The NFL Players Association

The NFL owners and the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) are locked in mediation regarding a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The current one is set to expire on Friday night. Failure to reach an agreement will precipitate a lockout, litigation, or a combination of the two--and put the 2011 NFL season in doubt.

I have no problem with the owners and the players (and even their union) enjoying the capitalistic enterprise of negotiating salaries--very large salaries, in many cases. Certainly, it makes sense that free-market principles are brought to bear, and that greater talent and success generate greater incomes.

But this evening, I read an article on espn.com that, among other things, outlined many of the demands that the NFLPA is making of the owners. Most of the ones mentioned in the article are issues of "transparency;" basically, the NFLPA wants to know every little nitty-gritty detail of the incomes, expenses, and profits of the league and its 32 franchises.

And here, I believe, they have crossed a line. The owners of the NFL franchises are the ones that have taken the financial risks: They build (or co-opt state and local governments) stadia and other facilities; they make multi-million dollar marketing decisions; they choose, sign, and pay players. Without their financial investments, the NFL does not exist. The NFL and its 32 teams have no obligation whatsoever to disclose their sensitive financial information to anyone to whom they do not wish to do so. (Well, except maybe the IRS.)

To hear the head of NFLPA speak, however, you would think it is absolutely necessary for the union to have access to all such information...you know, so they can make "more informed" decisions in the bargaining process.

I don't think so. If the NFLPA really thinks it can do so much better, why doesn't it take all of its players and start another football league? Since football is still likely to be popular, and since the player talent level would remain about the same, surely they, too, could make mountains of money?

But they won't. They would prefer to squeeze the golden goose. Let's just hope they do not suffocate it.

Some People Still Love Hymns

I encountered a fascinating article today about hymns that are perpetually popular. A survey was done of hymnals of six mainline Protestant denominations (Anglican (Episcopal), American Baptist, Congregational (United Church of Christ), Lutheran (ELCA), United Methodist, Presbyterian Church (USA)) from the 1870's to the 2006 Lutheran hymnal. The survey included a total of 28 hymnals. It was found that 27 hymns were found in at least 26 of the hymnals; 13 hymns were found in all of them.

The good news: Every single one of these hymns is an excellent hymn! You can see the full list here; if you have grown up in a church that uses a hymnal in any of these denominations, you should recognize most, if not all, of them.

And why are they kept in the hymnals from generation to generation? Because people value them. They recognize the timeless biblical truths, taking comfort in God's Word and promises. They recognize, at some level, the intersection of biblical worship and biblical truth.

Because the survey of hymnals includes those dating back to the antebellum period, hymns that have become better known in the past 150 years do not appear on the list. This might explain why you don't see certain of your favorites.

In the summer of 2009 I blogged about what I thought were the "Top Ten Hymns"; two of them, as well as two of my runners-up, were on this list (and in retrospect, I really dropped the ball by not including "O For A Thousand Tongues to Sing").

Of the 27 hymns, four of them were written before the 13th century.

The average date of the texts of the other 23 hymns: 1774.

More proof that good music—words and tune alike—stands the test of time. To God be the glory!

Product Endorsement: TI Graphing Calculators

It occurred to me today that it's been over 18 years since I first got my own, brand new, TI-85 graphing calculator. At the time, it was the top of the line, and I was thrilled to have it. And since I have been a math teacher for most of those last 18 years, it has gotten a tremendous amount of use.

And it works just as well today as the day I bought it.

In the meantime, I have added a TI-83 to my calculator collection. I do not use it quite as often as my TI-85, but it, too, has served me well.

One thing I have done just a few times, but which my students have collectively done many times, is to drop my graphing calculator on the floor—often a tile floor, sometimes carpet. I always instinctively cringe whenever I see or hear one of them reach the floor under the influence of gravity—but today I cannot recall a student who had to do anything more than put the batteries back in to get it to work properly. If the product can also survive years in a teen's backpack, then surely it is durable!

I would happily encourage anyone needing a graphing calculator to purchase the appropriate level Texas Instruments machine. They are durable, relatively user-friendly (relative to your mathematical understanding, that is), and even have a pretty good resale value, should you decide to exchange yours for cash.

On Turning Forty

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. (Psalm 90:10)

This verse struck me recently, as I just reached the age of forty. As in, half of fourscore. As in, it is entirely possible that I have reached—nay, surpassed—the halfway point of my earthly days. God could see fit to take my life tomorrow, or He might choose to leave me here until I'm 110. I don't know. But how prepared am I to live the rest of my life?

Spiritually: I was saved over 35 years ago, and to whom much is given, much is required. Although I owe God far more than I can ever repay Him, I do have an obligation to do my best to serve and glorify Him for as long as I can. That's a tall order.

Physically: The doctor says I should diet; he's probably right. I am not as strong or as healthy as I was at age twenty. But if I want to continue avoiding any major health hurdles, self-discipline is required. That's a tall order, too. I like to eat, and I don't care much for exercise.

Family: I have four children who need a loving father who sets a good example of the Christian walk. I have a wife who needs a loving, caring husband. I have bills to pay and needs to meet. Who knows what our family will face in the days ahead? This could be a tall order, too.

I also want to be a positive influence on my grandkids...but that's still quite a few years off. I'll need to prepare for the son-in-law-wannabe interviews, also.

Work: "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might..." (Eccl. 9:10). That's not always easy.

In the world, but not of it: What kind of testimony am I to those around me—especially those who do not know Christ as Savior?


In short, life doesn't get easier at forty! It is a good time to reflect on what God's plan for me will be in the years ahead. I pray that the next forty years will contain more zealous efforts and greater glorifying of Him than the first forty have been.

What To Do In Wisconsin

The short version of the story: Newly-elected GOP legislative majority and GOP governor begin to follow through on campaign promises to cut state spending. Teachers in the public schools are included, and will be expected to receive less generous compensation packages. Unions are outraged; democrats wail and howl.

Then, the 14 remaining democrat members of the Wisconsin Senate flee. Away. To Illinois. Since a quorum of 20 is required, and since there are only 19 Republicans, Senate business has come to a halt.

The fugitive legislators deserve strong criticism for their cowardice and irresponsibility. But they deserve more than that. In the "real world," those of us who don't show up for work—nay, refuse to come to work!—get the axe.

The Wisconsin constitution (I found it here; see p. 63) provides a way for elected officials to be recalled from office. I would encourage everybody who lives in a district represented by one of these fugitive legislators to begin the process by signing petitions to get these folks removed from office. They have abdicated their responsibilities, and therefore, they should be removed from their posts.

Whether or not these 14 like the legislation being debated, and regardless of the number or opinions of those protesters, they were entrusted with a responsibility. If they don't care to fulfill that responsibility, they should no longer hold office.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library

I've only been to California once—a trip to the L.A. area in 2008. One of the things I definitely wanted to do during the three-day trip was to visit the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. It is located atop a mountain (Simi "Valley" seems a bit ironic) and was worth the drive up to the top.

Most attentive people realize today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan. He was unquestionably the greatest president of my lifetime, and I sure do wish someone of his caliber and convictions occupied the White House right now. It saddens me to think that nobody below the age of 25 remembers him as president. The Reagan Library helps to preserve his legacy.


My wife and I had a great visit, and would strongly recommend it to anyone traveling through that region of the country. In addition to many excellent momentoes and reminisces of his presidency, the actual Air Force One of his era (it was replaced by a 747 about a decade ago) was moved to the Museum and placed in a special pavilion for everyone to see.


It is also interesting to note that Reagan loved California. The "land of," that is. I think he would be angered and/or horrified if he could witness the political and social scene now, along with the contempt displayed toward our immigration laws.

More importantly (to me), Reagan loved the United States of America, and was dedicated to keeping it the greatest, freest, strongest country in the world. For that, we should thank God that we could have such a leader at such a time as we did.

When Does Homeschool Start in the Morning?

One of my pet annoyances has to do with church. The church I attend now, as well as the last one I attended in MI before we moved to SC, had Sunday School hour at 10:00, followed by the Morning Worship at 11:00. My wife and children and I were (and are) generally early. Nevertheless, there would always be some who, despite being able the next day to get everyone to school/work/wherever by 8:00 a.m., could not seem to consistently arrive on time to Sunday School from week to week at 10:00.

Worse yet, some skipped Sunday School and still couldn't get to the 11:00 service on time.

I interpret this, in part, to the fact that such people do not deem Sunday School or church to be very important. We live in a culture where virtually all educated Americans understand that punctuality is a positive good. To be late habitually implies either a consistent lack of planning—an issue of concern in its own right—or a treatment of the event as not worthy of importance.

That, however, is not the focus of this post. My last post discussed the fact that "homeschooling in one's pajamas" is not a good thing. This is the sequel, with the following thesis: Homeschooling needs to follow a schedule, and it needs to start at a regular time.

When my wife and I (mostly my wife, of course) began homeschooling two of our children a few years ago, we decided that "school" would start at a regular time each morning, generally right after breakfast and the sending off of the other two children to their school. Essentially, this meant that homeschool started in the vicinity of 7:45 a.m. Because of my wife's efficiency, combined with two above-average little intellects sitting in front of her, her teaching was generally done by 11:00, and the kids had usually completed their work for the day before lunchtime. The advantages were obvious: The afternoon was free for planning, errands, and picking up the other two from their school at about 3:15.

In Year 1, this worked very well for us. In Year 2, I volunteered to assist my wife by teaching our eldest, then in seventh grade, her math and science lessons before I left for work...at 7:45 or so (I also dropped off the younger two at school on my way). This meant she and I were in our little classroom, with breakfast already eaten, by 7:00.

Such a plan certainly isn't for everyone. Nor does it need to be. But it did teach everybody another lesson: The self-discipline to get one's self out of bed, into one's clothes, and breakfasted by a given time in the morning. This is a great lesson to learn!

Furthermore, before the first day of homeschooling each year, we drew up a calendar for the school year, delineating the first and last days of the year, and generally (but not always) observing the same holidays our other kids' school had. This gave some evidence that we had school on a set number of days—even though no such requirement existed in Michigan.

Many homeschoolers, in addition to bragging that they can "homeschool in their pajamas" (see my earlier post), also brag that they get started whenever they get out of bed in the morning—which might not be until 9:30 or 10:00. Some also brag that they begin and end the school year whenever the kids are "done with their lessons," not seeming to realize that this sounds highly ambiguous (or even suspect, to the cynical) to most other people. First, let's consider some reasons to begin the homeschool day at a set time every morning:

1. It teaches self-discipline. When your child gets a job, he'll be expected to consistently show up on time—or he will be relieved of said job. Teaching the child to "get up and at 'em" when young is invaluable to their character development.

2. It sends a message: This is important! Nobody cares when you show up at Wal-Mart. But walk into a wedding 23 minutes late, and you might be ashamed as you sit on the back row. [Or in church, it's reversed: Show up 23 minutes late, and you'll be ashamed as you sit at the front!] When the parent doesn't set the example of getting started, on time, every day, he or she is essentially telling the student that the "event" of homeschooling is not that important.

3. It supports a good reputation for the homeschool community. The average hard-working, law-abiding citizen of this country looks askance at homeschoolers who get their day started whenever it gets started. They perceive such adults (and children) as having a lack of self-discipline, and certainly far less than their own family, who are all at school/work/wherever consistently by a certain time each morning. By extension, they will perceive the homeschooling of that home to be, as I said in the last post, "the shoddy work of amateurs."

The same principle extends to the school year. A lot of us do the math in our heads when we are told that "We started, oh, around September 15 and the kids all finished their lessons by the middle of April," and realize that there seems to be a lot fewer days of school than "normal kids" have. Some of us are open-minded enough to realize that, yes, perhaps an entire year's worth of education was done in that interval (though we reserve skepticism), but many are going to look at such an endeavor as inadequate, below average, or worse. Is that really what the homeschool community wants?

My advice is twofold. First, plan to begin each homeschool day at a set time. Make sure your kids are out of bed, dressed, and fed before that time. Tell your friends not to call you between that time and whatever time you anticipate finishing a normal day of schooling. Let your children know that this time is fixed, and barring an unusual circumstance, will be the starting time each day. Furthermore, I suggest a start time before 9:00 and preferably closer to 8:00, although this must be chosen in light of your family's specific needs.

Second, set the school year in advance. Some will have no choice in the matter if, for example, they have some sort of cyber-school arrangement and have to follow its schedule, or if local regulations dictate this. Have a "first day" of the year. Plan a "last day"—contingent on the children finishing their courses of study. If the children finish ahead of that date, continue to educate them! Furthermore, unless an emergency occurs, don't take "days off" from the calendar. Plan ahead so that you can have school each day it is scheduled.

Don't revel in (what appears to many) your lack of self-discipline. Impress us with your dedication and consistency.

Homeschooling in Your PJ's? A Bad Idea

One of the things many homeschoolers—parents and children alike—say that they like about homeschooling is that they never have to get dressed up: They can have school in their pajamas if they choose. While I have no objection to wearing comfortable clothing, my thesis is that wearing your pajamas (and similar clothing that most decent people wouldn't wear out in public) to teach/learn in the homeschooling environment is a bad idea. And here's why:

1. Clothes send a message. Why do we dress up for certain formal occasions? Why do we look better to go to a wedding than we typically do to go to Wal-Mart? Because dressing up sends a clear message of the importance of the event. By allowing the children to wear pajamas or other clothing normal kids couldn't wear to school sends a message that "homeschooling isn't all that terribly important." The parents are probably speaking the opposite message to their kids; why would they wish to undermine it?

2. The parents are setting an example. Mom (or Dad), if you look like you just rolled out of bed when you are teaching your children, you're communicating that same message: "Homeschooling isn't all that terribly important to me." Get dressed, look presentable, and then get to work. Look the part of a teacher.

3. It's a bad habit. You want your child to be successful and get a good job, right? One where pajamas probably aren't the daily wardrobe? Your children need to understand, both by precept and practice, that "getting dressed" and looking presentable to go out in public are positive things that they need to do. They need to be in the habit of doing this every day...even if they aren't going out in public.

4. It is bad for the reputation of the homeschool community. I think homeschooling can be great if it is done right. I certainly believe that every parent has the right to choose the best educational options for their children. I cringe when I hear people clamoring for the government to step in and "regulate" homeschooling. But as long as there are those in the public who think of homeschoolers, "They really don't do anything. They just sit around in their pajamas and do whatever they want, and claim that going to the grocery store is 'math class,' yada, yada,..." the homeschoolers of our land are going to have to be on the lookout for government intrusion.

I'm afraid that many homeschoolers don't realize that a whole lot of normal, civil, law-abiding fellowcitizens do not take them seriously as educators. And when those fellowcitizens hear, from child or parent, that "school" is done in pajamas [and, just as bad, that they don't start until 9:45 a.m. or whenever they roll out of bed], they, despite their civil demeanor, are thinking to themselves that homeschooling endeavors are nothing more than the shoddy work of amateurs. In many cases, they will paint all homeschoolers with that same brush.

I would encourage every homeschool family to have a "dress code" for both the parent and children. It doesn't have to be their "Sunday best" clothes—Mom may not feel the need to wear nylons, for example—and it should be comfortable. But not slovenly, bummy, or grungy. It needs to be nice enough, though, that it sends a message to the student (and to anyone who may stop by the house during the day) that "school time" is important and worthy of getting dressed for. It should be enforced, too.

And perhaps in my next post, I will discuss why starting the homeschooling day at 9:45 a.m. is just as bad.

Abortion is Murder

I was already reminded this morning that today is the 38th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Since that day, more than 50,000,000 people have been killed while in their mother's wombs--roughly one-fourth of every single pregnancy in America since that time.

Human life begins at conception. Some question that, but the clear teaching of the Bible, the facts of science, and the inevitability of logic point unmistakably to this conclusion. Others have written, more eloquently than I, from biblical, scientific, and logical perspectives, that abortion is nothing but the snuffing out of a human life.

If the life of somebody "outside the womb" is snuffed out by another human being, we call it murder. If the life of somebody "inside the womb" is snuffed out by another human being, it should still be called murder. Abortion, truly, is just a euphemism for murder.