++>> Last night was men's basketball night at my church. I played a few times about a year ago, and then gave up because things got too busy. But I'm back. And it's really a lot of fun. Last night I even made a three-pointer.

Why is making a three-pointer so significant?

Well, for a guy like me, it's a self-esteem thing. I've never been much of an athlete. When we used to pick teams as a kid for any game, I was almost always picked last. The few times I wasn't, I was usually almost last. Now that I think about things, it's surprising how badly I would feel when I got picked last, but how elated I could feel getting picked second to last. Aren't worst and second-to-worst essentially the same? It just shows how we can use the bad fortune of others to elevate ourselves.

Ironically, despite my lack of physical ability, I've always loved playing sports. In fact, I have very little interest in watching sports, but I'm always willing to join in a good game of just about anything.

But playing basketball isn't really something I have time for. So why do I do it? It's the exercise. My wife recently said to me, "But you could stay home and exercise." Actually, that's not quite correct. The reality is that "I could stay home and exercise a few times and then only tell myself on a regular basis that I should be exercising." Basketball is much more fun, so I actually end up getting my exercise in.

That brings me to my friend, who seems somewhat drawn to the idea of joining us on a Thursday night, but so far he has not actually come. If you are reading this (you know who you are), there will always be excuses. And when you first come, since you've not been a basketball god, you will probably take some time to catch up. But that's how I was when I first got there. Now, most of the guys play a whole lot more skillful basketball than I, but I am finding my strengths and playing to them, and I am avoiding situations that expose my weaknesses; I'm holding my own. I seem to do pretty well on defense. And last night I was bringing the ball down court a lot and had a few good first passes that led pretty directly to successful shots. On the other hand I don't make any dramatic attempts at fancy dribbling moves. And when I'm under the basket going for a rebound, I don't leave the floor. At 40 years old, I don't need a pulled something-or-other.

Lately, I've been keeping a quote in mind that I saw:

To do something well, you must first do it poorly.

That's really good advice, and the fear of looking bad when doing "it" poorly can keep us from ever doing well. I think that's a large part of the reason that adults have a much more difficult time than a younger person when it comes to learning a new skill.
  ¶ 4:54 AM

  ++>> Oops! That ugly issue has come up again. That one where some states (like California) consider it two murders if a mother and her unborn baby are killed while others consider it only one.

Now the House of Representatives is expected to pass a bill dubbed the "Unborn Victims Bill." It would make it possible to charge an assailant with crimes against two separate people, if an unborn child is hurt or killed during an attack on the mother. The bill would only apply to federal crimes.

Pro-choice (see footnote at the end of this posting) advocates are understandably concerned. They realize that this action goes far in the direction of recognizing an unborn child as a human person. The impact on the abortion issue could be significant.

But I support the legislation. Since I am convinced that an unborn baby, at any stage of development, is both human and a person, my reaction is, "What took so long?"

Footnote: I'm tempted to use the more pejorative term "pro-abortion" to describe the "other" side, because that is parallel to the term "anti-abortion" commonly used by the media, but I don't really think that's fair, so I won't. I honestly don't think the pro-choice people are in favor of abortion in and of itself. I really do think they see the issue as a civil rights issue for women, so the term "pro-choice" is more precise. What has surprised me is how hard it is to find the term "pro-life" used in the media, though the term "pro-choice" is used almost exclusively. I really have looked, and occasionally I find "pro-life" used. But the majority of the time the term "anti-abortion" is used (though recently, I may be seeing it used less). As a member of the "pro-lifers," I can assure you that we are not opposed to abortion in and of itself. We truly see the issue as a civil rights issue for the unborn. Our goal is to save lives. It is hard for me to believe the use of these terms in this non-parallel way is innocent on the part of the media. After all, people labelled as being "anti-" something are generally perceived more poorly than those labelled as being "pro-" something. This unfair treatment has long been an annoyance to me, so in the spirit of intellectual honesty, I will reluctantly use the term "pro-choice."  ¶ 5:54 AM

  ++>> Last night my younger son won a trophy. He won it in a fencing tournament, taking third place. This was the culmination of 11 prior weeks of grueling training.

OK. It wasn't grueling. It was just two class hours per week, and he had a ball. But why wouldn't he? Fencing is a fun sport.

I know, because I also fence.

My older son and I started fencing about 3 years ago (if I recall, correctly). I remember, before learning to fence, watching sword fights or fencing in movies and wondering how people could actually learn to fend off a blade moving at high speed toward them. Obviously, they wouldn't lack motivation for such action, just possibly ability. But what marvelous feat of human skill could allow a person to react so quickly?

Then, I found out. It just takes some training and practice. And I've actually been able to develop some of that skill, even though I'm just a hack.

After three years of recreational fencing (with a couple competitions the first year), I've gained enough skill to be able to hold off someone with a fencing blade fairly well. The "marvelous feat of human skill" is no longer a mystery.

Last night's tournament was a lot of fun. Of course, I was thrilled to watch my son beat some of his classmates in a sword fight. It was particularly satisfying, during one bout, to watch him climb out of a 4 to 0 hole to win 5 to 4 (yes, that's five blade "touches" in a row!). It was great to see him enjoying himself.

Now that he has had his "graduation tournament," he is an official member of our fencing club, and the three boys in our family can all fence each other at weekly club "get-togethers."

I know he's excited (has been ever since my older son and I started; couldn't wait to get old enough to take the class), and I'm feeling a resurge in enthusiasm to go to the next club session.

The wonderful thing about fencing is that it is not just for the athletically superior among us. Admittedly, high-level fencing takes a great deal of athletic skill, but at the lower levels, it is a sport in which people of a wide variety of abilities can successfully partake.

It is largely a game of finesse, one where subtle movements and "faking out your opponent" are key elements. And the physical features that make you unique can often be used to your advantage.

For example, a person of small stature has an advantage when he or she fences "in close" to someone who is larger. Someone who is lower energy can lull their opponent into a false sense of security and then successfully hit their targer if they can learn to make some quick, unexpected attacks.

It is quite the head game. A common name for it is physical chess.

The suitability of the sport to a wide range of abilities is most apparent at a tournament. How many sports are there where adults and children, men and women, routinely compete against EACH OTHER? And being an adult male does not come close to guaranteeing a victory against someone who has a similar amount of experience as you. In fact, more than once I've seen someone with significantly less experience than his or her opponent take a bout.

I'm glad my younger son has decided to join us in fencing. Fencing promises to strengthen our family bonds as we hone our skills in a fun and exciting sport.  ¶ 5:06 AM

  ++>> More related to my post of February 19 ....

The New Orleans-based appeals court who decided to take Norma McCorvey's case has cancelled oral arguments scheduled for March 2. Instead they are only going to rely on written briefs. The court gave no reason.

McCorvey's lawyer said it probably means "that the judges have made a decision and are fairly confident in what they intend to do."

Hmmm. Stay tuned.  ¶ 5:11 AM

  ++>> What if this were how government worked.

President Bush appointed a judge to the federal appeals court in a recent recess appointment. But what is a recess appointment?

First, when you think recess, you probably harken back to your younger days of playing on a playground with your little friends. Maybe the game that comes to mind is "Cooties" -- you know, where the girls chase the boys and if a boy gets caught he yells, "Cooties." But rest assured, our female legisators are not chasing our male legislators and making them yell, "Cooties." Wouldn't that be scandalous?

But recess does occur twice a day for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In fact they share the same playground. Now the picture that creates in your mind probably shocks you, that our legislators take recess on a playground. But it's a little different than what you and I remember from school.

For example, the swings are bigger.

And the merry-go-round isn't one you have to push. It's got a motor so it can go really fast. In fact, there's a sign on it that says, "Everyone needs to hold on. This means you!"

If you're like me, I'm sure you're having a hard time picturing our Congress men and women playing on a playground. But here's the scoop. Our legislators are no dummies -- at least not most of them -- well, OK, not some of them. They understand that to run a country really well, you need to take time out at least twice a day to have fun just hanging with your friends.

And that's why they do it.

And every once in awhile the President stops by to hang with his buddies in Congress. He's very busy, so he doesn't get to do it much. But it turns out that it's a great way to get disagreements resolved. Somehow the motion of swinging on a swing, trying to go higher than everyone else, really calms people down so they can have a good, heart-to-heart talk.

Anyway, the appointment of judges has been a sore spot between the President and the Senators. Normally, the President nominates a person for a judicial spot, and the Senate takes a vote to decide whether to accept or reject the nominee. Unfortunately, the Senate hasn't been voting on many of the President's nominees. They won't say, "Yes," and they won't say, "No." I think that's so childish! Just say, "Yes," or just say "No." It's not like it's gonna kill you.

When the President stopped by the playground recently, the whole judge topic came up, and they decided to tackle the issue right then and there. They almost had a fist fight to decide, but cooler heads prevailed. And so, they decided to do what what I, and probably you, used to do in elementary school. Remember the rhyme:

Eany, Meany, Miny, Mo.
Catch a Cougar by the Toe.
If He Hollers, Make Him Pay.
Fifty Dollars Every Day.
My Mother Told Me To Pick the Very Best One.
Peaches, Pears, Plums, Apples.

That's just what they did. And the Senator who won got to decide if the President's nominee was accepted. Fortunately, for the President, who had been the highest swinger that day, the Senator felt compelled to defer to him because of his dominating performance on the swing, so the Senator accepted his appointment.

And that's why it's called a recess appointment.

  ¶ 5:48 AM

  ++>> How quaint. According to a report in Yahoo! yesterday, the Academy Awards announced that they would be screening the content of advertising during the upcoming awards program. Apparently, they are not going to allow the likes of those crass ads shown during the Super Bowl. Has the organization's leadership suddenly gotten religion?

What a laughable irony. The advertising surrounding the entertainment extravaganza will be squeaky clean while many of the films receiving recognition will, no doubt, contain a combined smut level dwarfing that of the Super Bowl ads.

Isn't this just a little hypocritical?

Not really. The organization is being perfectly consistent. Their industry makes huge amounts of money from creating films with low moral content. And they themselves make money from advertising. In the wake of the Super Bowl uproar, there's no point in stirring more of the advertising hornet's nest. That might cost money.

What is the bigger irony, though, is that many of us Americans just don't get it. Hollywood feeds immoral content to us by the barrel. And we tolerate that with only a feeble wringing-of-our-hands wondering what we can do. Yet when an incident occurs during a half-time show, which is shocking in its display but mild when compared to the volume and depravity of everyday entertainment, the outcry is deafening. I can't help but wonder, "Where has everyone been?"

I can't believe that I'm about to say what I am going to say, but someone who actually does "get it" has been a prolific creator of entertainment smut. This week my family and I watched the video "Daddy Daycare" with Eddy Murphy. Now, I have always avoided Murphy films, because I don't need to hear the filth that his mouth has traditionally generated, but this movie proved to be a surprise.

Why we even considered a Murphy move was because my older son was presented the opportunity to watch the video recently. We were completely shocked to read the reviews and find out that Murphy's mouth dressed up for the film. More investigation revealed a shocker. Now that Murphy has kids, he realized he wants to be able to take his children to see him in a movie.

The reaction of the Academy Awards folks show that Hollywood will follow society, if society is willing to lead. And Murphy models the fact that the "harmless" fun of entertainment filth is horrible fare for our kids. How about if we raise our expectations a notch and hammer Hollywood to "clean it up."  ¶ 5:11 AM

  ++>> The following comment was left on February 18, 2004, and I would like to respond to it:

The post-modern world we live in today should lessen the impacts of thoughts of "How quickly America is evolving into Soddom?", but they are not. Just because I acknowledge the fact that most people today believe that truth or righteousness is different for everyone and whatever works for me may not work for them the profuse continual rulings in the courts today are still baffling. Lets disregard the fact that this case is about the marriage of gays and lesbians. Now, the reality that the judges in this case are actually overtly ignoring the fact that the practice is "probably" (probably does not exist in substantiating laws) wrong is interesting enough. To enhance the foolishness of this reality is that one judge is allowing his or her bias beliefs to exist in making decesions in the courtroom. This is not a battle of right or wrong by the standards we live by, but spiritual warfare; what we can do is maintain in our minds that these events happening in todays courtrooms are amazingly wrong according the only law of Love; the Truth of the Law of God.

Here are four questions I'd like you to consider, based on your response:

1. If you were arguing a case with a religiously moral content before a judge, how would the things you said affect your arguments?

2. What line of reasoning would you use if that judge made it clear that he had no regard for religious-based approaches to cases?

3. I'm not sure if I know what you mean by the phrase "probably does not exist in substantiating laws," but I think the concept of "probably" shows up in such legal terms as "probable cause" or "likely to be overturned". The first term is the legal standard for deciding if a police officer, for example, is justified in arresting someone. The second term is one part of the legal standard judges use to decide if a stay should be put on a law to prevent its enforcement while waiting for an appeal.

4. How does the "spiritual warfare" you mentioned play out in the day-to-day actions of a legal system that must deal fairly both with Christians and non-Christians? I think the answer to this question is a critical issue for fair-minded Christian lawyers. And I think the answer can sometimes be very difficult to answer in the nitty gritty details of new legal issues.

  ¶ 4:29 AM

  ++>> My 7-year-old daughter, who has cerebral palsy, has spent most of her life struggling to communicate. She has normal intelligence and has no trouble understanding speech, but her motor skills have created overwhelming hurdles to her learning to speak. She has been extremely limited in her ability to verbalize more than vowels and a few consonants. Because of these limits, she uses sign language (which, itself, presents severe limits, because with her limited motor skills, she finds it difficult to make one sign appear different from another) and an electronic speech device (which is slow, because she has to create what she wants to express one word at a time on a computer-like device).

But recently she has made noticeable improvement in speaking. She's making greater efforts to express herself through speech, and her ability to make her words sound more like they really should has jumped ahead.

This advance has been an encouraging, but trying time. It's encouraging for the obvious reason that maybe she'll be able to speak well enough to eliminate the other modes of communication she has been forced to use. It's trying, because many of her attempts to communicate turn into a game of "20 questions," as we try to figure out, through a process of elimination, what precisely she is trying to express.

Sometimes we can guess what she is saying, just by the context of the conversation the rest of us are having. Sometimes we can guess by remembering the situations that occurred today or yesterday that have excited her. But if a few guesses don't hit their mark, we resort to "20 Questions." What gets hard is that rarely am I in the mood for "20 Questions" when the need comes up -- I'd far rather engage in a quick game of "1 Question" and then "You just tell me the answer."

I hate to admit it, but sometimes I just give up, if I think I can get away with it -- if I think she won't be too disappointed if she goes without expressing herself. This happens when I'm tired or distracted. But most of the time I make myself give full-hearted support to her efforts. It's all in the hope that some day she'll speak well, if we can focus our efforts today.

I just can't take the easy path here.

  ¶ 3:01 PM

  ++>> I've just been accepted as a humor columnist at a start-up, online newspaper called The Cheers. My first column will probably appear next week.

These kinds of things are always funny. You enter a new situation like this with high hopes and expectations. But that's often because you don't know what you are getting into. Anyway, I think this will be a lot of fun.

Come see my column, featuring Professor Nutbottom, at www.thecheers.org.  ¶ 9:08 AM

  ++>> Well, this is an unusual turn of events. Norma McCorvey, aka known as Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade court case that legalized abortion, has been granted her request to have her case re-heard.

In case you don't know, several years ago Norma became a Christian, and after some soul-searching, decided that she wanted to do whatever she could to reverse the famous abortion-legalizing Supreme Court decision. Apparently, in June of last year she requested that a federal court reconsider her case. But the judge threw out her request. Now the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has taken up McCorvey's case with arguments scheduled for March 2.

Besides the obvious irony of her reversal, what makes this case interesting is that so far there is no second side in the case. The current Dallas County DA, the predecessor of the DA in the original case, has not filed a response to Corvey's appeal. The DA says there is nothing to be done now, because the original law against which Corvey went to court no longer exists. The appeals court is apparently set to hear only one side of the case.

However, 20 Texas law school officials are concerned about an unbalanced trial, so they have filed briefs asking the court to allow them to argue the other side.

It's an odd request for a court to consider.

Ultimately, one would think that nothing will come of this case. The Supreme Court has several times, since their original decision, affirmed the validity of the 1973 hallmark decision. However, maybe the odd twist at the beginning of this appeal is only the start of a series of odd twists. For example, if Corvey were to show that she had been coerced into being the defendant in the original case, might that perhaps be grounds for the Supreme Court to vacate the original decision? I doubt it, but this case sure has my attention.  ¶ 9:11 PM

  ++>> "They're really proud of those things."

I always thinks it's funny when a company is proud of a product they sell, but their customers don't share their exuberance.

My daughter is disabled and uses a special walker called a "gait trainer." We've had her current walker for quite some time, and the casters on the thing have collected hair around their axles, until the wheels hardly move. I took the casters off to try to clean them, but they're built in a way that makes it impossible. The axle is cleverly protected inside two wheels with plastic housings. And there is seemingly no way to take them apart.

So, today we took the walker in for service at the medical equipment distributor we use, and the man who makes adjustments there took a shot at cleaning the axles. Same result. He got them rolling a little better with some lubricant, but he couldn't get them apart either. The hair remained tightly wrapped around the axle. That's when he said, about the manufacturer, "They're really proud of those things." Then, he mentioned that the casters cost $70 apiece.

What?

Forget about my backup plan to just buy new ones. Such a disappointment for a piece of equipment that sells for around $2,000. For that price you can get a car that is still capable of running.

A bit of advice for those seeking to give good customer service: If you take pride in what you sell, be sure your customers agree. If they don't, find something else to take pride in. And never neglect your customer's point of view on what's great and what's not.
  ¶ 2:23 PM

  ++>> Of course!

Yesterday I could think of a hundred things to blog about. Today ... Well?

I can think of a hundred things, but none of them hold a particular attraction for me right now. Some blogger am I!

But here are some items of interest.

Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" opens in 6 days. What an irony, that Mel Gibson became a superstar in films like "Mad Max" and "Lethal Weapons" and now he's produced this movie. I admit, I have seen neither of his "superstar" films, but I can guess from the titles what they are about. Ok, so, I don't know where I am going here. I'm drawing conclusions about movie content based on titles, but this is lunacy. Drop that line of reasoning and say something brilliant. OK - The controversy over "The Passion" promises to make the movie a real hit (wow! - that's deep).

Howard Dean has effectively dropped out of the Democratic Presidential nominee race. This, after categorically stating, only a couple days ago (before the vote in Wisconsin) that he was in the race to stay. I guess placing a distant third in what he had previously called a "must-win" state can shock anyone, even a political candidate, back into reality.

Britain is mulling the idea of taxing fatty foods, an effort to reverse the increasing obesity those people have seen in recent years. Unfortunately, these kinds of efforts always create their own catch-22. Initially the tax brings in sizeable revenue, money that the government begins to depend on. Then, if the tax ultimately works as intended, revenues drop off, leaving the government with a budget shortfall. If it doesn't work, the government has a new, hefty, reliable source of revenue. I'm guessing some of the money will go to "education" targeted at changing people's eating habits. These efforts will go full-throttle at first, but eventually I'm betting they'll move to half-hearted.
  ¶ 5:03 AM

  ++>> The San Francisco situation with the city marrying gays and lesbians is interesting. I was somewhat surprised at the gall of the mayor to authorize this activity. But I'm not terribly surprised at the actions of the two judges, yesterday, who refused to stop the practice.

It was surprising that one judge actually admitted that the practice was probably illegal and then refused to stop the practice.

I thought in situations like this a judge will normally put a stay on a new practice to maintain the status quo. The theory is that the status quo is least likely to cause irreparable harm, unless it can be shown that the status quo is likely to be found illegal and unless compelling arguments can be given that the status quo is likely to cause irreparable harm.

I suspect both judges are activist judges, who want to see gay marriage become legal. I started to suspect this last week, when the judges refused to stop the practice and delayed any court action until at least yesterday.

Now the judges have delayed court action until March. I think it is likely that the judges purposely took advantage of the legal system to delay any additional court proceedings until March. At that time, even if the courts find that the city's actions are illegal, I suspect the courts may rule that things will have gone too far by then. They might acknowledge that the marrying of gays and lesbians has been breaking state law, but then they will point out that the harm caused by "rolling back the clock" will be far greater than allowing the practice to continue. On that basis those judges will declare gay marriages legal in the state of California.   ¶ 4:21 AM