Faith at work

A new movie being released next Friday, Feb. 23, chronicles the life and mission of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Wilberforce was a member of parliament who was inspired by his Christian faith to bring an end to the great evil of his day - slavery. It's good to see more movies where Christian faith is not only prominently featured, but portrayed in a positive light; as the remedy to evil rather than its cause.

It also got me thinking. What is the great evil of our day? And what is our responsibility as Christians in addressing it?

Terrorism? Insurgents are killing hundreds of Iraqis every week. Worldwide, Islamic terrorists are killing thousands from Africa to Indonesia. And Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al-Queda are planning the death of thousands more.

Slavery? The statistics show that there are more slaves today than in 19th century! Much of the slavery is associated with the worldwide sex trade industry, and most of them are children.

Genocide? Ten years ago, 600,00 people were murdered in Rwanda. Not long after, at least 8,000 Bosnians were killed by ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Today, Islamic militias are slaughtering black Africans in Darfur (Sudan).

Abortion? 1.3 million per year in the U.S. (48 million since Roe v. Wade 1973) and 46 million per year worldwide. Thankfully, partial birth abortions were banned in 2003, but horrifying procedures such as live birth abortions are still performed in the U.S.

Good arguments could be made for all of these and other evils I haven't mentioned. But do we have responsibility beyond simply denouncing these evils? I tend to be skeptical of government as the answer to our social problems. So when Jesus spoke about giving to the poor, I don't think he intended for government to redistribute income and ensure social justice, in part because I don't believe God is interested in compelling us to act. Having said this, I do believe we have a responsibility in building communities that respect and embrace human life and human dignity. This is necessary to any civil society. And this means, in part, working through our government. So just as we create laws that prohibit murder, it follows that we ought to have laws that prohibit slavery.

So again, what is the great evil of our day? And how does our Christian faith move us to act in response? Do we pray and trust that God's justice will be served as we spread the gospel? Do we become active participants and fight if necessary to defeat evil?

Its a tough question, with thoughtful arguments on both sides. But it seems to me history as shown us that standing by as evil grows has only resulted in personal and civil ruin.

We remember William Wilberforce as a giant because his faith wouldn't allow him to stand by while evil went unchallenged.

“Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties?”

--William Wilberforce

Star Trek Cribs

I wish to express my hearfelt thanks to those men and women who dedicate their efforts and resources in the tireless pursuit of cheap laughs. They make the world a better place.

Cribs

Poolside

Coffee Shop

Karaoke

Star Trek Remastered

I'm a big Star Trek fan. I got hooked on the original series in 6th grade. I eventually came to really like the Next Generation too. I even liked Deep Space Nine. I thought Voyager was lame, and I never bothered to watch Enterprise. The movies were great up until number five when they assumed that because Leonard Nimoy was a good director, Shatner must be also.

I even went to a few Star Trek conventions. When we weren't playing Contra for hours or creating new and exciting D&D characters, a friend and I used to spend a good portion of our time playing Star Fleet Battles or Starship Tactical Combat Simulator, while thumbing through the Federation Ship Recognition Manual.

Yes, we were crown-princes of geekdom, but we didn't care. Nowadays, the time spent in such lofty pursuits is limited, so it's a relief to flip through the channels and land on an episode of Star Trek. I love the original series and simply can't turn away when it's on TV. A few months ago, I was surfing through the channels and landed on the episode where Kirk and the crew run into Khan. While watching, I was suddenly blown away by something. When they showed the Enterprise cruising through space, it was tricked out with slick new special effects! It looked awesome!

A little while later, I did some research and discovered the entire original series is being digitally remastered with new sound, music, and special effects. Having seen an episode or two,  these new enhancements give a whole new life to the series.  And unlike the special editions of the Star Wars movies, they don't add whole new scenes or anything else that takes away from the spirit of the show.  Can't wait to get them on dvd, so I can watch Captain Kirk take advantage the weaker sex, beat up aliens, and break the prime directive anytime I want.

Peyton's big win and a defense of Dan Marino

I was happy to see the Colts win Super Bowl XLI win this last weekend. I'm not a Colts fan necessarily, but I was gratified to see Colts quarterback Peyton Manning shut his critics up. The rap against him was that he couldn't win the big game; that his numbers were impressive, but meant little unless he could translate them into a championship.

In contrast, his rival Tom Brady, has consistently come through in the big game, leading the Patriots to three Super Bowl rings in six years, knocking Manning and the Colts out of the playoffs in 2003 and 2004. After his third Super Bowl win, Brady was (and rightly so) added to the conversation of best quarterback of all time, demonstrating how heavily championships weigh on one's perception of greatness in the world of sports. Today, Tom Brady is regularly compared to Joe Montana, who most people believe to be the greatest quarterback in NFL history.

Peyton Manning, on the other hand , has been consistently been compared to Dan Marino, who, like Manning, put up record numbers, but never led his team to a Super Bowl win. With his big win Sunday, Manning can put these unfair criticisms behind him, but Marino having retired after the 1999 season will always be remembered for not having won the big game. As a result, his greatness has been downplayed in recent years by critics.

I believe this to be unfair and unjust.

Increasingly in our media culture, sportswriters, sports talk radio show hosts, and pundits give themselves authority to decide what we think of athletes and how we should remember them. Most of them have never been professional athletes. And many appear interested in making bold, controversial declarations to sell newspapers, get ratings, and make a name for themselves rather than give honest assessments.

Playing the most demanding position in all of sports, Dan Marino lit up the record books on almost a weekly basis. His numbers speak for themselves. He holds 24 NFL records, and is tied for four more. He is the most prolific passer in NFL history.

His albatross is that his team never won a Super Bowl. And because we hold great players to higher standards, the responsibility for that failure lands squarely on Marino's shoulders. I agree with this to up to point. Great players like Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, Wayne Gretzky all led their teams to championships. However, these guys didn't do it alone. They played on great teams with other great players and great coaches.

How far would Jordan have taken the Bulls without Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, John Paxson or his coach Phil Jackson?

How many titles would Jeter and his Yankees have without Bernie Williams, Mariano Rivera and Joe Torre?

How would Gretzky's Oilers have dominated without Jari Kurri, Mark Messier, and Grant Fuhr?

The point is, that in team sports, one player cannot do it all, no matter how great. And in football, the ultimate team sport, one cannot win a championship without a solid running game and a good defense.

Dan Marino rarely had either. When he joined the league in 1983, the Dolphins had a solid rushing attack, gaining a respectable 2,150 yards on the ground (It was the only time in Marino's career the Dolphins rushed for 2,000 yards). Theirs was a running game by committee featuring little known players like Tony Nathan, Woody Bennett and Andra Franklin. The Dolphins also had the NFL's best scoring defense. Marino took over the starting job in week 6 of the season and posted the highest quarterback rating (96.0) ever by a rookie. The Dolphins went 12-4, losing to the Seattle Seahawks in the divisional playoffs.

In 1984, the Dolphins again produced a decent running game, and although the defense had slipped a little, they were still among the top scoring defenses in the league. With a year of experience under his belt, Marino responded with the best season ever by a quarterback, throwing for 5,048 yards and 48 touchdowns en route to a 14-2 record and Super Bowl bid. Unfortunately for the Dolphins, they had to face Joe Montana and a 49er team that is considered to be among the best of all time, and lost 38-16.

Following Marino's record-breaking season, the Dolphins began moving away from the running game, believing that championships would come by riding the golden right arm of Marino. In 17 seasons, Marino never had a franchise running back. Only once did he have a 1,000 yard rusher. Unlike, his contemporaries, Marino never had a Roger Craig, Emmit Smith, or Thurman Thomas.

The Dolphins quickly became a one-dimensional team, dependent on Marino to win. Opposing defenses knew this and focused all their efforts on stopping him. He still shredded them on a regular basis, leading the Dolphins to the playoffs in 8 of the next 15 seasons, including two AFC championship games. But it did stop him from ever reaching the Super Bowl again as he inevitably faced more balanced, complete teams.

This was especially true in 1990 (12-4) and 1992 (11-5) as the Dolphins put together solid teams with very good defenses only to face the Buffalo Bills who played in four straight Super Bowls. Led by Hall of Famers Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, and the league's best running back, Thurman Thomas, the Bills outmatched the Dolphins, winning 44-24 and 29-10.

An aged Marino had one last chance in 1998 as the Dolphins fielded the league's top scoring defense. After beating the Bills in the AFC wildcard game, they had to face the defending Super Bowl champion Denver Broncos led by John Elway.

Ironically, it is Elway who provides the best illustration of why Dan Marino never won the Super Bowl. Like Marino, Elway was a gifted passer known for his fourth quarter heroics, and like Marino, often carried his team, but was criticized for failing to win the Super Bowl in three tries (87,88,90). Elway played on more talented teams than Marino's Dolphins, but never had a consistent run game, despite having several 1,000 backs. Every time Elway led his Broncos to the Super Bowl, they were faced with more balanced, complete teams that physically dominated them.

That all changed, however, with the arrival Mike Shanahan in 1995. Bringing with him a run-heavy version of the west-coast offense, the Broncos committed to the ground game behind a smaller, but more athletic offensive line. Also arriving in 1995, a sixth-round draft pick out of Georgia, was running back Terrell Davis. By 1997, combined with Elway and a solid defense, Davis led the Broncos to 2,378 team rushing yards on their way to the Super Bowl, where they defeated the heavily favored Green Bay Packers.

The following year, Terrell Davis became only the third player in history to rush for more than 2,000 yards in a season. So when the Dolphins faced them in the AFC Divisional playoffs, the outcome was never in doubt. The Broncos crushed Miami 38-3 on the way to winning their second straight Super Bowl.

Before this, Elway's place in history was much like that of Dan Marino, (without the statistical dominance), a great player, but just didn't have what it took win the big game. He was certainly no Unitas, Staubach, or Montana. That's for sure.

Did a 37-year old Elway suddenly elevate his game to new level in 1997? Did he become better? No. He simply became more effective because the Broncos made a commitment to running the football. Opposing defenses had to worry about the run, which among other things, opened up the field for Elway.

It's the first truth of winning football. Running the ball...
-Wears down the defense
-Opens up the passing game
-Eats the clock, and in turn...
-Rests your defense

This formula works so well that it has enabled less than spectacular quarterbacks like Terry Bradshaw, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, and Trent Dilfer to win Super Bowls

So what does all this mean? It means Dan Marino was good enough to win multiple Super Bowls, and his failure to do so is not a reflection on him, but instead demonstrates that winning a championship in football requires the ability to run the football and play good defense.

Dan Marino is one the greatest quarterbacks of all time, certainly the best who never won a championship. He did more with less than any other QB in history. He ought to be remembered that way.

Remembering the Gipper

As I reflect on upon the state of politics in our country today, it's hard not to be pessimistic. I'm sure many would say that this has been the case for many years, but I have reason to believe the political climate today is as dark as it has been for a long time. For Republicans like myself, 2006 was a rough year. The war in Iraq went badly. The president's credibility suffered as he endured his lowest approval ratings. Scandal after scandal crippled the Republican led congress. There was a failure to pass any sort of meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform. And the party of small government let spending get completely out of control. Republican leaders appeared apathetic, adrift, and utterly removed from their core principles. Despite their victories on taxes and pushing through two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, the Republican party failed to unite on a number of issues, got caught up in party politics, and splintered from within.

The result was a devastating defeat at the hands of the Democrats in November, the voters choosing to end the Republican majority in both houses of congress.

Yes, they had help. The Democrats made it their full-time job to criticize Republicans without offering any solutions. Joining them was the news media, who in 2006, unleashed a smear campaign of historical proportions against President Bush, the war, and the Republicans. Unconcerned with how transparently partisan their reporting appeared, the media continued their biased attacks on all things right of the political spectrum.

The truth is, however, the Republican wounds were self-inflicted. They deserved to lose. One can only hope that Republicans learn from this defeat, get back in touch with the conservative principles which have always served the party, and the country well -- smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and an adherence to traditional values.

What better opportunity to reflect upon these issues than the birthday of arguably the greatest conservative leader of the 20th century? Born Feb. 6, 1911 in Tampico, Ill., Ronald Wilson Reagan went on to become one of America's most popular and beloved presidents.

In a new article, Michael Medved lucidly articulates what made Reagan special, and what Republicans today can learn from his example. I for one would welcome the sort of cheerful, principled leadership that Reagan embodied. America is more divided and polarized than anytime in her history and as I look ahead to the elections of 2008, I desperately hope that a leader will step forward who is unafraid to confront and articulate issues that matter, offer real solutions to problems, and who has the ability to remind us of those qualities that make us uniquely American; uniting us rather than dividing.

This is who Reagan was. And nowhere did he more clearly communicate his vision than in 1964 when he delivered his "A Time For Choosing" speech. It is, in my opinion, one of the finest (and fearless) speeches in American History. He gave this speech in support of the failed Barry Goldwater campaign for president. The political climate is that of the mid-1960s in the midst of the Cold War and the growing threat of worldwide communism, and the rapidly growing size of government and entitlement spending at home. Nevertheless, it is uncanny how relevant his words are in 2007.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one."

This speech is some 30 minutes long, and I don't expect anyone to listen to all of it (although they should). I must, however, insist you listen to the last 1/4 (or last 5-7 minutes)of the speech. Reading his words doesn't do him justice. Enjoy.