A World Series in Perspective

Let me just take a minute to speak about the World Series. The worthless Boston Red Sox have won again, and we are going to have to sit through the pro-anything-New-England rants that ESPN will fall into for who knows how long. I just want to set a few things about this year’s fall classic in perspective.

1. The Red Sox had the added benefit of the man investigating steroids for major league baseball working on their payroll. That probably explains why David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez never surface as possible steroid users. It also puts into context the timely steroid accusation against Cleveland pitcher Paul Byrd before crucial Game 7.
2. The Rockies suffered not so much because of their 8 day lay off between games, but because there was absolutely no punishment for the Red Sox going 7 games. They went the distance against Cleveland, but got 3 days off themselves before the World Series began. The World Series should start the day after a scheduled Game 7 or no later than one day after a Game 7. It was possible for the Red Sox to throw their best pitcher in Game 7 of the ALCS and then pitch him again for Game 1 of the World Series as pitchers often go on three days rest in the playoffs. It allowed the bullpen of the Red Sox to be completely rested and let them fix their rotation how they wanted it. The problem is not the long layoff for a team that wins their Championship Series in four, the problem is there is no downside to going seven games.
3. The Red Sox did not beat the best team in the National League. They did not even beat a division winner. Hardly a feat worth celebrating.
4. The Red Sox drastically underachieved their Pythagorean Win total by 5 games.
5. There were a lot of people talking about how Josh Beckett is one of the great all time pitchers in post season play. He does have an impressive record of 6-2 with a 1.73 ERA with 82 strikeouts. But just compare him to Bob Gibson. Gibson has a record of 7-2 with an ERA of 1.89 with 92 strikeouts. Now at first glance these look comparable. But then one should remember that Bob Gibson only pitched against the winner of the American league in every one of his 9 games, 8 of which he completed. Beckett pitched only 3 of his 10 appearances against the champion from the other league, and Beckett managed to only complete 3. In other words, Josh Beckett has good post season numbers because he faces lesser post season competition. In World Series play he is only 2-1. That is the number one ought to compare to the likes of Bob Gibson.
6. A lot of ESPN commentators are falling all over themselves to declare Josh Beckett among others as a lock for the Hall of Fame. Beckett currently has a record of 77-52. Hardly awe inspiring. He has only broken 20 wins one time (this season), and has only broken 10 wins 3 times out of his seven year career.

I just point these few helpful things out so that we can remember that every team that wins the World Series is not automatically the Best Team of All Time, nor is it necessarily filled with Hall of Famers. In fact, Curt Schilling is the only person I would consider for the Hall of Fame at this point on the Boston roster.

Now that I have baseball out of my system, I will get back to theology.

Whatever happened to Paleo-Conservatism?

I found this map on Patrick Ruffini. I find it an insanely interesting map. I think it demonstrates the break down of the Republican Party very well. The Neo-Conservatives have risen to power by aligning themselves with the Theocrats, who value social issues and are willing to have big government fix it. They are also then willing in return to let the Neo-Cons have some other big government programs.

Not surprisingly the Theocrats live in the Bible belt and are the most dedicated to riding the party machinery that got them this far. Thus, Ron Paul and his traditional paleoconservative / libertarian values are rejected out of hand. These states prefer instead people like Gov. Mike Huckabee. It produces a constant supply of Republican Senators who are not going to change government, but use it. Example, Trent Lott. The Neocons also reside in the South, but also reside in the Ohio River Valley and in some Mid Atlantic states. Thus, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia give little to paleoconservatives like Ron Paul. The best example of this is Rudy Gulliani, but one could also use some of the ousted Pennsylvania Congressman and the current Minority Leader in the House. Now we also see light pink in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and North Dakota. The reason here is that these states are Democratic to the core. It is one of the great shames of the Democratic Party that they fail to win Iowa and North Dakota in Presidential election years.

Thus, Paleoconservatives live in Plains and in the West. Here are the people who would rather not have government messing things up. These people are also not so free trade oriented. This is where real conservative values still live on. Senator Tom Coburn serves as one example. Perhaps a more poignant example is the Constitution Party actually got a man elected to the Montana State Legislature, a legislature that has an equal number of Republican and Democrats with one Constitutional Party man to break the ties. A harbinger of the futuer?

The only surprise is that so much of New England is dark red or red at all. However, it could be because that region is anti-war and give money to the anti-war candidate. It also could be that Libertarianism is stronger than I thought in New England.

Regardless, this map shows that Ron Paul is not a lone wolf. His thorn in the candidacy of the Republicans will continue. He has won most of the debates despite being attacked by every moderator in every debate. If something does not change, I am not sure the Republican Party will survive. Look for more losses for the Republican in Congress in ’08, and then remember this map. I bet it will keep bearing true that the darker red the state the more the Neocons in office lose. In ’06 the Republicans lost seats in Montana, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Maine, and narrowly won in Tennessee.

National Disgrace in our National Game

The Colorado Rockies are in the World Series. As a former resident of Colorado, I am excited. As a baseball fan, I am sick. This is just more proof that the Wild Card is the worst thing ever for baseball. The Rockies had an incredible stretch run to make the playoffs, but they fell one game short of the Arizona Diamondbacks for the NL West crown. The Rockies had an exciting one game playoff with the Padres to make the playoffs, but in reality it was a game to see who finished second and third. Those are called consolation games, and they should be pointless. Now the Rockies have beaten the Diamondbacks in a four game series, and are going to the World Series. The 162 game season did not matter. The Diamondbacks were better all season long, but in the end it was all overturned and the first loser is now in the position to be the big winner. This has already happened an embarassing four times (1997, 2002, 2003, and 2004). Many more wild card teams have made the World Series and failed to win such as last year's Detriot Tigers. It is a disgrace to the game of baseball. It is a disgrace to those who care about winning, and it makes those who play a full season of quality baseball look like idiots. I hope we all come to our senses soon.

Era of Good Feelings

The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.
The Era of Good Feelings by George Dangerfield is an interesting book primarily because it has a view of American history that is almost a polar opposite to my own. Dangerfield writes engagingly about the history of America from the War of 1812 to the election of Jackson in 1828. Dangerfield views the Monroe administration as a complete failure. He thinks the John Quincy Adams adminstration a visionary one that was ahead of its time. Dangerfield thinks such things as the Missouri Compromise led to the Civil War, and were failures overall of government. He blames men like Daniel Webster for being unwilling to take that next step to abolition. He thinks very little of Henry Clay even Clay’s role in the Missouri Compromise. All of this and he does not view the War of 1812 as an impressive victory for America. That is just a sampling of the many things upon which we disagree. I on the other hand often view this time period as the highlight of America. It was the Constitution at its finest hour and the beginning of the Golden Age of the Senate. Dangerfield’s major problem is that he views history from the results rather than the parameters. He thinks the end of slavery was a good thing. On that he and I agree. However, Dangerfield views slavery from a post-civil war mind, and thus, the war is a good thing since it ended slavery. I think that unfair to pre-civil war history. Jackson, Clay, Webster, and others tried to end slavery without war. They felt war was the great evil, and they tried to end slavery in a matter according to the Constitution rather than just brandishing the bayonet.

Despite these things which do come out in his book, the book does a good job of giving a thorough account of the Era of Good Feelings. He does especially good work on things like the Panic of 1819, and the attitude of John Quincy Adams as a whole. The book is fairly long, but if you like history books, this one is pretty good. Feel free to check it out for a little light reading on the weekends.

N.T. Wright Methodology

Bishop Wright has done a lot of study on First Century Judaism or more broadly Second Temple Judaism (from here on 2TJ). His knowledge is far beyond mine in that area. Bishop Wright makes Second Temple Judaism the centerpiece of his theology. He uses it to frame his questions. Just one example:

Can we, as historians, describe the way in which he might have wrestled with this question within the parameters of his own first century Jewish worldview? (Jesus and the Identity of God)

It is through the lens of 2TJ that Wright redefines Christology as well as other things like Justification, Covenant, etc. Some of objected to his understanding of 2TJ, and they may indeed be right. Again, my knowledge would be far to inferior to even weigh in on that debate. However, I would like to see more time spent on debating whether or not Wright is doing the right thing by framing all his understanding of the New Testament off of 2TJ literature. That seems to me a more basic and more methodological question. Allow me to list several things that I believe need further clarification from Bishop Wright before his redefinition can begin to be debated.

1. Judaism in the First Century was not monolithic, how can one know which framework Jesus fit? Much like Christianity today Judaism had lots of different types and differing understandings. We know of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These two could not even agree on what constituted the Bible. First Century Judaism would have embraced both Josephus the Romanized Jew as well as Zealot leader Eleazar ben Yair whose followers committed suicide rather than face being conquered by the Romans. We also know the Essenes would have been in existence adding yet another sect with yet another different outlook upon all the questions that Wright deals with. Which 2TJ framework do we impose on Jesus when we seek to understand how he used the word ‘Logos’ or his view of the temple and of the prophets?
2. Why must we sift the NT through a 2TJ view of the world rather than a Hellenized Jews view of the world? It is true that all of the writers of the Bible were Jews, but were they Hellenized Jews or more strict 2TJ Jews? This seems an important question when it comes down to deciding whether or not to accept a Jewish spin on a word or a Greek spin on a word. Paul, the author with the most books in the Bible, was from Tarsus, a highly Hellenized city whose philosophers and library rivaled Athens. John who five books of the NT seems to be writing to a highly Greek or at least non-jewish audience. He even goes so far to define the word rabbi in John 1:38. This has great import in the reading of the Christological passage of John 1:1-5. Remember that Joseph the earthly father of Jesus spent time in Egypt a place more inclined toward Greek views of life than Judaic views on life. Could that not have played a pivotal role in Jesus’s upbringing?
3. If Jesus is self-consciously divine would not this place him above the discussion at hand. This gets back to my criticism from the last post of assuming the answer in the question, but it is worth mentioning again. Jesus as God could be far above the fray of Judaism as it existed in the first century.

Most importantly is this last and final objection.

****Why should we take a Jewish understanding of Jesus since it was the Jews who misunderstood Jesus, turned him over to be killed, and persecuted the early converts to Christianity.*******
It is a legitimate question to ask if any of these Jewish sources should be used in our understanding of Christ in the first place. Just look at what the Scriptures say on the matter.

John 5:46, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."
John 8:39, "Jesus saith unto them “If ye were Abraham’s children ye would do the works of Abraham."
2 Corinthians 3:14, "But their minds were blinded: for unto this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which vail is done away in Christ."

The point is this: why do I want to use the First Century Jewish understanding to enlighten the Bible. The First Century Jewish understanding did not understand the Old Testament, let alone the New. Bishop Wright can argue about what 2TJ thought about God until he is blue in the face, because their actions show they did not understand God at all. Bishop Wright has made no reasonable argument to show why the 2TJ should be accepted as a legitimate way to understand the OT or the NT. I hope that in the books that I have not yet read he deals seriously with the verses quoted above and the several more just like them. Until he does, he has not proved anything. Until he does, his methodology must be rejected.

However, I would be remiss if I did not deal with the Scriptural arguments he uses. So next we will turn to those arguments.

Air Travel Dislikes

I just got back from a trip to sunny Sacramento, and I have to make a few comments about air travel. Needless to say, I hate it. Let me just list a few things about air travel that make me sick.

1. It is designed for business, and not family. I was on this trip alone, but as a member of a big family, I find it disheartening to see travel by air become the property of the business class. The people on planes hate children. They will ask stewardesses to move them away from young children, they will shoot mean looks at kids under the age of 10, and they mutter under there breath about how awful children are.
2. The sole reason Democrats are able to play the ‘rich vs. poor’ card and get it to work is air travel. I understand people buying first class seats get better service, and I can even live with them getting on the plane early. However, United Airlines has given their ‘premium’ customers a special lane to help them get through security faster. Security is about safety, not about money. That one just annoys me. And, United also provides a red carpet for those ‘premium passengers’ during the ticket taking process. I am serious. There is a red carpet at every gate that people who miles points or in first class get to stand on while their ticket is taken, and then it is roped off so everyone else has to go through a different line. Just for the record cutting across the red carpet to get to the second class passenger line is frowned upon.
3. LAX is the worst airport in the world. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with air traffic or crowds. It is too big to appear clean. It was not really dirty, just not overly clean. In addition to that, I expected more out of LAX. It is a giant airport, larger than most normal sized cities. Yet, if you don’t like McDonalds or are not adventures enough to eat Mexican right before getting on a plane with one bathroom, you are going to starve to death in LAX. The Delta wing had nothing besides those two options. The United Wing had a few other highly overpriced stores like ‘Wolfgang Puck Express’ (isn’t the point of Wolfgang Puck restaurants to eat Wolfgang Puck type food? Is not an Express version of that self-defeating?) or one pizzeria that I saw make at least three different people late for flights. Minneapolis has tons of restaurants, Denver at least has multiple fast food chains like Burger King, but LAX has nothing.
4. People never obey the rules. It does not matter how many times flight attendants, gate keepers, or ticket takers tell the business passenger that the suitcase designed to fit in overhead bins of a 747 do not fit into the overhead bins or under the seat of ‘puddle-jumpers’ they will take them on and try it anyway. You have to pry those things from their cold dead fingers. Then the airlines let them put it under their feet, but not properly stowed away. That way it serves as a nice projectile if turbulence hits and can crowd the already non-existent space of the person sitting next to them. Don’t even get me started on staying buckled until the seat belt light is off.
5. Cell-phones. I am the only person in America that does not own a cell-phone. One is not allowed to use a cell-phone during flight, and that is good. However, I was unaware that not talking during the flight necessitated people to talk on the phone until the very last minute when the stewardess asks them to turn it off. It also means that as soon as the announcement states it is okay to use cell-phones again (if not before), everyone must either text someone or phone someone. If you have a cell-phone and are not on it as the plane is on the way to the gate, it is a sure sign that you are a social outcast.

Those are my thoughts about the trip. I will get back to blogging as soon as I can.