Refs Don't Win Games (or Lose them)

I played soccer when I was five. After my team won a few games, we lost a game. I got in the car with my parents, and I proceeded to tell my dad that we lost because the refs were bad at their job. He quickly informed me that you never lose a game because of the Refs. He told me that if we had done what we were supposed to do or were better at the game, we would have won. He said it in such a matter-of-fact way, that I immediately changed my tune.

My dad did not tell me to not complain about the refs. In fact, I never remember him doing so in all my years of having refs in a variety of sports and games. I do remember him showing me the foolishness of attempting to blame the incompetence of my team and me on refs. It became so ingrained in me that my first thought when people complain about the refs is that they must not be smart enough to realize the opportunities they had to win.

Now, Marc and I were involved in an event where if the Ref did not effect the outcome of the game, he certainly would have had we come closer to challenging. When a non-existent rule is called upwards of 15 times in a game, all on one team, then you know there is an issue. But that isolated instance aside (and the others like them, Tim Donaghy), I think the conclusion is correct.

Now, I watched the Green Bay-Seattle game. I will start by saying that neither of these teams tickle my fancy, and I would have quite content to see them both lose (or if they can keep the Saints out of the Playoffs, both win). I love football, but other than the NFC East, I really like to cheer for teams in the AFC. Having said that, the game was horribly officiated in the sense that bad calls were abundant, particularly Pass Interference on both sides. Granting Rodgers the first down on that replay seemed impossible.

My goal is not to list the litany of mistakes made by the refs, as I am sure if I received such scrutiny in my job, I, too, would be a failure. There is a reason why schools usually consider a 90% to be an A. Perfection just isn't happening. Neither the old refs nor anyone else would call a perfect game.

It is easy to realize that missed calls are always part of the game, but the main issue with new refs should be things like flow of the game, ability to communicate through dialogue with the players, and things of that nature. Nevertheless, I still think my dad's point rings true. While Tate definitely interfered with that pass, I have seen blatant Pass Interference on hundreds of Hail Mary's in my football watching days, but never once have I seen it called. Why the sudden desire to be strict now? Because the "real" beef people have is the interception-touchdown call.

Sidebar. I think the Refs made the correct call on the last play. The NFL isn't a game of 500 in elementary school, where the person who catches it the "best" gets the points. The offensive player clearly has the advantage in the rules. The defender in this case, M.D. Jennings (which doctors should confirm is an awesome name), clearly had the ball better. But before he hit the ground, Golden Tate (who has an even better name) also acquired possession. They both had it when hitting the ground. This isn't a test of who had the ball more, but rather did the offensive player have it before possession was established [in case you were wondering, establishing possession requires controlling the ball, having two feet, and making a football move]. I submit he did. End of sidebar.

Regardless of where you fall on the last call, the Packers were aided by an incredible number of bad calls. All three scoring drives would have been cut short without questionable calls on third down. Their offensive line is the Swiss cheese of the NFL. Clear issues abounded during that game. If Jennings had just knocked it down as Chris Berman and Tom Jackson have been preaching on NFL Primetime (or, its current iteration as The Blitz), the game would be over.

Aaron Rodgers was never held to 12 points last year (when they got 14 the one time, they lost). This year with significant aid from the Refs, he was held to 12. The Packers put themselves in a position to be beat by one call, and they were. While I understand that one call affects games, I think that is a far different thing than deciding them. I have a friend who is an ardent fan of Ohio State. He blames a bad call on the opening kickoff for Ohio State's loss in the 2007 BCS National Championship Game.

Clearly we can see that such a call may have affected the game, but it did not decide it. No singular play decides a game. Did Boston College only win against Miami because of Doug Flutie's pass? No, if they had not played well the rest of the game, that play would be meaningless. Any time you leave it up to one play, you leave yourself open to such a possibility. Green Bay, even if they were the victims of a terrible call, put themselves in that spot.

I think Mike McCarthy has had the proper response. He's clearly upset, just as anyone would be naturally, but he is not taking to blaming. This is the one chance at success, in my opinion. Because I believe that blaming someone else and not accepting personal accountability is a sure way to become less effective. But that will have to be another post.

Mourning

Torrey Smith will apparently be playing tonight, just hours after learning that his brother passed away in a motorcycle accident. I've heard people applaud him and even more talk about the travesty his playing creates. I'm not sure the decision can be made without being inside his head, and I, for one, would not presume to have that kind of knowledge.

We all grieve differently. This became abundantly evident to me in a real way a couple of years ago. I was helping coach a Bible Quiz team, of which two-thirds of the team had their aunt die during the first day of competition. After they advanced to the finals against all odds, they were given the terrible news. One fan insisted that they should not quiz in the finals. Their mother, however, felt that they needed to quiz to honor their aunt.

Brett Favre played in a football game shortly after his father died, and my list will end there, as the List could be endless. There are those who feel being with their family and skipping the game or event is essential. And dependant upon what you do for a living, how duplicatable the situation is, and your relationship to the deceased and those that survive the deceased, it may be plainly obvious that you should go one way or the other.

Yet, for me, I will not be the one to tell you. Because for every Elaine Benes who gets dumped because she went back for Jujyfruits, there is a Bo Kimble, who leads a mediocre team farther than imaginable in the NCAA tournament.

So, as I am now watching Torrey torch the Patriots, I wonder, "Did he do the right thing?" I can't be sure, but one thing I know. I won't question him, and I don't think we should (unless you are his mother or otherwise related to him). He made a decision that fits his situation. At this point, the best thing we can do is pray for his family's peace and recovery.

What is a Peacemaker?

As Christians, we truly have enviable lives. It is quite exciting to realize how truly blessed we are. It was also nice to hear Pastor Curt preach on the blessing of being a peacemaker this last week. In my past, I have been to many churches where a culture of peacemaking was just not the norm. Many of those churches are great churches and do many things well, but I cannot tell you the overwhelming sense of safety that comes from being in such a church.

While Pastor Curt did a phenomenal job unpacking that verse, I couldn't help but think about the context of verses as a whole. And while these are different character traits that are separable to a degree, I believe they are not so much prescriptions for the written reward. Rather, I believe these are descriptions of those who are regenerate. Those who live their lives for Christ will be characterized and described as poor in spirit, mourning, meek, hungry and thirsty for righteousness, merciful, pure in heart, reviled and persecuted for Christ's name, and yes, peacemakers.

You see, if we are chosen by God, we will live these enviable lives that take on the characteristics Jesus named. I don't believe Jesus came up with a haphazard list based purely on a spur-of-the-moment emotion, like I've been known to do. This list of the fortunate ones is a comprehensive, connected list in my opinion. Therefore, when we look at how to be a peacemaker, of which PC's sermon did a fantastic job, we can further know that the other characteristics will be encompassed in our peacemaking.

A peacemaker will be poor in spirit. He will not be one who is setting his affection on this world or the arguments contained herein, but rather, he will be totally filled with a desire for redemptive conversation. He will be driven by what is important in the Kingdom of Heaven. To me, this means being kind, and remaining ardently supportive of the essentials of the Christian life and letting things that do not carry a Kingdom consequence to be glossed over. He will make peace by remaining poor in spirit!

A peacemaker will mourn. I, personally, believe that mourning is the first step to peacemaking. We don't attempt to solicit peace until we are brought to mourning by someone else. This is the impetus which drives us to superior desire to keep the peace with others. We will mourn, and we will be comforted. That comfort will come through our attempts to make peace. It gives us freedom to not dwell or be dragged down by someone else's life (even if it leads to our morning).

A peacemaker will be meek. I think the description of "how-to" achieve peace relies heavily on this meekness. My dad always gave the example of Hoss from the old TV show Bonanza. Meekness is strength under control. Often when making peace, we will forego our legal correctness and perhaps justified feelings for the assurance of peace with a brother or sister in Christ. We are not always doormats, and we know when the proper time to fight is, but we also are controlled in our strength. This is the heart of meekness. We are willing to give up something, because of the potential for peace. Peacemakers will be meek.

Peacemakers hunger and thirst for righteousness. Peace making is not merely about forgoing our rights, but rather seeking a righteous decision where God can be edified, rather than obscured. We hunger and thirst for this righteousness. And our peacemaking will draw us into a relationship with Him, where He is giving us a desire to pursue more and more righteousness. Peacemakers will hunger and thirst for righteousness!

Peacemakers will be merciful. Perhaps this is redundant, but there is a reason that Christ was repetitious. Sheep need things drilled in before they can catch on to such a concept. Mercy will define our actions. As Christ taught the parable of the one forgiven being required to likewise forgive, the mercy we have been given is so great, that we cannot help but to show mercy to others. This is a necessity to make peace, and peacemakers will be merciful!

Peacemakers will be pure in heart. True peacemaking is not about deceptively trying to get your way. True peacemaking is to purely achieve the best result for His kingdom. This is not the purity that describes us before our salvific experience. Nevertheless, it will be one of the enviable qualities that will describe us afterward. Peacemakers will be pure in heart!

Finally, peacemakers will be persecuted for the name of Christ. We will be reviled. Men will say all kinds of evil about us. This is one that the American church struggles to understand. We have lived lives largely devoid of persecution. I've spent many hours wondering if we could truly be part of the church with the lightness of our persecution. Even though Christians are attacked in many ways culturally (beliefs, actions, concerns, etc.), we lead lives largely of no persecution. But there will be. Even if we can avoid the persecution, people will revile us and speak all manner of evil against us. This is the call of a peacemaker.

So, as excited as you may be by reading the other characteristics, you may be just as depressed by hearing this. But take heart. Our Savior promised us that our reward is in heaven. He has promised us that we are blessed. And we can be excited that peacemakers will be persecuted!

Kindness

"And be ye kind on to another..."

I honestly have been torn apart by this command more than just about any other command. First of all, what is kindness? What is kindness not? Is kindness ever not required? What are the associated commands and how does that color our view?

Some may say that this is a silly internal debate, so I feel the need to clarify. Does kindness mean that you are always using soothing words or that you must always be nice to people? Does kindness mean that sometimes you need to tell someone the truth they don't want to hear for their ultimate benefit?

This is where I have my first sharp disagreement with some. I do not believe you are being kind to someone who needs the proverbial kick in the butt and does not get it from you, because of your quest for not offending. And since Ephesians 4:32 links kindness to God's forgiveness in Christ, I believe that we need to look to that for our guide. Christ did many things that others might not call kind. He criticized those who were "perfect" in their upholding the law (the Pharisees). He threw over tables when he saw others sinning.

Now, I don't want to put our righteousness on a comparable scale with Christ's, but we clearly are able to do things that are not politically correct and maintain the proper spirit. In fact, I would argue, that there are times it is UNKIND to be overtly "nice" to someone. For example, I know a person who is deficient enough that he is about to embarrass himself in a major way. If I do not warn him, I am not being kind.

Kindness is delivering the news in the least obtrusive way while continuing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Just as Proverbs 3:3 tells the necessary connection between truth and mercy, kindness without truth is worthless. Further, it is not the essence of the commandment. The call to be kind, merely refers to the delivery of the truth and our willingness to forgive those sins.

The kindest people are those who speak the truth to you in an effort to bring you into a restored relationship, and when it happens, they never speak of it again. Our kindness is in reference to our tenderheartedness. Further, it is the measure. The kind person is the one, who even when he is telling you the world's worst news is genuine. He is not looking to condemn, but to reconcile. This, to me, is the picture of kindness. And when people tell me to be sugary sweet while delivering half truths, I believe it isn't kindness, but rather cowardice that is being exemplified!

To go to School or not

As I watch Austin and Ally with my children, I find it easy to identify with Ally and her decision. Not to spend too much time breaking down the options of a fictional character (though it made Sophie famous), she basically was accepted at the best music school in the country and she had to either go to school or continue working in music with her friends.

Just as it is with all difficult decisions, there are real benefits and detriments to each decision. It is similar to the decision I hear about when a good athlete is considering leaving school to "go pro" instead of staying in school. There are certainly benefits in each place.

The first question that must be answered is "What is the purpose of education?" Obviously, the altruistic reason of wanting to become better and more educated people should drive us, but the reality is that for most people, education is a means to an end. That end is usually to provide a comfortable living for those to whom we need to provide.

It is true that most athletes will make far more money playing professional sports (and from the ancillary opportunities that will provide) than they would from the use of their degree. Similarly, this Ally Dawson character is less than likely to achieve a better paying gig because of her degree in music than she had achieved working with Austin Moon. Therefore, the economic decision can often lead people to choose against the education.

It is also likely that getting a further education is likely to help people that get these opportunities make wiser decisions to prepare themselves for after the current money-making opportunity dries up. It is also likely that further education can improve the end product. But it is my belief that education is under-valued in this society.

I hear more people talk about the people who made tremendous success stories without an education. This is certainly possible. Yet, the real question should be, "Is it a general rule that people without education can be successful?" I think asking that question would yield a better answer.

If you look at those select few, however, who can be a success, the question should be "Could those people have been more successful with a better education?" And then, if the answer is yes, then is the increased productivity likely to find its way into making a difference in an area that we care about (like more money) and if so, would that increase be worth the delay in making the increase?

The reality is that the vast majority of us will philosophize on these issues and never be able to exercise our decision other than our fan mail to the superstar who doesn't care what we think. So, in your own life, determine if education would help you, and realize that the answer is almost always yes!

What is the Core US Voting Value?

The conventions have past. I have talked to people and it seems that most of them came out of one of the conventions energized. Since that is what conventions are supposed to do, so I guess they were a success. But the problem is that the rhetoric hasn't really been significantly altered, so they certainly don't bring the country together in a unified way. As I stated before, it isn't always agreement on the issues that makes you vote for the same candidate, but agreement on the issue you feel is most important.

There is, of course, the less than five percent of the population that feels a reasonable chance at a favorable outcome is not a reason to vote for someone, and decides to cast their vote for someone whom they know has no chance. I've spoken in math classes about how casting a vote for one of these candidates is akin mathematically to buying a lottery ticket. A good explanation to this phenomena is here.

And some will tell you that is the best thing about the United States. If someone believes that the core value of American culture is that you have the ability to throw out a protest vote of saying, "I don't like what the establishment has to offer" then convincing that person to vote for one of the candidates is nigh unto impossible. Those of us who think that voting is definitionally recognizing peoples flaws (or disagreements with us) and then seeing which one we can accept the best will come to a different conclusion, even if we agree on all the other issues.

Others think that the most important issue is abortion. The reality is that most people don't debate the correct issue on abortion. If life occurs before birth, then it should be protected. If life doesn't exist, then it isn't worth protecting. Now, I believe human biology studies give an exact answer to if life exists, especially when babies can be delivered and continue to live at some of these ages. If you think this is the most important issue, you will vote on your belief of when life begins.

Still another group exists which believes that the preservation of economic freedom might be the most important issue. While some on the other side believe that providing for those who can't provide for themselves is of central importance. If you think this is the most important issue, the pendulum of where the candidates fall in this spectrum will mostly influence your vote.

We could think of a myriad of issues that people may think are the most important. Some believe that the most important issue is that we protect our right to vote. That right allows us to re-adjust every so often based on what we see as the weaknesses of the day, similar to baseball managers being hired who are the opposite of the preceding manager to fill in the gaps and hope to capitalize off the residue of the old manager. And those people will get frustrated at all of us for arguing some of these issues, as they think that is what the vote is for.

Now, there is no magical answer book that tells you which issue is the most important all the time, though I think many issues have Scriptural positions. The problem is that regardless of those issues or whether the candidate follows them, we are bound to support the winner. The Bible requires of us to obey those who have the rule over us. It requires us to honor the King. So, regardless of what your political persuasion is, you are required to come together.

Personally, I think that may be one of the greatest things about the United States. The fact that we can disagree vehemently with someone. We can debate. We can vote. Then, we have a capacity to come together, when it is important. On November 7, we will be one country with a set of leaders that God has ordained to bring about His purposes.

Sometimes that means that we are called to persecution, as much of the first century church was. Sometimes it means that we will be given lives of relative ease, as most of the existence of the United States has been. But we are always called to be good citizens and to be good followers of Christ. That should be our core Christian value, and if enough of us do it, we could make it our core US voting value.

We Call it...Potential

September 11. I consider myself to have lived in a reasonably good time in human history. I think, however, if you were to ask about the low point in my lifetime, I would mention this day in 2001. If you polled 100 people my age, I would guess the vast majority would agree. Now, some people have undergone immense personal tragedy and I don't want to discount that, but as a whole, this is a day that shapes our framework of history.

I was not around for the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the any of the days in Vietnam or the day of The Shot Heard Round the World or the signing of the Magna Carta or Reformation Day or many of the other famous days in history. September 11, however, I remember very clearly. I was sitting on my couch as the cable repairman was fixing the TV during a wonderful Caroline in the City marathon on WGN. As he was fixing the cable, we noticed that Caroline and Richard were not on the screen but some newsman from Chicago.

As I sat in the room with that stranger, I didn't know what to think. Here were people taking everyday things (like airplane flights) in order to destroy iconic buildings (Pentagon, twin towers) and it seemed like it was somewhat successful. The things that have happened since have been too innumerable to try to encapsulate, but on that day, I was speechless. On a personal note, I had an interview with a non-profit organization the next day, which was canceled due to the giving pattern uncertainty, which certainly would have taken my life in a different direction.

More than anything, I just can't get over how easy it is. We live in a politically hostile environment where people argue things like the legality of weapons is hotly debated. I'm frequently contemplative of a line from a movie that I remember nothing else about—"I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons…I'm terrified of the man who only wants one." This is not the post where I argue the politics of gun control, but I will say that I agree with the sentiment of that movie.

The guy who is able to turn an everyday airplane into a torpedo is scary. I remember overhearing a teacher say (I thought about me, though I can't be certain) that he will either be President of the USA or a terrorist. I think that is why I wanted to be President for a good part of my life. I did not want to be a terrorist. Though, like my teacher, I believe that we all see that hankering for evil within us. We see the ugliness in our own hearts that wants the destruction of someone who disagrees with us.

We are so prone to these evil tendencies that I think we can understand how someone could train people to do such devastating things to their enemies. While I do not believe we all have it within us to do that precise act, I know we all have enough sin in us to do catastrophically terrible things that could cause great harm to some person or group. What excited me about her statement was that she saw potential the other way.

I have not (nor would I likely be able to) survey all my past teachers and see where they thought I would end up. If you are able to do so, let me know if most of them think of me as an overwhelming success or a disappointing failure. I've always thought that many of my teachers thought I would be a bum with a rap sheet, as I struggled in school, particularly in the early years. Not with the learning, but with the respect of authority, the obedience, the fitting in with the other rule-followers, and generally being the kid that was most likely to get his name on the board.

I do think that the best teachers want to see the potential in all their students. They want to see the best case scenario. I see this with my own kids. I see their shortcomings, and I attempt to help them correct those. I also see what they can achieve when they become focused on the right thing. As humans, however, being focused on the right thing is difficult. The enemy has traps of good things to sidetrack us (ever heard about the road that was paved with good intentions?) in addition to the innately evil things.

So what hope is there for any of us to achieve the better part of our potential? And how can we tell as we are living our life if we are actually achieving our potential or if we are purposefully sabotaging ourselves when we could accomplish more? I think the best we can do is surround ourselves with people who know us and care for us. If we do, I think they can be our guide. On the other hand, we need to likewise hold other people accountable.

In this mutual accountability we can avoid our own little September 11’s. We can help others avoid the most devastating of things they might do and they can help us avoid the ones that we might do. This is why I find it incredibly beneficial to have good friends who have helped me through many issues. My own personal worst day has been avoided a few times because of the faithful wounds of a friend. For that I am very thankful. I am also quite happy that I consistently have people hounding me to do better in certain areas. One day I may actually achieve my potential!

'Til Death

Do we remember time frames or moments? Recently on Phineas and Ferb, I heard Phineas say that our eye-brain combination is the best camera ever invented. I am quite aware of the wonder of catching a moment and remembering it forever. There are pictures firmly imprinted on my brain that I will always recall. By the same token, there are many time frames in my life that I remember quite well.

Before I drift too far off the tracks, let me define time frames. I met Kelly in the 10th grade when she decided to come to my school (yeah, it was my school; not my attending the school she decided to come to). We really got to know each other when she needed my help in computer class. In our senior year, we became best friends. And the time frame between when she followed me to college (around August 1995) and December of 1995, we remained great friends and decided that we would participate in the Western culture activity of dating one another.

That is a big time frame. Specifically, it is the time frame where I learned I could not live without Kelly in the sense of moving forward. There have been many small steps and things learned in the interim, but the newest time frame of confirmation happened this last week. Kelly went to go visit my sister in Tallahassee so they could enjoy the opening of Chick-Fil-A together. That part of the plan was disastrous and to hear them tell it is quite an entertaining tale.

Being the selfish human I am, however, that part of the plan is of minimal concern to me. I was forced to pick the children up from school for ONE day. I had to get them to do their homework. I had to take care of dinner for two evenings. None of this went as smoothly as it should have. Last year when the girls left town, Jacob and I were able to batch it. And since neither of us care what we (or our hair) look like, we muddled through a week together. He and I were able to accomplish a few things together and make do.

However, when you add my Emily to the mix, the entire equation changes dramatically. First, she cares what she looks like. She even cares what Jacob and I look like, as we reflect on her. She also doesn't enjoy all you can eat wings or sports on TV. Further, I am now outnumbered and completely unable to concentrate on both children at the same time. In short, I am inept as the father of two. Nevermind the fact that Kelly is completely competent as the mother of three.

I am lost without her. As a man, it is hard to admit that I cannot do it all. It pains me to say that I can't make it happen, but the sad reality is that I think Emily is more capable of running a house than I am. My wife is an indescribable gift among a world full of talented women, but I just cannot comprehend how she does what she does. The song Mr. Mom comes to mind, but trust me when I tell you that Kelly's talents are far above anything that song can mention.

So, in the memory bank of life, the first week of September 2012 will always be the time frame where I realized my own incompetence. It is the time when I realized that without Kelly, there would be no me. Sure I might live and exist, but the human walking around would not have the rounded edges that I do (as sharp as I may still seem in some areas, I am rounding out). I can't make it without her and I am glad that I don't have to!

Who's the Bigger Sinner?

Almost two years ago, Jacob Yarborough, wrote a paper on the fact that there are degrees of sin. Fortunately, he decided to email me a copy so that I could be blessed by the thing. My initial reaction was varied. Growing up, it seems like everyone tells you things like "all sins are equal before God." Of course, our reaction to sins is, in general, very different. The person who confesses to having bouts with gossip is much easier to integrate into a church, possibly without even correcting their sin, while the person who one time commits an act of adultery with a strategically placed person can be forever shunned.

There is so much there, but I believe the reaction should be exactly the opposite. I believe we should recognize that a serial killer is worse than the person who runs a red light. Sins are undeniably different. The similarity they have is that every single one of them causes us to fall short of the glory of God. And this recognition of differences is important on one hand, but, in my opinion, should not affect us in the way we treat those among us who sin.

Let me be clear. We should, in fact, never have any affinity for sin. As a church family, we are called to hold each other accountable for the sins we commit. Yet, someone who is willing to confess their sin, allow us to hold them accountable, and willing to attempt to mortify that sin in their life should be looked upon as the rest of us—a sinner saved by grace. Remember, that before Christ, you were unable to do anything that ultimately meets God's standard. Until God decided to bless you with His life-giving gift, you were in the same boat.

Just because you happen to have a different sin of preference does not mitigate your reaction to the sin of preference of your brother or sister. Some will then ask, "If there are in fact worse sins, why shouldn't we recognize that?" This is where I like an analogy I learned in high school. If life is like trying to line up on the east coast and swim across the Atlantic Ocean, just because you make it ten times as far as the guy next to you doesn't mean anything. You're still going to drown. You need Jesus to pick you up and carry you.

If you need more, I am not sure we have a proper view of the gravity of sin anyway. A man after God's own heart, David, committed adultery and murder. The Pharisees were guilty of pride that ofttimes was not even vocalized. Yet Christ said they were just as whited sepulchers. I have a feeling that we would let the pride slide and really stick it to the murderer. Yet the contrition shown by David is the stuff we read when we know we messed up. Seems like we are missing something.

I think the first thing is that we, in general, just don't have as strong of an anti-sin view as we should. We let things like gossip, pride, and "white-lying", which are all things that the Lord hates in Proverbs 6. If we truly hated sin as much as God, I think that the fact that some sins are potentially worse than others, but when you're talking about totally depraved people, we just have no room to brag. Kind of like a great 4-year-old basketball player believing he's ready for the NBA because he's better than a three-year-old, our more acceptable sins are not really putting us in position to look down on anyone.

Therefore, if you have a brother in sin and he wants to do better, do all you can to accept him while still holding him accountable.

Football or Political Strategy

If you have not heard, the NFL season begins tonight. There is a large segment of the population that will start paying attention to life. Americans love their football, and the NFL is better than anyone at football. According to the Elias Sports Bureau, there has not been an NFL game played on a Wednesday since September 22, 1948. Now, if you aren't good at math, that's a long time ago.

Why was this game played on such an abnormal night? Well, it turns out that the normal night of Thursday contradicts with the presumptive acceptance speech of President Obama. Now, for everyone who doesn't remember, four years ago, the NFL moved the game time up an hour and a half, so that the Republican National Convention could have the NFL lead-in.

Should a football game compete with a convention? Should either care? I'm not sure, but I think this is a situation where the initial reaction may well be wrong. First, the convention is a four day event that culminates with the candidate speech on the last day.

The Democratic national Convention is particularly liberal in its bent this year. Now pundits may tell you that is because of base mobilization and this year, more than any in recent memory, has very few people who are undecided. Obama is leading with women and minorities, but he trails big time in men and especially, corporate men. Now, I am not the world's foremost expert, but the best link to these people within the democratic ranks and speech givers is Bill Clinton.

Clinton is a noted moderate who achieved success with a Republican-led Congress by adopting many conservative ideas as his own. Sounds like the people Obama needs to add to his base. And when did Clinton speak? During the fourth quarter, while Eli Manning was attempting to forge a great comeback. Who then, pray tell, is the largest audience for football games? Mostly men with higher than average numbers with corporate men.

You see, the person most apt to deliver votes in Obama's weak categories was up against the one program that tends to outpace (or at least compete with) convention viewers. And the people that are stolen are the very people that they need Clinton to pull.

So, the conservatives out there shouting conspiracy theory with Obama's speech being cleared out without football on one of the big networks, might want to re-think that position. You see, I'm not entirely sure the move to Wednesday helps the Democratic Convention. I do believe that it could possible aggravate the entire purpose of Bill Clinton.

Anyone else thinking about this?

Friendship

In High School, I had a group of friends. I have not kept up with all of them as well as I probably should, but we used to always talk about an assortment of things. We would go places together, we had a Bible study together, and we attempted to create things together that would live beyond our own tenure where we were.

While this sounds a bit like overactive nostalgia, I can't help but think about high school after my latest musings. As I have moved beyond high school, most of those friends are people I remember, yet somehow I just am not that close to them anymore. Whom did I really know? Does the separation indicate that there was no real friendship there?

I heard a quote about the difference in friendships once and I found out it was a poem. While I don't mean to chince out on the answer, I feel like there is some truth to it. Although I don't necessarily attach a negative connotation to those friendships that are not for a lifetime. The reality is that the existence of all speaks to the fact that God has a reason for each of them.

I don't think the existence of the categories gives any weight to those who would degrade a lifetime commitment. There is no doubt that making a marriage commitment necessarily requires a lifetime commitment, but I think back to my friends in high school. Some impacted my life in fantastic ways that are still very instrumental to who I am. Others encouraged me in great ways that sent my life in a positive trajectory.

This isn't limited to high school either. In college, grad school, and many of the other places I've been through the years, I have experienced many great impacting friends. Most of all, it gives me pause. Because I know that I might be in the same position to those with which I come in contact, and I don't want to be a bad friend.

My Musings

There are many things that I did with my parents about which I nostalgically reminisce with great fondness. Several of them are things I attempt to do with my children. Of course, some are easily duplicatable and meet with great favor on the part of my children. Others become forced until I realize that as much as they strike a chord with me, they just don't jive with the next generation of Wests.

One of those activities that has made the leap from one multi-generational enjoyment to the next is the watching of the Andy Griffith Show. It is something we find exceedingly enjoyable, and we even will call my parents during certain episodes. The show is highly entertaining and I never worry about whether something unknown will come up and I need to feel bad about my children watching it.

Almost every episode teaches a lesson, and the show has a general sense of a Christian culture. Those are just two of the many things I enjoy, and I wish that today's shows had that same idea. With the superior technology and ability to film things today, there is so much more potential, yet it seems as if they are in favor of cruder (or more profane) entertainment. As much as I think that could fascinate us, I was sidetracked by a specific episode of The Andy Griffith Show.

This episode was about a high school reunion and Andy's talking to his high school girlfriend. This had our children asking us if we remembered anyone from our high school. Seeing as how Kelly and I attended the same high school, we have an obvious person that we keep in contact with. And unlike Andy and Sharon DeSpain, Kelly and I didn't part ways after high school with different visions of where we should live. It kind of opened another road to tell our children about our story, which is always awesome!

Kelly and I then begin to watch with a critical eye, as we see Barney looking through the yearbook to attempt to identify people and wonder how he could forget so many people. Then we walk to the computer and see 15 people who have requested to be our friends on Facebook and we just cannot recall them. Even though we went to a small school that had just over 100 high school students, some people somehow did not make it into our permanent memory. And I thought I remembered everyone!

Why is it that we can spend every day for a year or two with people, know their name, create a special greeting for them, and then completely forget them years later, while I still remember that person in my neighborhood who broke my basketball hoop years later? The wonders of the human memory. It can be a great thing, but it can also be a terrible thing when someone I should remember wants to meet me for lunch, and I don't even know who they are.