Cheaters Never Prosper (Unless They Do – And Mostly They Do)

The world is full of cheaters. Their names, faces and nefarious deeds dominate print journalism, the nightly news, and perhaps most prominently ESPN’s Sportscenter (played on a loop eight times daily).

Barry Bonds pursuit of the all-time home run record has an asterisk because it is allegedly fueled by performance-enhancing drugs (can we please be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that most 40+ home run hitters, not to mention most pitchers, do the same thing? And while we’re at it, can we stop making Hank Aaron into some sort of national hero? His career was mired in mediocrity, and he was on amphetamines the whole time).

One cyclist after another has fallen off the pedestal of athletic greatness as allegations of doping become increasingly rampant, most recently claiming the careers of favored Kazakh cyclist Alexander Vinokourov and his team.

Even the integrity of the NBA is being called into question as referee Tim Donaghy stands accused of betting on games he was officiating. I personally think the idea of integrity in the NBA is laughable. Kobe Bryant, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and rumors that most players show up to games high took care of that.

With all these cheaters, thank goodness “cheaters never prosper.”

Wait…yes they do. Mom, you lied to me.

I’d be hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of instances where a cheater didn’t prosper. Yes, these athletes may endure public scorn and ridicule, but at the end of the day Bonds and friends are still taking home fat paychecks, no one is reclaiming the cyclists’ endorsement deals, and Donaghy is destined to become a notorious media sensation in the mold of Joey Buttafuoco, JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr, or besmirched Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. It’s just a matter of time before he signs his book deal.

Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and he’s one of America’s most beloved politicians. Martha Stewart cheated the stock market and she’s more popular now than before her prison term.

I won’t go so far as to sat cheaters always prosper. The academic fraud of the Minnesota Gophers basketball team, Tanya Harding’s banishment from the U.S. Figure Skating Association, and Pete Rose’s lifetime ban from the MLB Hall of Fame attest to this.

But most of the time they do. Moral of the story: cheat whenever possible.

Thanks for reading.

The Republican Party: Giving It Away

I’ve come up with a new conspiracy theory that I thought you all might be interested in: every single contending Republican presidential candidate is actually a Democrat. These insidious espionage experts have infiltrated the Republican Party, risen in its ranks to the pinnacle of power, and now are vying for the nomination to make a run at the presidency in 2008.

Why, you ask? It would be easy to imagine that they are trying to win the presidency, so that they can run the country posing as a Republican while actually pursuing democratic ends. In reality the plan is much more convoluted. It turns out they are trying to win the Republican nomination while maintaining such a low level of public appeal that when it comes to the election they have no hope of defeating their Democratic opponent, thereby insuring a Democratic president to complement the already Democratic Senate and House.

Granted, I’m inclined to paranoia, but when you look at what’s going on this theory makes a lot of sense.

Mitt Romney, a Mormon (already a major setback when the majority of voters are Christian in a country where Mormons are viewed as crackpots – political correctness be damned), has publicly admitted that his favorite book is Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth. Put aside the oddity of a Mormon espousing the work of L. Ron Hubbard for a minute. Any supposedly self-respecting human being that says his favorite book of all time is Battlefield Earth deserves to have both his sanity and intelligence called into question (sorry John Travolta). This is the man leading most polls.

Then we have Rudy Giuliani. He’s such an intolerable human being that he has been divorced three times and his kids won’t even speak to him. Plus he’s pro choice and a gun control advocate (which in the minds of many conservative voters makes him a Democrat anyway.) And to the left is Giuliani in drag (not making this up).

John McCain is becoming increasingly senile and isolated. He’s hemorrhaging money and recently cleaned out most of his staff (those he didn’t fire quit after the firings). His stubborn grandpa demeanor has gone from endearing to maddening and he seems on the verge of pulling a Howard Dean (next we’re going down to New Mexico – wooo!).

The Republican candidates most recent blunder has been their hinting that they won’t participate in the YouTube debate on CNN as their Democratic counterparts did last week. I happened to catch the Democratic YouTube debate, and found it fascinating. Some tough, interesting questions were asked. The kinds of questions presidential candidates aren’t typically forced to answer.

Declining to participate in these would be an ill-advised move for the Republican front-runners, but Giuliani has stated that scheduling conflicts will probably prevent his participation. Makes sense. You are running for a presidential nomination. You probably have a lot of stuff going on more important than trying to win. Why would you want to participate in a nationally televised debate and connect with voters that you are notoriously bad at connecting with when you could be at an elite fundraiser once again hitting up your wealthy friends for more cash?

Mitt Romney believes “the presidency ought to be held to higher standards than being questioned by a snowman.” Congratulations, Mitt. You just alienated every conscientious voter between the ages of 18 and 25.

It could be that this class of Republican front runners is just really bad, but their blunders seem too calculated, too deliberate. I’ll stick with the conspiracy theory.

Thanks for reading.


P.S. Congratulations to Joe and Mo, married Saturday, July 28, 2007.

Dear Friends, I Bid You Adieu

Don’t panic, the Zizzle-Zot’s not going anywhere. But I hope you’ve all started whittling away at your “100 things to do before I die” lists, making plans to blow through your life savings and stockpiling bottled water for the looming apocalypse, because apparently the end of the world is a mere five years off…tear.

That’s right, Zizzle-Zotians. The latest collection of doomsday pseudo-prophets are warning us that the world will end on December 21, 2012.

Why, you ask?

Because that is the date set by ancient Mayan civilizations, of course. According to the Mayans, known for their advanced writing, mathematics and astronomy, December 21, 2012 marks the end of the 5,126 year era delineated by their “long count” calendar. At this time their calendar will reset at zero.

Though no one fully understands what this means, the apocalypse-obsessed have latched onto it as an indication that the world is coming to an end.

What makes this doomsday theory particularly intriguing is that an extremely rare cosmic event is expected to occur simultaneously. On the winter solstice of 2012 the sun will align with the center of the Milky Way for the first time in about 26,000 years. This means that on December 21, 2012, at approximately 11:11 PM, whatever energy normally streams to Earth from the center of the Milky Way will temporarily be disrupted.

So what exactly can we expect?

First, the temporary energy blockage will cause all electronic appliances to go on the fritz. Toasters will start burning Eggos, Halo will lag, and most horrific of all, refrigeration units will shut down, causing our beer to turn warm and skunky and our ice cream to become runny.

A tidal wave of discontent will arise from the middle classes. We will revile at our temporary shortage of cold beverages and frozen treats in the midst of the holiday season. President Hillary Clinton, in the early stages of her second term (say it isn’t so!), will seek to quell the uproar by playing the nurturing mother to the huddled masses, a futile attempt to overcome her public persona as a magnificent bitch.

When these efforts fall flat she will turn to the tried and true practice of fear mongering that has been the stabilizing force of so many presidents before. She will sympathize with our plight, and tell us who we can blame. “It’s the terrorists!” she will say, “trying to ruin Christmas.” “It’s Al Qaeda. It’s Frankie bin Laden.” (son of Osama. Osama himself was killed years before in a raid by Kiefer Sutherland, who, due to severe schizophrenia magnified by excessive alcoholism, believes himself to actually be Jack Bauer.)

President Clinton will start a bombing campaign, using our vast nuclear arsenal to decimate any area where terrorists are believed to be hiding (oddly enough, this includes most major U.S. Cities, as well as all military bases where suspected terrorists are detained). A nuclear holocaust will arise, every power with nuclear weapons will launch them, and much of the world will be destroyed

Due to the extreme radiation our Furbies will mutate, gain self awareness and turn on us, leading legions of Tickle-Me Elmos and Giga Pets on murderous rampages through quiet suburban streets. Taking advantage of the dearth of military power, these lovable cuddle-bugs will quickly overtake the white house, enslave the remaining human population, and rule with complete authority for the next 5,126 years, at which point another “long count” era will come to an end.

To give you all the inside track, I have begun construction on a large spacecraft to escape the impending doom. Though built mostly of cardboard, duct tape and magic marker, I believe it will withstand the extreme heat of passing through the atmosphere, hold up through a long, gravity-less journey, and carry us safely to Pluto, which remains my favorite planet despite its demotion from planet status. Who wants on?

Thanks for reading.

Is This the End?

By now everyone is fully aware of the scandal involving NBA referee Tim Donaghy. A quick refresher for those who aren’t: Donaghy has been accused of betting on games which he officiated, influencing games based on the spread, and having mafia ties.

I was listening to the KQ Morning Show today, and they brought up an interesting question: is this the death knell for the NBA?

As a fan of the game (though I prefer college to professional) I have put up with a fair amount of garbage over the years. We all have. We put so much faith in the next great hope Kobe Bryant as the heir apparent to the Jordan throne, only to stand aghast as this image crumbled under allegations of rape, or, at the very least, infidelity. Jordan’s “successor” then revealed himself as the sniveling, self-centered, undignified egomaniac that he truly is.

We all watched in disgust when a brawl between the Detroit Pistons and the Indiana Pacers escalated into a mini-riot as players leapt into the stands and began attacking fans, leaving behind a trail of carnage including pummeled innocent bystanders, multi-game suspensions, and one particularly memorable old woman trampled under foot

We’ve collectively held our breath as our respective team’s superstar entered contract negotiations, praying that he’d be reasonable as players demand skyrocketing salaries to play a game. We’ve watched our favorite players turn out one lackluster performance after another, lackadaisically biding their time until the playoffs, or a contract year.

We’ve put up with it because there’s always the hope that one day our team will be great, that one day our superstar will do something spectacular. And if nothing else, we can hope that in a world of injustice, relativism, and uncertainty at least in sports there are rules. At least in sports there is a winner and a loser, decided in a battle of skill, strength and will. At least sports are fair…

It remains to be seen how deep this Donaghy scandal will go. It may implicate a number of league officials, it may be an isolated incident. Either way, the fact that any games at all (Donaghy’s point shaving is believed to have affected 55 games) were subjected to outside influence cuts to the very integrity of sports.

NBA Commissioner David Stern knows this. If anyone saw clips of his press conference after the scandal was revealed, you could see it in his eyes, hear it on his voice. As a fan of the game himself, I’m sure this incident hurts him as much as anyone, and he knows better than anyone that it will be nearly impossible for the NBA to recover its integrity or its dignity.

Thanks for reading.

The Real Sickos

A recent piece of headline-grabbing news has been the settlement of sexual abuse lawsuits in which the Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay $660 million to appease the claims of hundreds of victims.

My first thought when reading this bit of news settled on the irony of the Catholic Church finding itself in the position of needing to buy atonement from the people, a paradox Vonnegut himself would’ve envied. Imagine, the embodiment of moral superiority humbled at the feet of the very people it holds itself so much above. The institution which introduced the tradition of buying forgiveness needs to buy forgiveness. Do you suppose this is a display of ingenious foresight by the founders of Catholicism, or just a case of what goes around comes around?

More importantly, do you think we could excommunicate the Catholic Church? (Now there’s a logical conundrum.)

My thoughts then strayed to the following question: I realize the Catholic Church has an adequate supply of money, but where in the world will they get $660 million (without going bankrupt)?

Then I stumbled across a disturbing, intrinsically sick piece of information: Churches buy sex-abuse insurance.

I’ll give you a moment to collect yourself... Good, now we can collectively ask the question we’re all waiting to ask:

What?!?

That’s right. The Catholic Church, maybe knowing that they’re a bunch of pervs and that their policy of no booty in the priesthood breeds sexual misconduct, takes out extra insurance policies to cover their sexual abuse lawsuits.

According to the information I found (supplied by GuideOne, a major church insurance provider) churches may pay anywhere from $100 a year for a $100,000 policy at a small church to tens of thousands a year for multi-million dollar coverage at a megachurch. For the most part, the policies protect just the institution. If the individual accused is found guilty or chooses to settle out of court, they’re typically on their own.

The adjectives you could use to describe this practice are plentiful (feel free to write in with your own). I think it’s damn near the sickest thing I’ve ever heard. The church is supposed to be a place that people can trust. It’s supposed to provide a bedrock for the needy, the downtrodden, the distraught. It’s supposed to be a constant moral force in a society of relativity.

It’s not supposed to use its influence to take advantage of the vulnerable. The fact that they take out insurance policies as if sexual abuse were inevitable, as if it were an act of God in the vein of fire or flood, is a concrete demonstration of the corruption and perversion of God’s will that has become the Catholic Church.

Thanks for reading.

Truck Driver Thinks He Can Hold It, Can’t

Cross country big-rig driver Ted Crispins, believing his rectum capable of superhuman feats of fecal retention, finally shit his pants Thursday evening after holding his bowels for nearly 11 hours from the time he first felt the pressure mounting on his sphincter to the moment an unfortunately positioned pothole caused him to temporarily lose concentration, and control. The result was a steaming, squishy spattering of runny dung in his wranglers, a permanently befouled cockpit, and a ruined orthopedic seat cushion which cost him $9.99 at any Wal-Mart.

Trouble started brewing for Crispins when he noticed the first of a series of signs just outside of Houston, TX promising the “World’s Best Chili.” Crispins, who considers his own chili to be the world’s best, couldn’t resist the challenge. By the time he reached the hole in the wall diner, known as “Mammy J’s,” he had to stop to dispute “Mammy J’s” claim. He proceeded to eat three bowls of the homemade chili, admitting that it was in fact “damned good,” though not conceding that it was the “world’s best.”

Crispins then hastily left the diner despite the pleas of restaurant patrons to give the rich, spicy stew time to course through his system. New to the route and unfamiliar with the terrain, Crispins had no way of knowing what they knew: rest stops on that particular stretch of highway were scarce, and “Mammy J’s” chili had a reputation for coming out fast, painfully hot and barely digested.

Crispins felt the first rumble shortly after departing from “Mammy J’s;” an intestinal vibrato that left him with goosebumps and a fair amount of trepidation. Becoming aware of the impending tidal wave of still warm chili, Crispins clenched his rectum to thwart the onslaught in an admiral act of physical defiance. Not wanting to release his bowels “on the side of the road like an animal” and believing he could hold it till the next public facilities, Crispins frantically scanned the horizon for a rest stop. He would never find one.

Reached for comment, a noticeably shaken-up Crispins said only “I thought I could hold it.”

Thanks for reading.

P.S. Look for intermittent returns to the Things I Care About (And Why) series, but for now I’m burnt out. Caring about junk is exhausting.

P.S.S. I commented in response to some of the comments on yesterday’s post. Check it out.

Things I Care About (And Why): The Arts

“The many great gardens of the world, of literature and poetry, of painting and music, of religion and architecture, all make the point as clear as possible: The soul cannot thrive in the absence of a garden. If you don't want paradise, you are not human; and if you are not human, you don't have a soul.”

Thomas Moore

It’s tough to convince people to care about art. A perception persists that art doesn’t matter; that it is irrelevant in the real world, where real problems and real daily concerns consume our time and energy. We spend most of our time working or sleeping, and at the end of the day most would consider stopping to consider something as seemingly trivial as a painting on a wall or a poem written decades ago a waste.

I disagree.

There are a number of forces at work that are responsible for the decline of the arts. The educational system, due to limited funds and the prioritization of science and math, neglects to emphasize the important role art has played in our history and plays in our everyday lives. This technological emphasis, though well meaning in its efforts to give students a chance to compete in an advancing society, also fails to give students an opportunity to explore different ways of thinking and to express themselves in alternate ways.

Blame can also be placed on modern media. Television and film, which have the potential to be powerful art forms, often reduce themselves to hedonistic sense titillaters (you like that word?). These two mediums reach a greater audience than any other, and therefore are capable of communicating powerful messages. More often then not, however, they fall short. I’ll get to film another day. It is one of my passions, but there is too much to cover in this post (let’s say I’m just as excited about its potential as I am disappointed by its failures).

Let’s take a moment to look at what art could be. Language is limited. I often find myself frustrated by the insufficiency of words to express certain concepts, such as the awe-inspiring nature of God, the life-changing power of love, the vastness of the universe. Even right there, words fell flat.

But art communicates on a level deeper than mere words. It can communicate thoughts, ideas or emotions that would be impossible to put words to, but can only be expressed through the visceral, unspoken experience of viewing a piece of art and understanding through it a piece of humanity.

A powerful example of this is Picasso’s Guernica. Depicting the Nazi bombing of Guernica, Spain during the Spanish Civil War, Guernica captures the suffering, brutality, chaos, death, and helplessness of war without saying a word. Someone who has experienced war could tell us that war is horrific, but the woman, distorted in agony, weeping over the young child in her arms on the left of the mural says just that and so much more.

Art such as this binds us in communal experience. We were not in Guernica on that fateful day, and we can’t claim to physically understand what those people went through. But if we can put ourselves inside of the painting, if we can allow ourselves to become lost in the images and allow ourselves to emotionally, instinctually, and intellectually react, we can share in that experience. By doing so, I believe, we pay our respects to the victims.

Through Guernica, Picasso is bound to the victims as well as whoever views the work, and likewise the viewer is bound to the artist, those that suffered, and to all others that have viewed. This connectedness is not limited by time or geography, by age, vocation, sex, race, or language. Art provides us with a unique opportunity to share in the experiences of the world. I’d say that’s an opportunity worth utilizing.

Thanks for reading.

Things I Care About (And Why): The Environment

“And Man created the plastic bag and the tin and aluminum can and the cellophane wrapper and the paper plate, and this was good because Man could then take his automobile and buy all his food in one place and He could save that which was good to eat in the refrigerator and throw away that which had no further use. And soon the earth was covered with plastic bags and aluminum cans and paper plates and disposable bottles and there was nowhere to sit down or walk, and Man shook his head and cried: "Look at this Godawful mess."

Art Buchwald

By my own admission I’m a terribly hypocritical environmentalist. Sure I’m a conscientious recycler and I support organic products when I can. But I drive a car and it’s not a hybrid. I like long showers on cold mornings. I find microwavable dinners in tidy, convenient little packages to be quite tasty. And I have a nasty habit of leaving my bedroom light on when I leave the house.

Does it help that I feel guilty about it? Not really, I imagine.

I was watching “Last Comic Standing” the other night (yes, I watch some TV; will my energy consumption never end?!?) and one of the jokes I actually chuckled over (there were pathetically few) was told by a slightly overweight comedian: “I look at global warming like I look at my weight gain: yeah it’s a problem, but what can I do about it?”

First, let’s look at why we are so abusive towards our environment, the very thing which is most essential to our survival as a species. It seems counterintuitive that we would neglect our sustaining force. In most regards, we are incredibly selfish beings, and one would imagine we would be eco-conscious so far as it serves our own self interests. But even to selfish ends we ignore the land.

I believe the cause is a disconnect between ourselves and the environment. Our consumerist, suburban culture has taught us that food comes from the grocery store, gas comes from a pump, shelter means preexisting structures that have no interaction with the land they sit on. Because of countless middlemen we aren’t forced to look at the environment as our sole provider.

I think of Australia’s aborigine tribes, or the Native Americans, and their thoughts on the land. They didn’t own the land they lived on: it owned them. Everything they ate, drank, every tool they used, every medicine they administered was drawn directly from the environment. They saw the consequences of famine, draught, flood, and therefore they recognized that the land could take away just as readily as it gave.

A Native American proverb says that “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” For them, caring for the environment meant the sustainability of the tribe for generations after them. If they destroyed it their people would face extinction.

We don’t live this way. We imagine we have conquered the environment. We believe we are capable of outsmarting mother earth with our science and technology. We see mother earth as another product that we can buy or sell at our whim. Once we see that it is the most vital piece of the global community in which we all reside, maybe we will begin to treat it with the respect it deserves.

I feel like since the outset of the “Things I Care About (And Why)” series I have been cynically posing difficult questions with only theoretical solutions. Even Zizzle-Zot is tired of the pessimism. Let’s try positivism.

For whatever reason, while poverty, health care, etc. have been largely ignored here and abroad, environmentalism has become the new activist’s topic du jour for young hipsters, politicians trying to be young hipsters, and now celebrities trying to stay relevant to young hipsters. We are in the midst of a burgeoning “green” era, and there is an overwhelming sense of hope that we can turn things around.

My hope is that the powers that be will take advantage of this tide of enthusiasm and get serious about protecting the environment. I also hope that “thinking green” isn’t just another passing fad. Perhaps our generation could usher in a permanent lifestyle switch, complete with a heightened awareness that our actions impact the environment in a very real way.

Of course it’s a process of give and take. We can’t expect to make the world completely eco-friendly. There are far too many people, too many other pressing needs (such as human life) that must take priority, and I’d hate to downplay the value of technological advancement (perhaps we could devote some technology to benefit the environment?). But I believe this is one issue where even the small contributions can make a big difference. So let’s go out of our way to be conscientious about recycling, ride our bikes when we can, and (note to self) turn off the lights.

Thanks for reading.

Things I Care About (And Why): Poverty

I touched on this issue a little in yesterday’s post, but I would like to spend some time discussing poverty exclusively, if you all don’t mind.

It is the benchmark of a profoundly sick society when a select few individuals have more money than they could ever hope to spend while over half of the world’s population lives on just dollars a day. We live in a world where the wealth of the top three richest individuals exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries. Where the top 225 richest people have a combined wealth of over $1 trillion, more than the combined annual income of the world’s 2.5 billion poorest people. Where 20% of the world’s population consumes 86% of its goods.

Meanwhile, UNICEF reports that 30,000 children under five die each day (that’s just under 11 million per year) due to poverty. That’s 30,000 smiling faces gone each day. Children that will never reach their potential. Children that never had a chance. 1.1 billion people have inadequate access to water, while 2.6 billion lack access to basic sanitation. 640 million children in the world don’t have adequate shelter, while 270 million don’t have access to health services.

I apologize if I sound like one of those infomercials asking you to sponsor a child, but come on people. As I research and write about this topic I can barely contain my anger. I feel like it would be so easy to remedy the problem, but I feel handcuffed. And I know I’m not the only one who feels this way. We can sponsor children, we can donate money, we can go on mission trips to aid poor villages, but in reality we can’t do a damn thing. I can sponsor one child while 29,999 die every day. I can send a check and know that it will never make it past the corrupt politicians. I can help a village build a school and be confident that it will one day deteriorate because the village will not have the resources to maintain it.

I can scream at the top of my lungs and the only people who will hear are those who, like me, are powerless to make a difference.

It’s sick because it wouldn’t be that hard to make a change. Check out this disproportionate spending (sorry these numbers are about five years old, couldn’t find anything more recent): The year of this survey the U.S. spent $8 billion on cosmetics, Europe spent $105 billion on alcoholic drinks, and the world overall had $780 billion in military expenditures.

Meanwhile, it’s estimated that it would cost around $6 billion to provide basic education for all. $9 billion for water and sanitation. $13 billion for basic health and nutrition. Just take a small fraction of what military powers spend every year, or just consume one less drink every night, and we could provide the world with three very basic, and very important, necessities.

But it won’t happen. Why not? I’ll refer back to yesterday’s post: because in reality people don’t give a shit. All the money in the world won’t eradicate poverty because we are selfish and greedy. Until this fact changes, we have no hope. The majority of the money thrown at the problem will never reach its intended target, instead being held up by dirty bureaucrats and earmarked for projects that have no real shot at helping anybody.

I realize I sound pretty cynical. There are a few bright spots in the darkness. Billionaire philanthropists such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates deserve to be applauded. These men have given away all but a fraction of their vast wealth to fight global poverty. A select few celebrities, such as Bono, have worked tirelessly to raise awareness and make poverty concerns en vogue (as much as this makes me cringe, at least the teeny-boppers and celeb-idolaters know there’s a problem).

But what can we do? That’s not a setup for the next paragraph. I’m actually asking. What can we do? Will we even leave a dent by doing our small part? Even if I dedicate my entire life to serving the poor, can I expect to make a difference (besides boosting my self-righteousness)?

Unfortunately, I think that until we realize our connected nature, the dream of eradicating poverty will be just that: a dream.

Thanks for reading.

Things I Care About (And Why): The Connectedness of Humanity

“We hunger to be known and understood. We hunger to be loved. We hunger to be at peace inside our own skins. We hunger not just to be fed these things but, often without realizing it, we hunger to feed others these things because they too are starving for them. We hunger not just to be loved but to love, not just to be forgiven but to forgive, not just to be known and understood for all the good times and bad times that for better or worse have made us who we are, but to know and understand each other to the same point of seeing that, in the last analysis, we all have the same good times, the same bad times, and that for that very reason there is no such thing in all the world as anyone who is really a stranger.”

Frederick Buechner

I realize that the “connectedness of humanity” is a fairly general statement and is more of an idea than a concrete subject, but I figured start big and narrow it down from there. Plus, I believe that our reluctance to accept this is one of the biggest obstacles to both our survival and our harmony, and once we realize that we are all connected many of the peripheral problems that afflict the world will solve themselves.

As a species we hold so much animosity, anger and hatred based upon arbitrarily drawn lines of region, religion, race and language. Over the years we have built this artifice of the ownership of territory (I’ll get to this another day), and we huddle together with the people who look and believe as we do in this territory we claim as our own, united by tradition and the collective rejection of anything foreign (this is not aimed directly at America. It is true of all (or most) cultures). We have organized and divided ourselves base on imagined differences; some petty (race) and some seemingly insurmountable (ideology, religion).

Is this the way it’s supposed to be?

Our divisions are largely manmade. Ultimately, we are all human beings. We are all descended from the same lineage, and therefore we are all brothers and sisters (kind of gross when you put it in a sexual context, but let’s not go there). We all started in the same place, then we created divisions. Our differences are human constructions. They are not inherent, they are (or were not originally) engrained in us from birth. Yes, we may have different colored skin, but this is a regional attribute based on environmental factors. We speak different languages, but this is a learned trait. We believe different things, but we are united by the fact that we all seek Truth. We’re all at different places in that search, but I genuinely believe that there is one Truth that will one day fully reveal itself to us all, making our theological arguments seem quite foolish.

There is no us, there is no them: it is only we. We have been put on Earth to share in this experience. We are bound together in the struggle for survival, the quest for love, happiness and understanding. Whatever happens in Asia or Europe or Antarctica is a part of my life experience, as it is a part of yours.

When a child is starving in Africa, when a soldier is dying on the battle field, when a woman is being beaten in the Middle East, that is my reality. That is our reality. That pain is our pain. The suffering our own. That is our world that we share.

And to use a sports cliché: “we are only as strong as our weakest link.” We must strive to lift up our brothers and sisters for the betterment of us all.

Here’s a good way to think of it: “To say that my fate is not attached to your fate is like saying ‘your side of the boat is sinking.’” (Not attributed) The fate of the world is our shared responsibility, and the shape the future will take is in our hands. We must realize that we do not have individual fates. We are fragments of a much larger whole, and to deny this is to deny our nature as social, communal creatures.

Once we can truly accept that we are all connected, caring for others, for the least of these, will cease to be a burden. There will be no need for charity (which creates an unspoken, unofficial caste system of those who give and those who need). We will all dedicate our passions and our gifts to the betterment of the world.

Thanks for reading.

Things I Care About (And Why): The Introduction

“I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Any person worth the air they breathe has discovered things they care passionately about. Things they are willing to fight for, dedicate their lives to, and ultimately, things they are willing to die for.

I want all Zizzle-Zot readers to know that I place infinite value on each and every one of you; not because you boost the “blog views” counter and my ego, but because I know that you all are the people who recognize and care about issues larger than and outside of yourselves. I know from our conversations that you are the people who seek Truth, who work diligently to understand the world around us and understand that the fate of our collective humanity rests on your shoulders.

This understanding and commitment places on you all a tremendous responsibility, and unfortunately, at times, a terrible burden. I’ve been thinking lately about the direction I want Zizzle-Zot etc., to take for the next week or so, and beyond that a project I think we all could (and should?) undertake as our small contribution to the betterment of the world.

What if we could make everyone care? We don’t have the resources, the power, or the numbers to fix the ills of the world on our own. In reality, the governmental approach of throwing more money at major global concerns such as poverty and sickness is a little bit like putting a band-aid on a bullet hole. Important, yes, because it slows the hemorrhaging, but in the end it will never be enough to heal the wound. Often times more money simply means more for the wealthy, powerful and corrupt to line their pockets with.

What we can offer is passion, our hope in a better way, and our voices.

Imagine a world where everyone cared. A world where everyone recognized that we are all in this together and where everyone took responsibility for the well-being of the least of these, for the stewardship of the environment, etc.

Imagine the world as a unified front of goodwill.

Such a world would have no need for wars or violence of any kind. There would be no crime. We would have little use for political systems or government programs. Each individual would be their own governing body and their own ambassador for mankind.


I realize that this goal is difficult to imagine, and a little vague, but that’s intentional. We all have different passions, different dreams, and different gifts that were uniquely created and placed in us for a reason. Over time these gifts have been exploited, the dreams have been distorted, and our passions have been smothered by materialism, by possession, by the pursuit of individual prosperity at the expense of humanity. Let’s take them back. Let’s reclaim our passions and put them to work for the good of all.

I realize that on most of these points I’m preaching to the choir. You all already understand the importance of goodwill and the potential (if unrealistic) beauty of a world where everyone cares. Think of this (and upcoming) posts as an exploration, a journey. Let’s figure out ways (minor or grandiose) to get those around us to truly care about something, anything, outside of themselves.

I’ll start by spending the next few days writing about some of the things I think are important, things that make me tick.

If any other Zizzle-Zotians feel so inclined, please write your own entry and email it to me at grueri@bethel.edu. It doesn’t have to be some deeply philosophical, theologically rooted issue. Everyday things such as family, the outdoors, friends, etc. are just as important. Just tell us what you care about. A good place to start is to lead by example. Let’s show the world that we care.

Thanks for reading.

Check Out My New Digs

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was starting to think the old layout of Zizzle-Zot, etc. was getting a little tired, and thereby made the executive decision that it was the perfect time to go out and get the emperor a new set of clothes.

Without further ado, welcome to the new (and improved?) Zizzle-Zot, etc.

It’s my goal to make this an interactive experience, so if you’ll direct your attention to the side bar on the right of the screen you’ll see that I’ve added a poll (newly discovered feature). Whether you love the new layout or think it bites and wish I would go back to the old one, please vote and make your opinion known. Polling will close at the end of the week, at which point I’ll make necessary adjustments.

Also, feel free to comment throughout the week on how I could make this blog better (keeping in mind that the creator of Zizzle-Zot, etc. is a techno-idiot and won’t be capable of any great feats of computer wizardry).

I look forward to hearing your feedback. Let the voting begin.

Thanks for reading.

Hip-Hop Artist Doesn’t Own a Gun

In an embarrassing and potentially career-ending admission made late Thursday, prominent hip-hop artist Mike Jones revealed that he has never even shot a handgun, let alone possess the large arsenal of “steel” which he claims to “flash” when “foos try to run up on him.”

Caught on camera at an exclusive Los Angeles nightclub and now widely played on the internet, Mr. Jones announced during his “crunk”-induced confession that he has never, in fact, “shot shots till your teeth missing” or “packed a ruger and got to spraying like Freddy Kruger…Mike Jones.”

His street cred in serious jeopardy, Mr. Jones now finds himself in the precarious position of having “a bunch of haters up in his grill,” confident in the knowledge that he isn’t going to bust a cap in anyone’s ass.

Reached at home for comment, Mr. Jones expressed frustration at what he deemed “a lack of respek” from fellow hip-hop artists and their entourages, which consist mostly of overpaid, untalented hype-men and old neighborhood playmates.

“Mike Jones is just aksin’ all the haters to recognize that Mike Jones be livin’ the thug life. Mike Jones still slap a ho, Mike Jones still smokin’ weed and ridin’ whips. But Mike Jones don’t think guns is the answer. They create a self-perpetuating cycle of violence and lead to the degeneration of society as a whole. Believe dat.”

Mr. Jones went on to add:

“Mike Jones.”

"The Message from Water"

Ever hear of Masaru Emoto? Neither had I (unfortunately) until an interesting mid-meeting conversation with some of my coworkers yesterday.

Masaru Emoto is a Japanese researcher that has done some fascinating work with the formation of water crystals and in his book, “The Message from Water,” makes the claim that human vibrational energy, thoughts, words, ideas and music affect the molecular structure of water.

His research began when, by freezing and photographing water crystals, he discovered that water from different sources has different crystalline structures.

On the left is an image of a water crystal from Biwako Lake, a large polluted lake at the center of Japan. On the right is a crystal from Sanbu-Ichi Yusui Spring Water.

Playing off the popularity of music therapy, Emoto then decided to look into the affect music had on the formation of water crystals.

On the left you are looking at a water crystal that was "listening" to Beethoven's Pastoral. On the right, a Tibetan Sutra.

This is when Emoto took the truly revolutionary step. By placing certain words on glass bottles overnight he hoped to show a link between thoughts and crystal formation. The results were astonishing.

Above are two crystals formed in bottles with positive words on them. On the left was "love and appreciation and on the right was "thank you."

The two crystals above were formed in the negative bottles. On the left was written "You make me sick, I will kill you" and on the right "Adolf Hitler."

So what does it all mean? Is it really possible that an inanimate object such as water can “react” to human energy? What causes the reaction: the words themselves or the thoughts and intentions of the person placing the words on the bottle?

Emoto himself admits this is a difficult question to answer. I like to believe it is the positive or negative human energy that causes the differing crystal formations. After all, I’m guessing water, reactionary or not, can’t read.

To provide further evidence that human intention affects water crystals, Emoto performed experiments with prayer. Check this out:

Stop and think about the implications. Our thoughts, our intentions, our prayers, all have an immediate impact on our surroundings. It’s out there, but Emoto has demonstrated that we have the control to make our world ugly or beautiful with only our positive or negative energy.

So believe in the power of prayer and the resounding effects of good deeds. Wish your coworkers a good morning. Buy your girlfriend or wife or mother flowers for no reason. Take your dad fishing. Pray a prayer of blessing for a complete stranger just because you can. And watch your world beautify (if nothing else, at least the water will look better).

Be positive and be well.

Thanks for reading.

P.S. Of course I realize the irony of Zizzle-Zot telling other people to be positive (particularly when placed back to back with yesterday's post, among others). It's definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Whether or not I can follow my own advice in real life remains to be seen.

But rest assured that for the purposes of Zizzle-Zot, etc. I will remain a cynical ass.

Live Earth: An Aggressively Stupid Endeavor

I don’t mind that celebrities have their little pet causes. I really don’t. A number of them do a great deal of good. Because of their public persona and the cult of celeb-idolatry that has overtaken the world they are often able to raise awareness and funds that would be impossible for the average citizen to match.

But periodically celebrities’ self-delusional perceptions of grandeur go too far. They start to envision themselves as the saviors of humanity. They start to believe that all thoughts passing through their perfectly quaffed skulls are somehow revolutionary, genius, and ought to be thrust upon the huddled masses (us). They become like monkeys hurling their (pseudo-intellectual) shits at eager zoo patrons.

Occasionally we are confronted with a perfect storm of pet causes and celebrity narcissism in which large swaths of self-righteous, smug camera mongers converge simultaneously on one seemingly important issue. The swirling skies of half-baked global concerns collide with swelling ego-clouds, and we (the victims) are then subjected to a hellish awareness-raising event so illogical in its concoction, so blinded by its own presumptuousness, so satisfied by its own grandiosity that we have no choice but to accept, without question, that these celebrities must be accomplishing some great feat for humanity.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Live Earth.

Saturday’s 24 hour bonanza of concerts and celebrity speakers, spanning all seven continents, was a disgrace to environmentalism. Al Gore, we deserve better.

Think about the premise: to raise awareness of climate change we will bring together major musical acts (Madonna, Dave Matthews, Kanye West, Ludacris, Keith Urban, the list goes on) and high profile celebrities (Leonardo Dicaprio, Cameron Diaz, Kevin Bacon, etc.) to sing songs and tell people that they should recycle?

I hope (though I’m not optimistic) that even the most sniveling of the dunderheaded twits attending these concerts (or watching them on TV) could see the inherent idiocity. Putting the controversy of climate change aside (I personally think the jury’s still out. Climate shifts are not unique to this era if you take the whole of Earth’s history into account. Regardless, pollution is a major problem), but putting all that aside, to encourage people to take environmental action, these celebrities jumped on gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting airplanes, plugged into energy consuming sound and light equipment, drew crowds that produced enormous amounts of paper and plastic waste (and coincidentally also burned through untold quantities of fossil fuels to get there), and then had the balls to tell US how WE could change the environment?

And let’s think about who the message is coming from. How eco-friendly is it to own multiple mega-mansions on sprawling estates? Tell me Madonna, I’m curious. And Luda, does that Hummer come in a hybrid? Don’t think we’re forgetting about that whole dumping your feces in the Chicago River incident, Dave Matthews.

I could dedicate my entire life to polluting, emitting and all-inclusively raping the environment, and (presuming I never become fabulously wealthy) not leave a fraction of the environmental footprint that these people leave.

So pardon me, celebrities, if I tell you all to go f&#@ yourselves.

Let’s be honest: Live Earth was not so much an event to manifest eco-consciousness as it was an exercise in ego-consciousness. It gave these people another opportunity to inflate their own sense of worth, to delude themselves into thinking they are worthwhile, nay, indispensable human beings, and to self-righteously parade themselves as goodwill incarnate.

The saving grace was Bono’s conspicuous absence. Normally the headliner in celeb-advocacy events, whatever shred of dignity the celebrosphere maintains rests on his shoulders as one of the few able to see the megalomaniacal hypocrisy that was Live Earth.

Thanks for reading.


P.S. A tangent to the discussion of the last two days: I don’t know if you all have heard, but the Pope issued a proclamation declaring that Catholicism is the only “true religion” and that no other denomination “holds the means to Salvation”…So it looks like we’re all screwed anyways.

Is the Bible Inerrant? Part Deux

Yesterday I established that I have some serious issues believing in the inerrancy of the Bible. But what does that mean? How does this affect my faith, my world view, my perception of existence and our relationship to a higher realm?

Theologians have proposed another way around the issue. There is a school of thought that believes the Bible is infallible and holds that the Book is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not on issues of science and history. Does that mean God can make mistakes? That He didn’t understand the scientific workings of the universe which he created? That He was unable to divinely inspire his authors to get the historical facts straight?

If you ask me, this is blasphemy. One could argue that man’s misconceptions about history and science are at fault. True, the men who wrote the Bible didn’t have the understanding or technological advancements that we enjoy now, but think about what this argument is really saying. It’s saying that these men were incapable of understanding the science and history of the world around them, and should not be expected to have such a capacity, yet they were able to, without error, decipher the Divine Mystery. They were able to comprehend the Nature and Will of God, fathom the unfathomable vastness that is the Creator of the Universe, and envision God’s Kingdom as He would see fit. I doubt it. This theory doesn’t give God the credit He deserves. It is arguing that the complexities of earthbound affairs are more difficult to grasp than the infinite complexities of its Creator. Not an assertion I’d be willing to make.

Then again, maybe I’m the blasphemer.

Since I have such difficulty accepting the nature of the Bible as inerrant, and since I find the theory of infallibility to be an implausible detour, I guess I have just one question left to ask myself: Does it matter?

Can I call myself a Christian and question the Bible as much as I do? That’s a difficult query, and I’ll answer it by saying: no with a maybe and yes with a but…

If I were to define Christianity as a “religion” in the traditional sense of the word, then my skepticism and my Christianity would most likely be incompatible. Christianity as a formal religion is heavily steeped in doctrine drawn from the Bible and leaves little room for questioning.

So it’s lucky (convenient?) for me that I don’t define Christianity as the church. My quandaries with Biblical inerrancy don’t necessarily inhibit my ability to shape my life as a man of God. I don’t doubt the existence of God, nor do I doubt His awesome power, boundless nature, or infinite graciousness. I believe the Bible is a valuable teaching tool that ought to be used as a guide to morality and righteousness. I believe we should all strive to model our lives after the life of Jesus and uphold his appeals to care for the “least of these.”

But do I accept the Bible at face value, as the absolute Word of God? I don’t know anymore…

Maybe I just lack the courage required of true faith.

Thanks for reading.


P.S. Thanks to all for their comments on the “Is the Bible Inerrant?” post. As always, they were insightful and have helped me immensely in the gestation process.

Drew-bee, I’ve gotta say I’m envious of your faithfulness. It’s not always easy to believe.

P Corcs and Late Night Cassel, I think you two represent counterpoints that, intentionally or not, demonstrate interesting dichotomies on the issue of Biblical inerrancy. P Corcs, you take the all or nothing approach. Either A) the Bible is the divine, inspired Word of God, in which case it must (by definition) be inerrant, or B) the Bible is a religious work created by man, in which case it is subject to error.

Your justification for the either/or approach is strong, and admittedly a little scary. If we took the stance that some of the Bible is inspired and some isn’t it would be easy to pick and choose which parts we followed and which parts we ignored. Such a stance holds some potentially ghastly consequences.

But I think Late Night Cassel has proposed a third option in his “Bible as metanarrative” interpretation. Perhaps the Bible is a divinely inspired story, designed to give us a glimpse of the nature of God, to give us the experience of resurrection, to show us that throughout history God has been at the side of His Creation without fail. So while the specific text may not be inerrant, the story is.

Or maybe we’re all way off and God is laughing at us as we type.

Is the Bible Inerrant?

This question has been cause for much debate between both religious leaders and Biblical scholars. It is a divisive issue that often pits Christians against fellow Christians. It is a question that I have wrestled with time and again in my search for true faith.

If the Bible isn’t the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God, then what purpose does it serve for those seeking truth, morality and the will of God? If the Bible does in fact contain errors, inconsistencies, discrepancies, then can we use it as our guide in navigating life? If the entire Bible isn’t absolutely, entirely infallible, then what parts are? Do we get to pick and choose which parts to heed and which to ignore? If this is the case, then what exactly is Christianity based on other than an arbitrary selected set of doctrines?

Yet the more I ponder it, the more I find myself doubting the inerrancy of the Bible.

It’s not that I doubt that the Bible is the Word of God. I do believe that He inspired the text and that the message of the Bible is the message of God. Nor do I doubt the historical accuracy of Bible. I’m aware that there are numerous corroborating texts from the time period which attest to its historicity.

But to say that the Bible is the absolute, unaltered, inerrant word of God is, for me, a bit of a logical stretch. Allow me to explain why:

The primary logical hurdle is the answer to the question: How do we know that the Bible is inerrant? I wish I knew my theology better, but the standard first response to this question (that I have heard) is that we know the Bible is inerrant because scripture, which is the divinely inspired word of God, attests to its inerrancy. Inerrancy proponents will then quote some piece of scripture, most likely 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

I’m sure you all see the circular reasoning and logical absurdity of this argument. The Bible is inerrant because it says it is? Put the God issue, along with personal attachments and beliefs, aside for one moment and look at the preposterousness of this logic with me. As a text free from religious attachments, this supporting evidence for inerrancy is less than paper thin. There is no other book in the world that Christianity believes to be true simply because it proclaims its own truthfulness.

Everything the Bible says is true. How do we know? Because the Bible says that everything the Bible says is true, and everything the Bible says is true. Huh?

To further illustrate, take a look at the following statement: Everything I say is a lie. Was that statement a lie? Of course. Everything I say is a lie. But if everything I say is a lie, then so was that statement, which means everything I say is true. So the truth is, everything I say is a lie. Confused yet? Yeah, me too.

Internal justification simply doesn’t work. If I made a movie and introduced it by stating that it was inerrant, would that make it so? Absolutely not. You’d have to be a madman (or woman. Zizzle-Zot doesn’t discriminate) to take me at my word. So why do so many so readily accept the inerrancy of the Bible?

Now things get dicey, because to answer that question we must bring the God issue back into the picture. To believe in God requires a certain degree of blind faith, and that means at times we are required to take God at His word. If God says something is truth it’s probably best not to question it.

But is the Bible the absolute, 100%, without a doubt Word of God? I don’t know if I can believe that either.

The Bible, as we know it, was first approved at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397 AD (feel free to dispute the historical accuracy of this, if it’s wrong. It’s been a while since I took Introduction to the Bible). Though the 27 books of the New Testament had been read and distributed widely (give or take) by Christian groups for hundreds of years, the 3rd Council of Carthage was the first to officially canonize them.

So let’s take a step back and look at what we have here: A collection of letters and stories written by men and then compiled by men. Yes I believe that the canonizers were (or at least the majority were) holy, righteous men that were truly concerned with the spreading of God’s message and the welfare of the church. But do we not imagine that these men had even slightly differing perceptions of what God’s message was, or differing ideas of what was best for the church? They did, after all, rise to influence over 300 years after the life of Jesus and were, in effect, far removed from the context of His teachings.

Do we not imagine that there was a minority that would be motivated by personal ambition, self interest, and insidious ends? A minority that had come to a position of power and influence in the church and would do what it took to maintain that position, even if that meant including or excluding books, books that perhaps supported or refuted said minority’s specific teachings, from Christianity’s holiest text?

And if this 3rd Council of Carthage was truly anointed by God to assemble the text that would be the guiding light for Christianity, where were the women? Where was representation from other parts of the world? Research I have done indicates that the 3rd Council of Carthage was in fact a regional council consisting mostly of bishops in Africa. Are we to believe that God didn’t see fit to include a more diverse cross section of humanity in the canonization process?

To put it in a modern context, imagine assembling the most influential Christian leaders of today to canonize a new Bible. We’d probably have the Pope, Billy Graham, maybe Brennan Manning, Rick Warren, Jim Wallis, Desmond Tutu if we’re lucky, etc. But then I imagine James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (RIP) would show up for the conversation. With these last three on the list do you suppose we would end up with a Bible reflecting the inerrant voice of God? Me neither. We would be left with a bias catalogue of personal interests and pet doctrines. It really isn’t even fair to limit the fault to Dobson, Robertson and Falwell. Wallis, Warren and Manning have their specialized scriptural interpretations as well.

The point is, the leaders of the church today would not be capable of abandoning their limited personal world views to truly recognize the Will and Word of God, so why do we imagine it was any different at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397?

I’m going to stop there for today. I need some time to let my mind wrap around itself (weird, I know). I’ll be back tomorrow with whatever semblance of a conclusion I can come up with for this maze. Let me know your thoughts…

Thanks for reading.

Zizzle-Zot, etc. Announces New Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month

After a long, arduous selection process and hours spent sifting through the resumes of numerous qualified applicants, the brain-trust behind Zizzle-Zot, etc. has finally agreed upon the recipient of the prestigious Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month award for the month of July.

So without further ado, the next keeper of this proud and auspicious tradition is…none other than loyal lunchtime Zizzle-Zot, etc. reader Joe “Joey” Ritchie.

Zizzle-Zot, etc. would like to congratulate Joey on this well deserved honor and would like to take the opportunity to thank Joe for his daily readership of the Blog, as well as for his timely commentary. Committed readers like him keep Zizzle-Zot writing.

Joey, like past Reader of the Month winner P Corcs, graduated from Bethel University in St. Paul, MN where he established his legacy by farting loudly during class and putting smoothie in P Corcs belly button. He now works at Manor Concrete and when he’s not tearing up the volleyball court at BeBops you can probably find him playing with his puppy or holding down the VIP lounge at Aqua.

Hopefully being awarded Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month will be just the start of the most memorable month of Joey’s life as he prepares to marry the lovely Monica “Mo” Thompson on July 28th. The prayers and blessings of Zizzle-Zot, etc. are with him as he celebrates this momentous occasion (can’t wait).

Good work, buddy!


If you didn’t win Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month this time around, don’t be disheartened. There will be many more opportunities to win the award, and Zizzle-Zot, etc. does not overlook the contributions of any of its readers. Remember to comment when you have thoughts on a post. Make your voice heard. Just think…next month it could be you.

A Zizzle-Zot Honorable Mention goes out to recent commenters Drewbie, Christopher, and of course former Reader of the Month P Corcs. I appreciate all your thoughts.

Patriotism

I realize I promised you all on Tuesday that today would be the day for the unveiling of the next Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month. I also realize that this event has been patiently waited for, with no small amount of anticipation, by a number of Zizzle-Zotians for a number of days. I’m sorry to tell you all that you’ll have to wait one more. Call me a liar, but take my word that tomorrow will be the day (I just admitted to being a liar and proceeded to ask you to take my word…a paradox, I know).

I have the next Reader of the Month selected. I even have the congratulatory post written. The reason for the delay is a selfish one. Last night while I was watching fireworks I got to thinking. And you all know what happens when Zizzle-Zot gets to thinking.

I’m not usually overly sentimental when it comes to holidays. I think about pumpkin pie on thanksgiving, not the pilgrims. Labor Day is a good excuse to sleep in. Even religious holidays don’t do much for me. I have a hard time focusing on the cross on Good Friday or the birth of Jesus on Christmas. I tend to find that truly revelatory religious experiences arrive unexpectedly and can’t be coordinated to happen once or twice a year on assigned dates.

Likewise, the 4th of July has always been a day of lakeside barbeques, yard games, and of course fireworks. But for inexplicable reasons my mind was cranking at full gear for this year’s celebration and I wasn’t allowed the pleasure of enjoying such simplicities. Instead I was thinking about what the 4th of July means to me, if anything.

The day, as most Americans know, commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. It was the day that the United States of America became, in effect, the United States of America by declaring its independence of Britain.

The 4th of July is a celebration of the United States. It’s a celebration to remember and thank the founding fathers, to commemorate the history of our country and to proudly display our patriotism by engorging our senses with grotesque quantities of food and loud explosions (sorry, wasn’t trying to be a smartass, but couldn’t resist).

But last night I had to ask myself a very important question: Am I a patriot? As many of you know, I believe this country’s leaders have dropped the ball on a number of issues. I’m not going to stand up as a Bush-basher and pretend like he is the only one to blame. As much as we like to nostalgically reminisce about the great presidents that came before, it would be foolish to imagine that they were perfect. EVERY administration has dropped the ball in one way or another. It’s because we’re humans and we are, as a species, idiots.

But patriotism doesn’t mean accepting the status quo. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question the decisions of the men and women we choose to lead us. It doesn’t mean we should be passive and submissive in the face of authority.

To be a patriot means to have pride in one’s homeland, to appreciate the values of one’s homeland, and to recognize that one owes a certain debt to one’s homeland. In this sense I am a patriot through and through. I have been given freedoms and opportunities in the United States that I would not get anywhere else in the world. I have the freedom to say what I want to say, read what I want to read, do what I want to do. I have the freedom to pursue an education and career, and (sadly) I have the freedom to choose not to.

I also have the freedom to dissent. To be a patriot means to recognize that: yes, we have a great country here and go on to say: but it could be better. This is our freedom and this is our burden. America has made tremendous strides in addressing issues of justice, equality and civil liberties. We do more than any other nation in the world to address global poverty. Contrary to current belief, we still act as a beacon of hope to the oppressed people of the world (just look at how many people work themselves to the bone trying to get here). We must count our blessings that we were lucky enough to be born in a land of prosperity unknown to most of the world.

And once we’ve done that, let’s do our damndest to make it better. Rather than address world poverty, let’s eradicate world poverty. Rather than pass legislation to promote equality, let’s learn to mutually respect the inherent value of all people. In this we may find true equality. Rather than pass laws to enforce our justice, let’s instill in our children the value and meaning of justice. Let’s follow the advice of the wise and eminent sage Abraham Lincoln to focus less on whether God is on our side and to aspire always to be on God’s side, “for God is always right.”

Fellow patriots, let’s be thankful for our country. Now let’s make it better.

Thanks for reading.


“Patriotism consists of straining that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.”

One More Basketball Blog (Sorry Christopher)

I want it to be known that I’m a blogger dedicated to the readers and I will do my best to cater to the needs and requests of the loyal Zizzle-Zot-ians. So while it was my intention to set basketball aside for some time, I’m more than happy to resurrect the Timberwolves conversation as suggested by P Corcs.

You raise some interesting questions: How will Brewer fit in? What will happen with Garnett now that draft day has come and gone, and no significant moves were made? Will McHale need the Jaws of Life to remove his head from his own ass, where it became firmly lodged sometime after the Garnett draft and before the Joe Smith debacle? Okay, so you didn’t ask that last one, but I imagine you were thinking it (just as all T-wolves fans undoubtedly are).

I stand firm as a Brewer backer. He is a defensive stopper on a team that is alarmingly lackadaisical when it comes to guarding the basket (thank you very much, Ricky Davis). He is the kind of player that is capable of guarding the opponent’s top scorer night after night. He has incredible reach and is a top notch athlete, possessing the quickness and leaping ability to harass both shooters and slashers. His offensive game has shown vast improvement as well. He’s a good shooter and can attack the rim with the best of them. His ability to use screens has drawn comparisons to Rip Hamilton.

What I’ve really been impressed with about this guy is his character. Insiders say that he works hard every day, and scouts have been impressed by his dedication to putting on some much needed muscle. As much as I don’t like Joakim Noah, the two of them train together and are arguably the hardest workers in the draft (Oden should probably be added to this list as well). Brewer’s a proven winner, a team player (and we all know the T-Wolves need that) and a clutch performer.

The question remains, however, about where exactly he will fit. The Wolves have a surplus of players at the shooting guard/small forward position, most of them making more money than they’re worth. Of them, Rashad McCants and maybe Bracey Wright (as a bench option) are the only ones I care to keep around. Marko Jaric looks and plays like he’s hung over for most games. Ricky Davis plays like he’s still drunk. Trenton Hassel was touted as the defensive stopper that Brewer is, but now we see the reality that he only plays D in contract seasons. Turns out he is actually a lazy offensive-threat wannabe in disguise. Hudson, though he is labeled as a point guard, is an aspiring shooting guard in a point guard’s body. And he’s worthless.

What the Wolves need to do is trade, trade, trade. Take whatever we can still get for these bums. Trade them all for a Happy Meal if necessary. They’re consuming precious salary cap space and eating up the entire taco buffet on the team airplane. Get rid of them all and start Foye (who still needs to learn the point guard position, but he’s coming along), McCants, and Brewer.

Now for the Garnett issue. The way I see it, we have a major problem. By openly shopping him the front office has shown their cards; Garnett does have a price tag. The bond of loyalty has been irreparably severed. By not getting the draft-day deal done they have put themselves in an awkward position; kind of like breaking up with a girl only to find out she’s your new assistant. Now that the T-wolves brass have shown their true colors, why in his right mind would Garnett continue to be loyal to them? Next year he can opt out of his contract and go to A) a team that has a shot at a championship or B) a team that will pay him a hell of a lot of money. Either way, why stay in a cold state with a dwindling fan base to play with a bunch of proven losers?

The Wolves need to get a deal done before Garnett’s contract is up. If not, they will lose him to free agency and have nothing to show for it. The problem is that, in my humble opinion, McHale is incapable of getting a blockbuster deal done. He is the doormat of NBA GM’s, and any Garnett trade he does manage to put together will inevitably leave us holding the short end of the stick (Garnett for Ron Artest? Deal.)

Thanks for reading.


No post tomorrow in honor of Independence Day. Look for the unveiling of the next Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month on Thursday.

Tool

Tool is arguably the most artistically innovative rock band of the last 15 years. Their songs combine expressive guitar effects, driving syncopated rhythms, engaging vocals and insightful, intensely introspective lyrics. Their unique style has reshaped the landscape of metal, has shifted the paradigm of what a song can be, and has influenced countless successors.

Lead singer Maynard James Keenan, an odd man by all accounts, was born a Baptist, served in the army, and moonlights as a comedian (he appeared in several guest spots on Mr. Show). His idea of an April fool’s joke is to tell his fans he has left the band after “finding jesus” (notice the deliberately lowercase “j”).

Drummer Danny Carey (whom I would argue is the best drummer. Ever. Period.) is a professed student of occult teachings and employs sacred geometrical figures in his percussive technique, which explains his unique sound. According to the Tool website he uses drumming as an occult ritual “with purposes varying from spiritual exploration to a gateway which summons a demon he has contained that has been delivering short parables similar to passages within The Book of Lies." I don’t even know what that means, but I’d say it qualifies him as a bonafide rock star.

Guitarist Adam Jones, along with being ranked the 75th greatest guitarist of all time by Rolling Stone Magazine, is a sculptor and film special effects designer (he is responsible for all of Tool’s music videos). Jones worked on the sets of Jurassic Park, Ghostbusters 2, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Dances with Wolves, among others.

At least bassist Justin Chancellor is relatively normal. Then again…he does play the bass.

Honestly, Tool creeps me out a little bit. I dig their mainstream stuff, but some of the obscure recordings are a little over the top for me (abstract in a bizarre sort of way). The lead-ins to some songs are overly grandiose and heavy-handed and some of the videos are a little gruesome. But then again, when I want to rock there are few other bands I’d rather listen to.

Now that I think about it, it would be more accurate to say that Tool fans creep me out a lot. The jagged facial piercings and chain-laden pants make me wonder why some people subject themselves to such great inconveniences to prove they don’t care. The hatred of sunshine and refusal to smile make me wonder what it’s like to be angry all the time. The glares and scowls make me wonder if they are all bipolar and collectively forgot to take their medication.

Needless to say, I went into Tuesday night’s concert at the Xcel Energy Center with a dash of trepidation. What crazy costumes would Keenan grace the stage with? How many poor kids would leave the mosh pit bloodied and bruised? What curiosities would I be exposed to in this strange circle of hell?

My fears were put to rest when the lights went out and a swath of smoke rose to the rafters. So they’re potheads…at least they’re peaceful. Then Tool took the stage. No pomp or circumstance, no production, just a band ready to rock. Keenan wore a green T-shirt, boot-cut jeans and a cowboy hat. Carey was wearing a Steve Nash Jersey. Jones knockoff Adidas track pants. Chancellor a short sleeve button-up he must have stolen from my dad’s closet. Just four regular dudes that know how to play; four artistic geniuses with no need for the dramatic staging or costuming that poisons rock music.

The pulsing crowd turned equal parts frenzied and ecstatic as the band took up their instruments and, without a word, Jones picked out the reverberating guitar riff that introduces Jambi. Carey went to work, hands moving so fast they looked as if they weren’t moving at all. And as Keenan flailed atop the platform positioned at the back of the stage, his figure silhouetted by the flames burning on the screens behind him, I realized that, creepy or not, this was going to be one hell of a show.

Thanks for reading.


P.S. Due to popular demand I’ll have one more basketball post tomorrow, and look for the selection of the next Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month in the very near future. I try not to disappoint.