Where to date...where not to date...who knows

It’s been quite some time since I emerged on the town with a lady friend of the romantic persuasion. Dating doesn’t come easily or quickly to a guy who is more thought than action. Often times, it takes so long that I move out of the dating potential zone and into the friend zone. But ask most of my lady friends and they’ll tell you I’m a great guy (one time, one of them said that I would be worth the wait, referring to how long it takes me to make a move). Considering how great a guy I am (supposedly) then no matter what I do in a date type situation, the woman with me would dig it. However, I haven’t dated in so long it seems like I need help before I endeavor to ask my next someone out. I decided to do some research on dating to see if there was anything that had changed since my last relationship. Apparently there have been some developments. Aside from relationships requiring more knowledge of your phone than of your date, there also seems to be greater importance placed on the actual date itself. You’d like to think the success of a first date is all about chemistry, connection, good conversation…but sometimes, where you are and what you’re doing can play a key role in whether things go well or not. Not a new development I guess, but seriously I had a relationship start out on a first date of going to Sonic and going truck shopping. So, I guess if you want to start a potential relationship off on good footing then there are some places you just don’t take your love interest.

We’ll start with a pretty obvious one…family functions. Your date will be nervous enough trying to impress you (woman try to impress men these days, wow, I am out of it), so don’t make someone audition for family and friends, too. Who would need all that pressure? If you are doing this than either you are incredibly comfortable with the normalness of your family or they are too involved in your lives. I didn’t need research for this; I just know it is a terrible idea. The next one seems pretty straight forward and that is not taking a first date to a dance club. Loud music, pulsing lights, guys without shirts… need I say more? A dance club is a hunting ground where everyone’s on the prowl. That would be very uncomfortable especially if you don’t know your first date that well. Think about all the bad things that could happen in this environment: another guy catches her eye, another girl catches your eye, or one or both of you can’t dance (distinct possibility in my case). Both of these venues are obviously bad ideas.

This next one threw me off a little in the first place, but thinking about it more made sense. I’m talking about going to the movies. This was a staple of dating in high school, but apparently it is a little less appreciable when you get older. You spend two hours (or more) staring at a screen, not getting to know each other…plus there’s always a risk the flick will contain a risqué scene that’ll create an awkward moment (happened to me once, awkward…). Plus, you don’t know if she will appreciate your choice in movies or have the very negative reaction of, “Why did you take me to this?” Another one that surprised me a little was the idea of sporting events being a no-no. This is a foundation in my current repertoire. Fresh air (mostly), being close together for a good reason (lack of seat space), and having someone to share the joy of victory or the agony of defeat with seem like a pretty good deal. But, I guess any place that involves face paint, the wave, and angry guys screaming at the referee is no venue for a soul mate connection, according to my research. Some people are of the opinion that sporting events don’t bring out the best in men, but I am not one of those guys, so why should there be a problem.

I am going to touch on the last first date locales that are not good pretty quickly, so I hope you keep up. The beach is out. I love long walks on the beach (yes, I’m sensitive ladies), but I guess that doesn’t mean I should do it on a first meeting. The issue with this one seems to be on the woman’s side, i.e. what do they wear? Comedy clubs are out. If the comic is bad, that lame vibe will extend to the entire evening, apparently. It’s true that comedy is great when it’s good, but horrid when it’s bad. I don’t know about date ruining bad. This one kills me, but mini-golf is out. Trying to outsmart that little windmill is great fun for all ages, but some people seem to think it juvenile. Plus, women don’t like to look ungraceful (from what I hear) and mini-golf is one of those activities that can such the gracefulness right out of you. This is going to kill me, too, but museums are out. A first date is a time to kick back and relax, not solemnly contemplate the works of the great masters according to research. One site said that it’s a little too much intellectual stimulation for a first date. Well, when you’re seeking someone to stimulate your intellect as well as your loins, then it should be a good idea. This one should be a no-brainer, though some may disagree, but coffee bars are out. Some people might think that meeting for coffee is an easy, breezy way to meet. But let’s face it: It’s hardly romantic or fun or, well, worth it.

So, I guess after all of that I learned that there is only one thing to do on a first date…go out to eat/drink. Apparently there is nothing wrong with sharing a meal or a drink with someone as a first date. Though, there are some hurdles to clear with that idea. One, restaurant choice is a difficult thing. If you are like me, you are not picky, so you want her input about where to go. But, if you ask her where she wants to go, it makes you look weak and indecisive (I recently had this conversation with someone who accused me of being indecisive). A very valuable tip would be to avoid theme restaurants (according to my research), because who wants to get to know you over a “dragon egg” at Medieval Times. The other problem you may face is finding someplace where you can actually have a conversation. Sometimes I don’t hear so well, thus being in a loud restaurant distracts me from being able to carry on a discussion. I’ll just throw out one more thing to think about…expense/fanciness. Sure you want to impress her with the gobs of money you’ll throw down just to eat food with her, but sometimes places like that can be really uncomfortable. What if one of you is not dressed appropriately? What if the menu is in French and neither of you speaks it (embarrassing, but could be endearing as well)? From what I have learned, it hasn’t gotten any easier to go out on a first date, but it hasn’t really gotten harder either. I just need to get someone to actually go out with me.

The stars at night are big and bright...

It’s Wednesday and that means it is time for the sports beat. It’s baseball season and though I know there are many of you out there who are all roll up in this NBA free agency business…I could really care less. The NBA season doesn’t start again for months and it is baseball season right now. So yeah, baseball. Speaking of baseball, the All Star break is coming up and that means All Star game selections are out. Guess who hit the All Star Game lottery – the Texas Rangers. Rangers’ outfielder Josh Hamilton and designated hitter Vladimir Guerrero have been named starters for the 81st All-Star Game in Anaheim. These power hitters at the heart of the Rangers line-up were voted in during the fan voting. n addition to Hamilton and Guerrero, Rangers closer Neftali Feliz, shortstop Elvis Andrus and second baseman Ian Kinsler were also named to the American League roster, bringing Texas' total to five players selected to play at Angel Stadium on July 13. The Rangers also had five players in the 2004 All-Star Game in Houston. Andrus was elected by the players while Kinsler is replacing Boston's Dustin Pedroia, who is on the disabled list. It will be the first All-Star Game for both Andrus and Feliz.

But, why stop at five? The American League is in danger of having its seven-game All-Star winning streak come to an end. It's hard to believe it can compete with the National League without Rangers infielder Michael Young on the team. Young, one of five players in the running for this year's American League Final Vote, has been to six straight All-Star Games for the Rangers, and the American League has won all six. Young's contributions have been significant. He is the only player in All-Star Game history to twice record a game-winning RBI in his team's final at-bat. He was the Most Valuable Player in the 2006 All-Star Game when he hit a game-winning two-run triple in the top of the ninth inning to give the American League a 3-2 victory in Pittsburgh. He also drove home the winning run with a sacrifice fly in the 15th inning at Yankee Stadium to give the Americans a 4-3 victory in 2008. Young is competing against Yankees outfielder Nick Swisher, Red Sox infielder Kevin Youkilis, White Sox first baseman Paul Konerko and Twins outfielder Delmon Young to receive the last spot on the American League roster. Swisher has jumped out to an early lead, but voting continues until 3 p.m. CT Thursday online at MLB.com and at the Ballpark in Arlington. The Rangers have launched an "I Like Mike" campaign in which fans will be automatically eligible for a 50 percent discount in all ticket categories up to $30 for a selected Rangers home game in August or September. Full information on the discount can to be found at texasrangers.com/allstar. The Rangers are also offering an All-Star sweepstakes prize of a suite for 20 for a Rangers game in 2010. Fans will be automatically registered for the sweepstakes each of the first 25 times they vote for Young in the All-Star Game Sprint Final Vote. There is no limit to the number of times that fans may vote in this election. However, fans will be registered to win for the sweepstakes just the first 25 times they vote for Young. All rules for the sweepstakes can also be found on on texasrangers.com/allstar. In addition, fans can vote on their mobile phones. Mobile voting is exclusive to Sprint, Nextel and Boost subscribers. From their mobile phones, fans can text A5 to 1122 to cast votes for Young. Standard rate and messaging fees apply. So “Vote Young” for the ASG American League Final Vote. Do it!

The Rangers have lost four out of five and five out of seven, but still are 3.5 games up on Anaheim, who have gotten beat up on by the ChiSox and the Kansas City Royals over the same time period. Even first-place teams can lay an egg every now and then. The one the Texas Rangers laid Monday night against the lowly Cleveland Indians stunk on many levels. Cleveland, which came into the game 16 games under .500 and 15-27 on the road, thumped the Rangers 9-3. Texas has dropped five of its last seven games, and is off to a 1-3 start on its longest homestand of the season. They have to hope they don't have anymore games like Monday, when they were thoroughly dominated by an Indians team against whom the Rangers had won 10 of their last 12 meetings. The list of failing parts Monday was long, but distinguished, though I won’t go into them here. Needless to say, it wasn’t good. The biggest issue that I (and my brother) noticed and commented on was pitching. There is a majority opinion held among the Rangers' hierarchy that strongly suggests Rich Harden, even when healthy, has not pitched nearly as well as the club hoped for this season. That may be true but another truth is becoming self-evident. Harden may not be a No. 1 starter but he certainly has to be better than what the Rangers are currently getting from their fifth starters. Omar Beltre lasted just three innings on Monday night, giving up four runs. At least when Harden tanks a start, it takes him five or six innings. I still support the idea of Omar Beltre, but perhaps we need to rethink his being in the majors for now. Harden is currently on the disabled list with lower back pain, but will start pitching again and a possible rehab assignment this week.

If you follow sports reporter Jennifer Floyd Engel over at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram then you will understand what I am about to say. Her article on Monday, July 5, 2010, dealt with the importance of keeping your prospects as opposed to trading your prospects for good players now. She, being a women, made it a decision between two teams (like Team Edward or Team Jacob Twilight fans) consisting of Team Trade versus Team Triple A. If you don’t understand how the teams correlate to the decision about what to do with your prospects, then just stop reading right now. Just to throw it out there, I am Team Triple A. I think you need to give up prospects for trades, sure, but you don’t need to sell the farm as Jennifer suggests. By the way, did I mention I really don’t like Jennifer Engel? Well, I don’t.

Other Important Rangers Notes (thanks to T.R. Sullivan at texasrangers.com)
Rangers rookie reliever Alexi Ogando is just one inning away from breaking the club mark of most scoreless innings of relief to begin a Major League career. He has 11 scoreless innings. Jeff Zimmerman had 11 2/3 scoreless innings in 1999. ... Ian Kinsler has walked in seven consecutive games, the longest streak of his career and the longest by a Ranger since Josh Hamilton's seven-game streak in 2008. ... Michael Young is one of just six players in the Majors this season to start every game for his team. ... First baseman Justin Smoak is hitless in his last 23 at-bats and has seen his average drop 23 points in his last 12 games.

It's about God, you see

I talk a great deal about God and my faith, but I realized today that I have never explained myself to those of you out there who don’t believe or doubt the existence of a god. This should have been the first blog I wrote when I started writing faith based blogs however many years ago it was. My blog means nothing without an explanation of why I believe what I believe. It’s just words. So, I endeavor today to outline my proofs for God’s existence. I will also touch on God’s essence (what God is). Some of this may come out quite technical, but is because when arguing God’s existence there must be a detachment from feeling and emotions in order to make valid points to any reader. If someone does not believe in God, then they don’t have a feeling or emotion regarding God and are more likely swayed by logic. If it goes over any of ya’ll’s heads, I apologize (I am borrowing some examples to beef up my argument that are a little on the wordy and technical side). Also, know that I do know write this way because I have no feeling for God. I love God with all my heart and with all my soul. But, as mentioned above, I am simply arguing God existence in a form that many will acknowledge. Anyway, let’s get down to this. Here is how I know that there is a God and he should be praised.

The First Proof of God’s Existence: From Change
We observe in everyday life that things change, that is, they make a transition from potentiality to actuality. Now, nothing can reduce itself from potency to act. If something could do this, then it would be able to give itself something that it does not have. This is contrary to the principle of sufficient reason, for every transition from potency to act must have a sufficient reason. Therefore, nothing can change itself. But we see that things do change, therefore these new actualities come from beings that are already in act. Therefore, everything that is changed is changed by another. If everything that changed depended on something else to change it, and there was no first changer then everything that changes would receive its change from nothing. Since everything that changes depends on a prior changer, then if there were no first changer, there would not be a sufficient reason for the existence of change. Thus, if there were no first changer there would be no following changes. But there is change in the world; therefore, there must be a first changer. That first changer is referred to as God, because it is the source of all motion in the world.

The Second Proof of God’s Existence: From Efficient Causality
We see in the world that certain things come into existence that did not exist before. These things could not have given existence to themselves. If something were to be the efficient cause of its own existence then it would have to exist before it exists. Therefore something cannot be the efficient cause of its own existence. Thus, everything that comes into being is brought into being by something else that already exists. Everything that depends on another also depends on the thing that caused that. Thus, if there were an infinite regression of causes (if you considered the infinite regression of causes as a whole, you would see that) they would all be dependent on nothing, which is impossible because of the principle of sufficient reason. Therefore there must be a First Cause. We call that first cause God because it is the source of all existence.

The Third Proof of God’s Existence: From Contingency
We see in the world that some things are dependent on other things, that is, they are contingent. But everything that is contingent needs a cause to put it into being. There cannot be an infinite regression of causes, because of the above-mentioned reasons. Therefore, we must finally reach a being that is not contingent on any other being, and is thus a Necessary Being. This being we call God because He cannot not be.

The Fourth Proof of God’s Existence: From Gradation
We see in the world that there are different degrees, or grades of perfection. But whenever there are grades of something, there must be a highest or supreme grade. Therefore, there must be something that is supreme and infinite perfection. Every being that is finite in perfection received its perfection from a being that did not receive its own perfection, but is perfection itself, and is thus infinite perfection. This everyone calls God because it is the most perfect being conceivable, and is the source of all other perfection.

The Fifth Proof of God’s Existence: From Order
We see in the universe that there is order. Wherever there is order there must be an intelligent being causing it. Therefore, there must be an intelligent being that orders the universe. Since order cannot be the result of chance, it must be intended. But, only an intelligent being can intend something, because only an intelligent being can know what he wants, why he wants it, how he’s going to get it, etc. Therefore, the universe is ordered by an intelligent being. This being is referred to as God because He is the Governor of the world.

God’s Nature
The prime attribute of God must be the very first attribute that is known about him, and it must be the source of the rest of his attributes, in our mind. Now, the very first conclusion about God’s nature is the first one that follows the proofs of God’s existence. This attribute must be that he is not from something else, but that he is from himself. Some object that our first conception of God must be a positive one. This is false because, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, our primary way of knowing about God is by way of negation, which is, denying God attributes that belong to creatures.

God is not composed of parts, and thus He is simple. Whatever is composed depends on a composer to bring the parts into unity. But, God is the First Cause of all things and thus cannot be caused by another. Therefore, God is not a composite, and is absolutely simple. Again, composites depend on its parts. If the parts did not exist then the composite would not exist. But God is the Necessary Being and is not dependent on anything, e.g. parts. Therefore, as God is Absolutely Necessary so He is Absolutely Simple. God is not a body, because all bodies are made up of parts. Therefore, God is immaterial. God is also absolutely Immutable. If God could be changed He would have to be changed by another being, and thus He would be dependent on another being. Thus, the First Changer would not be the First Changer, and the principle of contradiction is denied.

God is infinite in His Being. If he were not infinite, His Being could be increased. But, every increase is a change. Indeed, it was shown above that God cannot change. Therefore, an increase in God’s Being is absolutely impossible, which means He is infinite in His Being. Again, whatever has a limit has potentiality, because it is only capable of so much. But, we know that God has no potentiality, because whatever has potentiality can change. Therefore, God is unlimited, and incapable of receiving anything more. God is also Eternal. He doesn’t have a beginning, because He would then need a cause. But the Uncaused Cause cannot be caused. He cannot have an ending, because He is the Necessary Being, who cannot not be. Finally, He cannot change for the above-mentioned reasons.

There can be only one God. It was proved above that God is simple, i.e. not made of parts. But this means that He is identical with His nature, otherwise there would be a distinction in God between His essence and His existence and this would result in Him having parts. But there cannot be two beings with the same essence or nature, which is identical with its nature. There would be nothing to distinguish them. Let me put it in concrete terms: supposing there are two beings with the same essence that is identical with its essence, let’s call the first being ‘A’, and the second being ‘B’, and the essence that they are identical with ‘C’. Now, since ‘A’ is identical with its essence, then ‘A’= ‘C’. And, since ‘B’ is also identical with its essence, then ‘B’= ‘C’. Now if ‘A’= ‘C’ and ‘B’= ‘C’’ then ‘A’=’B’. Thus, the first supposed God is identical with the second supposed God and they cannot be distinct. Therefore there cannot be two Gods.

God is Immense, i.e. has the power to act everywhere, He is intelligent, Good, Holy, Supremely Happy, and Powerful because God is absolutely perfect and all these attributes are perfections.

*special thanks to Seth Brotherton and the Evangelical Catholic Apologetics website