Category: Politics/Current Events

The Best (and Worst) of Times

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I stole the title, of course, from Charles Dickens, but I think it fits the Olympic games quite well. I think I probably watched more Olympic events during the 30th Olympiad than I have in any previous Olympic games, and I believe that the games showcased both the best and the worst of the human race.

The best? Well, the games provided the platform for demonstrating some of the greatest athleticism of which humans are capable. The breaking of world records, of course, would be evidence of that even without my commentary, and I assume that anyone who watched the games or followed the medal count or read a news story about the Olympics is aware of the exceptional athletic ability of the Olympic athletes. Even those who finished last in their respective events typically perform at a much higher level than the rest of us could ever hope to obtain. So I will not dwell much on the athletic accomplishments.

Instead, I’d like to highlight other “bests.”

While she just won her third consecutive gold medal in women’s beach volleyball with her partner Misty May-Treanor, Kerri Walsh Jennings makes it a point after every match to go around and shake hands or exchange high-fives with every official, line judge, ball boy or girl, and sand sweeper. Her recognition of the “little people” that help make every athletic competition successful is refreshing.

U.S. Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman paid tribute to her coach Mihai Brestyan by leaving the medal podium and putting her gold medal around his neck. Later she tweeted about how much he means to her and expressed her appreciation again. In a day and age when so many athletes bask in the glow of their accomplishments all by themselves, it was nice to see someone acknowledge that she did not win gold all by herself.

The flip side of that, of course, would be an example of the worst. As much as I respect Jamaican Usain Bolt and his incredible sprinting, his arrogance is off-putting to say the least. Anyone who repeatedly refers to himself as a legend and “the best” would do well to tone back the chest-thumping a bit. NBC commentator Bob Costas said it well when he commented that it would be difficult for anyone to think more highly of Bolt than he does of himself.

The track also provides another example of the best. South African Oscar Pistorius inspired the world by competing against “able-bodied athletes” in several sprinting events, despite having had both legs amputated below the knees at the age of eleven months due to being born without fibula. To see someone determine to overcome such a seemingly insurmountable obstacle and rise to the level of running, on Flex-Foot Cheetah prosthetics, against the best runners in the world should serve as reminder to all of us that most of our limitations are self-imposed.

An example of the worst would be the badminton teams…yes, badminton…from China, South Korea and Indonesia that were charged with “not using their best efforts to win a match” (The Guardian) but instead losing games on purpose in an effort to get into a more advantageous bracket. It is unfortunate anytime an athlete seeks to skew competition in his or her favor through any kind of cheating, but there is simply no excuse for athletes on the world stage losing matches on purpose in order to try to create an easier path to a medal.

Also on the worst list would be the revelation that Chinese diver Wu Minxia’s parents kept from her the news of her grandparents’ death and her mother’s breast cancer for over a year, not telling her until after she won the gold medal in the 3-meter springboard diving competition. Why? According to Yahoo! Sports, “…so as not to interfere with her diving career.” According to her father, “It was essential to tell this white lie.” Nonsense. No athletic pursuit should ever take precedence over familial bonds. This story serves to highlight the extreme, and, I dare say, ridiculous, pressure that is placed on Chinese athletes, who are often removed from home at a young age and placed in government-run training facilities.

I could go on… Jordan Wieber demonstrated the best when she pulled herself together after not making the final competition for the gymnastics individual all-around (despite performing better than 56 of the 60 contestants) to politely and graciously answer inane questions from NBC’s on-the-floor reporter, to congratulate and encourage her teammates Gabby Douglas and Aly Raisman, and to perform well during the team all-around competition. David Boudia demonstrated the best when he overcame the lackluster performance of the platform diving prelims–squeaking into the semifinals in 16th place (when only 16 advance) to win the gold medal in the finals. Grenada’s Kirani James demonstrated the best when he exchanged bib numbers with Oscar Pistorius after the 400 meter semifinal, showing his respect and appreciation for Pistorius and his accomplishments. Gabby Douglas demonstrated the best when she directed the glory to God after her gold medal winning performance, and refused to make too big a deal about it when she did not score so well in individual apparatus competition a few days later. Michael Phelps demonstrated the best by becoming the most highly decorated Olympian ever…and insisting that he will indeed retire now that the Olympics are over. Like I said, I could go on…

Athletic events are incredible and wonderful opportunities for individuals and teams to demonstrate the amazing things that humans can do with their God-given talents. And while I enjoy competition as much as anyone (and perhaps more than most) let’s not forget that sporting events are, when it comes right down to it, games. That’s why the event that just concluded in London is accurately referred to as the Olympic games. They’re fun, they’re impressive, and there is nothing wrong with taking them seriously. Each athlete should try his or her best. But personal worth does not hinge on Olympic medals. Success must not be dependent on one brief moment of an individual’s life. People matter because of who they are–created in the image of God–not because of what they do.

Don’t Ignore God’s Design

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

I always find it interesting when scientific studies prove the validity of the Bible. I do not know whether the authors of such studies set out to provide or disprove the Bible, or whether the Bible ever even crosses their minds, but, without fail, accurate and legitimate scientific study consistently reaches a conclusion that is consistent with what the Bible has already established. As Solomon wrote, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9, ESV).

I can remember back a number of years ago sitting in a large meeting room listening to one of the nation’s experts on the subject of dealing with troubled, aggressive and hostile youth, and hearing him state that the very best antidote for such behavior is “consistent, loving discipline over time.” The seminar was not hosted by a Christian group, and the speaker did not make any claim to be a Christian, but I thought to myself, “Hmmmm…interesting. That’s just what the Bible says.”

Well, another perfect example has emerged recently in a new study by Mark Regenerus, published in Social Science Journal. Regenerus, a sociologist and professor at The University of Texas, wanted to evaluate the validity of claims made by the American Psychological Association in 2005 that children are nor adversely affected by growing up in homosexual households. In 2010, social scientists Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz claimed that lesbian households were actually better for children than heterosexual households. In Journal of Marriage and Family they suggested that, “Strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appear to the same extent in families with 2 mothers and potentially in those with 2 fathers” (article abstract). That article was entitled, “Does the Gender of Parents Matter?”

But back in 2001 Stacey and Biblarz wrote, in American Sociological Review, an article entitled “Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?” The abstract for that article asserts: “Opponents of lesbian and gay parental rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes. Yet most research in psychology concludes that there are no differences in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay parents and those raised by heterosexual parents.” Stacey and Biblarz go so far as to state that “heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field.” It was this heterosexism that that they claimed caused the 21 studies that they examined to downplay what could have been important findings regarding the gender and sexual preferences of children. In their conclusion Stacey and Biblarz write that “researchers must
overcome the hetero-normative presumption that interprets sexual differences as deficits, thereby inflicting some of the very disadvantages it claims to discover.” In other words, they claim, it is the homophobic bias of researchers that results in studies showing that “lesbigay” families disadvantage children, since it surely could not be the case that those families in fact do result in disadvantages.

So, what did Regenerus find? His article was titled “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” and was published in Social Science Research. First, he decided to test a far larger sample than other such studies have typically used, selecting at random more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 15 and 39. Of those 15,000 he found that 175 responded that their mothers had been in a lesbian relationship, and 73 indicated that their fathers had been in a gay relationship. Okay, so less than 2% of respondents were raised in a homosexual household; but what impact did that have on them? According to the research, those individuals were more likely than their peers raised in heterosexual families to report “being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.”

Now, let me be clear. I am not suggesting, nor, do I believe was Regenerus, that every child who is raised by a homosexual couple will be more likely to lose a job, get depressed, smoke marijuana, cheat on a partner, etc. But I am suggesting that it is not surprising to me to see those kinds of results. When we break the rules, there are consequences. When we ignore God’s design for the family, there are consequences. Do heterosexual parents mess up in raising their children? Of course. in case by case instances there will always be cases when we can find children of heterosexual parents who are far worse off than children of homosexual parents. But in general, children will be disadvantaged when raised by homosexual parents, because they will be raised in an environment that is contrary to God’s design.

I should mention that the article by Regenerus, and the study, have come under incredible attack since publication. Not surprisingly, it has been called “flawed, misleading, and scientifically unsound” by GLAAD, HRC, The Family Equality Council and Freedom to Marry. Those organizations, obviously, want to advance the idea that homosexuals, and homosexual families, are no different than heterosexual ones, so their thoughts on the study are not surprising. There has been so much negative attention directed at this study that there has been an audit of the research authorized by Social Science Journal, and I understand that those findings will be published in November. I hope that the results will indicate that the study was appropriately and accurately conducted. At the end of the day, though, even if the audit finds some errors or tries to put a different spin on this subject, the truth will always be the same: no one can ignore God’s design for the marriage and family and think everyone will be okay.

The Right to Read

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

In an attempt to force a unique application of an obscure law in Michigan, the ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Michigan and a school district in Detroit, claiming that the state and the district have not educated the students in the district schools at an adequate level, and have therefore violated the students’ “right to learn to read.” According to the lawsuit, there are hundreds of students in the Highland Park School District that are “functionally illiterate.”

Quoted in an article in the Washington Post, Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, said, “None of those adults charged with the care of these children . . . have done their jobs.” Moss alleged that the Highland Park district–a district consisting of only three schools–is one of the lowest performing districts in the nation.

The lawsuit is attempting to apply a 1993 Michigan law requiring that students receive special assistance if they are not proficient in reading according to standardized tests given in grades 4 and 7. The “special assistance” in question is supposed to bring the less-than-proficient students up to grade level reading proficiency within one year.

While there are samples of the writing efforts of several students provided in the story in The Washington Post, one getting the bulk of the attention in that article is a young man named Quentin. Quentin just finished seventh grade, but according to ACLU experts reads at only a first grade level. Students were asked to write a letter to Michigan governor Rick Snyder with suggestions for improving their schools. Quentin’s effort reads: ““My name is Quemtin [last name blacked out] and you can make the school gooder by geting people that will do the jod that is pay for get a football tame for the kinds mybe a baksball tamoe get a other jamtacher for the school get a lot of tacher.” (There is a link in the article on washingtonpost.com where other examples of student letetrs can be viewed).

Quentin’s writing sample is both disheartening and frustrating. According to the WP article, 65 percent of fourth-graders and 75 percent of seventh-graders in Highland Park are not proficient in reading according to scores on their most recent tests.

The Highland Park district also faces a crushing debt and a severely-decreased enrollment over the past several years as a result of Chrysler no longer employing people in the area.

All of the above, at least according to the ACLU suit and the WP article, are the facts. And while I will be curious to see how this suit proceeds in the courts, several questions come to my mind.

One, what is the home situation of the students in Highland Park? While schools and teachers are responsible for educating their students, they do not bear this responsibility alone; rather, they share the responsibility with the parents of their students. Well, according to Highland Park’s own web site, the number of single-parent families outnumber the number of two-parent families nearly three to one. Obviously not all students from two-parent families succeed and not all children from single-parent families struggle or fail, but there is significant research that indicates that students from two-parent families tend to do significantly better in school.

Second (and I realize this relates, in many ways, to the first question) what accountability is there outside of the school for the students to do their part in learning? When I first started teaching I took students’ failing grades personally. I felt that if a student received an F on a test or quiz, I certainly must not have taught effectively. And while less-than-adequate student performance may be an indicator that the teacher is incapable or not fulfilling his or her responsibility, is does not necessarily mean this. Even the best teachers will from time to time have students who fail, either because they do not care, because they do not apply themselves, and/or because the student has not been appropriately placed (i.e., he or she is in a grade requiring skills he or she does not yet possess). Based on the information in the WP article–specifically the high number of students testing below proficiency in reading–it seems that the teachers/schools may bear a significant portion of the blame, but this is a legitimate question nonetheless.

Third, how is that even with laws like the one at the heart of this case in Michigan and the No Child Left Behind act mandating highly qualified teachers and adequate yearly progress, there are still students–and entire school districts–failing to meet the established standards?

One answer has to be the teacher’s unions, and the manner in which they fight tooth and nail against any kind of meaningful evaluation and accountability within the public school system. One need look no further than the way in which Michelle Rhee was treated when she attempted to transform the public schools in Washington, D.C.

Another part of the answer has to be the way in which the public school system works, if not perhaps the very continued existence of a public school system. The federal government has demonstrated an inability to effectively manage most of the things it tries to do (see the Post Office as Exhibit A), and yet the federal bureaucracy involved in education at the state and local level spends millions and billions of dollars, yet continues to produce (among successes, granted) school districts like Highland Park. The truth is that the public school system in the U.S. is nothing more than government subsidy of education. If true competition existed within the educational sphere in America I am convinced that we would see a drastic improvement in the scores of American students within a very short period of time. School choice and school vouchers programs have proven incredibly effective wherever they have been given the opportunity to be tried fairly. As I have argued here before, true competition will produce better results than any alternative every time.

What it comes down to at the end of the day, though, is that Quentin and his fellow students are the ones are suffering, and will continue to suffer. They are the victims of one or more of the following: adults who parent children and fail to fulfill their responsibilities as parents; teachers who fail to teach students and ensure that they are really learning; administrators who fail (or are unable) to remove ineffective teachers; teachers’ unions that look out more for the good of their members than for the good of the students; bureaucrats that are more concerned about the implementation of various laws than about the success of students; and politicians who continue to think that the government is more capable of making decisions than the people are.

“A Culture of Hate”?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Unless you live in a remote location with no access to television or Internet (which you obviously do not, since you are reading this!) you surely knew that yesterday was proclaimed “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” by former Arkansas governor, GOP presidential candidate and current FOX News contributor Mike Huckabee. Huckabee launched the idea after the media circus surrounding Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy’s comments confirming that he and his (privately held) company support the biblical definition of marriage, and thereby do not support homosexual marriage. I addressed this issue already in a previous post [see “Tolerance (Again)”] so I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about Chick-fil-A directly. Rather, I have to address another example of intolerance and, in fact, ignorance, announced to the world today on The Huffington Post.

Noah Michelson, editor of HuffPost Gay Voices, posted a column today entitled “Chick-fil-A: This Is Not a First Amendment Issue.” Now, I want to begin by saying that, given his position, it will not come as a surprise to you that Mr. Michelson and I disagree on the topic of gay marriage. However, I am not even going to address that, specifically. Instead, I need to address several specific comments Michelson makes in his post.

Note first of all that he states early on, “I fully support [Dan] Cathy’s right to say whatever he wants (and, in fact, so does the ACLU).” On this, we–Mr. Michelson, the ACLU, and I–agree. I support Mr. Cathy’s right to say that he supports the biblical definition of marriage, and I support Mr. Michelson’s right to say that he does not. As I have stated in this space before, the right to state our opinions, whether or not they are popular, whether or not many others will agree, and, indeed, whether or not they are even correct, is a large part of what makes America great. And the freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Why then, does Michelson argue that this is not a First Amendment issue? He feels so strongly that it is not that he began his column saying that if he heard one more person state that the Chick-fil-A brouhaha was a First Amendment issue, “I’m going to jump out of one of the Huffington Post’s fifth-floor windows and swan dive into oncoming traffic.”

So how does Michelson go about suggesting that Cathy’s statement, Chick-fil-A’s position, and Huckabee’s day of support is not a First Amendment issue? By suggesting that all of the above is actually hate speech. Immediately after stating that he supports Cathy’s right to say whatever he wants, Michelson writes, “But just because someone can say something doesn’t mean they should — or that we should celebrate him or her for doing so, especially when what they’re saying is, at its core, promoting a culture of hate against a group of people.”

Wow! Promoting a culture of hate? By openly and unashamedly stating that he supports the biblical definition of marriage–meaning that marriage is between one man and one woman–Dan Cathy is promoting a culture of hate? Against whom? Apparently, according to Michelson, against any gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered individual. Apparently it is promoting hate to say that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but it is not promoting hate to say that marriage–as it has been defined for the entirety of human history–should be redefined so that men can marry men, women can marry women, or any one of however many other combinations there may be within the LGBT community.

Unfortunately, though, Mr. Michelson does not stop there. He continues, and in doing so he plunges headlong into the uninformed and in-no-way-accurate suggestion that homosexuality is the equivalent of race, or that the denial of the right for homosexuals to marry is the equivalent of supporting female slavery. Find that hard to believe? Read his column for yourself. Furthermore, Michelson claims that Cathy’s and Chick-fil-A’s financial support of organizations that support traditional marriage is the equivalent of donating “millions of dollars to white supremacist organizations.”

Again, I have argued here before that sexual preference is in no way equivalent to race. Our race is genetic; we cannot change it. And while I do not agree that sexual preference is in one’s DNA, even if I were to grant, for sake of argument, that it is, sexual activity is still a choice; the color of one’s skin is not.

Michelson isn’t finished yet, though. He continues by stating that those of us (and I say “us” because I am in the category of people to whom he is referring) who support the biblical definition of marriage, ” still thinks [sic] that it’s OK to treat us like we are, at best, just not quite as worthy to have all the rights afforded straight or cis-gendered people or, at worst, just plain evil.” Now, I don’t even know what “cis-gendered” means, and neither does dictionary.com, so maybe it is a typo in Michelson’s post, or perhaps it is some sort of slang I have never seen, but it is safe to state that it somehow refers to those in the LGBT community. And the truth is, Mr. Michelson, I think you are every bit as “worthy” of the right to marry as I am, or as anyone else is–just so long as you do it within the legally defined limits of marriage. And as for evil, that’s just not true. I cannot speak for everyone, of course, but I certainly do not consider homosexuals, or those who support the redefinition of marriage, to be evil. I consider them to be misguided, yes, and even wrong. But they are no more evil than I am. After all, Scripture makes it quite clear that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and that little word “all” includes me, too. It may be cliche, but I hate the sin, not the sinner.

Oh, and speaking of Scripture, that is the next target in Michelson’s piece: “Many of these statements are bolstered by religious arguments using the Bible as ammunition, but, as it’s been pointed out time and again, the Bible demands we do or don’t do a lot of things that we no longer do or don’t do (like that we should own slaves and we shouldn’t eat popcorn shrimp), and Jesus himself never uttered a single word about being queer (and if he wanted us all to be “traditionally married” so badly, you’d think the guy himself would have gotten married).”

Okay, one step at a time here. The Bible, specifically in the Old Testament, does contain a lot of instructions that the Israelites were commanded to follow that we no longer need to, both because we are no longer under the Law, and because of improvements in preparing food that make laws against eating popcorn shrimp no longer necessary. Next, Jesus never explicitly referenced homosexuality, but He did say, in Matthew 19:4, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?'” That’s a pretty clear embrace of God’s design for marriage. Furthermore, the Bible is explicitly clear in several places that homosexuality is a sin (Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27 among others) and Jesus never refuted that; everything He ever said was consistent with every other portion of Scripture.

Michelson continues by saying, “When you buy food from Chick-fil-A, you’re basically saying, “Here, take this money and see to it that queer people can not only not get married, but that they also can’t adopt, can be fired simply for their sexuality and/or gender identity and continue to live in a society where they are regularly terrorized, mutilated, murdered and driven to suicide.” Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. First of all, it’s not as if every penny that Chick-fil-A makes goes to groups that support traditional marriage and/or oppose gay marriage. Second, supporting traditional marriage is not the equivalent of supporting terror, mutilation, or murder. I suspect Mr. Michelson would be hard pressed to find a single group that Chick-fil-A supports that explicitly or even discreetly supports or in any way does anything but oppose violence, harassment or intimidation of homosexuals.

So, sorry to say Mr. Michelson, but you’re wrong–there’s just no other way to say it. Supporting traditional marriage and advocating violence toward homosexuals are not the same thing. Opposing gay marriage and hating gay people is not the same thing. Eating at Chick-fil-A or contributing financially to groups that support traditional marriage and supporting or rejoicing over violence toward homosexuals such as you suggest at the end of your article is not the same thing.

So just how is, exactly, that those who hold a position different from yours are promoting a culture of hate? That’s a bold and dangerous accusation to make, and I’d like an apology.

Let’s Be Fair

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

Like millions of others, I have been watching a lot of Olympic events since Friday’s opening ceremony. And last night, like many others, I empathized with US gymnast Jordyn Wieber as she realized that she will not be going to the All Around competition because of a bizarre rule which restricts qualifiers for the finals to not more than two per country.

Wieber is the reigning world champion, and was a favorite for medal contention at these Olympic games. Yet, due to the strength of the US women’s gymnastics team, she was edged out by teammates Alexandra Raisman and Gabby Douglas for one of the two finalist positions from the US.

(Completely as an aside, I watched all of the floor routines by the US gymnasts last night, and, though certainly not a qualified or trained observer of gymnastics competition, I fail to see how, in a sport where tenths and hundredths of points really matter, Raisman’s floor exercises earned a score of .659 points higher than Weiber’s… But like I said, that’s not the point).

In reality, what the IOC rule does is attempt to create a level of “fairness” that pure competition may not–and last night, did not–create on its own. Apparently the powers that be feel that it is important to ensure that as many countries as possible are represented in the finals. The relevant portion of the rule reads, “The best 24 individual gymnasts (maximum two from each country) go through to the Individual All-Around final, where gymnasts compete on all apparatus.” Shortly thereafter, it continues, “Each apparatus is judged for difficulty and execution, with the highest scoring athlete the winner.”

The problem is–or should be–clearly evident in the very wording of this rule. First, it contradicts itself by saying that the “best 24 individual gymnasts” will go on to the AA finals, but then clarifies that by restricting it to not more than two per country. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the best 24 will go on, as last night’s competition clearly revealed. The rule then contradicts itself again by saying that the highest scoring athlete is the winner, because Jordyn Wieber scored higher than all but three other athletes in the qualifying round, but I am quite certain she does not feel like she won…because she did not. Though her scores qualified her for the AA finals, the bizarre attempt at leveling the playing field will deny her that opportunity.

According to the Olympics web site (london2012.com) there were 60 competitors in the All Around Individual qualifying round. Jordyn Wieber scored higher than 56 of them. Not only that, she was one of only four gymnasts to achieve a total score higher than 60. Yet, because two of the other three that scored above 60 are Wieber’s teammates from USA, Wieber will not advance to the finals.

I need to point out, as well, that Wieber is not the only gymnast who will suffer from this two-per-county limit. The combination of that facts that she is from the USA, is the reigning world champion, and scored so high will mean that she gets the majority of the attention, but Russia’s Anastasia Grishina (12th overall), Great Britain’s Jennifer Pinches (21st overall) and China’s Jinnan Yao (22nd overall) also scored in the top 24 but will not make the finals because they were the third-highest finishers from their respective countries. Perhaps adding insult to injury, Wieber is not even one of the four reserves for final competition because of the two-per-country rule.

Now, I certainly have no grudge or ill-will toward France’s Aurelie Malaussena, Poland’s Marta Pihan-Kulesza, Japan’s Rie Tanaka, or Australia’s Ashleigh Brennan, but these gymnasts–at least in last night’s competition–were not among “the best 24 individual gymnasts.” Yet they will be in the AA finals.

I think I have sufficiently set the stage and established that I think this particular IOC rule is absurd. However, this entire scenario serves only to highlight the impact of any attempts to create artificial “fairness.” Every attempt to force fairness at the expense of the outcomes of real competition results in some level of unfairness, whether in athletics, academics or economics.

There are plenty of people who argue for forced fairness in economics, through higher levels of taxation on higher earners in order to redistribute the wealth “more fairly.” There are those who argue that there should be only a certain percentage of students in any class who receive A’s, a certain percentage who receive B’s, the highest percentage who receive C’s, and so on. Such “forced fairness” is anything but. Competition–unfettered, uninterrupted, unadjusted, and completely clean and legal–will, by itself, produce the fairest results every time. No assistance or interference is needed. The problem is, those who aren’t among the “winners” start to cry about it not being fair, and then someone gets the brilliant idea to try to make it fair artificially.

I am a baseball fan, and an Orioles fan specifically. Thus, I am just about required to dislike the Yankees and Red Sox. However, I would never think of suggesting that the Yankees and Red Sox have won the division, the pennant, and/or the World Series enough recently and the Orioles deserve their turn to win. That would be ridiculous! The Orioles only deserve to win if and when they can field the best team and thereby earn the title(s). No true competitor would want a title that came to them just because it was their turn. Such victory would seem hollow…fake. And that’s because that is exactly what it would be.

The fact is, though, the limitation of qualifiers to only two per country is but the beginning of a slide down a slippery slope of forced “fairness.” See, if–to be fair–we have to make sure that no country has more than two competitors in the final 24, it is only a matter of time before someone decides that still is not fair. What if, even with that restriction, there are still countries that do not make it into the finals year after year? After all, if my quick perusal of the competitor’s national flags is correct, Greece, Brazil, Croatia, Chile, Israel and others will not have a competitor in the AA finals. How many years can that be allowed to happen before we need to restrict the finals to one competitor per country so that more countries get to be included? But wait, that might not be far enough either, eventually. After all, there are some countries that have never won an Olympic medal in any event, ever. Surely we cannot allow such inequality. Perhaps there should be a rule created that will allow for medals to be more evenly distributed.

I hope you can see where I am going. Interference of any kind with competition serves only to destroy competition. Attempts at creating equality of opportunity (i.e., no more than two finalists per country) eventually leads to attempts to create equality of results. And while Jordyn Wieber and the Olympic gymnastics competition has served as a prime example of the problem, it is a problem that is much more prevalent, much more far-reaching, and, indeed, much more serious than Olympic competition. So, let’s be fair, and stop meddling with the outcomes.

Tolerance (again)

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Perhaps the trouble with taking a week-plus off from blogging is that when I get back to it there are so many different things I want to blog about that I don’t know where to start!

The recent media frenzy over Chick-fil-A–specifically the company’s support of “traditional marriage”–and the resulting cries on the one side for boycotts and on the other for increased business and shows of support has served to bring a glaring spotlight once again onto the subject of tolerance.

As I have discussed here before, it is amazing how our country, or at least the majority of the mass media market and professional mouthpieces, seem to love talking about tolerance when doing so means supporting liberal, non-traditional, and even rebellious speech, beliefs or positions, yet those same folks seem to lose all sense of “tolerance” and even respect for the first amendment when the position being taken is in support of conservative, traditional, or so-called “fundamentalist religious” beliefs.

It is not news that Truett Cathy is a Christian, that his son and current Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy is a Christian, or that they built the Chick-fil-A business endeavoring to be true to biblical principles. It is not news that the Cathys support the biblical definition of marriage and family. It is not news that they therefore also oppose the movement to legalize homosexual marriage.

Not too long ago Chick-fil-A was receiving a lot of negative media attention for providing free food to a conference that supported the biblical definitions of marriage and family. That was ridiculous enough. Now, the uproar has resumes because Dan Cathy, in an interview with Baptist Press, reiterated that position. In his words, Chick-fil-A is, “guilty as charged.” Cathy went on to say that, “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

I for one am thankful for the Cathy’s consistent adherence to biblical principles and their willingness to take a public stand in defense of them.

Thanks to the freedoms that we have in this country, any person can believe as he or she wishes and can share his or her beliefs or positions freely. That is a huge part of what makes America America. I have the right to disagree with you, and you have the right to disagree with me. How sad that we cannot have respectful public discourse about such disagreements!

This atmosphere of toxic language is evident in the media, in politics, in entertainment… And I am well aware of the fact that it is not exclusively one-sided. While the media at large definitely has a tilt toward the left, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and others are plenty guilty of using over-the-top, insulting and ridiculous language at times in their attacks on the left/support of the right. I suppose hoping for rational, respectful, well-reasoned debates is asking a bit much. After all, looking back at American history reveals that propaganda and extreme rhetoric has been part of our culture from the very beginning.

In an article in the Washington Post, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign (a group that supports homosexual marriage), said of Chick-fil-A, “While they may have been in neutral, kicking this fight into overdrive now allows fair-minded consumers to make up their own minds whether they want to support an openly discriminatory company. As the country moves toward inclusion, Chick-fil-A has staked out a decidedly stuck-in-the-past mentality.”

I disagree with Mr. Griffin politically and morally, but I appreciate his statement in that he clearly enunciates his position, explains that consumers have a choice of whether or not to support/eat at Chick-fil-A. That’s all quite true. The same is true regarding Target, JC Penney, General Mills, of the Muppets–all open supporters of homosexual marriage. I have a choice as to whether or not I wish to patronize those companies. I may disagree with their position on this issue (I do), but I do not see any good coming from calling them names. Mr. Griffin strayed a bit further than I would prefer; his use of the terms “openly discriminatory” and “stuck-in-the-past” are clearly intended to be condescending. But the truth is, we all discriminate. That word has a very negative connotation, for sure, but the act of discriminating is really nothing more than deciding between two things. When I had breakfast this morning, I discriminated against the orange juice and in favor of the coffee, against the cereal, in favor of the waffles. And I suspect that Chick-fil-A is more than happy to be “stuck in the past” when that means adherence to biblical principles and traditional definitions of marriage and family.

What troubles me more than anything is the outrageous name calling, threats, and wishes for harm. No surprise here, but Roseanne Barr has (once again) provided a clear example of the kind of rhetoric that adds absolutely nothing to the debate and serves, really, only to highlight her own bigotry and hatred for those who believe differently than she does. Yesterday Barr tweeted, “anyone who eats S— Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ.” In a follow-up, after her comment received plenty of attention, Barr said, “christian liars: i never wished cancer on you at all-jesus will punish u 4 ur deceit-I said processed foods cause cancer- #chickfilA.” Did she say that the “antibiotic filled tortured chickens” cause cancer? Yes. She did not say that she wishes that Christians will get cancer. But the implication is also clear in her tweet that she thinks eating at Chick-fil-A will result in cancer, and she has no qualms about Christians getting cancer because they eat there. Her implication about cancer, and her insulting twist of the company’s name, not to mention her follow-up attack on Christians as liars, are unhelpful, silly, and, quite frankly, stupid. The debate has not been enhanced by her contribution.

Chick-fil-A issued a statement after the hoopla began, saying, “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” There you have it, and I am sure that is true. I have never heard any mention of a Chick-fil-A refusing to serve anyone. Thus, the uproar is all about Truett and Dan Cathy having an opinion and a belief. (And Chick-fil-A is a privately-owned company, by the way!)

So here’s a thought, for Roseanne, for Rush, and for everyone in between: how about exercising some real tolerance? Why not have a fair and objective attitude “toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own”? Do I think we should all agree? No way. Do I think we should keep our opinions and beliefs to ourselves? Nope. But it would be pretty neat to see us all try to speak respectfully to and about those with whom we disagree. An intelligent, well-reasoned, and articulately-stated position might even prompt someone on the other side of the issue to…gasp!…listen to what we have to say. I think that’s what they used to call “civil discourse.”

July 4

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

July 4. The birthday of America. I love early American history. I have for as long as I can remember, and every time I read more about it I find myself more and more fascinated by the people and events that crafted this nation. The collective brilliance and foresight of the Founding Fathers was incredible.

America is an amazing nation, beginning with its formation as an independent country, and continuing throughout its history. The freedoms that we have should never be forgotten, ignored or taken for granted. Nor should we allow those freedoms to be infringed upon or taken away, by any of the three branches of the federal government or any of the state or local governments.

Writing to his wife Abigail, John Adams predicted how July 4 would be celebrated–or should be celebrated–way back in 1776:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

(All spellings original; found at http://www1.american.edu/heintze/Adams.htm.)

Adams was off by two days, as we now know. July 2 was the day that the resolution for independence was approved in Congress, but it was July 4 that appears on the Declaration of Independence, and it is that day that has been celebrated ever since. As insignificant as it is in the grand scheme of things it is incredible that even Adams’ predictions for how the day would be celebrated have held true. Or almost held true anyway; more often than not we–myself included–fail to commemorate the day with “solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”

We should, though. We should remember that while it was amazing courage on the parts of thousands of British colonists, willing to sacrifice everything up to and including their lives, that brought independence from England, it was ultimately God who oversaw the events of American independence, just as He oversees, and allows, all events throughout history. And however we may feel about current events in America, we should never forget to give thanks to God for His blessings, provision and grace on America.

That is why we must also remember that–again, however we may feel at any given time about current events–it is not a great country or any political policy or action that will save us. We have abundant blessings and opportunity as a result of the country in which we live, but without God that is not enough. I am reminded of something Sean Hannity wrote, and since I do not have it in front of me this may not be verbatim, but this is pretty close: “What will it benefit our kids to grow up in the greatest, freest, coolest country on earth, only to be spiritually lost and adrift in this world without an anchor for their souls?”

So, Happy Birthday, America. I appreciate my country, and I think that it is “the greatest, freest, coolest country on earth.” I thank God that I am an American. I also, however, thank God that I have an anchor for my soul, and that regardless of whether or not America continues to stray from many of the principles on which it was founded and to continually chip away at the rights and religious freedoms that made this country great, God is in control.

So Long, Andy

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This morning Andy Griffith passed away at his home in Dare County, North Carolina. And even though I am a generation younger than those who grew up watching “The Andy Griffith Show,” I too have many fond memories of Andy, Opie, Barney and Aunt Bea. Thanks to syndication the show was on–and still is, I think–just about every day. It was my dad’s favorite show, and I developed a fondness for it, too. In fact, I now own every episode on DVD, and the show never fails to make me smile. Like just about anyone else who ever saw the show I can whistle the theme song from memory and clearly picture Andy and Opie strolling along with their fishing poles.

I also became a big fan of “Matlock,” Griffith’s legal-mystery show from the late-eighties and early-nineties. Even as a child I enjoyed legal dramas–“Perry Mason” was a favorite–and the combination of a legal drama and Andy Griffith proved a dream come true. For a long time the “Matlock” theme song was the ring tone on my cell phone.

I think what resonates with me and so many others about “The Andy Griffith Show” is the lifestyle that it represents. In Mayberry people get along, for the most part, treat each other as they would like to be treated, and help out those in need. Community matters, and church attendance is the norm. Andy’s homespun wisdom reflected genuine insight into the human condition, and the way in which he handled matters–whether with Opie or lawbreakers–that required correction and discipline was gracious yet effective. I am aware that Bible study curriculum has been created based on the show. I think that may be a bit of a stretch, but the life lessons contained in each episode are certainly worth taking to heart.

“The Andy Griffith Show” also showed–and still shows–that a show can be uproariously funny without even coming close to being indecent, inappropriate or offensive. No one uttered a bad word, there was no sex, there was no mocking the government–and yet every episode brought laughter. Many of today’s half-hour comedies contain plenty of language, sex and mockery and completely fail to produce real laughter. It seems there is a lesson in there somewhere, too.

I never met Andy Griffith in person, so I don’t know what he was like. Because he lived on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, which is my favorite vacation spot, I always hoped I might see him sometime, but I never did. Depending on who you talked to locally (and, I guess, their experiences with him) he was a friendly neighbor or a grouchy old man. I know that he was married three times, but I don’t know why or what caused the end of his first two marriages. I know that he endorsed some politicians and political policies later in life that I did/do not agree with or support, and I know that he starred in some movies in which he played roles in which he did everything I just commended “The Andy Griffith Show” for not doing (i.e., Play the Game).

I also know, though, that he recorded several CDs of gospel songs, hymns and a Christmas album. I own them, and enjoy them. Andy loved to sing–he managed to work singing into all of his television shows–and to tell stories.

Regardless of any differences I may have had with Andy Griffith personally, I will always appreciate his contributions to American culture, and television specifically. I will remember him fondly. And I hope that the message of those gospel songs he sang in his trademark voice were understood by Andy, that he believed them, and that he accepted Christ as his Savior…because then he can play and sing for eternity.

God is in Control

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Just about every news and social media outlet in the country has been crackling since yesterday with the news of the Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called Obamacare case and the House of Representatives’ vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. Most pundits–on both sides of the aisle–are saying that yesterday’s SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) decision is the most important decision since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Others have said that Chief Justice John Roberts has demonstrated his independence and refusal to be swayed by partisan politics. Others have said he abandoned the president who appointed him (George W. Bush), and still others have said he has proven to be the next Robert Jackson, the Attorney General-turned-Supreme Court justice who demonstrated that he was not beholden to any political party in deciding cases. And, of course, still others have asserted that the five justices who decided the majority opinion have destroyed the Constitution. And, perhaps most interestingly in a purely theoretical/academic sense is the fact that the SCOTUS opinion says that mandated health care is permissible as a tax–whereas President Obama has asserted repeatedly that it is not a tax. Interesting…

On the same day that this decision came down the House of Representatives voted to find Attorney General Holder in contempt for the manner in which he has handled congressional investigation into the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” operation. This is the first time in U.S. history that a sitting attorney general has been found in contempt of Congress. Holder, of course, has called the vote politically motivated, though seventeen Democrats voted in favor of the contempt citation (while two Republicans opposed it). Perhaps more troubling, however, is that 100 Democrat members of the House walked out–including all 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus–and refused to vote at all. According to a letter sent by the caucus to colleagues, the Republican leadership in the House failed to provide a legislative purpose for the vote, and therefore, said the caucus members, they “cannot and will not participate in a vote to hold the attorney general in contempt.” There were, by the way, two separate votes, finding the AG Holder in both criminal and civil contempt, by votes of 255-67 and 258-95 respectively. (Purely as a side note, I have to wonder how any member of Congress can believe that a vote to hold the sitting attorney general in contempt has no legislative purpose, yet similar votes for professional athletes who lied or were less than forthcoming in congressional investigations into the use of performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports is clearly fine. Just saying….)

Anyway, if you logged in hoping to get my take on either of these matters, I am going to disappoint you, because, one, I try to avoid being overtly partisan/political in this space, and two, I have not yet had time to read or fully digest the ramifications of the SCOTUS decision and I want to avoid making uninformed comments on the decision.

What I do have to say, though, is that regardless of which side of either of these issues you or I may be on, and regardless of what the short or long-term implications of either decision will be, God is in control!

Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will” (ESV). We may not have a king in the United States, by the hearts of presidents, justices and members of Congress are just as much in God’s control as the hearts of kings. Furthermore, the power that is exercised by those individuals and bodies is granted to them by God–and they cannot do anything that He will not allow. Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” (KJV). Jesus Himself, when questioned by Pilate, said, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above” (John 19:11, ESV).

Nothing that happened yesterday, that happens today, or that will happen tomorrow, catches God by surprise. Man can do nothing that God does not allow. Not necessarily, by the way, that God desires, but that God allows. Politics and public policy are important…but they are not the most important thing, and they will not save anyone. We should be informed and be involved, and most of all we should pray–see I Timothy 2–but regardless of what happens we must not be overwhelmed or defeated, because God is in control, and in Him is our hope!

Decorum Expected

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Earlier this week Mike Huckabee’s “Huckabee Report” addressed the behavior of guests at President Obama’s recent reception for Gay Pride Month. The report reads, in part, “Two visitors showed their gratitude by posing for photos giving obscene hand gestures in front of the official portrait of President Reagan. The photos appeared online in Philadelphia magazine. One of the men, Matty Hart, linked his Facebook page to them, adding obscene comments about Reagan.”

This saddens me on several levels. One, it should be common sense that a certain level or decorum is expected in the White House. Regardless of what anyone may think about the sitting president or any of his predecessors, there is no excuse for such immature and disrespectful behavior. The White House itself is a symbol, representing the office of the president, as well as a wealth of history and the peaceful transitions of power that have marked our nation for more than two hundred years.

While we have a tremendous privilege in America to speak freely about our opinions, and publicly express disagreement with, and even disapproval of, our elected leaders, there is no reason for such discourse to sink to the level of adolescent insults and name-calling. The tenor of political campaigns today does not help, of course, but the amount of mudslinging contained in campaign commercials and other attack ads does not justify the kind of behavior referenced in the Huckabee Report. A White House spokesperson apologized for the behavior, and said that that kind of behavior does not belong anywhere, let alone the White House. Agreed; but the reality is, there will need to be a seismic shift in the level of public decency expected in our country–and modeled by our elected leaders and other public figures–before this kind of thing is likely to become rare.

By the way, Mr. Hart is the national director for public engagement for a group called “Solutions for Progress.” According to their web site, Solutions for Progress is a “public policy and technology company.” Their homepage includes this headline: “An organization like no other. Changing reality on the ground by using policy research and technology to fight poverty; assisting people to obtain supports in an easy and dignified manner and governments to deliver
services more effectively.”

Now, I don’t know anything about the organization than that; until I Googled it after reading the Huckabee Report I had never heard of it. But I find it interesting to say the least that the headline on their web site touts their efforts to assist people in a “dignified manner.” It seems quite clear that there was nothing dignified about Mr. Hart’s behavior–and apparently he does not care. According to Huckabee Report, Hart “was unrepentant and says he doesn’t care if he’s not invited back to the White House.”

Referring to the name of Mr. hart’s organization–Solutions for Progress–Mike Huckabee commented, “Sounds like he doesn’t know much about either of those things. I really hope tasteless, vulgar people like that don’t even attempt to pretend to be for diversity or civility or tolerance.” I have to agree. And while it may make little difference in the overwhelming flood of indecency and lack of respect so prominent in America today, I would call on Solutions for Progress to demonstrate to their constituents and the entire population of the United States that while Mr. Hart may not care, they do, and such behavior will not be tolerated. There is really only one appropriate response for their organization to make: Mr. Hart should be dismissed immediately.