Showdown in Fargo, or, Lest we forget this blogger is a sports writer

Open publication - Free publishing - More delta state

Just in case anyone forgot that this blog is run by a sports writer at heart, here's my most recent work.

Have I done this yet?

I don't know if I have formally done this yet or not, if I have, sorry, if I have not, here goes.

I hereby formally renounce my associations with the Republican Party and any membership I hold therein. Next time I'm at the DMV I'll ask how to formally change to independent if that's possible.

I'm doing this on its own, not attached to an issue, because I want to make clear that I'm not mad about any one thing and that this is not entirely reactionary.

I was a Republican because I am a conservative, and I have a strong belief in the pro-life issues they once championed. Though Republicans still claim to be a pro-life conservative party, that statement is not true objectively. It is true that they are more conservative and pro-life than Democrats, but that's not good enough for me.

I am not opposed to voting Republican, and in fact, I'm still more likely to vote for them than for Democrats. I am not opposed to one day coming back into the fold or even one day to accept Republican support in the event I ran for office. But as for being a rank and file elephant, I'm out.

Forgive me if it takes a while to stop saying "we" when talking about the party. I've been one officially for 10 years.

The party has become a thing I do not like, and I am done with that.

Pro-life, You're doing it wrong

I'm railing against my own today.

Conservative law makers in Arizona tend to be extreme on immigration, and now they're extreme on th pro-life issue. You'd think I'd welcome this, and I would if they were extreme only in their desire to end the practice of abortion through honest means (For example, saying they want to outlaw it, and attempting to do so).

Instead they've passed a series of troubling bills that I'm only just learning about and if my initial impressions of them are correct, I'm hereby publicly condemning them as intellectually dishonest, and even morally unacceptable laws.

For time's sake, I'll only focus on the biggest doozy. Arizona has passed a "Wrongful birth, wrongful life" law (which by the way is already law in nine other states). In this law, a doctor is given immunity from being sued if he withholds information from the parents about their unborn child that might cause them to seek an abortion.

I don't even know where to begin with this one but here goes.

1. A child born with a disability or disease ABSOLUTELY has the same right to life as one born without those things. But a parent has a moral and legal right to know the status of their unborn child's health regardless of how that will effect their intentions.

2. Withholding the information will put the parents at a disadvantage when they could have spent the last nine months preparing for their special needs child, emotionally, financially and as far as any home care needs.

3. It's just bull. I appreciate the sentiment, I do. Trying to save more kids from the evil of abortion is good. But ends do NOT justify the means in my understanding of the world.


I want to see the practice of abortions ended, but I don't want to screw around with it. On most issues, I advocate changing people's hearts and minds, and then changing the laws. However, on some issues the laws must change first because of the urgency of the situation. That's where I stand on abortion.

But we are full of crap if we think that allowing a doctor to lie, even by omission, to those in their care is a step in a good direction. It isn't.

John's attempt to get....well, I'm not sure what the goal is

Some of you may remember my quasi-regular posts about weight loss called John's Attempt to Get Less Fat....well the attempts have continued with some success while the postings have not.

For those still keeping score at home, I now weigh 297.6 pounds, which is 42-45 pounds total loss since last April (the number is unclear because the starting weight wasn't written down anywhere I can find). I hoped to hit 50 pounds before April ends, but I'm not going to push it. I'm happy with the progress.

Anyways so after dealing with a possible virus, low blood pressure and then a very annoying and probably never going to totally go away other problem (Don't worry I'll live) I've started focuseing on this fitness stuff again. A few little walks, some physical work days, and most importantly, the resuming of playing semi-competitive table tennis against co-worker Todd.

We've decided that February and early March just might be the yearly off-season for what we've dubbed the Not Professional Ping Pong Association (NPPPA, t-shirts coming soon?)

But we're back. I won week 1, Todd won week 2 and we were off this week. Play should resume for the NPPPA proper when I face Todd on Thursday but I've got an "exhibition" with possible NPPPA member, my boss Jason, on Tuesday.

So why so much table tennis? After beating up on each other for a solid year, Todd and I have decided we want to see just how good we are, and we plan to enter the Bluegrass Games <a href="http://www.bgsg.org/">Bluegrass State Games</a> this year. For a modest entry fee, we can each compete in USATT style competition for our age group and singles open play, and we'll also have a shot to play doubles together.

I've watched some video of last year's event... We're not likely to do very well. But I've been losing motivation on my workouts of late and the only thing that ever got me to take fitness seriously was regularly scheduled athletic competition. So I'm hoping this will serve to motivate me.

I got a new racket (trainer model, nothing special) and we're going to step it up between now and July with training. We're also going to visit the Lexington Table Tennis Club for some pointers and practice between now and then.

Will we be the best in Kentucky? No, I don't think so. Can we win a match? I don't see why not.

So here's to the stoking of my competitive fire. Let's hope there's enough fuel to keep it burning.

Also, have a happy Easter folks.

We talking bout sports? Really?

It has been some times since the topic of sports was broached here  on the account that actually started out as a sports blog, but today's a good day for it.

Today the town I live in (Lexington, Ky.) is celebrating a national basketball championship while the town I'm from has reportedly signed former NL MVP Joey Votto to a big boy contract of 225 million over 10 years. That's REAL PLAYER money. That's almost Yankees money.

So let's start with basketball. As many of you know, despite a former massive interest in all sports, I've really not cared so much the last few years. I think it is a product of working in sports that it becomes a job and no longer a passion. And even when I was a big sports guy, I didn't like college sports that much.

And even when I did sort of follow college sports, I didn't care a whole lot for the University of Kentucky. But now, I live in it's Mecca. As I type before starting work on Tuesday, I'm wearing a UK basketball t-shirt (clearance, $8) and everyone else is too. I'm going downtown in a few hours to hock programs from the Final Four as collectors items.

It's neat to be in a town that's won a national title, when the town really cares about it. It was a little like when the Reds won the NL Central in Cincinnati, I wasn't there, but I read and heard a lot about it. It really, and perhaps sadly, was one of the cooler moments of my life.

This was different though, as here I'm an observer, not really a fan. I watched the game and literally within seconds of Kentucky's winning, I heard shouting and cheering in my apartment complex. Then I heard car horns from far off. Next came fireworks, so many fireworks, for roughly an hour.

Not long after that of course came the sounds of police and fire engines, but I digress. Seeing the celebration unfold, I was a little jealous I'm not really one of them, but then I see the drunks burning cars and I'm glad I'm not one of them. Such is my strange relationship anymore with sports.


Anyways, as for the Reds, this is some big news. I can't stress enough how strange it is for such a small market team to spend so much money. This is the kind of decision an owner needs to make to win.

Joey Votto is big time. He's the real deal and is one of the five best players in baseball. He's ours now for all of his career that will matter. That's good.

What's bad is I don't see how we can re-sign second baseman, all-star and fan favorite Brandon Phillips now with all our money tied up in Votto, but that's the cost of doing business. I hope the Reds find a way to keep Phillips too, he's really a fantastic player and a great community guy too, but if we could only keep one, we made the right choice.

The last thing in my mind left for the Reds to do is to crap or get off the pot with Aroldis Champman. They're paying the Cuban Missile more than he's worth to pitch the most meaningless parts of the game. Middle relievers are a dime a dozen. He needs to be a starter, or a closer and he needs to either have that role with the Reds, or be sent to the minors where he can play that role and learn it.

Wasting him in a limbo where he won't develop or be of any great use is an abomination to the baseball gods.

But I digress, point is today's not such a bad day to be a sports fan in Cincinnati or the entire Commonwealth of Kentucky.

An analogy for the current healthcare debate

This is something I posted on my facebook today, somewhat randomly, but despite the simplifications, I think it makes sense.

"An exercise in thought: Why should my employer be forced to pay for me to get orthopedic care if I break my leg? I don't even need a leg for this job. (This is all hypothetical, my leg is fine) You could argue that it would make me a better and happy employee if they did provide this service. You could argue it would be the decent thing to do. You could argue that proper bone health and care is important to overall health. But if they made a rule today, for any reason they like, that orthopedic care on legs (or anything else) was no longer covered, I don't think the government should be able to do a damn thing about it… Health insurance is a nice, and productive, service many employers offer. If they want to provide it fully, partially, randomly….whatever, I just don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Mental Image: A Company Personified is walking down the street and comes across a homeless person right near his property. He decides to give the guy 20 dollars. The government steps in and says not so fast evil businessman. This guy needs way more than 20 dollars. I know you think you're doing a good thing here, but this guy needs rehab, job training, housing and education to really improve his life, so we are FORBIDDING you to give him just 20 dollars unless you give him all those other things.

That's stupid. It's just as stupid to tell a company they can't provide any health insurance unless they provide everything the president's administration says they should provide."

I think there's an idea worth fleshing out in here. I'll try to get to it soon. March will end eventually and life will go on. For now, back to work.

The Greatest Threat to religious liberty

When considering this I'd narrowed it down pretty fast to Islam, or rampant secularism. I also considered a Christian theocratic system, but I just can't see that getting any real traction. The people who would vote for the people that would impose that really aren't religious, they just care about gay marriage and abortion.

Also, Christianity is thoroughly trained at existing within the system. We've co-existed with governments for a long time with fewer speed bumps than one might think, but I digress.

While I agree that radical islam is bad, and scary, it doesn't win. Radical islam taking hold worldwide would be disastrous to religious freedom, but in a decently run Muslim empire, they do tend to let Christians and other faiths do their thing with their own people. That is the crux of the issue.

But instead of either, I chose the the secular leaning "dictatorship of relativism."

I'll give the eye rolls a moment to subside.

It is my belief, that there is a growing movement in this nation, and I hypothesize it's not unique to us, that seeks to restrict religion to the privacy of one's own home. That is to say, to make it only a matter between a man and his God.

I don't believe we are on the verge of seeing laws passed to this effect, and in fact, I don't believe we'll ever see such laws. I believe we won't need them.

I'm going to rely on Christianity as the example here because I'm one and let's be honest, we're the big dog on the street anyway.

But we live in a county, and world leader of a country, that doesn't recognize good and evil anymore. We live in a place where if you attempt to judge the morality of any person's action, you are almost automatically considered a bigot.

How is this a threat to religion? Because clearly, religions judge actions. We're not talking here about issues that effect the state. We're simply, at this point, discussing judgement, which is internal.

There is the idea that any action is ok so long as no one gets hurt, or loses property.

Stay with me.

This attitude, leads most to then judge religions and the religious as out of touch, for believing that anything is morally wrong. Ignoring the obvious irony, I believe that has really seeped into our national moral identity.

We've become a nation that is tolerant of every thing a person can conceivably do, but one that is hostile to any group that dares to say thou shall not.

Taking this one step further, the great secular majority (And I know most people claim to be Christian but let's be honest, all most do is say, yeah Jesus is love and go about their lives thinking God wants them to be happy so they can do whatever) then begins to take this attitude toward religions.

If all things are permissible, then all religions are permissible. And if we stopped there, we'd be ok. Next, if all things are permissible, but a religion is trying to say that something isn't permissible (even if they aren't attempting to legislate it), then only one can be right.

And we so believe in the fallacy that all things are permissible, that we now seek to turn the opposite idea into crimethink.

Aside: I want you all to know that I'm sorry this blog isn't as well done as it could be, it's been a freaking TERRIBLE week at work. Very busy, and I've had little free time.

Anyways, the attitude that it's wrong for any group to dare tell anyone what they should believe permeates almost everything.

We can't have Kirk Cameron going on about mainstream evangelical views on gay marriage without assaulting his character with outlandish headlines. What right has he to an opinion?

We can't let the Church tell it's own employees that if they work for them, they don't get free condoms and other BC methods covered by insurance. How dare they?

And again, I'm not saying people can't or shouldn't criticize. They're welcome too, that's freedom. But there is a snowballing effect right now against religion.

And I believe the natural end of that snowballing will be a cultural turning of the tides against the open and outward practice of religions.

To summarize.

Our society believes all things are permissible.
This is in contrast to most religious views.
Therefore, our society views religion with disdain.
Therefore, our society is becoming more and more hostile toward religion
The natural result of this will be a cultural, and perhaps eventual legislative, shift against the open practice of faith.