Baseball is (already) for everyone

Image by Racool_studio on Freepik

To attend a major league baseball game, is to participate in a thoroughly American experience.  It's a classic sport with something to delight everyone.  As spectators, we usually can forget about life's problems for a few innings.  Or, at least we could.

Now, the MLB, its franchise owners, the players union, or some combination thereof, have joined the ranks of those in the NFL who thought it was a great idea to radiate political messages in giant letters in the endzone.  (And even allow messaging on the back of player helmets).

I hadn't noticed anything similar in professional baseball until recently.  Just beyond the center field wall at Target Field in Minneapolis, one can see, one actually must see, a large sign blaring two words: "END RACISM". 

Who are proponents of the Target Field signage going to influence?  Put another way, who besides actual racists, would advocate for preserving racism?  This practice of adorning stadiums with political messages could beckon all comers for equal expression.  One day will we see a large "END WOKEISM" or "BACK THE BADGE" sign in the right field bleachers?  I hope not, because overt political posturing -- whether Conservative or Progressive in nature -- does not belong at sporting events.

All forms of injustice, including racism, are abhorrent.  We all salute those who fight injustice, but every citizen has a right to pay for and receive the pleasurable escapism of attendance at a sporting event (or a "Hamilton" performance) without intrusive political messaging.  

Now, other recent changes to the game of baseball have been welcome and they involve no political expression whatever, so let's go there....  

Many games were simply too long, but by adding the pitch clock, limiting trips to the mound for pitcher chats and implementing other measures for extra inning play, the MLB has effectively shortened average game time, while preserving the experience for fans.  Many unnecessary delays involve the pitcher in some way, shape, or form.  

Relief pitchers warm up in the bullpen, so why not reduce the amount of time they can burn after taking the mound before they face their first batter?  

If the manager is going to call for that relief pitcher, why can't he just signal that from the dugout.  His walk to the mound followed by on field discussion with the manager, catcher and a friendly pat on the back of the outgoing pitcher--is followed by more mound chat.  Just zip Joe Reliever in a golf cart directly to the mound and play ball! 

Finally, a personal wish.  Let's keep home plate umpires, but use technology to perfectly call balls and strikes.  

Way too many strikes are called balls and vise versa.  Allowing technology to decide what an umpire calls a pitch, would avoid disputes over poor calls and limit fan and player aggravation over all of those truly God awful calls that follow so many pitches. 

Traditionalists may bristle, but the technology could be implemented without removing home plate umpires from the sport. Aside from the benefits of accurate officiating and stress reduction, the change would equate to another timesaver.

Baseball fans vigorously debate changes like these, but they do so in the context of what's good for this sport that's lasted over 180 years.  Such debates don't involve political ideology today.  I hope they never do. 

Priceless clips from 5 of the funniest films ever made

 

Film titles appear below in alphabetical order...

• Airplane! (1980) clip here.

• It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963) clip here.

• Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) clip here.

• My Favorite Year (1982) clip here.

• Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987) clip here.

(Image above by freepik)

A post about nothing

If Seinfeld became a hit TV program as a show about "nothing," then this post is a nod to that empty theme of everyday life.  Here are two items about nothing in particular... 

By George Webb Corporation - http://www.georgewebb.com







1. For three consecutive mornings, I've happily eaten breakfast at George Webb, a Wisconsin chain of some 30+ counter and booth style restaurants which first opened for business in 1948.  I've been enjoying them -- and particularly their cheese hash browns -- since the Seventies.  However, I'm ordering their free water as my beverage for the foreseeable future.  I recognize the ill effects of that silent thief we call inflation, but $3.30 for their small size glass of institutional orange juice?  Ridiculous.  

John Maddente photo

2. I'm guessing few of my seven readers are familiar with Luckbox magazine.  Its stated focus on "Life, Money, Probability" is geared toward Traders and other professional investors.  I do not belong to that group, but a copy of this magazine at an airport lounge with snappy graphics and offbeat topics, caused me to subscribe.  

The latest issue has an interesting article on the high stakes fight to preserve, or slowly kill, AM radio.  Spoiler alert:  The piece reminds readers that AM radio remains relevant to 82 million American listeners and also government officials that rely upon it as a medium for public emergency alerts.  What's more, AM radio defenders in Congress are remarkably bipartisan.  

Today I close with a friendly jab at the Luckbox editor of this article.  Dear Madam or Sir, Re: the copy under "Night Radio" --  I believe your columnist intended to cite the laws of physics not "psychics".   Your oversight reminded me of a M*A*S*H episode when Col. Potter exclaims, "We order rectal thermometers, we get spark plugs. Both useful articles, but hardly interchangeable."

And the debate winner is....

 

Although I was intrigued today by an article in the WSJ from Mike Edleson and Andy Puzder, I will not share my views about ESG investing.  Is it moral or amoral?  Sensible?  Profitable?  Suffice it to say, one can make a reasonable case for or against ESG investing depending upon measurement criteria, objectives and definitions.  

I will however express my views about another equally polarizing topic: foods and beverages!  I won't equivocate on that topic.  Here's a tasty sample of seven culinary flashpoints that are suitable for most socially-acceptable debates.

Pizza & Hot Dogs

Possibly America's favorite food, I must have thin crust pizza with cracker crisp qualities and zesty toppings (toppings is a whole topic for another post).  To my friends in Chicago; please forgive me, but what you call "Deep Dish Pizza" is actually a satisfying tomato casserole with too much dough.  However, Chicago can lay claim to the finest hot dogs (and I agree, no ketchup on a dog allowed).  For store bought beef frankfurters; I'm partial to Nathan's or Hebrew National brand.

Bacon

Make mine crisp.  This iconic cut of meat from the hog's belly should not be served limp, chewy, or with visible fat globules.

Coke vs. Pepsi

Talk about polarizing debates!  Cola devotees might not patronize both giant beverage makers, but I do.  Diet Pepsi is not only wildly superior to Diet Coke, but I find Diet Coke almost undrinkable.  Regarding Coke Zero vs Pepsi Zero -- I'll give Coke Zero the edge.

Gluten

Follow your own Doctor's or Nutritionist's advice.  Gluten doesn't affect me.  

Peanuts

When did this onslaught of Peanut allergies begin?  Why did it begin?  I love these little legumes and Virginia Peanuts are the best I've found.  Please do not serve me the un-salted type and consider serving Peanuts really cold.  That chill factor is something I learned from a dear friend with a serious taste for chocolate covered Peanuts.

Charcoal and Smokers vs. Gas Grilling

For purposes of taste comparison -- there is no comparison.  Charcoal is best.  I sometimes hear the argument about the speed of Gas Grilling, to which I normally respond, "What's your hurry?"  The same principle applies to smokers vs. gas grills -- smoking is well worth the wait.

Orange Juice

There are few things in this life I find as gratifying as a glass of freshly-squeezed orange juice.  Unfortunately, every substitute for the fresh variety I have found distasteful.  Take McDonald's, I've long believed that their orange juice is the worst-tasting item on the whole menu.

###

(Image above from freepik)

Food with purpose

Many times I've driven past the military vehicle and large sign in front of Mission BBQ with curiosity, but never enough to actually go in and check it out.  Today I did so; and I'll be back.  

My dining companion explained that the franchise began out of efforts from two military veterans who'd served together in the Middle East.  He went on to explain that at noon -- which was moments away -- we'd likely see the place stop normal activities to observe the national anthem.  It happened at noon sharp and it was great.

My whole experience began by walking into a pleasantly rustic environment with loads of military and patriotic memorabilia all punctuated by a wonderful smoky aroma from the BBQ.  This is an organization that gives back and is quite serious about its mission.  However, the whole thing would collapse if the food fell short of the brand and purpose but it doesn't--some of the best BBQ I've had and each table is equipped with six -- yes count them -- six different BBQ sauces.  What more could I want?

Mission BBQ public website

Living or dead, at their most interesting

A dried pasta revelation

Growing up, we ate pasta frequently in the Maddente home.  I still enjoy it; but all I'd ever learned about this staple is that it's a mortal sin to over cook it.  I never could discern any significant taste difference among the many different dried pastas on the market.  

Recently; I've learned something new.  Extrusion methods matter.

Food photo created by timolina - www.freepik.com

Here's a parallel.  Ever heard of "Steel Cut Oats"?  I used to think that's an either slightly pompous or at least a haute description used to sell oatmeal.  

I'm going to rethink that assumption and try steel cut oats.  That's because I've stumbled upon a dried pasta called "Bronze Cut" which is a reference to the metallurgy involved with the device that extrudes and cuts the pasta.  

For those interested in the science and engineering behind this alloy for pasta making purposes; here's an article.  For the rest of us, suffice it to say that the bronze cut process produces a noodle that's less dense and more porous.  It simply tastes better and it adheres to sauce (or sauce adheres to the pasta) ….better.  That's all I know.  

It costs a little bit more; but worth it.  Bon Appetit!  

Viva Espana

My wife and I recently returned from a vacation in Spain.  I haven't posted in months and it's a pleasure to share some beauty and love that we witnessed. 

Let's start with the Spanish people themselves.  They are as warm and courteous as I'd heard and quite tolerant of Americans seeking assistance.  They're also, by and large, very well dressed! 

A word about our tour guide, Mr. Federico García Barroso.  Mr. García Barroso is, and I don't often use this word to describe others -- remarkable.  He's the kind of man who can brighten lives simply by doing what he loves to do, which is sharing his knowledge of Spain's rich history and art.  

An accomplished guide, Mr. García Barroso is also a lover of music and a fine tenor.  At the closing dinner for our travel group, he sang four songs.  One in French, one in Spanish, one in English and one in Italian.  Like I said....remarkable.  Here's a taste...CLICK HERE.

The treasure trove of art in Spain including sculptures, paintings and of course, architecture, has always been a source of pride for the Spanish.  An example; the Basilica known as the Sagrada Familia the construction of which, began in 1882, is one of the most stunning edifices I've ever seen.  Spanish authorities are working diligently to complete its construction by the 100th anniversary of the death of its renowned architect, Antoni Gaudi, in 2026.

Below you'll see a photo -- untouched and taken only with natural light -- of the interior.  I was amazed by the columns alone, which resemble giant trees in a luminous forest.  The tops of the columns literally "branch out" to support the top structure.  We learned that Gaudi's work contains rich symbolism of the natural world and the divine.  These columns are part of his expression. 

If you have the opportunity, please visit the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.   



John Maddente photo 

Of small plates and anxious diners

Restaurants matter!  Since childhood, I’ve had an almost religious attraction to restaurants serving tasty Chinese food, Italian food, steaks, etc.  Now in my late 50s I’m speaking out against a form of dining that started to proliferate across the U.S. about 10 years ago.... a restaurant concept called, “small plates”. 

It’s not the portion size that bothers me.  OK, part of the problem is size-related, but one can obviously consume as many little bites as one wishes and leave satisfied.  Nor is the problem entirely due to flavors (I've enjoyed tapas and other tiny treats served at many small plate eateries).  The problem is the convoluted experience of the small plate "dinner".  Dinner in this case is a misnomer.  It's more like playing gastronomic chess and I don't like it.  Here's what happens at a typical small plate experience....

Small plates photo -- Wikipedia

After eyeing a group of baby plates spewed across a table that's invariably too small to accommodate them or the rest of us -- I’m drawn to some of these culinary strip teases much more than others.  Now -- how many pieces of the great stuff shall I eat?  

I want to be mindful of my fellow diners, but if I ignore the less appetizing small plate items, I'll leave hungry. I can do that or fill up on marginal stuff.  Some choice.

Wait, did she order those marinated artichokes as her dish?  OK, how many small plates shall we order for the next round?  One?  Two?  Twenty?  

Who votes for which plates to order?  You going to finish those artichokes?  Should we eat off of one another's plate?  Wait who wants dessert? 

I hear a sharp rebuke coming from the reader who is a Small Plate devotee, “Just order more small plates that you like and don't sweat the rest!”   No thank you.  I’ll go elsewhere and enjoy my own entree in simple, adult-plate-size bliss.  Who was given license to complicate something as wonderful as dining out and serve instead, an unclaimed barrage of appetizers?   

I'm hooked on BILLIONS

So little TV is worth watching IMO and that's why I was delighted to discover a SHOWTIME series called Billions. 

SHOWTIME image / Wikipedia

This series is based upon a high stakes dual between a billionaire hedge fund manager and a shrewd U.S. District Attorney.  Within a week, I devoured the entire twelve episodes from season one.  Happily, the show is coming back for a second season.

The two principal characters: U.S. Attorney, Chuck Rhoades (Paul Giamatti) and billionaire investor, Bobby Axelrod aka "Axe" (Damien Lewis), are both wickedly good.  An outstanding supporting cast includes...

Billions writers per Wikipedia

Jeffrey DeMunn (as Charles Rhoades Sr), David Costabile (as Mike Wagner), Maggie Siff (as Wendy Rhoades), Malin Akerman (as Lara Axelrod) and Glenn Fleshler (as Orrin Bach).

Due to the care and talent of the writers (see list at right >>) and a brilliant cast that brings their work to life, these characters are truly multi-dimensional. It's hard to completely love or loathe any of them, but you'll want to watch all of them.

While a certain amount of salaciousness is expected, some scenes in Billions are implausible or gratuitous.  Examples include the Chuck Rhodes' sadomasochistic sex scenes and Wendy Rhoades' willingness to slip into a bath naked with Axe to have a completely platonic business conversation (sure).  These are minor quibbles.  Watch the trailer by clicking here  >>>  or if you are pressed for time, check out this short YouTube video....

Related to that Christmas Eve post...

There's a piece in today's Wall Street Journal called "The Fed's Needless Flirtation With Danger" in which Martin Feldstein writes that in order to stimulate demand, "Well-designed tax rules are a safe and effective alternative to quantitative easing".  

Dr. Feldstein argues that we'd have been better served by tax policies that induce businesses to make new investments and help consumers consume, instead of unleashing so much QE, but some of his contemporaries would challenge that assertion.   Major economists in the media often disagree in practice and do so with the type of certainty reserved for hard science and their views are frequently colored by their political leanings.   

I once saw an Economist on Squawk Box who insisted that professional economists collectively agree on nearly all major policy prescriptions.  I

Nassim Taleb, Wikipedia

wish I could recall his name.  His remarks still strike me as wishful.  Maybe he was right, but it sounded as though he wanted viewers to believe that the discipline of economics breeds the kind of metaphysical certainty found in the natural sciences.  There's a reason that the name for the field of study has long been referred to as "Political Economy". 

To help settle the issue or at least test it, a long form Krugman-Feldstein debate or a Taleb-Krugman debate would be an interesting spectacle, like the sort we could watch years ago.

Paul Krugman, Wikipedia

I'm referring to the old TV debates on public television that featured thought leaders from opposite ends of a policy spectrum who respectfully but forcefully hashed out their differences on politics and economics.  

My favorite debater remains the late William F. Buckley.  Though not a PhD economist, he did hold an undergraduate degree in economics from Yale.  Amazon Prime members can access some of WFB's old "Firing Line" debates for free.

WFB, Wikipedia

Don't sulk, resist.

In his piece from the current issue of Fortune magazine, Geoff Colvin says the current environment is a "...nasty, insidious force that's undermining the native optimism that buoys up business people everywhere" and then he admonishes readers with one word -- "Resist!"  

I appreciated another article in this issue by Ms. Mina Kimes who wrote about a manager for the MFS International Value Fund -- Mr. Barnaby Wiener.  Like a lot of people; I largely stick to index funds, but Mr. Wiener's actively-managed fund according to Fortune, is one of the best in its class having outperformed 99% of its peers since 2002. 

Mr. Wiener says "It's much more important to avoid losing money than it is to make money" and he adds, "If you avoid the big losses, you make money almost by default."  Those statements seem consistent with Warren Buffet's well-known view, "The first rule of investing is don't lose money; the second rule is don't forget Rule No. 1."  OK, but what's the third rule?  Anyway, on to the election...

1. The presidential election is only 50 days away.

2.  It's the most important election of my conscious lifetime (in other words, since I was 24).

3.  We need a CEO more than a Community Organizer with velvety speeches.

4.  Please encourage anyone still on the fence to get out and vote for Mitt & Paul.

Image by storyset on Freepik



Julie & Julia reviewed

Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theater goers.

For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. It was a great performance.

The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film.  Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.

Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish.  She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."

In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem.  (Perhaps they cheered on the coast). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical. 

Finally, there is the weak ending to the film (which I won't disclose here) that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.

All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.

The Atlantic meets The Economist

Check out this article by Michael Hirschorn in The Atlantic (July/August 2009) in which Mr. Hirschorn examines how a printed magazine like The Economist can thrive, while other printed weeklies it competes with -- notably Newsweek and Time -- are languishing.

Print publishing success in the digital age may lay in what Mr. Hirschorn describes as "razor-sharp clarity and definition" and owning and knowing a particular niche instead of trying to replicate one owned elsewhere.

In the case of The Economist, Mr. Hirschorn asserts that the magazine "...canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match" and "...prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey.''

Mr. Hirschorn, a contributing editor at The Atlantic, made a frank admission that his own magazine, "...has never delivered impressive profit margins."  Impressively profitable or not, his piece is worthwhile for anyone interested in the devolution of paper-based, weekly news products.

R.I.P. WFB

Yesterday at the age of 82, while working in his study, we lost William F. Buckley. Mr. Buckley captivated millions of us with his columns, speeches, debates, appearances on TV talk shows, authoring of 50+ books, harpsichord-playing, creation of National Review and a seminal television program for serious discourse called, "Firing Line."

WFB, Wikipedia

In my twenties, I'd watch television debates with awe and amusement as Mr. Buckley gracefully routed his opponents. He had no equal then and I'm not sure he has one today.  

Many Americans, I'm guessing under the age of 35, have little awareness of this man's enormous gifts and contributions to contemporary conservative thought. He was simply America's most charming intellectual with a legendary command of language, politics, economics, history and music.

He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was widely embraced.  He warned about secularism before it reached current proportions. 

Sometimes subtle characteristics endure. I'll not forget that sparkle in his eyes flashing as his expansive smile emerged. Mr. Buckley's radiant face revealed something more than the intellectual gifts for which he is often parodied. 

WFB with Ronald Reagan, Wikipedia

Those signature facial expressions revealed an abundant joyfulness and love of life beaming straight through the camera lens and into American homes.

Go see The Kite Runner

My family and I usually go to the theater this time of year and yesterday I went along with no advanced knowledge of the movie we were going to see.

I rarely recommend a new film because I believe so few are worth seeing, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner.  If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions -- I'll be surprised.

This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale that is set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the horrors of the Taliban in 2000.

The stylish opening when credits are still rolling suggested that this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the film's creators would capture the depth and dimensions of both evil and goodness in that part of the world.

Suffice it to say that a "Best Picture" nomination must be in the offing and perhaps other nominations including best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.

Celebrities' political preening

Published: May 4, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

If the entertainment elite could remove the words "decorum" or "credentials" from Webster's Dictionary, many of them would assuredly do so.

Consider Sheryl Crow's April 21 performance during the White House Correspondents Association Dinner in Washington. Crow decided to accost presidential adviser Karl Rove and, in the process, impress Lord knows who, about her passion for the topic of global warming.

Recounting this is not an indictment of anyone concerned about global warming. Rather, the issue is public behavior (or, more precisely, public misbehavior) by entertainers with dubious qualifications but plenty of pluck and A-list invitations to do their public preening.

To be honest, I do have a double standard. That is, I'd have less of a problem with the Crow-Rove ordeal if, instead of a musician, a renowned climatologist from Yale had cornered Rove and a heated debate ensued. At least such an altercation, while still socially awkward, would have taken place between people with depth and a useful angle. Crow? Precisely whom does she represent? All she wanted to do was have some fun, I thought.

I guess our Midwestern sensibilities come through differently at local entertainment outlets. I have attended many plays at the Sunset Playhouse and the Marcus Center over the years, and not once did an actor stop a performance, turn up the lights and pass the hat to save spotted owls. Maybe they know we didn't come to hear the political cause du jour.

The correspondents dinner has been a painful penance for every administration. And the casualties are chosen in a non-partisan manner.

I'm not referring to good-natured ribbing but rather the type of thing spewed by now-disgraced radio jock Don Imus, who took the podium in 1996 and proceeded to caricature a sexual encounter between President Clinton and someone other than his wife, Hillary. All this done, of course, with the first couple seated next to Imus' lectern on national television.

No, a successful entertainment career doesn't mean you forfeit a right to public debate on serious issues. But it should mean that you make sense, that you espouse your views at a proper time and place and that you thoroughly understand what you are talking about. Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, courts lawmakers for debt relief to impoverished nations, but he does so without making silly public displays or mindless pleas. Moreover, he has impressed government officials with a command of complicated issues. In short, he gets it. If you want to be taken seriously on world affairs, you need more than a Grammy and a choice table at the Washington Hilton.

Three years before the Imus debacle, we witnessed Richard Gere at the Academy Awards lapsing into a dreamy metaphysical trance to "send a message" to the people of Tibet, Deng Xiaoping and perhaps someone at a Dairy Queen in Vermont. We never heard what his message was, but afterward, 38 states wanted to revoke Gere's driving privileges.

Want another recent example? I never understood why Rosie O'Donnell occupies the airwaves, but after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, she decried on "The View" the lack of a "separation of church and state in America" because five Supreme Court justices happen to be Catholic.

With rigorous analytical thinking like that, who needs to stay in school? Not O'Donnell, who dropped out of college with a 1.62 grade-point average.

With O'Donnell vacating "The View," the state of political discourse in America just improved.

Religion in sports? Amen

Published: Aug. 15, 2006 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The first thing I noticed was the likeness of Reggie White and a crucifix in a half-page spread. Hundreds of miles from home, I found the prominent article about the late Green Bay Packer in a national newspaper a welcome sight.

The second thing was the not-so-humble headline: "Reggie's (whole) story." Unsure how one can reveal the "whole" anything in one opinion article, I grabbed my hotel copy of the July 31 USA Today.

The article was timely because White would be posthumously inducted into Pro Football's Hall of Fame that week.

So what was the startling news, I wondered? Reading the first paragraph about White's "regrets" of preaching while in uniform, I began to anticipate some bombshell admission made just prior to his death. Maybe someone discovered a tape White recorded before his short life ended in 2004.

I prepared to have the image of a man whom I admired not only for devastating play on the football field but also for an unabashed faith life off the field altered in some way.

However, the article failed to deliver what one might have expected from its headline, first paragraph or closing sentence: "Let's remember Reggie's story - all of it."

That's when I became more intrigued with the author - Tom Krattenmaker, who holds a master's degree in religion from the University of Pennsylvania and serves on USA Today's board of contributors.

Krattenmaker's work reveals a recurring theme of what troubles him. With all that imperils professional sports today - bloated payrolls, steroids, player scandals, etc. - Krattenmaker worries about the increasing menace of overt displays of faith practiced by Christian athletes and religious organizations supporting them.

Several of his works that sound a warning include: "Going long for Jesus," "Playing the 'God' card" and "A 'war' on Christians? No." But back to his article on White.

The first problem is that there is little new in the article. Indeed, Krattenmaker simply recycled the same quotes from his Jan. 3, 2005, piece titled "Rushing for Jesus" (published at Salon.com).

Team chaplains and public displays of faith among professional athletes are not new, either. Wisconsinites old enough to remember the Lombardi era will recall St. Vince's oft-repeated mantra to players about three priorities: God, family and football.

Yes, the framers of our Constitution took care to preserve a separation of church and state. They didn't want religious fanaticism to supplant the role of government. They also wanted to protect the rights of citizens to worship, or not, as they choose.

But Krattenmaker invokes the church-state boundary by reminding us that sports facilities used during displays of Christian faith are publicly financed. He forgets that attendees at these games are voluntarily voting with very private dollars - the same private dollars that patronize advertisers feeding the money machine of pro sports.

There is our check and balance. We do not need a separation of church and locker room.

The second problem with Krattenmaker's work is that there is no arresting feature or strong indicators to support his assertion that something is increasingly awry in professional sports due to "the conspicuous religiosity that we witness in pro sports today." And we can't know had he lived longer whether White would have fully adopted Krattenmaker's cause.

The quotes used in the article do reveal that White felt sports ministries had exploited his fame, that deeds are more important than preaching and that he was living that ethos more than before.

But that's it. I see thin evidence to justify a mission to identify what Krattenmaker calls "the appropriate place of religion in pro sports" or to control a force he describes as "problematic."

Krattenmaker is working on a book about the influence of religion in pro sports. I'm content to close this chapter with words from White's widow, Sara, addressing fans on Aug. 5: "I encourage you to live like Reggie lived."

Amen.

How do you rate on the phone etiquette meter?

Wikipedia photo

I have fumed about this issue for years. It’s called phone etiquette. 

When one calls someone else, one is invading their office, their home, or their peace. One is an invader, perhaps a friendly one, but nonetheless an invader in the strict sense of the word. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the invader, to identify himself/herself first.  Key point: callers should identify themselves first.

As a boy, I was raised to answer our home phone thus:

“Maddentes’ residence, John speaking, may I ask who is calling please?"

OK, I don’t answer the phone that way any longer; and I don’t ask my children to do that either, however, I still identify myself first whenever I am calling someone else. It is the minimum courtesy one ought to expect. 

This issue applies to work or home life. My daughters get phone calls from school mates and as soon as I answer, the caller usually begins by saying something like “Hi is (insert name) there?”  Sometimes, there is not even a greeting, it’s just, “Is (insert name) there?”

Whoa.  You are asking me to function as a switchboard operator and just turn the phone over to my daughter without the courtesy of even knowing who you are?

I suspect it’s generally how one's parents used the phone that affects the way one practices (or chooses not to practice) phone etiquette. I just penned this post after taking a call from an adult who after hearing me answer said simply, “Hi is (insert name), there?”

Now I immediately responded with “I’m sorry, you must have the wrong number.” As it turns out, my daughter got on an extension in the nick of time and said “Dad, hold it, she’s here!” I knew my daughter had a guest over, but I know her as “Katy” not “Caitlin.”  Had her Mother began the phone conversation by saying, “Hi, this is Caitlin's Mother calling…” I would have made the connection and spared us both the embarrassment.

My wife gets calls from a neighborhood friend (whom I really like) and I have a little unspoken game with her. The woman calls, doesn’t identify herself and simply says “Is Mary there?” I answer knowing full well who she is because of her familiar voice - and I reply - “May I ask who is calling, please?”

We both know how the game is played and we both never change our lines. Once she says, “Its Gladys Pickover" (name changed) I immediately respond with something like, “Hello Gladys, good to hear from you!”

That’s how we play the game.  When I answer, she knows she’s going to get “the question” from me, but instead of beginning with a simple “Hi, it’s Gladys” she puts us both through the paces and I stick to my part of the game by asking who is calling.  It bugs my wife, but I won’t change (and I doubt Gladys will either).

Again, this principle applies equally well to home or work. Yesterday, with our office assistant on vacation, a few of us were trying to figure out how to work the postage meter. One employee, while trying to solve the problem, received a call at her desk. To make myself useful (and keep her focused on the postage problem) I answered the phone for her.  It was an internal call from another office, but before turning the call over to the employee, I asked the caller, “Could I tell her who is calling, please?” 

I wouldn’t think of doing less.

Remember that speech Pat Buchanan made in 1992?

Published: Nov. 20, 2004, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More than 12 years ago, Patrick J. Buchanan spoke these prophetic words during his speech at the Republican National Convention in Houston:

“My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. “There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself.”

Immediately afterward, Buchanan was roundly denounced as a polemicist and even scorned by members of his own party. Some called it a hate speech; others groused about the political fallout and later blamed him for George H. W. Bush’s failure to win re-election in 1992. Whether or not you agree with his politics, Buchanan had the foresight and fortitude to call attention to philosophical warfare that was real then and remains so today.

Since Nov. 2, analysts all over the airwaves and in print are still scrambling to understand the so-called moral values phenomena that proved so pivotal in our recent election. Debate has centered on the phraseology used during exit polls and which voters actually espoused which values in their voting patterns. It is instructive, however, to go back to that summer evening in August 1992, and recall what Buchanan said about America’s moral values, and compare that to what happened at the polls this autumn:

“We stand with President Bush for right-to-life and for voluntary prayer in the public schools.”

Abortion and religious expression have not taken a back seat at the American kitchen table of debate, not even close. Neither has the topic of how American power is projected throughout the world. Although he opposed the invasion of Iraq, few people can turn a phrase on the subject of using America’s military might as effectively as Buchanan did that August evening in 1992:

“It is said that each president will be recalled by posterity - with but a single sentence. George Washington was the father of our country. Abraham Lincoln preserved the union. And Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

And it is time my old colleagues, the columnists and commentators, looking down on us tonight from their anchor booths and sky boxes, gave Ronald Reagan the credit he deserves - for leading America to victory in the Cold War.”

I felt that the 2004 presidential candidates’ differing views on national security and the war on terror were among the most important factors in this election.  Everyone wants peace and freedom, but I often place it first on my punch list as a voter because without it, little else matters. Sen. John Kerry’s opposition to the 1990 Gulf War, his on-again, off-again support for the Iraq war, his disgraceful Senate Committee testimony as a Vietnam veteran and his disturbing “global test” to see a foreign show of hands before taking action scared me. But back to that Aug. 17, 1992, Buchanan speech:

“We stand with (the president) against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women. “

More recently, on Nov. 2, 2004, voters in the 11 states containing a referendum on the issue of gay marriage agreed with Buchanan. Whether those votes constituted an actual plebiscite on the morality of gay marriage is less clear than the fact that 11 states uniformly rejected the concept, while Democrats remained oddly divided on the subject. Buchanan also made this observation in 1992:

“And we stand with President Bush in favor of the right of small towns and communities to control the raw sewage of pornography that pollutes our popular culture.”

In the old days, when conservatives would complain about overt sexuality in TV movies and programs, the standard liberal retort was, “If you don’t like it, just change the channel.” It worked, too, because if you argued with them, they’d cry censorship and take the debate to a new and wholly unrelated dimension. Now sexual images are so ubiquitous in advertisements that you can’t simply turn the channel or flip the page. These days, even the Super Bowl halftime show has become hazardous viewing for children.

Yet as the dust begins to settle from the harsh 2004 campaign, I am thinking as much about how we treated one another as the convictions we expressed during combat. How we debate our values is a value unto itself. This election season reminded me of how hard it could be to have civil disagreements with any measure of civility. Fortunately, personal attacks, racial or sexual slurs and cheap shots designed to maim the spirit did not win this election.

Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, it was harder to remember that value as easily as it is to write about it now. But Old Pugnacious Pat saw it coming all along.