twofingersandathumb

I live across from a community park where I often walk my dogs. Last weekend the softball fields and warm-up areas were activated by girls of various ages batting, throwing and catching; and parents watching, eating and yelling. A regional tournament was in full swing.

While I lingered to watch a few innings, I reminisced back to when my daughter played on these same fields and I managed and coached her teams. I remember the practices, the drills, the trips to the batting cages, the girls’ competitiveness and the parents’ cliques. On top of that there was the important goal of being selected for the all-star team or a travel team, which conferred an elite status on the players who made it. Between rec ball, all-stars and travel ball, a girl could conceivably play softball year round.

I remembered the parents who encouraged and those who complained. One the one hand there was the dad whose daughter didn’t make the all-star team that year and who verbally attacked me for the better part of an hour, accusing me of ruining his girl’s chances to play high school ball which could lead to a college scholarship. On the other hand there was the dad who coached with me for three seasons and overlooked no player. Ours was the most unified team one year and we won the league trophy.

Each spring was given over to all things softball: practices, games, planning, snack shack schedules, weather reports, field maintenance, team sleepovers… It all seemed so vital to the formation of happy, well-rounded kids.

It’s all so entirely unimportant to me now. I do and I don’t miss those days on the ball fields. The point was to have fun, to build skills, friendships, discipline and character in our kids. The actuality also consisted of strife, scheming and gossip. All that time, effort and money we spent… was it worth it?

This is what I know: We parents have good intentions in enrolling our kids into extracurricular activities. And then we sit on the sidelines or in the audience to watch them succeed and fail. We stop participating, leaving it up to coaches like me to form good character and marketable skills in our kids. But character is formed in the home and then brought to the ball field.

My daughter, who never once played on the all-star team, opted for water polo during high school and is now serving as a United State Marine. We play catch when she’s home on leave.

What of the daughter of the ranting father? She was good enough to be picked for the high school JV team as a freshman but stopped playing altogether the following year. I was saddened to subsequently read about her in the police blotter in our local newspaper.

The important thing about training our kids is what happens at home, not at home plate.

Something completely different: A campaign ad devoid of ad hominen attacks. It’s quiet, unassuming and tells a story.
How refreshing.

Because of recent events regarding the recall of former events, I decided to hit the dictionary (the wonderful Oxford American Dictionary that resides on my Mac) to confirm my understanding, since “words have power” and we want to use the right words when describing our experiences. Here are the definitions of the 3 most talked-about words on the news channels in the past couple of days:

Misspeak: a verb meaning to express oneself insufficiently, unclearly or inaccurately;

Misconstrue: a verb meaning to interpret something wrongly;

Lie: a verb meaning to intentionally make a false or deceptive statement.

From these definitions it is clear that a lie is not a mistake.

If a person lies and we overlook, excuse or mitigate it, do we become liars? If our children lie, do we excuse it, rationalize it or redefine it? What if our employees lie?

It seems to me that if a person makes a false claim it is not a mere insufficiency or misconstruction on his part. It’s a lie.

Christine Pelosi, author, activist, attorney and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stated in an interview today on FoxNews that she had not yet decided who she was going to vote for. She was torn between her generation and her gender. Obviously, she will be choosing between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I found Ms. Pelosi’s comments something to think about. And so I began thinking about why people vote the way they do. Is it the platform, the promise or the person that we vote for. Ms. Pelosi also enjoined the candidates to “chill”, to stop bickering like little kids and deal with the concerns that will affect the future. She has a point about being concerned about her future and wanting candidates to eschew the put-downs and focus on the issues. Yet I question the basis on which she remains undecided in her vote. She talked about issues, but her stated basis for uncertainty would seem to belie her desire for a focus on the issues.

Is it right to vote based on gender? Is it right to vote based on age? Somehow it is expected that, if you’re a woman, you’ll vote for a woman, and that if you’re young, you’ll vote for youth. I understand that Oprah Winfrey is considered by many women’s groups to be a traitor to all women everywhere because she has publicly endorsed Barak Obama.

It is inconsistent that we cry foul when a job candidate is turned down due to age or gender and then turn around and choose a candidate for the job of President on that very basis. This double-mindedness is pure hypocrisy. We who are anti-discriminatory based on sex and age will be certain hypocrites when it comes to the choice of a presidential candidate, if we vote for a person simply because of their sex or their youth.

As for me, I will vote for the person who I believe is the best fit for the office, based on their track record, their values, their vision and their ability to back it up. For me, it’s not a matter of age or gender.

I have always liked westerns. The reason lies in the fact that westerns have horses and guys who ride them, plus panoramic vistas of mountains, trees, skies and deserts. They have handsome good guys and smarmy bad guys.

To me, Westerns always land right-side-up. By that I mean that there is a clear line separating good and evil. That line is easily recognized. It never moves or gets re-defined. In the old days, the line was visible: the good guys wore white hats and, after going through a struggle, won in the end.

Westerns are morality tales. They’re explorations of human nature showing its true colors under extreme pressure. They’re simply complex. We know what to expect of a western: something bad is going to happen to good people; there is a power struggle between the big land baron or the railroad and the little guy. The little guy never sports a victim-mentality for long, but gets fed up with the way things are and sets about to make things right. The struggle ensues and bit-by-bit, through perseverance he weakens the big guy and eventually takes him out.

My favorite Western has always been Silverado. The good guys won in the end by picking off the bad guys one by one through a coordinated effort. My second is Pale Rider, about a lone savior who protected settlers and won in the end through smarts and stealth. Third is The Cowboys, a classic John Wayne epic with horses, cattle, boys, bad guys and Vivaldi’s Concerto for Guitar in D Major. John Wayne died, but the boys won in the end.

Yesterday my Top Three was upset rather violently when my friend took me to see 3:10 to Yuma. Almost bloody enough to be a Mel Gibson film, this flick pitted the good against the bad, then the good with the bad. The good guy got killed but the bad guy got on the train to Yuma nonetheless. The horse won in the end, I think.

A good story line, complex characters and some humor thrown in made the spattered blood sequences meaningful. Basically, I came away with two truths that are conveyed throughout the story:

First, that some things are worth fighting for – even giving up your life for. Some things need to be fought for. Taking a stand might be painful and even lethal. Once you put your foot down, someone else will come along who wants to stomp on your toes, remove your shoe and cut off your leg. Count on it; then rise to the occasion.

Second, that the line between good and evil can get really obscure. It is tempting to take the easy way out, but the easy way is likely not the right way.

In 3:10 to Yuma, the villain, Ben, was an intelligent, likeable nasty guy who quoted scripture and lived by clearly-defined values but was way south of being right. He tempted the good guy, Dan, made him all sorts of offers in exchange for freedom and kept him entertained with conversation and genuine charm. He preserved Dan’s life. He got on the train of his own volition. His horse even liked him; we know this because it went scampering off into the sunset after him.

Dan was initially weak and cowardly – not all that likeable. Even his family was unsure of him. He found his courage in holding fast to the good. He was tempted to turn (and you could tell he wanted to take the easy way out) but stuck to his guns. His struggles were visibly internal. I could tell he was weighing the what-ifs.

I found myself cheering for both Ben and Dan at the same time. I didn’t care who won. This is the first Western I recall in which I found both the protagonist and the antagonist at once likable and despicable. They both had merit. They were both flawed. They were both good-looking.

Who do I choose? If I cheer for both, I am just like each of them, full of goodness and smarminess at the same time. It’s the human dilemma!

We each live a morality tale. No matter how good we can be, we are at the same time bad. We find ourselves doing things we don’t want to do, and not doing things we want to do. We argue with ourselves. We have internal and external struggles. We feel guilt when we mess up and avoid discomfort as much as possible. We rejoice when we do someone good. We all hope to be the good guy and win in the end.

I have always liked Westerns. They remind me of me, but with horses.

©2007 Alvalyn Lundgren. All Rights Reserved.

How to throw like a guy. Don’t pass up any opportunity to play catch.
A well-developed sense of humor is invaluable for life.
Be playful; take time to have fun.
Give a lot of hugs. But be selective who you give them to.
Music…make it the background of your life.
Dogs fill out a family.
A cup of good coffee is a foundation for meaningful conversation.
Baseball is the best of all games.
Barbecue.
Listen. People appreciate it when you hear them.
Telling a story gets your point across quickly.
Apologize when you mess up.
Always accept the apology when someone messes you up.
Nothing is unforgivable.
Kids are worth all the effort you put into them.
Swedish pancakes…the ultimate breakfast.
Be neighborly.
Serve others, but also take care of yourself.
Letting the guy open the door for you honors him and allows him to honor you.
Stay in the Word and put the Word in you.
Pray until the answer comes.
You can make it through anything when you are confident that God has your best in mind.
Focus on what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, praiseworthy and good. Put the other stuff behind you and stop looking back at it.

posted by Alvalyn Lundgren

In defense of a well-developed vocabulary…

Sometimes we get to apologize for the words we use. I am not referring to words that put others down, like calling someone stupid, foolish, unworthy or unlovable. I am referring to the big words in our vocabularies that we use easily because we know how to. Words like: magnanimous, erudite, supercilious, sagacious. Words of that ilk, which seem to make some people nervous because they don’t know their meaning and therefore they don’t know how to respond.

Sometimes we get to apologize for the fact that we read, and have read throughout our lives, and have allowed our imaginations to develop through the turn of words rather than flatten through the turn of a television knob. (Yes, I grew up the in era of knobs instead of buttons and click-wheels.)

Reasonable thought is developed through effort. Our minds are transformed by tackling the big words and mastering them; by reading and re-reading a passage until a concept becomes concrete or by following the layers of a past-century novel deemed too boring and too intricate for most. Or by simply looking up an unknown word in a dictionary and getting to know it.

If we use the occasional four-syllable word in the course of casual conversation, it’s not meant as a put down. We’re simply using our abilities and resources. Words are power. Others will take offense and often attack us (with words) when they believe they’re in the weaker position. We find we’re criticized—even ostracized—as being puffed up, haughty or stuck-up. However, we stand up to scrutiny because we can support our arguments with ideas that are often best expressed in multi-syllable words. We don’t have to hide behind emotional outbursts. We do not have to attack a person’s character in order to prevail in a discussion or to simply communicate an idea.

Ideas are formed through words. Beliefs are expressed in words. Faith is built through words. Words cause us to act. Words persuade. Thoughts, imaginings and convictions cannot be easily dissolved by undeveloped opinion and a banal vocabulary. Words are powerful things. The more you have of them, the more equipped you are.

So if any words used in these comments are offensive to you, please accept my apology. I’m only writing about what I know.

posted by Alvalyn Lundgren

Dr. Jerry Falwell, pastor, educator and leader, died this morning. Evidently his work here on earth is finished and so God took him home. He was 73 years old.

He was the founder of Liberty University in Virginia and the outspoken leader of the Moral Majority and Christian Conservatism in the ’80s and early 90s. He was a friend of presidents. No matter what people thought of him, several things can be rightly said and agreed upon about him:

He was passionate about what he believed, and did not compromise on those beliefs. As such, he was often labeled “intolerant” by those who believe we should be tolerant of everything.

He was consistent. We knew what to expect from him. He was a person of integrity.

He was influential for good. He made a difference in the lives of many people.

He bore up under ongoing ridicule from those who opposed him or wrote him off as a fanatic unworthy of being heard. He did not give up, but kept going. He was dedicated.

He responded to his critics with respect, and did not back down from his belief that what God says is true. He based his life work on that foundation. He did not ridicule those who disagreed with him.

When he made mistakes, he took responsibility for them. He did not hide or make excuses for himself, nor did he blame others for them.

He believed in goodness and in truth. He believed that certain things were right and a lot of things weren’t, and that human at any stage is valueable and worth fighting for.

He smiled a lot. A dour countenance was not his way, and he was definitely not an angry man. He did not yell or shout; he was quiet and firm.

With his death occurring only a few months after the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I cannot help making a comparison between the two: how they lived, their impact, and how they look from behind.

What did Smith contribute to the rest of us? What impact and influence did she have on the lives of others? How did she fill in the gap between the date of her birth and the date of her death? What did she believe? Did she help anyone become a better person? Did she stand for anything? We are fascinated by her life and more so by her death and the subsequent sparring that occurred because of it, but why? What did she do that was so impressive? Why did we honor her which so much notice? I don’t get it.

Falwell’s death is spoken of by reporters today in hushed tones. There is a quiet respect and admiration as the details of his death are given. There is no frenzy. From FoxNews to CNN there appears to be agreement across the board that this was a man of substance and influence. Why else would he have been interviewed only last week by CNN for his opinions on partial birth abortion, traditional families and God? It is clear that even the opposition respected his quiet confidence.

See you later, Jerry. I did not know you here on earth, but I look forward to catching up with you when I get to where you are.

Photo of Jerry Falwell courtesy of Jerry Falwell Ministries

In our fashion-forward era, we can measure people by their clothing, money, popularity, what they can get away with, etc. We choose our clothing and accessories very carefully so as to make just the right impression. We want make sure we’re remembered well and so that we’ll be welcomed again.

When we get dressed each day, we should begin not with the visible apparel but with what is unseen: our behaviors, attitudes and character. These are what make a truly lasting impression on people. We change our clothes at least once a day. We can’t change our character that easily.

What we leave behind in terms of how we handle the pressures, problems and stresses of life is telling. We can hide our character flaws for a little while, until we are put under pressure. It’s like when metal is heated to its melting point and the dross (the impurities) rise to the surface and are easily seen. It is then that our real character emerges and impresses people all around us. If our behavior drops like boulders onto people, we walk away leaving them broken, bruised, disappointed and wondering. Trust is broken. Relationship is compromised. It will take a lot of work to heal and mend, if that is even possible. But if we instead bear our circumstances with quiet confidence and gentleness, relationship builds. We will look really good from behind as people watch us go.

Are people glad to see us leave? Or are they glad we were there?