Redeemed.

The reason I haven't written much of worth for many years is because I want to write it all, and write it perfectly, when I do.

Instead, I've seen my time, physical ability, and mental capacity slip away more and more. And I'm not that even old and decrepit. It's just gone.

Right now, my body gives me about 15 minutes until the arms go out. I've already worked for three hours tonight. So, I'm in pain, but I want to write, because it's about time I find a way to write a little bit each day about what matters — especially if eight hours of my days are spent writing about the likes of Kevin Garnett, Derek Jeter, and Tim Tebow. (Not a bad life, but still.)

If I had to describe today, I would term it as "redeemed." Now, I've long understood redemption in its essence (as what it means for salvation) and in the grand sense (how God is fixing this world and making everything glorious bit by bit).

But God has also been showing me that even smaller things can be redeemed, like days or moments or even crappy stories.

I've been compelled to start actually walking with God — that is, living moment by moment and asking Him to help my unbelief in each instance of the day. And in that world, I am only reminded more and more what a mess I am. But rather than considering the day a wash, I've instead started asking God to redeem it, like Galatians talks of redeeming our time. God can turn the tide, and He can bring goodness.

God has turned many bad days into good ones. Second winds and bursts of energies are not accidents, and neither is the renewed attitude that comes when I acknowledge Him (Proverbs 3:5-6 isn't just a cliche), grab a hold of Him with my hip out of joint before sunrise and ask Him to bless me (Jacob!), and overall just take a deep breath and ask Him to redeem my moments the same way He redeems thoughts and lives.

I have had many good second halves of days recently, and better yet, now that I'm looking, I see God working all the time.

And there's hope that, if God can redeem everything from a moment to a day to a lifetime, that He can redeem a writer who has never quite been satisfied with a world and a work that has often struck her as unredeemable.

Awesome sportswriting.

You'd think that if I labeled a post "awesome sportswriting," I'd be pointing you to awesome sportswriting. In this instance, I'm just pointing you to my own writing, so you be the judge.

The NBA postseason was quite the exciting fare, and I led the way by predicting that this would be the year LeBron James may have enough to win it all. When the Heat and the Celtics were in the thick of it, though, I was firmly behind the Celtics -- that is, until they came close to croaking in a game where they just looked run-down. It was all over soon enough, but not without one look at James' long hug with Celtics coach Doc Rivers after it ended, where I mused in one of my better columns that when James helped assemble a Big 3 in Miami in hunt for a championship, maybe what he needed was Rivers.

The vitriol that James tried to shed on his way to his first NBA title coincided well with Tiger Woods' recent return to dominance, so I compared how the much-maligned pair are doing now. Other than that, I mostly left the NBA Finals alone -- except for a shout-out to one of my favorites, Shane Battier.

But the end of the NBA season was just the beginning of NBA drama, as the Ray Allen sweepstakes captivated the Boston area. After the initial shock of hearing Allen may jump to the Heat, most thought he would stay, and I had good reasons why he should stick with KG & Co. When he didn't listen to me, I wrote a headline with "Benedict Arnold" in it and said the Celtics were better off. Then, after realizing management pretty much hung Ray out to dry, I wrote one of my better pieces of the year, wherein I reflected that we all want to be pursued.

And no NBA coverage would be complete without me telling Dwight Howard I am sick of his whining.

I've been paying a good deal of attention to Major League Baseball, too. Want to compare Josh Beckett and Mickey Mantle? You've got it here. How about R.A. Dickey's great year, and how a lost season for the Mets has turned into a year far better than Mets management could have had if it tried? Right here. I also delved into the Carl Crawford mess, as we all want him to just stop playing this year so we don't have to hear about his random injuries.

My best MLB work happened when it came to the New York Yankees, of course. Two pieces centered around Yankees who were decidedly not acting like Yankees. My jest got some people worked up when I suggested that DeWayne Wise shouldn't pretend to catch foul balls that he clearly missed and that Rafael Soriano should stop looking like a bum while spelling Mariano Rivera. But when I stop wasting my time finding dumb stuff to write about the Yankees, I try to make more educated analysis, too. That's where you'll find my piece about the mess the team has with CC Sabathia and Andy Pettitte out, and how Phil Hughes is coming back even as another reliever-turned-starter, Daniel Bard, has seen his career implode.

Springtime is also an excellent place for tennis, and I jumped into the fray early, saying Rafael Nadal may have to be considered the greatest ever if he keeps beating two of the best -- Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic -- in a career where he gets the luck of two epic rivalries. Federer and Djokovic's semifinal had me hoping for an incredible match, but when Federer beat Andy Murray to win it all, I was only too happy to say this Federer is dipping deeper into the talent bag than ever. It's going to be a great summer for tennis.

I've also hit some of the big stories of the day, like how Jerry Sandusky managed to ruin sports in a way that steroids and other problems never could. There was also that great Manny Pacquiao boxing match, which not only had an unbelievable decision but also the effect of dismantling Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s golden chance to be the best of his generation. And I had never heard of Ashton Eaton, but after reading about what he did at the U.S. Olympic Trials, I decided the Summer Olympics in London could be worth watching (and not just for awesome women's soccer).

Finally, I wrapped up with some pleading to give Wes Welker a freaking contract, and then jumped into the realm of faith and sports to compare the way Tim Tebow approaches Christianity with how Bryce Harper is spreading Mormonism. I'm sure I'll have more on that topic later, but this is my first foray into the subject.

A correct assessment in the abortion debate

The abortion debate is a sticky one, with one side asking how anyone could want to kill a baby while the other side says that's the last thing it wants, but yet.... Neither side can get the other to back down. And any advantage to one side or the other can quickly raise emotions.

That's why the issue of Tim Tebow appearing in a commercial (to be run in the Super Bowl) that supports pro-life movements has brought so much controversy. Pro-lifers see nothing wrong with a guy talking about his mom choosing to save his life by turning down an abortion years ago. What a great testament to anti-abortion stances!

Meanwhile, pro-choice women's groups are fuming, because they think it's not always that clear-cut. And, as this Slate article argues, it isn't.

Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that it isn't one or the other, as much as pro-lifers want to make it out to be. They say it's either killing a baby or not. If you kill it, you're terrible. Even if not killing it could kill the mother (also leaving her current children mother-less), or could keep her from having more kids, it's still terrible. In their eyes, you should have faith, and if you're a champ and choose the baby, it will all work out. The mother will survive, the baby will grow up healthy, or plenty of parents looking to adopt will have their dreams realized.

But life is often much tricker, and as the Slate article shows, Tebow's mom got lucky (or God chose to let her have her son, but if you want to advance that argument, why does God not allow all those mothers to have their sons?). What about the other women whose "chose life" and found other lives taken away, whether it be their own or the life of that child who now grows up with defections?

In no way do I support abortion, even if you know it's dangerous or the kid is going to come out hurt, but I think it's a question worth asking. We're not in a world where you choose one thing and get the same effect. Every choice has multiple, serious implications.

But here's what I will argue against: Pro-lifers who use stories such as this to try to advance their point.

When I went to Liberty, the "abortion" part of our "Contemporary Issues" class was not treated in a balanced way, such as "this is what the pro-life camp thinks," and "this is what the pro-choice side thinks." It was "pro-lifers are right," and "pro-choicers are hideous human-killers who only care about themselves and would rather kill a baby than take on an added expense." No discussion was given to rape victims or disease-ridden fetuses or the litany of other factors that go into the debate.

Worse yet, the main crux of all pro-life arguments was the teacher pulling some adopted kid out of the crowd and having him or her share with us how he or she wouldn't be alive if someone hadn't chosen to let them live and be adopted by someone else who wanted them. It was all economical, all healthy-babies-no-one-wants.

Christians are well-known for having their heads in the sand, and this issue is one of the worst. Yes, you can be pro-life, but your whole argument can't be sob stories of adopted kids. There are many, real issues out there surrounding the abortion debate, and none of them will be solved if this is the only approach to abortion.

What of the pro-lifer who knows her child will be born with a terrible disease?

And what of the pro-choicer who has just decided, despite all her support for women's rights, to have a baby because she's far enough in her pregnancy to know it just wouldn't be right?

Who's right?

I think the one who's right is the one who listens to all sides, not the one who pickets or runs one-sided Super Bowl commercials. I'm happy things worked out for the Tebows, but can I dare say they may be bringing great pain to those who didn't have the same fortune? How can we solve this debate?

Too close for comfort with Tim Tebow

A lot of people are upset that, during SEC Media Day, a reporter asked Tim Tebow if he was a virgin.

Tebow is well-known throughout all sports not only for his ability to reel in big stats and championships but also because he follows his faith, from the Scripture references written under his eyes to his summer missions work in the Philippines.

On Poynter, Al Tompkins says his issue with the question was that it happened during SEC Media Day. I personally think the reporter was taking the chance he got; even Tebow was surprised no one asked him sooner.

Another writer, Dennis Dodd, seemed more disturbed by the question than anything, saying you don't talk about someone's sex life...or rather, first time...like that. After all the extramarital affairs in sports, towel-droppings and other dirty-mouthed, unnecessary jokes about sex, I'm not sure why we're excluding the topic of sex...except maybe because here, it's the exclusion of sex that is the big deal. In our increasingly sexualized society, where everyone talks about it and no one cares, has it suddenly become uncomfortable to talk about a guy with self-restraint?

Tebow welcomes these kind of questions, and he was ready to answer.

But just as talking about sex was once taboo, and even a cause to squirm, I think abstinance plays a similar role in today's society. Many people can't fathom or understand a lot of the factors surrounding someone who chooses not to have sex until marriage, because it's so uncommon and more often associated with failed political policies (for sex-ed), strange and backwoods cults and religious groups, or awkward, non-cool guys (which I'm assuming no one categorizes Tebow as).

Dodd is upset a line has been crossed. This may be a good line, even if Tebow's in the minority by being on the other side of it.