I’m having trouble understanding some of the outrage concerning the end of the Packers-Seahawks game on Monday night. I know that this opening statement probably creates controversy, and leaves many people scratching their heads and thinking to themselves, “Where is this idiot coming from?”
Let me explain myself. When I’m done, you may still think that I am an idiot (and you would not be alone in thinking that). Fewer may think that I am brilliant. Others may cast me off as a right-wing nut. And there are probably a few out there who will just not get what I am trying to say.
At the end of the game, while it looked like the Packers intercepted that last pass, the officials decided (after some discussion) to call a touchdown for the Seahawks. And now, for the last 2 days, no matter what you watch, they are talking about this last play and how that it is unacceptable that this could have happened.
After giving it some thought, I think that this game, in some respects, actually mirrors where we stand as a country today. Let’s pretend that the Packers are the “rich”, the achievers in society, those who have been successful. And let’s say that the Seahawks are the “poor”, the downtrodden, the suppressed. The officials are the government. And the game of football is analogous to life itself. Now, you are probably saying, “What does this game have to do with the rich, the poor, and the government?”
I see the Packers being analogous to the rich, in that they have been to 5 Super Bowls (and won 4 of them), they have been a consistently successful franchise, and they have a huge national following and excellent brand merchandising. I see the Seahawks being analogous to the poor, maybe like the Occupy protesters. They view themselves as the people being stepped on in order for the rich to get richer. The Seahawks have only been to 1 Super Bowl, which they lost, and they still complain about some of the calls made in that game to this day (which, by the way, was reffed by the regular NFL referees).
You see, the government often acts just like these game officials did. In order to be fair, they want to take from the rich (via taxes) in order to give to the poor, who they say deserve better but are just not able to achieve greater riches and success. No matter how much protesting the rich do, the government does not care. It’s all about fairness, not based on how hard you worked to become successful.
Isn’t that what the refs in this game did? They took from the more successful and popular franchise in order to help make the less popular, less successful franchise better. It doesn’t matter how much complaining that the more successful team does. The referees and the league have said that the play stands and the more successful team loses.
So why are people so upset? The Packers-Seahawks game was just that – a game. Nothing more. Nothing less. It has no bearing on how we live our lives day in and day out. Yet, the government wants to redistribute wealth and control our lives, and they want to do it whenever they get the chance. But people don’t seem to be as incensed about that, even though redistribution has a direct effect on their lives. Maybe it’s because redistribution benefits them and doesn’t hurt them. Maybe it’s because they just don’t care. Maybe they view sports as being more important than keeping our politicians responsible for their decisions.
Maybe it would be good for all of us to get upset at the intrusion of the government into our daily lives, trying to make decisions of what is best for us, instead of allowing us to play by the rules and letting the results work themselves out. No, the government wants to get involved in and have a hand in the outcome.
Maybe sports is a microcosm of life after all.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Searching for a leader with character
Character is a quality that is mandatory in a leader. Without character, the leader will not be effective. He will not be able to lead. How can you follow someone who is lacking in character? How can we follow after so-called leaders who say one thing, yet do something completely different? How can we follow leaders who tell us that we need to act a certain way, yet they have no intention of acting in that same way?
Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching. In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you. Anyone can put on a good show in public. But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?
Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker. The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect." In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader. However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.
Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character. We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials. We complain about the lack of character in athletes. We complain about the lack of character in entertainers. Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character. Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.
As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character. We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.
Why is that? It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader. Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want. Some want a leader based on political party alone. Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President. I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis. But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.
During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times. He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times. He helped families who were going through difficult health problems. And he did so without drawing attention to himself. He did it because he had the means to help. He did it because he wanted to help. He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.
In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others. Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President. He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example? His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words." He knows that you can say whatever you want. However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words. If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).
In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do." This is not an effective way to lead. He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction). The President says good things. However, he fails to live them out in his own life. If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?
Character is important. We need to judge our leaders based on their character. Is Mitt Romney perfect? No, he is not. But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office. And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.
Some have said that character is who you are when you think that no one is watching. In other words, character is who you are, not in public and in front of others, but in the privacy of your home, when no one is around to watch you. Anyone can put on a good show in public. But is that who you really are when the people go away and you are no longer on the forefront?
Many years ago, in my freshman speech class in college, we learned the rules of the effective speaker. The first rule is "The effective speaker is a person whose character, knowledge, and judgment command respect." In other words, if you have character, you can have a commanding presence and can be a truly effective speaker and leader. However, if you lack character, it will be extremely difficult to lead others, because you will lose trust with those who you are trying to lead.
Many Americans today are looking for leaders with character. We often complain about the lack of character in our elected officials. We complain about the lack of character in athletes. We complain about the lack of character in entertainers. Yet, many times, we do nothing to promote people of good character. Instead, we continue to promote people of questionable or bad character.
As I watch the current candidates run for President, I am reminded of our nation's ongoing search for a leader with character. We all want someone who can lead, but not everyone desires a leader that has impeccable character.
Why is that? It is because there are people who do not value this important trait of character in a leader. Some want a leader who will promise them a life where the government will give them whatever they want. Some want a leader based on political party alone. Some are content voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
But as I have observed the conventions over the past couple of weeks, I have seen a marked difference in character in the two men running for President. I do not hide the fact that I am a conservative Republican, and some may think that I am biased in my analysis. But I believe character is one of the most important, if not the most important, trait that our national leaders must possess.
During the Republican convention, many people spoke about Mitt Romney and his quiet way of helping others through difficult times. He helped others as the were going through difficult financial times. He helped families who were going through difficult health problems. And he did so without drawing attention to himself. He did it because he had the means to help. He did it because he wanted to help. He did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. He does not like to talk about the ways he helped others, because to him, it is a way of life.
In contrast, President Obama does a lot of talking about helping others. Yet, we never hear about how he has taken time to actually help others on an individual basis, before or after he became President. He is very good at telling us that we need to help others, but where is his example? His idea of helping others is to have the government help them, not get his own hands dirty and help them out.
It seems to me that Mitt Romney holds true to the motto "Actions speak louder than words." He knows that you can say whatever you want. However, you cannot be effective as a leader and be viewed as a man of character unless your actions back up your words. If your actions do not back up your words, you will quickly be labeled a hypocrite (well, Republicans will be labeled as hypocrites, Democrats will not).
In contrast, it looks like the President lives by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do." This is not an effective way to lead. He is a man whose words speak louder than his actions (actually, they speak louder than his inaction). The President says good things. However, he fails to live them out in his own life. If he does indeed live them out, why are we not hearing about it?
Character is important. We need to judge our leaders based on their character. Is Mitt Romney perfect? No, he is not. But in my view, he displays so much more character than the person who currently occupies the Oval Office. And we need to take this into account as we head toward the voting booth in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)