Dream Team - part 1

Si.com has an old but interesting series - "Dream Teams". They pick a sport (Baseball, football, basketball, hockey, etc.) and pick the greatest at their positions. Si.com put a twist on it, though, asking for an all star team of today and one for the future (2012).
For me, my "dream teams" would be a team that I personally saw either on TV or live. I'm sure Babe Ruth was an all-time great, but the guy DIED 30 years before I was born!
Instead, I'll pick the "greatest" players in my lifetime for my "dream" team.
Let's start with Baseball. Now, with steroids being so prevalent, I'm eliminating those on the "juice", albeit with one exception (you'll see why). Here we go:
C - Gary Carter. In his prime, "The Kid" was the cleanup hitter for the 86 Mets AND was a gold glove caliber catcher. Also a natural leader.
1B - Don Mattingly. As a Mets fan this kills me. But in the 80s, there was no one better, offensively or defensively. And with Steroids as prevalent as they are, you could make an argument that no 1B since his time who put up similar numbers was NOT on the juice.
2B - Roberto Alomar. Should be a 1st ballot hall of famer. As an aside, he was the player I emulated as a kid.
SS - Alex Rodriguez. Could be the greatest when he's retired. As it is the numbers he put up in Seattle and Texas puts him in this spot.
3B - Mike Schmidt. 548 HRs in PHILLY! Enough said.
RF - Darryl Strawberry. Controversial, I know. But in a 10 year period from 1984-1994 (ironically, right before steroids hit it big) he was by far the most talented player in baseball. He certainly had his share of drug problems, but steroids were not one of them. Had he had his head on straight, he would have put numbers similar to....
CF - Ken Griffey Jr. Before his trade to Cincinnati, he WAS the man. As it is, I'll take his 10 year run in Cincy.
LF - Barry Bonds. Yes, he roided up, big time. However, he already HAD 3 MVPs and was regarded as the best player in baseball (if not second to Griff) when he was suspected to have started taking steroids in 1998.
DH - Derek Jeter. Playoffs, baby!
RHP - Pedro Martinez. His numbers during his Cy Young seasons were the equivalent of Sandy Koufax in that he was THAT much better than everyone else. That cinches it for me.
RHP - Dwight Gooden. See Darryl Strawberry. His first two years were Pedro-like. I saw him in person so I'm a bit biased. But ask yourself this question: in his prime who was better? (Same with Darryl). Side note - had he came up with the Braves of the 90s with their pitching regimen, he DEFINITELY would have had stats similar to Pedro. As it was, he probably was overused at 19.
LHP - Randy Johnson. To think that Montreal had both him and Pedro. Than again, to think Seattle had Randy, The Kid, AND Rodriguez!
LHP - Tom Glavine. I like the "soft" tossing lefty in between the power arms of the other 3. His 300 wins cinch this for me.
Setup - Billy Wagner. Most saves by a lefty. 103 mph. highest K/9 innings. Enough said.
CL - Mariano Rivera. See Derek Jeter.

Another opinion on Milt Romney

From the Washington Post - it seems like others are catching on to this possibility!

Michael Gerson: Mormons for president Romney should acknowledge religion's role in politics Thursday, August 02, 2007

The first Mormon to run for president was the first Mormon. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formally announced his candidacy on Jan. 19, 1844, urging his supporters to "tell the people we have had Whig and Democrat presidents long enough. We want a president of the United States." Mr. Smith's campaign lasted about five months before it -- and his life -- was ended by a violent mob in Carthage, Ill.

Mitt Romney's campaign has been better received. He possesses a winning public personality, enough personal wealth to ensure he will be around when the voting starts and durable strength in Iowa and New Hampshire that could slingshot him to the nomination. As the author of an impressive oxymoron -- Republican governor of Massachusetts -- Mr. Romney stakes a strong claim to electability. And even after some recent ideological reinvention on social issues, he has successfully courted conservative supporters. The only criticism I have heard of Mr. Romney after these meetings is that he may be "too perfect" because of his Osmond-like looks and wholesomeness -- which is another way of saying he might seem "too Mormon."

Without intending or desiring it, the Romney campaign has poked the sleeping bear of debate about the role of religion in American politics.

Liberals tend to argue that all theological beliefs, including Mormonism, are fundamentally private and dangerously coercive as the basis of public policy. Some religious conservatives are concerned that this particular theology is too eccentric to be welcomed at the White House.

Facing even deeper suspicions about his Catholicism while running for president in 1960, John Kennedy produced a politically masterful, historically influential response -- which should not be Mr. Romney's model. Kennedy said that a candidate's "views on religion are his own private affair," which should not be "imposed by him upon the nation." Kennedy did more than reassure Americans that his public decisions would not be dictated by the pope. He claimed that his public decisions would not be influenced by his religious convictions at all.

There is a long tradition of American leaders who believe that religion is so personal it shouldn't even affect their private life. But this rigid separation between religious conviction and public policy lies outside the main current of American history. Abraham Lincoln's theology was not his "own private affair." "Nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness," he asserted, "was sent into the world to be trodden on." Martin Luther King Jr. claimed that to find the source of our rights, "it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity, for they are God-given."

These were theological arguments, not merely rhetorical adornments. But they were also carefully limited.

American political leaders have generally not talked about how the individual soul is saved. In Christian theology, these choices are fundamentally private, and government attempts to influence them are both doomed and tyrannical. American leaders have also wisely avoided eschatology -- speculative theories about the end or culmination of history.

But religious convictions on the topic of anthropology -- the nature and value of men and women -- have profoundly and positively influenced American history. Many of the greatest advances toward the protection of minority rights, from the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, came in part because people of faith pushed for them. And religious men and women made those efforts because they were convinced that all human beings -- not just all believers -- are created in God's image.

What does this mean for Mr. Romney? Many Christians have serious problems with Mormon theology on personal salvation and the nature of history -- disputes that go much deeper than those between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians. These disagreements are theologically important. But they are not politically important, because they are unrelated to governing.

Mr. Romney, however, should not make Kennedy's mistake and assert that all religious beliefs are unrelated to politics. What Mormonism shares with other religious traditions is a strong commitment to the value and dignity of human beings, including the unborn, the handicapped and the poor. This conviction is unavoidably political, because it leads people to act in the cause of justice; not to impose their religion, but to protect the weak.

Given this common ground, evangelicals and other religious conservatives should not disqualify Mr. Romney from the outset. There may be other reasons to oppose him for president, but his belief about the destiny of the soul is not one of them.

Some interesting statistics

Friends, I wanted to share with you some interesting statistics. These were shared by our pastor today, regarding the Christian church in North America: Every day, there are 10 churches in North America that close, whereas there are 3 that open. More mosques open each day than christian churches. In the last 50 years Christian Churches have failed to gain an additional 2% of the American Population. Essentially we're losing even our own children! Contrast this with what's going on in China. In roughly the same span of time (the last 60 years, or when Communist China took over) China has gone from 2 million Christians to over 100 million. Remember the church (and churches) in China is for all intents and purposes illegal. Things like open worship services, youth ministries, large gatherings, political clout. It doesn't happen there. And maybe that's a good thing???? What is it that they know? Paraphrasing Jesus "Come I will make you fishers of men" statement - what "bait" are they using, and why are we in North America not using it? How is that growth possible without "the churches" that we all go to? Feel free to respond/share this with folks you know....

* What is the future of the church?

I've written quite a bit about the state of the church today. Our pastor recently said in our small group that the church SHOULD be focused on what the church will look like in the future - or we'll pretty much disappear. So what IS the church going to look like, say 10-20 years down the road? Those of you who are currently going to one, what do you think your church will be like? Will it be like it's present form? And if not, what and how are you preparing FOR that change?

* If any of you wonder why there is friction between Japanese and Korean/Chinese

This officially confirms it. Until now there was no "official" position by the Japanese governement other than a policy of "no comment" or no mention of this in Japanese history books. Japan's Abe: No Proof of WWII Sex Slaves By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: March 1, 2007 Filed at 9:49 a.m. ET TOKYO (AP) -- Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday there was no evidence Japan coerced Asian women into working as sex slaves during World War II, backtracking from a landmark 1993 statement in which the government acknowledged that it set up and ran brothels for its troops. Abe's comments to reporters came as a group of ruling party lawmakers urged the government to revise the so-called Kono Statement, which states that Japan's wartime military sometimes recruited women to work in the brothels with coercion. ''The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,'' Abe said. ''We have to take it from there.'' Historians say that up to 200,000 women, mainly from Korea and China, were forced to have sex with Japanese soldiers in brothels run by the military government as so-called ''comfort women'' during the war. Japanese leaders have repeatedly apologized, including former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who said in 2001 that he felt sincere remorse over the comfort women's ''immeasurable and painful experiences.'' Abe's comments were likely to provoke a strong reaction from South Korea and China. Earlier Thursday in Seoul, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun urged Japan to be more sincere in addressing its colonial past as dozens of people rallied outside the Japanese Embassy, lining up dead dogs' heads on the ground. The demonstration marked the anniversary of a March 1, 1919, uprising against Japanese colonial rule, which still stirs up deep-rooted bitterness among Koreans. Each of the dogs had a knife placed in its mouth on pieces of paper with the names of Koreans who allegedly collaborated with Japan during its 1910-45 colonial rule. Protest organizers said the animals had been slaughtered at a restaurant, as dogs are regularly consumed as food in Korea. In a nationally televised address, Roh said Japan ''needs to, above all, show an attitude of respecting the historical truth and acts that support this.'' ''Instead of trying to beautify or justify its past wrongdoing, (Japan) should show sincerity that is in line with its conscience,'' he said. Roh also referred to recent hearings with sex slave victims in the U.S. Congress. ''The testimony reiterated a message that no matter how hard the Japanese try to cover the whole sky with their hand, there is no way that the international community would condone the atrocities committed during Japanese colonial rule,'' he said. Roh's office said late Thursday that it did not immediately have a direct response to the Japanese leader's remarks. In Beijing, calls to the Chinese Foreign Ministry seeking comment on the remarks were not immediately returned. Several members of the U.S. House of Representatives have drafted a nonbinding resolution calling for Abe to ''formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility'' for using ''comfort women'' during the war. Supporters want an apology similar to the one the U.S. government gave to Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during World War II. That apology was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Japan objects to the resolution, which has led to unease in an otherwise strong U.S.-Japanese relationship. The Kono Statement was issued in 1993 by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono after incriminating defense documents were discovered showing the military had worked with independent contractors during the war to procure women for the brothels. The statement has been attacked by right-wing nationalists in Japan, who argue the sex slaves worked willingly for the contractors and were not coerced into servitude by the military. Despite the official acknowledgment, Japan has rejected most compensation claims by former sex slaves, saying such claims were settled by postwar treaties. Instead, a private fund created in 1995 by the Japanese government but funded by private donations has provided a way for Japan to compensate former sex slaves without offering official government compensation. Many comfort women have rejected the fund. ------ Associated Press Writer Burt Herman contributed to this report in Seoul, South Korea

* So about this gay basketball player...

Some of you may have heard about John Amaechi, a former NBA player from 1998-2003 who recently published a book saying he's gay. More specifically, a lot of responses have come from this. Here is one from Chris Broussard, from espn.com. I've been waiting for a response like this regarding a Christian who has gay friends.... "...here's where I stand: I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against homosexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage. But before you label me "homophobic," know that I'm against any type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That includes heterosexual fornication (premarital sex). Some cats in the NBA run around, sleeping with different women in every city -- I don't agree with their lifestyles. Some players run around, cheating on their wives -- I don't agree with their lifestyles. It's all wrong to me and against the Biblical teachings I believe in. I'm saying all that to say that if I can play basketball with a homosexual, just about anyone can. I've played in several rec leagues with LZ Granderson, who is an openly gay writer at ESPN The Magazine. I consider LZ a friend. I've gone out to lunch with him, talked music, sports, politics and lots of other things with him. I greet him with a handshake and a hug, just like I greet lots of other guys. By the way, LZ can ball. In a league in New York City that features several former college players, we both made the All-Star team. He was kind of like our Shawn Marion minus the dunks (though he claims he can still slam!) and I was like our Gilbert Arenas (high game of 39, thank you). Anyway, when we play in our rec league games, I give him high fives and hugs. Same with one of his friends who is on the team and also gay. When we're on the court trying to get a win -- or in the office talking about a story, for that matter -- his sexuality is not an issue. Granted, I don't shower with LZ after games like NBA teammates do, and I'll admit that if I had to, it might be a little uncomfortable at first. But if a gay player just goes about his business in the shower, showing that he has no sexual interest in his teammates and that he's not "checking them out," I think the awkwardness would wear off fairly quickly. LZ and I know where each other stand and we respect each other's right to believe as he does. I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together. That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable. For the record, I covered Amaechi as a beat writer for the Akron Beacon-Journal when he was a rookie playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers. I like John. He's intelligent, nice and you can have good conversation with him. I haven't seen him in several years but if I saw him today, I'd smile and give him a hug. I think dinner with him would be a blast, with lots of great discussion/debate about race, politics, religion, Africa and yes, sexuality. Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- being that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened. That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system. Where's the diversity in that? Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion. Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to longstanding "traditional" beliefs as well. Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many non-religious Americans -- believe homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree. And please don't compare being homosexual to being black. I consider that insulting to blacks for a number of reasons. The fact that some blacks make the comparison themselves only shows how crushed our racial esteem has become because of America's oppression (witness our insistence on calling ourselves the n-word). You can't hide your skin color, choose your skin color, change your skin color, or switch your skin color back and forth. Some argue that you can't do that with your sexuality either, but there are many scientists on both sides of the genetic debate, and I believe a truly objective person would admit the biological evidence for homosexuality is far from definitive. Nor has the Bible, the Koran or the Torah ever associated a particular skin color with sin (it was only racist whites who twisted the Scriptures 400 years ago who did that, never the Bible itself). I'm not trying to get into a religious or scientific discussion here, I'm just saying that some people will accept homosexuality as fine and others will not. Some will write me off as a bigot for this article, but folks, this is real talk. Unfortunately, we can't have real talk in America nowadays. Whites can't voice their real opinions -- no matter how legitimate -- about race for fear of being called racist, and everyone's afraid of offending anyone. It seems the only person who can be openly criticized, or disagreed with, is the President. How crazy is that? Until we can honestly hear each other out -- and be civil while doing so -- we won't get anywhere. One thing I hope this article does is encourage people to have frank discussions about sensitive issues such as this one. Here's the bottom line: if I can accept working side-by-side with a homosexual, then he/she can accept working side-by-side with someone who believes homosexuality is wrong. If an NBA player can accept playing with a homosexual, then the homosexual must accept playing with guys who don't agree with his lifestyle. Believe me, when the ball goes up, his sexual preference isn't going to matter...." Comments?

* Sports - If I was commish

Now for something completely different: As many of you know I'm pretty passionate about sports. Baseball, football, basketball, hockey... I may not remember my differential calculus but I can recite the lineup of the 86 Mets in my sleep!

So here's a question: if you were named Commissioner of any of the major sports, what 5 changes would you make?

For me, I'd start with baseball, my first love. And a sport lost to Pittsburgh...

1.) Institute a salary structure - and not just a revenue tax or even a salary cap. In addition to both I would institute a full blown salary floor (each team must spend a minumum amount) and if you can't meet that minimum, your team will be demoted to the minor leagues the following year. What's more, to be eligible for revenue sharing, you must stay in the major leagues (considering how much $$$ was spent on FAs last year that's a lot of money to leave on the table). Nothing is an incentive QUITE like losing $$$. Plus this handles issues like too many teams, etc. Also, as a nod to Toronto for the canadian dollar, I would compensate their share based on the US/Canadian dollar ratio.

2.) To help break into the market share of the larger cities I would move some teams, and realign the divisions. Namely, Tampa Bay to Connecticut; Oakland to San Jose; and Kansas City to Sacramento. Then I would place Sacramento to the AL West and move the Milwaukee Brewers back to the AL Central. We now have 6 5 team divisions as opposed to the current setup of 6 team division, 1 4 team division and 4 team divisions.

Also, I'd keep the name A's (now San Jose) and Kings (now Sacramento - yes the city will have 2 Kings teams.). Connecticut however should have a new name...

3.) We're losing a whole generation of fans to night time baseball, particularly the post-season. No games start after 6pm, and unlike football the time between innings will NOT increase due to increased ads - have a ticker like they do in soccer.

4.) With each record that was set between 1994-2005 (the associated "steroid" era) I would place an asterick near each record. Yes, we are innocent until proven guilty, but with each new finding, there are less and less innocent. Roger Maris endured an asterick, so should the others.

5.) To prevent the wild card from winning the WS so much, restructure the playoffs like this: Each league will have 3 division winners and 2 teams make the wild card. The 2 teams with the WORSE records (wild card or division) play a 1 game play-in, with the other 3 teams on "bye". The divisional round starts THE NEXT DAY. This prevents lower teams from resetting their rotations, etc. So the teams have to travel that day as well. And if you play in a strong division you should not be punished.

What do you think? I'll post similar ones for the other 3 sports...

* Another opinion...

Recently I was in an email conversation with a bunch of folks. On the subject of "a lack of powerful acts being done by the church" a person had this to say:

"The church does a terrible job of telling the Christians that they are supposed to be reaching their neighbors. Today’s church says come to us. When in reality we are supposed to go to the lost. We have placed Christianity in the four walls of the church. And now we tell people to go to church instead of being the church. The church is not concerned with making disciples as we are supposed to do the church is concerned with making converts. Once they are converted we do a horrible job of helping them see what the Christian life is about and we tell them to go and read their Bible and don’t help them study the Bible. American Christians hardly even know their neighbors let alone are concerned if they know Christ if they were they would be praying for them and intentionally speaking to them about Christ. Until we get concerned about our neighbors and realize that they are lost and the church decides to teach its people how to reach their neighbors nothing will change. Outreach is taught by bringing the people to the church not going out to the people and that needs to change. We are to love our neighbors unconditionally but we would rather complain about them."

I couldn't have said this better myself. What do you think?

* A question for parents

Here's a question I have. Again, referring to Velvet Elvis, pg 80 ("Logos") "...Do you know anybody who grew up in a religious enviromnment, maybe even a christian one, and walked away from faith/church/God when they turned 18 and went to college?..." Essentially what this passage refers to is the first time people's faith are "tested" when they are out of the cocoon. Taking classes, being exposed to different thinkers and teachers.... Rob Bell goes on to talk about how he sees this with countless people. In his words, "...whenever I ask this question to a group of people, almost every hand goes up." For parents - what if this happens to your kid(s)? Is this something you have thought about? What do you think can be done to prevent this? Or do you not want to prevent this?

* Who are the people in your neighborhood?

I have the feeling I'm going to be using Velvet Elvis a lot, but I want to focus on pp166-167. Specifically how"....Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, and our neighbors can be anybody..." Who are your neighbors? Are they the family next door? Your coworkers who you go to lunch with?