I Hated You, Coach Ioveno

This time of year, when there is a whiff of spring in the air, my thoughts turn to those wonderful days when all I needed was a glove, a bat, and a ball to have everything right with my world. It was through that game that I crossed paths with a man whose teaching and example is with me today. Through this story I would like you to meet Nick Ioveno.

It saddened me when I saw him. His once vibrant athletic frame was now a shadow of its former self, racked by the crude chemotherapy of the day. I remember most how terribly thin and pale he looked, and how much hair he had lost. But he grinned when he saw me and asked, “Did you play much ball this summer, Leonard?” “Yep,” I said. “Every chance I got.”

He was Nick Ioveno, my high school baseball coach. Legend, most likely apocryphal, had it that he once played professional baseball and made it all the way to the New York Mets. In his first game someone hit him a groundball that went right between his legs. So much for his career in The Show.

What I knew about him was crude at best: he was the toughest son of a gun I ever knew. We began baseball practice in the dead of winter doing heavy workouts in the gymnasium, running until our lungs ached, calisthenics until our legs quivered, wind sprints until we collapsed on the gym floor and maybe even tossing our cookies.

Coach Ioveno especially liked these indoor practices because he could smash groundballs at us across the gym floor with a fungo bat. He was expert at having the ball short-hop us in the knees – or maybe a little higher. If he hit someone a little higher (ringing the bell, he called it), he whooped in a victory shout while the poor guy tried to regain both his breath and his composure.

I hated this guy.

But there was something about this great game of baseball that kept drawing me back, and there was no way I was going to let that man beat me. Coach told us that our team was a winner because no other team in the league was out there as early as we were, working as hard as we were, and going through the fire as we were. I think he was telling us that we had more to lose than they did. We worked harder, hurt more, sweat more, and bled more, so it should stand to reason that we should want to win more.

When the season started, the discipline, conditioning, and the drilling of the fundamentals all worked for our benefit. For some reason we just kept winning. Maybe it had as much to do with the fear of losing. We nearly lost one game early on, and Coach laid it on us with all the power of his lungs during the long bus ride home. “Man,” I thought, “we won the game. What will happen if we lose?” Later in the season we did just that and the outburst was intolerably worse.

I hated this guy!

We did eventually win the league championship, but came within an inning of letting it slip. We were down 6-1 going into the last inning of the last game. We had worked too hard to let it get away, and we rallied to win 7-6. Coach was the happiest fellow around. “You’re a real winner, boy, if you can come from behind like that!” When we got back to the locker room, we grabbed him dirty uniform and all and threw him into the shower and laughed and joked along with him. This was our last chance to soak him, as most of us would be going on to the Varsity team the next year.

I really hated this guy.

It was that summer that we learned of his particularly virulent form of Hodgkin’s Disease. So when I saw him at the start of school in the fall, I was as uncomfortable as a clumsy high school junior could be when staring the look of death in the face. “Did you play much ball this summer, Leonard?” “Yep. Every chance I got.”

As the year drew on, Coach became thinner and thinner, weaker and weaker. Some days he couldn’t even stand in front of his class to teach. I remember walking by his classroom one day and peaking in. He was sitting at his desk, his head hanging limp and forward, his gray, gaunt face drawn and suffering. The class was deathly silent.

When the dead of winter came and baseball practice started, Coach Ioveno was there as usual, barking, joking, teasing, and hitting fungos at guy’s knees and other parts of the anatomy. Some days were better than others, but he was there most of the time. As the season drew on, he relied more and more on his cane for support, and in a sense it was as painful for us as it was for him. Near the end of the season he was unable to be with his team in the dugout. In order to coach, he stayed in his car in the parking lot and sent his instructions by messenger.

Before our final game of the year, the varsity coach convened a team meeting in the locker room. “Coach Ioveno has gone into the hospital again, and this time we don’t think he’s coming out.” Coach then walked out the door and toward the ball field. Someone yelled, “Let’s win this one for Coach Ioveno”, whereupon we ran onto the field and proceeded to trounce the opposition and win the league championship.

A couple of weeks later I was sitting at a desk in the gym with hundreds of other students taking my final exams. I looked up and saw a thin, frail, bearded man walking by. It was Coach Ioveno! He just wouldn't quit! He had defied the doctor’s prognosis and had come back to LaSalle Senior High School where he had dedicated his life. “How does he do it?” I wondered.

It was then I realized that I loved this guy.

That was the last time I saw Coach Ioveno. In the summer of 1970, 29 year-old Nick Ioveno died.

A while back, I paid a visit to my old high school. Due to the politics of my hometown, that place with all its memories and traditions was slated for demolition, and I wanted to get one last look before it was to become a Wal-Mart parking lot. As I looked around the corner into the gym, I found myself looking for Nick Ioveno. I checked the room where he kept his fungo bat, and I wanted some of those screaming grounders again. I could almost hear his voice teaching me timeless lessons of living.

Lessons such as perseverance in the face of adversity.

Never give up.

Push yourself beyond what you think your limits are.

Work harder than the other guy and eventually you’ll be on top.

Strive for excellence.

Stay focussed on the ball and stay focussed on your goals.

Think about what you’re doing while you’re doing it.

Master the fundamentals and leave the flashy stuff to Hollywood.

The team is more important than your personal batting average.

Don’t read what the newspaper says about you.

Expect every play to come your way, and anticipate what you’ll do with the ball.

Enthusiasm.

Hustle.

Win or lose, shake hands with the other team.

Most of all, fight until your last breath for what you believe in and what you love.

Thank you, Coach Ioveno, for teaching me the lessons of life.

Things We Are Free to Do?

Longer ago than I care to think about I took a Bible as Literature course at the state college. It was a great class, really. Being a state college, it was light on deep theology and heavy on the significance the Bible has had on literature and culture.

And the professor was entertaining if not curiously eclectic.

As we were working our way through the Torah, we inevitably came to the Ten Commandments. The prof pointed out that so many people view the Ten Commandments as a restrictive law filled with too many “Thou shalt nots”. But in reality, he said, the Ten Commandments are a great set of laws that give tremendous liberty.

I was fairly young in my Walk at the time, but even then my mind shifted to that verse in James (chapter 1, verse 25) that calls the law the “perfect law of liberty”. So I was silently pumping my fist and cheering.

And then he says, “Take, for example, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ It might outlaw adultery, but look at all the other things you can do!”

And then, of course, my jaw dropped.

As the decades have passed, it has become apparent to me that the professor’s little riff really does represent the way many of us practice the law of God. “I’m not really lying. It’s just a white lie that I’m telling you for your own good.” “I’m not stealing. I’m borrowing. They’ll never miss it anyway.” “I’m not coveting, I just want what I’m entitled to, and be damned that the next generation will have to pay for it.”

And then there is this one: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. ... In it you shall do no work.” Maybe I can’t work on that day, but look at all the other things I can do!

I’m not one who is inclined to lay down all kinds of little rules as the Pharisees did on what should or should not be done on the Sabbath Day. But people do need to make some distinctions between those activities that enhance our relationship with God, family, and friends and those that don’t. Ezekiel draws a sharp distinction between the “holy” and “profane” (or “common”, as rendered in the New International Version.) That’s something to take seriously. See Ezekiel 44:23-24, 22:26, and 42:20.

This is just to say that we can use the laws of God as a path to blessings or litigate our way around them and miss the blessings. The prof was right: the law is a law of liberty even though he never understood what true liberty is.

Judah and Reuben

"You may put both of my sons to death if I do not bring him back to you." (Genesis 42:37, Reuben guaranteeing the safety Benjamin)

"Please let your servant remain here as my lord's slave in place of the boy, and let the boy return with his brothers. How can I go back to my father if the boy is not with me?" (Genesis 44:33-34, Judah pleading for the freedom of Benjamin)

The offers of Judah and Reuben are instructive in how these two brothers of Joseph had changed since the time they had sold their brother into slavery.

Reuben, the one who had previously looked for a way to rescue Joseph, now tells his father that if any harm befalls brother Benjamin, then Jacob can feel free to kill Reuben’s sons.

Judah, whose idea it was to sell brother Joseph into slavery for thirty pieces of silver, offers himself as a hostage in order to protect little brother Benjamin.

People change with time, but not always for the better.

Strange, is it not, that Reuben would offer his sons as expiation for his own wrongdoing, yet Judah (an ancestor of Jesus) would would offer himself. We don't want to read too much into events such as this, but Judah offered to do what his descendant the Messiah in fact did do: offer himself for the freedom of another.

A Remnant

The job of a prophet is a burdensome one, and especially for one of the likes of Ezekiel. Here was a man, already in exile from his homeland due to protracted enemy invasions, and the message he kept getting from God was the inevitability of the defeat of his people.

Yet throughout the laments about his naiton, here and there we see a message that would fill Ezekiel with hope, the promise of a dedicated remnant who would be God’s people. “If the wicked will turn from all his sins,” we read, “and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live. He shall not die. All his transgressions he has committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him. In his righteousness that he has done he shall live.” (Ezekiel 18:21-22)

Throughout Ezekiel we see statements like this, that even if the nation is in dire straights spiritually, God will still honor the individual who follows him.

After one particularly dire warning, which we find in Ezekiel 14 where the promise for Jerusalem is sword, famine, wild beasts, and pestilence, the promise to Ezekiel is that a remnant of God’s people will come through it. And when Ezekiel sees these “sons and daughters”, "they shall comfort you when you see their ways and their doings.” (14:21-23) It will be at that point that Ezekiel would know that God had a purpose in all those trials, to bring a people to himself.

If you are going through tough times, and those wild beasts are dogging you, remember this. They will bring you closer to God. Those trials are more precious than gold and silver.

The State Food Police: Creating Jobs the Government Way

Item: A preschool student at West Hoke Elementary School in North Carolina ended up eating three chicken nuggets for lunch because a state inspector declared that the 4-year-old's lunch wasn't nutritious enough. Mom had packed a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips, and apple juice.

The lunch didn’t meet USDA guidelines because government standards place chicken nuggets above turkey and cheese. Fine. We expect such wisdom from the government. But some of us would like to know what business it is of the State to police kids' lunch boxes. Do they have nothing better to do?

None dare call it Fascism, so let’s just be nice and call it overreach. Let’s see what this “overreach” means.

First, it presumes that the USDA, the State of North Carolina, and school administrators have veto power over a parent’s judgment. If the authorities believe that three deep-fired sodium saturated chicken nuggets are more nutritious than a turkey and cheese sandwich, they are certainly entitled to that opinion. But that opinion does not give them carte blanche to pump that processed hunk of grease into the kid’s system. The schools can’t give the child an aspirin without mom’s say so, but mandating high cholesterol junk food is okay? And then to tell the child that it’s the mom who isn’t providing a healthy lunch?

Think this through with me. The USDA’s guidelines call for one serving of meat, one grain, a dairy, and two servings of fruit and vegetables even if the food is brought from home. Let’s just say that four-year old Susie is lactose intolerant, so mom leaves out the dairy. The state food police give her a carton of milk and tell her it’s good for her. Being four years old, she drinks it. Susie gets sick, but guidelines have been met. They went by the book, so just move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Or suppose Susie’s family is vegetarian. Guidelines say Susie has to be offered processed chicken nuggets whether mom and dad find it disgusting or not. Or suppose she's Jewish, and the meat of the day to substitute for a turkey sandwich is pork hot dogs. Sadly, as we have learned from recent battles between the Catholic Church and the administration, matters of religion and conscience no longer command the respect of the government. Big Brother knows best! Such governmental attempts to override the parental prerogative in matters of religious practice and teaching are happening already. Why should we be surprised that school lunches are not exempt?

My temperament is not to be of the alarmist sort. But when I see multiple heavy-handed intrusions into private matters, I am convinced more fully that Mr. Obama meant it four years ago when he promised to fundamentally transform America. If you think this is as America should be, vote for the incumbent administration, and then be prepared take a long drink from the cup of her abominations.

Link: Child's Homemade Lunch Replaced With Nuggets

The Latest from the Spinmeisters

The latest from the spinmeisters asserts that Rick Santorum, if elected president, would outlaw all contraception.

The assertion has the look of a political counter-punch coming in the wake of the recent walk-back of the Obama Administration’s backfired attempt to force religious institutions to provide abortifacients through their healthcare plans.

We’ll see more such diversions as the campaign progresses, but of more importance to me as a still undecided voter is whether this is just spin or if in fact Santorum wants to abolish birth control through diktat. Having done a credible job vetting all the candidates, I have simply never heard any candidate say that the federal government should outlaw contraceptives.

The roots of the claim against Santorum seem to reside in the candidate’s debate of January 7 where George Stephanopolous asked a question related to the Griswold decision. Griswold vs. Connecticut was a 1965 Supreme Court case challenging an 1879 Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."

The statute was rarely enforced, but the case has been a real playground for constitutional debates ever since, even though none of the interlocutors would argue that it is good public policy for governments to dictate regarding such personal and medical decisions. Rather, the discussion is about how far the federal government can go in overruling state statutes. In short it's a discussion about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and how far the "penumbras" of the federal government can reach.

At least three out of four of the remaining Republican candidates have stated that they disagree with the Griswold decision on precisely those grounds, that the Supreme Court has limits to its authority when dealing with the states. (Specifically, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney have all come down on that side to one extent or another). We might agree or disagree with them on the question, but it is not an out-of-the-mainstream consideration.

No one is proposing a new 21st Amendment, this time related to contraceptives. In fact the disagreement with Griswold is closer to saying just the opposite, that the federal government needs to keep its nose out of such matters altogether and let the states decide for themselves. While we might disagree with that approach, it is miles from accusing the likes of Ron Paul of wanting to see the abolition of birth control in the United States.

A discussion on the reach of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is long overdue. This is the time to do it. It's a shame that the emotions surrounding Griswold are obscuring the less sexy constitutional issues involved. And it's an even greater shame that it is being used to score some cheap political points.

---------------

Interesting analysis here: http://www.nysun.com/editorials/mr-romney-and-mrs-griswold/87642/

The Grain of Sand in the Oyster of Life

We all need a little Laban in our lives. Laban was the character from Genesis who took his nephew Jacob under his wing and helped form him into a new, more godly man. But to read the book of Genesis, you might doubt what I just said.

Laban hired Jacob to work for him because Laban saw an opportunity to make a buck or two. Jacob was madly in love with Laban’s daughter Rachel and offered to work for seven years for the right to marry her.

That might seem like a rash proposal on the part of Jacob, but remember that he was a bit of a slick operator himself. He’s the guy who through maneuver and deception stole his brother’s birthright and blessing. He was no stranger to the grand deal. “Jacob”, after all, means “Supplanter”.

But in Laban, Jacob had met his match. No matter how slick you think you are, there is always someone slicker, and that was the case here. After seven years of toil, Jacob was to receive his bride. But there was one problem, a secret protocol as it were. In the land where Laban resided, they had a countervailing law: a younger sister could not be married ahead of her older sister, and Laban said something like this: “I’m sure sorry you didn’t know, Jacob, but in order to marry Rachel, you have to take her older sister too. It’s just the way we do things around here, don’t you see. But you should have known. You should have had your lawyer read the contract. Oh, and by the way, the price for the second bride is another seven years of work in my fields.”

Yes, Jacob had met his match. But at the same time that little grain of sand named Laban became a slowly growing a pearl in Jacob’s oyster of life.

Remember that Jacob usually managed to get his way, often by deception. This time was different, and if we look at Jacob before and after Laban, we see a different guy.

As Jacob was fleeing from his brother Esau after stealing the right of inheritance, God revealed himself, perhaps for the first time, to Jacob. Moved, Jacob made this prayer: "If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father's house, then the Lord will be my God." (Genesis 28:20-21 NIV).

Read it and see that Jacob was trying to swing a deal, a quid pro quo, with God. "If God will be with me ... then the Lord will be my God ... and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth." (v. 22)

Now look at the prayer he prayed after a couple of decades of irritation from that grain of sand called Laban. "I am unworthy of all the kindness and faithfulness you have shown your servant. I had only my staff when I crossed this Jordan, but now I have become two groups. Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau." (Genesis 32:9-11 NIV)

Notice the change from an "If God, then I" kind of deal to a humble "I am not worthy". And notice in the passage that follows the length to which Jacob goes to reconcile with the brother he had wronged, including a restitution of wealth.

I have experienced my Labans, men who were irritating sands in my oyster of life. Some of them I despised, most of them I distrusted. But I am so glad God gave them to me. Those grains of sand in the oyster of life are a blessing indeed.

City of Lee's Summit and the Mobile Vendors

The City of Lee’s Summit is considering an ordinance to regulate mobile food vendors. My purpose here is not to discuss whether such ordinances are needed or even advisable. Rather, it is to issue a caution about potential unintended consequences that could arise should the ordinance be poorly crafted or even a properly crafted but unwisely enforced.

In numerous communities nationwide, such ordinances have been used to stifle one of the great American rights of passage for children. For example:

Hazelwood, MO, March 2011: Girl Scouts were prohibited from selling cookies in their own driveway.

Rio Nido, CA, August 7, 2001: Zoning officials shut down a 12-year old girl’s snack stand.

Naples, FL, June 28, 2011: Naples officials demanded closure of a lemonade stand operated by three kids under the age of 9.

St. Louis, MO, August 2004: The St. Louis Health Department shut down two girls selling lemonade.

Salem, MA, August 3, 2005: An 11 year-old and a 9 year-old selling lemonade were ordered to shut down after a nearby sausage vendor complained they were negatively affecting his business.

Midway, GA, July 15, 2011: Police shut down a lemonade stand of three young girls because they did not first obtain a business license, a peddler’s license, and a food permit.

I do not mean imply that anything nefarious is going on in the City Council. The point is to make sure that any ordinance is specific in its reach and is designed to solve clearly defined problems, if in fact there really is a problem.

Having said that, whether there really is a problem to be solved is the question that should be answered first.