A Good Day at the Old Ballpark

The crowd of nearly 30,000 let out a huge groan. Cubs center fielder Rafael Ortega had the ball in his glove, but it popped out, allowing yet another run to score. The Cubs had scored the previous inning, cutting the Royals' lead to 5-1, and now they gave that run right back.

"I don't understand why we even came today, dad," a ten-year-old boy lamented to his father in the stands. "I don't even know most of the players that are out there right now."

"Son, there's more to attending a game than whether the Cubs win," the father replied. "It's about enjoying the warm summer weather and spending time with those you love."

The boy looked around. The seats that actually did have fans in them were filled with people wearing lots of Anthony Rizzo, Kris Bryant, Javier Baez, and Kyle Schwarber jerseys. "I just don't understand why they had to get rid of all those guys. Especially Baez; he was my favorite player. He made so many cool plays. Why did they have to send him to the Mets?"

No one could blame the boy for being upset. The Cubs had lost 12 straight games at Wrigley Field and, with the home team down 6-1, it became all the more likely that they were about to endure unlucky loss #13.

"Well, son, unfortunately baseball is a business above all else. It's good that you learn that now. When I was a kid, I idolized Sammy Sosa. On the day that they traded him to the Orioles, it ripped my heart out."

The boy seemed unmoved. "And what about all those Baez cards that you bought me? What am I going to do with those now?"

"Well, you don't have to get rid of them. You can hold onto them. You can still like Baez. At least you'll have all those great memories of watching him play."

The two turned back towards the field as the conversation paused for a moment, and they blankly stared out onto the field as the Royals added on another run to make it 7-1.

The father tried to turn the conversation in a positive direction. "Son, I wish you could have been around for the great home run chase of 1998 between McGwire and Sosa. The whole country was caught up with baseball fever. It was unlike anything I've ever seen."

"I'll bet that Wrigley was a lot more fun place to be back then," replied the son.

"Oh, it was rockin'. And, I know you're not really old enough to remember 2016 well, but man, this was the place to be. The seats were filled every day. The Cubs couldn't lose. And then..."

"Well, they almost blew it in the World Series, didn't they?"

"Yeah, the comeback. The Indians thought they had it won after they took Game 4. I would give anything to go back and relive those days. I wish you had been old enough to appreciate it, but that's okay. At least we have lots of great memories to look forward to in the future together."

"When do you think the Cubs will be good again?"

"I hope it's soon, son. But we'll see."

The two sat in silence for several more minutes before the son broke in again. "Did you hear that the Cubs will be playing the Reds in the Field of Dreams game next year? Do you think we can go, dad?"

"Well, I'd love to, son. I heard tickets were really expensive this year. Plus I don't know right now whether I'll be able to get it off work. We'll have to see."

It was a hot, humid day in August, with the home team losing big. There were plenty of reasons to be frustrated, but at least a father and son were able to bond and spend some quality time together at the old ballpark.

With the Cubs losing 9-1 in the bottom of the ninth, and much of the paying crowd having departed for the day, the two looked around the stadium, taking it all in. "You know," the dad resumed, "It won't be too long before it will be freezing cold out here and there will be snow covering the field. Let's just enjoy these final moments that we have before we gotta leave for good."

"Thanks for bringing me today, dad."

"You're welcome, son."

Would God approve this message?

I was watching a baseball game last night, and there was a commercial in which someone was advocating getting the COVID-19 vaccine. In the commercial, the speaker was inside a church and quoted 1 Corinthians 13:13 in support of the vaccine: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." The speaker was talking about how getting the vaccine not only helps you, but shows that you care about other people as well.

My initial reaction was outrage. They've tried just about every tactic to pressure us into getting this vaccine, and now they're using religion too? I thought about it some more and wondered, would God really approve of us using His Word to support this?

Now, I'm not against vaccines. I do believe that science should be used for good whenever possible. I believe that God created ways for us to combat disease and that, once we discover them, we should use them to our advantage. My problem is that, at least in this case, His Word was being used as part of a larger plot to try to scare us into getting this vaccine. Would God approve of this?

While I believe in the power of science, I also do not believe that the Lord intends for us to live in fear. The Bible mentions this in quite a few places. For example, 1 John 4:18 reads, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." Further, 2 Timothy 1:7 says, "For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love, and self-discipline."

Again, I believe that we shouldn't live carelessly and just trust that God will take care of us. I believe that we should take precautions to protect our health as much as is possible; that is part of what it means to follow Christ, in my opinion. I just don't like the fact that God is being used in this situation to scare people, as this whole situation that has been going on for the past year and a half has been all about fear. Perhaps you disagree with me, but I do not believe that what is happening now comes from God, but rather is evil.

If our society truly cared about following God's Word and loving our neighbor, then why are we so obsessed with fighting COVID-19 while not addressing the other issues in our society? What about hunger, for example? Every day, thousands of people die of starvation. What are we doing about that? Think about what we could do about hunger if we put half the effort into feeding the hungry that we have in trying to get people to get this vaccine. We could be so much better off.

I think we know the answer to that. The media can't scare or divide people over hunger, or any other issue that our society is facing, the same way that they can when it comes to COVID-19. People get upset about masks and vaccines, on both sides of the issue, but there's no money to be made or fear to be mongered over hunger.

Again, you may disagree with me, but I do not believe that God's Word is intended to be used to try to guilt people into getting the COVID-19 vaccine. I believe that we are to love others and that we are supposed to take care of each other, but I don't think God approves of this use of His Word. If you see this commercial, or any other religious pleas to get the vaccine, remember Isaiah 41:10: "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

We may be going through difficult times right now, but God is always there. And I will choose to lean on that.

What kind of world are we living in now?

Over the last several days, I've seen lots of memes, statuses, and other posts regarding the whole mask wearing and getting vaccinated thing, and I've seen a lot that I agree with and have been tempted to share. It's just so sad what this world has come to and I felt like I needed to share some thoughts.

Now, I'm not writing this as either a political expert or a medical expert. I'm just an average citizen who is concerned about what I'm seeing. In March of 2020, we shut everything down because we were told that we had "14 days to flatten the curve." Then in July of 2020, at least here in Michigan, we were given a mask mandate and were told that we would knock this virus out in 4-6 weeks. That mandate ended up lasting about a year. It's a slippery slope that we've continued to slide down.

And after all the damage we've done to our society through shutdowns and mandates, it appears - at least we're being told - that we still don't have this virus under control. Even with all these people being "vaccinated," we now have a new "variant" that is doing damage. How could we let an illness inflict so much damage upon our society?

Now, I do believe that COVID-19 is real and that it is a serious issue. However, what has it caused to happen to our society? We're losing our freedoms, and that should concern everyone, regardless of political affiliation. The fact that so many people are just blindly going along with it is alarming.

What happened to our freedom to choose what is best for us and our families? Many people are being forced to get this vaccine or to lose their jobs or to lose many other freedoms that we have taken for granted for so long. This vaccine has been shoved down our throats by the government and the media without knowing what the long-term effects are and whether it really is even effective. If you make the personal decision to get the vaccine, I have nothing against you for that. But to force people to either get it or to lose their freedoms is just insane. I can't be the only one who thinks this.

And as for wearing masks, again, this has been going on for over a year. The science is dubious, at best, regarding whether they actually work, while at worst, wearing them causes many other health problems. Yet even assuming that they do work, how long is this supposed to go on for? Why are we forcing small children to wear them at school all day long? On the surface, they are a minor inconvenience, yet they aren't referred to as "slave muzzles" for nothing. They symbolize our helplessness at the situation we're in.

It's just unbelievable to me what has happened to us. The worst part is that we are so deeply divided over these issues, even accusing one another of killing each other. We're all tired and frustrated, and personally, I'm wondering how much longer all of this is supposed to go on for.

We've done everything we've been asked to do yet are being told that things aren't getting better. We shut everything down, which caused grief to millions of people. We wore masks for a year. People have been getting this vaccine. And now we're still being told that things aren't getting any better. What comes next? I'm afraid to find out.

The good news is that there is hope. Now, every time a new crisis comes up, we always remind each other to trust in God, that He has things under control, but what exactly does that mean? I've been thinking about how that applies to the mess we're currently in, about how we keep being told, "Just do this and we'll knock this virus out" over and over again. First of all, I'm reminded of what a wicked world this is and how all greatness comes from Him. I guess we shouldn't be surprised by anything that this world throws at us.

But what does God ask from us, compared to what our government and media are asking of us now? They keep asking us to do more and more for the good of society, many of their promises turning out to be empty. God only asks one thing of us: to accept Him as our Savior. That's it. He doesn't say, hey, do this, and you'll receive eternal life, then pull the rug out from under you and ask you to do something more cumbersome. Nope. Just trust Him and your eternity is assured.

I don't know about you, but for me, that's a great assurance. I'm choosing not to put my hope in a face mask or a vaccine, but in God. I may have to put up with a lot of terrible things in this world, but I know there's so much more than what we see here. And that's a good feeling.

Cleveland Indians or Cleveland Guardians -- How important is it really?

The Cleveland Indians announced earlier this week that they are changing their name to the Cleveland Guardians, ending a tradition of over 100 years of being named the Indians. Much of the social unrest regarding racial matters prompted the name change, and whether you like the name "Guardians" or not (and it seems like a lot of people don't), we're pretty divided on whether it was a good idea to change the name in the first place.

(I have to give them credit for coming up with a name right away, instead of doing what the Washington Redskins did and change their name to the "Washington Football Team" while they take two years to come up with a new name.)

Reading around the internet, people of all races are on both sides of the debate. Native Americans even seem to be divided; some are glad that the name is gone because it was racist, while others dislike getting rid of the name because they feel that it erases lots of tradition and that the name paid tribute to the Native Americans. Therefore, there's no easy answer to whether this was the right move to make or not; it seems that many people will be upset either way.

I can see both points of view, but my main question is this: How important is it really?

I'm not Native American, so I won't claim to understand their point of view on the issue. But this is a sports team name that we're talking about here. Will changing the team name -- or keeping it the same for that matter -- do anything to stop all the hatred, violence, and killing that is going on in our world today? In the grand scheme of things, will the Dixie Chicks or Lady Antebellum changing their name really make that much of a difference? Sorry, but I don't think so.

And this is coming from someone who is a huge baseball fan. I'd rather we take actions that will actually solve some of the problems that we are facing today. Changing a team name not only divides us more than we already are -- and we're pretty divided -- but it distracts us from the real issues. And that's a big problem.

So, it's okay to have an opinion on the matter. And I can even understand why it's important to some folks. I just don't think this is something that we should get that worked up about. I'd rather work to heal the division in our nation and to save innocent lives than get caught up in something that doesn't mean all that much in the first place.

I'd like to think that people will soon let this go and that we can move on. But given how easy it is to get distracted and work people up over things that aren't that important, I'm not confident that will happen.

Why I write -- and why it matters

I'm trying to recall when it is that I first discovered that I like to write, and that (I'd like to think) I'm pretty good at it. I wrote for my high school's newspaper and thought I wanted to pursue a degree in journalism. For several different reasons, that didn't materialize, but I still enjoy writing to this day as often as I can.

I feel like I have a lot to say through writing. I've written three books and written numerous articles for several websites and publications. This might come as a surprise to people who meet me in person. The first thing that stands out about me is that I'm quiet and don't really say much, at least initially.

I'm an extreme introvert -- and personality tests that I've taken confirm this, though I don't feel like I needed one to figure that out. One common characteristic of introverts is that we like to think things through and carefully craft what we want to say before we say it. That's difficult to do during an in-person conversation because that involves quick thinking.

My brain doesn't quite work that way. That's not a bad thing; that just means that I'm different. When I want to share my thoughts with other people, I like to sit at the computer and really put some thought into it, carefully considering every word and reading it through over and over again to make sure I get the exact message out that I want.

Writing is a good release for me because I feel like I have plenty to say; I just am not good at saying it in person. That's one good thing about the internet and social media: For all the negative that comes with it, it gives introverts like myself a voice, a chance to get my thoughts out to the world. With modern trends such as email, Facebook, and web pages, we've all had to become good at communicating through the written word. And I think that's a good thing.

Over the past several months, for various reasons, I haven't done much writing. And I've missed it. I enjoy sharing my thoughts with others, but more importantly for myself, I enjoy getting those thoughts that have been bubbling in my brain out into the world. It's something that everyone needs to do in one way or another. Some people like to do it through in-person conversation. This, however, is my preferred method.

So, in the coming weeks and months, I'm going to try to do a lot more writing and share it with all of you. I hope you'll find what I have to say both interesting and informative and that both of us (myself and you the reader) get something out of it.

Review of Richard Nixon: The Life by John A. Farrell

The story of Richard Nixon is one of the most tragic - and also one of the most important - stories in our nation's history. There's so much that can be said, and that has already been written, about him. John A. Farrell attempted to encapsulate Nixon's life in his recent book, Richard Nixon: The Life.

Though the book is over 700 pages long, I feel like it only scratched the surface of Nixon's story. The book's biggest strength is its insight into Nixon's complex personality. Farrell describes him as a man who was both tough and ambitious, but also troubled and insecure. He wanted power and for people to like him, yet he also was introverted and seemed to dislike most social situations. He entered politics as a defender of our nation's old-fashioned values, yet Farrell also portrays him as someone who would do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals, usually while also doing what he thought gave him the best chance to win the next election. Indeed, his actions, particularly on economic and social issues, were moderate compared to his more "conservative" contemporaries, including Ronald Reagan.

Farrell does a great job of showing how Nixon's conflicting personality traits would appear throughout his life, as he rose quickly from his service in World War II to become a U.S. Representative, Senator, and Vice President in less than a decade. After suffering a tough defeat to John F. Kennedy in 1960, Nixon won election as our nation's 37th President in 1968, taking advantage of a fractured Democratic Party and narrowly defeating Hubert Humphrey.

Other reviews of this book that I have seen suggest that Farrell was overly critical of Nixon, but I didn't find that to be the case. Farrell gave lots of credit to Nixon for his foreign policy achievements, including his role in bringing the Vietnam War to an end and achieving a breakthrough in U.S.-China relations. In terms of his capability as a Chief Executive, I came away with the impression that Nixon was talented and accomplished a lot.

Farrell is not so kind when discussing Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal, and I suppose that's fair. I don't feel that Farrell did enough to chronicle Nixon's involvement in the cover-up, though that would have been difficult to do in a book of this scope. I was also surprised at how Spiro Agnew, Nixon's first Vice President, received nothing more than a couple of brief passing remarks. It goes to show how difficult it is to give Nixon's life the full treatment it deserves in just one volume.

The most significant part of Nixon's legacy is that, due to what happened while he was in office, Americans lost faith in their elected officials more than at any other time in the nation's then 200-year history. I would have liked more analysis on this, but again, that's likely outside the scope of this book. The reader will likely come away from this book with the conclusion that Nixon could have been a great President, but he let the destructive parts of his personality get the best of him, throwing it all away due to ridiculous pursuits like a break-in into a Democratic office.

While the book was informative and loaded with information, it still left me wanting more. If you want more information about, say, the 1960 election or the Watergate scandal, you'll want to consult other sources after reading this. It certainly will not be the last source I consult on Nixon's life, but it was an interesting read that I'd recommend to anyone who likes Presidential biographies.

Book Review: The Unexpected President

Chester A. Arthur has to be near the top of any list of the most obscure U.S. Presidents. Among those who actually know anything about him, he is probably best known for those long mutton chops instead of any actual achievements while in office.

Scott S. Greenberger recently undertook the daunting task of chronicling Arthur's life in his book, The Unexpected President: The Life and Times of Chester A. Arthur. (Click here to see the listing on Amazon.) We know so little about Arthur, largely because there were no events of major significance during his time in office (he was President from 1881 to 1885), he was a relatively private man who tried to keep his family out of the public eye, and because he had many of his important archives destroyed before he died.

And yet, Greenberger attempts to show that despite Arthur's relative anonymity in our history books, his Presidency was a consequential one. Arthur has to be one of the most unlikely men to ever hold the office. During the late 19th Century, instead of voters selecting a nominee for their party in primaries like we do now, state parties would send delegates to a national convention and they would vote over and over again until someone reached a majority. In 1880, the Republicans were in danger of splitting over those who favored the spoils system of rewarding loyal party members with government jobs (referred to as Stalwarts) and reformers who thought this system was corrupt and wanted to pass laws that allowed for the selection of such positions based on merit.

As the son of a strict abolitionist minister, Arthur showed a lot of promise as a young man, including defending a black woman against discrimination in New York's public transportation system as a lawyer. But he became involved in the New York Republican Party and worked up the ranks to become one of the most prominent members of the Republican "machine," using government influence to control appointments to important government posts and solicit money to help Republican political campaigns. He loved his family, though Greenberger portrays him as a man who cared even more about his growing career and lavish lifestyle. Arthur's wife, Nell, became ill and died at age 42, and while he took it hard, even that didn't seem to slow down his ambition.

With Reconstruction over and the next big war still a few decades away, civil service was the big issue of the day in 1880. When none of the top candidates could get a majority of support at the convention, the delegates eventually chose James A. Garfield as a compromise. To satisfy the Stalwarts, who still wielded a lot of power in the party, the Republicans tucked Arthur away as the Vice Presidential candidate. Though this office had relatively little responsibility, he was only one life away from holding our country's most important job. And just a few months after Garfield took office, a disgruntled government job seeker shot Garfield. After an agonizing few months of clinging to life, Garfield died and Arthur was suddenly President.

No man, before or since, may ever have assumed the Presidency as unpopular as Arthur was, well known as a political "hack," as Greenberger refers to him. Many even suspected that he was behind the more reform-minded Garfield's murder so that the Stalwarts could stop any attempts at civil service reform. But if Arthur's loss of his wife didn't force him to have a change of heart, Garfield's death seems to have been a turning point. He was distraught, not only over the President's untimely death, but also because almost everyone in the country viewed him unfavorably, and he took the suggestions that he was behind the assassination hard.

When Arthur took office, he was unsure of himself. But when he became President, he suddenly saw himself, no longer as a leader of the Republicans, but rather as a President for all people. And with the encouragement of a series of letters from an unknown young woman, Julia Sand, President Arthur pleasantly surprised his detractors by standing up to the Stalwarts who inevitably tried to control him and led the effort towards civil service reform. Arthur signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act into law in 1883, and though it didn't resolve the issue entirely, it was a big step forward to ending political corruption and using merit to fill government positions. Though that might be a boring topic to learn about in today's history books, it was an important accomplishment in our nation's history.

Greenberger took on a challenging task of writing a biography on Arthur and probably did about as well as we could expect any historian to do. Besides Arthur's father, there is little description of the rest of Arthur's family. While the author hinted that Arthur's political ambition was a strain on their marriage, there aren't many details in the book on this. It appears that Arthur did a good job of shielding his family from public scrutiny. Besides this, Arthur ordered many of his important papers burned after he left the White House, ashamed of his past as a Republican crony who did whatever he could to keep the party in power.

Indeed, Greenberger is not generous towards Arthur when it comes to much of his political involvement. But one important historical lesson we can take from this book is that Arthur, as he watched his own wife die partly from his neglect and President Garfield die because of the evil effects of the spoils system, was able to change his heart towards the end of his life. His rough lifestyle even took a toll on his own health, as he died at age 57 less than two years after leaving office.

For a topic that may seem a little dry to the average reader on the surface, I had no trouble reading this book and it held my interest the whole time. Greenberger writes with clarity and ease, and he brings Arthur and the other prominent people in the story to life. I would have liked a little more detail about Arthur's personal life, as well as more on his effort to bring about civil service reform. And it was a little frustrating that the latter part of the book relied so heavily on the letters from Sand; indeed, they were quoted at length several times.

But again, with so little to go on, Greenberger may have done as well as he could have. If you don't know much about Arthur - or this era in American history, for that matter - I recommend reading this book. It should provide some new perspective on the American Presidency.

I Did It! 50,000 Words!

Well, I did it. By the time I'm finished with this essay, I'll have written 50,000 words during the month of November. It wasn't easy, and after I quickly fell behind just a few days into the month, I wondered if my goal was unrealistic.

But with enough persistence and hard work, I made it happen. No, I won't win any money for finishing. And no one will give me any awards. But I set a difficult goal for myself and achieved it. I'm proud of myself, and I believe this will help me in the long run.

Going into this, I wasn't expecting it to be easy. I also was hoping that I would learn a lot both about myself and the writing process. And I can say that I was right on both counts. Here are some of my observations after having participated in this over the past 30 days:

1. Finding time requires effort. I have a full-time job, plus plenty of family obligations. We had a major holiday (Thanksgiving), and since my wife and I hosted, we both had a lot of work to do. If I had unlimited free time, I probably could have written 50,000 words in a week. But with everything else going on in my life, I had to take extra effort to make time. There were several nights that I sat at the computer and wrote when I didn't feel like it. But when you're working with a tight deadline, every minute matters. I stayed up later than I wanted to a few nights and gave up some relaxation time, but I knew I had to be persistent if I wanted to reach my goal.

2. Thinking of topics isn't hard, but it requires effort. I didn't go the traditional route for National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo), where many people try to write a 50,000 word novel. I'm sure that's a challenge in itself, trying to keep the story going and getting it written in such a short time. I wrote a bunch of nonfiction essays and also counted some work assignments and letters to my wife. Hey, why shouldn't those count? I wrote a total of 49 letters and essays, and while I didn't strain to come up with topics, I had to think about it. Usually, I write on whatever topics casually come into my head with little effort, but to get to 50,000 words I had to brainstorm and think deeply about what I could write about. I realized that I had a lot more to write about than I knew I had.

3. I didn't have time to carefully proofread everything. For the first several days of the month, I would go back and read what I wrote two or three extra times. But when I got towards the end of the month, I realized I wasn't going to have time to carefully proofread everything. There were a few essays I didn't even re-read at all. I don't have time, and plus it strains my brain. Again, with unlimited free time, I could have proofread everything I wrote and improved it. But NaNoWriMo writing doesn't have to be perfect. It's about stretching your brain and forcing you to keep writing. I can always go back and proofread later, especially if I decide to post or publish anything I wrote.

4. I feel more like a writer. I feel less like a guy who just writes in his spare time and more like a writer. Sure, I've written a book that was 70,000 words, but I did that over the course of ten months. Having written at the rate I have over the past month, I feel the energy that I imagine other writers have, of sitting at the computer and grinding your way through a writing goal and stretching the limits of your patience and imagination. It's given me a new perspective on the writing life.

5. This isn't the end. So I achieved a big goal. But that doesn't mean I stop writing. I'm hoping I can take what I achieved and build on it, to know that I am capable of accomplishing a lot and of pushing myself even more. I plan to take a little time off, perhaps a few days or so, to recover and to celebrate what I did. But it will be for nothing if I don't continue to pursue my writing goals. I'm hoping that someday, I can look back on November 2017 as a critical time in my development as a writer and remember my time of participating in NaNoWriMo fondly.

2018 Baseball Hall of Fame: In or Out?

Candidates for the Baseball Hall of Fame need 75% of voters from the Baseball Writers Association of America to support their candidacy to gain election. What would I do if I were a voter? Here's my take on eight candidates who are new to the ballot this year and eight who have been on the ballot in previous years but not yet made it in.

First time candidates:

Johnny Damon: He'll generate some discussion because he was able to accumulate 2,769 hits and scored 1,668 runs, and because he was a big part of the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry of the 2000s, playing on both sides. But the rest of the numbers just aren't there, and at no point was he an elite player. It was a memorable career, but not a Hall of Fame one.

Verdict: No

Andruw Jones: I really struggled with this one. I still do a double take every time I see that he hit 434 home runs; it doesn't seem like he was around long enough to do that. He was also an elite defender in center field for a long time, winning ten straight Gold Glove awards. But he wasn't a well-rounded hitter; the fact that he didn't reach 2,000 hits (1,933) is a big blow to his case. His career dropped off quickly after his elite ten-year stretch from 1998-2007; with one or two more great seasons, it'd be a lot easier to put him in. I'm going to have to say no, though should he get elected one day I won't take much issue with it.

Verdict: No

Chipper Jones: There's no doubt he should be in. He has the statistics and was a fixture of the Atlanta Braves teams that won 14 straight division titles. But a word of caution: Let's not get too caught up in the fact that he's "one of the greatest switch hitters of all time." Remember that players switch hit to give themselves an advantage and we shouldn't treat it like it's a handicap that a player has to overcome.

Verdict: Yes

Jamie Moyer: He's going to get some attention because he lasted 25 years in the majors and was able to pile up 269 wins. It's a career that warrants a lot of respect, and he did have some great seasons, but he's not a Hall of Famer.

Verdict: No

Scott Rolen: Third basemen have had a hard time gaining election, for whatever reason. Chipper Jones will get in, but there's also Rolen to consider. Rolen had some great seasons at the plate, but he didn't have the stretch of dominance you're usually expected to have to put together a Hall of Fame career. For a position with high offensive expectations, the overall numbers just aren't there: a .281 average, 2,077 hits, and 316 home runs is not Hall of Fame worthy. He was a great defensive player, but not a dominant one, and I don't think that tips the scales enough in his favor.

Verdict: No

Johan Santana: During his prime, he was arguably the game's best pitcher. But he doesn't have the longevity that warrants induction, only playing 12 seasons with just eight as a full-time starter. It's too bad that injuries derailed his career; he'd have made it if he'd lasted four more seasons.

Verdict: No

Jim Thome: A player with 612 home runs and 1,699 RBIs should be in with little debate. If he doesn't get in right away - aside from the steroid suspicion, which hasn't been proven - it's because he played in the most prolific offensive era in history and that some feel hitting a lot of home runs isn't the accomplishment it once was. But still, 612 home runs is a big deal. Hopefully this doesn't take long.

Verdict: Yes

Omar Vizquel: I feel like if we're going to include Ozzie Smith, then we have to include Vizquel. Smith was a once-in-a-lifetime defensive talent; Vizquel might not quite be on that level, but he's still among the best defensive shortstops of all time. Vizquel was also more of an offensive force than Smith was, finishing with 2,877 hits. It's hard to elect someone primarily on defense because it's so subjective, but given his longevity and the fact that he did contribute on offense, I'll give him the nod.

Verdict: Yes

Returning candidates:

Vladimir Guerrero: I don't remember ever seeing another player who had a more intimidating presence at the plate than Guerrero did. If the pitch was within two feet of the strike zone, he was probably going to swing and probably do some damage. The biggest question for his candidacy is whether he hung around long enough, as he was done at age 36 - not great for a position player - and failed to reach any of the milestones (449 home runs, 1,496 RBIs, 2,590 hits) that normally get you in automatically. But he was a dominant player for over a decade, which includes 11 consecutive years (1998-2008) of batting at least .300 with at least 25 home runs. And while he made a lot of errors in the field, he also threw out a lot of baserunners with his rocket of an arm. I'm going to go with my gut and say yes.

Verdict: Yes

Trevor Hoffman: He just missed last year and is going to get in, but I'm generally against electing relief pitchers. I just don't think they do enough to have a major impact on the game. Saves is a junk statistic; getting three outs before giving up three runs is something that every pitcher should be able to do at a high success rate, even if it is in the ninth inning. I'm willing to make an exception for Mariano Rivera because he was a key part of one of the all-time great dynasties and because of his postseason dominance. Whether it's fair or not, Hoffman didn't play on a lot of great teams and therefore doesn't have many key moments that defined his career like Rivera does. Since relief pitching is becoming more important in today's game, my opinion may someday change. But as of right now, being second all-time in saves is not enough to warrant induction.

Verdict: No

Jeff Kent: If he played almost any other position besides second base, he would not have lasted into what is now his sixth year on the ballot. But because he played a traditionally weak offensive position, some still think he should be in. 2,461 hits and 377 home runs is not quite enough unless you were also a great defender, and Kent did nothing to stand out in that regard. I'll admit that the 1,518 RBIs is impressive, but since his case is solely based on offense, I don't think he quite did enough.

Verdict: No

Fred McGriff: I like to compare McGriff's career to that of one of his contemporaries, Craig Biggio. Neither was an elite player, but while Biggio made the Hall of Fame easily, McGriff's chances don't look good. There are two big difference between their careers: First, Biggio reached one of the "automatic" milestones for election of 3,000 hits (he finished with 3,060), largely due to the fact that he played for 20 years, while McGriff just missed the magic mark of 500 home runs, finishing with 493. The second difference is that while Biggio played his entire career with the Houston Astros, McGriff played for six different teams and therefore is not a legend to any one fan base. It may not seem fair, but that's the way it is. Playing in the most prodigious offensive era the game has ever seen, McGriff just didn't do enough to distinguish himself from his peers.

Verdict: No

Edgar Martinez: This is a tough one. I have no problem letting designated hitters into the Hall of Fame; it's a position that somebody has to play, so we should be willing to recognize greatness. Plus, we've elected some hitters that weren't exactly great defenders. Martinez was a great hitter, but looking at his numbers, it's a tough case to make. He finished with 2,247 hits, 309 home runs, and 1,261 RBIs. None of those numbers stand out. His saving grace may be his ability to get on base. We live in an era in which we love walks, and Martinez earned 1,283 of them. Compare that to Vladimir Guerrero's 737 walks, and Martinez actually reached base more times than Guerrero did. Martinez is on the ballot this year for the tenth and final time, and he only reached 58% last year, so it's going to be an uphill climb. It feels like this vote will be a referendum on whether designated hitters should receive recognition, now and in the future. Reluctantly, I'll give my blessing, though I don't think it will be a travesty if he doesn't make it.

Verdict: Yes

Mike Mussina: I'm having a hard time understanding why Mussina isn't getting more votes. It's time for everyone to come to terms with the fact that we're not going to see another 300 game winner, at least in the foreseeable future; the game has just changed too much. Mussina's 270 wins are a tremendous accomplishment, even if we are valuing the win statistic less and less. Some will discredit that because he pitched for a lot of high-scoring teams, but when we look at his entire career, he was one of the game's most established pitchers for two decades. Hopefully he'll eventually make it.

Verdict: Yes

Curt Schilling: The elephant in the room is Schilling's political views; I hope the voters are not taking that into consideration, although I can't help but think that some of them are. All that aside, when we look at Schilling's regular season numbers, it could go either way: 216 wins and a 3.46 ERA. This is a case in which his postseason achievements may tip the scales in his favor. He was a key figure on two of the most important championship-winning teams of this past generation, the 2001 Diamondbacks and 2004 Red Sox. Taking that into consideration, I'd put him in.

Verdict: Yes

Larry Walker: He was a great hitter, and I don't hold it against him that he played many of his games at Coors Field, the most hitter-friendly park in the league. But I don't think the full body of work is there. He only played in more than 143 games one time in his career, playing in fewer than 2,000 games overall (1,988). Yes, the .313 batting average is impressive, and 383 home runs is nothing to sneeze at, but he needed more at-bats for his numbers to reach Hall of Fame level.

Verdict: No

Time to Take a Bigger Moral Stand

Has anyone else noticed that there have been a lot of "sex scandals" in the news lately? If you watch any news at all, there's a good chance you have. A lot of women are speaking up and accusing famous men of inappropriate behavior, and some are even being accused of molesting children. It's difficult to say how much of it is true. But in any case, women and children are supposed to be treated with respect and we should oppose all behavior that runs contrary to that.

But as I look around and observe everything happening in our society, I have one question to ask. It may seem cruel, but we need to ask ourselves:

Should we really be surprised?

I'm always amazed at how everyone acts so shocked when they hear that some celebrity acted inappropriately. Has anyone watched prime time TV lately? Crass and immoral behavior is everywhere. How about turning the radio on to the top 40 stations? I can't believe the lyrics to some of the songs on there. Many of them glorify treating women like objects (or in some cases, female singers are doing it for men, too). And listening to it is as easy as turning on a radio. No one seems to have a problem with any of that; in fact, we can't seem to get enough. Why the double standard?

I was in my early teens when the Bill Clinton sex scandal was in the news back in the late 1990s. I'm sure this was not the first time that a President ran around on his wife or acted with moral indecency while in office. But up to that point, such behavior was usually concealed from public view. This was partly because we went a long time without the technology and ubiquitous news media we have today, and partly because we at least had enough decency to protect the public - especially children - from such lewd behavior.

This was a potential turning point in our nation's history. Perhaps it was a blessing in disguise that the public was forced to confront the moral transgressions of President Clinton. Parents had a chance to teach their children a lesson in right and wrong, about how it's important to stay strong while living in a sinful world. With technology starting to make it easy to bring immorality into our homes, this was an opportunity for us as a nation to stand up and say that we will not allow filth to run rampant in our society.

But if this was God's way of testing us, we failed miserably. We were told that "it's just sex" - that it's none of our business and that we should focus on the more important task of helping the President do his job. Did Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs impact his ability to make military decisions or to try to fix the economy? Well, maybe it didn't. But that's missing the bigger point. We didn't have to impeach Clinton to take a stand. We could have examined ourselves and decided it was time to tone down the sex and violence on TV and the radio, or at the very least not make it so easy for children to access.

Instead, it's become much worse. Nothing is sacred. I remember being shocked when I heard the occasional bad word on TV; now it's everywhere, even on the over-the-air channels. Sure, the media shoves this down our throats, but if we stopped watching it would affect their bottom line and they'd have to take it off the air.

Today, I hear elementary and middle school kids regularly using words that I didn't even know when I was their age. Adults aren't off the hook either; I frequently hear them use language in everyday conversation - even in front of children - that would have been unacceptable just a generation ago. With our moral standards lower than ever, why do we act so stunned when we hear about inappropriate behavior on the news? I don't understand it. We can't have it both ways.

Our lax moral standards may have brought us to a new low last year, when we were forced to choose between two Presidential candidates with far from stellar moral reputations. We either had to pick Bill Clinton's wife, who tried to shame many of the women who spoke out against her husband, or a man with his own history of treating women poorly.

How could it have come to this? As a Christian, I had to make a decision with which I was not comfortable with either of the choices. But that's what we get for letting our country slide so deeply into the moral abyss. Speaking out against Bill Clinton and then voting for Donald Trump is not necessarily hypocrisy. For many of those who did this, it was a necessary evil for living in these dark times. I believe that Trump's ability to gain the nomination from a major political party is a direct result of our failure to stand up to indecency in our public officials two decades earlier.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our elected officials are a reflection of us. And so is everything else we see in the news and on our televisions and computers. It wouldn't be there if we didn't ask for it. So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to continue to become outraged for a short moment the next time a big scandal breaks then go back to all the same TV shows and movies? Are we going to complain about the lack of leadership from our elected officials do but keep putting the same types of people into office?

Or are we all going to decide that things will only improve if we change our attitudes and our actions?

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." This saying gets overused to the point of, well, insanity. But this is one instance in which it really applies. We can't act outraged over one moral indiscretion but glorify another. We need to hold our fellow citizens to high moral standards, but it may be even more important to do the same for ourselves. Evil will never completely go away, but if we find the courage to do this, maybe then we'll see fewer disturbing stories on the news.

Yes, My Thoughts and Prayers Do Matter

"Your thoughts and prayers don't matter."

How many times have you heard someone say this recently? Or seen it as a comment on a Facebook story about yet another awful shooting? It seems to be the fashionable thing to say lately.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of hearing it.

I get why people say it. They're sad. They're angry. They're confused. They want to know how yet another gunman was able to slaughter an innocent group of people. And I agree that we need to do as much as we can to prevent these incidents from happening in the future.

But none of that is an excuse for disrespecting someone else's attempt to express genuine concern for those who lost someone. It seems that compassion for our fellow man is something we should encourage, not condemn. Isn't it disregard for others that causes most killers to do this?

Thoughts and prayers are all I can offer, as they are all most of us can. I couldn't have prevented this shooting from happening. I never met any of the people involved and never heard of them until this happened. I wish I could have stopped this, but I had no way of knowing it would occur.

None of us have the ability to prevent all bad things from happening. We can argue that changing this law or that law would have prevented this latest shooting, and maybe that's true. But evil people will do evil things. Guns have been used to kill people, but so have knives, trucks, bombs, and many other items for a long time. Evil has existed since the book of Genesis and will, unfortunately, always be with us, regardless of what weapons are available.

For those of us who feel helpless, offering condolences and seeking guidance from God is sometimes all we can do. These events don't make sense to us, so we have to look for hope in something bigger than we are, to trust that God has a greater plan even in the worst of times.

It's ok to ask questions. It's normal to cry out to God and wonder how this could happen. But God doesn't "cause" bad things to happen, nor does he "allow" them. Bad things happen because Satan is in control of this world. Mankind has chosen to turn their back on God, starting with The Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, we have had to see what life is like without Him. It's not pretty.

It's because God is not of this world that we seek Him. We put our faith in Him, the faith that despite all the sorrow we see here, this is not the end game. There is a greater plan in place. For many of us who are left behind after such a terrible event, that is all we have to hold onto. That's how we try to get through this. It's how we try to be there for those who are hurting the most.

If that's not how you want to cope, that's fine. If you think it's important to pass more laws to prevent killings, that's great. But don't put down other people for trying to show compassion. If you really believe that thoughts and prayers do nothing, than neither do your criticisms of those who care. Please have some respect.

To those who are distraught from this latest shooting, or who are still hurting from a previous tragedy: I hope you will accept my thoughts and my prayers. I wish I could do more. I would love to be able to bring your loved ones back, or to at least take away all the pain you've suffered because of your loss. And I wish I could prevent this from happening to anyone else ever again. But I can't. The best I can do is let you know that I do care and that I can pray for healing and understanding in this difficult time.

Perhaps if more of us did that, there would be less hatred and less evil in this world.

Why I Write

If you've been around me for any length of time, you've probably made the same observation as just about everyone else: I don't talk much. In high school, people who knew me referred to me as the quiet kid, and I haven't changed much in that regard since I graduated almost fifteen years ago.

I've always found it interesting that it's the quiet people that seem to stand out like a sore thumb. "Boy, you're quiet." "Why don't you say much?" This is what I've heard dozens of times from people I've just met, or even people that have known me for a while. Why do other people notice this so quickly? I've never understood that. I'm not trying to be a troublemaker. I'm not even trying to be different. I'm just being myself.

But that doesn't always go over well with everyone. We're expected to be talkative, and some people even get offended when we don't. Talking is almost our way of letting everyone else know, "Hey, I'm normal." Those who talk a lot often like to make sure the non-talkative folks know that they're different. Imagine it the other way around. I would never say to a garrulous person, "Wow, you talk a lot!" That would be rude, right?

I understand that, as humans living in a society, we all have to interact with each other. And I understand there are times that talking is necessary. I've even forced myself to get good enough at public speaking that I can teach a 90 minute computer class at work without any notes. But it's not how I'm most comfortable expressing myself. And I know I'm not the only one in the world who's like that.

Some people, when they are interacting in person with others, always have plenty to say. They know how to respond immediately. They're able to come up with answers right on the spot, without taking the time to think about it. There's nothing wrong with that. I think it's great that there are people like that. We need them.

But that's not me. I'm an observer. I need to absorb what's around me. Just because I'm not talking much doesn't mean I'm stupid, or I have nothing to say, or that I don't like you or don't care about a situation. Maybe it's easy to assume that, but it's also wrong. In many social situations, I would rather listen to others than hear myself talk because that's how I learn. But when I take time to reflect on what I see around me and want to make some observations and offer a response, I may want to express it somehow. And writing is how I do that.

When I have points I want to make, I like to take the time to sort them out and get the message as good and as clear as I can. You can't do that through talking; once you say something, it's out there and you can't take it back. Again, some people are fine communicating that way, and I don't have a problem with it. Just respect the fact that I'm not the same as you are.

Communicating is not just how we work with other people. It's how we make sense of the world around us. Writing is my favorite way to do both. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with me. I just like to see what I'm thinking on paper (or on the computer screen) so I can make sense of it and rearrange it so that it best reflects who I am and what I'm thinking.

I've been discussing why writing is important to me personally, but in this talkative world, writing still has a place. It's still an effective way to communicate with large groups of people. If I have a message I want to send out to the world, writing is the best way to do it, whether it's through websites, newspapers, or books (and I've done all three). Though people can get turn on their TV or get on YouTube to hear the news or to view a big speech, the written word is still available and isn't going anywhere.

Even writing between two individuals still has a place. It allows us to have a record of our correspondence that we can go back and look at again and again. We can read messages that we write to each other over and over, so we can absorb them and appreciate the other person for taking the time to do that.

But the biggest difference between voice/pictures and writing is that the latter requires use of imagination. I think that's why a lot of people are disappointed when Hollywood turns a book into a movie; more often, I hear that the book was better. When we read words, we have to visualize what the writing is describing in our heads. Television, for instance, does that for us. Our brains don't have to work as hard. When we read, whether we realize it or not, we're becoming better communicators. I'm proud of the fact that, through writing, I can even help others in this way.

Not everyone has to be a good writer. If you have other skills, be proud of them and use them to the best of your ability. But if you see someone who isn't talking much, don't make them feel bad about it. It's easy to do, even if you don't mean to. Quiet people often have a lot to say and have a lot going on in their brain and prefer to express it in different ways besides trying to impress everyone with their verbal skills or their ability to be loud.

And to all the non-talkative people reading this who prefer to write: Keep writing. Practice and get better at it. Find ways it can be useful. And most importantly, don't feel bad about who you are. The world needs all types of people, even if some of us aren't willing to acknowledge that.

My Favorite World Series to Watch

We just got finished watching a great World Series. I was born in 1985, so I've seen quite a few World Series, some better than others. Many consider the 1991 World Series, in which the Minnesota Twins beat the Atlanta Braves in seven games, as one of the best ever. I'm too young to remember that series well, though as I learn about it, I'm sure I would have enjoyed watching if I had been older.

So how would I rank my favorite World Series that I have seen? Here is my top five list:

5. 2011 - St. Louis Cardinals defeat Texas Rangers, four games to three

A World Series that goes seven games is always exciting, and even though I wanted to see the Rangers win their first title (plus I don't like the Cardinals), I still enjoyed this one. Game 6 was the memorable game, as the Rangers were one strike away in the bottom of the ninth. David Freese hit a two-run triple that Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz just missed catching. Then after Josh Hamilton homered for the Rangers in the tenth, the Cardinals were again down to their last strike before rallying to tie it again. Freese homered in the 11th to force Game 7, which the Cardinals won easily. It ended up being the last Cardinals game for legendary manager Tony LaRussa and future Hall of Famer Albert Pujols, who left after the season to go to the Angels.

4. 2004 - Boston Red Sox defeat St. Louis Cardinals, four games to zero

OK, this series was no one's definition of a classic. Game 1 is the only game that was truly competitive as the Red Sox swept the Cardinals. The series was anticlimatic after the Red Sox came back from a three games to none deficit, including extra inning wins in Games 4 and 5, to beat the Yankees in the ALCS. But since the Red Sox broke "The Curse of the Bambino" and won a World Series for the first time in 86 years after so many near misses, it became one of the most historically important World Series of all time. For that, I will always remember watching it. (It didn't hurt that the Cardinals lost, either.) And yes, I'm aware that I omitted the White Sox victory in 2005, breaking their 88-year drought. I just don't like them, that's all.

3. 2017 - Houston Astros defeat Los Angeles Dodgers, four games to three

This series featured two teams that hadn't won a championship in a while: The Dodgers, even with their rich history, hadn't made the World Series since they last won it in 1988, while the Astros were seeking their first ever title. Both teams also won over 100 games in the regular season, so there was lots of talent on both sides. The teams split the first six games, including two of the most entertaining World Series games of all time. In Game 2, the Astros tied it in the ninth, the two teams traded two spots in the tenth, and then the Astros finally won it in the 11th; there were five home runs hit in extra innings. Then in Game 5, the Dodgers scored three in the ninth to tie it before the Astros won in the tenth, with a final score of 13-12. Game 7 was over early when the Astros scored five in the first two innings and cruised to a 5-1 win, but it was a great series and I was happy to see a team win their first championship.

2. 2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks defeat New York Yankees, four games to three

Given that this series took place just weeks after the awful 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, the Yankees would have been the sentimental favorite except for the fact that, well, they're the Yankees. Especially since they'd won four of the last five championships and 26 overall, I think the majority of non-Yankees fans would have been just fine with them losing. The teams split the first six games, including two extra-inning wins for the Yankees in Games 4 and 5 that both featured game-tying home runs in the bottom of the ninth. The Yankees were three outs away from winning their fourth straight title before Mariano Rivera had one of his few bad postseason outings, allowing the Diamondbacks to score twice during a rally that started with a hit from my all-time favorite player, former Cubs first baseman Mark Grace. Luis Gonzalez had the game-winning RBI hit to give the Diamondbacks what is, to this day, their only championship. The Diamondbacks had a lot of veteran players seeking their first championship, plus I was tired of the Yankees winning, so I took a lot of gratification in how this one ended.

1. 2016 - Chicago Cubs defeat Cleveland Indians, four games to three

Come on, was there ever any doubt? No matter what happens the rest of my life, this will always be my favorite World Series because it was the first time I got to see the Cubs win, ending their 108-year stretch without a championship. But for baseball fans in general, the story lines couldn't have been better. It featured the two teams with the longest championship droughts (Cubs 108 years, Indians 68). The Cubs rallied back from a three games to one deficit. And Game 7 was one of the most memorable baseball games of all time, going into extra innings before the Cubs prevailed, 8-7 in 10. Yes, I am biased, but looking at this as objectively as possible, it's hard to imagine a series that offers more than this one did.

Dishonorable Mention: 2003 - Florida Marlins defeat New York Yankees, four games to two

We were so close to what would have been the most anticipated American sporting event of all time, but instead we got this dud of a match-up. The Cubs and Red Sox, with their long championship droughts and legendary stories of curses, both had late leads in a potential clinching Game 6 of their respective League Championship Series before blowing it then losing Game 7. I still hate the Marlins for coming back from a three games to one deficit to beat the Cubs that year, while the Yankees again beat the Red Sox to win their sixth AL pennant in eight years. Four of the six games in the World Series were decided by two or fewer runs, but I don't remember many details about actually watching this series because I was so upset over the Cubs losing and the fact that we missed such a great match-up.

The Beginning of the Challenge

Today, I'm beginning what is perhaps my biggest writing challenge yet: I will attempt to write 50,000 words in 30 days.

Every year, thousands of writers participate in National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo for short). To finish, writers have between November 1 and 30 to write a novel at least 50,000 words long. Many writers have taken the work they created during NaNoWriMo and later published it with success.

Not everyone who participates writes fiction, however. Some write nonfiction. Some do academic writing. Some will even edit another author's work. I've decided to do 50,000 words of blogging. It's my challenge and my writing, so I can do whatever I want, right?

To become better at anything, including writing, you need to keep practicing. And to grow as a writer, you have to challenge yourself and set goals that are difficult yet achievable. I'm hoping that through this experience, I'll learn more about myself and grow as a writer. I'm not planning to publish what I write during this month, though that is the goal that some writers have. I'll share some of it with my family and friends, but the biggest reason I'm doing it is for myself.

I've done a lot of writing over the years. I've written for several newspapers and websites. I've written many term papers under the pressure of a tight deadline. I've even written a book. But this may the most difficult project I have taken on yet, both because of the short amount of time I have and also because I'll have to come up with enough topics to write about. I'm hoping I'll have the time and patience to get this done, but above all else I hope I have fun and become a better person because of this. If you all enjoy what I write, that will only make it better.

To get to 50,000 words, I'll have to write about 1,667 words per day. I plan to update my progress on my Facebook page and even on here. And my goal is to provide quality writing, not a bunch of run-on sentences, like the one you are reading right now, in order pad my word count, although this sentence will be the exception to the rule, and I promise not to do it anymore after this.

Thanks in advance for reading and for your support!

(Be sure to visit nanowrimo.org if you want to learn more about this program.)

Five Words and Phrases That Add Nothing to Your Writing

There is nothing that can spoil a piece of writing more than poor word usage. Too often, I see an otherwise great essay or story that was difficult to read because it used unnecessary adjectives and adverbs or cliches that add nothing to the story and just take up space on the page. Here are six examples that I see often.

1. Overuse of "very" or "really"

Example: My son was really happy that I took him out for ice cream after dinner.

What, exactly, is the difference between being "happy" and "really happy" in this sentence? Usually, the word "really" implies a higher than normal level of happiness, but that leaves a lot open to interpretation for the reader. Saying someone is "happy" lets the reader know a person's response to something at a basic level, which is good, but "very" or "really happy" could mean many things. It would be better to describe something a person did, to add more action to the writing. For example, "When I told my son that I was taking him out for ice cream after dinner, he was so happy that he jumped out of his chair and gave me a hug."

An even worse variation of this is "extremely happy" (or whatever adjective you use). Whenever I see a writer use "extremely happy" to describe someone, I always picture the music video for "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden where people are prancing around with creepy smiles on their faces. The word "extreme" carries a strong connotation and should be used with caution. Again, don't rely on an adverb that not only wastes space but also leaves the reader starving for details.

2. "It's obvious" or "obviously"

Example: Obviously, we have to do more to help parents afford child care.

There are three ways I could interpret this, and none of them are good:

1. If it's obvious, then why the heck are you wasting my time telling me that?
2. I don't agree with you. Can't you disagree with me without insulting me?
3. I didn't know that. Why are you saying it's obvious? Do you think you're smarter than I am?

In situations like this, the word "obviously" (or a variation of it such as "clearly") at best does nothing more than take up valuable space on the page and at worst can ruin your credibility with the reader. Either take the word out or remove the sentence altogether.

3. "Wide variety"

Example: At Brian's Family Restaurant, we offer a wide variety of breakfast choices.

"Variety" is a word that, on its own, is already open to interpretation from the reader. Adding an adjective such as "wide" to indicate, presumably, a large number of items makes it even more so. I'm not opposed to using the word "variety" in some cases. But I feel it's a word that should be clarified with examples, to give the reader more information. Here's an example: "At Brian's Family Restaurant, we offer a variety of breakfast choices, including toast, eggs, pancakes, cereal, bacon, and sausage."

In the above example, the writer can prove that the restaurant offers a variety of choices. As long as the menu contains at least two different things, then by definition, they offer a variety. But adding "wide" to the above sentence, at best, is a waste of space and, at worst, puts a lot of burden on the writer to prove his point. A reader could look at this and say, "You said you have a wide variety. But I like to eat hash browns for breakfast. Why didn't you list that?" Or the reader could interpret it even more broadly. "You said you have a wide variety, but those are all American foods. Do you have any foreign menu choices?" To me, adding "wide" before "variety" can only hurt the writer.

4. "On paper"

Example: On paper, the Dodgers are the favorite to win the World Series this year.

As a sports writer, I see a lot of writers use this phrase and I've tried to get away from using it. In the above example, "on paper" is a short way of saying that when we look at the rosters of all the teams before the season begins, the Dodgers appear to have the most talent. But on what other basis can we judge the teams? If it is a fact that the Dodgers are the World Series favorite, take "on paper" out of the sentence. However, it's more likely that this is someone's opinion and that not everyone agrees. If that is the case, the sentence should reflect that. "Many writers I know are picking the Dodgers this year" or "The Dodgers are getting a lot of love from writers as we begin the season" are examples of how to do this. Or better yet, the writer should take ownership of his claim: "I believe the Dodgers will win the World Series this year."

5. "Literally"

Example: I had literally just gone to the store an hour ago.

There may not be a more tired word in the English language than "literally" is. I hear it used in everyday conversation often, but sometimes it makes its way into writing as well. A lot of people are guilty of using it, but it adds nothing to what the person is trying to say. It's a word that some writers think emphasizes their point more, but instead, it's a dead word that takes up space on the page. I suppose it could be used in dialog if we want to make the dialog as realistic as possible, but even then I find the use of the word to be annoying. Avoid the temptation to use this word.

6. "It goes without saying"

Example: It goes without saying that winters in Michigan are always harsh.

If it goes without saying, then why are you saying it? I have never understood why any writer would use this phrase. If you include it in your writing, I'm going to assume that you did indeed think it was necessary to say it in order to make your point. If your point truly is so obvious that you don't have to say it, then omit it.

Do you have more examples? Let me know!

How can we understand God's will?

The concept of God is difficult for us to understand. He is not limited by many of the constraints that we humans are on Earth. There's no beginning or end for him - he has always existed and will always exist. He is not affected by the physical wear that our human bodies and many other material things are. It's sometimes difficult for humans to wrap their minds around it.

Another thing about God that many of us don't understand is his plan for all of us. When something bad happens to a good person, or things don't go the way we expect them to, we struggle to make sense of it. Sometimes, something that makes perfect sense and that we think should happen doesn't happen, or something happens that makes absolutely no sense. I'm someone who likes to think logically, so for me it's especially tough to figure this out. Faith is not always my strong suit.

Without publicly getting into too much detail, there are a few things that have happened recently that really disappointed me. I don't want to make it sound like my life is miserable; I do have plenty to be happy about, such as a loving wife and family, good health, and a decent enough job that I can pay my bills. But there are other things about which I'm frustrated, not just because they didn't go the way that I want them to, but also because they didn't make sense.

I'm 31 years old. Around when I graduated from high school, I had this vision in my mind about how my life would turn out. I thought that by 31, certainly I would have everything about my life figured out and wouldn't have to worry about making tough decisions or trying to improve my life anymore. But that hasn't been the case, and I'm sure many of you have experienced similar feelings in your life. Many of my prayers have been answered, including finding my wife, which I did three years ago. But as I get older, I'm finding that I have more questions about where my life is going than I did 10-15 years ago.

What I'm finding is that life is a journey. I keep thinking that someday, I'm going to find that final destination that I've been heading towards for many years. But maybe there is no final destination. Maybe I'm supposed to keep getting up every day and just live my life and see what happens next. My whole life I've struggled to look ahead and wonder what was coming next, and too often I've failed to enjoy what's right in front of me.

When my wife and I were dating and seriously thinking about marriage a few years ago, I couldn't wait until we could get married and start our new life together. There were times when I thought that dating was the hard part, especially since we lived an hour away from each other. But I look back fondly on those days now. I learned so much about myself and recognize that I went through some necessary growth.

Maybe that's what I'm doing right now. It's easier said than done. I've had some days lately when I've been very discouraged, but I don't have any choice except to get up tomorrow and keep going. I don't know where this path is leading me, but I have to keep reminding myself that God is in charge. He has a plan that doesn't make perfect sense to me right now, but I'm only looking at this through the lens of one particular moment in time. I need to trust that God's plan is what's best for me and that several years from now, I will look back on these days as an important time in my life.

Brian R. Johnston is the author of the book The Art of Being a Baseball Fan, available now on Amazon. Click here to visit him on Facebook.

The Art of Being a Baseball Fan: An Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from my book, The Art of Being a Baseball Fan, which is now for sale on Amazon. You can also order a signed copy by emailing Brian at brjohnston1985@yahoo.com.

(April 2015)

It was on to Denver to face the Colorado Rockies. The Cubs lost the series opener 5-1 on Friday, but on Saturday, the offense finally busted out in a 9-5 win, setting up the rubber game on Sunday. In the second inning, the Cubs struck first for a run before a frustrating bottom half. With one out and runners on first and second, Daniel Descalso hit a ground ball that could have been a double play; instead, pitcher Kyle Hendricks deflected it away from Starlin Castro and everyone was safe. Former Cubs prospect DJ LeMahieu proceeded to clear the bases with a triple as part of a four-run inning. The Cubs got two back in the fifth but should have gotten more. After a Hendricks RBI single, they loaded the bases with nobody out. Anthony Rizzo hit a sacrifice fly, but then Jorge Soler hit a bullet right to second that turned into a double play.

Heading into the ninth, down 5-3, it was another one of those hair-pulling games I’m so accustomed to. I decided to stop watching and start dinner while tracking the rest of the game on my phone. After Miguel Montero struck out to lead off the ninth, the Rockies brought in LaTroy Hawkins to get the last two outs. If you’ll recall, Hawkins was the goat of the Cubs’ late 2004 collapse. Now in the 20th and final year of his career, he finds himself trying to get the save against his former team. Arismendy Alcantara walked and went to second on a wild pitch before Mike Olt struck out. Welington Castillo kept the game alive with a single that drove in Alcantara. In the kitchen, hoping for a small miracle, I quickly turned on the radio feed on my phone.

Hawkins got ahead of Dexter Fowler 0-2 before hanging a slider over the plate. Fowler launched it into the second deck in right field – Cubs lead, 6-5. I typically don’t show much emotion while watching games. But when I heard Cubs broadcaster Pat Hughes call that home run, I found myself shouting and pumping my fist. Hector Rondon was able to secure the victory with a scoreless ninth, and I celebrated again when they got the final out. That was the most excited I can remember getting over a Cubs game in a long time. When your team hasn’t been relevant for five years, there aren’t many such opportunities. It felt really good.

The Cubs came back home for a three-game series with the Cincinnati Reds. The good feeling I had from the previous day went away quickly when Jon Lester again struggled, giving up three runs in the first. However, the Cubs quickly came back with three of their own, including a two-run homer from Jorge Soler. Lester settled in before running out of steam in the sixth, surrendering three more runs to make it 6-3.

I pretty much conceded this game. Like I did on Sunday, I turned the game off my computer and followed updates on MLB Gameday. But for at least another night, this wasn’t the Cubs of the past five years. Chris Coghlan homered in the seventh to make it 6-4, then Jorge Soler hit his second homer of the game in the eighth to tie it. Again, I quickly got the game back on my phone.

The game went into extras. In the bottom of the tenth, the Cubs loaded the bases with none out. Starlin Castro hit a hard ground ball to shortstop and the Reds got the force at home. My negative instincts kicked in again. They were reinforced when Arismendy Alcantara, 0-for-16 on the season, swung and missed at his first two pitches – looking horrible in the process. My groans were getting louder. But on the next pitch, he hit a ground ball through the drawn-in infield to win it.

The next morning, I had this unusual feeling come over me: I was actually excited for the next game. Not since those division-winning days of 2007 and 2008 did I get this enthusiastic about watching the Cubs. When they were down late both Sunday and Monday, I found myself giving up and falling into apathy again. Five years of constant losing will have that effect, even on the most diehard supporters. But I suddenly felt like I had come back to life. Maybe, I thought, this year will be different.

Or maybe that was just my “overreacting to what happens early in the season” impulse kicking in.

____________________________________________________

[...]

____________________________________________________

They next hit the road for four in Pittsburgh followed by three in Cincinnati. The Cubs cruised to a 5-2 win in the first game in Pittsburgh, led by Kris Bryant, who drove in three runs. The next day came a surprising announcement: The Cubs were calling up another top prospect, Addison Russell, who they got in a midseason trade last year.

Much like Bryant, Russell had a rough first game, going 0-for-5 with three strikeouts. But it was a memorable game for other reasons. The two teams went back and forth before the Cubs tied it at 5 in the top of the seventh. In the bottom of the seventh, the Pirates loaded the bases with two outs. I got that feeling of frustration I’ve gotten hundreds of times, that the game is about to fall apart. Sure enough, the Pirates’ Jung Ho Kang cleared the bases with a double to make it 8-5.

Again, I gave up on this game. I figured there’s no way they’d come back from this. But in the eighth, Welington Castillo started the comeback with a homer… 8-6. In the ninth, Anthony Rizzo singled on the first pitch of the inning, then Jorge Soler doubled on the second pitch. Again, I fervently got the game back on my phone. Kris Bryant walked. Then Starlin Castro came up and hit a chopper to the left side of the infield. The camera panned over to Josh Harrison at third. The play seemed to be going in slow motion. Harrison jumped into the air to reach for the ball. I tried by best to will the ball by him. After what seemed like several minutes, the ball cleared his glove. “YES!”, I shouted, as it went into left field. Two runs scored, and the game was tied.

Now, Bryant is at third and Castro is at first. Castillo hit a ground ball on the infield, and the only play the Pirates had was at first. Bryant scored the go-ahead run. Hector Rondon pitched a clean ninth to preserve the 9-8 win. How could I not be pumped after this game? The Cubs were 8-5 and had already played in several crazy games. This was a team I could get behind.
____________________________________________________
The Cubs last made the playoffs in 2008. They last finished with a winning record in 2009. For five straight years, from 2010-14, they stumbled out of the gate and never recovered. Already this season, they have had several thrilling victories, a few tough losses, and plenty of story lines. A lot of fans that had stopped paying attention are coming back. But speaking as a diehard, I’ve been touched with Cubs Fever.

The day after their comeback win against the Pirates, while at work, I was having flashbacks to 2003. I pictured the moment when Joe Borowski struck out Andruw Jones to win the decisive Game 5 of the NLDS over Atlanta. I could hear radio announcer Pat Hughes’ exuberant call, “Bring on the Marlins!” I’ve thought about this moment many times over the years. But on this day, it was giving me chills. It’s been years since I experienced this. I couldn’t wait for another moment like that. With the way the team was playing, it suddenly seemed possible. But then I snapped out of my daydream and looked over at the calendar at my desk.

It was still April.

The Latest Seinfeld Episode: "The Facebook"

Seinfeld was a classic caricature of life in the 1990s. But what if the show was on the air today? I tried to imagine a possible plot line and came up with this script, called, "The Facebook":

(George walks into Jerry's apartment.)

Jerry: Hey.

George: Hey.

Jerry: So I saw your post about your date with Jennifer last night. Sounds like it went really well!

George: Yeah, well, I thought so too. But I made that post 14 hours ago and she hasn't liked my status yet!

Jerry: So?

George: "So?" Don't you think if she had a good time that she would have liked my status?

Jerry: Well, maybe she's not a liker.

George: What do you mean?

Jerry: Well, some Facebook users are very generous with their likes, liking every little thing that pops up on their news feed, while others are more strict with their likes and only distribute them for very special occasions. Maybe Jennifer falls into that later category.

George: No, I think she's a liker. One of her friends posted some stupid video of a dog chasing its tail yesterday, and she liked that video within minutes!

Jerry: I think you're making too much of it. Maybe she's worried about coming on too strong.

George: I just think it's common courtesy that if someone posts a good status about you, you should like it, as a token of appreciation.

Jerry: Let me ask you. Did she post a status about the date?

George: Yes.

Jerry: Was it a good status?

George: It said, "Enjoyed having a night out tonight with a new acquaintance."

Jerry: Hmm, I'd say that's a favorable status. And you liked it?

George: Yes, within seconds.

Jerry: Then it sounds like there hasn't been a fair exchange of likes. I think you have a strong case.

(Kramer slides in the door.)

Kramer: Hey.

Jerry: Hey.

Kramer: Up until now, my life has been meaningless!

Jerry: (sarcastically) But you've accomplished so much!

Kramer: No, see, I just started a Facebook page for coffee table lovers. (Phone dings.) Oh, I just got my first like! This is gonna be great! Finally, a chance for coffee table fans everywhere to share their passion. You know what would really help get the page off the ground? A picture of a celebrity with their coffee table. Jerry, let me take a picture of you using your coffee table.

Jerry: I don't have my coffee table. I let you borrow it three months ago and I haven't gotten it back.

Kramer: Well aren't you a sad, pathetic little man.

(Jerry groans. Then the buzzer rings and Jerry walks over to it.)

Jerry: Yeah?

Voice: It's Elaine.

Jerry: Come on up.

George: Kramer, let me ask you something. What percentage of posts on your Facebook feed do you like?

Kramer: (while rummaging through Jerry's fridge) I'd say maybe 3%. I'm not loose with my likes. You really have to impress me to get me to hit that like button.

George: Hmm, well I posted my status about my date with Jennifer last night and she hasn't liked it yet. Do you think that's a sign that she didn't have a good time?

Kramer: (while eating an apple) I'll tell you how you can find out. Today's Thursday, right?

George: Yeah.

Kramer: It's Throwback Thursday. Post an embarrassing picture of yourself from your childhood and tag her in it. If she likes it, then you'll know she's still interested in you!

Jerry: (sarcastically) Oh, yeah, this is a great idea.

(Elaine walks in.)

Elaine: So, everyone's been complaining about what a horrible dancer I am, right? Well, I had someone tape me dancing at Tim Whatley's party with my phone last night.

Jerry: Hey, did you see Tim Whatley's status about that party?

Elaine: The one where he thanked a bunch of people for coming by tagging them?

Jerry: Yeah, except, he didn't tag me.

Elaine: Maybe he forgot.

Jerry: He did say to tag anyone he forgot. Would you mind commenting and tagging me?

Elaine: I don't know Jerry. Maybe he's still mad at you for that anti-dentist status you posted last week.

Jerry: Oh, that wasn't a big deal! Come on, please?

Elaine: I just don't feel comfortable doing it.

Jerry: George?

George: (uncomfortable): Um... uh...

Jerry: Oh come on! Kramer?

Kramer: Sorry, buddy. For all I know he may have went out of his way not to tag you. I don't wanna be an accomplice in this.

Jerry: I gotta find out whether it was intentional.

Elaine: Anyway, wanna watch it with me?

Jerry: Watch what?

Elaine: The video of me dancing?

Jerry: (reluctant) Well... uh...

Elaine: Jerry! I'm a good dancer, right?

Jerry: (again reluctant) Uh... yeah... guys, let's all watch this together.

George: I'd love to, but we gotta go over to my parents' house to look through some old photo albums. (rushes out the door)

Kramer: (while walking out the door) Yeah!

Elaine: OK, here it is!

(Jerry and Elaine watch the video. Elaine is dancing, very poorly.)

Elaine: (surprised) Wow, am I really that bad?

Jerry: You know there's no possible right answer to that.

Elaine: Well, that's it. I've decided to no longer dance in public.

Jerry: (does fist pump) Yes!

(Elaine looks at Jerry disgustedly.)

Jerry: I mean... that's a shame.

(Elaine sets phone on counter and walks over to the couch to sit down. Kramer comes back in.)

Kramer: I need to make a sandwich.

Jerry: I do accept tips, you know.

(Kramer reaches for bread and accidentally spills it all over the counter. Elaine comes over to help clean up and grabs her phone, then goes back over to the couch.)

Elaine: So when am I gonna get to meet this "Monica" you've been raving about.

Jerry: Tomorrow night. She is fantastic! She's beautiful, smart, has a great sense of humor, likes the Mets... I think she might be the one!

Elaine: Can I see a picture?

Jerry: Sure, she's got over 200 on her profile. Let me pull it up here.

(Jerry opens Facebook on his phone.)

Jerry: (reads off phone disgustedly) Suggested page: Monica likes Kenny Bania? I don't believe this. Monica likes Bania's Facebook page?

Elaine: So what's the big deal?

Jerry: I don't know if I can be with someone who likes Bania's Facebook page. The guy's a total hack!

Elaine: Maybe she liked the page years ago and forgot about it.

Jerry: (contemplating): Yeah, maybe. I need to find out if she's still a fan.

(Elaine's phone dings. She looks at it.)

Elaine: (reading) "Tim Whatley shared your video"? What video, I haven't posted any videos this week. (She clicks on the notification to read it, then gasps.) My dance video is on Facebook and Tim Whatley shared it on his wall! I must have accidentally posted it when I was cleaning up after Kramer!

Kramer: Well, that might be a problem. (walks out the door with sandwich)

Elaine: Look at this, five people have already shared it. I'm all over the internet now! What am I gonna do?

Jerry: Well, I hear Europe is lovely this time of year.

(The next scene is at George's parents' house. Estelle lets George and Kramer in.)

George: Mom, where do you keep all the photo albums?

Estelle: They're right around the corner there. What do you need those for?

George: Does it matter? (turns to Kramer) Let's see if we can find a really embarrassing childhood picture. One where I really look traumatized.

Frank: (to Estelle, angry) Why did you run the disk defragmenter on my computer.

Estelle: It needed to be run.

Frank: You know I have a fantasy baseball draft this afternoon. Why did you pick right now?

Estelle: (getting angry) I've been telling you to run it for three weeks. I got tired of waiting!

Frank: (even angrier) You can't just defragment any time you want! If you do that, society falls apart!

George: (to Kramer) This shouldn't be too hard.

(The scene shifts back to Jerry's apartment the next day. George walks in, excited.)

George: Well, I just posted a picture of myself sitting on the toilet crying when I was five years old. I even tagged Jennifer in the post!

Jerry: You what???

George: (getting a little nervous) Now I just have to see if she likes it. If she does, I'll know she's interested in me.

Jerry: Don't you think you're coming off as a little desperate?

George: I sure hope so. It's all I have left.

Jerry: (looking at George's post on his phone) Oh my gosh, that is ridiculous! Has she liked it yet?

George: No. (looks through phone) Look at this! It says on my feed that she liked the New York Mets' picture of Matt Harvey at spring training!

Jerry: Maybe that was from a while ago.

George: (frustrated) No, that was posted four minutes ago! How could she like the Mets' photo but not mine? I liked her profile picture when she changed it yesterday! I've given her two likes and I get nothing in return! I'm two likes in the hole!

Jerry: When are you seeing her again?

George: Tonight. I'm gonna confront her about this.

Jerry: Well, I have my own confrontation tonight. I need to find out if Monica is really a Bania fan.

(Kramer slides through the door, clearly flustered. His phone is buzzing repeatedly.)

Kramer: I'm losing my mind Jerry!

Jerry: What's with you?

Kramer: My phone keeps going off every two seconds. It's those notifications for my coffee table page. People liking the page, commenting on my statuses. It's driving me crazy!

Jerry: Why don't you just turn the notifications off?

Kramer: I can't! They're popping up so fast I can't even get to my settings! (Kramer sets the phone on the counter, but it keeps buzzing.) That's it, I've had it!

(Kramer picks up the phone and throws it out the window. Newman is outside walking on the sidewalk when the phone lands in front of him. He looks around, picks it up, and calmly puts it in his coat pocket.)

(In the next scene, George and his date, Jennifer, are at a restaurant eating dinner.)

George: You enjoying your meal?

Jennifer: Yes, I am.

(Several moments of silence)

George: Would you say that you... like... it?

Jennifer: (confused) Yeah. (phone dings) Oh, my best friend's second cousin just posted a picture of her new parrot! I gotta like this!

George: So... you aren't stingy with your likes, are you?

Jennifer: What are you getting at?

George: I'll tell you what I'm getting at. You didn't like my status about our first date. Didn't you think we had a good time?

Jennifer: Well, yeah...

George: And then you didn't like my Throwback Thursday picture. I don't get it. What did I do wrong? I liked your status AND your profile picture. I want restitution. You owe me two likes!

Jennifer: Well, who posts a picture like that of himself and tags a woman after going out on one date with her?

George: I was just trying to be friendly!

Jennifer: This is getting way too weird. It's just a stupid status.

George: Stupid status? I pour my heart and soul out for you, for everyone I know to see, and this is the thanks I get!

Jennifer: That's it, I'm leaving. Let me post it on Facebook. (checks phone) My great uncle is watching Everybody Loves Raymond. (looks at George) LIKE!!!

George: (getting angry) Oh-ho-hoooooooooooooo!

(In the next scene, Newman is alone in his apartment, sitting in his chair, looking at the phone he just found.)

Newman: I'm gonna post that I just got a new phone! Let me just log into Facebook.

(Newman opens Facebook and goes to sign in. He taps on the email box, and several email addresses appear in the dropdown menu.)

Newman: Hmm, funnyboy1986@yahoo.com? (pauses for several seconds) I've got you now, Seinfeld! (Newman does an evil laugh for several seconds, then the microwave dings.) Oooh, my pizza!

(The next scene shows Jerry out on a date with Monica. The two are eating.)

Jerry: I'm excited that you're coming to my comedy show later tonight!

Monica: Me too! It should be fun.

Jerry: Have you seen any comedy shows recently?

Monica: No.

(Several moments of silence)

Jerry: None at all?

Monica: (confused): No, I haven't.

Jerry: Have you been to a lot over the years?

Monica: I've been to some.

Jerry: Any you've seen that just flat out stunk?

Monica: Well, maybe a couple.

Jerry: Any in particular? What were their names?

Monica: I don't remember, Jerry. What are you getting at?

Jerry: (agitated) Well, I noticed that you like Kenny Bania's Facebook page.

Monica: And?

Jerry: Are you a fan of his?

Monica: I wouldn't say that. I saw him at a show one time and I guess I liked his page afterwards.

Jerry: If you're not a fan, why did you like his page?

Monica: I don't remember. It was a few years ago. So what?

Jerry: The guy's a total hack! Half his act is about Ovaltine! Why don't you unlike his page?

Monica: I don't know, I just haven't.

Jerry: Could you do it now?

Monica: Why? Can't we just enjoy dinner right now? (checks phone)

Jerry: (reaches across the table for the phone while Monica tries to hold onto it) Give me that phone! I'll unlike the page for you!

Monica: What is wrong with you? (packs up stuff) I'm leaving!

Jerry: Go have fun with your new boyfriend Bania!

(After several seconds, Bania walks up from the other direction.)

Bania: Hey, Jerry! Have you tried the soup here? It's the best, Jerry, the best!

(Jerry looks disgusted.)

(In the next scene, Jerry is in his apartment, and Elaine walks in.)

Elaine: You would not believe what I am dealing with at work. Everyone is watching that video. People come up to me every two minutes with their phones pointed at me, asking me to dance! Someone even made a remix and posted it on YouTube!

Jerry: (grabs phone to look up video) Wow, over 20,000 hits so far!

(Elaine puts head in hands in disgust.)

Jerry: Well, I think I'm on the outs with Monica.

Elaine: Why is that?

Jerry: I confronted her about liking Bania's Facebook page.

Elaine: What did she say?

Jerry: Well, she wouldn't unlike the page, so I tried to grab her phone and do it but she freaked out and left!

Elaine: Can't say I blame her.

Jerry: (browsing through phone) Looks like she unfriended me too.

Elaine: (laughing) When did you post this? (reads phone) "My comedy routines are nothing but drivel and my feet stink?"

Jerry: I didn't post that! (goes to profile, face turns to disgust) What? Someone must have hacked my profile? Who's had access to my phone?

Elaine: (looks at phone) Hey, here's another one. "I haven't showered in two weeks, and I look down women's blouses while I'm on stage every night."

Jerry: How is this happening?

Elaine: Were you signed in anywhere else?

Jerry: On Kramer's phone one time. (thinks for several seconds) NEWMAN!

(The scene shifts to Newman's apartment. Newman calmly sits in his chair while Jerry is standing, agitated.)

Newman: Hello, Jerry.

Jerry: Hello, Newman.

Newman: I've enjoyed your Facebook posts lately. It's good that you finally have an outlet where you can express the real truth about yourself, isn't it?

Jerry: Alright Newman, let's cut the chit chat. What do I have to do to get you to stop this madness!

Newman: Well there is one thing you can do. Something that has alluded me for many, many years.

Jerry: Out with it already!

Newman: It's Elaine.

Jerry: What about her?

Newman; Five years ago, almost to the day, I sent her a friend request. To this day, that request remains unrequited. She is the one woman for whom I have pined to be online friends with, so that I may view all her pictures and posts with pleasure. Perhaps our online acquaintance could one day lead to something more.

(Camera shows Jerry with disgusted look.)

Newman: (stands up and becomes more passionate) Every day, I open my Facebook app, hoping this will be the day that I get that notification I have so longed for. And every day until now, I have looked at the top of my feed and seen that it's not to be. (gets louder and more excited) But maybe tomorrow, there will be...

Jerry: OK, OK! I'll make it happen.

Newman: Just remember, as far as the world knows, I am now you. (makes loud, evil laugh as Jerry walks out the door, then hears his phone ding) Ooooh, my pizza is ready for pickup!

(George is at work at Yankee Stadium the next day, at a round table with several people, about to start a big meeting.)

Wilhelm: Now, before we get started on this project, I ran across something on Facebook yesterday that was... deeply disturbing. And yet funny at the same time.

(He then turns on the projector, and George's childhood picture is projected on the wall. Everyone starts laughing, while George buries his head in his hands.)

Wilhelm: Now, I'm seeing a new ad campaign. "Don't be sad, baseball season is back!"

George: (whimpering) Oh, no.

And we'll plaster it on every billboard in town. (turns to George) Thanks, George, for inspiring us.

(Everyone starts laughing and applauding.)

George: GEORGE IS GETTING UPSET!

(A man walks up to Kramer's door and knocks. Kramer opens the door and is surprised. It's Darren the intern from Kramerica Industries.)

Kramer: Darren, what are you doing here? Kramerica Industries is long gone, remember?

Darren: I know, but... I noticed you haven't posted anything on your Coffee Table Lovers page on Facebook in two days. I wanted to make sure everything was ok.

Kramer: You followed the page?

Darren: Yeah, I did. I have to say, it inspired me.

Kramer: Well, it became too much for me to handle.

Darren: Kramer, that page has over 3,000 likes right now. Those people are counting on you to brighten their day with pictures of cats sleeping on coffee tables, or college kids seeing how many coffee tables they can stack on top of each other. With my help, we can make this happen.

Kramer: (excited) Darren, you believed in me when no one else did. Let's start taking some pictures and get to work!

(Darren and Kramer walk in and close the door. They then quickly walk back out and sprint across the hall.)

Kramer: We need to borrow Jerry's camera.

(Scene switches to Jerry and Elaine at the coffee shop with their phones.)

Elaine: Hey, do you know how I got to be friends with Newman on Facebook?

Jerry: (acting surprised) No idea.

Elaine: Anyway, I found out that he collects old benches. Can you believe that?

Jerry: Well, he needs somewhere to put all his dirty dishes every day!

Elaine: Maybe Newman's a misunderstood guy.

Jerry: Yeah, it's misunderstood why anyone would voluntarily wanna spend time with him.

Elaine: I might have had him all wrong. I'm gonna to talk to him and ask if I can see some of his benches. (walks away)

Jerry: One by one they're deserting me.

(Kramer and Tim Whatley come into the coffee shop.)

Jerry: What are you two doing here?

Kramer: Just stopping by for some coffee before we go do a photo shoot at Tim's office. He's got several coffee tables there for patients and I wanna share them with the world on my Facebook page!

Jerry: Hey, Tim, I noticed that you didn't tag me in your status about your party the other night, so I tagged myself.

Tim: (looking uncomfortable) Hmm, I didn't think you'd tag yourself.

Jerry: Now did you say, "Hmm, I didn't think you'd TAG yourself," or did you say, "Hmm, I didn't think YOU'D tag yourself"?

Tim: I don't get it. Just like I don't get your dentist jokes.

(Tim walks away with Kramer, as Kramer looks at Jerry disgustedly. Jerry rolls his eyes. Then George walks in and sits down.)

George: (chuckling) I just got a suggestion to like Kenny Bania's Facebook page. He did a status on Bosco that was kinda funny. You know, I love that stuff!

Jerry: (after several seconds of fuming, dives across the table trying to take George's phone) GIVE ME THAT PHONE!

Brian R. Johnston is the author of the book The Art of Being a Baseball Fan, available now on Amazon. Click here to visit him on Facebook.