling session can turn into something not so innocent very quickly. Especially if the two of you are alone and the moon is full and the hour is late. If this is a stumbling block (for you or your man), you might have to relegate your one-on-one time to public places only (there’s a Starbucks on every corner now with very comfortable sofas and armchairs!).
* Movies or television programs that are sensual or contain sexual content or nudity. Even emotional chick flicks or rom-coms might excite a man (and possibly you, too), and you might need to limit (or even cease) your consumption of this type of entertainment.
* Music with a slow groove or suggestive lyrics. Barry White or Luther Vandross anyone? I know you might be chuckling at that, but music can lower defenses and get people aroused or “in the mood,” so to speak. After all, they don’t call some tunes “baby-making music” for nothing.
It’s encouraging to know that you can plan ahead, pre-decide and avoid situations or choices that lead to temptation (for either yourself or a man of interest). Also, know that you are not alone. God is with both of you in the midst of this struggle:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it (1 Cor. 10:13).
Also, as you show interest, keep these verses in mind:
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing (1 Thess. 5:11).
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24).
In your interactions with a man of interest, are you first and foremost trying to “encourage”, “build up” and “spur on”? Here are some ideas that can foster that kind of focus:
* Have you inquired about your man of interest? Word travels fast (if you haven’t already figured that out yet). Asking a trusted, mutual friend about your interest can be an indirect way to show that you are interested. Also, this is a great opportunity to “build up” a man in public to someone else. Verbalize why you think he is great and how he has captured your attention in the first place! You are adding to this man’s reputation and acknowledging his good character in front of others.
* Are you friendly and do you engage in conversation? Sometimes a man is more scared of you than you are of him. Find areas of commonality or inquire about his career or hobbies and ask lots of questions. Men love sharing about what they enjoy and know something about. So get them talking, sit back and observe. In your feedback, encourage them in their endeavors and agree to pray with them about any obstacles or challenges they may share with you.
* Find a way to spend time together within a group setting. Perhaps you are part of the same small group Bible study. Or maybe you volunteer or work together. A group setting can help to buffer or slow down the sexual temptation process and allow you to grow the friendship first, before romantic feelings even enter the picture. Plus, you will be doing something productive and spurring one another on toward love and what is good—and won't be focused solely on each other.
Bottom line, as sisters in Christ to fellow brothers or as witnesses to nonbelievers, it is our responsibility to point others to Christ (Matt. 5:16). And we must also be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit who will reveal what is really going on in our hearts and minds: Is my flirting really just manipulation? Am I leading on someone who I’m not really interested in? Am I just trying to get a man’s attention so that I will feel better about myself? Do I have this man’s best interests at heart? Am I hindering or helping him in maintaining purity?
By consistently staying in the Word, having a healthy prayer life and inviting accountability from trusted friends and family members, a woman’s heart will be softened and sensitive to God’s leading in any situation with a man of interest. And hopefully she will desire the very best for her brothers in Christ and—through her words, conduct and presentation—will want to encourage them on in their purity.
HE is … Cliff Young, a Crosswalk.com contributing writer and a veteran single of many decades. He has traveled the world in search of fresh experiences, serving opportunities, and the perfect woman (for him) and has found that his investments in God, career and youth ministry have paid off in priceless dividends.
SHE is … Laura MacCorkle, Crosswalk.com’s Senior Entertainment Editor. She loves God, her family and and her friends. Singleness has taught her patience, deepened her walk with the Lord and afforded her countless (who’s counting anyway?) opportunities to whip up an amazing three-course meal for one.
DISCLAIMER: We are not trained psychologists or licensed professionals. We’re just average folk who understand what it’s like to live the solo life in the 21st century. We believe that the Bible is our go-to guide for answers to all of life’s questions, and it’s where we’ll go for guidance when responding to your questions.
GOT A QUESTION? If you’ve got a question about anything related to living the single life, PLEASE SUBMIT HERE (selected questions will be posted anonymously). While we are unable to answer every inquiry, we do hope that He Said-She Said will be an encouragement to you.
**This column first published on January 15, 2009.
Cliff Young & Laura MacCorkle
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer & Senior Editor
EDITOR’S NOTE: Each He Said-She Said column features a question from a Crosswalk.com reader with responses from a male and female point of view. If you’ve got a question about anything related to singleness, please CLICK HERE to submit (selected questions will be posted anonymously).
QUESTION: I am a middle-aged woman and a strong follower of Christ. I have had sexual addiction problems and never had a “real” date—it had always been just straight to the bed. While I know that some of my flirtatious behavior at times is totally wrong, God give us the desire to be sexual and I believe being flirtatious is okay. How does a woman let a man know that she is interested in him and not cause lust?
HE SAID: By the manner in which you phrased your question, there appears to be a number of issues you are struggling with besides not knowing how to show a man you are interested in him. Lust, ungodly relationships, flirting and sexual temptations are common battles even for those who are strong followers of Christ. These can be many of our biggest obstacles to godliness.
Paul gives us the following counsel for our relationships:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him (1 Thess. 4:3-6a).
In regards to having had sexual addiction problems, nearly all addictions—including those of a sexual nature—necessitate the need for professionals to guide you through. Most recovery programs set up a “step” program to follow in order to gain control over the compulsion. Many addictions are never completely defeated, but rather carefully managed throughout a lifetime.
Likewise, in order to maintain a discipline of purity in our lives, we must set up our own personal step program which includes accountability, prayer, Scripture memorization, and barriers to temptations. Our lack of restraint will not only cause emotional and spiritual harm to ourselves, but also impact those we interact with.
According to Wikipedia.org:
* Flirting is a form of human interaction between two people, expressing a romantic and/or sexual interest.
* Sex addicts repeatedly and compulsively try to connect with others through highly impersonal intimate behaviors … empty affairs. …
Flirtatious behavior, as you mention in your question, can be used in a manner that is totally wrong. Flirtation, although flattering for some, can arouse certain behavior that is contrary to how God wants us to live our lives. You have experienced the results of how it can negatively contribute to those who may not have the same values, morals, and control that you desire.
Everything is permissible for me—but not everything is beneficial (1 Cor. 6:12).
“Harmless” flirtation may be permissible; however it is not beneficial to those who are susceptible to sexual temptation. We, as Christians, must know our own limitations and those of our brothers so we don’t cause either to fall into temptation.
I agree that God gave us the desire to be sexual. He created us as sexual beings for the purpose of glorifying Him and procreating within the borders and covenant of marriage. However we must only engage in sex within these boundaries.
Before letting a guy know you are interested in him, I would suggest you ask yourself a few questions to determine what are your reasons for wanting to do so.
* Why am I interested in him? Is it just something (a) physical or (b) because he is a godly man?
* What impression do I want to give to him? I am a (a) flirt or (b) a godly woman?
* What am I seeking from the relationship? A (a) one night stand or a (b) serious relationship?
If you answer "a" to any of these questions, it might be best not to let the guy know you have thoughts about him. However, if you can honestly answer "b," there are many ways in which to let a guy know you find him intriguing.
You can show interest in him by asking what his dreams are, what he likes to do, what the Lord is calling him to do, and how God has used him in the past. Showing interest in who he is can be more flattering than showing your willingness to have an impersonal intimate encounter with him.
Share who you are and why you are a strong follower of God. Let him know your dreams and desires the Lord has placed on your heart rather than sharing your intimate being. If he is truly a man after God’s own heart, he will respect you, find you more attractive and be after your heart more so than if he spent the night with you.
An unmarried woman (or man) or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit (1 Cor. 7:34).
SHE SAID: This is a great question. I’m glad you are taking responsibility for your actions and your role in not causing a man to lust.
Yes, God did create us to be sexual beings. But to act inappropriately on our desires is to act in opposition to God’s plan. To delight in one another and to become one (sexually, and I think emotionally, too) is purposed only for marriage (Gen. 2:24).
Outside of marriage, we must exhibit self-control when it comes to sex and our desires. We can admire one another and want to get to know someone better and show interest. But we must stop short of crossing over into or inciting lust (Matt. 5:27-30).
So, practically speaking, what does that look like?
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Rom. 15.1-4).
Because you’ve acknowledged that you’ve struggled with sexual sin in the past, you can definitely understand (perhaps more than most) and can “bear” with what kind of struggle your brothers in Christ are going through in maintaining sexual purity. Also, regardless of where you are in your own recovery process, you are still susceptible to stumbling as well (so keep that in mind, no matter how “strong” you might feel).
You also indicate your understanding that a woman should not do anything that would cause a man to stumble. So, through your own missteps and subsequent spiritual growth, you, my friend, are light-years ahead of many of your peers in regards to your sensitivity toward this issue.
If you asked any number of men what causes them to lust, I’m sure you would get varied answers. But here are some examples to get you thinking:
* Clothing that is too low-cut or too tight. Are you unsure if how you present yourself is too tempting to a man? Ask your trusted friends (or perhaps a male family member, too) for some honest feedback. What may seem appropriate to you and just “very tailored” or “well fitting” could be too revealing and a stumbling block to another.
* Lengthy late-night conversations. Whether on the phone or in-person and in a secluded location, things said when it’s dark, past your bedtime and with no one else around can quickly lead to inappropriate thoughts or way-too-intimate words being spoken.
* Physical touch gone overboard. A backrub or a cuddling session can turn into something not so innocent very quickly. Especially if the two of you are alone and the moon is full and the hour is late. If this is a stumbling block (for you or your man), you might have to relegate your one-on-one time to public places only (there’s a Starbucks on every corner now with very comfortable sofas and armchairs!).
* Movies or television programs that are sensual or contain sexual content or nudity. Even emotional chick flicks or rom-coms might excite a man (and possibly you, too), and you might need to limit (or even cease) your consumption of this type of entertainment.
* Music with a slow groove or suggestive lyrics. Barry White or Luther Vandross anyone? I know you might be chuckling at that, but music can lower defenses and get people aroused or “in the mood,” so to speak. After all, they don’t call some tunes “baby-making music” for nothing.
It’s encouraging to know that you can plan ahead, pre-decide and avoid situations or choices that lead to temptation (for either yourself or a man of interest). Also, know that you are not alone. God is with both of you in the midst of this struggle:
No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it (1 Cor. 10:13).
Also, as you show interest, keep these verses in mind:
Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing (1 Thess. 5:11).
And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24).
In your interactions with a man of interest, are you first and foremost trying to “encourage”, “build up” and “spur on”? Here are some ideas that can foster that kind of focus:
* Have you inquired about your man of interest? Word travels fast (if you haven’t already figured that out yet). Asking a trusted, mutual friend about your interest can be an indirect way to show that you are interested. Also, this is a great opportunity to “build up” a man in public to someone else. Verbalize why you think he is great and how he has captured your attention in the first place! You are adding to this man’s reputation and acknowledging his good character in front of others.
* Are you friendly and do you engage in conversation? Sometimes a man is more scared of you than you are of him. Find areas of commonality or inquire about his career or hobbies and ask lots of questions. Men love sharing about what they enjoy and know something about. So get them talking, sit back and observe. In your feedback, encourage them in their endeavors and agree to pray with them about any obstacles or challenges they may share with you.
* Find a way to spend time together within a group setting. Perhaps you are part of the same small group Bible study. Or maybe you volunteer or work together. A group setting can help to buffer or slow down the sexual temptation process and allow you to grow the friendship first, before romantic feelings even enter the picture. Plus, you will be doing something productive and spurring one another on toward love and what is good—and won't be focused solely on each other.
Bottom line, as sisters in Christ to fellow brothers or as witnesses to nonbelievers, it is our responsibility to point others to Christ (Matt. 5:16). And we must also be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit who will reveal what is really going on in our hearts and minds: Is my flirting really just manipulation? Am I leading on someone who I’m not really interested in? Am I just trying to get a man’s attention so that I will feel better about myself? Do I have this man’s best interests at heart? Am I hindering or helping him in maintaining purity?
By consistently staying in the Word, having a healthy prayer life and inviting accountability from trusted friends and family members, a woman’s heart will be softened and sensitive to God’s leading in any situation with a man of interest. And hopefully she will desire the very best for her brothers in Christ and—through her words, conduct and presentation—will want to encourage them on in their purity.
HE is … Cliff Young, a Crosswalk.com contributing writer and a veteran single of many decades. He has traveled the world in search of fresh experiences, serving opportunities, and the perfect woman (for him) and has found that his investments in God, career and youth ministry have paid off in priceless dividends.
SHE is … Laura MacCorkle, Crosswalk.com’s Senior Entertainment Editor. She loves God, her family and and her friends. Singleness has taught her patience, deepened her walk with the Lord and afforded her countless (who’s counting anyway?) opportunities to whip up an amazing three-course meal for one.
DISCLAIMER: We are not trained psychologists or licensed professionals. We’re just average folk who understand what it’s like to live the solo life in the 21st century. We believe that the Bible is our go-to guide for answers to all of life’s questions, and it’s where we’ll go for guidance when responding to your questions.
GOT A QUESTION? If you’ve got a question about anything related to living the single life, PLEASE SUBMIT HERE (selected questions will be posted anonymously). While we are unable to answer every inquiry, we do hope that He Said-She Said will be an encouragement to you.
**This column first published on January 15, 2009.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Characterization of MLB Fans
Characterization of MLB Fans
M.D. Wright
1.12.09
Back on September 11, 2008, I did a characterization of NFL fans. I started to do a follow-up with Baseball, but I had an impending surgery that week and got busier with school.
If you don't fit into these, please don't seek to hang me by my thumbs. They are generalizations and based upon real fans that I have encountered face to face at games, casually at various different venues or on message boards and other internet-based "locales".
Without further ado, let's get it...
AL East
BALTIMORE ORIOLES. I knew a few Orioles fan until guys like Eddie Murray left town and Cal Ripken, Jr. retired. I don't think I know one, now. The few Orioles fans that I knew were good people, though. They love baseball -- and these people KNOW HOW TO TAILGATE. Man oh man. And Boog Powell's grill is over the wall going toward the harbor. I've been there before. GREAT experience.
BOSTON RED SOX. Before I really light into them, I have to delineate. These guys have two groups of fans (and a subset in the other group). The REAL Red "Sawrx" fan is actually not that bad to deal with. Especially those who are over age 25. They were the ones who suffered through never winning anything. They acknowledged that there was no "rivalry" between the Red Sox and Yankees. The Red Sox were just JEALOUS of the Yankees. Arguably, that is stil the case (26 World Series Championships to 7 for Boston). However, they KNOW THEIR BASEBALL. No one can say they don't.
Now, for the bandwagoners that have mostly come along since 2004 -- they compromise about 1/3 of the Red Sox fan base. The Red Sox "Nation" is "led" by a bunch of yahoos who like to brag about 2004 and 2007 and don't really know baseball. Unfortunately, this is who most baseball fans encounter when they are Red Sox "fans". These are usually college-aged drunkards who pass out at bars or spend 3 hours yelling expletives at Yankee players senselessly should they even be allowed in Yankee Stadium or Fenway PAHK. They are the worst.
Shame is, most REAL Red Sawrx fans I know personally are really cool.
NEW YORK YANKEES. The most knowledgeable fans in baseball (Mets and Red Sox are close seconds). Much like the Red Sox, the Yankees have two sets of fans. The Knowledgeable fan who doesn't brag and never brings up 39/26 and will talk about pitchers with "filthy" stuff objectively on any team and EMBARRASS you with their sports knowledge in general.
The Fake Yankee fan is so annoying, even to Real Yankee fans. They brag, brag, brag and can't name our set-up man or who the 3B coach is. They are an embarrassment to anyone who supports the Yankees. They taunt fans of other teams (especially Red Sox and Mets fans) and generally make people who don't live in New York HATE the Yankees. Another trait of the Fake Yankee fan is the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY no ties whatsoever to New York City. Why they even become fans of the team is beyond me.
TAMPA BAY RAYS. Good Lord, they have a ton of fans all of a sudden. I'd hate to see it if they had won the World Series (although I wish they would've -- Philadelphia sports fans are back to their uncouth selves due to that and the Iggles defeating the champs in the NFL in the 2009 playoffs). Much like the Buccaneers in the NFL, most of the Rays' fans are transplants from the northeast. Indeed, they weren't even selling games out until the playoffs. I can't really speak on the "real" fans -- all 713 of them. The rest are just bandwagoners. I'll give them another decade or so. Alls I know is UNCG is full of people who have absolutely NO ties to Tamper except people who went to Ybor City during Spring Break or something.
TORONTO BLUE JAYS. I like these guys. They're mostly likeable people. They don't tailgate, they do like their drink, though. They love their baseball. And if you try to talk about the current state of the team, they WILL bring up their back-to-back World Series winning teams in 1992 and 1993 (and very well would have won in 1994 if not for the Players' Union strike 2/3 through the season).
AL CENTRAL
CHICAGO WHITE SOX. White Sox fans are pretty few and far between. I haven't known too many over the years. I do know they had an inferiority complex before 2005. No one cared about them. Even most of their fans hah. I do like listening to Ken "Hawk" Harrelson on WGN, however. His calls are great. The few fans that I have known have inferiority complexes and always seem to fear the worst. They also think they always get the shaft when it comes to trades and free agents (even though Kenny Williams is one of the best GMs out there).
CLEVELAND INDIANS. Indians fans are much like Browns fans. They LOVE their drink. Indians fans know their history and know baseball in general, but I have come to dislike many of them. They are obviously pissed they didn't cash in on those great teams they had from 1993-2001. I don't know. Overall, they're okay. But I have known a few jerks here and there.
DETROIT TIGERS. The Tigers fan is your typical fan of all the Detroit-area teams. They KNOW baseball and will argue with anyone about it. They have a great history and they know it thoroughly. I haven't known too many fake Tigers fans, but most of these guys seem to live in towns with the name "Hills" at the end and throw beers at their dad's decks when they get upset. Beware when their pitching is bad.
KANSAS CITY ROYALS. I have known ONE Royals fan in my life. And they knew I was a Yankee fan, so they complained about salary caps and the Yankees' spending for players. I doubt they even cared about actual baseball.
MINNESOTA TWINS. Ahhhh... the Minnesooooota Twins. Their fans are something else. I will say they are very much passionate abote/aboot their team. They know baseball, but in the years they are not winning, they tend to complain when the Mets or Angels or teams like that raid their team of their prized players. I hate fans that complain about payroll. Remember that as you read along.
AL WEST
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of Orange County of Los Angeles. Is that whole stupid name thing over with yet? Yikes. Anyway, their fan base has swelled this decade. Before that, all they could talk about was Finley, Langston and the days of old with a washed-up Reggie Jackson. Now, they're arrogant jerks who like to point out how they have had the Yankees' number since 2000. OK.
However, for the majority of them, they seem to value pitching and talking about it more than their lineup -- which is pretty good.
OAKLAND ATHLETICS. These guys. Hah. Billy Beane got them drinking the Jim Jones Flavor-Aid. "Sabremetrics" is all I have to say. That's their rationale for the guys they spend money on, or release and don't pay large contracts. Their fans go into every year they will contend, when they really haven't been SERIOUS contenders since Dave Stewart was scowling on the mound and Rickey was being Rickey (congrats on the HOF induction, BTW).
SEATTLE MARINERS. Dear God. These guys have had it bad since Kenneth left town. Yikes. I feel bad for them. They field an inferior product, have a bloated payroll full of high-priced free agents who don't produce and they are one of the worst teams in the league. It's so bad that players and fans alike have turned on Ichiro. The guy gets 200 hits and hits .330 every year. Good Lord. This year has not been good to Seattle fans in ANY sport (U. of Washington, Seattle SuperSonics, Seattle Seahawks, Seattle Mariners -- and, by extension, Washington State -- ALL BAD). If you make jokes about it, the Hal Liu down at the fresh market with throw a salmon at you.
TEXAS RANGERS. Tons of offence, no pitching. Their fans are okay with it, it seems. I only know a few personally, but the rest of them like going to games in 97 degree heat and seeing 15-13 games that last 4 1/2 hours. They can BBQ with the best of them, though. I would love to take in a Yankee/Ranger game down there in Arlington.
NL EAST
ATLANTA BRAVES. I hate them. Passionately. The thing is, they brag as if they are relevant. Along with the Buffalo Bills, they are the butt of peoples' jokes when they talk about futility in the playoffs and teams that choke when it matters. Besides, the Yankees beat them TWICE in four years in the World Series. They made the World Series FIVE TIMES and only won one (who even remembers it?) They tailgate pretty good, though. That is, the ones who show up. Turner Field rarely sells out anymore. People in Atlanta are front-runners. They only pack the arena when the teams are doing well (see: Boston Celtics vs. Atlanta Hawks -- 2008 NBA Playoffs).
FLORIDA MARLINS. Alot of these guys are transplant New Yorkers. However, they never go to their games. The few who do definitely know their baseball. They like to bring up to Mets and Yankee fans that THEY are the last team amongst that bunch to win a World Series (2003) and have won just as many (2) as the Mets have. Yikes. Maybe people in Miami have better things to do than to watch great pitching and great young hitters while dodging lightning strikes and random deluges at 3:30 PM when the humidity is like 84%.
NEW YORK BASEBALL METS. The Met fan is like the Red Sox fan used to be. Optimistic to the end, but always expecting the worst. They know their sports by default, as New Yorkers. They have become accustomed to their team saying "Before I Self-Destruct..." like a certain rapper also from Queens says. I was initially a Met fan from 1984-1989, but they never choked back then. I changed teams because the Yankees began to get on TV more often. Prior to that, my great aunt -- who lived on Long Island -- was a die hard Mets fan, and her daughter, who I lived with years ago, was also. So Mets was all I knew. Then, in 1990, the Yanks were on TV more and they had my favorite player in all of sports, Deion Sanders. However, the Mets fan right now knows heartbreak a bit too much. It's awful, because they deserve better. If you encounter a Met fan who is also a New York Football Giants fan, don't crack jokes -- they may terminate you on sight.
PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES. Dear God I hate their fans. As with all Philly teams, their fans are the scum of the earth and have ZERO couth. They can't handle prosperity (nor can their teams, who routinely choke) without bragging incessantly. If you don't believe me, just read the comments page on the New York Post this week as the writers nail the Giants for losing to the Iggles. It is the same way when the Phillies beat the Mets. The team is one thing, but the fans are enough to make you hate a team more than satan himself. Good Lord.
WASHINGTON NATIONALS. Ahhhh the Expos-cum-Nationals. I almost forget this team used to be in Montreal. They have a few fans... I think. They just got their hearts broken when all the free agents passed on them. Oh well.
NL CENTRAL
CHICAGO CUBS. Definitely some of the best fans in all of sports. They don't seem to know much about baseball though hah. Nah, that's not true. They know, but they don't talk it incessantly like Red Sox, Yankee and Met fans do. They care more about being on WGN's cameras, getting trashed and eating fattening burgers at the game. I'd definitely love to take in a game there. Cubs fans are fun.
CINCINNATI REDS. They live in the past. Everything is about the Big Red Machine and comparing the futility of the team to that era. They had some teams in the late 80s and early 90s under Sparky Anderson, but most of the fans I know (half dozen, probably?) only know the bad teams they've had from 1995-present. They don't do anything well. They don't tailgate. They aren't really passionate and don't really talk baseball that well.
HOUSTON ASTROS. I don't know any of them personally. I can't really speak about them.
MILWAUKEE BREWERS. These guys know how to do it, man. They have a friggin' water slide in left-center field. ha. They know how to eat. They LOVE their drink. I mean, they're the BREWERS for crying out loud. They have raucous fans. But their team has been unable to win anything since I was three.
PITTSBURGH PIRATES. I pity these guys. Only memories of pitchers using LSD and pitching no-hitters and "We Are Fa-ma-lee". Yikes. Barry Bonds once played there. People almost forget they had good teams with Bonds, Van Slyke, Drabek and ol' Tim Wakefield. I don't know how their fans are sane. But they like to brag about the Steelers when they get a chance. Since they are basically all the same fans.
ST. LOUIS CARDINALS. I hate them. I can't really say much else. They talk like the team is great, and it's not. Who wouldn't hate fans like these?
NL WEST
ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS. Their fans are cool. They have fun. It's never cold out there. They have a SWIMMING POOL in right-center field. Yikes. They are still learning how to tailgate. They are the types who drink wine coolers with filet mignon at a game. What the...?
COLORADO ROCKIES. I actually know a few Rockies fans. They are good people. They are novices when it comes to baseball, though. However, they have a fun team to watch and their fans pretty much just ride the wave. Owwwwwww.
LOS ANGELES DODGERS. Joe Dodger is just like Joe Giant fan. These guys played in Brooklyn until their GREEDY owners left for "greener pastures" in Chavez Ravine. OK. Their fans are baseball SAVANTS, though. They can dissect a box score like few others and they know their baseball -- despite most of their fans not being New Yorkers that followed the team from Ebbets Field to Chavez Ravine.
SAN DIEGO PADRES. The Fathers' fans have resigned themselves to knowing they're never going to win anything in their lifetimes. The team doesn't spend on the right players. They play in an old park (by baseball standards) and don't have a team that is capable of winning for long stretches. They have their nice San Diego Super Weather, though.
SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS. Bunch of idiots. Wading in 50 degree waters to get a home run ball in "McCovey Cove"? Psh. They're fickle and they're homers. They worship Barry Bonds, while everyone else hates Bonds. They stole our team -- which is the reason the NFL's Giants are (and still called) the "New York Football Giants". The baseball team played in Harlem and they stole it! I will never forgive them for this.
M.D. Wright
1.12.09
Back on September 11, 2008, I did a characterization of NFL fans. I started to do a follow-up with Baseball, but I had an impending surgery that week and got busier with school.
If you don't fit into these, please don't seek to hang me by my thumbs. They are generalizations and based upon real fans that I have encountered face to face at games, casually at various different venues or on message boards and other internet-based "locales".
Without further ado, let's get it...
AL East
BALTIMORE ORIOLES. I knew a few Orioles fan until guys like Eddie Murray left town and Cal Ripken, Jr. retired. I don't think I know one, now. The few Orioles fans that I knew were good people, though. They love baseball -- and these people KNOW HOW TO TAILGATE. Man oh man. And Boog Powell's grill is over the wall going toward the harbor. I've been there before. GREAT experience.
BOSTON RED SOX. Before I really light into them, I have to delineate. These guys have two groups of fans (and a subset in the other group). The REAL Red "Sawrx" fan is actually not that bad to deal with. Especially those who are over age 25. They were the ones who suffered through never winning anything. They acknowledged that there was no "rivalry" between the Red Sox and Yankees. The Red Sox were just JEALOUS of the Yankees. Arguably, that is stil the case (26 World Series Championships to 7 for Boston). However, they KNOW THEIR BASEBALL. No one can say they don't.
Now, for the bandwagoners that have mostly come along since 2004 -- they compromise about 1/3 of the Red Sox fan base. The Red Sox "Nation" is "led" by a bunch of yahoos who like to brag about 2004 and 2007 and don't really know baseball. Unfortunately, this is who most baseball fans encounter when they are Red Sox "fans". These are usually college-aged drunkards who pass out at bars or spend 3 hours yelling expletives at Yankee players senselessly should they even be allowed in Yankee Stadium or Fenway PAHK. They are the worst.
Shame is, most REAL Red Sawrx fans I know personally are really cool.
NEW YORK YANKEES. The most knowledgeable fans in baseball (Mets and Red Sox are close seconds). Much like the Red Sox, the Yankees have two sets of fans. The Knowledgeable fan who doesn't brag and never brings up 39/26 and will talk about pitchers with "filthy" stuff objectively on any team and EMBARRASS you with their sports knowledge in general.
The Fake Yankee fan is so annoying, even to Real Yankee fans. They brag, brag, brag and can't name our set-up man or who the 3B coach is. They are an embarrassment to anyone who supports the Yankees. They taunt fans of other teams (especially Red Sox and Mets fans) and generally make people who don't live in New York HATE the Yankees. Another trait of the Fake Yankee fan is the fact that they have ABSOLUTELY no ties whatsoever to New York City. Why they even become fans of the team is beyond me.
TAMPA BAY RAYS. Good Lord, they have a ton of fans all of a sudden. I'd hate to see it if they had won the World Series (although I wish they would've -- Philadelphia sports fans are back to their uncouth selves due to that and the Iggles defeating the champs in the NFL in the 2009 playoffs). Much like the Buccaneers in the NFL, most of the Rays' fans are transplants from the northeast. Indeed, they weren't even selling games out until the playoffs. I can't really speak on the "real" fans -- all 713 of them. The rest are just bandwagoners. I'll give them another decade or so. Alls I know is UNCG is full of people who have absolutely NO ties to Tamper except people who went to Ybor City during Spring Break or something.
TORONTO BLUE JAYS. I like these guys. They're mostly likeable people. They don't tailgate, they do like their drink, though. They love their baseball. And if you try to talk about the current state of the team, they WILL bring up their back-to-back World Series winning teams in 1992 and 1993 (and very well would have won in 1994 if not for the Players' Union strike 2/3 through the season).
AL CENTRAL
CHICAGO WHITE SOX. White Sox fans are pretty few and far between. I haven't known too many over the years. I do know they had an inferiority complex before 2005. No one cared about them. Even most of their fans hah. I do like listening to Ken "Hawk" Harrelson on WGN, however. His calls are great. The few fans that I have known have inferiority complexes and always seem to fear the worst. They also think they always get the shaft when it comes to trades and free agents (even though Kenny Williams is one of the best GMs out there).
CLEVELAND INDIANS. Indians fans are much like Browns fans. They LOVE their drink. Indians fans know their history and know baseball in general, but I have come to dislike many of them. They are obviously pissed they didn't cash in on those great teams they had from 1993-2001. I don't know. Overall, they're okay. But I have known a few jerks here and there.
DETROIT TIGERS. The Tigers fan is your typical fan of all the Detroit-area teams. They KNOW baseball and will argue with anyone about it. They have a great history and they know it thoroughly. I haven't known too many fake Tigers fans, but most of these guys seem to live in towns with the name "Hills" at the end and throw beers at their dad's decks when they get upset. Beware when their pitching is bad.
KANSAS CITY ROYALS. I have known ONE Royals fan in my life. And they knew I was a Yankee fan, so they complained about salary caps and the Yankees' spending for players. I doubt they even cared about actual baseball.
MINNESOTA TWINS. Ahhhh... the Minnesooooota Twins. Their fans are something else. I will say they are very much passionate abote/aboot their team. They know baseball, but in the years they are not winning, they tend to complain when the Mets or Angels or teams like that raid their team of their prized players. I hate fans that complain about payroll. Remember that as you read along.
AL WEST
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of Orange County of Los Angeles. Is that whole stupid name thing over with yet? Yikes. Anyway, their fan base has swelled this decade. Before that, all they could talk about was Finley, Langston and the days of old with a washed-up Reggie Jackson. Now, they're arrogant jerks who like to point out how they have had the Yankees' number since 2000. OK.
However, for the majority of them, they seem to value pitching and talking about it more than their lineup -- which is pretty good.
OAKLAND ATHLETICS. These guys. Hah. Billy Beane got them drinking the Jim Jones Flavor-Aid. "Sabremetrics" is all I have to say. That's their rationale for the guys they spend money on, or release and don't pay large contracts. Their fans go into every year they will contend, when they really haven't been SERIOUS contenders since Dave Stewart was scowling on the mound and Rickey was being Rickey (congrats on the HOF induction, BTW).
SEATTLE MARINERS. Dear God. These guys have had it bad since Kenneth left town. Yikes. I feel bad for them. They field an inferior product, have a bloated payroll full of high-priced free agents who don't produce and they are one of the worst teams in the league. It's so bad that players and fans alike have turned on Ichiro. The guy gets 200 hits and hits .330 every year. Good Lord. This year has not been good to Seattle fans in ANY sport (U. of Washington, Seattle SuperSonics, Seattle Seahawks, Seattle Mariners -- and, by extension, Washington State -- ALL BAD). If you make jokes about it, the Hal Liu down at the fresh market with throw a salmon at you.
TEXAS RANGERS. Tons of offence, no pitching. Their fans are okay with it, it seems. I only know a few personally, but the rest of them like going to games in 97 degree heat and seeing 15-13 games that last 4 1/2 hours. They can BBQ with the best of them, though. I would love to take in a Yankee/Ranger game down there in Arlington.
NL EAST
ATLANTA BRAVES. I hate them. Passionately. The thing is, they brag as if they are relevant. Along with the Buffalo Bills, they are the butt of peoples' jokes when they talk about futility in the playoffs and teams that choke when it matters. Besides, the Yankees beat them TWICE in four years in the World Series. They made the World Series FIVE TIMES and only won one (who even remembers it?) They tailgate pretty good, though. That is, the ones who show up. Turner Field rarely sells out anymore. People in Atlanta are front-runners. They only pack the arena when the teams are doing well (see: Boston Celtics vs. Atlanta Hawks -- 2008 NBA Playoffs).
FLORIDA MARLINS. Alot of these guys are transplant New Yorkers. However, they never go to their games. The few who do definitely know their baseball. They like to bring up to Mets and Yankee fans that THEY are the last team amongst that bunch to win a World Series (2003) and have won just as many (2) as the Mets have. Yikes. Maybe people in Miami have better things to do than to watch great pitching and great young hitters while dodging lightning strikes and random deluges at 3:30 PM when the humidity is like 84%.
NEW YORK BASEBALL METS. The Met fan is like the Red Sox fan used to be. Optimistic to the end, but always expecting the worst. They know their sports by default, as New Yorkers. They have become accustomed to their team saying "Before I Self-Destruct..." like a certain rapper also from Queens says. I was initially a Met fan from 1984-1989, but they never choked back then. I changed teams because the Yankees began to get on TV more often. Prior to that, my great aunt -- who lived on Long Island -- was a die hard Mets fan, and her daughter, who I lived with years ago, was also. So Mets was all I knew. Then, in 1990, the Yanks were on TV more and they had my favorite player in all of sports, Deion Sanders. However, the Mets fan right now knows heartbreak a bit too much. It's awful, because they deserve better. If you encounter a Met fan who is also a New York Football Giants fan, don't crack jokes -- they may terminate you on sight.
PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES. Dear God I hate their fans. As with all Philly teams, their fans are the scum of the earth and have ZERO couth. They can't handle prosperity (nor can their teams, who routinely choke) without bragging incessantly. If you don't believe me, just read the comments page on the New York Post this week as the writers nail the Giants for losing to the Iggles. It is the same way when the Phillies beat the Mets. The team is one thing, but the fans are enough to make you hate a team more than satan himself. Good Lord.
WASHINGTON NATIONALS. Ahhhh the Expos-cum-Nationals. I almost forget this team used to be in Montreal. They have a few fans... I think. They just got their hearts broken when all the free agents passed on them. Oh well.
NL CENTRAL
CHICAGO CUBS. Definitely some of the best fans in all of sports. They don't seem to know much about baseball though hah. Nah, that's not true. They know, but they don't talk it incessantly like Red Sox, Yankee and Met fans do. They care more about being on WGN's cameras, getting trashed and eating fattening burgers at the game. I'd definitely love to take in a game there. Cubs fans are fun.
CINCINNATI REDS. They live in the past. Everything is about the Big Red Machine and comparing the futility of the team to that era. They had some teams in the late 80s and early 90s under Sparky Anderson, but most of the fans I know (half dozen, probably?) only know the bad teams they've had from 1995-present. They don't do anything well. They don't tailgate. They aren't really passionate and don't really talk baseball that well.
HOUSTON ASTROS. I don't know any of them personally. I can't really speak about them.
MILWAUKEE BREWERS. These guys know how to do it, man. They have a friggin' water slide in left-center field. ha. They know how to eat. They LOVE their drink. I mean, they're the BREWERS for crying out loud. They have raucous fans. But their team has been unable to win anything since I was three.
PITTSBURGH PIRATES. I pity these guys. Only memories of pitchers using LSD and pitching no-hitters and "We Are Fa-ma-lee". Yikes. Barry Bonds once played there. People almost forget they had good teams with Bonds, Van Slyke, Drabek and ol' Tim Wakefield. I don't know how their fans are sane. But they like to brag about the Steelers when they get a chance. Since they are basically all the same fans.
ST. LOUIS CARDINALS. I hate them. I can't really say much else. They talk like the team is great, and it's not. Who wouldn't hate fans like these?
NL WEST
ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS. Their fans are cool. They have fun. It's never cold out there. They have a SWIMMING POOL in right-center field. Yikes. They are still learning how to tailgate. They are the types who drink wine coolers with filet mignon at a game. What the...?
COLORADO ROCKIES. I actually know a few Rockies fans. They are good people. They are novices when it comes to baseball, though. However, they have a fun team to watch and their fans pretty much just ride the wave. Owwwwwww.
LOS ANGELES DODGERS. Joe Dodger is just like Joe Giant fan. These guys played in Brooklyn until their GREEDY owners left for "greener pastures" in Chavez Ravine. OK. Their fans are baseball SAVANTS, though. They can dissect a box score like few others and they know their baseball -- despite most of their fans not being New Yorkers that followed the team from Ebbets Field to Chavez Ravine.
SAN DIEGO PADRES. The Fathers' fans have resigned themselves to knowing they're never going to win anything in their lifetimes. The team doesn't spend on the right players. They play in an old park (by baseball standards) and don't have a team that is capable of winning for long stretches. They have their nice San Diego Super Weather, though.
SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS. Bunch of idiots. Wading in 50 degree waters to get a home run ball in "McCovey Cove"? Psh. They're fickle and they're homers. They worship Barry Bonds, while everyone else hates Bonds. They stole our team -- which is the reason the NFL's Giants are (and still called) the "New York Football Giants". The baseball team played in Harlem and they stole it! I will never forgive them for this.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Don't Let Them Die Alone
Don't Let Them Die Alone
Hospice Care Spirituality Would Benefit From Greater Christian Engagement.
A Christianity Today Editorial
Posted 1.6.2009 08:25AM
Spiritual seekers seek till the very end of life, demonstrated a recent New York Times piece about the friendships between "spiritual but not religious" hospice patients and their chaplains. As hospice care has become an affordable, dignifying end-of-life choice in recent decades (the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization says that 38 percent of deaths last year were in hospice) the demand for hospice chaplains has boomed. The Association of Professional Chaplains reports a 50 percent jump in the last 10 years of the number of U.S. hospice chaplains.
Chaplaincy culture has changed, too. What was once a field of ordained clergy is now filled by many who see it more as social work than a divine calling.
No matter chaplains' motives, the benefit of spiritual support in the last days is undeniable, something the medical community plainly recognizes. Serving alongside nurses, counselors, and home health aides, chaplains "are the patient's advocate," says Phil Kenyon, an Illinois resident taking chaplaincy training at Vitas, a national accreditation program. "You are showing a dying person dignity and love that in some cases, they may never have received in their lives."
The patient's requests may be anything from prayer to chats about God, to chats about anything but God, to confession, to simply having a hand held. Other patients may not even know someone is there; oftentimes it's the family making requests on their behalf. (Families stand at the center of the hospice-care model, as relational comfort is one proven way to stave off depression and further ailments.) Whatever the spiritual needs, it's always the patient seeking the chaplain, not the other way around.
Sadly, the hospice patients requesting a chaplain's care are usually those disconnected from church or other faith communities. As one director of a hospice organization told the Times, "The ones with a family priest, they're not calling us." They do not have congregations coming to fix meals, run errands, talk with the family, and, most importantly, help them die well with the church's rituals. Surrounding family members also suffer from no network, since they must at once attend to their loved one's physical needs and try to answer questions they themselves may be asking. This leaves many families exhausted and unprepared to begin the grieving process.
Joanne Webber, widow of beloved theologian Robert Webber, notes the irony. "The people most likely to call on a hospice chaplain [are] non-Christians," she says. "Because Christians tend to be surrounded by their family and friends, it might actually intimidate the hospice person. You would end up giving your testimony to them."
The church is not to miss this chance to serve those whose worth is no longer about productivity but primarily, and simply, about bearing God's image. Given that the number of hospice patients will rise as the boomer generation ages and hospice care becomes a normal part of dying in America, Christians ought to be at the forefront of providing this ministry of presence in years to come. Those with the heart for spiritual care can complete most chaplaincy certification programs within two years. And lay members, though not always able to interact with patients, can volunteer at hospitals and nursing homes and visit neighbors to meet practical needs and assure families they are not alone.
Instead of requiring the weak and hopeless to seek us out, we should be seeking them out, bringing with us the presence of Christ. And, if sensitively timed and led by the Holy Spirit, we may be asked to speak of the "reason for the hope that you have" — even in the face of death. It's the uniquely Christian hope in the Resurrection that should compel us to share it with those who need it most.
Hospice Care Spirituality Would Benefit From Greater Christian Engagement.
A Christianity Today Editorial
Posted 1.6.2009 08:25AM
Spiritual seekers seek till the very end of life, demonstrated a recent New York Times piece about the friendships between "spiritual but not religious" hospice patients and their chaplains. As hospice care has become an affordable, dignifying end-of-life choice in recent decades (the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization says that 38 percent of deaths last year were in hospice) the demand for hospice chaplains has boomed. The Association of Professional Chaplains reports a 50 percent jump in the last 10 years of the number of U.S. hospice chaplains.
Chaplaincy culture has changed, too. What was once a field of ordained clergy is now filled by many who see it more as social work than a divine calling.
No matter chaplains' motives, the benefit of spiritual support in the last days is undeniable, something the medical community plainly recognizes. Serving alongside nurses, counselors, and home health aides, chaplains "are the patient's advocate," says Phil Kenyon, an Illinois resident taking chaplaincy training at Vitas, a national accreditation program. "You are showing a dying person dignity and love that in some cases, they may never have received in their lives."
The patient's requests may be anything from prayer to chats about God, to chats about anything but God, to confession, to simply having a hand held. Other patients may not even know someone is there; oftentimes it's the family making requests on their behalf. (Families stand at the center of the hospice-care model, as relational comfort is one proven way to stave off depression and further ailments.) Whatever the spiritual needs, it's always the patient seeking the chaplain, not the other way around.
Sadly, the hospice patients requesting a chaplain's care are usually those disconnected from church or other faith communities. As one director of a hospice organization told the Times, "The ones with a family priest, they're not calling us." They do not have congregations coming to fix meals, run errands, talk with the family, and, most importantly, help them die well with the church's rituals. Surrounding family members also suffer from no network, since they must at once attend to their loved one's physical needs and try to answer questions they themselves may be asking. This leaves many families exhausted and unprepared to begin the grieving process.
Joanne Webber, widow of beloved theologian Robert Webber, notes the irony. "The people most likely to call on a hospice chaplain [are] non-Christians," she says. "Because Christians tend to be surrounded by their family and friends, it might actually intimidate the hospice person. You would end up giving your testimony to them."
The church is not to miss this chance to serve those whose worth is no longer about productivity but primarily, and simply, about bearing God's image. Given that the number of hospice patients will rise as the boomer generation ages and hospice care becomes a normal part of dying in America, Christians ought to be at the forefront of providing this ministry of presence in years to come. Those with the heart for spiritual care can complete most chaplaincy certification programs within two years. And lay members, though not always able to interact with patients, can volunteer at hospitals and nursing homes and visit neighbors to meet practical needs and assure families they are not alone.
Instead of requiring the weak and hopeless to seek us out, we should be seeking them out, bringing with us the presence of Christ. And, if sensitively timed and led by the Holy Spirit, we may be asked to speak of the "reason for the hope that you have" — even in the face of death. It's the uniquely Christian hope in the Resurrection that should compel us to share it with those who need it most.
Going Home
Going Home
By Nancy Kennedy
Gathered with my family, I prayed for another Reunion.
January 7, 2009 |
The funny thing about families: Even if you're apart for awhile, when you get back together, it's like no time at all has lapsed.
Recently, my niece Jennifer graduated college. She was the first in our family to do so, and we all went to my sister’s house in California to celebrate.
Dad looked the same, just a few inches shorter. He still drapes his legs over the side of a chair when he sits. I cried when I saw him, and I couldn't keep from staring at him and at my brothers and my sister. It was all so surreal. It had been 10 years since we’d all been together.
My brother's mustache is gray now. My nephews are grown men. My sister is a grandma—and so am I. The matriarch of our family, Aunt Gladys, came from San Francisco. She's lost weight, still wears pearls.
We all met for dinner at the hotel where my husband and I were staying. Because there were so many of us, the hotel restaurant put us in a separate dining room. They must have been warned that the O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson branch of the O'Rourke family can get a bit rowdy at dinner, telling the same old stories we always tell when we're together.
When I was 13, my brother Jim called me an albino gorilla and I went berserk. I screamed and cried as only a hormonal teenager can. We told that story, and the one about the footprints up the closet wall in the boys' bedroom. After all these years, still nobody claims responsibility.
On Saturday, we girls of the family pooled our money and did a makeover on my niece’s bedroom while the boys did boy stuff. I think televised sports were involved. Afterward, we went out for ice cream. It's not an O'Rourke-O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson get-together without ice cream.
Too soon it was time to say goodbye. My brother had to catch a plane to Boston; my husband and I had to get back to Florida. Mom and Dad had to go back to Mexico and check on their dog. We all said the usual, “It's been too long. Let's not wait so long next time. We'll keep in touch.” That's what families always say to each other when they have to go their separate ways. That's because separation of families is unnatural.
Families were meant to be together. Forever. Maybe not all under one roof—but together, nonetheless. Separation hurts, especially when you know some of those you love may not be with you in eternity.
But God is working in my family. Thirty years ago when God called me into a relationship with himself and I surrendered my life to Jesus, I was the only Christian in the O'Rourke-O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson clan. Now there are a handful of us, not because of my influence, but despite it. I still tend to go albino-gorilla-berserk now and then. Plus, I don't write or call my mom like I should, and I wouldn't let my husband hold the photos I took. Even so, God is working in my family because he’s merciful and gracious and he answers prayer.
Most of my family members don’t or won’t listen to me talk about Jesus, so I talk to him about them. He says not to worry. He’s preparing a place, although he doesn’t say who will be there—so I keep praying.
When I said goodbye to my sister, I was brave—but I cried back in my hotel room. Separation isn't natural. So, I'll e-mail her every day and hope to see her again soon.
Thank God for technology. Thank God for eternity, too, because I’ll ultimately never be separated from my sister. She belongs to Jesus, too.
Still, separation is unnatural. It hurts. But God's not finished with my family. I trust and hope and pray he's working on an eternal reunion for the O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson branch of the O'Rourke family.
Who knows? Maybe we'll have ice cream.
Posted at 10:00 AM on January 7, 2009.
By Nancy Kennedy
Gathered with my family, I prayed for another Reunion.
January 7, 2009 |
The funny thing about families: Even if you're apart for awhile, when you get back together, it's like no time at all has lapsed.
Recently, my niece Jennifer graduated college. She was the first in our family to do so, and we all went to my sister’s house in California to celebrate.
Dad looked the same, just a few inches shorter. He still drapes his legs over the side of a chair when he sits. I cried when I saw him, and I couldn't keep from staring at him and at my brothers and my sister. It was all so surreal. It had been 10 years since we’d all been together.
My brother's mustache is gray now. My nephews are grown men. My sister is a grandma—and so am I. The matriarch of our family, Aunt Gladys, came from San Francisco. She's lost weight, still wears pearls.
We all met for dinner at the hotel where my husband and I were staying. Because there were so many of us, the hotel restaurant put us in a separate dining room. They must have been warned that the O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson branch of the O'Rourke family can get a bit rowdy at dinner, telling the same old stories we always tell when we're together.
When I was 13, my brother Jim called me an albino gorilla and I went berserk. I screamed and cried as only a hormonal teenager can. We told that story, and the one about the footprints up the closet wall in the boys' bedroom. After all these years, still nobody claims responsibility.
On Saturday, we girls of the family pooled our money and did a makeover on my niece’s bedroom while the boys did boy stuff. I think televised sports were involved. Afterward, we went out for ice cream. It's not an O'Rourke-O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson get-together without ice cream.
Too soon it was time to say goodbye. My brother had to catch a plane to Boston; my husband and I had to get back to Florida. Mom and Dad had to go back to Mexico and check on their dog. We all said the usual, “It's been too long. Let's not wait so long next time. We'll keep in touch.” That's what families always say to each other when they have to go their separate ways. That's because separation of families is unnatural.
Families were meant to be together. Forever. Maybe not all under one roof—but together, nonetheless. Separation hurts, especially when you know some of those you love may not be with you in eternity.
But God is working in my family. Thirty years ago when God called me into a relationship with himself and I surrendered my life to Jesus, I was the only Christian in the O'Rourke-O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson clan. Now there are a handful of us, not because of my influence, but despite it. I still tend to go albino-gorilla-berserk now and then. Plus, I don't write or call my mom like I should, and I wouldn't let my husband hold the photos I took. Even so, God is working in my family because he’s merciful and gracious and he answers prayer.
Most of my family members don’t or won’t listen to me talk about Jesus, so I talk to him about them. He says not to worry. He’s preparing a place, although he doesn’t say who will be there—so I keep praying.
When I said goodbye to my sister, I was brave—but I cried back in my hotel room. Separation isn't natural. So, I'll e-mail her every day and hope to see her again soon.
Thank God for technology. Thank God for eternity, too, because I’ll ultimately never be separated from my sister. She belongs to Jesus, too.
Still, separation is unnatural. It hurts. But God's not finished with my family. I trust and hope and pray he's working on an eternal reunion for the O'Brand-Kennedy-Watson branch of the O'Rourke family.
Who knows? Maybe we'll have ice cream.
Posted at 10:00 AM on January 7, 2009.
The Promise I Thought God Forgot
The Promise I Thought God Forgot
By Stephanie Voiland
January 7, 2009
Maybe it was just one of those mornings, or a touch of the post-holiday blues. Or maybe my coffee hadn't had time to do its magic yet. But for whatever reason, when I read a certain verse recently, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
On any given day, if you asked me if I believe the Word of God, I'd say yes. And if you asked me if I love the Word of God, affirmative again. But when I hit verse 6 of Psalm 68, I got stuck. I just wasn't feeling it. I didn't see how it was true in my life. And to be honest, I felt a little gypped by God. I thought maybe someone should remind him of his promise, and I figured I might as well be the one to do it.
Here's the line that tripped me up: "God places the lonely in families" (Psalm 68:6).
Ever since I was a girl, I dreamed about the family I'd be placed into someday. I'd marry a dashingly handsome man and have two charming kids (and yes, I already had their first and middle names picked out). Thus far, my life hasn't taken that course … which is probably just as well, since the names I picked out at age nine would have inflicted torture on helpless children. Still, the truth remains that I haven't been placed in the kind of family I conjure up when I read that line in the Psalms.
For some reason, the no-family hole seems particularly gaping around the recent holiday season. Maybe it's because of those ubiquitous diamond jewelry commercials that make you feel like everyone else has someone to love. Or those holiday parties where all the other guests leave arm-in-arm with a special somebody while you head home solo to a dark, empty house. Or maybe it's those family get-togethers where the relatives rib you yet again about your lack of someone to stand under the mistletoe with. Or maybe it's just the general coziness of the twinkly lights and the coupley lyrics of "Let It Snow." In any case, I feel my family-less state even more keenly around the holidays and during the post-holiday lull we're in right now.
But as I was reminding God (not so subtly) of his promise to put us in families, I sensed he wanted to open my eyes to something I'd been overlooking for quite some time. Something so obvious I'd fairly been tripping over it. Maybe, God seemed to be pointing out to me, his definition of family means more than a husband, 2.3 kids, a dog, and a house with a real Christmas tree in the picture window. Maybe family is something more messy and complicated that the sugar-plum vision in my head—but ultimately even more beautiful.
Is it possible I've been experiencing the gift of family all along but haven't recognized it because it didn't come in the packaging I expected? Maybe family is being invited to my godson's birthday party, or going on the occasional road trip with my college roommate and her husband. Maybe family is the group of seven women that meets weekly over our lunch break to pray together. Maybe family is having dinner with my aunt and uncle and letting them fix my broken chair for me. Maybe family is gathering my fellow dateless coworkers and carpooling to the company Christmas party together. Maybe family is finding a handful of people to sit with at church every week. Maybe family is calling Mom several times during my cookie-baking session for her help deciphering the recipe. Maybe family is my monthly gatherings with my book club friends as we peel back layers of stories and ourselves. Maybe it's all of these rolled together somehow to form a bigger family than I'd imagined.
This revelation shouldn't come as such a surprise to me, since of all the metaphors God uses to describe his people, family is one of the most prominent. He describes himself as our Father, which makes all of his children brothers and sisters. And even more incredibly, Jesus himself came to earth so he could be our brother: "So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters" (Hebrews 2:11).
This new year, I'm sure I'll still have occasional pangs of longing for a family according to my traditional definition. But underneath that, I want to hang on to God's promise—the one it turns out he's been faithful in fulfilling all along. He does put the lonely in families. His family.
We welcome your feedback and brainstorms at: SinglesNewsletter@ChristianityToday.com
Sign up for the weeklySingles Newsletter!
Copyright © 2008 ChristianityToday.com
By Stephanie Voiland
January 7, 2009
Maybe it was just one of those mornings, or a touch of the post-holiday blues. Or maybe my coffee hadn't had time to do its magic yet. But for whatever reason, when I read a certain verse recently, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
On any given day, if you asked me if I believe the Word of God, I'd say yes. And if you asked me if I love the Word of God, affirmative again. But when I hit verse 6 of Psalm 68, I got stuck. I just wasn't feeling it. I didn't see how it was true in my life. And to be honest, I felt a little gypped by God. I thought maybe someone should remind him of his promise, and I figured I might as well be the one to do it.
Here's the line that tripped me up: "God places the lonely in families" (Psalm 68:6).
Ever since I was a girl, I dreamed about the family I'd be placed into someday. I'd marry a dashingly handsome man and have two charming kids (and yes, I already had their first and middle names picked out). Thus far, my life hasn't taken that course … which is probably just as well, since the names I picked out at age nine would have inflicted torture on helpless children. Still, the truth remains that I haven't been placed in the kind of family I conjure up when I read that line in the Psalms.
For some reason, the no-family hole seems particularly gaping around the recent holiday season. Maybe it's because of those ubiquitous diamond jewelry commercials that make you feel like everyone else has someone to love. Or those holiday parties where all the other guests leave arm-in-arm with a special somebody while you head home solo to a dark, empty house. Or maybe it's those family get-togethers where the relatives rib you yet again about your lack of someone to stand under the mistletoe with. Or maybe it's just the general coziness of the twinkly lights and the coupley lyrics of "Let It Snow." In any case, I feel my family-less state even more keenly around the holidays and during the post-holiday lull we're in right now.
But as I was reminding God (not so subtly) of his promise to put us in families, I sensed he wanted to open my eyes to something I'd been overlooking for quite some time. Something so obvious I'd fairly been tripping over it. Maybe, God seemed to be pointing out to me, his definition of family means more than a husband, 2.3 kids, a dog, and a house with a real Christmas tree in the picture window. Maybe family is something more messy and complicated that the sugar-plum vision in my head—but ultimately even more beautiful.
Is it possible I've been experiencing the gift of family all along but haven't recognized it because it didn't come in the packaging I expected? Maybe family is being invited to my godson's birthday party, or going on the occasional road trip with my college roommate and her husband. Maybe family is the group of seven women that meets weekly over our lunch break to pray together. Maybe family is having dinner with my aunt and uncle and letting them fix my broken chair for me. Maybe family is gathering my fellow dateless coworkers and carpooling to the company Christmas party together. Maybe family is finding a handful of people to sit with at church every week. Maybe family is calling Mom several times during my cookie-baking session for her help deciphering the recipe. Maybe family is my monthly gatherings with my book club friends as we peel back layers of stories and ourselves. Maybe it's all of these rolled together somehow to form a bigger family than I'd imagined.
This revelation shouldn't come as such a surprise to me, since of all the metaphors God uses to describe his people, family is one of the most prominent. He describes himself as our Father, which makes all of his children brothers and sisters. And even more incredibly, Jesus himself came to earth so he could be our brother: "So now Jesus and the ones he makes holy have the same Father. That is why Jesus is not ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters" (Hebrews 2:11).
This new year, I'm sure I'll still have occasional pangs of longing for a family according to my traditional definition. But underneath that, I want to hang on to God's promise—the one it turns out he's been faithful in fulfilling all along. He does put the lonely in families. His family.
We welcome your feedback and brainstorms at: SinglesNewsletter@ChristianityToday.com
Sign up for the weeklySingles Newsletter!
Copyright © 2008 ChristianityToday.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
