what the hell is wrong with me? what's missing? i have a job. i have an apartment. i have friends. but i feel like there's something wrong. i don't know what it is. it's empty. not from hunger. but it doesn't feel like a lack of fulfillment. it is it anxiety? is it fear? i don't know. and it bothers me. i want to fix the problem. i want to know that i'm okay. and i don't. 

playing hardball

last week i was asked to run for public office.

this isn't the setup to a joke.

a friend called me to say that a municipal public official was not running for re-election and to his knowledge there was no one running for that seat and that i'd be the perfect candidate.

said aloud, the idea sounds perfectly ridiculous. the last campaign of any sort that i was involved in was my victory for vice-president...of the eighth grade. and while i voted in every election, i never followed the day-to-day workings of government until He Who Must Not Be Named was heading out of office in washington.

so why me? i'm the square peg. the fifth wheel. i'm a cartoon geek. a sports guy. i've spent my adult life more worried about busting the phillies than filibustering.

but when i think about it, it makes sense. in a year where Change was more ubiquitous than ryan seacrest, why not go after someone who has a working knowledge of the area, but is still enough of an outsider to not be jaded by the local view.

(admittedly, i do feel a bit like i'm being obama'd...the statement "he's black, he's young and he's smart" has reportedly been uttered more than once. i'm flattered that people feel that way about me, but it also feels like an artificial construct and i'm not comfortable being mini-me.)

the reasons to run are numerous, though few of them seem to be good. perks like a bigger paycheck (always attractive...even more when you're surrounded by debt) and increased attention (though the latter might be more of a liability than an asset). the experience and adventure of running for and holding public office. more importantly, there's also the satisfaction of knowing i could help a community. though it seems harder to find that love without a prior connection to the community. or will that love come by acclamation?

then there are the other questions...can i really enact change through policy? or is it better spurred through the grass roots? where is the line between acknowledging supporters and being beholden to interests? can i walk that line? what about my current career aspirations? would they be on hold? would holding public office help enhance those opportunities

all of these things are continually running through my mind. soon i will need to make my final decision. i have come to the fork in the road. let's hope i go the right way.

back to the beach

after an extended hiatus, i'm back.

at first, i chalked up the break to the rigors and stresses of moving. packing, unpacking, settling in...all that good stuff.

turns out, i was just lazy.

so here's to fighting lethargy. a nice bowl of oatmeal, a hot cup of mate and tom & jerry on the tube.

it's good to be home.

when the angels play the padres, who does god cheer for?

we've seen and heard it plenty of times. an athlete succeeds at something - sets a record, wins a big game, takes home a trophy - then thanks god.

it's a practice that rankles people for various reasons. some people find it disingenuous. others believe in the separation of church and State College. still others just wonder if god really picks a side and if he helped your team, was he going against my team?

it never bothered me one way or another. until recently.

maybe i'm getting a complex, but i'm starting to think god hates the san francisco 49ers. these feelings of inadequacy have become heightened in the wake of noted god-squadder kurt warner stopping in san francisco to talk with niner management about a possible contract. days later, he re-signed with the arizona cardinals saying god told him "you're supposed to be in arizona."

i immediately flashed back to 1993 when reggie white was shopping his wares around the nfl. it seemed a virtual lock that he was going to end up in the bay area. right up until the moment he didn't. instead he signed with the green bay packers because god told him in a dream that he should go to green bay.

does god love some players or cities more than others? can san franciscans consider themselves saved since god didn't send his disciples to their town? should cardinal and packer fans pray harder?

look, i don't ridicule anyone's beliefs. i myself have prayed over difficult decisions asking for guidance. perhaps you were given clarity. shown something negative about one of your options. felt a higher level of comfort in one place. but i'm not believing that contract negotiations are being decided from above.

i like kurt warner. i think he's a good football player and an even better human being. and (except when he's playing the 49ers) i generally wish him well on the football field. but his decision to remain in the desert may have been inspired, but it wasn't divine.

an open letter...

to: shaquille o'neal
david stern, nba commissioner
john fahey, world anti-doping agency, commissioner
assorted physicians
parents of impressionable young athletes

to all concerned parties,

recently, the issue of steroids has gripped american sports like at no other time. with stories of performance enhancing drugs running rampant through major league baseball clubhouses. myriad positive drug tests revealed in cycling. rumor and innuendo about muscled-up supermen running about the nfl. the constant raised eyebrow at the feats of some olympic athletes. all of these things have conspired to taint the highest levels of athletics in this country as well as globally.

mr. stern, i am aware that while your league has historically dealt with several drug problems (the cocaine scandal of the '80s, the continuing issue of marijuana use), you remain unstained by the specter of steroids

but i am here today to ask that we look the other way and give one particular athlete a pass.

shaquille o'neal.

before you bombard me with requests for proof and claims of libel, i'm not suggesting that The Diesel is doing anything untoward.

i'm asking that we make it okay for him to take them from this point forward.

this is a man who has created an endless array of nicknames for himself. he's danced with the jabbawockeez. he's put out some of the league's greatest bulletin board material. yet through it all, he remains one of the league's good guys. oh and by the way, he's also one of the most dominant players the game has ever seen.

which is why we need to do what we can to help keep him in the game. after magic johnson and larry bird retired, we were fortunate enough to have michael jordan take the game to a level of popularity that few people ever imagined. after his (final) retirement, the search for a successor began. who would be the man to help sustain the game?

kobe bryant, lebron james and dwyane wade certainly have the talent to carry that mantle. nate robinson and gilbert arenas have shown us they have the charisma. tim duncan has that humble everyman quality that people can relate to.

but no one combines all those qualities like The Big Shaqtus. his game and success speak for itself. he is literally larger than life, yet somehow manages to be a kid. a combination like that will be hard to replace. while dwight howard looks to be the next in line for the crown, he'll need to be a bit more successful on the court to claim the throne. even then, he may be too much of a nice guy. shaq has that right mixture of nice and nasty that makes him loveable, hateable and eminently watchable all the time.

so whaddya say? let's help The Big Fella out. think of it as an investment in america's entertainment future. this is one of those rare times when we recognize a good thing before it's gone. let's try to hold onto it a little bit longer.

back to the island

pardon my absence...

nothing will turn your life upside down like moving. and while this move was less painful than many others i've endured (is it bad that i've already experienced many moves?) it still threw off my routine and kept me away from my beloved Island for an extended period of time.

in the interim, we've had the oscars, the (not) state of the union address, a republican response delivered by the indian mr. rogers and the return (and subsequent dismissal) of tiger woods. all things that grabbed my attention and stirred my spirit.

but in the interest of preserving your time, i'll keep it brief...

the oscars: hm. guess i should've gone to see slumdog millionaire.

the nsotu: even if you disagree with obama's politics, how are you not inspired by his ideals. makes you wonder if the republicans are opposed because they really disagree or just want to be contrarian.

the response: rumors of the gop's demise are greatly exaggerated. they have too much money and too much support to completely collapse. but with what we've seen from jindal and michael steele, if i were a republican, it wouldn't inspire too much confidence in my party leadership.

tiger's back (and gone): no surprise that someone (even tiger) who hadn't played competitive golf in eight months would look a little rusty on his return to the tour. but then again, if there's anyone who could win his first tournament back...

finally, those who know me are aware that i disdain all things reality tv. but i might have to break that rule and watch the golf channel's new show - project barkley. few things bring me as many laughs as charles barkley's golf swing. but if top-flight golf instructor hank haney can do this, i have to watch.

aahh...feels good to be back.

god bless charles darwin

i've always believed that there are three topics that can start an argument in a crowded room - sports, politics & religion. i've touched on two of them, here goes the third...

if he were still alive today - and presumably pumped full of living water/voodoo magic/elfin dust - charles darwin would be turning 200 years old on thursday.

walk into most churches in america and mention the theory of evolution and people start sweating like....well, like an evolutionist in church.

evolution and creation don't mix. period. pick a side. you're either with us or against us. chicken or egg. it's one or the other.

or is it?

once upon a time, the sunday sermon was certified and bonded as The Word of God. signed, sealed, delivered. no questions asked. after all, these men were ordained, appointed by The Most High. certainly they couldn't be fallible.

but throughout the decades we've drawn back the curtains on many of our once "infallible" institutions to discover that they're still run by people. many of them are well-intentioned people. but people nonetheless. subject to the same frailties and temptations that the rest of us wrestle with.

while religion hasn't been immune, the revolution has come slowly. in the call and response of the message, the once unified echoes of agreement are now mixed with questions of conscience. it has come as we have watched ideologies of all sorts suffer attacks led from the pulpit. and it has spawned a rift between spirituality and religion.

why can't creation and evolution coexist? there are undoubtedly questions that can't currently be answered by science. things about our existence that may always remain a mystery. for many intelligent, rational thinking people (i'd like to believe i fit into that category), a belief in something bigger than oneself is a comfort and a reassurance in times of overwhelming strife.

at the same time, to consider yourself rational yet deny millions of years of evidence suggesting that the world and everything in it has changed and adapted in an effort to survive is a frightening combination of arrogance and ignorance.

i grew up loving God. though as i've gotten older, i've started to have problems with some of His children. if He truly "has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 timothy 1:7), we should use it to determine how best to balance science and spirituality. let it once again be our moral guide rather than our ideological crutch.