The Blog of John Yuan

Fantasy Football Running Backs - Pt 2

2008-07-29T19:01:00.000-07:00

In the second installment of FF Running Backs, I'll delve into the players I feel will break through in 2008. The following RBs will be enter the "Top 12" status:

Ryan Grant. Assuming he signs a contract, Ryan Grant will prove the 2nd half of 2007 was no fluke, as he ran for nearly 1000 yards in less than 10 games, plus a 200 yard game in the playoffs against Seattle. Grant will easily top the 1000 yard barrier this year as the full time starter.

Marshawn Lynch. This is not a surprse for most folks. What IS news over the last week is the news that the NFL will not punish Lynch for his hit-and-run accident a few months ago. With no suspension to worry about, expect Lynch to post a 1400 yard season.

Reggie Bush. I know the arguments - too small, quick but not nec fast, more a slot reciever, etc. To me, he looks a lot like Brian Westbrook. And this year, he may play special teams as well. If your league rewards for receiving, definitely consider him a first rounder.

While I didn't list him among the top 12, I would consider Laurence Maroney as a first round back as well. Maroney proved his worth to Belicheck as the season went on, and I think he'll continue where he left off from the second half of 2007. Most magazines have him pegged as a #2 RB. Draft him as one and reap the rewards of getting a 1st round steal. Again, you heard it here first.

My second 12 is as follows:
13.Maroney
14.Jonathan Stewart
15.Matt Forte
16.Willie Parker
17.Michael Turner
18.Darren McFadden
19.Kevin Smith
20.Rudi Johnson
21.Julius Jones
22.Earnest Graham
23.Thomas Jones
24.LenDale White

In addition to Maroney, I'm bullish on 4 rookies: Stewart, Forte, McFadden, and Smith. (If Willie Parker is injured, add Rashad Mendenhall as rookie #5). In addition, keep an eye on Denver's Ryan Torain and Arizona's Tim Hightower. Both rookies need only a bit of luck (or in Torain's case, the usual Denver shananigans) and they could be deep sleepers that give a "Top 24" value. As stated before, this is a good year to grab a rookie RB!

We're moving!

2008-07-23T18:30:00.000-07:00

We're moving!

Esther has accepted an offer to teach 6th Grade Science in Culpeper, VA. So we are leaving Da Burgh as of August 1st.

I'll update the blog as more details emerge....

Fantasy Football - Running Backs, Pt 1

2008-07-18T07:29:00.000-07:00

This week's FF column I will cover running backs - a position so important I've devoted two parts to it.

First off, use your 1st round pick on a RB. This is not negotiable. You'll probably read in various magazines about picking a QB or WR first given the increase in the passing game.

Based on 2007, the QB most mags will point to is Tom Brady, and the season he had. Well, if you've read my first FF column, you know what I think of Brady. And at this time last year you could have had him in the 3rd or 4th round! The QB I think will be the best this year in Carson Palmer is also going around rounds 3 or 4.

What about WR? You could arguably make a case for Randy Moss going in the first round. BAck when he played for Minnesota, he was regularly a 1st round WR. Frankly he's the only one I'd make that exception for, and depending on how your league scores points, he may not be as much of a difference maker as you would think. In fact, if your league scores points for receptions, he might not even beat out his own teammate in Wes Welker!

More than any other position, RBs provide the best security. It's much easier to predict how a RB will fare than a QB or WR. Remember at this time last year no one had guessed how successful Brady was going to be. Had you picked Brady in the 3rd or 4th round after picking a top 10 RB you probably won your league.

In general, here is how I would slot the top 12 picks, regardless of position:

1. LaDainlian Tomlinson
2. Adrian Peterson
3. Steven Jackson
4. Brian Westbrook
5. Joseph Addai
6. Frank Gore
7. Larry Johnson
8. Marshawn Lynch (assuming no suspension)
9. Clinton Portis
10.Willis McGahee
11.Ryan Grant
12.Reggie Bush

After McGahee, I'd consider a WR or even a QB (if you think Peyton Manning is your guy.). Note though, after McGahee you are dealing with RBs that have more potential than production, so if you had picked a non RB in the first 8-9 picks, you'd be dealing with more "question marks" than anything else.

The next column will be featuring which RBs will rise to "top 12" and "top 24" status this year.

Passionate Spirituality - Introduction

2008-07-16T19:29:00.000-07:00

One of the foundations of the church we go to is the concept of Passionate Spirituality.

In a nutshell, this is not so much a pursuit of divine experiences as it is an outward expression of people who have been pursued and found by God. Ideally, one lives in such a way that our lives cannot be explained apart from God. Committed to being full of Jesus and full of life, the desire is to no longer be seen as ordinary, but as extraordinary—no longer seen as passive or indifferent but fervent about the cause of Christ.

Rob Bell also uses this in Velvet Elvis:

"My understanding is that as to be a Christian is to do whatever it is that you do with great passion and devotion. We throw ourselves into our work because everything is sacred."

Rob references Colossians in this passage: "Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus."

When a person pursues this passion for all it's worth, one can't help but be attracted to it. You see this all the time in sports (Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc.). You also see it in music (Miles Davis, Beethoven, the Beatles, Mozart, Stevie Wonder, U2 - just to name a few). This excellence has a draw all it's own, but there's also a magnetism attached to those who are constantly pursuing excellence simply due to their passion for their chosen field.

When one channels this passion with the love of Jesus Christ, the end result is nothing short of miraculous in how it draws others to conclude it can't be anything other than Jesus. When one is commited to living a life extroardinary - no longer seen as passive or indifferent but fervent about the cause of Christ - this can lead to God being able to do amazing things.

As a musician, I've been fortunate to be able to live this life. I've pursued my passion for music and have been blessed with both opportunities and relationships. In finding and developing my passion, I live my life as an extension of a church where the believers are on fire, living prayerfully committed lives with joyful and enthusiastic faith.

Doesn't that sound like a church you'd want to be part of?

I'll be posting more thoughts about this next week.

Chinese Ghetto

2008-07-14T07:58:00.000-07:00

This seriously has to be the funniest thing I've ever heard...

Many of you may have heard about the "Chinatown Buses". These buses are chinese-owned operations that take people from Chinatown to Chinatown, all across the Eastern Seaboard. It's a cheap option if you want to go from, say New York City to Philadelphia (a trip Esther and I have done).

Anyway, like any chinese line of businesses (such as Chinese Restaurants) the competition between the bus companies are ridiculously cutthroat. Each of them lower prices consistently. At some point one wonders how a company can even make a profit, the prices are so cheap!

Well wonder no more. This past weekend, Esther's siblings were in town, and Shaunia, her sister in law, was telling about a time when Esther's brother Harry was visiting Shauna when Harry lived in DC and Shauna lived in NY.

At the very time Harry was supposed to leave, he called Shauna and said he's taking Amtrak instead. Shauna asked, weren't you supposed to take the Chinatown bus?

Harry's response was that everyone was asked to leave the bus before it left. Why?

It was being re-po'd!

GHETTO!!!!

Fantasy Football - Rising WRs?

2008-07-11T07:35:00.000-07:00

Now that I've posted a formula for QBs, can I make the same statement for WRs? One that you probably won't find in most FF rags?

Sort of. A big indicator is if a WR who was a rookie or second year player is named the starter after spending the previous season(s) on the bench. Terrell Owens in 1997, Santana Moss in 2003 and TJ Houshmenzada in 2004 come to mind.

Another indicator is how they do in training camp, particularly if they are a rookie. Take Marques Colston. Drafted in the last round of the 2006 NFL draft, he fought his way up to be a starter and has had 1000 yards receiving in each of his first 2 seasons. He was also named a starter at the end of the 2006 training camp.

Now there ARE exceptions to this rule: Dwayne Bowe missed most of training camp last year and still had nearly 1000 yards receiving as a rookie. Still, who are the prospects to watch for?

Ted Ginn Jr. Drafted #9 to be the next Devin Hester, Ted found his first year to be a struggle, from typical rookie issues to a lack of QB (and team) stability. Yet a light came on for Ted at the end of 2007, and he found himself as the slot man by the end of the year.

This year, he moves up to the starting lineup where the increased opportunities alone will give him more chances. Add to that his special teams value (if your league counts points for that) and you have a huge sleeper for 2008.

Derek Hagen. Like Ted, he will be a starter for the first time, and he has had two years of NFL experience. He has shown promise at the NFL level from day one, and in a rebuilding year for the Fins could be a stud in the making.

The only thing that has kept him from taking the next level is his propensity to drop the ball. This was his kryptonite leading to his days at Arizona State.

Derek is someone to watch in training camp. If his "dropsies" seem to cured, grab him!

Devin Hester. Speaking of Devin, he is just learning how to play the WR position. Unlike everyone else on this list, Devin was a cornerback in college and so his learning curve is a lot steeper.

Already the best special teams player in the NFL, the Bears have been frantically figuring out how to maximize his talents as much as possible. Thinking they could have the next Steve Smith, the Bears have started to play him at WR last year.

So far, coaches are raving at how quickly he's come along. The current Bears WR corp is certainly nothing special so it's not out of the realm of possibility to see him start.

Maurice Stovall. Stovall is the classic "3rd Year WR" who is poised to break out in 2008. He is one to closely watch during training camp. If he progresses to the point where he is named starter you definitely could have the next Marques Colsten. Best of all, there's not much ahead of him that he couldn't start - it's not like he has to beat out Randy Moss and Wes Welker, after all.

I'd be wary however; Jon Gruden is typically unforgiving with younger players, so watch him closely!

Chad Jackson. Speaking of Patriot WRs, there is now an opening with Donte Stallworth gone. Jackson, a fellow 3rd year wideout could take this spot.

Granted, with Moss and Welker occupying the starting positions, Jackson at best probably wouln't crack 1000 yards receiving. And he does have to compete against Jabar Gaffney (who has a good rapport with Brady) and Kelly Washington. But this is the Pats, so you never know. And with teams scheming against Moss and Welker, you know Jackson will draw minimun coverage - if not the 3rd cornerback.

Anthony Gonzalez. Drafted to be the slot receiver for the Colts, Gonzalez has proven he can play at a high level and has earned Manning's trust. When Marvin Harrison was injured for parts of 2007, Gonzalez stepped into the starting lineup seamlessly.

Unfortunately his outlook for taking the next step in 2008 has nothing to do with him. Harrison is getting up in age, and the situation with his gun in Philadelphia may (emphasis is MAY) wind up costing him playing time.

Monitor Harrison's situation closely in training camp, and not Gonzalez. If Harrison is out for any length of 2008, Gonzalez rises to the top of this list. In fact, if Harrison misses all of 2008, Gonzales will become an automatic stud.

Whoever wins the slot position in Cincinnati. What really made the Bengals offense hum was when Chris Henry was healthy. Henry, who was talented enough to start on any other team, thrived from the lack of coverage with defenses doubling on Chad Johnson and Houshmenzada.

Right now the Bengals have a lot of in house candidates, all of whom are very talented. Especially the 3 WRs they drafted this past year.

As you can see, WRs are a dime a dozen. You can afford to "wait" on these sleepers until rounds 8 on, after grabbing your starters.

Iraq - We Have Our Answer

2008-07-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

One of the themes of this election - one that was carried over from 2004 - is the idea of getting out of Iraq. Is there a timeline?

Both Obama and McCain have stated various ideas, in either agreement or disagreement with the Bush Administration.

Well now comes this from the news: The Iraqi government is requesting a timeline, a specific date out. The US, meanwhile, is hemming and hawing.

What?

Let me get this straight - we invade a country with no logical ties to al-Qaida, by announcing the war on TV beforehand we invade we gave Saddam Hussein time to cover up any links to WMDs, we had no consensus or allied support beyond England, we get a new government in place and when this government asks us to leave - we don't???

My father, the biggest conservative I know, was against the war to begin with. Even he had said - what right does the US have to determine who can rule and who can't? After all, isn't the purpose of the UN to be the world's police?

Isn't the purpose of this government to speak for the Iraqi people? In ways that they couldn't under Saddam?

Fantasy Football - Formula for Quarterbacks

2008-07-06T19:09:00.000-07:00

Most people in my league knows I love running backs. The more the better.

This does NOT mean I ignore other positions however. Far from it, I do scout other positions - particularly the QB position.

In particular, I developed a formula years ago. This has allowed me to pick Kurt Warner off of FA in 1999; Jeff Garcia the following year; Carson Palmer in 2005; and a suggestion to a friend to get Brady Quinn last year (right team; wrong QB).

What is this formula? Essentially, it's the following:

1. A deep corp of WRs
2. A running game to at least keep the defense honest
3. An offensive head-coach/coordinator that likes to pass the ball
4. Success at the position/team during the last half of the previous year
5. Horrible defense

Some cases you have 4 of the 5 (Warner & Quinn had no experience beforehand; Palmer had a decent defense in 2005), but when you have all 5, grab that QB!

In 2007, two QBs stand out with all 5. Denver's Jay Cutler and Arizona's Matt Leinart will in all likelihood ascend to the "stud" tier of QBs next year. Feel free to wait until mid rounds to grab one of them!

In addition, sometimes the system is so good the backup QBs can succeed. Warner and Derek Anderson were the primary examples. Look for Warner this year, as well as Brady Quinn.

One special case is Green Bay. Favre had a renaissance year last year by "playing the system" and taking advantage of his deep recieving corp. Whether Favre comes back or Aaron Rodgers takes the throne in 2008, it doesn't matter - either QB will be a stud as well.

Sports thoughts

2008-07-03T11:34:00.000-07:00

Here are some various observations on the sports world (at least according to John):

Could Baron Davis save the Knicks? As many of you know by now, Baron Davis shocked the NBA by opting out of his contract with Golden State and then turning around 24 hours later to sign with the Clippers.

What does that have to do with the Knicks?

Interestingly enough, the media in the Bay Area have proposed an interesting solution: the Warriors offer Al Harrington (his contract expires in 2010) and a protected future No. 1 pick for Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph?. If I were the Knicks, I'd jump ont this!

Harrington alone would be fine. Add a potential first round pick? Done and done!

Hossa.... what? When the Pens pulled the trigger on Hossa, everyone assumed this was a "go-for-it-now" trade, a deal to get the Pens the cup, and 2009 be damned. If the Pens could resign him great, but if they could not afford it, the trade would be worth it if they could get closer to the cup with him than without.

And that would make sense if Hossa signed a deal way more than the 7 million the Pens were offering in a 5 year deal.

But a 1 year, 7.45 mil deal with Detroit?

It makes no sense. Yes, the Red Wings are the defending Stanley Cup champions. Yes they could repeat next year. And yes, Hossa did say he thought the Wings were closest to the cup.

But the same logic could be applied to the Pens?

I've heard various theories, the most palpable one being that he wanted to wait a year and try his luck next year when the salary cap could rise (the last two offseasons have resulted in higher caps than expected) or try his luck with the new super=league in Russia who has more money apparently than Bill Gates. But if he was going to sign a 1 year deal, why not back with the Pens?

Say the Pens have a rotten year next year. You don't think the Pens wouldn't trade Hossa just like Atlanta did last year? Or any team?

As I am typing this, I see that the Pens have resigned Fleury. This after re-signing Malkin and Orphik yesterday. They have all the core players now resigned. All they need is a #1 winger. Hmmm, who would THAT be?

Brett - please retire. And I'm not saying this b.c I have Aaron Rodgers on my fantasy team.

You had the best season of your career last year since your MVP days. You were an intercepted pass away from the Super Bowl. You left as a hero in Green Bay. And - you have your health and body intact.There is no reason to come back.

You already have your ring. You don't need to leave like Mike Strahan or Jerome Bettis from two years ago. You have nothing left to accomplish.

Assuming you chose to retire for the right reasons, then stay retired. Please.

Fantasy Football Part 2

2008-06-29T20:16:00.000-07:00

In this week's installment of my Fantasy Football column, I'll tackle some questions some of you may have been thinking about in the offseason:

Has Eli Manning arrived? Starting in the final week of the regular season (which ironically is the end of most FF seasons) Peyton's younger brother went on an absolute tear. In his 4th season, Eli put the team on his shoulders and led the G-men to come from behind wins against the Pats and the Pack, while composing impressive wins against the Cowboys and Bucs.

So, has Eli become an elite FF quarterback?

Eli's run reminded me a lot of John Elway. Like Eli, he was facing unreal expectations of being a #1 pick in a quarterback-rich draft. Elway's 4th season was in 1986, where "the Drive" killed the hearts of Cleveland and took the Broncos to the SB.

As great of a season Elway had, it took him a few more years to be an elite FF quarterback - almost 8 more to be exact. He needed a head coach in Mike Shanahan to really take advantage of his skills.

Eli is in the same boat. Kevin Gilbride's offenses are known for a power running game and plenty of play-action passes. And the Giants led the league in rushing last year. I expect more of the same in 2008 - of course, with a lot less grief from the press.

Has Larry Johnson hit the wall?After a 2006 season where he set the season record of carries, Larry Johnson was heading up a lot of lists of RBs to take a fall. Sure enough, he was injured against GB and killed many a FF season (mine included). Has LJ started his decline?

No. For starters, the injury, a horse-collar pull, was a freak injury. The same injury happened to Adrian Peterson in Oklahoma, as well as Terrell Owens in 2004. Both came back just fine. Also, the injury (which actually was his foot) allowed him to heal completely as opposed to take a beating over a year.

Plus, LJ despite his age and recent usage, does not have a lot of carries on his body. He has only played 2 full seasons as a starter, and in college he played very little save his senior year at Penn State (note: Rashard Mendenhall has the same history. Draft him!). Michael Turner was lauded as a RB with little wear and tear during the offseason. LJ is also the same.

Add to that the addition to the offensive line, and I would look for a bounceback season by LJ. He may not post the back to back 1700 seasons of 2005-6, but I'd say 1400 is within reach, making him a top 7 RB.

Will any of the quarterbacks drafted this year make any noise? Unless Aaron Rodgers flops, no. Rookie QBs have historically struggled; the transition from college to the NFL is a huge one. Plus the teams that draft them tend to be bad teams.

Only Brian Brohm could break this trend with a young team in GB that made the NFC championship last year. Brohm is a very polished college QB who was deemed the most NFL ready as it was. But he was drafted as insurance for Rodgers who not only played well against Dallas, but has taken all the steps to be a leader this year.

Even the rookie QBs that play well (Trent Edwards last year, Ben Rothlesbuger last year) tend to not put up a lot of FF points anyway; their teams play conservatively. Expect the same for all of them, Brohm included.

Does Mike Martz = Fantasy fireworks?We know his history. Martz turned St Louis into the Greatest Show On Turf. What he did in Detroit may have been even more impressive as journeyman QB John Kitna averaged 4000 yards passing and Mike Furrey (who?) had 98 catches in 2006.

Can he do the same in SF? It's possible. Martz raves about Alex Smith, whos intelligence and athleticism makes him an ideal fit to run Martz offense. Martz also promises Frank Gore and Vernon Davis will be "cornerstones" in the offense.

However, SF's receivers are not the caliber of a Roy Williams/CAlvin Williams or Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce. And the RB has never been a huge point producer (unless they can catch the ball ala Marshall Faulk).

I'd consider Gore as a FF stud; the others I would take a "buy low" approach.

Could the STEELERS be the next FF juggernaut? This is not as crazy as it sounds.

Last year, running Bruce Arians spread offense for the first time, Big Ben set a team record with 32 touchdowns. Willie Parker was leading the league in rushing until he was injured for the year. And Santonio Holmes was a good half away from 1000 yards, averaging a whopping 18 yards per reception.

This year, the Steelers are running the offense for the second year. Holmes is entering his 3rd year in the league - the magical year for WRs. The Steelers lucked out in getting Mendenhall and Limas Sweed. Mendenhall could be a stud anywhere else; he'll split the carries with Fast Willie this year (When Parker went down, the running game went with it.). Sweed provides a huge target at 6'4" and allows Hines Ward to play in the slot, which he is more suited for - Ward's best seasons were when he played alongside 6'5" Plaxico Burress.

Look to Pittsburgh early and often in your FF draft.

NBA Draft

2008-06-26T21:12:00.000-07:00

Well, the draft came and went. And for the Knicks, all I have to say is this:

I sure as heck hope the Knicks know what they are doing.

Danilo Gallinari, the 6'9" small forward who at 19 has yet to scratch the surface, is heading to NY. The question is, will Gallinari be the next Dirk - or will he be the next Darko?

In my previous post regarding the Knicks I had said that they needed to get pick DJ Augustin, which they did not. Jerrod Bayless, a tweener guard who is not a pure point at this stage but is in the mold of Chauncey Billups, was also available. That's a lot of talent to pass up.

I had also said the Knicks should try to swing a deal for Shawn Marion. Supposedly, Danilo has a similar game. Let's hope!

Meanwhile, in all the wheeling and dealing, how could the Knicks not trade off any of their players? Teams like Miami are in an obvious "Win-now" mode - they could easily use Eddy Curry or Zach Randolph (don't tell me Riley doesn't want to take on head cases if he picked Beasley as opposed to Mayo!). Supposedly Minny was looking to deal as well, particularly with the hope of giving Al Jefferson some post help. Now that KG is gone, they definitely have the cap room.

Look at the Nets. They moved quickly and decisively, first dealing Kidd during the season, then trading Richard Jefferson hours before the draft. And the picks they made, from Brooks Lopez at 10 to Chris Douglas Roberts in the second round not only fit needs - they were absolute steals.

I really really REALLY hope the Knicks know what they are doing....

James Dobson does NOT speak for me!!

2008-06-25T10:45:00.000-07:00

This website speaks for itself:

http://www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com/

Fantasy Football Part 1

2008-06-22T17:07:00.000-07:00

Ahhh, yes. It's that time of year... Fantasy football!

I've been playing for 13 some odd years and I've really enjoyed putting my math background to good use. Borrowing heavily from the Billy Beane school of management (read Moneyball if you want more info), it's been a lot of fun for me the last few years.

The past few years, our league has played what's called a Dynasty League, where you can practically keep your whole team (up to 15 players). So there's been a definite emphasis on youth in our league. But that doesn't prevent "old reliables" from being valued.

Anyway, as the year begins, here are my initial thoughts to the 2008 season. I'll be writing a weekly column (that is, once a week), and I will try to post some things that you probably won't see on most FF rags.

1.LT is the number one back in FF, but AP is closing the gap. Most of my league knows by now that I was drooling over Adrian Peterson since he was in high school (yes, I need help:)). And in his rookie year, he delivered! While his rookie season was not on the level of Eric Dickerson (1800+ yds) or Edgerrin James (1700+ yds), his numbers were quite close to Barry Sanders, who like AP rushed for over 1300 yards and was within reach of the rushing title.

Ladainlian Tomlinson, meanwhile continued his reign as the top back in fantasy. He didn't have the year he had in 2006, but was still quite impressive, leading the league in rushing.

Will this trend continue? I say yes - for one more year. LT will be 29 on June 23rd (Happy Birthday, LT!) and the statistics for RBs dropping off at the 30 year mark is frightening. LT in particular has been used quite a bit - not just in the running game, but in the passing game as well (he is one of only 3 RBs to ever amass 100 receptions in a season). AP, meanwhile has already entrenched himself as the #2 back in FF, with Stephen Jackson and Frank Gore close behind among the RBs under 25.

So enjoy LT while you can. Those of you in keeper/dynasty leagues, look to trade him this year. And look at either Jackson or Gore as "buy low" candidates.

2.Darren McFadden will not be the next Adrian Peterson. In fact, D-Mac may not even be the best rookie RB this year!

Most pro scouts were not even convinced that D-Mac was any better than Jonathan Stewart or Rashad Mendenhall, both of whom landed on teams that like to run the ball. Stewart in fact was drafted with an Offensive tackle in the first round who would complete a return to a power running game in Carolina. While there is no argument regarding MacFadden's explosiveness, there are those who question his ability to run in between the tackles, along with his "stiffness" with his hips (this is the scouts talking, not me!). AP had no such concerns.

In fact, his own team has stated they will not use MacFadden like Peterson. They have pointed to Reggie Bush as their model (which if you play in a league that scores for receptions would definitely hike him to #1); plus Oakland drafted Michael Bush as their "power" back last year anyway.

At this time last year, the gap between AP and Marshawn Lynch (who would probably have won rookie of the year any other year) was pretty wide. This year, you could arguably flip a coin between the three rookies. My prediction is that Matt Forte will be the top rookie in FF, with either Stewart or Kevin Smith having a better career than D-Mac.

(incidently, this is a good year to grab a rookie RB in fantasy. All of the RBs mentioned will probably be top 15 RBs by 2009.)

3.Tom Brady will NOT be the best quarterback in FF this year. History proves this point. Look at the "all time" statistical years QBs have had in previous years: Dan Marino, 1984; Kurt Warner 1999; Peyton Manning/Daunte Culpepper 2004. Not only did none of them repeat, they weren't even the top QBs the next season!

If there was a consistent record of that success, that's one thing. But a spike like that doesn't usually last. In Brady's case, he was never even considered among the top 5 FF QBs before any season until this one.

Of course, most experts point to Randy Moss as the difference maker, and I'll grant you that. But Brady threw 50 TDs! Think of it this way - Moss broke Jerry Rice's TD record, and both WRs were consistently among the league leaders in TDs. Did either of their QBs break even 40 TDS in any of their seasons? No! Culpepper came the closest in 2004 with 39. But, Moss was injured for a fair portion of the season.

Brady broke Manning's record of 49 TDs, set in 2004. Manning didn't even break 30 the next year - and he's considered Mr. Consistency!

Let someone else pick Brady as their #1 QB. I'll pass on that pick.

4.Randy Moss, however will be the #1 WR in again. Go back and look at the tape of last year. Moss was regularly beating double and triple coverage for many of his TDs (He beat the entire Jets secondary at one point. Sigh!). With Belicheck on his behind and Brady having his back, there is no reason for him not to be. Moss knows he won't get this shot anywhere else. For the first time in his career he has found a team and system where he can succeed both on the field and off. He may not put up 24 TDs again, but remember his 98 receptions and 1491 yards were NOT career highs. In fact they were right among his average before he was traded to Oakland. I'd pencil him in for 94-1500-18TDs easily, numbers that should keep him at #1.

5.If Brady is not the #1 FF QB for 2008, who will be? Here's my prediction: Carson Palmer. Palmer threw for 4000 yards and 26 TDs, and yet he had what folks considered a down year. 20 interceptions will do that to you.

It's not like Palmer suddenly forgot how to throw. The biggest obstacle was a lack of a running game. Rudi Johnson, a traditional FF bedrock of 1300 yds and 12 tds each year, had a down year when he tried to lose weight for the 2007 season. What's worse, his backups in Chris Perry and Kenny Irons were injured - Irons, drafted specifically to be Rudi's backup, tore his ACL in preason. So everyone and their mother knew Palmer was throwing.

And despite his "bad" year, both Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmanzada had career seasons, with Ocho Cinco setting team records in recieving yards and TJ leading the league in receptions (also setting team records). So somebody was benefitting!

With a more balanced running game (and the same putrid defense) expect Palmer to rise up and take his crown as FF's #1 QB. Remember, you read it here first!

I'll be posting more thoughts next week.

Has the internet ruined music?

2008-06-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

Has the internet ruined music? Well, it depends on how you look at it.

It used to be when you thought of really big rock groups, the Stadium headliners, the groups you'd see today as worthy of being inducted in the Rock and Roll "Hall of Fame" you had groups like The Police, U2, Van Halen, REM, Metallica, Tom Petty...

Who do you have now? Coldplay? Radiohead? Would you consider those groups on that level? Maybe even Dave Matthews?

I read an interesting article about this in the Post Gazette, which used this very example. It used to be that when a record label "discovered" a group, they had time to develop and refine their sound. The article goes on to mention how nowadays, with Youtube and Myspace it doesn't take much for a group to get popular, and then "bypass" the time needed for refining their sound. Even itunes is musician friendly.

I can somewhat relate to this. I've been taking jazz piano lessons for the last 18 months or so. My wife will be the first to tell you how much my playing has improved over the last year or so.

Last year I was gigging quite heavily between playing reggae and jazz. And yet I knew that I could have been better, that I had the desire, but my fingers had not caught up with ears.

Anyway, I don't think the internet has "ruined" music, but I do think that the music industry does need to adapt.

Look at video games. You can get and play plenty of games on the internet, yet the demand for quality computer gaming easily funds large gaming companies (let alone stand alone consoles like the Wii, Xbox, PS2+3, etc.).

It's going to take some creative thinking, a "business model" innovation to catch up with the technological innovation.

The Mets suck!!!

2008-06-17T08:36:00.001-07:00

Ugh!

Well, we know now what the real problem is with the Mess.

Getting fired at 3:15 in the morning??? A press release??????? After making them fly across country?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Personally speaking, I've been laid off a lot of different ways. I can probably speak better than anyone on how classless this is.

What makes this even crazier is how this contrasts to the class that Willie has been all these years. He definitely deserves better.

Where to begin?

1.Willie. Really, was this his fault? If you think it was, ask yourself this: what was the difference between him now and the Mets of 2006? The one who nearly made the World Series with one good pitcher? The one whos season ended with their MVP candidate at bat?

Look at the Mets of 2005. The parallels are ridiculous! A lack of power at 1B and the outfield, a bullpen that failed to hold leads for their ace, and it resulted in a 83-79 season. After the 2005 season, Omar responded and got Delgado and Wagner.

Now I can understand the logic that Willie should have been fired after the collapse last year. I wouldn't have agreed with it - after all, they hired a manager with no experience, what did they expect? - but I can at least understand it. Now of course, NO ONE is talking about Willie.

2.Omar. Omar has made a lot of good deals; however, the lack of a power bat should have been addressed during the offseason. Again, look at the difference Delgado made in 2006. When his bat slowed, they could have theoretically protected themselves with a legit power bat in RF or LF. Particularly with the interest in Heilman. Either way, he's on the firing line now.

3.Fred Wilpon. Really who is the common denominator here? The Wilpons have allowed this culture to exist since the 1980s. I think without the Wilpons changing the Mets will have to succeed despite themselves.

One of the issues is that the veterans started losing respect for Willie. Well, supposedly, "confidential" conversations between Willie and management regarding such players leaked to them. Again, how is Willie - or anyone - supposed to have a chance in this situation?

In all this mess steps in poor Jerry Manuel. He deserves a lot better. Ironically, his managerial record is almost identical to Randolphs....

Boston - the center of the sporting universe???

2008-06-13T07:54:00.000-07:00

Since when is BOSTON become the center of the Sporting Universe????

The Red Sox are the defending World Series champs for the second time in 4 years. The Patriots were one David Tyree miracle catch from a perfect season, and a 4th Superbowl in 6 seasons. And the Celts - after finishing dead last the year before, are a win away from winning the NBA title (Knicks management - are you paying attention to this???)

A lot of this is due to some new talent. The Red Sox, besides having their pitching rebuilt, is centered around David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez being the most feared 3-4 hitters in baseball. The Pats took off after taking a chance on Randy Moss. And we know what the Celts did, importing KG and Ray Ray to Paul Pierce's side.

I'm going to add one more reason to this - controversial as it is....

Boston is now a city that has overcome it's reputation for being racist.

Think about this for a minute. David Stern never wanted to admit this, but what fueled much of the fanbase of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry was race - Magic was black, Bird was white. When you thought of "Hall of Fame" Red Sox players pre-Manny/Pedro, you thought of Ted Williams, Carl Yazstremski, Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens. The most prominent black Red Sox until they got Pedro was Jim Rice, whos surliness not only cost him any shot at the hall of fame, it only pushed the reputation more of Boston being hostile towards blacks. And let's not forget what happened to Paul Pierce during the 1999 season with him being stabbed.

Yet this perception has begun to change. When the Red Sox finally started making the post season consistently during the 90s, they were led by Mo Vaughn, who did his best to turn the reputation around. The Celts brief turnaround during the 2002-3 season was driven by Pierce and Antoine Walker. Still, Boston had a reputation for being hostile towards african-americans, and as a result many stayed away.

Garnett was initially leery of Boston because of this reputation, but Pierce did his best to convince him otherwise - and look at the result. Corey Dillon and Randy Moss had media reputations far worse than Rice - and yet the Patriots were able to not only integrate them but they were arguably the engines that ran the last two Pats teams that made the SB. None of this was possible even 10 years ago.

This is not to say Boston is no longer a "racist" city. Nor is this saying Boston really was one ten years ago. What this *is* saying is that the perception no longer exists to many black atheletes.

After all, the Bruins are still struggling....

OBAMA

2008-06-03T20:41:00.000-07:00

Well, it's official: Obama is now the democratic nominee. A few thoughts:

* It's pretty interesting all the people who I've found out that are supporting Obama. Certainly, most (if not all) of the musicians that I know. But also, a fair amount of Christians as well. There's an interesting article in the NY Times that talks about how a new generation of Christians are tired of being pigeon-holed as blind supporters of the Republican party. One person in particular voiced his support for Obama in the article.

Now, the NY Times is notoriously a liberal newspaper so I'll take that perspective with a grain of salt. But even among the folks I know I can't recall the last time I saw so many christians not only support a non-republican candidate, but support him wholeheartedly, with no fear of what their christian friends may think. Also, just about every christian and musician I know who is supporting Obama is doing it for reasons that are well thought out.

* For those who still question Obama's faith, I have a question - would you vote for McCain? What evidence is there of HIS faith? Obama invites this topic; McClain only recently brought it up.

* It was nice to see Hillary show her true colors. In the very day that should have been Obama's, the very night that the issue of party unity should have been addressed, Hillary would not concede. From the day Hillary first ran for NY Senator, I was very much against her very obvious run for Presidency. Of course, she has in the last few weeks shot herself in the foot as she has alienanted her fellow senators that are democrats - the very senators who she will need to work with in a few months. And any possible hope that she could have had to be Obama's VP choice was shot as well.

* Of course, who WOULD be a good VP candidate? Well, if not Hillary.... why not Bill? From Obama's perspective, this makes a lot of sense; who else can say that they have a former president in their inner circle to lean on for advice? From Bill's perspective, well let's face it - after being president, what other job could be as satisfying?

International Game?

2008-05-30T23:33:00.000-07:00

In watching the NBA and NHL playoffs, it strikes me how much better the European and Canadian players are than their American counterparts.

Why is this?

Oh, I don't mean to say that the US isn't producing good players. But for every Kobe Bryant, there are several Tony Parkers and Manu Ginoblis. The Lakers themselves reloaded around Kobe with European players. And in the NHL you have the aforementioned Pens (see previous blog entry) going up against a largely European machine in the Detroit Red Wings.

So what am I getting at?

Why are players coming from Europe (and Canada in the case of hockey) so much better at such a young age?

I'll explore this topic a little more - as well as solve college athletics - in one fell swoop in my next blog entry. Stay tuned:)

What should the Knicks do now?

2008-05-20T22:30:00.000-07:00

Well, the draft lottery is over - and the Knicks wound up with the 6th pick. What exactly should the Knicks do?

If they truly want to run Mike D'Antoni's system - and get their salary cap situation down - this is what they should do:

1.Keep any player who's contract expires after this year. This includes Stephon Marbury. The Knicks should suck it up and deal with him for a year - perhaps even shift him over to shooting guard - but as they are not going anywhere for a year, make the best of it.

2.If they do make any trades, take back expiring contracts, not more bad ones. Do the reverse of Isiah Thomas. After all, Isiah got them into this mess - it only makes sense to do the reverse, right?

Fact is, the Knicks do have some players that would garner interest. Big men such as Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph. Or hustle players such as David Lee. See which players would garner interest. Here's a deal:

3.Trade either Curry or Randolph to the Heat for Shawn Marion. Marion, who thrived under D'Antoni, would be an instant fit for the Knicks, who have a huge hole at the small forward position. With the lack of firepower, he'd get a lot more touches with the Knicks than he did in either Phoenix or in Miami - and remember, he left the Suns due to the lack of touches. Getting either big men would be a huge upgrade for the Heat, and allows them to draft Derrick Rose at PG. Marion meanwhile is in his final year - if he's not happy he, like Marbury, is free to go after the 2008-9 season.

4.Look to draft DJ Augustin. Augustin is the second best PG in the draft after Rose. What he is not is an undersized "2" as OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, or Jerod Bayless. And the Knicks have a small SG in Marbury anyway.

The exception I would make is Mayo, who has the size and game of Dwayne Wade. However, he probably will be taken in the top5, if not top 3.

5.By all means, make sure they are in good salary cap shape for the FA class of 2010. Here's a list of who's available (note - anyone over 30 is eliminated):

Studs: LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki, Josh Howard, Tracy McGrady, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Manu Ginobili

The Rookie Contracts: Shelden WIlliams, Rajon Rondo, Adam Morrison, Tyrus Thomas, Rudy Gay, Kyle Lowry, Randy Foye, Marcus Williams, Josh Boone, Renaldo Balkman, Mardy Collins, Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, LaMarcus Aldridge, Quincy Douby, Ronnie Brewer, Andrea Bargnani

Role Players: Amir Johnson, Al Harrington, Derek Fisher, Mike Miller, Darko Mlicic, Udonis Haslim, Quentin Richardson, Raja Bell, TJ Ford

Obviously, this list begins at James, with Wade, Nowitzki and Bosh as the next tier. Assuming that D'Antoni is still coaching the Knicks, players like stoudemire and Joe Johnson are a natural fit as well. Either way, they need to be ready for a potential bonanza.

Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury

2008-05-12T16:12:00.000-07:00

I'd never thought I would live to see the day that I would be rooting for any of the teams in Pittsburgh, but I've become a fan of the Penguins.

In watching the Pens, here's a question I would ask: what would it have been like for Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, and Roy to be on the same team during the 80s????

Because that is what the Pens have in their precious foursome of Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury.

It's not like this was unexpected. All 4 players were picked in the top 5 of each respective draft, with Crosby and Fleury going 1st overall and Malkin a potential #1 if not for Alexander Ovechkin. Crosby in particular has been dealing with the Gretzky comparisons since he was a teenager (with The Great One giving his seal of approval). As for Fleury, there are very few goalies picked 1st overall, so folks knew he was going to be special. Anyone who saw Malkin as a teenager saw the same physical skillset that Lemieux had when he dominated Quebec Jrs.

The surprise is that Malkin is not only a better player than Ovechkin, he may be the best player in the game right now. (Which, ironically is the same argument folks here in Pittsburgh had 20 years ago regarding Lemieux vs. Gretzky).

The surprise is Staal, who nearly scored 30 goals as a rookie and has the same two-way game and nose for scoring shorthanded goals is Messier. No one would compare his leadership skills to Messier's (then again no one could possibly compare to Messier in that regard); however, it took a few years before Messier's body matured enough to be a complete player. Staal is already ahead of the curve, and the roles he is currently taking (and excelling at) in the playoffs are what Messier typically took when he was 2nd line center to Gretz.

The surprise is Fleury, who in sitting out this year due to injury, seems to have figured things out and is taking the "next step" in his evolution. Goalies typically develop later and his progress is what you'd expect a couple years from now. Fluery has arrived.

And this is on the heels of last year's surprise, Crosby winning the Hart and Art Ross. Most people had expected this by year 3 or 4. Again, he has arrived, ahead of schedule. Not even 21, Crosby is the face of the new NHL - the LeBron James on skates and the best player in the league.

(this btw isn't even taking into account Sergei Gonchar playing as one of the best offensive defenseman in the game, a shrewd signing that was panned at the time).

Perhaps this is why Ray Shero shocked the NHL and pulled the trigger to get Marian Hossa. He knew what he had, and that the Dynasty has arrived - now. A year ago, I was telling folks that the Penguins had the look of the Oilers dynasty of the 80s. If it's possible, this team might eventually be even better...

Regardless of whether the Pens can beat the Detroit machine to win the Cup (I personally think they will after dispatching the Rangers but this could be like 1983 when the Oilers steamrolled into the finals but lost to a veteran Islanders team at the end of their dynasty) folks should remember where they were when they saw the dawn of a new dynasty. Like Tiger winning Augusta in '97, Jeter playing in his first October in 96, and Vinitieri shocking the world in 2001.... or Edmonton in 1984. But just imagine if that Edmonton Dynasty also had Lemiuex centering the second line and Roy behind the pipes. That's what we have in Crosby, Malkin, Staal, Fleury...

A vote for Obama

2008-05-12T15:54:00.000-07:00

As many of you who know me can attest, I am an unabashed supporter this year for Obama. Here's why....

First off, I feel that our country is not particularly in good shape. Specifically we as a country seem more divided than united. Now, perhaps a lot of this is being driven by talk radio, but it really seems like this is the result of very polarizing figures in the White House, specifically Bush and Clinton before him. Perhaps it was like this during the Reagan administration as well; I have to plead to the ignorance of my youth for that time. All I know is that we seem very divided as a nation.

Consequently many of the candidates running are a result of this situation. Essentially the feeling that I get with most of the candidates is that "I have my viewpoints and ideas, you are welcome to be part of my side but if you don't agree with me the heck with you". Even more disturbing is when you see the majority of the candidates on TV, all of their support base look just like the candidates. They aren't even trying to reach beyond folks who "look" like them.

Where Obama differs on this is that he is reaching out to "groups" of people that ARE different than him. What I get from his actions is "I'm willing to listen". I think this is an important quality of any leader. I *also* think this is something faith driven in him, which is why I said I like how his faith works.

I've used the example of him speaking at Rick Warren's church. Here is the text of his speech: (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/061201-race_against_ti/) as well as an article in Time Magazine about it (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html).

If you read his speech, you'll notice a couple of things. One, he calls himself a fellow Christian. If he's not a Christian, he was seriously putting himself on the firing line. Two, he gives Bush credit where it's legitimately due (Which to be honest is more than I would do). That's something none of Bush's opponents have done.

Then there is the impact of him speaking at Saddleback. I am not a Rick Warren fan at all - I think his books seriously dumb down Christianity - but the way he lives his life definitely honors God (he does a 90/10 tithing where his family tithes 90% and their family lives off of 10%, plus they no longer collect a paycheck at Saddleback) and from what I see of Saddleback it definitely seems like a "legitimate" church. I don't think Rick Warren would have asked a non-christian to speak, particularly a politician - after all, if it was just a matter of asking a democrat, he could have asked Hillary Clinton who was far more visible at the time.

From the cynical viewpoint, was it calculated? Definitely. Still, the big thing is that Barack spoke at a venue and to an audience that no other Democrat would speak at. And just as telling, you don't see any of the Republican candidates speaking at a traditionally Democratic stronghold.

Going back to this "I will listen" perspective: I think our next president has to have this viewpoint, not just in terms of advocating "change" but also with foreign policy. Beyond the war, the biggest issue I have is that the idea that the United States is the only superpower left, and thus we are the big bully on the block. (Ron Paul has this viewpoint - to the extent he wants the US leave the UN - which is why I won't vote for him.).

Fact is, China is already the equal of the US and in 10 years India will probably be the third.

The viewpoint that the rest of the world has is that the US will not listen to anyone. I"m not saying he has to agree but he should at least TRY to understand what the perspective of the other person is saying, which ironically Jimmy Carter managed to accomplish this with his work in 2002, thus winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Most of the Arab world already has this viewpoint of us, and I don't think we can "win the hearts and minds of the Arab world" as Bush wants to do without some level of change of perspective from our end (especially not after calling Iran one of the "Axis of Evil"). Now, listening is NOT the same thing as agreeing. But what I get from Obama is that he is willing to work with people who don't necessarily see eye to eye with him, who may not worship at the same church that he does. I don't get that from anyone else. And in a nation of different viewpoints and people, isn't that what a leader is supposed to do?

In terms of Obama's faith, he has said that he's a Christian. More specifically he's said the following about how he came to be a Christian:

"...was not raised in a religious household." He describes his mother, raised by non-religious parents, as detached from religion, yet "in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I have ever known." He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful." ... in his twenties, while working with local churches as a community organizer, he came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. It was because of these newfound understandings—that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized."

You would expect Obama to say something like "Belief in God gives me comfort" or something like that. The Clintons have said this for example. This on the other hand is rather pronounced, more specifically as he did not grow up in a Christian household.

Obama was also honest about how during his formative years he did drugs and alcohol to push his questions away. In other words, he had a hole in his heart that he tried to fill with other things before he understood who God was. That seems pretty legit to me.

In his time as a Christian, I really see God working in his life to reach out to others who aren't the same as him. From his work as a lawyer working with underprivileged and disadvantaged to speaking at Saddleback, he's constantly breaking down barriers. In a way, I guess you could say that I relate to that:). But more specifically I feel this is a God thing simply b/c he's doing what does NOT come naturally. Frankly the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties was only able to gain steam that way, when whites worked with blacks. And I think Obama's whole professional life is about this.

Where Obama stands on the "issues". I don't agree with everything that he wants to do - then again I don't agree with everything of any of the candidates. However many of the differences are moot points to me. I've already explained my viewpoint on Abortion. Healthcare is another. Given how rich the Pharmaceutical and Insurance companies are, their lobbying power is probably the equivalent of the Tobacco industry or the NRA. And frankly I do think there needs to be some sort of universal health care, just not the extreme level that the Democrats are asking about. I'm more for a "baseline" type health care system, or at least something along the lines of a $4 generic drug plan.

I agree with his stance on the war, and I especially agree with his stance on education (ask any teacher what No Child Left Behind has made things worse not better). More specifically his position on issues such as Education seems like he actually SPOKE to the experts - the teachers, educators, etc. Those of you that are parents, look closely at some of the viewpoints of the other candidates and ask any expert in that field you know (such as a teacher for education) and get their opinion.

Ultimately Obama seems to be willing to listen, as I have said before. If the experts (say the Generals in Iraq) tell him differently than what he thinks, I think he would change his mind.

Racism? Cultural ignorance? You decide....

2008-05-12T15:53:00.000-07:00

(Note: Boy, can I relate to this story!)

Stopping Traffic in the People’s Republic

By VIVIAN S. TOY

NYTimes Published: May 4, 2008

WERE people gawking at my children? I wasn’t sure.

We were visiting the Forbidden City in Beijing, part of a two-week family vacation to China, when a young woman pulled down her antipollution mask and stared, open-mouthed, at my 7-year-old son, Patrick. She didn’t seem dangerous, just amazed, so I let the moment pass and we moved along to the next stop on our tour.

But the next day, during a visit to the Great Wall, my maternal defenses kicked in when another woman approached us. Without asking permission, she sidled up to my 11-year-old son, Aidan, and draped her arm around him. Her husband was about to snap a quick photograph when I shouted furiously at her in halting Mandarin to get away from my son.

By then, it had become clear why my children were attracting so much attention. They look Chinese, but not exactly. They look Western, but not quite. What they really look like is what they are: a blend of me, a Chinese-American, and my husband, a blond 6-footer of English and Irish descent.

Was I reading more into what may have been simple curiosity? The gawkers reminded me of my own painful experiences of being different: grade school classmates who would pull their eyes into squints and launch into a mocking sing-song; a college adviser who suggested I switch my major to biology since Chinese are better suited for the sciences; colleagues who have mistaken me for some other Asian-American woman.

But when one of Aidan’s cousins, along on the trip, asked what the photo-seeking woman wanted, my son told him: “I guess she just wanted a picture with a cute little boy.” The innocence of his reply made me feel guilty. What if that was all she saw — a cute little boy?

On my first trip to China more than 20 years ago, crowds would gather at the sight of foreigners, especially blond and fair-skinned ones. White people are not quite so exotic these days. My husband hardly merited a second look. But my mixed-race children stopped many Chinese in their tracks.

(To be fair, even in a multicultural center like New York City, where we live, my children still elicit double-takes here and there, and my 14-year-old nephew, who is also mixed race and lives in the city, has been asked the discomforting question, “What are you?”)

Cheng Li, a senior fellow on Chinese government and culture at the Brookings Institution, said the Chinese reaction to my children was not that unusual and, from a Chinese perspective, was not considered impolite or offensive. Perhaps that’s why, when yet another woman stopped me at the Great Wall and asked, very politely, if she could have her picture taken with Patrick, she seemed both shocked and deflated when I snapped, “No!”

“I can’t?” she said, shrinking back and sounding confused.

But Mr. Li said our experience “does kind of reflect some problems that China will have as they deal with cultural diversity, pluralism and tolerance.”

In China, differences are defined largely by ethnicity, he said. Han Chinese account for 93 percent of the 1.3 billion people; more than 50 other ethnic minority groups — all of which we might lump together as Asian — make up the rest. In terms of race, he said, “China is not like the melting pot that the United States is.”

The sheer density of the population may also give the Chinese a very different sense of personal space. “Personal spaces overlap,” said Stuart Strother, an economist who has lived in China and who wrote a travel guide, “Living Abroad in China,” with his wife, Barbara.

“It’s not that you don’t have any personal space, but I may have to share your space,” he said. Perhaps as a consequence, Dr. Strother said, pointing at and touching people, even total strangers, is not considered rude.

He added that Chinese society emphasizes a collective mentality over an individualistic one. “They have an idea that we’re all family,” he said, noting that children in China are routinely told to address relative strangers as uncle or aunt. So picking up someone else’s child, even if you don’t know them, is not considered inappropriate.

He said that when he and his wife lived in Shanghai with their 2-year-old twin sons in 2000, local Chinese would often try to scoop them up in their arms. “A pair of two-year-old blond kids can be hard to resist,” he said.

Shuhan Wang, the executive director for Chinese language initiatives at the Asia Society, said that while Chinese people were generally reserved with strangers and might not initiate conversations with adults they don’t know, the rules for children are different. Children are all affectionately called “little brother” and “little sister,” she said, and, quoting what she said was a Chinese saying — “You treat other people’s elderly as if they are your own, and you treat other people’s children as if they are your own” — she added, “So in a way, everybody in society is extended family.”

All the attention had nonetheless made my children uneasy. I didn’t have the benefit of experts to consult while I was in China, but I felt it was important to tell my children and their cousins, who are also mixed race, to expect more staring and touching. Some Chinese had never seen anyone who was multiracial and they were simply curious, I told them. I suggested that they should stare back and make a silly face at anyone who made them feel uncomfortable — an idea that made them laugh. They tried it a couple of times, too. A few Chinese on the receiving end made their own funny faces in return; a few others turned tail and left us alone.

My husband, Chris Langston, was surprised but relieved that he didn’t stick out. At first, he also found the focus on our children unsettling. But when a young woman came up to him in Xian, midway through our trip, smiling broadly and gesturing that she wanted to pick up our 3-year-old daughter, Katie, and be photographed with her, he agreed. The woman’s sheer delight as she gave Katie a final hug was palpable and infectious.

So we took no offense when a group of ladies pointed and giggled at my children and their cousins in the Shanghai airport. One woman was practically giddy when she spotted Katie and said to her friends: “Look at the smallest one. She’s so adorable, let’s take her home!”

I laughed and said to her, “Yes, let’s take her home.”

It's been awhile...

2008-05-12T15:50:00.000-07:00

...and sorry for the inactivity! Anyway, between working 50-60 hour weeks at CTi, doing "start-up" work building a church plant, and music, something had to give. So it was the blog. Now, that I'm no longer working, I have more free time. I'll be placing some of my thoughts (including some folks have seen over email) and will let folks yell at me at will...:)

Dream Team - part 1

2007-08-15T21:39:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-02T11:15:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-15T15:14:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-03-16T19:50:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-01T21:17:00.001-08:00

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...

2007-02-13T17:45:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-06T17:39:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-01-28T20:12:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-12T13:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-01-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

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?

* So what are the benefits of a mega-church?

2006-12-23T12:48:00.000-08:00

Alright, time to ask some "pink elephant" questions. Staring with: What are the benefits of going to a mega-church? Before I go into specific questions, I'd like to hear from those who go to one.

* "Velvet Elvis"

2006-12-13T20:32:00.000-08:00

Hey folks, At the suggestion of 2 pastors, I just purchased a book called Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell: http://www.zondervan.com/cultures/en-us/Product/ProductDetail.htm?QueryStringSite=Zondervan&ISBN=031026345X http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Elvis-Repainting-Christian-Faith/dp/031026345X I can't recommend this book highly enough! I've skimmed it so far, and will delve into it more into detail. For those who've read this book already, what do you think?

* Could this be the presidential election on 2008?

2006-12-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

From E.J. Dionne Jr.: Big church, big tent: Some evangelicals reach out to Democrats: http://postgazette.com/pg/06339/743505-109.stm Also, he may be the next Republican Candidate for President: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/672kwvro.asp Thoughts? Obama vs Romney. Christian vs Mormon - who would you choose?

* Ground Rules

2006-11-28T01:04:00.001-08:00

Let's get the prelimaries out of the way: 1.) These blog posts are for christians. No offense to those who aren't; it's just the content matter is regarding primarily christians. Some posts are more general, though. 2.) These topics are rated "M" for Mature. No curses, but these subjects are adult in nature and content. I don't mean in a "sex" or "violence" way. Rather, I mean "Intellectually". No need for a degree from Harvard, but if you are genius level I welcome your feedback. I've been called smart, and so I do tend to value intelligent conversation. 3.) I will probably offend some. Others may disagree. And that's fine. As Pastor Dillamon says often, "Tolerance used to mean being with others who disagree, now it's come to mean moral ambiguity". Frankly if my relationship with my friends is such that we have to agree on everything, that's not saying much about the relationships. 4.) On that note, please feel free to respond. Again, I welcome feedback. 5.) Lastly, there will be nothing here about work. My job is my job, and it pays the bills. If you are looking for another "anonymous" blogger who works at Microsoft or Google, that ain't me. Besides - I like my job;) So... Let's Begin! Click on any of the posts at the top right of the screen (under Blog Archive) to see what I'm spouting off on....

* A Question for my Catholic Friends

2006-11-28T00:26:00.000-08:00

I'm not a Catholic, but I know a few. Some are good friends of mine. So I have a question: Why are priests still required to be celibate? I'd like to hear this from the Catholic perspective. Not the fact that they still are, but can you adequately explain why this is still necessary. Of course, I know that even among Catholics, this is a source of discussion, but I've yet to hear an adequate reason FOR it.

* Practical Evangelism

2006-11-27T22:39:00.000-08:00

We know about the importance of evangelism. Yet we seem to constantly stumble on how to do it??? Here's an idea: friendship! In other words, develop friendships with non christians. Not for the purpose of "converting" either - rather, to let God work through your relationships with them. Pastor Dillamon says it often takes 100 hours of direct ministry and 7-8 people in a person's life before they have enough information to make a decision. So don't expect to "convert" all by yourself, either. It could be something as simple as going to happy hour with your coworkers. Or inviting your next door neighbor over for lunch. And then listening to them, getting to know them, and - here's the key - keeping your mouth SHUT. Start small. But start with the people already within your circle. If there are no people in your circle, do something about it! Get to know some non christians, naturally. Ministry wise, there are ministries like the International Ministry if you want a starting point. Or there are interests and pursuits one can always try. Think of where Jesus went; then think about where his disciples went. Apply that to our time and culture. Yes, this may involve stepping out of your comfort zone, but is that a bad thing?

* Democrats win Congress - now what???

2006-11-27T22:11:00.000-08:00

Well, well well. The Democrats, fresh off the heels of the election, have taken over both the House and the Senate. Now what? Well, what I want to see is simple: Since this election was clearly about Bush and the War, what is the plan to get out? I was very wary of the 2004 election for this very reason. Like most folks, I never agreed with the war in Iraq. Even though I do believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, the end result didn't seem to be a good one. Fact is, it's *worse*! Anyway, John Kerry's whole platform in 2004 centered around the fact that he opposed the war. No duh. But he never provided much of an exit plan. Considering he was a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, a war hero and patriot who was passionate about veterans of that war the fact he didn't state a plan concerned me. That tells me either he didn't know what to do, or his solution was an even more prolonged campaign. Again, given that his military past I doubted the former. Now the democrats have a similar challange. Can they avoid Kerry's mistakes? As an aside, the election tells me more than just what the country thought about Bush. It told me that we as a nation are more divided than ever, that we are being pushed by more and more polarizing figures. To me that's the greater concern....

* A final thought on Rick Santorum

2006-11-27T21:45:00.000-08:00

Before the last election, I was shown an article by two people regarding Rick Santorum

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per

Since there were two different folks that pointed this out, I felt like this was reason to blog....

The article had a good point, and I agreed with it - until the last paragraph. In essence the author contradicted himself or herself. "....The bottom line is this: If serious antipoverty work is going to be done,it's going to emerge from a coalition of liberals and religiousconservatives. " The problem is, as the author states, Santorum is such a divisive figure, it's close to impossible for him to build a coalition. It's not just the fact that his rhetoric puts off people; it's that other politicians don't want to be seen associated with him. Witness poor Melissa Hart, for whom her competitor has linked her with not only Bush but Santorum as well - I've never heard a negative ad link a president AND a senator. And good lord - it worked! Was his rhetoric really necessary? I mean I have a tough time as it is defending my faith to my family - Santorum just makes it harder. He is one of the few people who's polarization is so harsh, his message gets lost in the delivery. Even the author agrees that Santorum's rhetoric is over the top.

Even worse, I've heard him talk about non-"hot button" issues. You can tell Santorum is very intelligent. So when he spouts off emotionally, he either doesn't think first or chooses not to. And he does it consistently.

Another issue was the fact that Santorum is relatively anti-social among his peers. This also doesn't help matters. If you look at what is in the job description among senators, it includes relationships with peers. No one is saying you have to be best buds but if you can't be somewhat social.... In summary - Santorum did this to himself. Some level of people person skills is a necessity in this job. Look, I have no illusions about being in politics - I certainly couldn't be a senator either. But I didn't run for the position. Santorum did.

* Fixing the education system

2006-11-27T21:16:00.000-08:00

How bad is it for kids today? Seems like all we hear about is how the American Education System is failing. Theoretically a program like No Child Left Behind is supposed to solve this, right? First, let's define "failure". American students consistently test among the worse among their peers in the world. Other countries (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, etc.) are consistetly among the best. People tend to blame urban schools. More on that later. Well, can we be the best? Why not? Instead of "band-aid" solutions such as No Child Left Behind, we should aim to be the best in the world. Why can't we? Give our students every chance to succeed. And show them why, not rule by fear. So we start with a mission statement: American students will be the best in the world. Period. Tell our kids that they can do it. That's what Asian kids are taught - I certainly was! Now, let's look at some of these countries. Why do their students do so well? Is it racial? Cultural? Fact is, in many asian schools, there is school 12 months out of the year. In many cases, you are in school 6 days a week. Specialization (schools for science, arts, humanities, etc.) start in high school. In addition, my Indian and Pakistani friends tell me in their country they start school at 3. You don't have to be a math major to figure this out: you can't compete when your kids are only in school for 9 months vs 12. And starting at 3 as opposed to 5 already gives children a head start. Summer school shouldn't be punishment or remedial. Instead it should be mandatory. And if done right, fun. Another by product of this is that teachers will be working more. So should they get paid more? Of course! Our economic system is such that talent goes where the money is. And that should also help to draw a better pool of teachers. From a business persective if we invest in our future, we should make sure that talent is nurtured properly. Many of these teachers have masters degrees - they should start at higher salaries for this, as opposed to being asked to waive that to start at the same level as those with bachelor degrees only. Culturally education is placed highly in asian societies. Certainly schools can't replace family reinforcement. But I am proposing very fixable solutions - if we are serious about making changes. Instead of threatening them, let's challenge our kids, and give them the tools they need to succeed. Thoughts?

* Politics

2006-11-27T18:20:00.000-08:00

First off, where do I stand? I am a registered Libertarian. Why, you ask? Simple. We as a nation supposedly embrace diversity. All are welcome, right? Well as we have an increase in the number of racial, ethnic, social, and economic groups and categories that are populating our country, the idea that one system - be it taxes, welfare, education, whatever - can adequately satisfy the needs of many simply makes less and less sense. It's just not logically working. Take welfare. What was the purpose of it? What is the purpose now? Does it really fulfull the original mission? How is it there are so many loopholes for it? Or taxes. How is it that the rich 1% seem to get richer? Those living at the poverty line or below it - what and how are our taxes helping them? Welfare? So my opinion is that the system not only needs to be fixed, but it needs to be thrown out altogether. One exeption is education - I'll rant on that later. But if you look at the definition of being libertarian, this fits my profile. Frankly neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to fulfill this mission, and are failing pretty spectacularly. Again, by following the logic of "one system, all peoples" doesn't make sense in a diverse society.

* Do Young Adult Ministries Work?

2006-11-27T17:39:00.000-08:00

First off, this is NOT meant to be aimed at a specific ministry at "church X". Moreover this is what I've seen after seeing several ministries, across several churches. Have you ever heard the following: "This ministry was created b/c there was a need for it" "It's designed for the age group of X to Y" (usually twenties and possibly early thirties) "It's not a singles group" Okay maybe the last one was more tongue in cheek:). But still, do these groups fill the need stated above? If so, then why do so many of us seem embittered by them? Why do so many of us "hop" from group to group, trying to find "the right fit"? Why is it so many of us seem to not find meaningful relationships or feel like we've fallen "between the cracks?" Are we just being "selfish" in getting our needs? Many of us dive into these groups, perhaps even serve in leadership if possible. Yet it seems like after about 6 months or so we get burned out. Let's be clear. SOMETHING does need to be done. But what? First, let's look at the whole "age" issue. Studies show that most people don't really know what they want to do or who they are as an adult until the age of 25. College ministries (which in many ways overlap young adult ministries) is fine until 21 or 22. So we can see that there is some sort of need in the Church in general for these groups. So how to bridge the gap? In the working world, most of us who wind up working in a job that's "long term" start off with a mentor type relationship. Usually a manager or a team lead. Of course, a good question is where do these leaders emerge? Some level of "minister" level teaching can also be a need. And that is something that I obviously have no problems with. But the question is, how long is this needed? A year? Two? Shouldn't High School and College ministers/pastors already have equipped us with this? So how about a model where leaders disciple and TEACH others to be leaders? After a few years or even months, those who "graduate" then become the next generation of leaders and/or disciplers? Use small groups as a foundation, and then meet say once a month as a large group. Better yet, these new leaders can also serve in OTHER ministries, thus becoming the next leaders of the church! The disciplers can (with help) determine which ministries can best be equipped for these leaders - so instead of ministries asking every sunday for "volunteers" who are best band-aids, we have leaders who can offer a more long term solution (let alone help to fulfull their passions and desires?) . In essense, this new Young Adult ministry is a "feeder" system, developing new leaders. The ministry is also much more integrated with the churches, as opposed to being mini-churches themselves. And one other thing - once these leaders are developed, they should no longer go to the group. After all, how many 20 somethings go to a high school ministry to be ministered to? Not to say that 25 should be the hard cutoff, but something approaching a 2 to 4 year limit from when you start is a definite model. I've seen age ranges of over 10 years (such as 18-30). That's a little ridiculous. Anyone over that limit can be a leader/mentor I have much more to say on this subject, but for now let's use this as a start off point. Comments?