I have learned a new word: schadenfreude

It would be nice to say I came across the word while perusing a scholarly treatise or writing a sermon, but it popped up in an article in Yahoo Sports.  Sean McHugh, a reserve fullback, was cut by the Detroit Lions, the worst team in professional football.  Surely the guy must have figured that his future in the sport was bleak?  But, four days later he was signed by the Pittsburg Steelers.  Now he will be playing in the Super Bowl.  And the Detroit Lions?  They finished the season with the distinction of being the only team ever to lose every game, 0-16!

McHugh is candid in his assessment of the situation.  “Oh, yeah,” he smiled. “You’re sitting there in warm-ups and you look at the scoreboard and see Detroit’s losing. Part of me smiled. I wouldn’t personally want those guys to do [badly], but the organization [is different].

“It’s a little I told-you-so deal. It’s a little satisfaction.”

schadenfreude

I think I am in lots of company here, at least with those who read sports articles on Yahoo Sports.  I take pleasure in schadenfreude at most sports fans who have no idea at the meaning of the word.

As best I can understand, it is enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others, and most specifically it is to enjoy the suffering of “bad” people.  It is to sit back and quietly observe, and inwardly approve with a sense of justice, at the misfortune of someone who has previously mistreated yourself.  It appears to me to be at least tacit approval of the revenge of karma.  Of course, the little-preacher-inside-my -head tells me it is just a fancy word for vengeance, and further reminds me of the oft quoted scripture, “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.”

If you want to enjoy schadenfreude, it seems to me to necessitate not to think too deeply about specific ramifications.  It is good that the shoddy and unprincipled business model of Circuit City has failed.  But thousands of people are out of work, with bills to pay and kids to feed.  I would have to be a rather cold jerk to delight in such, and thankfully I have not crossed that line.

So, it is a shallow pleasure.  And I admit to its indulgence.

Larry was the High School jock, with a fluffy head of blond hair.  He would flash his pearly whites and all the cute girls would trample over little-ole-me to drool in his presence.  Now he is bald and pudgy.  And I smile when I see him.

When reading of the demise of Circuit City, I felt not an ounce of pity.  They were the ones of the ridiculous 15% restocking fee, and a few years earlier purged thousands of their loyal workers simply to save money by hiring new ones at lower pay.

Sometimes I will have a person to leave my church and ministry, feigning he “is not being fed spiritually” and has found a better pastor and church.  I’ve always been skeptical of such as religious pomposity, not because I’m such a great minister, but because the tools and opportunity for spiritual growth are readily available and not really tied to any church or preacher.  And, it seems almost common, if you give such a person some time- maybe six months or so, he ends up not attending any church and with a lot of problems in his life.  Of course, his pride will not allow him to admit that his problems all along were not the fault of the church or the preacher, but deep inside himself.  And, inevitably when I come across this person, initially I am challenged with schadenfreude.  He truly was not a-cut-above the rest of us blue collar strugglers!  Yes, I know I should be above such pettiness.  But, it is there.

I know it is not nice.  At least it is not mean…. Well, not exactly?  God forgive me.

Unapologetic Coach Of 100-0 Win Fired By School

Let’s say you are the coach, and your High School girls basketball team is ahead 59-0 at halftime.  What do you do? 

Some things are obvious:
You are not going to lose this game.
The other team is very, very bad.

You could... seek to embrace the rules of good sportsmanship by resting your starters for remainder of game and do your best with second-team players to keep the score down.  Perhaps you could run plays in which your poorest offensive players would shoot the ball, or you could practice defense by keeping the ball in the hands of the other team.  Of course, such liberties might focus embarrassment upon the opponent.  A more acceptable approach may be to talk with the other coach and invoke some kind of mutually agreed “mercy rule” where the game would end with the current score.

Or…you could keep your starters in for the rest of the game, employ a tenacious full-court press to overwhelm the hapless team, and furiously shoot 3-pointers- all with the intent of accomplishing a 100-0 score.

Allow me to make a defense of this coach:

In the final analysis let us not kid ourselves.  By and large, competitive High School athletics is about winning, not sportsmanship or the development of character.  And money.  Ask almost any coach who played by the rules, instilled discipline and respect, set a positive example for his students, made sure his students did well in class, and… wound up with losing more games than he won.  Likely he became an ex-coach.  Zealous parents, rabid fans, and school coffers require winning above all else.

Now, I am not saying that a coach with the ability to put together and execute a winning ball club is not also a person who reflects and instills character.  However, generally speaking, the latter is not required.  And so we end up with a man who sees nothing wrong with pulverizing the other team of little girls with a score of 100-0.

The media, community, and school officials wonder from where this man came?  Well, he is your creation.  He knows it is all about winning.  The kind of winning you need necessitates hardness, tenacity, and often pain and seldom mercy.  It does not make much sense to expect such a brutal creature to switch off this mentality when called upon by wisdom and kindness.

Fire the coach?  Sure, but first fire the system.

 

 

Betta Boy from a happier time

 

And then one day he was not well....

 

Funeral.

He was a good fish.

I am not trying to give a review, but simply to share some immediate thoughts as I have finished the book:

(1) I’ve learned to spell the name of the author.  Clarke.  Really it is a wasted letter.  The author would surely agree, as he is so gifted with his ability to be Spartan with his words yet thorough with the exactness of his descriptions.  I would kill to be such a writer!

(2) And I understand, because of the popularity of the book, there have been written three sequels.  However, they are written by Gentry Lee, with Clarke only making editing suggestions.  As much as I would like to know more of the story, I think I will honor this book by not reading the such unnecessary filler.  I will use my imagination, as would surely be the intention of the author before being bribed.

(3) I have read that Morgan Freeman has expressed ongoing interest in making the movie.  I like Morgan Freeman, and think he would no doubt do an excellent job.

(4) Nelson has two families, one on Earth and as I remember one on Mars.  It is a socially acceptable arrangement.  He also has a sexual liaison with a coworker, again apparently with no sense of impropriety.  And I think such degradation of the concept of fidelity is meant to be portrayed as enlightened evolution.  I sure hope the author is wrong.

(5) My initial suspicions about the nature of the spacecraft prove correct.  Indeed, it is an interstellar Noah’s Ark.  However, it seems to be filled with artifacts and robots.  Where are the life forms?  I move through the book hoping to meet a Raman, but it never happens.  There is the hint of suspense throughout, as if the next exploration or encounter will indeed produce an alien.  And maybe they are there?  They could be in suspended animation, somewhere hidden deep within the massive craft, yet to awaken.  They could be in the bowels of the ship, quietly observing the curious and inferior human searchers.  I get the idea they are waiting to make their entrance in the next book.  Maybe?

So, I encourage you to read the book.  214 pages, an easy and fun read.  What am I reading now?  The Darwin Awards, 6^th Edition.  Hey, I never claimed to be a scholar.

 

 

 

I told Randy I would give him a ride to Men's Breakfast, scheduled at the church for Sunday morning at 8:00.  My Sunday was extremely busy, as usual, with all kinds of deadlines and performances and matters demanding my attention.  And so I was building up a resentment at having to give this guy a ride.  He lives over ten miles from the church with no direct route to his house.  As usual I was running late.  Certainly I exceeded the speed limit along the circuitous route to his home on the other side of the County.  He was waiting in the carport, and a bit anxious that I was not on time.  He entered the car and immediately started pressing buttons on his cellphone, his normal routine for the trip.  There was little small talk, and again no acknowledgment of thanks for my effort of time and inconvenience.  By the time we pulled into the parking lot, ten minutes tardy, I was rather agitated at Randy.  He got out of the car and walked on inside, without waiting for me.  And he ate a lot of breakfast.  To the amusement of most of the men, he consumed three helpings.  And I noticed, when the basket was passed, that he did not pay.

Along the day, I thought quite a bit about Randy as I examined my irritation with him.  He is around 30 years of age, and mentally challenged.  He is unable to drive because of seizures.  I've highly admired the fact that he works regularly, riding his bicycle many miles to the local Mervyn's where he serves as a stock boy.  He attended our church many years ago when he lived in the neighborhood, and continues to seek the connection even though in my estimation he lives too far away and should find a local church to attend.  Most Sundays his mother will bring him, but of course she is not going to get up early for Men's Breakfast.  My service to Randy does not seem to earn me brownie points with the congregation.  He is not capable of leadership and does not understand the concept of giving.  It would likely be easier to help him, if there were some kind of clear payback for the effort.  But he is not related to anyone else in the congregation.  He is not particularly attractive or fun to be around.  And, irritating to me, he does not say thanks or express appreciation for what I do for him.  I wonder if he even thinks about it?

As I considered the matter, I came to realize the real problem is not with Randy, but my attitude.  As a follower of Christ, why should I give and serve?  And I know the answer, enforced by countless Sunday School lessons and sermons.  Giving should be from the heart, selfless.  It is to be motivated by love with a pure desire to honor Christ.  With Randy, I sure was drifting far from such ideals.  I was demanding what I perceived to be worthiness and acknowledgment on the part of the recipient.  He was supposed to be grateful and sweet, and certainly give me credit for the noble effort!  And I almost fell for it, until I felt a rather sharp slap to face by an unseen hand.  "Dave, just love the guy.  Forget about acknowledgment and praise.  I know, and that's all that matters."

Indeed!  Oops.  My phone is ringing.  I think it is Randy, wanting to chat.  Good grief, I've got a million things to do.....

I'm about a quarter of the way through Rendezvous With Rama, by Arthur C. Clark.  It is embarrassing to admit, but this is the first book that I have ventured to read by the noted Sci-Fi writer.  It seems clear that Clark does not put a lot of effort into character development.  But, so far, the read is sufficiently interesting.  A massive, cylindrical spaceship is hurtling toward earth. So a dedicated group of scientist/explorers enter to discover a foreign world, a strange Noah's Ark from another galaxy, with inhabitants now extinct. 

And, of course, I am wondering about what will develop next.  Surely there will be an encounter with living and dangerous aliens?  Also, I think the author is making some parallels about our world and how we may one day face a similar extinction.  I am looking forward to the rest of the book. 

Reading is so much more fulfilling and satisfying than most that we find to occupy our "down" time.  It's a shame that I am so lazy about it.  And I am not the only one.  With our high tech world that breeds such a brief attention span, I'm afraid that reading is becoming a lost art. 

As I wade through a good book, there's temptation.  I would like to know the end of the story, even as I realize such would spoil most of the interest.  I could easily find the plot and information with a quick internet search.  But no!  I'll plod through the book for the next several days.

Anybody read this book, or others by Clark?

My morning routine was moving along as usual.  There I sat in my easy chair, groggy, munching on a bowl of Golden Grahams.  And, might I add, it is the finest bowl of cereal- sweet and crunchy with more than a hint of nostalgic graham cracker taste.  I stared at the Today Show not really tuned in to the contents.  I like Matt & Meridith, along with Al and Ann.  Come to think of it, Ann has not been around recently.  I know these guys and the network tow the liberal line.  But I just cannot stand the glib, inane chatter of Fox & Friends.  And Meridith seems intent upon being the “anti-Katie”, which seems to me a very good thing.  Over the years I’ve watched Matt’s receding hairline and Al’s expanding waist and just grown comfortable with the bunch.

They do news and information is 90-second blurts.  That’s right.  The subject matter could involve a movie about a dog or an interview with the President, but it still will be short and silly and with little real informational value.  And I guess such is to be expected, since the average viewer is probably glassy eyed and dribbling cereal into his lap.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor, was on the screen at the moment.  My eyes focused, because she is cute, with big dimples and a ready smile.  And my ears tuned in to what she was saying.  She was commenting on Obama’s nominee for U. S. Surgeon General, Sanjay Gupta, a fellow physician-turned-talking- head and currently spouting inanities on CNN.  She offered opinion about the former Surgeon General during the Reagan administration, C. Everett Koop.  In a bizarre attempt I guess to compliment him, she commented concerning his personal beliefs about abortion, and then contrasted such with his heavy-handed opposition to smoking.  She was very supportive of how he sought to curtail smoking with graphic and disturbing warning labels on packs of cigarettes.  But she branded his beliefs about abortion with the pejorative “anti-choice” .  Of course, Matt and Company simply nodded their heads, since this was acceptable language in their circles of influence.  And now I was wide awake.

Surely an ongoing government policy of heavy taxation upon cigarettes and the accompanying graphic, negative labeling, could be equally termed “anti-choice” ?  But there would be no way for the political left to use such an ugly description for one of their pet causes.  After all, millions of people die because of the effects of smoking.  To use the heavy hand of government to make it expensive, legally restricted, and socially unacceptable would be a good thing.   Right?  I’ll surmise that Dr. Snyderman and her cohorts would likely lose little sleep and offer little opposition if, one day, cigarettes would be rendered illegal and thus relegated to “back-alley smoking”.

If “anti-choice” is the selected term for those opposed to abortion, then the rules of fair and ethical journalism should require that “anti-life” be the description for those supportive of abortion.  It’s only fair.  Pro-choice can be countered with pro-life. 

Dr. Snyderman reveals much about her liberal, militant, ultimately intolerant point of view.  If she and NBC value those viewers who see this issue through different eyes, then the rhetoric should be tempered.  It’s enough to make me want to eat nails for breakfast.

Did he do it?  I think I know the answer.  I have my reading of his words and actions.  And, I have a gut instinct about the matter.  But nothing is absolute and verifiable.  Thus, the unsettling genius of the movie.

Here is the challenge for me: my understanding of reality is tainted, inevitably colored by my own prejudices.  Boldly I may proclaim that Truth cannot be subjective, and Justice must be blind.  But self tends to block any semblance of a clear view.

Interestingly, both the previews and television ads for the movie seemed to implicate the guilt of the Priest and the righteousness of the Sister.  While I walked from the movie not absolutely convinced, nevertheless I sided with Father Flynn.  And I must be honest and admit this is easiest for me to do because we have a kinship.  He is a complicated character.  He smokes and grows his nails long, laughs readily and smirks often at some of the silliness of human religion, all to the abhorrence of the prudish nuns.  His sermons reveal some of the soul-searching of his own heart.  And, most attractive to me, he is willing to step outside the staid role expected of him by religious purists as he works hard to be authentic and to love others. 

The only black child at the school is having a hard time.  He is beaten by his father and ostracized by other students.  Father Flynn is sensitive to his plight and reaches out to befriend the young man.  Thus is created the framework for innuendo and accusation.  Sister Aloysius, who seems intent upon squeezing-out joy and life in the name of what is holy and right, becomes focused upon destroying the Priest.  She is intense and unswerving in her pursuit of righteousness with the matter.  Father Flynn maintains that he is innocent.  He asserts there is no proof, and accuses her of ulterior motives.  However, when queried, he admits to grave although unspecified sins in his life.  Is this a hint that indeed he is guilty in the matter?  He maintains that he is innocent.  Sister Aloysius pieces together enough evidence to be self-assured of his guilt.  He had a private session with the boy in his office.  The boy came back to his class smelling of wine.  Later that day another nun saw the Priest placing the young man's t-shirt back into his locker.  The Priest has answers, but all seem weak and unconvincing to the Sister. 

Behind her resolve, her crusade against Father Flynn, is a settled determination deep in her heart that he is guilty.  The question for the viewer: From where comes such certainty?  Not the evidence- it is, in the end, unconvincing.  Not the presented character of the Priest- he seems genuinely to be a kind and harmless man.  Perhaps she dislikes him?  Perhaps she is an unhappy person, with serious and unresolved personal issues, and he is the victim of her sickness and even her evil?

The film is a great study of human doubt.  Next post, I hope to talk a bit about doubt as it relates to the matters of faith and God.  And here's a confession- I have doubts... nagging, uncomfortable though they may be.

Please, go see this fine movie, starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams.