"They got what they wanted. But they lost what they had."
I first heard this uttered probably 25 years ago by a preacher by the name of Dr. Bud Bierman. He used this as a title of one of his sermons. I can't say I recall many sermons from that part of my life, but this one still rings out loud and clear. While I do not remember his specific examples, I still remember this line that he used multiple times, and the message that he meant to convey by it.
Dr. Bierman spoke of many examples of so-called Christians who gave into the excesses of life on this earth for personal pleasure, emotional pleasure, monetary gain, or some other selfish desire. They gave up up what they had, whether it was a good family life, a good job, a spiritual foundation in their life. They gave it away in order that they could have some kind of temporary gain, bringing pleasure to them in the flesh. However, in so-doing, they gave up the good things that they had in their own life. These pleasures, or lusts, took over their lives so that it basically destroyed them and what they had.
I see this same scenario now in the lives of Jon & Kate Gosselin. I understand that having children brings change to a family, much less having sextuplets. However, they decided to use this situation to bring fame and fortune to themselves. They have been on TV, now, for several years, making a name for themselves at the expense of the family unit.
What really bothers me is that both of these folks claimed (and may still claim) to be Christians. However, nothing in their actions would prove that to me. Yet, many Christians looked to these two people as heroes, as examples of what good parents should be like.
Why would we want these folks as examples for our families today? They gave up the privacy of their home for the sake of fame and fortune. They gave up family time with their kids so they could film a 'reality' TV show at their home basically every day. They had cameras following them everywhere. They were manipulative in their actions toward each other. They aired their dirty laundry on television rather than working out marital difficulties in private. Both were rumored to have affairs before they split up.
Is this really the example we want to put in front of our kids? Are we now telling our children that this is a desired outcome, something that we would like to attain? Is this even entertainment? What is so attractive about this family?
Now the show has come to an end. Jon does not want his kids being followed around by cameras anymore. He has now become the conscientious father, saying that this violates child labor laws. It is funny how he notices this now, since the network wanted to move ahead without him in the show. It is also ironic that he is playing the morally upright one in doing what is right for the kids while he has been out partying and dating younger women, even though he is not even yet divorced from Kate.
And speaking of Kate, she is not the innocent party here. From what I have read, she is difficult to live with, and to deal with. She had everything where she wanted it. She had the attention on her. She was getting pampered. She wanted everyone to think she was such a great mommy to her kids, while she had nannies doing the work for her. She was too busy travelling and doing the show to give the kids the attention that they needed and deserved.
So now, I say go away. You had your 15 minutes of fame. I hope you learned your lesson, but I doubt it. Jon seems to be content making tabloid headlines. Kate is trying to work out a deal for a new reality show. When are you guys going to realize that those kids are going to be adversely affected by all of this? Or have you forgotten them? If you are going to keep living this lifestyle, there is nothing we can do to stop them. The only thing I ask is that they stop claiming some sort of spirituality. They do not have any. It is all about them.
Perhaps they would be good to read and understand the words of Jim Elliot: "He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
It's Time To Get Rid of Salary Caps in Sports
Even before the Yankees won their 27th World Series a few weeks ago, the cries were coming out from all corners of the U.S. that the Yankees bought their way to another World Series title. Apparently, money buys championships, talent will not win them for you.
I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.
Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.
But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.
I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).
Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.
This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.
And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.
And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.
The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.
Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.
One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.
It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.
And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?
I find it amusing that the Yankees had the highest payroll every year over the last decade, yet they did not win a World Series title. Many teams over the years have spent big money on high profile free agents, and they have not been successful, with the Yankees included in this group. Spending money does not win championships. The way your players perform on the field wins championships.
Many fans of baseball think that there ought to be a salary cap. They point to sports like football and basketball that already have salary caps as examples for how it should be done. These sports have parity. They are not dominated by big market teams that have more money to spend. Each team is only allowed to spend a certain dollar amount on players.
But these points look beyond the basic reason for the salary cap - to try to make the bad teams better and to try to make the good teams worse. The salary cap is basically forced mediocrity. By instituting a salary cap, the league is saying that they do not want teams to excel. They do not want franchises to excel.
I do not think that forced parity is a good thing. I think that the free market is a good thing. Salary caps in sports amount to socialism - an attempt by the league to put everyone on the same level playing field without allowing any one team to get too far ahead of the others. It does not allow for franchises to spend their revenue on making their team better. In fact, it forces teams that spend too much money to give money to lesser teams in order to help bring them up to a better level. However, there is nothing in place that forces those lesser teams to spend money on actually making their franchise better (kind of sounds like many government programs today).
Let us not forget that these franchises are businesses. The people that own the teams are looking to be profitable. They do not want to simply break even - that would not be a wise investment if this were their only goal. What would Wal-Mart do if they were forced to give some of their profit to the likes of K-Mart and Target? After all, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer, with K-Mart and Target coming in way behind them in total sales. If we used the logic many are using in sports, then we would need to reign in Wal-Mart, not allowing them to expand, and forcing them to give money to their competitors in order to help pull them up to Wal-Mart's level.
This is just ludicrous. And I doubt that any company out there would want to give their hard-earned profits over to their competition in order to level out the playing field. The government may want businesses to do this, but the businesses definitely want no part of this.
And why should be castigate teams like the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, teams like the Red Sox, Angels, and Dodgers) for spending money to make their teams better? I would much rather work for a company that is willing to invest in the people that work for them in order to make that company stronger, more viable in the marketplace, and successful against the competition. Maybe that is why players are willing to sign with the Yankees - because the Yankees understand what it takes to be successful. Yes, they are in the biggest market. Yes, they do make a lot of money. But they want their team to be the best.
And they also pay a very large amount to other teams in the form of a Luxury Tax. Why don't we go to the teams receiving that money to find out how they are spending it. Are they spending it on players to make their teams better? Or are they putting it in their pocket? My guess is the latter.
The argument is made that people will not attend games if the stars are not playing on those teams. While this may be true, one must look at why these teams have no stars. The Montreal Expos traded their stars away. The Pittsburgh Pirates seem to trade their stars away, as do other teams. They are not investing in high dollar contracts with their up-and-coming stars. They say they do not have the money, or they give some other lame excuse. Maybe if they did sign one or two of these stars, then people would come to games, which would enhance revenue. Maybe they would start winning, which would drive more people to come to games.
Small market teams can be successful. Teams like the Minnesota Twins and St. Louis Cardinals are good examples of this. They put competitive teams on the field and people attend their games. It can be done. Maybe other small market teams need to look at these franchises, take notes, and implement some of the same things to make their teams better.
One other thing that proponents of the salary cap point to as a benefit is parity. Why is this good? Why must different teams win the title each year? What is wrong with a dynasty? What is wrong with a team having continued success year-after-year-after-year? The ultimate goal is excellence, not mediocrity.
It all boils down to this - As a society, we have become so accustomed to our government always trying to level the playing field through government programs that we no longer view this as wrong. The government wants businesses to pay more because they are successful and profitable (e.g. oil companies). We see in society that successful people are being taxed more because they are supposed to be able to afford it. People who are not working and not trying to work are given a handout, without really ever being told how to be successful and make something out of their lives. We have created a society where class envy has reached the point that we want to take from the rich in order to give to the poor, and many people see nothing wrong with this. In fact, they encourage it.
And now sports is becoming a microcosm of society. We do not want to see the successful continue to be successful. We want the underachievers to succeed, but only at the expense of the successful. If teams are losing money and not being successful, why should they be bailed out? After all, weren't many people upset (and rightfully so) when our government bailed out financial institutions and automobile manufacturers? Where is that same anger now?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Manifestation of Evil
Last Thursday, we were reminded again that an ideology exists in this world that teaches people to hate someone so much that it drives them to the kill others. Because of one person's hatred for Americans, thirteen people were gunned down and killed, with many more wounded. Because of one person's hatred, many families are now left longing for loved ones, taken mercilessly and prematurely from them. Because of one person's hatred, there are children without fathers or mothers, parents without daughters or sons, husbands and wives without spouses.
Of course, the shooter was shot, but he still lives. Part of me wishes that the shot that wounded him would have taken his life. It serves him right to have his life taken for what he did. Why does this man, full of rage and hate, get to live, while innocent people have to die because of his hatred? Why do things happen this way? It's only right for him to die for this. But vengeance is not ours to give. Vengeance ultimately belongs to God. But the government is able to punish him for what he did, and his punishment should be to the fullest extent of the law.
In looking at all of this, from a distance, I see a man full of rage and hatred. But I must ask why he is this way. What is it about his beliefs that drove him to commit such heinous acts? How could one person reach this far into the depths of depravity to hate people to this extent? Did his religion play a part in this act? Were there any indications that he was going to act in this extreme way? Why was nothing done to stop him?
When an abortion provider was shot and killed a few months ago, he was killed by someone full of hate and rage. But the left, and the media, declared that this man was a right-wing religious person, and they attempted to show some sort of moral equivalency between conservatives and this nut job. Yet, when a Muslim kills others around him, in the name of Allah, we are not supposed to question the motives and beliefs of their religion? This is considered bigoted?
We have seen many incidents of terrorism over the last 15 years, committed in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam, and we should not question the religion and what they are teaching? We are not supposed to profile, so as not to upset people of the Muslim religion? The last time I checked, it was not Americans, or Chinese, or Africans, or Europeans that committed these acts. It was Muslims. It was their extreme beliefs that drove them to commit these acts.
The left, and the media, would have us believe that we caused these terrorist acts because of something that we did. Somehow, maybe we mistreated them or hindered them in some way, thus driving them to commit acts of terrorism. Maybe they are George Bush's fault (after all, isn't he the cause of everything wrong in this world today?). However, let us remember that they attacked us during the Clinton Administration. They continue to attack us during the Obama Administration, even though everybody is supposed to worship and adore the current President. These people need to realize that this has nothing to do with who is in office. Terrorists don't care. They hate us because of who we are, not who our President is. It has everything to do with their hatred for anything that does not agree with their religion. This is what the Koran teaches.
We do, however, need to be careful, not to lump all Muslims into this extremist group. I do not believe that they all hold these views. In fact, I believe it is the minority of them that hold to these extremist views. But we cannot be too vigilant in guarding against these kind of attacks in the future. Rather than being mad at us, the law-abiding Muslims ought to direct their anger to the extremists of their religion who hold to these views and seek to destroy those who do not agree.
We should not take it on ourselves to combat terrorism by ourselves. If we go out and kill someone for the cause of ridding the world of terrorists and in the name of vigilante justice, then we are no better than they are. Our government exists to fight terrorism. Our military is fighting terrorists and extremists overseas so we do not need to fear them here.
And we can help them. Some may choose to volunteer for military service. Some may work for companies that act as support for the military. We may choose to donate to military causes or help with families whose loved ones are overseas serving our country. But one thing we can all do is pray for them. They are fighting a dangerous battle so that we do not have to face the enemy here. They deserve our respect. They deserve the honor due to them. They deserve our thanks. And they definitely deserve and merit our prayers. Let us not forget them.
Of course, the shooter was shot, but he still lives. Part of me wishes that the shot that wounded him would have taken his life. It serves him right to have his life taken for what he did. Why does this man, full of rage and hate, get to live, while innocent people have to die because of his hatred? Why do things happen this way? It's only right for him to die for this. But vengeance is not ours to give. Vengeance ultimately belongs to God. But the government is able to punish him for what he did, and his punishment should be to the fullest extent of the law.
In looking at all of this, from a distance, I see a man full of rage and hatred. But I must ask why he is this way. What is it about his beliefs that drove him to commit such heinous acts? How could one person reach this far into the depths of depravity to hate people to this extent? Did his religion play a part in this act? Were there any indications that he was going to act in this extreme way? Why was nothing done to stop him?
When an abortion provider was shot and killed a few months ago, he was killed by someone full of hate and rage. But the left, and the media, declared that this man was a right-wing religious person, and they attempted to show some sort of moral equivalency between conservatives and this nut job. Yet, when a Muslim kills others around him, in the name of Allah, we are not supposed to question the motives and beliefs of their religion? This is considered bigoted?
We have seen many incidents of terrorism over the last 15 years, committed in the name of Allah and the religion of Islam, and we should not question the religion and what they are teaching? We are not supposed to profile, so as not to upset people of the Muslim religion? The last time I checked, it was not Americans, or Chinese, or Africans, or Europeans that committed these acts. It was Muslims. It was their extreme beliefs that drove them to commit these acts.
The left, and the media, would have us believe that we caused these terrorist acts because of something that we did. Somehow, maybe we mistreated them or hindered them in some way, thus driving them to commit acts of terrorism. Maybe they are George Bush's fault (after all, isn't he the cause of everything wrong in this world today?). However, let us remember that they attacked us during the Clinton Administration. They continue to attack us during the Obama Administration, even though everybody is supposed to worship and adore the current President. These people need to realize that this has nothing to do with who is in office. Terrorists don't care. They hate us because of who we are, not who our President is. It has everything to do with their hatred for anything that does not agree with their religion. This is what the Koran teaches.
We do, however, need to be careful, not to lump all Muslims into this extremist group. I do not believe that they all hold these views. In fact, I believe it is the minority of them that hold to these extremist views. But we cannot be too vigilant in guarding against these kind of attacks in the future. Rather than being mad at us, the law-abiding Muslims ought to direct their anger to the extremists of their religion who hold to these views and seek to destroy those who do not agree.
We should not take it on ourselves to combat terrorism by ourselves. If we go out and kill someone for the cause of ridding the world of terrorists and in the name of vigilante justice, then we are no better than they are. Our government exists to fight terrorism. Our military is fighting terrorists and extremists overseas so we do not need to fear them here.
And we can help them. Some may choose to volunteer for military service. Some may work for companies that act as support for the military. We may choose to donate to military causes or help with families whose loved ones are overseas serving our country. But one thing we can all do is pray for them. They are fighting a dangerous battle so that we do not have to face the enemy here. They deserve our respect. They deserve the honor due to them. They deserve our thanks. And they definitely deserve and merit our prayers. Let us not forget them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)