I got to watch Pujols hit #300 against the Cubs on July 4, 2008. One of many great Pujols memories.

Update: It’s being reported that Pujols left money on the table with the Marlins. If true, it changes some of what I wrote below, but not the gist of it. I’ll update again when all the offers have been confirmed by every organization.

I see a lot of Cards fans already downplaying Pujols’ contributions to the organization. That’s a natural thing to do as a coping mechanism, but I will have no part of it. Albert Pujols has had (literally) the best start to a career of any player in the history of Major League Baseball. I’m seeing people say that his performances in his 3 World Series with the team have been less than stellar, completely ignoring that his mere presence in those lineups was a game changer. He’s a Gold Glove defender and on the field is everything you could dream of in a player—the best in baseball. I am profoundly disappointed and, unlike some, I will never downplay how important it was to me to see him be a Cardinal for life.

We hear over and over how baseball is a business, but even fans who fully understand that cannot help but get their hopes up that maybe just this one player, this potential historic icon, will look at it differently. After seeing Pujols do so many heroic things (in the small picture terms of baseball), that romantic notion even crept into my mind from time to time. However, unlike a lot of people, I never truly expected that at all. Sure, Pujols has said all of the right things through the years about Cardinals fans being the best in baseball, about not wanting to play anywhere else, etc. Who knows, he probably even believed that at the time. But there was never a time in my mind that when the rubber met the road, he would sign for the top dollar. He has given plenty of indication that pride, for better or worse, is a huge part of who he is. The most surprising thing to me is how many people are surprised by it.

By most accounts, the Cardinals offered him close to 90% of what the Angels (a much larger market team) offered. This was not a failure of Cardinals ownership to open up their wallets. They were willing to go 10 years at $220M, a contract that even we Pujols fans felt was probably irresponsible but still wanted because he means so much to us. This wasn’t due to not being appreciated within the organization. It’s not because the organization isn’t committed to winning. It is not a reflection on the city or fanbase either. He was completely embraced, even with his fairly well established reputation of being frosty to fans (which is why I always rejected him being greater in StL than Stan the Man).

In the end, it was about money. It was a cold, calculated, deliberate move to get the very highest dollar that he could. That’s what drove Albert to this decision. And there’s nothing wrong with that at all. He has earned that right. The profound disappointment I feel right now will only turn to anger if he doesn’t show us enough respect to be honest about that.

I don’t want to hear anything about the Angels being in a position to win now. I don’t want to hear anything about Angels players telling him how great it is to play there. I sure don’t want to hear anything about their fans. I don’t want to hear anything about how great St. Louis has been to him and his family, but this was just a better fit for them. I want Albert to look in the cameras and say, “The Angels offered the most money, and that’s what I based my decision on.”

I’ll respect and appreciate his historic 11 year run in St. Louis no matter what. It has been an incredible ride. But whether or not he’s honest will determine if I root for or against him for the rest of his career.

I sincerely believe that mean actions do not make someone fundamentally a bad person, but those actions are never to be honored or celebrated, which is exactly what this piece about Steve Jobs by Gene Marks does.

Let me make it clear that I’m not judging Steve Jobs. As far as I know the reports of him being a jerk and indifferent to civil and human rights are not true. And even if they are, they undoubtedly don’t tell his whole story. This is more of a commentary on Mr. Marks, who accepts these accounts as fact.

Actions such as those Mr. Marks describes are not to even be excused, much less celebrated and honored. If the reports of human rights abuses in making Apple products is true (which I don’t know), that’s not to be admired. If it’s accurate that Mr. Jobs sent people to break into homes in the name of “product integrity” protection, that’s to be resoundingly condemned. And then there’s this excerpt from Mr. Marks, which partially quotes another article:

According to Tate he (Jobs) “regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. He verbal abuse never stopped.” Sounds like a real jerk, doesn’t he? I wish I could be more like that. (emphasis mine)

I cannot get my head around ever wanting to be like that. Not in the name of success, wealth, market share, or anything else. It’s not that I haven’t been that way before or don’t act that way in some given circumstances, but I have not once celebrated and honored what I have viewed as my own profound moral shortcomings. My hope is that I always feel horrible and seek forgiveness when I hurt people. It’s one thing to have character flaws that surface in the heat of the moment, or with the pressures of competition. It’s quite another to unemotionally observe and ultimately admire those flaws like Mr. Marks does. That’s amoral at best.

I guess I may as well use this blog for something, since I rarely use it for blogging. This is more or less a note to my friends to let them know of some big personal news for my family and me.

Those who know me know that, for better or worse, I can get pretty wound up about any social injustice that needs to be addressed. I get some right and I get some wrong along the way to be sure. There is no issue that I’m more passionate about than the abolition of the death penalty. It’s systemically biased based on race, socioeconomic status, mental capacity, ignorance and other factors. Innocent people have been executed, and even more close to it, often freed by chance. It’s expensive and ineffective. In short, even if you don’t disagree with it philosophically, it’s bad policy.

I have had the great privilege of being offered the position of communications and development director at a national death penalty abolition organization, Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. It’s a great organizations that has been around since 1976, and it certainly fits in line with my policy and philosophical beliefs.

I start in a few days and will work from Little Rock until January, at which time Shannon, Cash and I will be moving to DC. That gives my Little Rock people 3 months to buy me drinks, go hiking, have dinner or the other things we enjoy together. I’m sure I’ll be a little more sappy and sad as January nears, but for now, let’s celebrate with a cold Diamond Bear somewhere!

By all credible accounts, bin Laden was the leader of the group that caused that devastation. It is human nature to hate him and to want him dead, even to celebrate his death. I judge nobody for having that visceral reaction; in my human reactive response I share those sentiments. It’s the human way, but it is not the Way of Jesus.

To me, part of following Jesus is learning how he taught us to replace intuitive reactions with a scandalous love and grace. That’s true for day-to-day life—in decisions big and small—but a major event like bin Laden’s death gives us a more obvious and collective chance to examine the Way.

At Eikon Church we have been studying The Sermon on the Mount. The older I get I’m certain about fewer and fewer things, but I am certain that Jesus wasn’t joking around when he was teaching to the crowd on that hillside. I do not pretend to know exactly how to put into practice Jesus’s command to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” but I do know that Jesus actually meant it when he said it.

That belief prompts some really difficult questions in times like this. According to the Way, did we have the right to kill bin Laden at all? How have I shown him love if he was in fact my enemy? Where the rubber meets the road, do I place more priority on being part of a national collective than participating in the Kingdom of God?

Again, I’m not judging anybody because events like this stir very complex emotions within us. But for those of us who call ourselves followers of Jesus (as messy as we all are at times), we cannot celebrate death. Those who believe in hell in any form cannot rejoice in anyone, including bin Laden, spending time there. We cannot put our human need for revenge ahead of the scandalous love of Jesus. The Way of Jesus is peculiar and counterintuitive, and indulgences in those kinds of reactions and emotions are anything but.

A couple days ago the economist Larry Kudlow had this to say in the wake of the tsunami in Japan:

The markets are taking this in stride. The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that.

Kudlow later apologized, saying he had flubbed the line. I don’t believe his intentions were to sound that insensitive. And if a human being is physically placed in front of him and he had to choose between that person’s life or a great day for markets, I think he’d choose life. But I do believe the words were the result of how he sees the world, and it shows how immoral faceless capitalism can be. It was a classic Freudian slip.

Uber-capitalist economists and investors are believers in the bottom line. They focus on stock values and market trends while never seeing the faces at the bottom of the ladder. Despite what they would say if directly asked, the human condition is really not important to them. It’s not because they’re without compassion necessarily, it’s because they choose not see the faces or hear the life stories of those who actually make products. Out of sight, out of mind. That’s admittedly a generalization and there are, of course, plenty of exceptions.

It’s easy to rail against economist and investor types and their role in the immoral side of capitalism, but what about we consumers? Even though we may not say something that troubling on CNBC, is our mindset by and large not equal to his? When in the name of money and convenience we shop at stores that treat people unequally based on race or gender, we are too putting capitalism ahead of the human condition. When we buy products made by people laboring in poor conditions, we too are putting the dollar ahead of the person. That’s true for products that abuse God’s creation as well. After all, environmental abuses almost always lead to human rights abuses. The list goes on and on.

Of course not all corporations and box stores are evil (as trendy as it is to say otherwise). And believe me, I do not live this out fully; I am not casting stones from a glass house. This is definitely a learn-as-you-go journey for me, but as I’ve studied the principles of Jesus I’ve become more and more convinced that I have to be aware of the human and creation costs to where I shop, how my food is produced, and the products I buy. If I don’t, I’m afraid my life will exhibit what Larry Kudlow said—whether he meant it or not.

Note: A really challenging resource I have recently studied is The Biblical Vision of Sabbath Economics by Ched Meyers.

Best Picture
Will win: The King’s Speech
Should win: The Fighter

I have seen all 10 nominees and, frankly, didn’t expect The Fighter to be in my top 5. I sure had that one wrong. The acting from the entire cast was superb, with Melissa Leo, Amy Adams and Christian Bale being exceptional. It should also win Best Editing for the complex boxing scenes and the flawless way real clips of some of Mickey Ward’s fights were incorporated. Mostly though, I’m a little bit of a sucker for true stories that are humorous, heartbreaking and triumphant, and the story of Ward and his family are all of those things. The King’s Speech is the same and I’m going to be happy when it takes home the trophy, but for my money The Fighter did it for me this year. And I have no idea how/why Inception and The Kids are All Right are nominated.

Best Director
Will win: David Fincher, ‘The Social Network’
Should win: Joel and Ethan Coen, ‘True Grit’

It’s not often that the winners for Best Picture and Best Director are from different films, but look for that to happen this year. I thought all five directors did great jobs, but the Coen Bros had challenges that no other nominated director had this year—not the least of which was undertaking a remake of a popular movie that featured a beloved icon as the star. They were brilliant as always in every detail and the scene in which Rooster Cogburn was racing against time to get young Mattie Ross medical help was masterful. If nothing else, they deserve the Oscar for making a watchable adaptation of a treasured book for those of us who think John Wayne is unwatchable.

Best Actor
Will win: Colin Firth
Should win: Colin Firth

Quite simply the best screen performance I have seen in a long time. Honorable mention goes to James Franco. On another note, I can appreciate Jesse Eisenberg’s work in The Social Network, but there was something about it that just didn’t click with me.

Best Actress
Will win: Natalie Portman
Should win: Natalie Portman

I haven’t seen Rabbit Hole, but I’m sure Nicole Kidman is great as always. Annette Bening’s role did nothing for me and I don’t understand the accolades she’s receiving for it. Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams were both incredible in their respective performances, but I guess I’m like most others and can appreciate when an actor commits to a physically and emotionally challenging role and nails it in every way possible. Portman deserves all the hype she has received.

Best Supporting Actor
Will win: Christian Bale
Should win: Christian Bale

If there’s a snub in any category, it’s that Andrew Garfield was overlooked for his role in The Social Network. How Mark Ruffalo (who I usually like) got a nod over him I’ll never know. I’m really happy that John Hawkes got a nomination for Winter’s Bone. He’s one of those actors that is overlooked even though can seemingly play any type of character. Geoffrey Rush was great as always, but Christian Bale played the most complex character of the bunch and did it magnificently.

Best Supporting Actress
Will win: Melissa Leo
Should win: Hailee Steinfeld

This is the toughest category for me and I could have picked Melissa Leo or Amy Adams almost as easily. Hailee Steinfeld came out of nowhere and was just perfect. She was the star of every scene she was in, including those she shared with greats Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin. Melissa Leo is the frontrunner (even though many believe her off-putting campaign will hurt her chances), but I’m not going to be surprised if Steinfeld wins. I may well change my pick to her on my official Oscar party ballot.

Best Animated Feature
Will win: Toy Story 3
Should win: Toy Story 3

How to Train Your Dragon was a good movie, but Toy Story 3 is one of the 2 or 3 best animated movies I’ve ever seen. And the answer is 10. That’s the number of times it takes to watch it and not cry.

Best Original Screenplay
Will win: The King’s Speech
Should win: The King’s Speech

This is a shoo-in, but I will gnash my teeth and do bad things if Inception somehow pulls an upset like some have suggested.

Best Adapted Screenplay
Will win: The Social Network
Should win: The Social Network

Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay was the best thing about this movie, which is saying something considering there were a lot of great things about it. The only awards I’m really pulling for it to win though are this one and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for Original Score.

Best Cinematography
Will win: True Grit
Should win: True Grit

If there’s another snub, I think Winter’s Bone should have been nominated here.

Best Documentary
Will win: Inside Job
Should win: Inside Job

Several weeks ago I said that no documentary this year has really gripped me so I would root for Gasland because it’s the most important. Now that I’ve seen Inside Job, I will pick it as the most important even though I didn’t think it was great. Exit Through the Gift Shop was entertaining, but put me in the camp that believes it was largely a set up from the beginning by street artist Banksy. I just don’t really look at it as a real documentary.

Look for Inception to win all the technical categories it’s nominated for. Even though the screenplay and whole plot sucked, I really don’t have a problem with that because there were some cool effects going on in it.

Contemplating life on top of Pinnacle Mountain. Actually, we were probably talking about Lightning McQueen.

Before I got into this whole parenting gig four years ago I was sure that people were overstating how complicated it is. I’m not talking about the daily challenges like sleepless nights, battles of wills, testing of patience and, at times, an utter inability to relate. I wasn’t naïve to how hard those would be. What I’m referring to are some hot-button issues that really get parental blood boiling, such as education, vaccines (although that should be less hot now.), breast feeding, corporal punishment and Santa Claus.

It’s not that I was unaware these were contentious issues, it’s just that I was confident in my opinion on each (as ignorant as that sounds now). I assumed that my wife and I could just make our choices, everyone else could make theirs and we’d all pat ourselves on the back and sing Kumbaya . Boy was I wrong. I completely underestimated a parent’s ability (including my own) to antagonize and belittle others, even if done unintentionally or subconsciously.

Parents have opinions. Passionate ones. And most of them want other parents to agree with theirs. I really don’t know why that is, but my theory is that we know the gravity of the task ahead of us and we want validation that we’re doing it right.

We should definitely have our convictions about all of these issues. What kind of parents would we be if we didn’t? We’ll almost certainly take the public school route. He has received all of the scheduled and recommended vaccines and will continue to do so. He was not breastfed for the most part. We will never spank him. He believes in Santa Claus. I’m also in favor of discussing all of these issues with as many people as possible in order to understand other points of view and even change my mind if warranted. We cannot, however, allow those discussions to turn into harsh judgments about one another as parents.

Now that I know how difficult this job is, what I refuse to do is criticize others who choose differently on these issues. Unless I see some sort of true neglect or abuse, I’m going to assume that parents who have differing points of view have weighed each as prayerfully, judiciously and soberly as Shannon and I have. This is a damn hard job. We should be helping each other through this gloriously difficult life as a parent rather than looking for ways to prove others wrong.

Opinions and reactions immediately started flying on Twitter. Some people stated unequivocally that Sarah Palin’s infamous “bullseye” map and violent language were the moral equivalent to pulling the trigger. I wholly disagree with that even if we learn the shooter is a Palinite. Others believe that while the ultimate responsibility lies with the shooter, Palin and others share some degree of responsibility in creating the atmosphere. That makes sense to me if we learn the shooter was motivated by them, but to this point we have no reason to believe that.

The silliest thing I heard all day was that politics shouldn’t be brought into this. The shooting by definition was political! Maybe people were too quick to blame partisan politics, but it is not an illogical theory of motive given the language embraced the last 3 years by many on the right. After all, words do have consequences. (My friend Kerri has a great post dealing with that point.)

At the very least, this could be a teachable moment for my many friends on the right.

This tweet from Clinton School Dean Skip Rutherford particularly caught my eye:

I cannot possibly directly relate to what staffers for Rep. Giffords are dealing with, but I do have experience as a congressional staffer during this contentious time. I had the high honor of working for Congressman Vic Snyder during the votes on the health care bill as well as during the infamous August 2009 town hall meetings. During that time we received thousands of calls from constituents on both sides of the health care debate, most of which were at least civil. Unfortunately there were plenty of hateful calls as well. I answered only a fraction of them, but still managed to speak with probably around 100 people who were parroting the most vitriolic and inflammatory language being used or encouraged by some Republican leaders.

Many callers angrily yelled that they wanted to take their country back. When I asked from whom they wanted to take it back it was generally some line about the marxist, socialist, communist, fascist, blah blah blah followers of a Muslim, foreign-born president, including Rep. Snyder. Profanities were common and mostly aimed at President Obama and Congressman Snyder, but I and other staff were often the focus as well. I was called a faggot (or similar slur) many times, but fewer times than President Obama was called a nigger Muslim who wasn’t even born here.

We did a series of 3 health care town halls, which, other than the first one, were fairly civil. I don’t want to overstate the anxiety amongst staff when we were going to the meetings, but given the language we had been hearing there was certainly an edge to the events. Congressman Snyder and his wife were verbally accosted by some drunk people while trying to enjoy dinner out. These people frothed at the mouth using largely the same inflammatory rhetoric used by many mainstream Republicans. The saddest thing was they didn’t even have the decency to be ashamed of themselves when they sobered up. Some months later Congressman Snyder’s life was threatened. (For the record, he was also on Palin’s target map.)

Violence erupted at various town halls. Guns were brought to political rallies with signs meant to intimidate. The Republican nominee for senate in Nevada, Sharon Angle, talked about “2nd Amendment remedies” for some politicians. A Rand Paul supporter stomped on the head of a left-wing protester. The list goes on and on and most of these things were rationalized by Republicans.

I’m not at all thin-skinned politically. I understand and embrace politics as a rough and tumble sport. However, I have long believed the rhetoric used by many on the right recently is potentially dangerous. Some Republican leaders have embraced that language outright while others have, with a wink and a nod, benefitted from it while saying just enough publicly to cover their asses. They like the benefits of a large segment of the populace believing President Obama is a Muslim (as if there’s something wrong with that) when he is not. They enjoy that many people stupidly believe he is not a citizen. They have subtly encouraged the efforts of those who outright paint Mr. Obama as the exotic other; someone who, along with his supporters, is truly hell bent on destroying our country and our very way of life in the name of Marxism (and they rarely even know what that means).

I don’t see the direct connection to yesterday’s shooter and the rhetoric of Sarah Palin et al (at least to this point), but the fact is if many Republicans hadn’t explicitly or tacitly embraced the violent, paranoid language that has been used against Democrats over the last 3 years they wouldn’t be open to that criticism in the first place. That may not be fair, but that’s reality. Even if we learn the shooter’s motivations had nothing to do with them, they would be foolish to not take heed of the legitimate concern people have with the words they use.

There aren’t many things that baseball historians and junkies take more seriously than membership to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It’s the most elite and exclusive HOF of all the major sports and it should stay that way.

The class of 2011 will be announced in about 4 hours and I’m hoping that my decade-long advocacy for Bert Blyleven’s admission will finally come to an end. He and Roberto Alomar are the only two on this year’s ballot who would get my vote. To me they are no-brainers.

This time of year brings out a lot of passionate opinions. Here are some of mine:

1. I would never vote for someone who was primarily or even largely a DH in his career. I know it’s an official “position” but I have never viewed it as legitimate. I don’t think Paul Molitor should have been inducted in 2004, so I sure would not even think about voting for Edgar Martinez this year.
2. I would never vote for a closer, including Dennis Eckersley who went in as a Cardinal in 2004. Right or wrong, I believe most MLB #2 or #3 starters could be converted into elite closers. No Lee Smith on this year’s ballot for me and no Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera on future ballots.
3. Pete Rose should never be inducted into the HOF. He agreed to be placed on the permanently ineligible list, which excludes him from HOF eligibility. Read the agreement here.
4. The position that a player is a HOFer, but shouldn’t get in on the first ballot makes no sense to me. If a writer honestly believes a person is a HOFer he should vote for him that year. That’s not to say that minds don’t change about a player over the course of his 15 years of ballot eligibility. For example, while I wouldn’t vote for Tim Raines or Barry Larkin this year, I feel mind changing a little on both.
5. I’m not sure how the players who have tested positive for PEDs should be handled. If Mark McGwire was the first test case, things don’t look good for them. We’ll see how Rafael Palmeiro is handled today. He’s 1 of only 4 players in MLB history to amass over 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. Just one of those numbers has been a ticket to the HOF for everyone except McGwire. To do both is an astonishing accomplishment and would undoubtedly qualify him for the Hall. Until I figure out my opinion on how steroid users should be handled I’d withhold my vote though.

A blurry pic of Eddie & me from last month

20 years ago today at the Off Ramp in Seattle, Pearl Jam played its first gig. In those 20 years they have touched, sustained and entertained millions of people and, based entirely on their musical and artistic integrity, have had a prolonged career that has maintained relevance and positioned them as one of the most important bands in rock history.

I believe music literally can and does save people’s lives. I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that without music I would be completely dysfunctional spiritually, emotionally and mentally. It has helped me discover and embrace myself, even (especially?) in those inevitable human times of self-consciousness, awkwardness, anger, and heartbreak. (Taken from my comments on Ryan Byrd’s recent post).

Everyone who feels that way about music has a handful of special artists who they connect with in an especially profound way, when the words and music created by a person or group inexplicably amplifies their own emotions, both good and bad. It’s a beautiful, mysterious phenomenon. Pearl Jam’s music has had that effect more than anyone else’s. Somehow each new record they release strikes the perfect chord for where I am in life at that time. From 1991′s Ten which shepherded a 17 year old through issues of anger, discovery and acceptance all the way to 2009′s Backspacer which emotionally voiced the excitement, fears, and sometimes selfish need for a degree of independence of a now 36 year old father and husband.

I recently had the opportunity to meet and be around Eddie and express some of those feelings to him personally (hopefully in a non-geeky, fanboy way). For me it was an extended thank you for all he and his band have meant to me and it’s a conversation that I will forever cherish. Thanks for the last 20 years Pearl Jam, and here’s to 20 more!