Friday, December 24, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
*To enjoy some conflict, read my "Lord's Prayer Mystery Series", books out to date: Lead Us Not into Temptation, Volume I, and Give Us this Day Our Daily Bread, Volume II. (written as Richard Davidson)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Believing that God is on your side is harmful to improving our world. Whether you are attacking others because they don't believe the same things you do; whether you consider that only your group will go to heaven or achieve nirvana (however you define it); or whether you feel that God promised you territorial exclusivity or political power, you are sowing conflict and encouraging destruction of God's creation.
Organized religious groups compete for shrinking pools of potential followers, pushing the importance of their history, their good works, and their lifestyles. None of these things give one group an edge over another in God's sight.
No matter what organized religious groups say, faith and the existence/importance of God in your life are personal matters. It's not whether you follow a defined discipline that counts, it's whether you keep yourself perpetually aware of God's presence and whether you follow his moral ways in order to help improve his creation. If we help each other as we journey through life, we are helping God. If we hurt each other, we are trying to possess God, which is clearly impossible.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Wouldn't the blind people think that the one-eyed person was talking about unbelievable things? I bring this up now because there is either an election or a mutual massacre about to happen. All the candidates spend all their time tearing into the opposition with false and misleading and outrageous statements. What would happen if one candidate actually spoke about what he or she would do to accomplish something for the people if he or she were elected? Would all the people rally to that candidate in relieved support? Would all of the political aggressors turn against such constructiveness? Could such a constructive candidate survive?...probably not. Just remember that we will be stuck with whomever wins. At this point I think that the American people and the country are going to lose no matter which backstabbing candidates win. Who wants to join me in organizing the None of the Above Party?
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks, have demonstrated that common sense is trumped by financial considerations in today's sports world. Capital availability, budgets, salary caps and shareholder pressures are more important than trying to turn a once-in-fifty-years championship into a sports dynasty. This is obviously a very conservative approach to sports management. The Blackhawks are thankful that they won this year, but they are assuming that they are not likely to repeat, so they are being fiscally conservative and hoping for the best.
The salary cap restriction made them release or trade a bunch of players who were central to their phenomenal season, but given the fact that they had already conceded that they could stay under the salary cap with Niemi's arbitration award, their action baffles me. In playoff hockey, a reliable goalie is essential. The Blackhawks are disregarding the adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Not only that, but they are turning their backs on a young goalie with many years of future playing potential in favor of a good but older goalie who would be only a temporary solution.
The other Blackhawks news item that throws me is their statement that they lost money this year. They had bigger crowds than ever; they had TV revenues that they didn't have in the past; they had all of the souvenir sales and other benefits of a championship; and they lost money. Next year they will have higher salaries and a low probability of repeating as champions. Will they make more money than this year? I doubt it, but good luck to them.