Getting the Most out of March Madness

Virginia: From chumps to champs

Virginia winning the national championship one year after becoming the first #1 seed to lose to a #16 seed has to be one of the greatest sports stories of the decade.  In fact, March Madness has always been about stories, and the Tournament Selection Committee knows it.  March Madness is even more enjoyable if we let these stories become part of our own.

There is abundant evidence that the Selection Committee considers the stories of teams and players when creating the annual bracket.  Was it coincidence the Committee positioned UCF to play Duke in Round 2 this year?  UCF coach Johnny Dawkins was the player who started it all for Coach K.  He was Coach K's first blue chip recruit.

Coach K and Johnny Dawkins

After leaving Duke, Dawkins enjoyed a long NBA career before becoming Coach K's top assistant.  Dawkins then took the head job at Stanford, only to return to Duke for several more years, before moving on to UCF.  Coach Dawkins' star player this year was his son, Aubrey Hawkins, a sensational player who cut his teeth as a boy running around Cameron Indoor Stadium while his father assisted Coach K.

No, there are no coincidences with the Selection Committee.  They knew exactly what they were doing matching up Duke and UCF.  Another example from this year is the first round matchup between Louisville and Minnesota.  Until the recent pay for play scandal, Louisville's coach was Rick Pitino. Some coaches always seem able to help their teams perform in the tournament, no matter their regular season.  Pitino was one of these, along with guys like Tom Izzo at Michigan St. and Bob Huggins at Cincinnati and then West Virginia.  These coaches' teams consistently go deep in the tourney, no matter their seeding.

Richard (left) & Rick (right)

This year Louisville faced it's first tourney Pitino-less, so the Selection Committee decided to make amends by pitting them against Minnesota . . . who is coached by none other than Richard Pitino, son of Rick.  Another coincidence?  Unlikely.  Minnesota won a very emotionally charged game. 

In 2010 Duke won the national championship with a collection of role players.  No one from that group made an impact in the NBA.  Although Duke was a #1 seed, they were not expected to win the tournament that year.  Back then I ran my brackets like a hedge fund manager.  I had 6-8 brackets entered on ESPN and almost every game saw me rooting for and against both teams.  I was a basketball schizophrenic.   Even though I graduated from Duke Law School and was a big Duke fan, since conventional wisdom had Duke losing in 2010, none of my brackets had Duke making the Final Four.  When Duke won it all, several people congratulated me and commented on how well my bracket must have performed.  When I sheepishly informed them that I had not chosen Duke, they couldn't hide their surprise and disappointment.  I was considered a sellout for not having supported my school.

It was time to rethink my basketball world.  When March 2011 rolled around, I made some changes.  First, I decided to choose Duke to win every year.  Duke had won four times in 20 years, so odds were that about every five years I was going to be very, very happy.  I figured I had no hope of accurately guessing which particular year Duke would win, but that I could take comfort knowing eventually Duke would win.  Sure enough, when they won in 2015 I ended up in the 99.8 percentile on ESPN's Tournament Challenge.  More importantly, I had a blast riding their winning streak.

The second change I made was to create only one bracket.  No more hedging.  Since I didn't participate in paid pools anyway, I realized I wasn't hedging my bets, I was just hedging my happiness.  I decided to stand by my choices and invest in every game.  I wanted to feel the full joy of victory; therefore, I had to accept the full agony of defeat.

Third, I decided to look for stars and for stories.  I realized that every so often a star was able to impose his will on March Madness.  Carmelo Anthony, Stephen Curry, Kemba Walker etc.  These players each took over the tournament, bringing us along for the ride.  I decided to hitch my wagon to players like these, knowing that every few years I could look forward to riding a star's wave of success.  For example, this year I picked Murray State to win as a #12 seed because I believed Ja Morant was going to rise to the occasion.  He was spectacular in his two games.

As far as stories go, I think the best example is Wichita State.  The Wichita State Shockers are not historically a basketball powerhouse, a distinction that belongs to their in-state neighbors, Kansas.  I write in-state neighbors instead of in-state rivals for a reason.  Wichita State and Kansas are not rivals.  Kansas, the blue bloods of the Big 12, would not condescend to play the local state school from the podunk Missouri Valley Conference.  In fact, Kansas hadn't agreed to play WSU since 1993.

In 2007, Wichita State Coach Gregg Marshall took over a middling team with little basketball tradition and soon had the Shockers winning 30 games a year.  Tournament wins followed and in 2013 they lost in the finals to Louisville.  Marshall turned Wichita State into a Final Four team, but Kansas still wouldn't play them.  Chris Webber even said on national television that Kansas was scared to play Wichita State.  Finally, the Selection Committee took matters into their own hands, because that's what they do.

Kansas, are you listening?

In the 2015 tournament, Kansas and Wichita State were positioned just like Duke and UCF in 2019--if they both won their first round matchups, they would play each other.  When they each won, the state of Kansas went crazy.  Most of America had no idea what was going on behind the scenes of this game.  Because I happened upon an article about the bad blood between the schools and saw a story, I picked Wichita State to win.  I was sure Wichita State would be looking for vengeance.  Sure enough, it was a 78-65 shellacking that was far worse than the score shows.  Kansas didn't have a chance.  And even though WSU lost their next game to Notre Dame, Shocker Nation didn't care.  They had beat Kansas.

So what's the point?  I think we can get more out of March Madness.  Of course, you can continue filling out multiple brackets in an effort to hedge your way to the top.  Or, considering my 7 year old beat 95% of ESPN talking heads both of the last two years, you can fill out your bracket to maximize your tournament enjoyment.  Create one bracket, look for players you want to root for, teams with a chip on their shoulder, and coaches who know how to squeeze out tournament success.

This year I felt Virginia's story demanded my attention.  I picked them to go to the final against my beloved Blue Devils, then I stared at that matchup for quite awhile.  I knew Duke gave Virginia two of their three losses on the season, and I also knew Duke had a transcendent star in Zion Williamson.  But I feared Duke couldn't beat Virginia three times in one year, and I also saw Tom Izzo's MSU team standing in Duke's way.  Izzo just knows how to hit the kill button in March.

I was at an impasse.

In the end, I stuck with my rule to choose Duke, knowing I would never forgive myself if Zion cut down the nets in April.  Duke was my team, and Zion was this year's star.  Surely that was more significant than Virginia's story.

This confluence of storylines, stars, and coaches made this year's tournament especially enjoyable.  Johnny and Aubrey Dawkins vs. Coach K and Zion; Pitino/Pitino and Izzo; Duke and Virginia.  In the end, Virginia's story was just too strong, their desire for redemption too great.  It's stories like theirs that makes March Madness so magical, we just need to look for them.  I promise the Selection Committee is doing just that.  March Madness is much more fun if we stop seeing our brackets as applications to Goldman Sachs and start incorporating its stories into our own.

Long live March Madness, and three cheers for an eight team College Football Playoff!

Literature Professors Unleashed

I believe Victor Hugo wrote Les Miserables to be a modern, updated, french epic in the model of The Iliad, The Aeneid, and Paradise Lost.  I also contend that Dostoyevsky intended the same with The Brothers Karamazov.  Their chief innovation, of course, was to write in prose rather than in poetic form.  But it doesn't end there.  While The Aenied and The Iliad captured the deeds of some hero past in order to exalt and establish a national identity, Hugo and Dostoyevsky wrote aspirationally.  They created modern heroes Jean Valjean and Alyosha Karamazov to embody the principles each author believed France and Russia respectively needed in order to promote and protect national interests and identity going forward.  Both authors hit their target, for few characters have moved me more than Valjean and Alyosha.

I believe Hugo and Dostoyevsky patterned their epic novels after epic poems purposefully, not incidentally.  For example, some argue that myth theory exists because we all come divinely pre-programmed with the essential elements of myth, and that each of our filaments, à la T.S. Eliot, require no outside training or influence to drum the beats of myth.  It's just part of us.  Others argue that we are all exposed to so much myth theory at such an early age that we are all just parroting it.  While I personally subscribe to the divine interpretation of myth theory, I believe that both Hugo and Dostoyevsky deliberately mined the epic poems for themes, patterns, and constructions to model in their signature novels.  How many pages did Hugo spend in the Paris sewers again?  That's an underworld montage if we've ever seen one.  

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

My best evidence is that Crime and Punishment, as well as The Hunchback of Notre Dame can both be considered modern approximations of a Greek tragedy (especially Hunchback, where every character of worth dies, and every wretch wins).  Dostoyevsky and Hugo each wrote their tragedy, and they each wrote their epic.  I believe there is significant intrinsic evidence within the texts, as well as extrinsic evidence from the authors' lives, to support my thesis, but frankly I don't have the time or expertise to find them all.  Someone who speaks Greek, Latin, French, Russian, or some combination of the same, is far better qualified to make these arguments.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to engage in such an endeavor, unless you are a Comp Lit professor stuck in the messed-up world of academic publishing in literary departments.  So, in truth this post is part "punt" and part critique.  

I've never understood the point of academic writing by Lit professors.  Why aren't they all writing novels and poetry?  As an English major, I read fabulous novels from great minds, only to pick them apart in essays that were completely different in style and purpose from the books they vivisected.  Writing about novels is not necessarily good training for writing novels.  People who are good at writing about novels are not necessarily good at writing novels.  Therefore, Lit professors are not generally novelists.  What a waste.  At its highest level, Literature departments reward regurgitative research instead of creation.  Currently, Lit professors must publish rarely-read scholarly articles to remain employed.

"Publish or perish" is a popular saying in academia.  Natural science professors write papers about ideas and discoveries that actually move scientific thought forward.  Social science professors write articles that can and do effect public policy.  English professors write about how a particular author's childhood experiences manifest in his or her writing.  *Yawn*  How does that move society forward?  No doubt there are Lit professors who disagree and can marshall points in support of such articles, but the simple truth is: Their articles do not get read, even within the field.

The Inklings was the name of the writing club J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis belonged to while on the faculty at Oxford.  Western civilization owes a lot to the Inklings—especially Orlando Bloom.  Why aren't humanities departments modeled after the Inklings?  I can only think of two English academic papers that have significantly contributed to society.  One was about Jane Austen's early life and led to the movie Becoming Jane.  The other was about Beatrix Potter and led to the movie Miss Potter.  Both are great films and both no doubt owe their existence to some Lit professor's academic paper. Thank you, wherever you are.  But how many trees had to die for humanities academic journals so that the world could enjoy these two movies?  Does anyone else read these articles besides aspiring screenwriters?  

I believe every Literature department should be like the Inklings, savage feedback and all.  Unfortunately, such change is unlikely to come from within.  Lit department heads were granted advance degrees not based on their creative works, but rather based on their textual analysis.  Why are we applying the scientific method to Literature?  Even Descartes would be offended.  My English degree was fabulous preparation . . . for my law degree.  Law journals are an entirely different animal from academic Lit publishing.  Attorneys (and even judges) routinely cite legal articles by law professors.  Even published legal articles by law students (called "notes") find their way into the holdings of legal opinions.  Every student in every law school is trained to research legal articles by law professors as a way to discover innovative arguments to support their clients' claims and defenses.  Like scientific journals, legal journals can and do change the world. 

Great novels change the world as well, one beautiful life at a time.  Literature departments should be petri dishes of creativity, fomenting great writing through local, regional, national, and university presses.  What benefit to a university does all the current academic Lit froth create?  Every university president should covet the benefits of even one marginally successful novel every five years from the university's literature faculty.  Publicity like that is a game changer.  Universities should not only encourage creative works, but also receive a (fair) share of the profits created thereby.

Obviously, this turns the academic Lit world on its head.  How would universities determine tenure?  Each university Inklings group would peer review the works of its faculty, and perhaps that of other university faculties.  Short story magazines and journals would proliferate, to the benefit of all (if you haven't read E.B. White's short stories, you are really missing out).   Submissions granted publication would carry significant weight, of course.  As it stands, Lit professor contracts are tied only to academic publishing.  In most instances, these contracts expressly state that creative works, submissions, and even publications will not impact tenure determination.  That is scandalous and soul crushing.

There is, of course, benefit to learning how to write and defend a thesis based on textual analysis.  Every scientist learns how to do this first in high school English before using those skills to immortalize their proven scientific hypotheses.  This instruction should be available and enforced in general, required writing courses, not beaten to death in the world of humanities academia.  Effective writing can and should be taught as part of every discipline, but there is no real-world need for the hyper-trained literary analysts that Lit professors become.        

From Blankets by Craig Thompson

The world's Literature professors, they who have the great works of the western world distilled upon their minds like the dews of Milton's highest heaven, are today sitting in their offices straining at gnats.  We should not tolerate this waste of the human spirit.  Universities should encourage and incentivize Literature professors to contribute to the body of creative works they have spent their lives studying.  Sometimes, those who teach can also do.  

Let's give them a shot.  

Kaepernick or Tillman? Maybe It's Both...

When I was at BYU, a black student ran for student body president.  I immediately told my friends that he would win in a landslide. When they asked me why I was so sure, I said, “Very few students care who is student body president, therefore few will actually do any real research.  However, most are conscientious enough to actually vote. So in the absence of any real information, the vast majority will say, “I have no idea who to vote for, but choosing a white student I don’t know over a black student I don’t know would be racist, and since I’m not racist, I’m voting for the black student.”

Sure enough, the black student won by a large margin.  In the months following his victory, I had a few opportunities to get to know the new president, Robert J. Foster, and it became abundantly clear that Rob was a phenomenal human being by any measure.  I doubt he remembers me or our brief interactions, but I still remember how he treated me on one occasion. We were in a meeting where there were many students and many ideas shared.  I don’t remember the topic, but I do remember that I raised my hand at one point and made a comment that I knew significantly moved the dialogue forward. He looked at me and nodded as I spoke, and then after the meeting he went out of his way to find me in the crowd to discuss my idea and to thank me.  As he did so, he looked at me with gratitude and sincere appreciation. I truly felt that he saw me, saw my desire for goodness and my capacity to help make good things happen.  He wasn’t threatened, he was a secure leader. I have never forgotten that brief interaction.

I am a fifth generation native Californian, born in Petaluma.  I was then raised in a suburb of Seattle at the height of the Microsoft era. I saw the homes of Bill Gates and Paul Allen go up on Lake Washington.  I attended BYU in Provo, Utah. I am entirely a product of the West, and I did not grow up seeing racism. I honestly do not remember either parent of mine ever saying anything negative about anyone because of the color of their skin at any time in my life.  I do not doubt that there is racism in the West, but I did not witness any of it.

I met and married my wonderful wife while we were students at BYU.  She was born in Idaho and grew up in Montana. After we both graduated, I was accepted at Duke University School of Law, and we left the West with our 1 year old baby and another baby on the way.

Durham, North Carolina was a very new experience.  I had been a missionary for our Church in Chile for two years and my wife had done the same in southern Spain.  I’m satisfied you can’t call people wholly naive who have spent 10% of their lives wading into the the lives of others to help them believe in God.  We had seen a lot of poverty, pain, heartache, and tragedy up close and personal. But there was something different about Durham, something I couldn’t put my finger on.  It took me a few weeks to figure out what was bothering me so much. Finally, the supermarket experience helped me figure it out.

I was walking down a long aisle in a Durham supermarket.  I realized that my item was not on that aisle, so I continued to the end.  There was a black man about my age, 25-30, coming towards me in the aisle. He also seemed to be doing the same, just walking to the end of the aisle.  He wasn’t actively searching the shelves. Being a friendly person, I attempted to make eye contact with him for several seconds as we approached one another, so that I could say “hello.”  He never looked at me. He didn’t look away, he didn’t look down, he just looked right past me. There was no pride on his face, no smirk, no evidence that he was trying to ignore me or diminish me.  As he walked past, my overwhelming impression was that he was merely assuming that I would ignore him. I was dumbfounded.

As I came to the end of the aisle and turned to the left, I immediately walked past a white man of about 30 pushing his shopping cart.  He nodded at me and smiled at me like I was in his club. It wasn’t a friendly smile, it was a confidential smile, if that makes sense.  The immediate contradiction between the two interactions was horrifying to me and I almost yelled at him, “I am not in your club!  WE--YOU and I--do not have a club!”

Again and again during our three years in Durham, my wife and I were saddened by how surprised black people were at merely being treated decently.  We did not go out of our way to do so, did not make any special effort, and did not treat the white people we encountered any differently. The reactions of the black people would typically follow a predictable arc: surprise, delight, distrust, and then normalcy.  At first they were surprised at being addressed as an equal, then they were delighted by it, then they wondered what it was we wanted from them, but finally they realized we were just being ourselves and settled into a normal, healthy interaction. The above arc describes our interactions with normal, black, North Carolina residents with whom we interacted in the community.

My black peers at the law school were not immediately surprised to be treated well, and are some of the finest individuals I have ever met. People like Chris Richardson, Venroy July, and Jonathan Calmore, to name a few.  But even they knew what it was like to be marginalized. I have heard many of these honest, accomplished, and talented individuals share stories of having to put their head down and just take undeserved abuse from authority figures, merely for being black.  Their stories infuriate me. If someone had treated me as they had been treated, I know that I would not have been able to humbly take it, that I would have fought back.

One day during law school, I overheard a black, female law student’s conversation with a friend.  This particular woman had always impressed me. She was kind, competent, and extremely intelligent.  She was talking about racism and I heard her say, “I almost prefer those who are openly racist with me, because then at least I know where I stand.”  I knew that she and I had interacted frequently during our time at law school, and that she could never say that I had been openly racist to her. Did that mean that she trusted me less?  Did that mean that she suspected I was secretly racist, and that I thought less of her? I admit that initially I was worried about me and how she saw me.  But then I began to try and imagine the experiences she must have gone through that she would say such a thing.  My heart ached for her and so many who must feel similarly.

These experiences provide a backdrop for my thoughts on the NFL kneeling issue.  It is painful to see so many good friends and family members so vehemently disagree about this.  What if I told you that everyone (almost) is right? Too many are talking past each other, and it is because too many are speaking a different dialect, and don’t even know it.

One such dialect is the military dialect.  In the military, the flag is revered to a degree most regular citizens cannot even comprehend.  To those in the military, our flag is a symbol of the sacrifices and risks every service man and service woman makes for our country.  Those sacrifices are extreme and over time those sacrifices begin to coalesce around the symbol of the flag and the national anthem.  This is by design. Military involvement is dangerous work, and symbols and mantras and ideals are used to help assuage the emotional toll.

Even more importantly, to our wonderful service men and women the flag comes to represent not just their own living sacrifices, but the sacrifices of all those who came before them.  Specifically, those heroic men and women who have given their lives for our country. This heightened reverence for the flag is not limited to those who have served, but emanates from them throughout their immediate and extended families.  Over time, a veteran’s respect for the flag becomes readily apparent to those around him or her, causing a similar increase in respect and reverence in an outward-extending rippling effect. My two grandfathers served in the military, and one graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. Do I betray them and their military service if I support those who kneel during the national anthem?

This heightened respect for the flag within our country just is, and everyone involved in this discussion needs to accept its very relevant place in the dialogue about kneeling during the national anthem.  For the many Americans who don’t understand the strong emotional reaction many have against the kneelers, this greater understanding about what the flag and the national anthem mean to so many among us should help explain.

To illustrate this cultural difference, allow me to explain a unique feature of latin american culture.  There are not “Yo Momma” jokes in latin america. There is no such thing as a funny “Yo Momma” joke there.  Here in America, we understand that “Yo Momma” jokes are not referencing your mother, or any mother in particular, but rather a nebulous, nowhere, “neutral” mother.  One can argue that “Yo Momma” jokes are in bad taste, but few in America would say they are extremely insulting, or that they qualify as “fighting words.”

Not so in latin america.

While I was a missionary in Chile, I worked with a missionary from Argentina who was about the most cheerful and hilarious fellow I’ve ever known. In our apartment, there were three of us from America and the one Argentinian. The four of us became great friends during our time serving together. During one period of rest, the topic of “Yo Momma” jokes came up.  My Argentinian friend couldn’t believe that we joked about our own mothers in such a way, he found it extremely offensive.

We explained that we weren’t talking about our mothers, or anyone else’s mother for that matter.  We broke down the jokes for him and their cultural context. After awhile, he began to understand. We decided to take it a step further and explained that we wanted to engage in a social experiment where we made “Yo Momma” jokes to him in Spanish to see if he could be conditioned not to have such a strong reaction.  He agreed.

The result was fascinating.  After we had explained the cultural context, but before we were making the jokes directly to him, he was able to crack a smile at a few of the jokes and see some of the humor in the most innocent of Yo Momma jokes.  Once we began saying them directly to him; however, his response was visceral. So strong was his cultural opposition to denigrating one’s mother, he could not help but get riled up at the quite innocuous jokes we related.  He knew we loved him, he knew we had never seen or met his mother, he knew it was just an experiment, and he knew that we were not serious. Nevertheless, we could see him physically struggle with the confluence of emotional waves peaking within him.

It was eye opening.

Like the flag and national anthem, the president of the United States of America is also a symbol of our nation.  However, that symbol is not static. There is a new face every four to eight years. Many people will honor and revere the office and the individual one year, only to decry and demean the office and the new individual immediately after the next election.  Most Americans would say that the office of the President of the United States is one of our nation’s greatest symbols, and that denunciations of any currently sitting president is a reviling of the man and not the country or office he represents. One of the great traits of our republic is that we are free to oppose the president while maintaining our patriotism.  More specifically, we are free to oppose the president without going to jail or to the guillotine. This is one of the greatest of American innovations. Opposition to a King had always been treason, but here in America, as well as in the rest of America’s democratic progeny, opposition to the executive does not necessarily mean one is unpatriotic.

I submit that those who kneel during the anthem, and their supporters, are applying the same logic of opposing the president to the flag and national anthem.  They are opposing what they see as unjust components of of the American experience, without opposing all the good, or diminishing those who have sacrificed their lives to protect our country. And, since many of them do not have the heightened cultural reverence of the flag and national anthem that comes with military service, they are confused as to why their protest against the national anthem engenders so much more hatred than any everyday American’s rant about the president.  We as Americans have peacefully coexisted with our fellow Americans with opposing presidential preferences for centuries. The are our friends, co-workers, and family members. Another hallmark of Americanism is that we can agree to disagree about the president agreeably. "Then why not the flag and national anthem?" some wonder.

For many Americans, the flag does not primarily represent their own sacrifices in the military, or the military lives lost protecting our soil.  For many Americans, the flag represents the whole melting pot of our country, all of its history and opportunity, of which the military is one important part, but not the only part.  And unfortunately, many Americans have been repeatedly pushed to the bottom of that melting pot and been scalded. Just as a large pot can produce many bowls of delicious soup and still have caked on muck at the bottom, many of us floating in the middle or at the top of the American melting pot do not fully understand what it has felt like to be at the bottom.  This is especially true in the western United States.

I have a close family member who lives in a mid-sized, western city that has a military base among its population.  He did not serve in the military, but he is vehemently opposed to the kneelers. A discussion with him was very revealing.  Among his comments were the following, “most of the black people in this town are soldiers from the local army base. They are among the best men and women I have ever met.  I have never heard any of them complain about racism here, and never once heard anyone else ever speak ill of them or any other black person.”

There is a lot going on in his statement, so allow me to unpack it, (1) his own experience with black Americans has been entirely positive; (2) his own experience with white treatment of black Americans has been entirely positive; and most importantly (3) his own impression of black Americans is entirely positive!  He is not racist, and he is deeply and genuinely offended at any suggestion that he is.  He is not racist and he does not see racism.

He is like I was before I went to North Carolina.  He and I grew up in largely a post-racist society. When I went to Durham, I was thrust into a late-racist society.  I am sensitive to the fact that I painting an entire region with a broad brush. However, all I can do is speak to my own experience, and I am applying what I believe is my own objective analysis to how racist a particular region is. My measurement is:

In general, how surprised is the local black population to be treated with basic human dignity by a newly encountered white person?  

Having lived in Seattle, Provo, Rhode Island, Houston, and Durham for significant periods of time, I believe I am qualified to share my personal experiences and opinion on the regional differences of this particular indicator.  Houston is significantly better than Durham, Rhode Island even better than Houston, and Seattle and Provo are even better still.

Why is this important?  It is important because my family member does not react to racism in the same way he doesn’t react to “Yo Momma” jokes. However, blacks around the country, and especially in certain regions, live with racism on a daily basis in a way that many whites across the country have no context for.  The Yo Momma jokes are ripping them apart. Had I never lived in North Carolina, I would never have believed it. It was only after having many black friends share personal stories with me where they feared for their lives for no other reason than driving while black, that I began to understand the severity of the racism they deal with. While these instances are more common in the South, they are found everywhere in our nation.

The result of these cultural distinctions is that we are talking past each other. We need to start listening to one another, and start saying different things:

I am so sorry that you lost your son in the service, I understand that the national anthem means something to you that it couldn’t possibly mean to me based on my life experience.  Please, please believe me when I say that for me, supporting the kneelers does not mean I dishonor your son!

or

I am so, so sorry that you have been treated horribly for merely being black.  That is unacceptable and unfair and I can see how your American experience has not been the same as mine and why you might feel there is a need for change, and a need to protest the national anthem. I understand that your doing so is not intended to reject our fallen soldiers. 

There are some who oppose the kneelers who are actually racist.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who oppose the kneelers have more cultural experience and background with the flag/military culture than they do with the racism/mistreatment culture.  They aren’t racist themselves and they just don’t have significant or meaningful interactions with the reality of racism. For them, kneeling during the anthem is like Yo Momma jokes for my Argentinian friend. It is too emotionally difficult.

There may be some who support the kneelers who wish to see America brought down.  But it is my experience, and my profound belief, that the vast majority of Americans who support the kneelers earnestly believe that it is possible to support better treatment for black Americans without in any way dishonoring the military, our veterans, or our fallen heroes. For these Americans, those who oppose kneelers seem to be ignoring the damaging treatment of black Americans, and it hurts them emotionally just like Yo Momma jokes hurt my Argentinian friend.

Too many of us are reacting emotionally based on our own cultural experiences.  My hope is that both sides might try harder to feel what the other feels, and that both sides may not give in so easily to the “either/or” trap.  America is built on our founders’ ability to avoid the either/or trap. It didn’t have to be either states’ rights or federal rights. It could be both.  The simple truth is that some things are better handled by the states, and others by the federal government. People may disagree about which things, but people who are honest with themselves have to admit that depending on the issue, we all bang the drum for states rights for some things, and then bang the drum for federal rights on others. I do not betray my grandfathers by supporting the kneelers, but rather honor their service. Is it possible to betray our veterans by pursuing the very ideals they fought and died to protect?

America is here because we repeatedly figure out ways not to get stuck in “either/or”.  It is okay for many of us to feel emotionally troubled by kneeling during the national anthem, and still be very supportive of justice for black Americans.  No amount of logic is going to make the emotional turmoil go away, it is ingrained in us. It is also okay for many of us to support those who kneel during the anthem, and still feel proud to be an American and honor our service men and women as well as those who have given our lives for our country. No amount of anger over kneeling during the anthem is going to make our emotional turmoil over racism go away.

We can honor our military AND demand justice and equality for all because we are American, and that’s what we do.  We get things done.

Democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, electricity, telephone, flight, computers, internet, and on and on. We get things done.

America, we’ve got this.

Why are we the Salt of the Earth?

Jesus Christ described His believers as “the salt of the earth.”  Matthew 5:13.  I don’t believe there is just one interpretation of this scripture, but there is one that has been a blessing in my life and that I haven’t heard anywhere else.  

I believe that when Christ called us salt, he was referring specifically to the salt added to the sacrifices required by the law of Moses in ancient Israel.  In Israel, the salt added to the burnt offerings of the Jews created a “sweet savour” intended to rise up to God.  Today, we can add a sweet savour to the sacrifices and suffering of both Christ and our fellow men by helping others come unto Christ and by acting as our brother’s keeper.  

The connection between Christ’s New Testament declaration that we are the salt of the earth and the salt used in the burnt offerings of ancient Israel came to me at a BBQ, of all places.  Many years ago, I was present somewhere meat was cooking over a flame.  I noticed that the meat didn’t smell very appetizing.  

A few minutes later, I was struck by a sudden change in the aroma--the meat now smelled very good.  I asked the chef what he had done, and he simply stated that he had added salt.  Sensing there may be some significance to this, I decided to study the references to salt in the scriptures.

Leviticus 2:13 says, “And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.”  Salt was a required part of every meat offering made by the children of Israel.  The Old Testament references the “sweet savour” created by these offerings 43 different times.  Numbers 28:6 says, “It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord.”  

It is the salt that makes the offering “sweet.”  Otherwise, it is just raw, burning flesh.  I believe this idea of a sweet savour applies to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, as well.  His suffering is a free gift for all who are willing to hear and do His word.  Whether we accept Christ or not, “[s]urely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”  Isaiah 53:4-5.  

Christ suffered for the sins of all, even those who don’t accept Him.  When we act as His undershepherds and help someone to repent of their sins and accept Christ, we act as the salt on that portion of Christ’s suffering.  That repentance makes His sacrifice sweet to Him and sends up a “sweet savour” unto the Lord.  When we “lift up the hands that hang down, and the feeble knees”, we act as the salt on that individual’s sacrifice or suffering, giving it meaning and making it “sweet.”  Hebrews 12:12.

Christ’s disciples in His day understood what He meant by calling them the salt of the earth.  Ephesians 5:2 says, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.”  And in 2nd Corinthians 2:15, it says, “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ[.]”  

I love the symbolism of a sweet savour.  I imagine that savour rising up to God from the temple in Jerusalem in ancient Israel, and today that savour rises up all over the world as we help others come unto Christ, or to feel His love and watchcare.  Even the original passage itself supports this application.  Matthew 5:13 states, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?  It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”  Christ uses the word salt in direct relation to savour.

I am not the savouriest salt around.  I do not lift my eyes to the needs of those around me as often as I could or should.  I frequently put myself ahead of others and miss their suffering or needs entirely.  But this idea of the salt of the earth serving as a symbol of ancient Israel and Christ’s sacrifice helps me to be better.  I love the idea that our efforts to bring others unto Him can make His sacrifice sweet to Him, over and over again.  We also make the suffering of those around us sweet when we mourn with them, comfort them, and serve them.

May we all strive to remember that Christ never wished anyone to sacrifice without salt, even Himself.  There are the raw and hurt all around us, waiting for the sweetness to come--waiting for us to help send up a sweet savour unto the Lord. One of the scribes of Jesus' day understood this. After asking Christ which is the first commandment of all and hearing the response, the scribe said, "Well, Master, thou has said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." Mark 12:32-33.

"And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou are not far from the kingdom of God." Id. at verse 34. It is love for God and others that sends up that sweet savour.

Why I'm Voting for Evan McMullin

A few years ago, I read the story of a man who attended a parent meeting at his children’s high school.  The meeting's purpose was to outline the school’s sex education program, and the father wanted to know what his children would be learning.  

After sitting quietly for a few minutes as various birth control methods were discussed, the man raised his hand and quietly asked, “what about abstinence?”  There was some scattered laughter and the instructor smiled smarmily as she informed the man that they were going to focus on more “realistic” methods.

After a few more minutes, the instructor indicated that there would be a short break for cookies and juice and encouraged the parents to introduce themselves and enjoy a snack.

Everyone stood up, except for the one father.  It wasn’t that he felt full, or that he didn’t want to meet the other parents, he just had this overwhelming feeling that he should stay seated.  The feeling perplexed him. He didn’t want to seem stand-offish and certainly didn’t want to offend.  But there he sat, rooted to his seat, alone while everyone else ate and mingled.  

After a few minutes, the instructor called the meeting together and once everyone was seated, she segued into a discussion about Sexually Transmitted Diseases.  She made it clear that the mix and mingle session was timed and designed to demonstrate how STD’s can be spread among a population.  She said, “I want you to imagine that STD’s are passed by a simple handshake, and that now each and every one of you now have an STD.”

The man stood up, and as humbly as he could muster, said, “we don’t all have an STD...one of us abstained.”  

For some reason, that story provides the context for my support of Evan McMullin.  I simply cannot hold my nose and vote for either Clinton or Trump.  

I believe that Evan McMullin is the best option, and thanks to Utah, voting for McMullin may actually make it possible to avoid Clinton and Trump.  Avoid Clinton and Trump?  Yes, please.  

People may feel that McMullin isn’t qualified, but I disagree.  I don’t actually believe there are only a handful of people who could adequately serve as President.  As an attorney I interact with a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life and I am frequently surprised by the depth of understanding, analysis, and common sense from what the political elites call the “masses” or the “sheeple.”  That being said, McMullin has a lot more experience than most.

According to Nate Silver at five-thirty-eight, McMullin only has a chance to win Utah, but that may be enough.  If McMullin wins Utah and neither Trump nor Clinton wins 270 electoral votes, those three candidates will be put before a House vote. But, who’s to say the House chooses McMullin over Trump?  

That is where the rest of the nation comes in.  Many House Republicans don’t like Trump, but they may be afraid of inflaming their electorates by voting for McMullin if it is put before the House.  By voting for McMullin in states other than Utah, moral Republicans send a message that they won’t punish their House Republican Representatives for voting for McMullin if it goes to a House vote.  

Some people say that a vote for McMullin is a vote against a conservative Supreme Court.  I say that I refuse to throw away the moral high road in the name of the moral high road.  There is no guarantee that Trump will appoint moral, conservative Justices, but there is a guarantee that by putting Trump into office, we lose the right to use private behavior to exclude from public office forever.  Liberal Emperor Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law Professor, has said that Americans rely too much on the personal lives of its politicians in deciding whom to vote for.  I disagree. We have differentiated ourselves from most other foreign governments by historically refusing to consider adulterers etc.  

We cannot allow that ship to sail.  

Some might say that a vote for McMullin is a vote against women.  I hear all the time the accusation that people aren’t voting for Hillary merely because she is a woman.  I don’t doubt that there are some who feel this way, but I do not believe that most who oppose Hillary do so merely because she is a women.  

Liberals tend to divide Republicans into two camps: dumb Republicans, and (in their minds) a much smaller group of confounded “thinking” Republicans.  Even assuming this characterization to be true, the former group certainly didn’t hold Sarah Palin’s gender against her and the latter holds Margaret Thatcher up to legendary status.  I am no fan of Palin, but I suspect that most liberals accusing so called “dumb” Republicans of being prejudiced against Hillary have conveniently ignored their prior smugness about these same “dumb” Republican’s adoration of Sarah Palin.  

I personally would love for all the women in the world to know that a woman can be President of the greatest nation on earth.  But not Hillary.  There is a lot to dislike about Hillary, but at the end of the day the thing that I have the hardest time with, and this may sound odd, is Hillary’s treatment of staff and secret service agents.  There is a lot of evidence that she treats the people who work for her, and who protect her, horribly.  

I once worked at a large, International law firm where I saw many attorneys treat the staff like furniture.  It broke my heart to walk by human beings who anticipated that I would ignore them. My life has been greatly blessed by incredible paralegals, secretaries and case managers over the years.  They are my co-workers and my friends and I am still in touch with many of them.  They are human beings who have been a great blessing to my practice, to my family, and to my life.  

Hillary’s treatment of those she sees as beneath her may seem a small thing, especially in comparison to Trump’s many misdeeds, but for me it is why I accept as plausible most of the other bad things said about Hillary.  Her treatment of those who help her hasn’t given me any reason to give her the benefit of the doubt.  It may be a straw, but to me it shows the direction the wind blows.  Again, I am not defending Trump in any way, but merely saying that Hillary, too, is unacceptable to me, independent of, and prior to this email fiasco.  

Some say that this is all too far fetched and that a vote for McMullin is a vote for futility.  To them I would cite the story of Helmuth Hubener...

Hubener was a German teenager who was born after his mother was raped by her boss.  Hubener spent a lot of time living with his grandparents, and one evening after they had gone to bed, he holed up in an attic room of their home and listened to a forbidden BBC radio news show broadcasted in German.  As he listened, Helmuth Hubener felt strongly that the BBC report was telling the truth about Hitler.  

Unable to stay silent, Hubener began a clandestine resistance to Hitler with two other teenagers.  He used a government typewriter and government stamped paper to denounce Hitler as a murderer and repeatedly posted the flyers all over his city in the dead of night.  

Hubener and his two young associates were eventually caught and tried before Germany’s highest court, the infamous Blood Tribunal.  The two other boys were sentenced to work camps, and Hubener was executed by guillotine on his mother’s birthday.  And to what avail?  What benefit did Hubener’s tiny, insignificant resistance serve?  Quite a lot, actually.

When Germany started to put itself back together after the war, the guilt was tremendous.  “How could we have done such horrible things?  How can we ever hope to move forward?”  Broken-hearted Germans clung to stories like Helmuth Hubener’s, “we weren’t all bad, we weren’t all blind, there was good among us, there is good among us, we can move forward, we can be better!”  

Helmut Hubener was a Mormon, like Evan McMullin.  McMullin’s candidacy may seem small or insignificant, but like he says, it’s never too late to do the right thing.  I, unfortunately, don’t see a lot of good coming from a Clinton or Trump presidency; however, I am encouraged that there is still a lot of good in this country and remain hopeful that the best is yet to come. I, like many across America, will abstain from Clinton and Trump, and will continue to work to pick up the pieces of my party and put it back where it belongs.

You are, of course, free to vote for a man who has made a mockery of marriage and women, but do not be offended if many of us Republicans abstain.  We will not allow this, the party of Lincoln, to be hijacked by the likes of Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani, who come to us like ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing.  By their fruits we already know them.  If they can’t keep their promises to their wives, how can we expect them to keep their promises to us? You might see them as men who have accomplished much, I only see them as men who picked the banner they thought would get them the furthest, for as long as it was convenient to them. Why is it that the term RINO is used most vehemently against those in our party whose policies seem less conservative and not against those whose morals are the most lacking?

I wish McMullin wasn’t the best option.  I wish another candidate had won the Republican nomination.  I wish Romney chose Rubio instead of Ryan, I wish Petraeus hadn’t pulled a Hamilton and had been available for Romney to choose instead of Rubio or Ryan.  I wish McCain hadn’t have pulled a Hamilton years ago so he could have been selected instead of Quayle.  Then the Clintons would never have existed beyond Arkansas….  

But I can’t have what I wish for, all I can do is vote my conscience, even if it is on a wing and a prayer. I don’t know about you, but I have seen amazing things happen on a wing and a prayer.  And so tomorrow I will be voting for Evan McMullin.  I invite you to do so as well.