I heard the news about LeBron James (star of the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team) signing with the Miami Heat on the morning of our family's departure for Ohio, six weeks ago.  Because I didn't want to make the travel preparations any more stressful than they already were, I didn't break the news to my son (a huge Cavs fan and LeBron James fan) until we were about half-way over the Atlantic.  But I knew that I had to let him know -- because it was definitely going to be a topic of conversation when we landed in Ohio.

Elliot and I, like a lot of people from Ohio, were disappointed by LeBron James' decision to leave his home state and pursue glory, glamor, and success in Miami -- down south, on the Coast (common destinations for the oft-lamented Midwestern talent drain).  But as I've processed his decision further, I have to admit that it makes a lot of sense -- and I think that it actually reveals a lot about the evolution of cultural and generational values.  And I, for one, don't mean that this shift in values is necessarily a bad thing.  It's just interesting to note.

A lot of people have given LeBron James a lot of crap over the last month and a half.  They say he's a sell-out, that he's self-centered and childish and unfaithful.  The previous generation's great basketball players -- guys like Michael Jordan, Magic Johson, and Charles Barkley -- have publically and universally denounced the move, which coincided with Miami re-signing its biggest star, Dwyane Wade and also winning Chris Bosh, another highly-regarded talent in this summer's free agent signings.  They say that a phenomenon such as Miami's new "Big Three" would never have happened in their days because they were too competitive, too intent on beating each other rather than teaming up to run laps around the competition.  The previous generation's superstars complain that LeBron's legacy will be tainted by his lack of competitive individualism -- that he'll never be as great as they were in their day, because he didn't "go it alone" against the top talent of his generation.

But I really have to wonder if this criticism is just generational ignorance and arrogance.  To me, LeBron James' move to Miami is very much in line with the cultural values of today's twenty-somethings:  less individualistic, less cut-throat competitive, more global, more synergistic.

LeBron James has his own set of values that aren't so hung-up on individual "greatness."  I'm guessing that he's not so concerned with having great enemies (as if this somehow made him a bigger man) -- as much as he's concerned with having great friends.  He seems to hope for ongoing support from his Ohio friends and family, even as he transitions to Miami for the next few years.  And with transportation and telecommunication as efficient and effortless as it is today, ties to "home" are defined in much different ways than ever before; he can still be every bit as much of an Ohioan as he's always been -- it's just that he doesn't always have to be in Ohio to do it.  I'm sure that the championships are still important to LeBron James -- but he wants to have someone with whom he can share that glory.  The teammates are not something to detract from himself, from his spotlight, but rather something to make the experience all the more sweet.  Like a lot of young people today, it seems to me that he cares about where he's going only secondarily, after he's figured out who he's going with.

Maybe this is total psycho-babble.  I don't really know.  A lot of my speculation comes from the news stories reporting that James, Wade, and Bosh have all been close friends since their time playing together on the USA basketball team during the 2008 Olympics.  But again, I can't really claim to have any particular insight into LeBron James' way of thinking.  Yet the more I process his recent career decision, the more I can see my own values at play.  After being away from Ohio for a number of years, myself -- I've had to come to terms with the fact that I can be both an Amsterdammer and an Ohioan.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.  I didn't leave Ohio because I was disloyal or embittered; on the contrary, I love it there!  But I didn't have to keep my feet planted eternally on Ohio soil in order to maintain my cultural identity.  Furthermore, as I think about the future -- I realize that my goals in life are a lot less about what I accomplish than they are about who I get to accomplish them with.  If I were ever to move away from Amsterdam, for instance, I would hope that it wouldn't be for some amazing job opportunity or to live in some amazing city -- but rather that it would be to team up with some amazing people to "make history" together.  In my case, of course, it would probably be to make disciples instead of win NBA championships; but when you really break it down, my values are not so much different from those that LeBron James has exhibited this summer.

As for our personal basketball loyalties, Elliot and I have basically decided that we're going to have to cheer for both the Cleveland Cavaliers and for LeBron James, now that their paths have diverged.  If it comes down to a head-to-head match-up, we'll probably go for the Cavs (we do, after all, have our Ohio identity to maintain!).  But I don't see myself remaining embittered with LeBron James for making the decision he did.  If he ends up winning championships, I say good for him.  We'll still have to wait until next season to see how things really feel, in the midst of the action.  But for now, I'm saying that I can at least see where LeBron James might be coming from...

It's been a busy week -- with Marci's brother's family coming to Ohio for a visit, followed immediately by me taking a trip out to South Dakota -- so blogging has taken a back-seat.  The stories from Richland County are still percolating in my head, and I'm still very hopeful about writing them out in the days to come.  But for now, I've been focusing any blogging energies that remain within me to keep up with my Proverbs 365 project.

Today's entry feels to be particularly timely to me, though, so I thought I'd reference it here.  It's titled P221 - Land Issues, and it explores one of the trickier issues of North American history:  the conflict between the Native American populations and the white settlers who forged their way across the continent over the last 500 years.  The discussion is all based on Proverbs 2:21-22, where it says, "For the upright will live in the land, and the blameless will remain in it; but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the unfaithful will be torn from it."  As you can see from the illustration on the right, it's a passage that can feel a bit provocative -- particularly when juxtaposed with American history.

And I have to admit:  I'm genuinely confused and conflicted about how American history is supposed to be interpreted -- or, more accurately, how we're supposed to deal with the aftermath of history.  Significant problems remain in the Native American community, which is still fairly prevalent in South Dakota (from which I'm writing this).  The local newspapers from this weekend have carried several stories detailing the complexities of land claims, issues of national sovereignty, and basic problems of poverty and substance abuse among the Native Americans in the area.  In addition to this, I've been reading a biography of Andrew Jackson, the 7th President of the United States of America, who developed something of a reputation for himself as an Indian killer and developed some significant policies during his presidency which led to the issues we are dealing with today.  And even further, Elliot has been reading a book from the library about Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief from the area which is now called Ohio -- which challenges some of the standard ways that American history has been interpreted (particularly regarding who's the "Good Guys" and who's the "Bad Guys")...

Suffice to say, it's an interesting issue to consider, especially in light of Proverbs 2:21-22.  I'd be curious to hear if anyone else out there has any particular thoughts to add to the mix.  So please, take a minute to read P221 - Land Issues, and let me know what you think...

Tomorrow, the people of the Netherlands will elect their representatives for the national government.  I will not be taking part in this election -- because I don't technically count among "the people of the Netherlands."  Of course, I don't take this personally; however, I do think that it's unfortunate that I don't have a voice in a situation such as this despite the fact that I've lived here, legally, for over seven years; despite the fact that I own property here in the Netherlands; and despite the fact that our household has contributed over €100,000 in taxes throughout the years in order to support the Dutch system!  I'd say that it's the American in me who becomes so frustrated by this "taxation without representation" -- but then again, I imagine that immigrants to the United States are not treated much differently when it comes to American elections... So is the world that we live in these days.

Immigration is a particularly pivotal issue in this election.  Some of the main candidates in this election have distinguished themselves particularly in regards to their stance on immigration.  And I will be very interested to find out how the Dutch people express themselves on this particular point.  Will they side with someone along the lines of Geert Wilders, leader of the PVV (Party for Freedom), who has built a name for himself primarily by speaking out boldly against the "problems" with immigrants (particularly Muslim immigrants)?  Or will they side with someone along the lines of Job Cohen, leader of the PvdA (Labor Party), who spent years as the mayor of multi-cultural Amsterdam and developed a reputation as something of a "bridge-builder" or conciliatory "multi-culti cuddly-bear" (depending on who's perspective you might take)?  As a fair-skinned, blue-eyed immigrant, I feel like I've gotten a unique perspective on this societal issue facing the people of the Netherlands -- and I'm honestly not sure how they're going to choose.

I recently finished reading a book called "Murder in Amsterdam:  The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance," by Ian Buruma, and I feel like this book offered a very valuable complement to my personal experiences as an immigrant here in the Netherlands.  The book talks rather extensively about Job Cohen and Geert Wilders -- along with such figures as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mohammed Bouyeri, Pim Fortuyn, and of course Theo van Gogh (whose murder just so happened to take place just two blocks from our house, back in our second year of living here in the Netherlands).  And I learned a lot about how the complex political environment surrounding this issue of immigration has developed through the years.  For any foreigner living in Amsterdam, I would highly recommend the book (though I think it could also be somewhat instructive to Americans currently working through their own set of issues related to Mexican immigration).  It's obvious that there are no easy answers to these issues of immigration and tolerance and globalization -- but it's certainly helpful to read up on things a bit.

I, for one, personally find myself pulling for Job Cohen and the PvdA in this particular election.  Not just because he seems to have a more reasonable perspective on this particular issue of immigration, but also because he's an Amsterdammer.  His party's headquarters are just 100 meters down the street from our church's ministry center, and I've regularly seen him around the neighborhood; once he even came to visit our ministry center.  I can't say that I agree with all of the party standpoints of the PvdA -- but given the implications of this particular election, I'm personally hoping that they do well tomorrow.

Whatever comes of this election, I'm guessing that we'll learn a lot about the future of the immigration issue and the will of "the people of the Netherlands" tomorrow.  For now, however, all that I can really do is wait and see...

The trash collectors' strike has finally ended.  It's nice to see the streets getting cleaned up again.

I've found it very interesting to note the public reaction to this strike.  By and large, I'd say that public sympathy has been with the trash collectors -- with the city being made out to be the "Bad Guys."  It's been framed as "poor, under-appreciated, blue-collar trash collectors" versus "stingy, heartless, evil, corporate / government monolith."  And likely due to this public sentiment, the trash collectors seem to have come away from this confrontation as the "winners," having gained more ground in the negotiations.  It would seem like most Amsterdammers would say "Good for them."  Everyone likes to see it when someone sticks it to "The Man."  Myself included.

But it's recently occurred to me that, in this case, "The Man" is us -- the citizens of Amsterdam.  That is:  the government is made up of publicly-elected representatives who have been charged with the task of managing the money that is collected by our taxes, right?  So that means that it was effectively us (the citizens of Amsterdam) against the striking trash collectors.  So even though our streets are getting cleaned up again now (which is definitely appreciated), we ended up being the "losers" of the show-down.  It will ultimately mean either higher taxes for us, or budget cuts in other areas of municipal government.

Strange shift in perspective, huh?  Am I missing anything, in thinking through the scenario (other Amsterdammers seem to be significantly better-informed in things like this)?  Or if I've got it correct -- that our interests really were more tied up in the government's side of things -- why do you think it is that we "sided" with the trash collectors?  I'm just curious.  Again, I'm very appreciative to have the trash collectors back on the job.  But I'm just confused about if I should really feel like a moral victory was won or if I should feel like I was unfairly coerced into making concessions (via my elected officials)... Strange the way that all of these things work.

It's been a week and a half now since the city's trash collectors went on strike.  Today, the weather got warm enough for the smell to become noticeable at times.  Overall, it's not a pretty thing to look at.  But today, I saw this collection of recyclable glass on the sidewalk in our neighborhood -- and I actually thought there was some element of beauty in it.  All the different sizes, shapes, colors.  Dozens of parties arrayed on the sidewalk for all the world to see.

Is it just me?