Check Your Theology At The Door

Have you ever wondered whether or not you should take the whole Bible literally? There are many schools of thought. I can't tell you which is correct (though I'm sure some of you think you could), but I can give you something to think about. 

Long after Charlton Heston told Yul Brynner to "let my people go", God gave the people (through Moses) what has been titled "The Ten Commandments" (NOW do you get the joke?). Another name for The Ten Commandments is "The Great Shalt Nots":

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . . Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy . . . Honour thy father and thy mother . . . Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's (stuff) . . ." (Exodus 20:3-17 [KJV])

Now, Jesus came along and gave us a more positive spin on the list: "'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, '"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'" (Matthew 22:36-40 [NKJV])

Being that the religious are never satisfied, He was asked, "'. . . And who is my neighbor?' Then Jesus answered and said: 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you." So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among thieves?' And he said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:29b-37 [NKJV])

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? The Samaritan (a person who was despised by the Jews) showed compassion on what appears to be a Jew (being the person was travelling FROM Jerusalem at the time), where other Jews, even a priest and a Levite (one of the 12 tribes of Israel - who happen to be the line of the priesthood) didn't want to become "unclean" by becoming involved.

What does Jesus say? "Go and do likewise." Be the neighbor. Realize, this follows the whole, "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation. Or, more accurately, it ties directly into the "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation.

Now I ask you: what if the man who fell among thieves was a known homosexual?

"But, J.P., he wasn't."

Wasn't he? There is no information about the man outside of where he was travelling from and travelling to. Was he an outstanding member of his church? Did he tithe? Was he homosexual? We don't know. Why? Because, apparently to Jesus, it didn't matter. 

Now, I know many who will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and they will quote the Bible to prove it. Here is where the theological rubber meets the road: How do those verses line up with what Jesus HIMSELF told us were the two greatest commandments?

Okay, I lied. I CAN tell you whether or not you can take the whole Bible literally. Ready? 

Whenever you read something that lines up with the two greatest commandments, that is big "B" Bible. If it doesn't, it is small "b" bible. 

"What about what Paul wrote in the epistles regarding homosexuality being an abomination?"

Small "b" bible. 

Nowhere in the two greatest commandments or the "Ten Shalt Nots" do you read anything about homosexuality. For God, it is simply not an issue. For (religious, hyper-controlling) people? You get the idea.

©Emittravel 2020

Stuff My Brain Says #85

Pander: (v) To provide gratification for others' desires (merriam-webster.com)

Placate: (v) To soothe or mollify, especially by concessions; to appease (merriam-webster.com)

At this year's Home Opener (July 24, 2020), the Cleveland Indians wore one of their road jerseys instead of the traditional white or red jerseys. It's a beautiful jersey, with CLEVELAND emblazoned across the front. They did this to make a statement: "We care."

The club has been in talks concerning renaming the team from the "Indians" to something "less offensive". (Last year was the first year their uniforms did not display the Chief Wahoo mascot.) Along with the Washington Redskins (who are also changing their name), the owners of the Indians are looking to do the "right thing".

I've written about the name change before in reference to the removal of Chief Wahoo. You can browse my blog (or simply search "Wahoo" and "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" in your favorite browser) to read in more detail how I feel about THAT.

Here's my point: Changing the name of the team, a name that has never been used to disparage, but to honor, does NOTHING to right a wrong. As the definitions above tell you, it is another example of placating; a simple gesture to hopefully show how in touch we are, and how sorry we are, for the bad things we white people have done, without actually doing anything of real value.

C'mon already. Who are you kidding? You want to do right? Forget renaming teams. GIVE THEM THEIR LAND BACK.

But hey, that would be going too far, won't it?

(This post was inspired by a tweet from @ScottJohnson: https://twitter.com/scottjohnson/status/1285803540309348352?s=19)

©Emittravel 2020

Stuff My Brain Says #84

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." - Amendment I, U.S. Constitution

This past weekend marks a sad day in American history. People all over the country got together to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Primarily, they were protesting the death of George Floyd, who died when in the custody of the Minneapolis police. However, many of those protests shifted from "peaceably" to violent; including destruction of property and looting.

These types of protests need to stop. 

Here are a few considerations:

Every person needs to register prior to attending any protest.
Every person needs to publicly display their name on their clothing during the protest.
No wearing of black clothing and NO hoodies allowed.
Every person will go through a checkpoint prior to attending the protest.
If you fail to comply with the above you will be arrested and removed from the assembly.

Now, let me address the whys:

Many of the reports I read and videos I saw were concerning hooded individuals initiating the violence, destruction of property, and looting (what does the looting of a Target have to do with #BlackLivesMatter I have no idea). In Cleveland, over 60 people were arrested for aggravated rioting, vandalism, disorderly conduct and curfew violations. Some of those individuals were not from Cleveland. If every person is registered, publicly wearing their name, and are not hidden behind dark clothing and hoods, the chances of someone starting a riot are greatly diminished. And the checkpoints will guarantee no one is carrying a weapon or clothing they can use to disguise their identities (you have to go through checkpoints to get into Cleveland Indians games after all).

"But J.P., don't you know that we have a right to protest? It's in the 1st Amendment that you posted at the top of this article."

Read it again. It says you have the right to PEACEABLY assemble. Not riot. Not destroy property. Not bludgeon people with two-by-fours (yes, I saw that video too). PEACEABLY assemble.

"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." - Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

As the preamble above shows, the concept of the Constitution, and the Amendments contained therein, are based on the intention of a CIVILIZED SOCIETY. IF you choose to behave uncivilized, you LOSE that right. 

Don't agree? Go commit a felony, go to jail, serve your time, and try to vote. Why can't a felon vote? Because the act of the felony (an uncivilized act) DISQUALIFIES the person from the rights of a citizen in a civilized society. You know, part of the "domestic Tranquility".

When the violence and destruction become the news, the meaning of your protest is no longer the news. So, if you therefore have no desire for your message to be heard, you don't protest.

If you can't act like adults, you should be treated as the unruly children you are.

©Emittravel 2020

If Everything Is A Crisis . . .

What do all of these have in common?

Global Cooling
H1N1
Swine Flu
Killer Bees
Avian Flu
Y2K
SARS
Global Warming a.k.a. Man-Made Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Change a.k.a. Climate Crisis
2012 (Mayan Calendar)
MERS
Donald Trump and the 2016 Presidential Election

Ready? Oh, this is so easy that you're gonna kick yourself if you missed it: According to the media (and our political "leaders"), we were all GONNA DIE!!

That's right. The above list is just a sampling of the things that the media cried over. And to show just how intellectual the elite media are, they would use (and still use) a word coined in 1475 to label anyone who would not whole-hardheartedly agree with them: denier.

Today we are in the midst of a real pandemic. One not seen here in the United States since 1918. And it may actually be serious. Oh, I'm not being a "denier" of the coronavirus. Not in the least. But, I'm wondering HOW serious it might actually be. As of today, the stats are as follows:

The first case reported in the US: 1/22/2020
February 1: 8
March 1: 42 (2 deaths)
April 1: 212,747 (4,746 deaths)
April 18: 724,895 (34,178 deaths)

As an Ohioan, the first three cases were reported on 3/9/2020
April 1: 2,547 (65 deaths)
April 18: 10,222 (451 deaths)

Looking at the stats, things seem quite grim. The numbers are exponentially rising when it comes to confirmed cases and especially deaths. And yet, both President Trump and Governor DeWine (and I'm sure many others) are looking at slowly lifting the quarantines that have been slowing the spread of the disease. I can't talk about the impact upon the economy at an individual level, as my wife is a public school teacher working from home and I work in a company that supports the telecommunications industry (therefore, "essential"), so we are both working (thank you Lord). However, on the macro level, the impact has been substantial. Yet, after only about a month of quarantine (here in Ohio), is it really advisable to start lifting it? Can the hospitals handle the possible increase in cases? Do we have the supplies? Are people willing to keep their distance and wear masks? How serious is this?

Now, the media has been ever vigilant in their reporting of how terrible a job President Trump has done when it comes to this. Mainly, because he was a "denier" initially. To be honest, I don't blame him.

Please scroll back to the top and review that list.

Now, take a deep breath.

Let it out slowly.

I blame the media. It is their fault and they should be held responsible for every occurrence and EVERY DEATH from this pandemic. And here's why:

I'm a big fan of two Microsoft Office Suite products: OneNote and Outlook (the desktop version). When writing an email in Outlook, you can choose the priority of the message as High, Normal, and Low. All emails are Normal by default. I had a coworker that would send every email as High priority. Do you know what happens when all emails are sent as High priority? NONE of them are High priority.

That's our media. Everything is a crisis and we should pay attention to them because they are more knowledgeable than you and therefore are the arbiters of truth. Horsepuckies!

To be more accurate, they are more like the "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

They have always been more concerned with selling advertising dollars than reporting the news. And because everything has been a crisis, nothing is a crisis. And they are surprised when people are not listening when there is a REAL "wolf"?!?

I'm no expert. This is nothing but My Humble But Accurate Opinion. And yet, maybe, just maybe, we should keep our distance for a bit longer.

And stop listening to the media when they cry, "Wolf!"

©Emittravel 2020

Kill The Goose

According to Douglas Adams, the answer to "Life, The Universe, And Everything" is "42". But, according to the MLB, 42 is also the answer to "death": as in the number of Minor League teams on the chopping block.

As I write this, my wife and I are recovering from hosting our 5th annual "Pitchers & Catchers Report Party": a celebration of the start of a new season of baseball, and a chance for family and friends to get together and gab and eat summer food on a below-freezing day. With her parents recent return to Ohio, this was a fun time for both sets of parents to hang out as well.

During the party, along with food, we had a game from September playing in the background. At one point I was called over by both dads who told me that they would be enjoying future ball games right here. They said that there was good food, great parking, and great seats to watch the game.

I think they had something there.

Have you ever heard the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs? The farmer found he had a goose that would lay one golden egg every day. Due to his greed, he cut the goose open to get all the eggs at once - effectively killing the goose.

That farmer and the MLB have something in common.

I read a recent article that made the argument that the MLB needed not only a new Commissioner of Baseball, but a new commissioner like the old commissioners. Back in 1921, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis became the first commissioner. He was brought in partially due to what become the "Black Sox Scandal", where he banned eight ballplayers from the game for life!

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."

That action, though harsh, helped keep the game respectable, and helped the game to continue to grow.

Landis' focus was for the good of the game. He balanced the interest of players, owners, and fans to the best of his ability. That was a trait that followed for commissioners after him.

Current commissioners however, especially the last two, have focused on what is best for the owners exclusively. Okay, maybe they haven't kicked the players out, but they sure have left the fans out in the rain.

One of the things that has been proposed by the current commissioner (Robert Manfred) is the elimination of 42 Minor League clubs, with the hopes of expanding the Major League clubs by two. The reason? Money, of course. And by money, I mean money for the owners of the Major League clubs.

Lest you think I'm rambling here, let me tie all these threads together.

According to our dads, access to games, good food, great seats, and easy parking all add up to a great baseball experience. You know what that sounds like to me? They aren't talking about going to a Major League park! Sounds like a Minor League experience to me! You know, where you don't have to fight traffic, all seats are good (even the "nosebleed"), the parking is easy, and you don't have to take out a loan to go! And according to Mr. Manfred, there will be 42 less places for people to enjoy that kind of baseball.

For some people, a Minor League park is the only way they can take their family to a game. Partly due to finances; partly due to inaccessibility to Major League ballparks.

In 2019, my wife and I attended four Major League games (one at home and three in Canada while on vacation). In comparison, we went to six Minor League games. I can guarantee you, we spent far less money, and had JUST as good a time, at the six Minor League games than we did at the four Major League games. And those Minor League players played the game just as hard and with just as much passion as their Major League affiliates. And that means, in 2020, we plan on going to even MORE Minor League games.

The MLB owners are so money focused that they are willing to kill 42 geese. That's a lot of golden eggs they are throwing away, all for greed.

Let's not dash the dreams of multitudes of children to one day step up to the batters' box by keeping them from enjoying the game. Especially ones they and their families can actually attend!

©Emittravel 2020

Major League - With a Minor in Marketing

On December 28, 2019, Paul J. Caputo - a.k.a. "Baseball and Ice Cream" on Twitter - posted the following tweet:

"It's the #BaseballSolstice, friends! We're exactly halfway from the last out of the World Series to the first pitch of Spring Training games. WE'RE DOING THIS!"

For lovers of baseball, this kind of thing brings a rush to the bloodstream. And it got me curious as to what changes the MLB has in store in its efforts to bring more fans to the game. So I did a little interwebs walking and found out a few things. Here are a couple of the highlights:

• This will be the first season since the 1940s that WGN-TV will neither broadcast Chicago Cubs nor White Sox games, along with both teams not having local free over-the-air broadcasters. Cubs games will exclusively be televised on the Marquee Sports Network, while White Sox games will air exclusively on NBC Sports Chicago. WFLD will continue to broadcast any national games from Fox involving either or both teams.

• A pitcher must face at least three batters, unless the inning ends or the pitcher is injured.

(Both of the above were from a really good Wikipedia article.)

Again, I'm looking at these as changes that will bring more into the fandom of baseball. You see, some folks in the MLB organization think that the game is too slow for today's fans, and young folk are not interested in the game. I think they are missing the point.

Lets look at the first one: this one effects the Cubs and White Sox broadcasting. What this does is give special licensing rights (also known as $$$ to the MLB) to a certain network.

And here is the other: A pitcher must face at least three batters, unless the inning ends or the pitcher is injured.

As Cleveland Indians fans are aware, there is a strategy that coaches like Terry Francona like to employ, and that is using your bullpen to compete against the opposing team's lineup; which sometimes means bringing in a particular pitcher to face a particular batter - and changing them out afterwards.

The idea for the change is that every time you change a pitcher the game slows down. And nothing is more important than speeding up the game.

Now, both of these changes are going to have the OPPOSITE effect than planned. And here is why:

There are several age groups of fans: kids (brought to games by or watching on TV with their parents), adults (with or without kids), and older - retired - fans. The one group I didn't list was the young adults in or just graduating from college. These are the "cream" that the MLB is trying to get interested in the game. The problem is that the majority of these young adults are not dropping money into a cable subscription. Which means, they either watch the games on local TV (just eliminated for Cubs and White Sox fans) or by paying for special app access to those networks that do broadcast the games (which, from what I've experienced, need a cable subscription to login).

The other issue is the cost of the games to attend. The ticket prices are so expensive, that unless you want the "nosebleed" section - where it's better to stay home and watch if you want to SEE anything - you are dropping quite a bit of cash. Add to that concessions and perhaps parking, and it's an expensive night on the town.

So, what should the MLB do? Well, for starters, since they have stated that money is not an issue, they should be able to lower those ticket prices. Where do I get that? Well, every time I'm in my living room watching a game and there is a pitching change they go to a commercial break. Since they are eliminating how often a pitching change can take place, they are stating that they DON'T NEED THOSE ADVERTISING DOLLARS. That eliminates one barrier for young folk to get to the game.

The other thing they can do is eliminate all of those exclusive broadcasting rights (a.k.a. "blackout conditions"). I was foolish one year and purchased the MLB Regular Season Package. What did that give me? Access to regular season games via online streaming (phone, tablet, Roku, etc.) EXCEPT for the Cleveland Indians (my home team). Those games were unavailable due to blackout conditions. Which means that I wasn't able to watch them without a cable subscription.

Every time a game is available only on a special network, you eliminate eyes from watching the game AND missed eyes to watch those precious advertisements. Of course, the idea of the blackout is to encourage people to come to the ballpark . . . if they can afford the ticket price . . .

The MLB needs to reevaluate their marketing. If they really want to get more fans interested in the game, and keep them interested for years to come, they need to be less penny wise and dollar foolish. They are so desperate for those pennies now that they are losing the many dollars of the future.

But then again, maybe that 20-second pitch clock is the solution . . .

©Emittravel 2019

"Don't Panic!" - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Every issue facing the world can be directly linked to climate change (crisis) and the timeline seems to keep getting shorter for the end of the world.

"We only have 11 years to cut our emissions in half." - Elizabeth Warren - September 5, 2019 Climate Town Hall

I remember in the 1970s that we were doomed due to the impact of global COOLING. If we didn't change our ways immediately (changes which always seemed connected to redistributing wealth from one group to another) we would be thrust into another ice age!

"There's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent threat of a changing climate." - Barack Obama

It seems that everywhere you turn you hear people crying that the world is about to end and it is our fault. Unless we make drastic changes we are all going to die!

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" - Chicken Little

Did you know that the world was going to end by a great flood? That was predicted to take place on February 25, 1524, when the planets would be in alignment.

The world was going to end in 1843. This was predicted by William Miller in 1831. When it didn't happen, he recalculated and determined it to take place in 1844. No dice.

In 1910, Halley's comet was to pass earth in such close proximity that it was believed that it would destroy the planet. "Comet May Kill All Earth Life, Says Scientist."

How about when Harold Camping "accurately" predicted the end times - 12 times. Never happened, but he did sell a lot of books.

And of course, we can't forget when John Cusack and a few daring individuals helped save a large number of people when the Mayan Calendar marked the end of the world on December 21, 2012. Oh wait. That was a movie.

We humorously dismiss the above because they were mostly the rantings of the religious - not the true believers we have today in science. But my question is, should we?

In a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 (Schenck v. United States), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave us the famous quote concerning shouting fire in a crowded theater. It is thought to be one of the first opinions that directly limited the 1st Amendment's "freedom of speech" clause to not allow people to cause panic.

Maybe we need to implement that and make people responsible for the things they say.

For instance: if a person gets placed on parole and then goes out and commits a crime, the people on the parole board should be held accountable. After all, by letting the person out of prison they are stating that they believe the public is in no danger. Is that a stretch? Well, look at it this way: aren't they accomplices to a crime?

What if it was made clear that if anyone - politicians included - were to make statements, especially those that create panic (see those at the top of this article for examples), they will be held responsible if they DON'T come to pass?

The Bible tells us that you can tell a false prophet by the fact that what they profess does not come to pass (and therefore should be punished - see Jeremiah 14:15)

And that includes the panic induced behind the statements of climate change criers.

Oh, and to correctly quote Justice Holmes, Jr.: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger . . . "

To all of you Chicken Littles out there: be warned. Your #MeToo-type moment is coming!

©Emittravel 2019