Don't Even

I went to the Cardinals-Dodgers game last night. The right team finally won!!! All week STL fans have been booing Manny Ramirez for being a cheater. Yesterday's report that he was on the steroid list from 2003 probably made the boos even more intense last night.

I'm sorry, but of all people, Cardinal fans have no right to boo a guy for steroids. Not when they still cheer for Mark McGuire. Not when they cheer for Troy Glaus and Ryan Franklin. On this score, you fans have no credibility.

From the Top to the Bottom

One of the quirks of my personality is that I tend to suffer from Post-Big-Event-Blues. When the end comes to something that I have pointed my life toward, I get a bit depressed. I think there are two aspects to this feeling. The first is physical. When you need it, the adrenaline flows. When you don't, it stops. So it's actually sort of like drug withdrawal. (This potential physical aspect leads my ADHD coach to suggest that this tendency is possibly more common among ADHD people.)

The second is psychological. No matter how well an event goes, when it is done I think, Is that it? Is there no way to keep this going? Perhaps it's a bit of selfishness--an inability to have something good without wanting more. But it's a real feeling.

Last Tuesday was my big Dissertation Forum. It was the last step in becoming a Ph.D. (it's now DOCTOR Bob to you--joke.) I got to present my findings to an audience of peers (both other grad students and faculty) along with family and friends. For 45 minutes, all the attention was fixed on the presentation of my work.

And it was a lot of work to put it together. Besides the obvious work to write the dissertation, I had to boil it down to a 30 minute presentation. What's more, I dedicated myself to communicating it to people who don't understand the technical field. I had a power point presentation that walked everyone through it that took quite a few hours to prepare.

It went well. I presented the material simply and passionately. Everyone understood it and complimented me on it. Afterward my advisor took Tina and me out to dinner.

And then it was over. There have been times in my life when I would spiral down into a dark mood. But since I recognize my tendency, I was determined not to go down that path this time. I don't know how anyone else faces this, but what works the best for me is forcing myself to get busy on the next task. I had to work early the next morning, but the first thing I did when I had some time to myself was to make a list of what I want to do now. And then I got started on them.

So for me the secret to coming down from the completion of one big challenge is to have the next new challenge to face. So far, it's working.

It's Over

I've posted about Brett Favre's on-again, off-again retirement saga. Now comes word that he is not coming back. Really. For good. We hope.

It reminds me of what the late Gerald Ford said after Richard Nixon's resignation, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."

Christians and Guns

I have a few gun-owning friends who are Christians. Some actually brag about it while others are more discreet. I wonder about how appropriate this is. So I have questions. True, the questions I ask and the way I ask them betray which way I'm leaning, but I am sincere at hearing some answers.

Disclaimer: I have never owned a gun. I have fired a few (I'm a horrible shot because of my poor vision and poor hand-eye coordination), but the closest I came was a CO2 pellet gun, which was a gift and I only had for a short time.

I can think of basically three reasons to own guns: (1) Hunting. (2) Recreation. Target practice, shooting tin cans, etc. (3) Self-defense.

I have no problem with the first two items on the list. Although neither appeal to me, I know many guys who really enjoy to hunt or just shoot. As long as you store the guns safely and keep them away from kids, fine.

It's the third item that bothers me. And here are my questions. If an intruder came into your home, what are you going to do with the gun? Shoot first? Only shoot if necessary? Just use it to scare them away?

(The last option is dangerous, because if you are not prepared to shoot, you might find the gun being used against you. If you are going to pull it out, I think you have to be prepared to use it.)

If you are prepared to shoot, are you concerned about potentially taking another person's life? Even if he/she is a criminal? Is there a difference between shooting someone to keep them from taking your stuff vs. shooting to keep them from harming you or your family?

And how does this reconcile with Jesus' words?

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? (Matthew 5:38-46)

I am not entirely comfortable with any of the answers I come up with. I know that i don't own a gun so I will probably never face the issue. But still I wonder. How do you answer these questions?

Should I Be Alarmed?

Walking around campus Wednesday, it was impossible to notice the signs posted everywhere: Fire Alarm Testing Today. How considerate of them. You wouldn't want a bunch of panicked people every time an alarm went off.

There's only one problem with this: The alarms never went off!!! Not once!

Am I the only one who thinks: Hmm. No alarms. Does that mean they don't work?

Since this has happened before, I surmise that they have a way of testing the alarms without bells and sirens sounding. And the reason for the warning signs is in case they make a mistake and set off the audible alarms.

However, what if every part of the system worked correctly on their scopes and meters but the bells were broken. How would they know? If we ever have a fire, might everything work perfectly except that one part that actually informs people there is a problem?

Years ago I worked for a company that did the annual fire alarm test by opening the relief valve on the sprinkler system. When water started flowing the alarm bells went off and the maintenance guys walked through every part of the plant to make sure each bell worked. I knew that system worked.

If they are going to go to all the trouble of posting signs warning about testing, perhaps there should be some kind of notification (like in the Daily Announcements) that the system tested out fine.

Otherwise, I will always wonder.

More Fun with Stereo

I have been trying to post each weekday, but that's become a little difficult, so I'm cutting back to three days a week for now. I want to be able to keep it interesting.

I mentioned in my last post how odd the Lovin' Spoonful "phony" stereo recordings sound in headphones. Though it would sound fine at home or in the car because the sound would fill the room and each channel would be heard by both ears, with headphones each ear hears a single track.

There is one album from the 60s that sounds terrific in stereo headphones: The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds. Brian Wilson had left the road and concentrated on writing and producing records. He had been trying to create new sounds, including his own version of the "Wall of Sound" (think "Be True to Your School"). When the Beatles' Rubber Soul came out in December 1965, Brian was inspired to try to match it.

He wrote many of the songs not with Mike Love, as he normally did, but with an outsider name Tony Asher (Mike was on the road with the band at the time). Before they even returned, Brian had recorded a number of tracks with studio musicians. When the others returned home, they finished the album and released it in April 1966.

Though Brian Wilson eventually mixed the album in mono (for reasons discussed in the last post), there was a stereo mix as well. This mix is actually quite good and is especially interesting in headphones. I can hear instruments that get buried in the mono mix over the radio (listen for the bass harmonica). If you get the chance give it a listen with headphones--I think you'll like it.

Fun with Stereo

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember mono records. At one time all recorded music was produced in a single track. Since the output of your record player (for you youngsters out there--a turntable with speakers) and radio were in mono, there was no problem.


The technology for stereo in recordings and radio actually go back as far as the late 1920s but was slow to catch on commercially. There is obviously additional expense (how much I can't say) and when you consider how primitive the recording and playback equipment of the day was, stereo would not have improved the sound greatly. (The motion picture industry took to stereo earlier since movie theaters could more easily be converted to stereo playback.)


FM stations began broadcasting in stereo in the early 1960s. FM radios were not common in most homes, however, an non-existent in cars. Further, these stations tended more to classical music and jazz.


Rock and pop music was the province of AM radio. Stereo came slowly to this band as competing broadcast systems vied for attention. Even today, AM stereo sounds flat to me, probably due to the difference between the ways that AM and FM broadcast.


Records of the early- to mid-1960s were mostly made in mono. They often recorded on two-track machines, but mostly put the instruments on one track and vocals on the other. Then they were blended together in a mono mix that came through fine on your car radio.


As home stereos became more affordable and popular (I got my first in 1964!), record companies took their two-track masters and issued them in "stereo." I remember having to decide whether to buy the Monkees' second album on mono for $2.99 or in stereo for $3.99. When the Beatles catalog was mastered for CDs in the 1980s, George Martin successfully convinced Apple to release the earlier material in mono (Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Past Masters 1).

I thought of this the other day as I was listening o some old Lovin' Spoonful tracks on my MP3 player. The tracks were released on CD in the faux-stereo that resulted from using two tracks in recording. Using earphones, it sounds quite odd. Not so much the instruments, but the vocals. On You Didn't Have to Be So Nice, John Sebastian records counter-melody vocals on a different track from his lead vocal. So you get one in the left ear and the other in the right. On Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind and Nashville Cats, the lead vocal is in one ear and the harmony vocal the other.

This sounds fine in the car or at home because the sound blends in the room, but in earphones, it comes off a bit weird.

Blame It on the Yankees

Though I am a National League fan, even I have to recognize that the American League is more talented overall. 12 years of All Star Game wins, though impressive, is not as meaningful as the fact that the AL consistently outperforms the NL in interleague play.

I blame it on the Yankees. Beginning in the 1990s, the George Steinbrenner-owned team really began to ramp up its changing of the face of baseball. Always big spenders, the increased revenue from their cable network really upped the amount they had to spend. So they did. If there was a free agent they wanted, they were never outbid. If they could make a trade for a player, they could then afford to give him a new contract.

Other people have pointed this out. Overlooked, however, was the improvement in the Yankee farm system. Many of the key players in their World Series run came from that system. And when they wanted a player on another team, they had the prospects to get him in a trade.

The formula worked. The Yankees made the playoffs every year fro 1995 until 2008 except for 1997. They won six AL pennants and four World Series.

When John Henry became owner of the Boston Red Sox, he called the Yankees "the evil empire," but quickly went over to the dark side himself. Boston now has two WS titles this decade and they did by pretty much the same formula used by the Yankees.

In my opinion, these two teams have forced the rest of the teams in the AL to work harder and spend more money. Obviously Tampa Bay spent only a fraction of what the Yankees did to win the pennant last year, so it's not only money. But when the big dogs are as good as they are, you must do something to compete. Therefore, I think that AL teams in general have been more aggressive in pursuing players than the NL teams. Eventually, the entire league has better talent.

Why don't the teams in the big NL markets do what the Yankees have done? Well, the Mets have tried, but I think their organization--from the owner on down--is basically incompetent. The Cubs have been owned by a media corporation who looked at the team as a money-maker, not something to invest in (and they are still the Cubs). The Dodgers changed ownership twice and has just recently reached a level of stability, which is paying off in having the best record in the NL.

I hope the playing field eventually levels, but for now, the AL has better talent and we have the Yankees to blame for that.

Not Again

The American League beat the National League in baseball's All Star Game last night. Again. That makes 13 in a row. This game was close and could have easily gone either way, but the same cannot be said of every year and a 13 game winning streak is more than coincidence.

President Obama visited the broadcast booth after throwing out the first pitch and asked the announcers about this disparity between the leagues.

(By the way, I felt sorry for the Prez. His position gets him into the locker rooms before the game, on the mound to throw the first pitch, and into the broadcast booth. But he doesn't get to do what he wants. Joe Buck asked if he could stay for another half-inning, and Obama had to check with someone off camera who said it was time to go. I'll bet he would have liked nothing more than to chat with the announcers and then go down to the locker room after the game to talk baseball and drink a beer. But when you're leader of the free world, someone else makes your schedule.)

Joe Buck rightly answered that the American League is better than the National League right now and cited the best evidence--the consistently superior record of AL teams over NL teams in inter-league play. As to why the AL is better, Tim McCarver chimed in with, "It's because of the designated hitter," and then went on with an illogical and incomprehensible reason why it makes a difference.

Tim McCarver is normally an idiot. He either throws out stuff like this or else belabors a point that even a third-grader can understand. (The pitcher has to be careful here with a 3-2 count on the batter. If he throws another ball, he'll walk him and because the bases are loaded a run will score and since we're in the bottom of the ninth in a tie game, the other tema will win. I exagerate only slightly.)

The designated hitter came into the American League in 1973. From 1960 to 1985 the National League beat them 26 out of 29 times. The DH sure didn't seem to help then.

His argument that the DH means better hitters in the AL (who don't have to play thge field) misses the point that there are designated-hitter type players in the NL as well. However, the teams just play them in the field and hold their breaths. Though his defense has improved, if Prince Fielder came up in the AL, he wouldn't even own a glove. The same for Ryan Braun, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, etc.

The presence of the DH will not in itself account for the difference in talent level between the leagues. There must be something else and I will explain tomorrow what I think it is.

Talking in Code

Why do some businesses insists in using their internal code when they talk to the public? Recently I saw a commercial for the local electric utility saying that there were different types of CFL out their for my use. Since he was turning a lamp on and off, I figured he must be talking about light bulbs. So after wracking my brain, I decided that CFL must stand for Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb. A quick google search confirmed this.

Now I know what these bulbs are. We have several in our house and intend to buy more. But I never knew them by an acronym. I didn't just crawl out from under a rock and I am pretty aware of what's going on. If you mention that you just bought some new CFLs to your friends, how many will understand what you are referring to?

The St. Louis Metro (commuter train/bus system) spans both Missouri and Illinois. For some reason there are duplicate bus route numbers between the two state. There is a #1 route in Missouri and a #1 in Illinois. This confuses no one as they run nowhere near each other.

I am guessing that within Metro they account for the difference by making the Illinois routes 3-digit numbers starting with 5. So route 1 becomes 501, 12 becomes 512, etc. Nowhere, however, is this information communicated to the public (rightly so as it is not necessary). The timetables, signs at the bus stops, and sign on the buses say 1 or 12 or 16, not 501, 512, or 516.

So when the train operators announce their stops, do they insist on announcing that the particular stop services route 501, etc.? I understand that this is probably the "official" designation within Metro, but no one else understands it.

I doubt that the average person is actually confused by this (although I have seen some really stupid people on my commute), so maybe no harm is done. But why? Every passenger knows that 16 is the St. Clair bus. What possible purpose is served by the train operator calling it 516? Just another stupid business speaking internal code to the outside world.

The Rise and Fall of the Electric Sitar

You are probably aware of the instrument that is the foundation of much Indian music--the sitar. It's unique sound dominates the music that those of us in the West think of when we consider music from India.

Because of the large Indian population in London, the British were the first to become aware of this instrument. It was often heard on the soundtrack of films from England. The average pop music fan was introduced to the instrument by the Beatles when George Harrison played it on Norwegian Wood. It's distinctive sound blended nicely with John Lennon's acoustic guitar to make a dynamite single.

George used it on two other songs, Love You To and Within You Without You. These were not pop songs, per se, but were Harrison's interpretation of Indian music. It also appeared on Across the Universe and Tomorrow Never Knows.

Following the trend-setting mop-tops, many pop bands of the 60s included the sitar on a song or two. The most prominent was The Rolling Stone's song Paint It Black, where it was played by Brian Jones (the picture at left is of Ron Wood playing the sitar part for the Stones sometime more recently).

But then someone invented the electric sitar. As best as I can tell, there were two versions, one with extra drone strings and one tuned like a guitar (see the pictures below). Now you didn't have to sit on a rug to balance the huge instrument.

After quite a bit of use in the 60s and early 70s, the instrument seemingly disappeared from pop music (although it pops up once in a while, like in Tom Petty's Don't Come Around Here No More). But for a while, it provided a fun texture.

I am compiling a list of 60's/70's songs that used the sitar or electric sitar. Here is what I've come up with so far:

Box Tops--Cry Like a Baby
B.J. Thomas--Hooked on a Feeling
Stevie Wonder--Signed Sealed Delivered
The Animals--Monterey
Frieda Payne--Band of Gold
The Spiners--It's a Shame
The Lemon Pipers--My Green Tambourine
Scott McKenzie--San Francisco
John Fried--Judy in Disguise with Glasses
Steely Dan--Do It Again
The Cyrkle--Turn Down Day

There were plenty of songs on albums that were not hits that used the sitar, but I'm interested in the hits. Can you think of any more for my list?

Join My Crusade

I have had enough. It is time to end this. We must take up arms, if need be, to stop this once and for all. What is this menace to which I refer? The children's choirs singing the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame at baseball games.

I know, I know. Why don't I torture puppies or say that Mom couldn't cook? But hear me out.

Everyone adores their kids. At certain ages, anything the little ones do is precious and fills a parent's heart with joy. But that's your kids. You don't necessarily feel that way about other people's children, do you? Every time we are in a doctor's waiting room and a little tyke is making lots of noise that seems to thrill the parent, I remind my own kids, "When you have children, remember that other people will not think they are as cute as you do."

So why should I, a paying customer who came to watch a baseball game, be forced to sit through a children's choir murder a song? Let's face it, kids can't sing well. If parents get thrilled by their children trying, save it for the school or church program. Let's not subject 40,000 strangers to it.

And besides, isn't the purpose of the National Anthem and Take Me Out to the Ballgame for the spectators to sing them? That's the tradition that I remember. Just give me an organ playing the songs and I'll sing along. Just spare me the "performance."

How We Are Measured

Let's continue to talk about how we refer to the recently departed. Last week, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair and a female companion were found shot to death in an apartment he and a friend owned. As it turns out, the woman was his girlfriend (he is married with four kids) and it appears that she killed him and then shot herself. I have two reactions to this story and to the reaction to the story:

1. Paul wrote: Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life (Galatians 6:7-8, NIV). This does not mean there is a direct event-by-event correlation of my sinful event to a bad thing that happens to me. It means that when you indulge in sin, somehow, someway, the results of sinfulness will come back on you. In McNair's case, it came back direct and hard. The latest news is that she was distraught that he might be seeing another girl (after all, why would she trust him--he is already a liar and cheater).

2. Several sportswriters have taken great pains to say that McNair's life should not only be measured by how he died or what he was doing that may have caused his death. Fair enough to a point--his life was more than the end of it. However, these same sportswriters seem to want to just sweep it under the rug, as in, let's just remember his football success, charity work, and how his teammates loved him. But you can't just ignore the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife and died as a result. His children will not have their daddy for the rest of their lives because he couldn't keep his pants zipped up. Harsh, but tell me I'm wrong.

So how should we remember him? As a very good football player, wonderful teammate, and questionable family man who brought on his own death by his adultery. If he was a mixture (by society's standards) of good and bad, then let's say he was a mixture.

Speaking of the Dead

Never speak ill of the dead. That old saying has never been more true than during the hoopla surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. People all around the country keep making comments about how they will miss Michael, about how much he and his music meant to them.

Baloney. For the last 10-15 years, most of the comments made about him were about Wacko Jacko (as the tabloids used to call him). Whether or not he was actually guilty of molesting any kids, at minimum we know that he behaved inappropriately. Even fans of his music (do not count me among them) loved to make fun of his weirdness.

Now that he's dead? That all changes. Now all the strange behavior is pushed aside so we can talk about the Michael who touches lives.

Now if Michael Jackson truly made a difference in your life, fine. For consistency, though, I hope you weren't one of the one making jokes about him. If he didn't really touch your life, then shut up. Don't say that he did just because he is dead.

Need I Say More?

The memorial service for Michael Jackson is being held this morning at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. Tomorrow, the Staples Center will be presenting the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus.

Patriotism and the Church

Last Friday, Tina and I are going to an Independence Day concert and fireworks show (they had one on the official day as well). An article in our denominational magazine last week got me to thinking about the concept of Christians and patriotism.

I am glad to be a citizen of the USA. I think, for a lot of reasons, that this is not only the greatest country on the planet right now, but perhaps ever.

But what is patriotism and how is that different than nationalism? A lot of Christians in Nazi Germany supported Hitler's evil regime because of their patriotism (thankfully, many did not).

American Evangelicals have no trouble criticizing our government's policy on abortion, but if a Christian speaks out against the war in Iraq, the same people will accuse him or her of a lack of patriotism. This is obviously inconsistent, but points to a deeper problem.

I think that many in our churches are Americans first and Christians second. Or maybe it's 1 and 1A. Oh, they would vehemently deny this, but their words and actions betray them.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." Rather than encouraging people to be patriotic, perhaps we should spend more effort making sure they are fully-functioning members of the Kingdom of God.

Loving your country is fine, but let's not mix it with our love for God. They are not the same thing.

Evangelical Christians and Barack Obama

I am the only American Evangelical that I personally know who admits to voting for Barack Obama for president. While most of my friends use every opportunity to rip his administration, I remain cautiously optimistic that he will turn out to do some good for our country. Before you log off, at least listen to why I voted for him.

1. I have believed from the day that it started that the war in Iraq was a mistake. It does not meet what I understand to be the standard of a "just war." It was sold to Congress and the American people with lies. It has resulted in the deaths of thousands of our soldiers as well as multiple times that of Iraqi civilians. If we are ever able to establish a lasting government in Iraq (a big if), it is still questionable as to whether it was worth the cost. Therefore, I voted for Obama because I believed he would end the war long before John McCain would.

2. I believe that George Bush failed in so many ways as a leader. I don't doubt for a minute his dedication to Christ, but it takes more than that to run a country. While I believe that McCain would lead better than Bush, I thought that too many of their policies (tax cuts for the rich; shoot first, negotiate later) were similar.

3. I think it is time for Christians to stop being single-issue voters. That issue, of course, is abortion. Make no mistake, I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to this heinous practice. However, 30+ years of history has clearly demonstrated that the number of abortions is not going to be increased or decreased because of the occupant of the White House. (This is a discussion that deserves its own post one day.)

Does this mean I am unconcerned? By no means. The amount of money that the Obama administration is throwing at the economic crisis is frightening (of course, Bush was doing the same thing). I sincerely hope that Republicans can take control of at least one house of Congress in 2010 to provide some balance to the Democrat's agenda.

Rather than just bashing our president and his policies, I think we would do better to be supportive of that which we can support and gain listening ears in Washington.

Restoring What the Thief Takes Away

Recently, I bragged about my incredible Martin J-40. Today I want to tell you the story of how I came to acquire it. Though I learned to play guitar when I was about 12, I played junk guitars my whole life. In my early thirties I realized that this was not just a teen phase and that I needed a real guitar. So I saved money that I got from my dad for birthdays, honorariums that were given for weddings and funerals (I did a surprising amount of the latter over a couple of years), and other odd funds that would come my way for my dream instrument. Doing no research (my bad), I decided on the ubiquitous Martin D-28.

I bought it at a Guitar Center (good people if you want an electric, acoustics not so much). I was thoroughly happy with it and played it for about three years. I was given a subscription to Acoustic Guitar magazine and began understanding more about these instruments. Though I was in no way unhappy with my D-28, I decided that if I ever needed to replace it, I would look for something like an HD-28 (scalloped braces).

We planned a special worship service on a Friday night. We used all the musician and many of the singers in the church and even brought in an outside keyboard player for it. Our Thursday night rehearsal went great and we were excited for the next evening.

Everything was left set up as we exited the church that night. To my utter dismay, however, when the church custodians came in to clean the next morning, the church had been burglarized. Among the missing items was, of course, my Martin D-28!

I was bummed. Even worse than not having it was the realization that some kid was sitting in his room not knowing what a quality instrument he had and playing "Stairway to Heaven" on it. Badly.

I borrowed an instrument and the worship service went great. Next came dealing with the insurance company. Actually, they were great. All of my missing items (which included a bass and some speakers) were covered, so the adjuster told me to go shopping.

This time I was prepared and ended up at a wonderful guitar shop that sadly doesn't exist any longer. This establishment had forty Martin guitars for sale. It was a guitar geek's candy store. After playing several HD-28s, the proprietor suggested I look at the J-40. He quoted the Chris Martin "dreadnought of the nineties" line and pointed out the different shape and tonal qualities. I was hooked. I played a half-dozen of this model. The tone of one was a bit muffled, but the others were bright and booming. One instrument in particular stood out, however. Others who happened to be in the store agreed that this was "the pick of the litter."

I have played this guitar for fifteen years, mostly in worship-leading. The devil--a thief and a liar--tried to silence praise by stealing my instrument, but God restored it to his glory. And the irony is that I ended up with a better instrument to give praise to God.