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.

March 22nd, 2002 published letter - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"The recently announced blanket indictment of Arthur Andersen is not appropriate or beneficial for anyone.

With the comprehensive nature of this indictment, the Department of Justice has chosen to imperil an 89-year-old institution and the livelihood it provides for tens of thousands of innocent Andersen employees, including around 650 Wisconsinites.

How will former Enron Corp. employees receive "a bit of solace" - as the March 15 editorial "First blood in Enron debacle" put it - if other blameless people join their ranks?

Two wrongs never make a right, and the indictment of the whole Andersen organization by the Department of Justice, for incidents that Andersen itself reported to the department, is already drawing suspicion in the court of public opinion.

Stay tuned."

Post Script: On May 31st, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Arthur Andersen conviction.

How do you rate on the phone etiquette meter?

Wikipedia photo

It’s called phone etiquette. When one telephones 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. Yes, 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 some embarrassment.

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

We both know how the game is played and we both stick to 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.  

A blockbuster book on Enron

For a definitive account of the whole Enron matter, consider reading Conspiracy of Fools (Broadway Books) by Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times Reporter, based in Dallas. At over 700 pages, you won't exhaust this book quickly, but you'll probably have difficulty putting it down.

Unlike creators of the TV movie "The Crooked E" (with questionable casting of Mike Farrell as the late Ken Lay) or authors of the well-titled, but shallow account Final Accounting by Barbara Ley Toffler and Jennifer Reingold. (Yes Ms. Toffler it's true, partners at professional services firms must sell work) -- Mr. Eichenwald delivers much more substance.

Ken Lay, Wikipedia

Eichenwald manages to avoid easy stereotypes of all the major players in his meticulously-researched tome.  He writes with the verve of a mystery novelist, so you can't turn the pages fast enough, even though you know how the narrative ends.

This detailed account confirmed some early impressions about the primary players involved.  After reading the news stories, it was hard to come away with much sympathy for the now incarcerated, ex-CFO, Andy Fastow.  After reading Mr. Eichenwald's book, my view hasn't changed.

I'm still unsure if the fired Andersen partner turned government witness David Duncan, was truly an unwitting sacrificial lamb offered up to the wolves by Andersen's leadership, or a culpable actor that deserved what his actions wrought.

When reading Conspiracy of Fools, readers are reminded that Mr. Duncan repeatedly ignored and possibly distorted advice given from Andersen advisers rendering in-house guidance on push-it-to-the-line accounting matters. Still some may have some pity for Mr. Duncan and his family.  Like Icarus, he flew way too close to the sun and burned himself...big time.   

Finally, I disagree with Mr. Eichenwald's conclusion that Andersen as an entire firm "deserved the death penalty."  Andersen was a dynamic, monolithic institution with a rich history and I was fortunate to be a part of it for a short two and a half years.  Eichenwald might feel differently if he (like me and 29,000 other Andersen people in the U.S.) had been displaced because of the actions of a few Houstonian Andersen people and a zealous Justice Department. 

All that notwithstanding, I recommend this book.

A Post-Katrina view minus revisionism

After a national catastrophe like Katrina, some voices are bellowing about indifference to the poor and racism, while a grieving nation fumbles to make sense of it all.  

Let's decry an inept response to a natural disaster, hold accountable and prosecute decision-makers who controlled resources that could have helped more of our southern citizens. We can blame those who could have executed a more efficient evacuation from what Columnist David Brooks described as, “the most anticipated natural disaster in American history.”  Let us do all of this but in the process let us also reject empty political charges that amplify the hurricane.

Contributors on the editorial pages of my local newspaper (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) could not resist the temptation to tar the Bush administration's actions with a recent piece entitled, “A racial rift sadly revealed” (Sept. 9, 2005).  Reactionary rap singers have called the President of the United States a Racist and far left columnists are actually tying the Katrina disaster to “tax cuts for the rich.” If one whispers any dismay over a lack of  responsibility among those forewarned and able to avert Katrina but who chose to remain in the hurricane’s path, or condemn the behavior of those looting in New Orleans; someone might brand you a Racist.  

Tendencies to make accusations of racism after natural calamities is not new. In some cases, the effects can endure. In his last book, To America, Personal Reflections of an Historian (Simon & Schuster, 2002) former University of New Orleans professor Stephen E. Ambrose writes about the propensity of educators over the decades to teach American expansionism in the West as a period where we practiced systematic genocide of American Indian tribes.

Stephen Ambrose, Wikipedia

Ambrose called such explanations for the complete disappearance of Indian tribes, “totally irresponsible.” 

That our forefathers’ presided over a massive land grab, that they broke treaties, that they failed miserably to assimilate Native Americans, is all true Ambrose reminded us. Yet the only factual basis behind the total disappearance of Indian tribes occurred as Ambrose wrote,”…because of the introduction of European diseases, most of all smallpox.”

If he was alive and writing about Katrina years from now, I'd like to think that Dr. Ambrose would conclude that Crescent City tragedies witnessed in the year 2005 were caused by a devastating hurricane and bureaucratic ineptitude -- not racism.

Brokaw & Co. still in denial

Published July 12, 1996, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Perhaps it's just too much to ask, because few prominent journalists will publicly break ranks when asked to comment on the "B" word. The issue of media "bias" surfaced again. And once again, it was drowned by the voices of the renowned.

At a recent National Press Club luncheon in Washington, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw's responses to hard questions about the Fourth Estate did little to foil skeptics. Public television's Jim Lehrer's rejoinders to the same questions were entirely different. You had to believe one man or the other.

The fodder at this event was a well-publicized survey suggesting that 89% of U.S. journalists voted for Clinton in 1992. Asked to comment on the survey, Brokaw dismissed the familiar charge of industry bias by providing an equally tired reason why he feels it just is not so.

Echoing most of his colleagues from print to broadcast and sea to shining sea, he mused, "Bias like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder." In essence, the logic is that since complaints come from interlocutors at both ends of the political spectrum, (moreover, since the Clinton White House complains) the liberal bias issue must be overblown.

Of course, extremists will always cry foul. But most Americans, by definition, fall closer to the center of the political spectrum than either extreme. What could trouble more journalists is that Americans on the whole view the media as a decidedly liberal institution.

Can this group police itself as easily as Brokaw would have us believe? Brokaw theorized that since he and others owning responsible positions still remain, it is at least partial testimony to their objective performances. I think; therefore, I am. It worked for Rene Descartes.

He reminded the audience, "Otherwise, we just wouldn't survive."

Really? If 89% of our media are indeed left-leaning, how do journalists take risks by injecting liberal sentiments before so many ideologically like-minded editors? Brokaw is a pro and few would insist that he has to trash CNN's Peter Arnett to appear fair. However, he could have given the media a bounce on the credibility meter. He could have strayed from the party line and conceded that slanted reporting occurs and yes, it often does tilt to the left.

Brokaw could have said that responsible journalists don't have personal agendas and that others who do should find another way to make a living. He didn't. Instead, Brokaw chose to decry those reporters who have become "too much news celebrities in the eyes of the public." It was an odd attempt at critical balance coming from a regular guest on David Letterman's show.

PBS news anchor and author Leherer shared the podium with Brokaw at the same event. If Brokaw's remarks gave testimony to the continuing miasma of denial among major figures, Lehrer's comments were a sorely needed tonic.

In refreshing contrast, Lehrer drew a sharp distinction between himself and the pack. "Nobody in this room has to agree with me, including Tom," said Lehrer, as he surged with contempt for the "slippage" in journalism. "Remember, we are down there with the lawyers and the members of Congress on the public esteem polls," he opined.

Most repugnant to Lehrer is the subtle coloring of the news by journalists who make it difficult to distinguish an editorial from a news report. "People have just stepped over the line...and I think a very simple solution is just to quit doing it," he asserted.

Amen. Although Lehrer stopped short of calling the nature of the "slippage" inherently liberal, he at least acknowledged that something is amiss and allowed us to ponder its origin.

The most startling development of the entire Brokaw/Lehrer news hours was the scant, but audible applause after Lehrer's carefully worded scrutiny of his contemporaries. For those not watching that day, the word scant is safely defined here as something less than 89%.

Views on domestic surveillance

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in a truly free society.  On the other hand, civil liberties should not automatically supersede national security concerns without the application of rigorous and transparent reasoning by parties operating in the collective interests of the people. By using the term "civil liberties" in this post, I am writing primarily about the right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

National security only trumps the right to privacy when the party imposing security measures (e.g. the U.S. Government) is truly functioning in the interest of the people it is imposing such measures upon, to protect them from those who would do them harm (e.g. Terrorists).  That is the circumstance we are faced with today.  Some of the current clamor on domestic surveillance ignores the greater risks and evils we face.

For example, with enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996 (better known as HIPAA), the government reserved the right to review your medical records without court approval, if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation. I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that legislation have been documented in the last five years?  Ten years?  In many cases, I think our right to privacy -- concerning one's health records and profile were dramatically strengthened by HIPAA, as opposed to invading our privacy on health matters. 

Now consider the loudest domestic surveillance concerns we hear today and ask yourself if you think the CIA or NSA cares about phone calls you have made, or books you have checked out?  I prefer to believe that only those people trying to harm freedom-loving good citizens like us, should be the ones worrying.  At least that's the way I feel today, but governments can and do change into despotic forces so we should always look over their shoulder(s) too.  This is not a static issue.

Dick Cheney, Wikipedia

In sum, I appreciate the slippery slope argument against domestic surveillance, but at this point, I am more worried about hampering efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans.  Dick Cheney can check my phone logs (as long as someone I trust can check his).