The 99 percent blues

Overall, it's been a pretty good week.  First, we have great weather for mid-November!  And, it's Thanksgiving--my favorite holiday for several reasons.  Finally, my stock at work seems to have risen--long story, but I got a little recognition for a couple things, and that was much appreciated.  In short, I'm feelin' a bit happier than normal and kinda successful, too.

Then the mail arrived yesterday.  It included a brochure from my undergraduate alma mater titled, "Macalester Tomorrow: Making a Difference One Student at a Time."  I thought that sounded appealing, so I turned inside to read, "You can help students forever with an endowed scholarship."  (Well, there's an appeal to immortality if I've ever read one--helping students FOREVER!)  And so it turns out that the college is asking if I'd like to help fund an endowed scholarship.  How can I support such scholarships at Macalester?  "With a gift of $100,000 or more, you can establish a new endowed scholarship fund."

Whoa.  Time out.  Stop the presses.  With a gift of $100,000 or MORE?  How about $75 or LESS?  Who in the bleep has this type of money to donate?  Where have I gone wrong?  In general, we seem to be doing OK, financially.  For most of the year, there's been a little bulge in the checking account of a couple grand--we haven't had that month-to-month, paycheck-to-paycheck panic that used to characterize our finances when there were two additional mouths to feed.  But the idea that we would have $100K--$100K--to give is so far out of my latitude of acceptance (social judgment theory/Sherif) that it's all at once amusing, insulting, and depressing.

There's been a lot of talk in the last year about the "1 percent."  I have to admit that I am envious of those people.  I consider it a big expenditure (as it was this week) to spend $344 to fix one of our vehicles.  But for some people, $344 truly is chump change.  The CEO at my workplace has a base salary of about $250,000--that's over $20,000 every month.  Yikes--what would I do with that kind of coin?  I think I'd figure out a way to spend it.  But I'm still not sure I would have enough to fund one of those endowed scholarships!

Advice for the GOP

Well, fortunately, my fears that Mr. Romney would be elected were unfounded!  That's one big "whew"!  Despite all the problems we face, I believe that we are better off staying the course with a more enlightened Chief Executive.

I say "enlightened" because one thing became painfully clear during election 2012: a fair number of Republicans are just plain ignorant, narrow-minded, and dogmatic.  In so many ways, the Republicans have been behind the times.  An essay in the current Newsweek by David Frum, former speechwriter for Bush the Elder, makes the point with laser precision.  Frum concludes his piece by writing,

"On the Republican side, the road to renewal begins with this formula: 21st century conservatism must become economically inclusive, environmentally responsible, culturally modern, and intellectually credible."  Very well said!

The reality is that 21st century conservatism embraces beliefs that simply don't square with modern sensibilities.  You can't pray away the gay.  You can't keep disputing that there is climate change.  You can't keep protecting the rich from paying their fair share of taxes.  You can't keep ignoring that the gap between the poor and the rich is widening.  You can't possibly believe that we should go back to criminalizing abortion.  You can't contend that it's God's will if a woman gets pregnant after being raped.  You can't keep yelling "Socialist" every time someone wants the government to have a role in things.  You can't seriously suggest that evolution is "just a theory."  And you can't let people carry around AK-47s because some guys 200 years ago wanted everyone to be able to carry a musket.

I do think there is such a thing, potentially, as "intelligent conservatism."  But I haven't seen very much of it of late--and as along as Republicans stick to their nonsensical propositions about the world, they help their opposition.  Which is just fine with me.  But really, GOP: do you want to make it quite that easy for those liberals to win?  That's my idea of "unintelligent design."

More fun and aggravation with "Kyle"

From previous posts, my thousands of daily readers from Boston to Bangkok may remember my friend "Kyle" (not his real name--gotta protect both him and me, for different reasons).  Kyle and I knew each other in high school and we were both on the debate team, but from there our lives went in very different directions.  Over the years, Kyle's political views have evolved into something that might even make Rush Limbaugh wince occasionally; he's about as far to the right as anyone I can imagine.

So, it should come as no surprise that Kyle is a little peeved about this week's election results.  And I can't blame him--from his perspective, it had to be a very deflating experience.  Therefore, to "make nice" just a bit, I wrote to him and complimented both Romney and Obama for running reasonably civil campaigns.  And I forwarded to him a Star Tribune commentary that made the same point--taking each of them to task at times, but also saying that it was anything but a gutter campaign for the two standard-bearers. 

But--surprise, surprise--Kyle would have none of that:

"Of course you want to claim Obama was 'within bounds' with his campaign. However, most observers agree that Obama started early trashing Romney personally and professionally, while the same cannot be said of Romney. Sorry, I do not agree that Obama is basically a decent guy. He is a product of the Chicago hood mentality of politics and it shows in his campaign and his campaign staff. It also shows in his administration.

"As for the next 4 years, I  see Obama doing all the socialist things he has done in his first 4 years, only more so. I see folks like myself, entrepreneurs, investors, and business folks hunkering down to survive the onslaught of big government. We are already seeing it in the first 3 days after the election, with massive numbers of layoff announcements, hour reductions, and companies going out of business. I don't think Obama will do anything about the deficit or debt, and unemployment will get worse rather than better. Regulations will continue to skyrocket, welfare and food stamps, and other such programs will continue to increase, family net worth will continue to drop, and the workforce will continue to shrink. Taxing the 'rich' will not come close to fixing the deficit, nor will slashing the military. Medicare will continue to go bankrupt, and social security will continue toward bankruptcy. Obamacare will dramatically increase in cost over the original estimates, and much of the private healthcare industry will begin to fade away. Obama will propose another stimulus so he can pay off his cronies again, and it will fail like the last one. He will also attack our 2nd amendment rights, and continue to favor our enemies over our allies on the world stage. He will do nothing about Iran and their nuclear development. He will continue to appease the Islamic world while they laugh at him, and he will set the stage for terror attacks abroad and at home. He will continue to push abortion rights and mandates on the church and others opposed to abortions, and will continue to undermine traditional marriage. He will push the global warming hoax as a route to government revenues, and further restrict the development of fossil fuels in the USA, leaving it to the private sector to actually develop private resources. Lastly, he will continue to hide his birth certificate, his school records, his passport records, his Selective Service records, and all the other records he has kept from public scrutiny.

"So you have your prediction, and I have mine. Check with me in 4 years. As for me, I will be protecting my family and my livelihood. I will do as little as possible to feed the federal government/liberal establishment beast, and will not tolerate nor do business with those who are undermining this country."

Whoa.  What to say?  I didn't want to spend an hour grappling with this hostility, but I did send Kyle this response:

One of these days, maybe, I'll figure out how someone who is so warm, gracious, and friendly in person turns into such an ogre when it comes to politics!  And maybe I will also figure out how someone can have such a black-and-white, heaven-and-hell view of the world, neatly divided into friends and enemies, good buys and bad.  And finally, maybe I'll figure out how basically every sentence in what you wrote includes some over-the-top, hyperbolic, and melodramatic language ("skyrocketing" regulations, "slashing" the military, Medicare going "bankrupt," paying off his "cronies," "favor our enemies," global warming "hoax," etc.).  And when you suggest that Obama is out to "undermine traditional marriage," you say something that is patently incorrect and quite out of touch.  In fact, I really do not know a single political figure in the U.S.--not a single one, Democrat or Republican--who is trying to "undermine traditional marriage."

As for the campaign itself, your charges are broad and unsubstantiated.  The debates, for example, were certainly spirited, but both Romney and Obama stayed out of the gutter.  And your comments about Obama seem to ignore what he said in the debates about these issues.  

You're right, of course, that taxing the rich will not come close to fixing the deficit; it's merely part of an overall program.  But it can make a difference.  And there is evidence to suggest that tax rates are not closely aligned with the overall health of the economy; the idea that a slight increase (from historic lows) in tax rates for the wealthy would wreck the economy is not borne out by any economic analysis that I've seen.

Take a cleansing breath.  And have a little faith in America.

A little voice in me says that when it comes to Kyle, we're not done with this.  But as my friends have counseled--and I have taken it to heart from time to time--this may be such a losing battle that it's not a battle worth waging.

Romney: the least worst Republican

Don't tell my liberal friends, but Mitt Romney is probably the one Republican I could vote for this year.  In his heart, I think he's really pretty much a moderate and a pragmatist.  If he could accomplish things as Governor of Massachusetts, dealing with a Democratic legislature, maybe he could help undo the gridlock in the nation's capital.  Having said that, I don't think, as the election finally nears, that he deserves our vote.  And there are several key reasons:

1.  We just can't reward such incredible flip-flopping.  Yes, all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth to some extent, but Romney has brought this talent to new heights.

2.  Women's issues.  The idea that abortion could be criminalized ought to make us all shudder.  I don't think we want to go back there. 

3.  Gay issues.  Gosh--we've made a lot of progress on this front in the last few years.  I'd hate to see it come to a halt.  As it is, same-sex marriage is facing huge obstacles which can only become greater if Romney is elected.

4.  The Supreme Court.  Do we really want Mitt nominating people for what is arguably the most powerful office in the land?

5.  Foreign policy.  Hasn't America's international image taken a huge step forward in the last four years?  Obama has a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of these things.

6.  Taxes.  Tax rates for the super-wealthy are at historic lows.  Do we really want to once again hear the Republican mantra that the wealthy should somehow be immune from paying their fair share, all in the name of "creating jobs"?

7.  The auto industry.  Does anyone doubt that Obama helped save it?  Would letting them go bankrupt have been in the best interests of our nation?

I predict that this is going to be a very close election.  Obama could actually lose.  But I think we are all better off if Barack has another four years to finish the job.  The reality is that the economy is going to get better in the next few years no matter what, because, frankly, Presidents don't control the economy and we're due for a continuing upward trend.  And as long as we can get the economy back on track, the other issues favor the President. 

But, there's been so much toxic crap out there on the airwaves that it's anybody's guess what will stick.  As in 2008, this election is a test of people's basic awareness and intelligence--and there's no reason to assume that people will pass the test.

Thoroughly Modern Davie

I know there are people--a lot of people--who venerate the past.  For them, the glorious past is embodied in figures such as Plato and Aristotle, or Washington and Jefferson, or the apostles of Jesus.  And in each case, these people (usually male people, by the way) are considered to have knowledge, wisdom, and insight that we poor modern folks lack.  And of course, I would never argue that various iconic individuals from our past have nothing to offer--far from it.  But I am arguing that when all is said and done, I'll take more "modern" perspectives on things over ideas that are "ancient" and "traditional," because the fact of the matter is, our forebearers were ignorant in ways that today are simply mind-boggling.

Case in point: I'm reading a fascinating book that was recommended to me by someone in my running group--Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard.  When I say it's a book chronicling the life and ultimate assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, it's tough to suppress a yawn.  But as one reads on, it's clear that Ms. Millard has chosen an interesting little niche of U.S. history to examine.

For those who weren't around in 1881, President Garfield was shot by a mentally imbalanced man named Charles Guiteau.  As it turns out, Garfield's wounds were not exactly fatal--the one bullet that was lodged in his back, near his pancreas, could have stayed permanently in the deep tissue where it rested and he would have been none the worse for it.  But, since Garfield was the President, and something certainly had to be done (it was the President, after all!), a team of doctors rallied to help in this emergency situation.  And all of them--especially the most vocal of them, a Dr. Bliss--made two tragic mistakes.  First, with both their own bare fingers and various long probes, they tried to extricate the bullet from Garfield's body, unsuccessfully.  But second--and far more disconcerting--in that era, as Millard carefully documents, U.S. physicians were extremely skeptical of the claims being made by a European doctor by the name of Lister.  Since you have heard of Listerine, you probably know where this is going: Dr. Lister had argued passionately at various public and professional meetings that doctors needed to work in an antiseptic environment because of something called GERMS.  But American doctors--most of them, anyway--would have none of it.  At this point, Candice Millard tells the story better than I can (pages 184-185):

"Although five years had passed since Lister presented his case to the Medical Congress at the Centennial Exhibition, many American doctors still dismissed not just his discovery, but even Louis Pasteur's.  They found the notion of 'invisible germs' to be ridiculous, and they refused to even consider the idea that they could be the cause of so much disease and death.  'In order to successfully practice Mr. Lister's Antiseptic Method,' on doctor scoffed, 'it is necessary to believe, or act as if we believed, the atmosphere to be loaded with germs.'"

"Why go to all the trouble that antisepsis required simply to fight something that they could not see and did not believe existed?  Even the editor of the highly respected Medical Record found more to fear than to admire in Lister's theory.  'Judging the future by the past,' he wrote, 'we are likely to be as much ridiculed in the next century for our blind belief in the power of unseen germs, as our forefathers were for faith in the influence of spirits, of certain planets and the like, inducing certain maladies.'"

"Not only did many American doctors not believe in germs, they took pride in the particular brand of filth that defined their profession.  They spoke fondly of the 'good old surgical stink' that pervaded their hospitals and operating rooms, and they resisted making too many concessions even to basic hygiene.  Many surgeons walked directly from the street to the operating room without bothering to change their clothes.  Those who did shrug on a laboratory coat, however, were an even greater danger to their patients.  They looped strands of silk sutures through their button-holes for easy access during surgery, and they refused to change or even wash their coats.  They believed that the thicker the layers of dried blood and pus, black and crumbling as they bent over their patients, the greater the tribute to their years of experience."

"Some physicians felt that Lister's findings simply did not apply to them and their patients.  Doctors who lived and worked in the country, away from the soot and grime of the industrialized cities, argued that their air was so pure they did not need antisepsis.  They preferred, moreover, to rely on their own methods of treatment, which not infrequently involved applying a hot poultice of cow manure to an open wound."


Again, the result of all this ignorance was the death of President Garfield from infections that could have easily been avoided.  Just imagine that this sort of mindset was prominent in our medical community less than a century and a half ago!  And you wonder why I have my reservations about the "founding fathers," or Cicero, or the Apostle Paul?  Yes, we continue to have our blind spots and make our mistakes.  And yes, truth is hard to come by.  But I'm grateful to be living in 2012--a year in which we believe in germs and lots of other crazy things such as carbon dating, genetic testing, the theories of evolution and relativity, what is a "normal" sexual orientation, anesthesia, x-rays, and a host of other ideas that--despite our ancestors' best intentions--were simply not on their radar.  (Oh, that's right--they didn't have radar back then!)

Getting older: truly bizarre

I've got a milestone birthday of sorts coming up in November.  On the 27th of that month, I will be eligible for Social Security.  If that doesn't make you feel a little older, I don't know what will!  (Actually, I already qualify for some "senior discounts," including the golf course that I'll be playing on tomorrow.)

In many ways, I feel as though there's still a 22-year-old trapped inside this body, and I've been doing my best to reaffirm it.  Ran a half marathon earlier this month in a slightly better time than I ran the same race eight years ago.  And at that event,  I beat a student of mine by over 30 minutes, which was a real ego boost.  And the reality is, that for a 61-year-old (gosh, it's even hard to own up to that number; I usually don't mention it), I've done OK so far.  Never a night in the hospital, never a headache, and I can still crank out 13.1 miles when I put my mind to it.  But I'm keenly aware, to use a golf metaphor, that I'm playing on the back nine.

At this point in my life, it becomes a balancing act, a kind of personal accounting, between the things that I have accomplished against all of those missed opportunities and personal failings.  Sometimes it's hard to know which side is winning out.  I don't want to live in the past, but I am constantly aware of old relationships, old memories, and all the things that I've experienced.  To let go of those memories is to let go of a lot.  And yes, sometimes I'd like a "do over," but I've come to the realization that if you put me back in those same situations in the past, I'd probably end up doing pretty much the same things all over again.  There are reasons why I am where I am, and not somewhere else.

In the end, what's hard to articulate is how truly strange it feels to be getting older.  I read the local obituaries every day, and I also notice all the various celebrities who pass on--people who were a part of my life in some way.  And I keep thinking about that famous Woody Allen notion that I'd rather not become immortal because of anything I've done--I'd like to become immortal by not dying!  I guess the latter is my plan--and so far it's working!  But it's always wise to check for lumps.

Dealing with mass insanity

OK, this is a theme that has made its way into these pages from time to time.  But because it doesn't seem to go away, I keep having to revisit it.  And that theme is: the world is a very crazy place in so many ways--some small, some big.

The small ones are like wood ticks on your leg that just don't want to let go.  For instance, there are some of my relatives who believe every word of the Bible is literally "true."  There's an old acquaintance from decades ago who refused to have coffee with me because she's married, and doing so would violate some weird principle about opposite-sex friendships.  A fair number of people in the U.S. actually believe that cavemen and dinosaurs co-mingled.  And my right-wing friend "Kyle" (see other posts) continues to send me stuff that refers to the "Socialist cabal" that is controlling America and anyone he doesn't quite agree with is a "nutjob" (with the exception of Senator Al Franken, who is a "clown"--a clown, by the way, who graduated from Harvard with honors in political science, but never mind those little details!)

And then, of course, there are the even bigger wood ticks, about the size of small puppies and engorged in blood and pus (hmm--love that image).  Same-sex marriage is already not legal in Minnesota, but let's vote on it again just to make extra sure those gays can't marry!  And let's make fast-food chicken restauranteurs our experts on scripture, and morality.  And let's keep making the tax rate for poorer Americans higher than it is for richer Americans.  And let's keep dropping bombs on people from drone aircraft, wherever we choose, all in the name of stopping "terrorism."  There's public beheadings in Saudi Arabia, genocide in Africa, female genital mutilation and gang rape all over the place--and let's not forget the President of Gambia, who believes he has a green herbal paste that's an absolute cure for AIDS!

And you wonder why I think the world is insane?  What I desperately yearn for is someone (a) who can talk sense about all these things and (b) have a platform and an audience through which to do it.  I was hoping that our current President could be such a person.  I think he has tried, but I think he could do better, all the way across the board.  My friends: we are wallowing in ignorance, strange beliefs, and downright evil behavior, and I don't see it ending anytime soon.  Thank goodness, at least, that I'm in education--if there is any long-term remedy for this foolishness, I really do think it resides in the classroom.  But we're at least one or two generations away from any sort of widespread "sanity," I'm afraid.

Living Biblically--Living Inconsistently

One book that made it onto my summer reading list was The Year of Living Biblically, by A. J. Jacobs.  The subtitle of the book almost says it all: "One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible."  Simply put, Jacobs identifies about 700 "rules" that are embedded in scripture (mostly the Old Testament) and then spends the next year trying to live his life with those rules in mind.

Not surprisingly, these scriptural proclamations are quite a strange collection.  The Bible says to bind money to your hand, to wear fringes on the corner of your garments, to avoid wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, to leave the edges of one's beard unshaven, to never sit on a chair where a menstruating woman has sat, to not eat fruit from a tree that's four years old or younger--and of course, the more trivial demands, such as to stone adulterers, and the license to beat your slaves as hard as you want--as long as they survive for at least a day or two after the beating.  One of Jacobs' favorites in this regard: If you're in a fistfight, and the wife of your opponent grabs your private parts, you must cut off her hand [Deuteronomy 25:11-12].  In the end, it is such a bizarre and arbitrary hodge-podge of rules that no person can follow all of them without acting inconsistently.

Jacobs cites survey data that suggests millions of Americans take the Bible literally--depending on which survey you use, that figure is somewhere between 33 percent and 55 percent.  For those of you who are in this category: please read Jacobs' book, and then get back to me.  If you still believe that the Bible can be taken literally, you have flunked any reasonable test of intelligence and critical thinking.

A quarter century and counting

This year marks the 25th anniversary with my current main employer. Hard to believe it's been a quarter century!

After all that time, one can't help but look back on one's career. I know there will be a faculty appreciation luncheon in May that I should probably attend--because someone who reaches such a milestone will receive, I'm guessing, some sort of tangible recognition of that longevity. And I suppose it will be nice to get a knick-knack to commemorate the milestone.

Still, I'd trade any knick-knack for some sincere, specific, and informal "good words." It's taken me a long time to realize this, but I work in a place where benign neglect is standard operating procedure. And in some ways, that's truly great: I don't spend time looking over my shoulder, wondering if someone is monitoring me or is about to terminate me, and that is a tremendous benefit--one that I never take for granted. Nonetheless, I yearn for an environment where people--especially administrative people--say the little things, face-to-face, that make all the difference. For after a quarter century in the same place, I'm still not sure what people think of me, or what they value in me, or even (to some degree) what they don't like. Whatever feedback I get from "higher ups" is inevitably formal and brief and is normally delivered every 10 years or so--if that. At best, I'm left to conclude that "no news is good news."

As George Herbert Mead proposed a century ago, our self-concept is largely derived by what the world tells us about ourselves. And what my world has told me is: basically nothing. From time to time, I get incredibly rewarding feedback from students, but that feedback is sporadic. What's missing in all this is a sense that I've done more than simply hang around for 25 years--that someone in a position of authority knows who I am and values what I do.

Praying away the gay

This post could also be titled, "Star Tribune editors can't stop me, part 17."

When I submit things to the local newspaper, I know they won't all be published. Over the years, some have made the cut and some haven't. This past Saturday, a reader asked six questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Not surprisingly, embedded within his questions were implicit arguments. There was something about the questions that provoked me, and so I submitted answers to them all. But, according to the StarTrib editors, they received so many responses to his questions that they could only print one representative reaction. And, frankly, they chose a good one from a woman who's an "assistant priest at St. Mary's Episcopal Church-Basswood Grove." She makes many of the same points that I did--just more gently and diplomatically. And that, perhaps, makes her response the better one. Nonetheless, I do have to post my reaction somewhere--hey, how about my blog? So for better or worse, here it is:

Reader Dan Nye (Star Tribune, January 14) has asked some reasonable questions regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and I will try to provide some reasonable answers.

He wants to know if our ancestors were all “dumb and bigoted” because they thought homosexuality is wrong. Although that’s an extreme characterization, the short answer is “yes.” Human history has shown that our ancestors were not always enlightened. They thought the Earth was the center of the universe. They owned slaves. They killed “witches.” They thought women belonged in the kitchen. They didn’t know about germs or genes. They did the best they could with what they knew—but they didn’t always know that much. No, our ancestors weren’t “dumb,” but they were in many ways ignorant and often very dogmatic.

Nye claims that “prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted.” That’s just factually incorrect. Whether it is visible or not, or socially sanctioned or not, homosexuality has been a part of every world culture—always—period. Indeed, I would challenge him to show even one nation on earth where a fairly predictable percentage of the population is not gay.

Mr. Nye argues that “sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.” He’s right. That’s why we have laws against rape, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Absolutely no one—straight or gay—can justify sexual violence or sex that is not consensual. So with respect to sexual orientation, it’s really irrelevant to a discussion of same-sex marriage. We can all agree that sex which is abusive or hurts others crosses a line, and Dan should not be alarmed by faithful homosexual partners. Indeed—ironically—that’s the very reason to support same-sex marriage: these people want to make a public commitment to love and fidelity.

Dan wonders, “Don’t our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?” Here the answer is certainly more murky. But it’s a bit like saying, “Don’t our mouths exist basically for eating? So how do talking, singing, and whistling square with that?” Yes, heterosexual intercourse is how babies are made, but the question assumes that everything in the human body has one and only one purpose or function. Following Dan’s logic, we should probably annul any heterosexual marriages where there are no kids, because all those folks are doing in such marriages is enjoying sexuality with no concern for progeny. Yes, our sexual organs enable human reproduction, but that is not their only function or purpose. Sex is not just a way to make babies; it’s a way to express one’s love and intimacy. And with the planet’s population at 7 billion and rising, I’m not sure why he’s worried about human reproduction anyway.

Dan’s last question is perhaps the most ominous. It implies that those who support same-sex marriage may be sending gay couples to “perdition” because God might be opposed to homosexuality. Worse, he toys with guilt by association: even straight people who support gay rights, he muses, might be in line for eternal damnation as well. Of course, these ideas are a combination or paranoia and limited understanding of the Bible, not to mention a conception of God that’s both chilling and a little presumptuous. If a loving God would create people with a homosexual orientation (this is really not a conscious choice, after all) and then send them and even their friends to hell for good measure, that’s a conception of divinity which is light years from divine. I hope and pray that Dan will re-think this idea of a vengeful, spiteful God, because it is out of character with Christian values as I understand them.

- David Lapakko, Richfield, MN

In this election year, be prepared for lots more discussion out there about same-sex marriage. It's only just begun!

Tebow Mania is Insania

"Because Tim Tebow is a religious figure rather than an athletic one, the limitations of his talent wind up testifying to the potency of his faith. The fact that he'll be almost comically inept for three quarters and then catch an updraft of mastery in the fourth serves to demonstrate not that he's a winner but that Jesus is — and, above all, that Christianity works." - Tom Junod, Esquire magazine. [Read more: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/tim-tebow-christianity-6619366#ixzz1j0KYJ1ds]

Tim Tebow is the current poster boy for the miracles of Christian faith. And like Michele Bachmann, who believed that God had called her to run for office (and apparently, to lose!), Tebow's success on the field is due to--what else?--his faith in Jesus. At one level, all of this is warm, fuzzy, and even sort of inspirational. But at another level, it is a silly, incoherent, and even toxic way to think about one's life challenges.

All it really takes to unpack this belief system is to put it in a broader context. If it's 3rd and 7, and Mr. Tebow prays for a first down, what does it mean if he's successful? Apparently, it means that Jesus was on his side. Yet Tim Tebow is one of 54 Denver Broncos, at least some of whom are not of the same religious persuasion. So, does Jesus just figure that only the quarterback counts? If there are some non-believers on the team, are they just able to ride along on Tebow's coattails? And why does Jesus favor quarterbacks in the first place? Further, if he does succeed in converting that 3rd down, does that mean Jesus does not like the Steelers, or the Jets, or the Bears, or whoever the opponent is? If Tebow is praying for a 1st down, but two evangelical defensive lineman are praying to sack the guy, what in the heck does Jesus do? Flip a coin, I guess. At some point, the whole idea of divine intervention in a football game is nonsensical.

Even worse, in my view: attributing one's successes and failures to a higher power is to abdicate one's responsibility and one's power to choose. When Tim completes a 60-yard TD pass to win the game, as he did this past weekend, he should bow and take the credit. If he hits the receiver in stride and it all works out, that's his doing. And if he throws one that's picked off by the opposing cornerback, that's not God punishing him--no, that's Tim Tebow reading the defense incorrectly and/or a glitch in his motor skills as a passer. To think otherwise in either case is to engage in some kind of twisted, medieval claptrap.

But all of that will not faze Mr. Tebow. If the Broncos lose in the next round of the playoffs, he will still praise God for getting them there in the first place. And if they should win the Super Bowl (perish the thought), you might as well set up a revival tent outside the Broncos' locker room, because we all know how that happened.

The lesson is clear: if you want to play college football for a winner, choose either Oral Roberts or Brigham Young. They have a clear edge over those heathen public universities. And if you make it to the pros, pray that you can play your home games in Colorado, with Tim Tebow taking the snaps.

[News update: According to a telephone survey conducted Tuesday by the website Poll Position, 43.3 percent of people believe Tebow's accomplishments on the field can be attributed to divine intervention. The poll surveyed 1,056 people, and of the 756 who said they were familiar with Tebow, roughly 327 of them said they believe God plays a role in the second-year NFL quarterback's success. Only 42.3 percent of those familiar with Tebow said divine intervention does not play a role in Tebow's success (14.4 percent gave no opinion), meaning there are more respondents who do believe Tebow is receiving a little extra help than there are who don't.]

Whiny students

Lord knows I'm not perfect. And, although I could be deluding myself, I think I'm pretty well aware of my strengths and weaknesses as a professor. And, I really don't mind constructive criticism, especially when it's specific, fair, and reasoned. What I do mind are whiny people, and while my course evaluations are generally positive, I do get some "zingers" from time to time.

This past academic term has been such a case. I had one student who believed that I was dissing his informative speech because of his skin color, when in reality I was dissing it because it didn't meet some standard tests for coherence. (Nonetheless, he sent a video of that speech to two other instructors in my department, both of whom told him the same things that I did, with scores to match.) I had another student who went on record as saying that it's "impossible" to pass one of my courses, even though 80 percent of the students received either an "A" or a "B" in the class. (And let's not forget that she missed 3 of the 8 class meetings, a minor detail.) Then there are those who suggest that "if you don't agree with him, you won't have a chance" to succeed, because the course is just an exercise in being brainwashed by his opinions. (We all know what an intimidating, authoritarian personality I have.) What's even more maddening is that these comments appear in rather public and permanent places--they are in electronic form, and as such, they will never really go away. If I make negative comments about a student, they are largely confined to their exam or their paper--but their rants can be accessed by tenure and promotion committees, and in the case of ratemyprofessors.com, by anyone on the planet with an iPhone or a laptop.

It can be a cold, cruel world out there--and sometimes I just need to persevere despite such feedback. But, it's certainly not all bad news. What keeps me going are comments like those from a student on his blog that mentioned me as one of his "favorite professors" to date, "passionate" about his subject. (Josh, I thank you for that--it keeps me in the ballgame.) And on some rare occasions, I know that I've played an absolutely critical, life-changing role with respect to someone's career choice and/or their future success; that's a huge payoff.

Nonetheless, those of you who labor away in cubicles: be a little thankful that your every move is not being seen and evaluated by 25 other people. It's a challenge!