CommenTerry

Baseball Example Highlights Unpredictability of Life

Back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s there were four Major League Baseball franchise relocations over the span of just seven seasons. In 1966, the Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta; in 1968, the Kansas City Athletics moved to Oakland; in 1970, the Seattle Pilots move to Milwaukee to become the Milwaukee Brewers; and in 1972, the Washington Senators moved to Texas to become the Texas Rangers.

Following the Senators’ move, most baseball people assumed that another franchise would be moved to Washington, D.C. in no more than a couple of years. That seemed logical, considering the trend toward franchise moves. Besides, the last time a team left Washington (when the original Senators left in 1961 to become the Minnesota Twins), it was replaced with the expansion Senators before a single season had passed.

Well, those people appeared to be right on target in early 1974, when the San Diego Padres were on the verge of being sold and relocated to Washington. Topps even printed “Washington” instead of “San Diego” on some of the Padres player cards that year. The impending move would be baseball’s fifth franchise relocation in nine seasons. However, enter McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc. He stepped in at the last minute and offered to buy the team and keep them in San Diego. Baseball owners, weary of the recent spate of franchise moves, welcomed his offer and saw to it that the team was sold to him. The move to Washington was off, as he made good on his word and kept the team in San Diego, where it remains today, years after his death.

Still, the baseball world was confident that another baseball opportunity for Washington was just around the corner. It wouldn’t be long before another franchise would be sold and relocated to Washington. They reasoned that there wouldn’t be a Ray Kroc to come along and rescue the next team that went up for sale.

No one in their wildest dreams would have guessed that it would be 33 years before Washington would get another team (when the Montreal Expos were relocated to Washington in 2005 to become the Nationals).  Even more surprising was the fact that there were no baseball franchise moves at all for 32 seasons, after four of them occurred in just eight seasons. Who knew?

Even if you’re not a baseball fan, there are some lessons in here somewhere. First, trends are temporary. You never know when they will abruptly end. Second, just because a certain condition exists now doesn’t mean it will always exist. To paraphrase what they say in the investment world, past (or current) performance is no guarantee of future results. Times change. If times are good now, don’t assume they will always be. Instead, be prepared for the inevitable setbacks and downturns of life. Third, never made the mistake of assuming you’ll get another opportunity soon. Sure, opportunities may be presenting themselves to you right and left at this point in your life. But that’s no guarantee that you’ll ever get another one. Take opportunities seriously -- don’t let them slip through your fingers.

Don't Give Away Stuff That Doesn't Belong to You

It is extremely rude to allow someone with more than a handful of groceries to cut in front of you a supermarket checkout line, if there are others behind you. By allowing someone to cut in front of you in that situation, you are also allowing them to cut in front of everyone who is behind you. Many people do not consider that fact. If there is no one behind you, then it is truly a courteous gesture. However, when people are behind you, you are giving away other people's time, which is not yours to give. It's like taking money out of your own pocket and giving it to someone, but then also confiscating money from the pockets of several other folks and it giving it to that same person.

How to Exasperate a Belligerent Arguer

When someone you're having an argument with starts using belligerent tactics like name-calling, there's a little trick you can use to neutralize them. Start sarcastically agreeing with everything they say. For example, if they called you an idiot, you might respond by saying "You know, you're absolutely right, I am an idiot - I don't know why I didn't think of that first." That's a lot better than saying, "No I'm not, no I'm not", which makes it seems like they're right. This tactic will also exasperate them very quickly. Besides, it's difficult for someone to argue with you when you're agreeing with them.

Is Honesty Always the Best Policy?

Here's an example of how someone can get into hot water for being honest. Several years ago, the mayor of Las Vegas was asked by a group of school children what one thing he would like to take with him to a deserted island. He responded by giving them an honest answer and saying he would like to take a bottle of gin. Now these kids' parents got all up in arms and made a major issue out of it. I don't see the problem, though. Yes, I understand that sometimes there's a need for tact, decorum, and restraint. However, either honesty is the best policy or it's not. If it's not always the best policy, then we need to quit repeating that saying.

The Natural Law of Self Defense

When individuals or nations are attacked, I believe they have the right to use any means they deem necessary to defend themselves, regardless of man's law. In cases like those, I believe the natural law of self defense trumps any man-made laws.

First, let's look at an example of an individual being attacked. Let's suppose two men get into a verbal argument, and one physically attacks the other. As far as I'm concerned, the man who is attacked has every right to do whatever he feels necessary to prevent himself from being beaten or killed, including shooting or stabbing his attacker, regardless of any laws regarding the use of deadly or unnecessary force.

Now, let's look at an example of a one nation attacking another. When one nation invades another for whatever purpose, right or wrong, by default it gives the regime of the nation it invades a blank check to do whatever it deems necessary to defend itself, regardless of any laws governing war crimes. That nation has a natural right to attempt to drive out, discourage, intimidate, terrorize, or otherwise thwart the invading force. Rules of war shouldn't apply to a country that's being invaded anyway, as the act of starting a war is, by definition, a lawless act.

Four Reasons Why America Is Not Libertarian Enough

The United States of America is the freest nation on earth and I am very proud to be an American. However, we still have plenty of room for improvement. One area in which we can use quite a bit of improvement is our lack of libertarianism. Sadly, we are just not libertarian enough as a society. I believe there are four major reasons for this condition. Hopefully, we will eventually be able to overcome all of them. 

First, too many U.S. citizens allow their emotions to override their common sense. As a nation, we are very intelligent, but we often allow that intelligence to be overcome by fear, anger, outrage, and other such feelings. We allow nuts on both sides of the political spectrum to influence us into taking partisan positions on seeming all matters, even when it makes no sense to do so. At times, the U.S. seems to be bastion of irrational thought. We dream up imaginary enemies, both foreign and domestic. We are far too superstitious and often believe silly conspiracy theories. We overreact to minor problems. We often punish people harshly for trivial or inconsequential infractions, just because we are so put off by what they may have done. We are too quick to fight wars because of our fear of mushroom clouds that don’t exist. We worry about when the President’s “red” phone is going to ring. We are conned into giving up our freedom in return for added security that we don’t really need. We concern ourselves over hobgoblins and bogymen of our own creation. We must learn to instead allow reason and logic to be our guide.

Second, many of us seem to think it’s the government’s duty to legislate morality. This would be true only in a theocracy. We have a republican (with a little ‘r’) form of government, not a theocracy. In a republic, the government should encourage morality and discourage immorality, but should not attempt to legislate either. Attempts to legislate morality, i.e., outlawing victimless “crimes” and behavior that does not directly hurt anyone, do not make us any more moral and only put us on a slippery slope toward the further erosion of our freedom. We need to tell the government to quit intruding in our private lives.

Third, too many Americans are perfectly comfortable with a government nanny state that treats adults like children. We seem to have no problem at all with the government telling us we must wear seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and that private restaurant and bar owners must prohibit smoking. What we don’t realize is that we are giving up our precious freedoms by allowing such government regulations. When we allow the government to impose these things on us, it’ll soon be imposing other restrictions on our lives. When I entered college, I remember being pleasantly surprised at the difference between high school and college. There were no hall monitors at my college and no one to tell me when I had to attend class. We were treated like adults, so we acted like adults. In high school, on the other hand, we were treated like children, so we acted like children. We Americans should tell the government that we want to be treated like adults and don’t need it to play the role of our parents.

Fourth, we seem to be all too willing to take away the freedom and rights of adults to protect children from even the remotest and most unlikely kind of harm. Our government, with assistance from the endless number of so-called child advocacy groups, then takes advantage of this sentiment by imposing all kinds of restrictions on what adults can and cannot do. We’ve all heard people say they are doing this “for the children.” Baloney! In most cases, it’s just an excuse to allow a vocal minority to impose its will on the majority. What we need to realize is that it is impossible to protect children from all possible injury. While we need to do our best to protect them from all direct and imminent threats, we must understand that the risk of some harm to them will always be present, no matter what we do. If allowing adults to have more freedom creates some negligible increase in indirect harm to children, then so be it.

Yeah, That'll Put the Fear of God in Them

I've always wondered about the efficacy of those "Stop the Violence" marches that are held in various cities where violent crime runs rampant. What do the people who organize these marches think they are going to accomplish? I wonder if they really believe violent criminals are going to say, "Oh darn, these folks are out marching, we'll have to take our violence elsewhere now."

The Fallacious Gospel of Tolerance

I was reading a blog the other day in which its author, a gay man, was ranting about the intolerance of the Boy Scouts of America toward gays and atheists. He said he would never donate money to such an organization and would only donate to organizations that do not discriminate against anyone. Oh really? That's his right but I suggest he won't be donating to any organization unless he's a hypocrite. That's because all membership organizations discriminate. Either it's because of age, gender, race, marital status, veteran status, criminal status, geographic location, or what have you, every organization discriminates.

For example, let's suppose a known escaped convict attempts to join a given community organization while on the lam. Even though this organization might claim to be tolerant of everyone and not discriminate against anyone, I bet they wouldn't accept him as a member. By virtue of the fact this escaped convict counts as someone, they would be defying their claim and playing the hypocrite.

In addition, every individual is intolerant of someone. It's human nature. Some people just are intolerant of the intolerant. Doesn't this constitute intolerance? In addition, many liberals who pride themselves on being so tolerant are quite intolerant of such people as polluters, those who "don't pay enough taxes", those who seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade, those who advocate drilling for oil on pristine land reserves, wearers of animal fur, religious fanatics, SUV owners, and "Big Tobacco" executives. It should be obvious that when they use the word "tolerant", it's just a code word for accepting people based on their narrow set of pet issues such as gay rights and multiculturalism. All others need not apply.

A Little Sleep, a Little Slumber

"Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall they poverty come as one that travelleth; and thy want as an armed man." Proverbs 24:33-34 KJV

Back in biblical days, one of the major causes of poverty was just plain slothfulness or laziness. King Solomon, the wisest mortal who ever walked the earth, knew this and often commented on it the Book of Proverbs. He wasn't concerned about political correctness.

The same is true today, but you wouldn't know it from listening to left-wing Democrats and the liberal media. Why, they'll list just about every reason for poverty that you could imagine, but laziness will not be one of them. That's too politically incorrect. For the most part, they will cite the "lack" of government spending on give-away programs and discrimination against minorities and the poor for the bulk of poverty in the U.S.

True, there are many people living in poverty due to reasons beyond their control such as children born into poverty and those who have suffered from job losses, major medical problems, or mental illness. However, there are many others who are just too lazy to work or cannot get a decent job because they were too lazy to do their school assignments and ultimately dropped out, rejecting the public education that was freely offered to them. In addition, we as a culture have reinforced this characteristic in many people by helping them develop a sense of entitlement. At least in the old days, if one refused to work, he didn't eat.

When Too-Good-To-Be-True Really Is True

When and if you're ever lucky enough to come across and take advantage of something that seems to good to be true but really is true, try to keep it a secret as much as possible. There are two reasons I say this.

First, too many beneficiaries will ruin almost any benefit. Most benefits work well only if there is a limited number of people who benefit from them. Once everyone jumps on the bandwagon of a given benefit, you can generally kiss it goodbye.

Second, anything that has an inordinately positive impact on one person or one group of people usually has an inordinately negative impact on another person or another group of people. Once the person or group receiving the negative impact gets wind of its existence, they will likely make every effort they can to put the kibosh on it.