Dear Tom,
First of all, thank you.
You’ve taken Sparty hoops to a new level; you’ve done it with fundamentals, team defense, and rebounding … not by getting 4 Blue-Chippers each year (that’s why UNC will never impress me) that turn into lottery picks.
I want you to stay, but I think you’re going to leave and I’m okay with that.
I won’t be a jealous fan, I’ve already been spoiled by 6 conference championships, 6 trips to the Final Four, and that 2000 title. You’ve done the green a solid.
Let’s be honest, the Cleveland job is about as good of an offer as someone can get; (possibly) coaching LeBron, coaching a great team, being paid much more, a chance to have success at the highest level, and being done with the immaturity of the 20-year-olds in East Lansing … is pretty enticing.
But because next year’s team will have good shot at winning another title and the NBA will probably always want you, weigh the options and know that I’ve got your back either way.
- Justin
As a new dad, I’m getting new eyes. I realize that my old view of God as a Father was beta and bland. What I have always believed to be true is now becoming much more dynamic, encompassing, and real.
Thus, I will soon be temporarily unplugged from society, headed to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, to what “they” say is Michigan’s most remote piece of state land. With a few comrades, I will hike with not much more than my pack into 
Another type is the love of a man for a beast – a relation constantly used in Scripture to symbolize the relation between God and men; “we are his people and the sheep of his pasture”. This is in some ways a better analogy …because the inferior party is sentient, and yet unmistakably inferior: but it is less good in so far as man has not made the beast and does not fully understand it. Its great merit lies in the fact that the association of (say) man and dog is primarily for the man’s sake: he tames the dog primarily that he may love it, not that it may love him, and that it may serve him, not that he may serve it. Yet at the same time, the dog’s interests are not sacrificed to the man’s. The one end (that he may love it) cannot be fully attained unless it also, in its fashion, serves it. Now just because the dog is by human standards one of the best” of irrational creatures, and a proper object for a man to love – of course, with that degree and kind of love which is proper to such an object, and not with silly anthropomorphic exaggerations – man interferes with the dog and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature. In its state of nature it has a smell, and habits, which frustrate man’s love: he washes it, house-trains it, teaches it not to steal, and is so enabled to love it completely. 