They're watching you...

I was in Pittsburgh this weekend. Thought these benches were cool, although they're a bit creepy!

Our limited minds

I thought this an interesting post on Wapo's religion blog. Though by no means am I putting myself on the same mind planet as Einstein, I do have a similar view on religion, though mine is a foggy and vague concept that I'll never clarify in life. As Einstein said in an interview (quoted below), "The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."

That's why people who think they know the "truth" bother me so much. Good to know a pretty smart guy thought the same.

For his entire life, as he delved into the mysteries of the cosmos, Albert Einstein harbored a belief in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly—in various essays, interviews, and letters—his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.

One particular evening in 1929, the year he turned 50, captures Einstein’s middle-age deistic faith. He and his wife were at a dinner party in Berlin when a guest expressed a belief in astrology. Einstein ridiculed the notion as pure superstition. Another guest stepped in and similarly disparaged religion. Belief in God, he insisted, was likewise a superstition.

At this point the host tried to silence him by invoking the fact that even Einstein harbored religious beliefs.

“It isn’t possible!” the skeptical guest said, turning to Einstein to ask if he was, in fact, religious.

“Yes, you can call it that,” Einstein replied calmly. “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.”

Shortly after his fiftieth birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with a pompous but ingratiating poet and propagandist named George Sylvester Viereck, who had been born in Germany, moved to America as a child, and then spent his life writing gaudily erotic poetry, interviewing great men, and expressing his complex love for his fatherland. For reasons not quite clear, Einstein assumed Viereck was Jewish. In fact, Viereck proudly traced his lineage to the family of the Kaiser, and he would later become a Nazi sympathizer who was jailed in America during World War II for being a German propagandist.

Viereck began by asking Einstein whether he considered himself a German or a Jew. “It’s possible to be both,” replied Einstein. “Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind.”

Should Jews try to assimilate? “We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform.”

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

Do you believe in God? “I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Is this a Jewish concept of God? “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”

Is this Spinoza’s God? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”

Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”

Einstein tried to express these feelings clearly, both for himself and all of those who wanted a simple answer from him about his faith. So in the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, “What I Believe,” that he recorded for a human rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: “The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man.”

People found the piece evocative, even inspiring, and it was reprinted repeatedly in a variety of translations. But not surprisingly, it did not satisfy those who wanted a simple, direct answer to the question of whether or not he believed in God. For some, only a clear belief in a personal God who controls daily life qualified as a genuine faith. “The outcome of this doubt and befogged speculation about time and space is a cloak beneath which hides the ghastly apparition of atheism,” Boston’s Cardinal William Henry O’Connell said. This public blast from a Cardinal prompted the noted Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, to send a very direct telegram: “Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words.” Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

It may not have satisfied everyone. But it satisfied many. For like Einstein there are many of us who share an awed intimation of a God, manifest in all that exists, a sense that remains mysterious but real.

Walter Isaacson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, has been chairman of CNN and the managing editor of Time magazine. His new book, "Einstein: His Life and Universe," was published last month.

Good stuff

We can play that game.

“A student must yell against liberal thoughts and the liberal economy.”

How often do you hear that kind of statement from the American right? Every damn day. Well, you know who said it? Answer in the comments.

Stick a fork in us

So it's come to this. The FCC is proposing to limit the violence on television. You have the free speech criers up in arms about it and the stupid argument "if you don't like it, turn it off."

Reality, people! So maybe you'll turn your television off so your kids can't watch. The bad parent, who is becoming increasingly common these days, doesn't give a crap what his kid watches. Studies since the 50s have shown that what children see on television affects them mentally. Next thing you know, you've got a Cho or a Columbine or something like that.

If everyone would do what was best, there'd be no need for government. Unfortunately, stupid people populate this planet, so government is necessary. The college shootings, high school shootings, coworker shootings, guys shooting kids because they threw eggs at their cars, fingers getting hacked off by machetes, gangs, urban warfare, drivebys...this country has the highest murder rate in the world. Why is that, people, why is that?

In the past, I'd been horrified after seeing a story like this, but after events in the last few years, promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility are in order. The original Constitution of the United States said, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." United, people. Not individual. We have to share this country, and since you can't control your freaking kids, we have to regulate television.

People DON'T turn it off. That's why this is necessary. What good is free speech if you are lying in a grave somewhere? Wake up.
___

Rome is falling

Once upon a time I wrote here every day, and I even took the time to think about the topic, edit, and answer the comments to each post. Somehow, though, I lost interest. It was 2005 when I became fed up with the resident troll's nonsense and disillusioned with partisan politics. I had a sort of renewal when election time came around and I volunteered for Webb's campaign, but it wasn't until I bought my camera that I actually had a desire to post here again. Unfortunately, I don't really have the time. Part of the reason is that I have more responsibility at work, where I used to write most of my posts. Another reason is that I have a pretty successful baseball blog, something that isn't wrought with negativity. Mostly, though, is that I just don't have the intellectual energy to sustain something so hostile. I'm sick of negativity, and that is pretty much what politics is these days. The internet is a hostile place, and it is beginning to spill out into the real world. Just today at a huge organizational staff meeting, the VP had to tell people to be respectful when using the anonymous suggestion box. Evidently there were some pretty nasty messages in there.

Is respect completely dead in this country? The hyperindividuality and the I-don't-give-a-damn-about-anybody-but-myself attitude that has taken over this country points to yes. Mine is a generation of children of baby boomers who were never taught to say please or to look behind them when going through doors. Every damn day I get a door slammed in my face or reach an elevator only to be met by a closing door. This generation does not say "please," it says "gimme" - just watch people dealing with waiters.

These are just minor examples of a major cultural shift to ambivalence towards fellow human beings. Yeah, it's cliche about hearing elders say "kids these days," but they have a point. It's as if every generation loses a bit more respect, and I wonder if we've lost it totally.

The latest sign of disrespect for others is the wingnut take on the murderer at VT. Do you know what they say? They say the murderer was a "leftist" because he expressed "hatred for the rich" as if people on the left advocate murder. Nevermind that he also expressed hatred for hedonism, which is what the rightwing moral police are always trying to legislate against, or that he claimed he was dying just like Jesus, the ultimate rightwing hero. The wingnusts are full of such hatred and disrespect for human life that they need to turn a tragedy into a comedy on their stage of hatred. (Comedy in the classical sense, not the popular ha ha sense.)

* * *

This weekend was so beautiful I decided to go down to the construction site of the new Nationals stadium to take some photos and to see something new to relieve the monotony of small town DC. Construction sites can give you great photos! Anyway, when I had taken 70+ photos, I began to drive home, traveling along the SW Waterfront until I hit 12th Street, a northbound one way street. I had to drive through the Mall and turned my head to the East to see my favorite building in the world - the United States Capitol. I began to lament the fact that I was driving, for I wanted to stop but knew parking was nearly impossible, when lo and behold! A metered spot two blocks from the Mall! It was in front of Ollie's Trolley, so I grabbed a pulled pork sandwich and took my "picnic" to the Mall to eat it. The crowd level was perfect - not too many, but enough to feel alive with a lot of DC residents to balance out the tourists.

I ate and headed towards the Capitol, past the carousel and the myriads of people playing baseball or soccer or frisbee. It was just an incredible day and even the doomy and gloomy among the people managed a smile every now and then. And how could you not? We had been moving towards warmth and light and then suddenly we were plagued with a couple of surprising and unwelcome weeks of extra winter! Finally, warmth was upon us, and on a weekend, too!

I stopped at the sculpture garden on my way. I'm not a huge fan of modern sculpture, but I do love Rodin. The garden has three Rodin pieces, including another version of the Balzac piece that I swear is also in Paris. People find it strange when I say the Rodin Museum is my favorite museum in Paris, but it is. It's the garden with all the roses that does it for me, I think. The Gates of Hell is an incredible piece, too. I'd say Cho has already passed through those gates, don't you think?

I also found the sculpture of this warrior incredible. Those sculptures called "man raising hands" and stuff to that effect that are just blobs of bronze are rather pretentious for my tastes, but this warrior guy? Just look at the detail in those muscles. I wish I remembered who created it.

After the garden, I continued to amble down towards the Hill, finally reaching the sad pool filled with garbage in which the building is reflected. You tend to forget how long is the Mall until you walk an hour for a distance that looked half of that. It always amazes me when I look at the time after I've been walking - and I walk quickly. I can't imagine what it's like for some Midwestern tourist who gets in a car to drive ten minutes to work.


Seeing the garbage in the pool (which you can't see in the photo due to the reflection) was when the point of this post finally hit me. As I stared up at that majestic temple to democracy and looked down the length of the Mall, images of visits to Rome came to my mind. Washington was designed to look like an imperial city. The garbage in the pool is like the garbage that polluted the fountains of Rome when it fell into decline.

If one opens his eyes and remembers history is not a story but something we live and we are constantly witnessing times that may be recorded in historical books, whether they be about war or culture or architecture or anthropology, he should be able to make the comparisons. Are we going to be remembered as the ones who let Rome fall, who are responsible for the decline of a great civilization, who watched apathetically as our society decayed and lost respect for itself? Plato, who lived under another great society, watched in horror as his culture, his great civilization, declined until if fell. It has never recovered. The causes of its decline, according to him? Excessive individualism, materialism, and warmongering.

Those who think there is nothing wrong with individualism and materialism need to READ YOUR DAMN HISTORY and lose the cavalier it-can't-happen-to-me attitude. Look at what is happening! You have wackos shooting up college kids and a whole freaking religion intent on blowing up everything Western. There are high school shootings and people shooting up coworkers. Gangs and urban warfare plague the city streets. How the heck can you think everything is A-OK when all of this crap is happening???

History has a curious way of repeating itself, and it's a damn shame America thinks history is "boring" and not worthy of study (I overheard a mother tell another mother on the Mall yesterday, "Since history isn't taught any more, we had to bring the kids here.) As a wise man once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wake up.
___

More spring, more statues

There may be hope for us yet

I'm not sure to which generation I belong. I was born in a cutoff year for generational definition - 1977. I was one of the few oldest siblings in anything I did, whether it was school, softball, or Girl Scouts. I suppose that has something to do with a whole generation of young men getting killed in Vietnam, a generation that would have been starting families around the time I was born if they had been alive.

Regardless, I don't think there is much of a difference between Generation X and Generation Y. They are both characterized by material worship and apathy - I figured that would be the norm for the rest of American existence. That's why I was surprised to read this article in WaPo today about the new generation being worried about global climate change - and they're actually doing something about it. One group of kids carried around signs on the playground at recess that said "Stop Global Warming." Another group of college kids convince an entire campus to vote for a $25 tuition increase that would cover the cost of the campus going green. That's really impressive.

It's to the point where we can see the change with our own eyes. Although snow in April is not unheard of, even here in the more southern DC, the amount of snow the country has received and the lasting cold temperatures is not normal. I hope these kids continue to care as they grow older and don't resort to the apathy of generations before them. And by that, I don't mean everyone in those generations, for they were the ones who started the environmental movement. I just mean "caring about the environment" or whatever you want to call it was not mainstream.

It is now.

Gore 2008!
___

Uncivil Discourse

So I experienced some cyberhatred because of the post I wrote on Josh Hamilton, which over 600 people read, far exceeding the number of any single post I've ever written. Most of the feedback was positive, but there were a few twisted comments written by those who thought I was pushing some sort of political agenda. One guy threw a nonsensical fit because the words "Christian" and "Christianity" appeared in the post, which was about redemption, one of the central themes of Christianity.

Here is his comment:

Why would you believe and insinuate that the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians? Perhaps you've missed the numerous times that Hamilton himself has credited God for turning his life around?

It's been my lifelong experience that those most critical among us are NOT Christians, and that instead Christians are among the most CRITICIZED.

Your use of scare quotes around the word Christianity probably gives me my answer, but I'll ask anyway.

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian who is very proud of Josh Hamilton.

My initial reaction was confusion, and I wrote this:

Wow, really tampa red. Where the heck do you get "the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians?" Perhaps you missed the word "SOME?" My god, take a chill pill. I'm not attacking Christianity. But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack.

After thinking about it some more and trying to understand how the heck someone could twist a post about redemption into something anti-Christian, I sent him a private message:

I wanted to send you a private message because you completely misread everything I wrote. Seriously, go back and read it again, because I don't know where you get off thinking I've made some stab at the Christian religion.

I'll respond to each of your lines:

Why would you believe and insinuate that the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians? Perhaps you've missed the numerous times that Hamilton himself has credited God for turning his life around? This is what the post said:

"Secondly, people like the above commenter who fail to see how effective these stories are have obviously never had a close friend or family member with an addiction. They like to pretend from their couches that they have some sort of control over the circumstances of life, that it was their choice as 18 year olds to not have fat bank accounts and fame that is ripe for trouble, that it can't happen to them, whether they be the drug users or someone close to them. I'm willing to bet some of these people even call themselves "Christians," though they fail to understand the reason for Christianity's existence: redemption."

Notice the use of the word "some." How dare you tell me I said that the ONLY ones who are critical are hypocritical Christians. I was talking about those people who think they can do no wrong, who believe they have no need to be redeemed. The second part of that line doesn't have anything to do with the first point, either - Josh Hamilton being a Christian has nothing to do with people who criticize his story. And you totally missed this:

It's as if Josh stole his soul back from Mephistopheles.

I am assuming that you do not know who Mephistopheles is, that you don't know the story of Dr. Faust selling his soul to the demon Mephistopheles, and that by writing this sentence I was saying he escaped the devil?

It's been my lifelong experience that those most critical among us are NOT Christians, and that instead Christians are among the most CRITICIZED. Yawn. Same old, same old. If people go around preaching one thing and acting another then yeah, there's going to be criticism. But people who are hysterical over Christianity "under attack" are so blinded by their paranoia that they fail to see the difference between criticizing one's behavior and criticizing a religion. Do you criticize politicians for saying one thing and doing another? It's not any different.

Your use of scare quotes around the word Christianity probably gives me my answer, but I'll ask anyway. A little grammar 101 - quotes are often used to point out a specific term in a sentence. You wouldn't have been up in arms if I had said, "...the book was called "Don Quixote" or "the player was nicknamed "Donkey." Besides, there were no quotes around the word "Christianity." They were around "Christians." Big difference. How can one call himself a "Christian" if he does not act like one?

And for the record, I'm a devout Christian who is very proud of Josh Hamilton. What's your point? Obviously you consider yourself a Christian if you got all up in arms about seeing the word "Christianity." (And yeah, that's the grammar thing again.) Being a Christian, one would think that you would be in agreement with this post and it's focus on redemption. But no, seems like you have these preconceived notions in your head about who is allowed to talk about your religion and who is not and so you automatically go on the attack. You don't know my religious beliefs - you just assume that I am knocking Christianity. What's even more bizarre about this is how I am talking about the very nature of Christianity being redemption and how redemption is a beautiful thing, and you still manage to twist it into something anti-Christian. And you managed to miss the comment above yours from the minister and the biblical quotes above that.

By the way, here's my response on my blog to your comment: "Wow, really tampa red. Where the heck do you get "the only ones critical of Hamilton's story are hypocritical Christians?" Perhaps you missed the word "SOME?" My god, take a chill pill. I'm not attacking Christianity. But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack."

Next time you want to criticize someone and be hyper-judgmental, you might want to make sure you understand what you are reading first. Yeah, I'm angry - I really don't appreciate hateful comments being directed at me.

He responded:

But you've certainly proved the point about how there is a paranoid hysteria about Christianity being under attack.
I was perfectly willing to have a discussion with you until I read that line. Never mind.

Given that there was nothing to discuss, as he had missed the point of the post - a post I wrote so I knew what the heck it was about! - I wrote back:

Sorry you can't deal with reality.

The guy showed his true nature in his response:

LOL! You watch entirely too much Rosie O’Donnell and, believe it or not, Footloose was just a movie..

Funny how I was critical towards hate-filled talk show hosts (This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in. It is reflected in how much money we spend on prisons instead of schools, in how hate-filled radio talk shows are so popular, and how our political campaigns are run.), and the guy says that I listen to them? Dude, use your freaking head. The guy is so blinded by his ideology that he has to twist a post about a recovering drug addict into one that fits his political agenda.

I willing to bet, judging from his assumption that everything with the word "Christian" that doesn't have some sort of Bible quote after it is an attack on Christianity, that this guy thinks that America is a Christian nation (and by Christian nation, I mean something resembling a theocracy.) These types of people understand nothing about America. They like to spout off this fantasy about the founders being Christian (their version of Christianity, not the founders' beliefs) when all they have to do is read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and others to understand that the founders were Deists who believed religion should be separated from government affairs. When people object to religion being preached in classrooms or courtrooms, it is not because they are anti-Christian, it is because they are pro-American. If people would take school seriously, if they wouldn't say "history is boring," then such ignorance wouldn't be running rampant in our country. How many of those people who say "America is a Christian country" have read the Federalist Papers (and not just once in high school, but enough to talk intelligently about them right now), for example? This stuff is not useless knowledge, people. It's necessary reading for you to critically think about issues and give informed opinions and contribute to rational discourse rather than just spewing partisan or religious rubbish. (And by "religious rubbish," I'm not saying religion is rubbish, I'm saying blindly following religion without thinking about it is rubbish.)

I also received this comment:

"This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in."

So, you're saying it's political conservatives who are against Hamilton? Way to lump all of the people you don't like on one team.

To which I responded:

"This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in."

So, you're saying it's political conservatives who are against Hamilton? Way to lump all of the people you don't like on one team.

Where the heck do you get conservative out of that????? You ignore the next sentence completely (and ignore the entire point of the post, really): This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in. It is reflected in how much money we spend on prisons instead of schools, in how hate-filled radio talk shows are so popular, and how our political campaigns are run.

Last time I checked, there were both liberal and conservative talk shows and left and right political candidates. Oh, and you know what? There are liberal Christians, too.

I really don't appreciate you twisting my words to fit your political agenda.

I'm just amazed at how a couple of people managed to twist a post about a recovering drug addict into unthinking partisan bullshit.

The firing of Imus is a step in the right direction towards civil political discourse in this country. I hope it is the beginning of the end for hatemongers in the media, so people will stop spewing out vitriolic garbage that mimics what they've heard on talk radio or read in the partisan blogosphere. I for one am tired of the political garbage (and no, I didn't put the word "conservative" in front of that, but apparently you have to qualify everything for people to understand. We really need to fix our schools!) It's why I stopped posting real articles here for awhile, why I no longer read more than the headlines about political candidates, and why most of America doesn't give a crap about their own government. One day in the next century when climate change has ravished our food supply and the NRA has successfully scared everyone into carrying arms, this kind of divisive hatred is going to start another civil war. Farfetched? How long can a person be called stupid or one of the numerous favorite terms of the Coulterites before he begins to fight back?
___

This post is not about baseball

Background: This post is not about baseball but about a guy who happens to play baseball, Josh Hamilton. He was the #1 draft pick in 1999 and was hailed as the next Mickey Mantle. Life got in the way, though. Josh was out of baseball for three whole years - suspended multiple times for drug use. Coke, crack, heroin - you name it, the kid was doing it all.

In October 2005, Hamilton stopped using and started to get his life on track. He received permission to play baseball again and suited up for a low level minor league team in 2006. A knee injury ended his season prematurely, and Tampa Bay decided not to protect him by putting him on their 40 man roster, which subjected him to the Rule 5 draft. The Chicago Cubs drafted him, and in a deal that had been worked out prior to the draft, immediately traded him to the Cincinnati Reds.

The way the Rule 5 draft works is that a team who has a Rule 5 player has to keep him on the active Major League roster for an entire season or give him back to his original club. Josh Hamilton had never played a day above mid-level minor league ball, and with the exception of 15 games before he was injured last season, he hadn't played baseball in the better part of four years. He was a very long shot to make the Reds out of Spring Training.

Josh Hamilton made his first Major League start last night. His first Major League hit was a two-run home run.

Because of Josh's story, he's gotten a lot of national press coverage this year, including in the NY Times and WaPo. As a result, the haters of the world have come out of their woodwork to criticize and condemn. I wrote a post about it and wanted to repost it here, because it isn't about baseball, it's about addiction. It's about life.

______________________________________________________________
I keep reading people's comments across the country on how Josh Hamilton does not deserve the press coverage he receives, that it isn't fair to give it to him instead of a guy who never did drugs. It is depressing to me that people can be so far deep in their little holes that they can't see what a great story this is, a story about the wonder and miracle of existence. It's about life, people - not baseball, not drugs, but LIFE. I can't imagine that some people's lives are so dull that they don't feel the need to reflect upon it, marvel at it, appreciate how incomprehensively amazing it is. How sad.

Anyone with a soul has to be rooting for Hamilton. Josh's story is not just about drug addiction. It is about second chances, redemption - one of the best parts of life. You can screw up and screw up and screw up, but if you survive your screw ups, you can always come back. This is a country that goes up in arms when it thinks Christianity is "under attack," yet it fails to understand the very basic concepts of what it supposedly believes in. It is reflected in how much money we spend on prisons instead of schools, in how hate-filled radio talk shows are so popular, and how our political campaigns are run.

There is this mental block in some people when they hear the word "drug" that blinds them to the big picture, brings out their intolerance, and shows their ignorance about addiction. Like this guy, who has the maturity to call Hamilton a crackhead on Trent's blog:

...it's kind of sad the media keeps crowning Josh and treating him like he's some sort of hero while other players who were clean to begin with and worked just as hard to get where they are, get nothing.

First of all, did I just make up all the stories I thought I read about Griffey, Dunn, Conine, Gonzalez, Harang, Arroyo, etc, etc? Others get nothing? Dude, pick up a newspaper some time.

Secondly, people like the above commenter who fail to see how effective these stories are have obviously never had a close friend or family member with an addiction. They like to pretend from their couches that they have some sort of control over the circumstances of life, that it was their choice as 18 year olds to not have fat bank accounts and fame that is ripe for trouble, that it can't happen to them, whether they be the drug users or someone close to them. I'm willing to bet some of these people even call themselves "Christians," though they fail to understand the reason for Christianity's existence: redemption. Those who think they have no need for redemption, that just because they were lucky enough to escape the naivety of youth without too much damage, need to look at themselves in the mirror and stare straight at their imperfections. Too many in this country - in this world - think they can do no wrong.

Despite proof addiction is a disease by people who are experts - and actually know something about it! - there are still people out there who continue to blame addicts for their problem. Is it someone's fault that they start? Sometimes. But sometimes that is how life is for people. Another comment from Trent's blog:

Currently showing The Natural to my class at the moment in honor of Josh Hamilton. I teach a group of boys who are locked up for mostly drug problems. I print out the Reds articles everyday. The group has been following Josh with great interest.

That's just awesome. Of course, people like the first guy would just blame the kids for getting locked up in the first place. Nevermind that they grew up in broken homes, went to shitty schools, and were surrounded by a culture where that kind of behavior is the norm.

Was Josh raised in that culture? No. But the evidence is that he was a pretty sheltered boy raised by overprotective parents. All of the sudden he's an 18 year old with a million dollar bank account and finds himself on his own and in with the wrong crowd. Quit demonizing him for it.

Regardless of what kind of adversity he's overcome, the guy is a role model for people like those kids who seek a second chance at life, no matter what adversity they are trying to overcome. Athletes are revered - probably unjustifiably - in this country, and Josh is in a unique position to make a difference in people's lives. The story shouldn't go away. It's as if Josh stole his soul back from Mephistopheles.

Obviously I'm not a sports hater since I run a blog dedicated to baseball. But clearly there are people in this country who think that sports are important, that sports matter in the grand scheme of this thing we know as life. They don't. There are much bigger issues out there, and I can't understand how people can be so apathetic as to not realize it, to not reflect upon life, and to not be grateful for its miracle. I feel sorry for these people, I really do. They miss out on so much beauty in the world.

There was no other way for him to get his first Major League hit, that's for sure.

Here are some Josh Hamilton stories today. If you are sick of Hamilton stories, don't read them.

Reds.comRedleg Nation
Trent's article
___

Will it ever thaw out?

At least it looked pretty today.

Springtime in DC - Where did you go?

Happy Easter, if that's your thing.

Bring your own bag!

There is this woman at the deli where I usually get my lunch who has me thinking of not going there anymore. The reason? Because every single day since she started working as cashier three months ago she tries to stuff my lunch in a plastic bag and every single day I tell her I don't need one. I don't need to contribute to even more waste on this overburdened planet when all I am doing is carrying a sandwich. How after three months can someone still not remember the habits of a daily customer, especially after I've told her several times that a plastic bag for one sandwich is a waste? I mean, the guy behind the deli doesn't have to ask if I want everything on my sandwich because he knows the answer is yes, even when I get different kinds of sandwiches. She is either one of the most oblivious people on the planet or one of the dumbest.

Last week San Francisco became the first city in the US to ban plastic bags from large stores. IKEA has started to charge customers for plastic bags. More bans and charges like these are in store for us - this is the future of the planet we're talking about here.

It takes 1000 years for one of these plastic bags to degrade. It was estimated that San Francisco alone used 181 million plastic bags a year. The ban also saves 450,000 gallons of oil. What more reason do you need to stop using plastic bags? I'm doing my best to avoid them.

Springtime in Washington