Reverend Ref +

I HEARD THE NEWS TODAY, OH BOY . . .

A couple of articles caught my attention this morning.

The first is this one about the ownership of a baseball. Apparently the Red Sox first baseman from last year claims that the baseball that was tossed to him for the last out in the World Series belongs to him; maybe on the assumption that the ball was "given" to him by the pitcher??? Who knows. The Red Sox claim that the ball belongs to them and that the player only gained possession of it because he was an employee of the team.

It seems to me that the player is driven my monetary greed (so what's new?), while the team is driven by narcissism ("Look, we can prove we won the series 87 years ago!").

Those of you who know me, and those of you who think you know me, have a pretty good idea that baseball ranks right up there with watching paint dry as far as I'm concerned (sorry Jane). However, I personally think that the ball belongs to MLB and it belongs in Cooperstown. After all, products are officially licensed by MLB, not by the individual teams. Any other thoughts?

And then there was this article about South Africa legalizing homosexual unions. While I think it's a good idea to officially recognize these unions, I'm not sure that "marriage" is the right word. I think there are some semantic issues that need to be worked out, and I do think that the word marriage implies certain conditions -- like a male/female union. However, legalizing same sex unions is a good move.

The obvious question now is this: What effect will this have on the Anglican Church in South Africa, Africa, and the rest of the worldwide communion? As the old English saying goes, it makes for a sticky wicket.

Peace