74. Does faith need history?

I remember as a child watching a show called "Name That Tune." To my recollection, contestants, after given a clue, would bid each other down until a person had the challenge of "naming that tune" in just a couple of notes. I guess the show had several stints on television, but that version is all I recall. I watched in amazement as players could name a song tune in only one or two notes. I was never musically inclined, and to me each note sounded like the doorbell.

I do enjoy history, and I have created a version of this game here, this time the challenge is to recall the name of a person, living or deceased, historic or fictional. Here goes:

"This figure was born to a mortal virgin (celebrated on December 25), witnessed by shepherds and Magi bearing gifts. He or she performed miracles, such as raising the dead and healing the sick, and carried the keys to heaven. Before dying, this figure had a Last Supper with twelve disciples. Each year, this figure's triumph and ascension to heaven was celebrated during the spring equinox."

If your answer to the clues above is the ancient god "Mithra"- congratulations, and well done!

Actually, in review of ancient gods and heroes, we find that many of these mythical figures share the same story. In 1936, Lord Raglan, in the book, "The Hero," classified these parallel-life commonalities into a scale of 22 heroic attributes. I will not go through all 22, but included here are the first ten:

1. The hero's mother is a royal virgin
2. His father is a king and
3. often a near relative of the mother, but
4. the circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. he is also reputed to be the son of a god
6. at birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or maternal grandfather, to kill him, but
7. He is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster-parents in a far country
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future kingdom.

Of the 22 familiar characteristics, the top scorers were Oedipus (21), Theseus (20), Moses (20), Dionysus (19), and Jesus (19). It is interesting that the story of Jesus is similar to other mythical figures in history. Some have suggested that an actual historical figure would not score more than six.

The conversation surrounding a historic Jesus is a complicated one, as scholars have debated this question for centuries. Unfortunately Jesus did not write anything himself, and no credible historical author of the time period, such as Seneca, Arrian, or Damis, wrote of him. The Gospels, of course, came several decades after Jesus' death, and none of them actually lived while Jesus was said to be alive.

Even though, a majority of the world would agree with me that either Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, or if he did, he was not the son of God; this is an uncomfortable dialogue to have here in America. Each Sunday morning I listen to preachers quote Jesus or eloquently describe in detail his actions and intentions. While the message might be a valuable one; unfortunately, there is little evidence that, if Jesus did exist, what he said or did has been accurately recorded.

I am not going to say that Jesus did or did not exist as a historical person; honestly, I do not think we will ever know for sure. Deciding if he did and what he meant to history and Christianity is a personal discovery. Unfortunately, historians are human and write with the same prejudicial and bias viewpoints that we each share individually. In that manner, many religious scholars and historians write with the assumption that Jesus did exist, just as many of us believed that he existed simply because we grew up being told so. Conversely, many secular scholars feel that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus did exist.

To some people, whether he existed or not has little bearing on their faith, while others, like those that protested "The DaVinci Code," may feel even presenting any evidence that may conflict with their religious teaching is sinful. On the other hand, for others, a historical representation of Jesus is a central theme of their lives and, similar to the premise suggested in the movie, any deviation from the religious teachings may be reason to question their faith.

73. Wait until next year, again

I was very concerned last season when the Cleveland Indians let a golden opportunity to make the playoffs get away. They boasted the league's best pitching and were fourth in runs scored, yet faltered, or I would say choked, down the stretch and missed the playoffs. I also vented in this column at the nonchalant attitude of the Indians front office and the media, both of which seemed quite content to concede it as part of the building process. I felt such a concession was inappropriate, dangerously generous and presumptuous.

Last year's optimism has turned into this year's disaster. Currently, the team has the third worst record in the American League as it creatively finds a way to lose on a regular basis. They are still scoring runs, but the pitching has dropped from tops in the league to eleventh. The organization itself gave up a couple of months ago and went from a team that many analysts picked to make the playoff to a team that is barely recognizable.

When things are going poorly, there is enough blame to spread around. I think it began last year, again, when the team did not make the playoffs. Besides the fact they tore apart the leagues best pitching staff, mostly in an effort to save money, they seemed to become overconfident in their baseball judgment. The front office, after last year's success, felt as though they had figured out how to play competitively on a modest budget. While they did sign some young players to long-term contracts, they easily dismissed expensive veterans in favor of less-experienced alternatives. Almost immediately, one year after winning 93 games, they have again begun to rebuild. General Manager Mark Shapiro is accumulating young talent at an alarming rate- alarming in that it is almost like they throwing mud against the wall to see what will stick. The Indians chose not to resign or traded a significant number of players from last year's campaign, including Kevin Millwood, Coco Crisp, Ben Broussard, Arthur Rhodes, Bob Howry, Bob Wickman, and Rafael Belliard. In return, they have received potential.

Manager Eric Wedge has not deviated from what cost him a chance as the playoffs last year, that is, his refusal to manufacture runs and the team's inability to win close games. In addition, team fundamentals seem to be lacking this year, most notably a defense which has performed dismally. Finally, and partly as a result, the team lacks excitement. They do not steal, hit and run, bunt or create any type of offensive pressure. Long gone are the days of Kenny Lofton, Omar Visquel and Roberto Alomar tormenting opposing defenses with their speed and versatility. Long gone is the intimidation of Albert Belle, Jim Thome, David Justice and Manny Ramirez in the middle of their lineup. Although scoring runs, in total, has not necessarily been the problem, the team lacks the intensity essential to win close games late.

After the excitement that began to resurface the last year, this is major setback to an organization trying to return to the success it achieved the second half of the 1990s. Those teams did it with an electrifying, young foundation, but also brought in veterans like Dennis Martinez, Orel Hershiser, Roberto Alomar and Eddie Murray. They had the diversity and charisma of a champion- determined, passionate and a bit arrogant. This team, even with their young potential, has yet to bond with the fans. Their best player is a designated hitter, who leaves the dugout only four to five times a game and the only player that brings any enthusiasm is Grady Sizemore. And, since they have revamped their lineup- with several players we know very little about- there is no fan connection to this team.

As for the future, there remains some optimism in that they have signed a number of players to long-term deals and the young players they acquired have added some athleticism. In addition, they have three left-handed starters, which, along with Jake Westbrook, form a decent pitching staff. I would love to see this team go out and add a couple of star players to their foundation- players that would add experience and excitement. I also think that a couple of star players would both raise the interest of fans and show the fans that this ownership is serious about winning. I am not saying they need to spend like the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox, which they cannot do in this market, but that they made a big mistake in not signing someone like Kevin Millwood, who lead the league in ERA last year- and was replaced by a couple of journeyman. And, of course, it is a matter of perception, because even if his replacements outperform him, the organization let the fans know that they were not willing to pay the price of success.

Wining is not easy, just ask the Chicago White Sox. They were a team that dominated both the regular season and the postseason last year- losing just one postseason game on the way to their World Series championship. In their off season, they not only resigned their star player, Paul Konerko, but also went out and acquired one like Jim Thome. Now, because of the red-hot Detroit Tigers, the resurgent Minnesota Twins and a competitive American League, they are fighting to just make the playoffs. They did the right thing however; they did not take anything for granted. Even with their success, they aggressively tried to improve their team.

I think the Indians took the opposite route. They took for granted the success of last season, feeling that their improvement and achievement was a natural progression. Even though owner Larry Dolan promised to open up his checkbook when the team was close to winning the World Series, apparently 93 wins is not close enough- as the Indians came out of the winter meetings and entire off-season without a significant free agent signing. They seemed to overlook the fragility of many of the factors that led to their success last season. And, worse of all, they seemed content with not making the playoffs- a fact that concerned me last year and has proven prophetic this year.

72. Company has no morals

Late one evening last week, my wife and me jumped into the car, filled it with our three dogs and headed to Speedway for a couple of seventy-nine cent "smoothies." Some brilliant television marketing sparked our interest, and spontaneity, which was timed perfectly with the recent heat wave. Unfortunately, the smoothies were not completely frozen, and we ended up with a couple of liquid popsicles. The trip was not for naught, however, because the dogs enjoyed getting out of the house and participating in one of their favorite activities, going for a "r-i-d-e." With three dogs, we have to spell the word, because the mere mention of it, upon our consideration, turns the house into utter mayhem. Suddenly, it seems as if we have ten dogs, running, barking and jumping everywhere and on everything. You would think they had won the lottery.

The usually efficient Speedway was very backed up with a long line of customers. It surprised me, considering that it was after 11:00 p.m. I saw on the side of the register a woman with a hand held contraption, one that looked similar to the inventory entry pads I have seen at the grocery stores. At first, I thought she worked for Speedway, after which I thought her efforts might be best received in helping the sole attendant move some customers through the line.

As I approached I realized that she was not entering inventory, more so, that she did not even work for Speedway. She was, in fact, an employee of R.J. Reynolds, and her intent was to offer smokers two packs of Camels free if they purchased one pack of cigarettes- of any brand. The machine in her grip was one that, upon receipt of the free packs of Camels, automatically entered the name and address of the customer into its memory via his or her driver's license.

As a marketing plan, I would have applauded the effort. R.J. Reynolds was working to both get the customer to consider their particular brand of cigarettes and obtain a large amount of customer information- for more effective use in direct marketing. I also appreciate the leg work, working store by store, meeting customers one by one. The plan also worked well for Speedway, as their customers received three packs of cigarettes for the price of one. Customers that appreciated the savings are likely to go back to Speedway a few more times, thinking that maybe there will be another great offer.

I wondered though, in the context of the whole situation, about the woman handing out the free cigarettes. Does she not understand how horrifically dangerous and addicting cigarettes are? It is probably true that the person accepting the free smokes is already addicted, and that in truth, she was only promoting her "brand" of cancer and other deadly disease But I still wonder how she reconciled that at night. Had anyone in her life ever died from the use of cigarettes? If not, would that have made a difference in her decision to market them for R.J. Reynolds? Is it a matter of personal interest, as I have suggested several times before, that is the mechanism driving her decision-making? Or possibly, is she in complete denial of the dangers of smoking?

I realize employment is difficult and perhaps many people are doing things that they are fundamentally against just to feed their families- and I empathize with that. We are faced with tough ethical decisions from time to time.
R.J. Reynolds must also be held accountable. There is nothing more amusing, the consequences aside, than reviewing the website of cigarette companies. In the case of R.J. Reynolds, I will admit that they are consistent to the idea that they are not trying to persuade a nonsmoker to start smoking- at least in this case. They are just trying to get them to change brands. Their website, however, also states the following:

"The company takes great pride in the principled, responsible and lawful manner in which we conduct ourselves and our business. This company is filled with extraordinarily dedicated people who share a deep commitment to four very important principles that guide every aspect of what we do. We fully recognize that we produce a product that has significant and inherent risks (the first principle)."

Their marketing philosophy states,

"R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (R.J. Reynolds) believes that cigarette smokers are at significantly increased risk for a number of diseases and conditions, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease (including heart disease) and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (emphysema and chronic bronchitis). Our company's philosophy is to operate as if smoking is a cause of these diseases."

How does a principled and responsible company exists in an environment in which it "operates as if smoking is a cause of" these life-ending diseases? How do extraordinarily dedicated people produce and market a product that they themselves recognize as having significant health risks? Have they ever asked themselves what exactly what are they dedicated to?

On the larger, societal scale, I think how great it would be if people were truly principled and responsible, and refused to do what they know is wrong. Would it not be great if people refused to work for these cigarette companies? Would it not be great they refused to work for companies that built bombs or that harmed animals and the environment? Finally, would not the world be a better place if people refused to kill each other as an exercise of patriotism or act of religious devotion.

I have never understood the point in which people stop thinking for themselves. Whether it is selling cigarettes or as a member of the Nazi army, why do individuals give up not only their morals and values, but also their life to harm or kill innocent people?

71. Stretching truth is natural

Its commonplace is such that I have taken the liberty of introducing it in nomenclature as "The Exaggeration Principle." ‘Principle' might be the wrong word, for it might only be a theory, factor or postulate, but I like the way that sounds, so I am sticking with it.

The exaggeration principle is increasingly becoming a dictum of life similar to trying to decide whether or not a given statement is true or false. It is used in business, politics and other areas of life, such as story telling. Its purpose is to create an action or reaction, depending on the nature of the exaggeration. It can be used for effect, revenge, to start trouble, create a panic or as a way of lying without completing lying- an infamous ploy which hinges on the fact that part of the story is true.

The exaggeration principle is exactly as it suggests- an exaggeration of the truth. The exaggeration exists as measures of embellishment, overstatement and amplification, varying in degree based on the situation at hand. Sometimes the principle is done purposely to harm another individual, sometimes innocently as a part of human nature. Key words include: every, always, never, everybody, nobody. These are the action words often responsible for the exaggeration, although there are many others. The principle can be completely harmless such as telling fish tales, or extremely dangerous when used in business and politics. In the worst case scenarios, an important truth might be ignored based on the same idea that those that "cry wolf' are eventually ignored in the matter of truth.

In the workplace, it is common among competing employees. One employee might walk by and see another employee sitting down. Maybe a few hours later, or even the next day, the employee might again walk by and see the same employee sitting. The correspondence to his or her supervisor is that "every time" I see that employee he or she is just sitting around. The statement is true, but on the basis of a very small sample size. However, that supervisor might then tell another supervisor that the employee is "always" sitting around, now clearly exaggerating the situation.

This was often the case in health care, especially from concerned advocates, such as the families, social workers and others. The worst example of exaggeration was often presented as "always" or "never" occurring. For example, facility resident Ms. Jones "never" has her nails properly trimmed or she is "always" in bed without her alarms on. Other departments often complained about each other, "the floors are never clean," or "the food is always cold." Each place of employment has their examples.

The trouble for supervisors in the previous example is getting to the truth. Do we properly trim Ms. Jones' nails, and is the food always cold? Where does the truth lie? Unconsciously, I think we perform an exaggeration appraisal on each bit of information we receive, based on from whom the information is coming. Some people are quickly noted for grossly exaggerating a small situation, while others may undermine a very serious one.

In politics, exaggeration often reveals itself in "spin." A fact is exaggerated, twisted or extrapolated to misrepresent the truth. The "slippery slope" argument is also a form of exaggeration in which a simple fact is extrapolated to form a ridiculous conclusion. A recent example is the gay marriage campaign in which opponents suggested that legally permitting gays to be married would lead to other odd nuptials, such as women marrying their pet goats. The idea of "spin," "slippery slopes," and other exaggeration are common forms of rhetoric, especially in the news world of five-second sound bites. These exaggerations are used to shape public opinion by creating slogans or instilling fear. Entitling the war as "Operation Iraqi Freedom," clearly exaggerated the benevolence of our endeavor.

The embellishment of fact often includes numbers- again, sometimes in innocence, other times, as a measure of deceit. The fact might include an idea that is not often researched, such as a technical number. It might be that 3 to 5 percent of all scientists dispute the idea of global warming. That percentage might change to "around 5 percent," then to "5 to 10 percent," and finally "over 10 percent." The change in percentage is often directly proportional to the interest of the person or party presenting the information.

Finally, the principle is frequently used in our social lives. It is used to make the stories we tell just a little more exciting and to strengthen our arguments with family and friends. From barbeques to the late night scene, those great stories get a little "taller" with each recital. Interestingly, a recent AP Poll revealed that 52% of Americans think lying is never justified, while 40% think exaggeration is acceptable when it makes a story more interesting. Conversely, in family matters, the conversation often turns into a barrage of exaggerations. For example, those people that are sometimes late are described as "always" being late. There are also those that "always" borrow money, and "never" pay it back. An annoying habit can be made out of questioning each exaggeration, asking, "Really, he is always late, you mean to say that he never arrives on time?"

While "The Exaggeration Principle" may never have been officially recognized, I am sure that it has existed since the beginning of human communication. It can be fun, "dueling" it out with friends to see who can spur the biggest reaction through the amplification of the facts. Unfortunately, it can also cause a great deal of harm, as many people can be harmed when others act on an exaggeration as fact. Politically, exaggerated facts can lead to civil unrest, uprisings and even war. "The Exaggeration Principle" is powerful concept; its users might consider proceeding with caution.