Michael Crichton published a novel, State of Fear, which uses an eco-terrorism story to illustrate the way so many people are duped by junk science.
This book is about global warming, and the desperation of radical environmentalists to either make lots of money or influence government policy. They resort to eco-terrorism in an attempt to influence the masses.
The underlying message from Crichton is a sort of 'buyer beware', especially in the sense of buying junk science that is designed to make money and influence politics.
Global Warming is the top issue these days. Crichton uses real data from actual climate studies to show that the hype of the global warming issue comes from those who hope to profit from it, through wealth or political power. A fascinating proof of his point came from Columbia University, which actually changed their data after he published links to their climate studies in an attempt to make the data seem to support the global warming idea more dramatically.
From the link I provided above, you'll notice that he uses Eugenics as one of the more egregious examples of popular junk science. If you don't know who Margaret Sanger is, she happens to be the founder of Planned Parenthood. She formed that organization primarily as part of her Eugenics crusade. I'm not sure that the goals of that organization have changed all that much.
So many theories and "discoveries" from junk science continue to be pressed forward as matters of faith, not of disciplined use of the scientific method.
Such as homosexuality. How many take it on faith that gays are born that way? It started because the gay rights people consistently and loudly proclaim it as truth. So scientific research takes place that seems to support their contention. Does it, really?
For example, there has been no specific genetic marker for homosexuality. In fact, studies you've probably never heard about actually show the most likely factors that lead to homosexuality are environmental and experiential. Gays are more likely to have suffered sexual abuse as children, are more likely to have been raised in a single-parent home, influence of peer groups, etc.
But those studies get vilified and buried. Why? Because the topic isn't about science, but about popular cultural norms.
Likewise, anyone who dares study things like the differences between males and females is marginalized and made a pariah.
Even macro evolution - you know, the chart showing an amoeba morphing into a fish then an amphibian then a mammal then a monkey then a human - after all these years, there hasn't been a single discovery of a transitional species in the fossil record. But that doesn't matter, because the dogmatic faith in this evolutionary theory is the equivalent to those who believe just as fervently that all was created by God.
Beware of those who cite science in the pursuit of funds or political power. Al Gore, for example. Al's apocalyptic film about global warming has been ripped even by scientists who support the global warming theory as containing gross exaggerations, mischaracterizations, and even outright lies.
So which is true about Al Gore? Is he just a naive pawn of the radical environmental movement, or is he cynically and knowingly exploiting the issue to carve out his niche for another Presidential campaign. It has to be one or the other, so regardless of which is true, is this the kind of person we want as President?
Science is important, because at its best it helps us understand ourselves and the world better, and develop advances from cures to disease to technologies that improve all our lives. But at worst, it can be used to fool the masses into horrible and even inhumane governmental abuses.
So we all need to be careful about jumping on board the latest media-promoted fads without making the attempt to become informed about where the studies came from, who funded them, and whether they adhered to the standards of scientific method.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
If Christmas Happened Today
I was just thinking about the Christmas story, and about how it would be different if it happened in today's society.
A little girl who attends Middle School, or is a High School Freshman at the least, is a very devout member of her church and is known as well-behaved and a model student. When she gets pregnant, she says she's never done more than kissed her boyfriend. But she met someone claiming to be an angel who told her she would be giving birth to the Messiah. Does she even know what a messiah is?
Let's say her boyfriend is a bit older. He wants to break up with her because he knows he didn't get her pregnant, thinks she's crazy to tell this wild story about how it happened, and figures she is a very different person than he thought she was. But he has a vivid dream where an angel tells him it's OK. And he marries her.
These kids live in some small town in southern Indiana. A poor little town that's run down and kind of disrespected by most people. So anybody that hears her outrageous claim of virgin conception of the Messiah are beyond skeptical.
So they get married and decide to drive across country to have the baby in his grandparents' town, maybe somewhere in Kansas. They drive an old Ford Tempo that's barely holding together. Somehow instead of having the child in a hospital like everyone else, they pull off the road somewhere when she's in labor and she gives birth in an old barn.
There's some sort of bright light in the sky hovering over them, which brings people from around the midwest, who bring gifts for the baby.
The story spreads across the news media, which mostly makes fun of the whole story. But people everywhere make the trip to find the young family, to the point where the family has to run away to some undisclosed hiding place in South Dakota just to escape the crowds.
If something like this happened today, would anybody believe the little girl?
I think they'd be more likely to have her committed, blame the boyfriend, and give the baby up for adoption.
But maybe not, if it really was the Son of God.
Merry Christmas everybody.
A little girl who attends Middle School, or is a High School Freshman at the least, is a very devout member of her church and is known as well-behaved and a model student. When she gets pregnant, she says she's never done more than kissed her boyfriend. But she met someone claiming to be an angel who told her she would be giving birth to the Messiah. Does she even know what a messiah is?
Let's say her boyfriend is a bit older. He wants to break up with her because he knows he didn't get her pregnant, thinks she's crazy to tell this wild story about how it happened, and figures she is a very different person than he thought she was. But he has a vivid dream where an angel tells him it's OK. And he marries her.
These kids live in some small town in southern Indiana. A poor little town that's run down and kind of disrespected by most people. So anybody that hears her outrageous claim of virgin conception of the Messiah are beyond skeptical.
So they get married and decide to drive across country to have the baby in his grandparents' town, maybe somewhere in Kansas. They drive an old Ford Tempo that's barely holding together. Somehow instead of having the child in a hospital like everyone else, they pull off the road somewhere when she's in labor and she gives birth in an old barn.
There's some sort of bright light in the sky hovering over them, which brings people from around the midwest, who bring gifts for the baby.
The story spreads across the news media, which mostly makes fun of the whole story. But people everywhere make the trip to find the young family, to the point where the family has to run away to some undisclosed hiding place in South Dakota just to escape the crowds.
If something like this happened today, would anybody believe the little girl?
I think they'd be more likely to have her committed, blame the boyfriend, and give the baby up for adoption.
But maybe not, if it really was the Son of God.
Merry Christmas everybody.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Schism
The Episcopals are splitting, understandably so. This is a result of a battle between secular infiltration of the Episcopal denomination and those who desire to maintain their Christianity.
I've read quite a bit on church history. Schisms have been happening from the very beginning, with various sects forming and reforming based on competing ideas and principles. The split of the Church of England from Rome was particularly interesting. Martin Luther's rebellion against a corrupt Roman church was understandable in its historic context.
I believe that the secular takeover of American Episcopalians as well as many other large Protestant denominations will eventually lead to their downfall as viable religious organizations. Because when you no longer stand for anything, there's no longer a reason for people to affiliate.
Given the open war on religion from the American atheist left, I think it is a shame that those churches that still hold fast to the tenets of their faith are too absorbed in age-old interfaith disputes to unite together to save the faith from this national attack. I'm listening to the atheist political left, and they are no longer disguising their intentions - to drive religion out of American society by any means necessary.
As sad as it may be, I think other serious Christians in denominations being infiltrated and taken over by anti-Christian activists should either band together to reclaim their denominations or follow the example of those Episcopal churches that are abandoning their anti-Christian leaders.
I've read quite a bit on church history. Schisms have been happening from the very beginning, with various sects forming and reforming based on competing ideas and principles. The split of the Church of England from Rome was particularly interesting. Martin Luther's rebellion against a corrupt Roman church was understandable in its historic context.
I believe that the secular takeover of American Episcopalians as well as many other large Protestant denominations will eventually lead to their downfall as viable religious organizations. Because when you no longer stand for anything, there's no longer a reason for people to affiliate.
Given the open war on religion from the American atheist left, I think it is a shame that those churches that still hold fast to the tenets of their faith are too absorbed in age-old interfaith disputes to unite together to save the faith from this national attack. I'm listening to the atheist political left, and they are no longer disguising their intentions - to drive religion out of American society by any means necessary.
As sad as it may be, I think other serious Christians in denominations being infiltrated and taken over by anti-Christian activists should either band together to reclaim their denominations or follow the example of those Episcopal churches that are abandoning their anti-Christian leaders.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
The Wonders of Air Travel
This week included a much higher than usual amount of time sitting in airports and on airplanes. Usually I don't notice a lot because I keep my nose in a book when I'm traveling. But this time, the sheer number of hours made me a bit too restless to spend them all escaping in some best-seller paperback.
Most of the observations come from my abortive trip home at the end of the week. Checking in on Thursday evening, I discovered there was an earlier departure I could easily catch. So I asked the agent if I could switch to the earlier flight. She said sure, there were plenty of seats left. But I'd have to pay a change fee of $25.
I asked her, can't I just stand by for an open seat? There's no cost to the airline for me to sit in an otherwise empty seat on the 4:05 flight versus the 5:50 flight, right? She said sorry, can't do it.
The airlines never did this in the past. Apparently while they struggled financially in recent years they began looking around for ways to gouge more dollars from customers while still keeping their fares in line with the competition. So some idiot in a boardroom at Delta said, "let's just charge a fee whenever a passenger makes any itinerary change".
See, business travelers do it all the time. Because things happen to business travelers. Customers make last minute changes. Things come up. Business travelers routinely change their plans. So like the government, the airlines decided to stick it to the business travelers. They can afford it, right?
Anyway, I figured it was likely the client would challenge the change fee and I didn't want to pay it out of my own pocket, so I said,
"Never mind. Just keep me on the same flight."
So I went to the gate and settled in for my 2 hour wait.
The first thing I encountered was a bit of an obstacle course to get to an open seat in the gate area. The facing rows of seats nearest the window by our gate were about 6 feet apart. On the end of the rows were some young black guys. They might have been athletes, because that's the way they were dressed. Their large duffels were piled across the open space between the seats, creating an effective barricade. All the open seats in their row, which was most of them, could only be accessed by those brave intrepid souls willing to climb their barricade.
I was the first. I noticed a couple of women who walked up as if to try walking through to one of the many waiting seats, but they pulled back, either intimidated by the large black men or unsure how to pull their rollaboard suitcases through to the empty seats. I went ahead, stepping over their duffels with a long stride so I could avoid stepping on one.
Another gentleman followed my lead and followed the trail I blazed through the duffel bag mountain. As we reached our seats, I looked over and noticed one of the guys grabbing a duffel and stacking it on top of the others to make the obstacle more intimidating.
Nobody spoke. Nobody else tried to walk through until after the group boarded their flight (that would be the 4:05 they wouldn't let me on without a bribe).
That brings me to the next observation. When they boarded the 4:05, they called first for families with small children, first class, and elite passengers. This also made for an interesting sociological/anthropological field study.
There was a young couple with a wiggly baby, who gathered up their carry-on's and stroller and baby to board the plane just as the announcement for "pre-boarding" was made. My expectation was that they would be brought to the front of the line, because they were the prototype for the purpose of the "pre-boarding" concept.
Actually, they ended up at the back of a rather long boarding line. I watched with fascination as the "elite" passengers jostled for position in the line, while outwardly pretending their position in line was irrelevant to them. I waited to see if anyone in the line would notice the young family struggling to hang onto their active pre-toddler while keeping their carry-on bags and stroller with them. Somebody, anybody, noticing them and offering to let them through toward the front of the boarding line. Or maybe the gate agent, busily working over their computer monitor preparing to board passengers, might look up and notice the young family and invite them to the front of the line.
None of that happened. The "elite" passengers acted as if they were elite people, deserving of special treatment and disdainful of the rabble who couldn't board early like they could. I laughed to myself as I noticed the subtle dance, with passengers casually walking up near the front of the already-formed line to attemt to blend in while others blocked them with their bodies while trying to make it look like they just didn't notice.
I travel so much that I've seen the behavior of many of these folks in first class after they get on the plane. Sometimes they are complete jerks with the flight attendants, demanding to be served first, making silly requests, and even leaving their carry-on bag in the aisle for the flight attendant to stow somewhere.
Trying to think through these behaviors from a more scientific point of view, here are my conclusions. The black guys were making a statement in building their little barricade. Perhaps their attitudes about their minority status drives them to assert some power over others in places like airports, where they enjoy making people uncomfortable and inconvenienced.
The airlines create the "elite" monsters with their frequent flier programs, where they reward frequent fliers with early boarding and first class upgrades. This seems to create an attitude of entitlement, especially among the frequent fliers who are not otherwise wealthy. They perhaps long to be treated as important, and unwittingly become insufferable idiots as they vie to be the most elite of all the elite.
Adding insult to injury, here's what happened that Thursday night. My 5:50 flight was delayed to about 7:50, making it impossible to make my connection. I had to rebook for the first flight out Friday morning. When I went to collect my checked luggage, the agent returned from a rather long search to sheepishly inform me that my bag had been loaded on the 4:05 flight.
My bag didn't have to pay the $25 bribe, so it got home on Thursday night. I didn't get home until Friday night.
Gee thanks, Delta. Service like that, and you're in bankruptcy? I wonder why?
Most of the observations come from my abortive trip home at the end of the week. Checking in on Thursday evening, I discovered there was an earlier departure I could easily catch. So I asked the agent if I could switch to the earlier flight. She said sure, there were plenty of seats left. But I'd have to pay a change fee of $25.
I asked her, can't I just stand by for an open seat? There's no cost to the airline for me to sit in an otherwise empty seat on the 4:05 flight versus the 5:50 flight, right? She said sorry, can't do it.
The airlines never did this in the past. Apparently while they struggled financially in recent years they began looking around for ways to gouge more dollars from customers while still keeping their fares in line with the competition. So some idiot in a boardroom at Delta said, "let's just charge a fee whenever a passenger makes any itinerary change".
See, business travelers do it all the time. Because things happen to business travelers. Customers make last minute changes. Things come up. Business travelers routinely change their plans. So like the government, the airlines decided to stick it to the business travelers. They can afford it, right?
Anyway, I figured it was likely the client would challenge the change fee and I didn't want to pay it out of my own pocket, so I said,
"Never mind. Just keep me on the same flight."
So I went to the gate and settled in for my 2 hour wait.
The first thing I encountered was a bit of an obstacle course to get to an open seat in the gate area. The facing rows of seats nearest the window by our gate were about 6 feet apart. On the end of the rows were some young black guys. They might have been athletes, because that's the way they were dressed. Their large duffels were piled across the open space between the seats, creating an effective barricade. All the open seats in their row, which was most of them, could only be accessed by those brave intrepid souls willing to climb their barricade.
I was the first. I noticed a couple of women who walked up as if to try walking through to one of the many waiting seats, but they pulled back, either intimidated by the large black men or unsure how to pull their rollaboard suitcases through to the empty seats. I went ahead, stepping over their duffels with a long stride so I could avoid stepping on one.
Another gentleman followed my lead and followed the trail I blazed through the duffel bag mountain. As we reached our seats, I looked over and noticed one of the guys grabbing a duffel and stacking it on top of the others to make the obstacle more intimidating.
Nobody spoke. Nobody else tried to walk through until after the group boarded their flight (that would be the 4:05 they wouldn't let me on without a bribe).
That brings me to the next observation. When they boarded the 4:05, they called first for families with small children, first class, and elite passengers. This also made for an interesting sociological/anthropological field study.
There was a young couple with a wiggly baby, who gathered up their carry-on's and stroller and baby to board the plane just as the announcement for "pre-boarding" was made. My expectation was that they would be brought to the front of the line, because they were the prototype for the purpose of the "pre-boarding" concept.
Actually, they ended up at the back of a rather long boarding line. I watched with fascination as the "elite" passengers jostled for position in the line, while outwardly pretending their position in line was irrelevant to them. I waited to see if anyone in the line would notice the young family struggling to hang onto their active pre-toddler while keeping their carry-on bags and stroller with them. Somebody, anybody, noticing them and offering to let them through toward the front of the boarding line. Or maybe the gate agent, busily working over their computer monitor preparing to board passengers, might look up and notice the young family and invite them to the front of the line.
None of that happened. The "elite" passengers acted as if they were elite people, deserving of special treatment and disdainful of the rabble who couldn't board early like they could. I laughed to myself as I noticed the subtle dance, with passengers casually walking up near the front of the already-formed line to attemt to blend in while others blocked them with their bodies while trying to make it look like they just didn't notice.
I travel so much that I've seen the behavior of many of these folks in first class after they get on the plane. Sometimes they are complete jerks with the flight attendants, demanding to be served first, making silly requests, and even leaving their carry-on bag in the aisle for the flight attendant to stow somewhere.
Trying to think through these behaviors from a more scientific point of view, here are my conclusions. The black guys were making a statement in building their little barricade. Perhaps their attitudes about their minority status drives them to assert some power over others in places like airports, where they enjoy making people uncomfortable and inconvenienced.
The airlines create the "elite" monsters with their frequent flier programs, where they reward frequent fliers with early boarding and first class upgrades. This seems to create an attitude of entitlement, especially among the frequent fliers who are not otherwise wealthy. They perhaps long to be treated as important, and unwittingly become insufferable idiots as they vie to be the most elite of all the elite.
Adding insult to injury, here's what happened that Thursday night. My 5:50 flight was delayed to about 7:50, making it impossible to make my connection. I had to rebook for the first flight out Friday morning. When I went to collect my checked luggage, the agent returned from a rather long search to sheepishly inform me that my bag had been loaded on the 4:05 flight.
My bag didn't have to pay the $25 bribe, so it got home on Thursday night. I didn't get home until Friday night.
Gee thanks, Delta. Service like that, and you're in bankruptcy? I wonder why?
The Story Gets Stranger
I was out of town all week (gotta make a blog entry about that), but when I returned I heard the latest in the Barry Huckeby saga. The story has taken a bizarre turn.
Those who have followed the story about Barry and allegations he stole $3,000 from the gate receipts at a Columbus North high school sectional football playoff game probably already know the decision reached by the school board. The decision is incomprehensible.
Barry lost his positions as Assistant Athletic Director and Basketball Coach, but kept his teaching job. Of course, none of the details of the hearing they held last week were released, so the general public still has no information about the facts or evidence of the case.
What puzzles me is the nonsensical decision. If he's guilty of theft, he should have been terminated - end of story. If it was a misunderstanding, he should have been exonerated and returned to all of his duties. If he violated policy and procedures, but quickly admitted his errors and cooperated fully, maybe he would have been fired from the role of Assistant Athletic Director and/or suspended temporarily from the coaching position. But removing him from both the AD and coaching jobs while letting him keep the teaching job just doesn't make sense.
The ongoing problem is we really don't know the details. We don't know the evidence. We only know some vague and contradictory information that he indeed took some cash, in an amount somewhere between $100 and $3,000.
The school board's decision sounds a lot like a compromise. My logical best guess is that the board was split between retaining or terminating Barry, and they knew they had to come forward to the public united behind a specific resolution. So they compromised, letting him stay on as a teacher but taking away his responsibilities in the athletic department.
From my perspective, if he deserves to be fired as coach, he also deserves to be fired as a teacher. I can imagine a scenario where they decided he didn't have the skills or discipline to be an effective Athletic Director, so it could completely make sense if they terminated that role. But teacher and coach are pretty much the same to me - he should either be allowed to return in both or should be fired from both. Anything else, like the decision actually reached, sends the worst of mixed messages.
Welcome to Columbus, home of the Twilight Zone.
Those who have followed the story about Barry and allegations he stole $3,000 from the gate receipts at a Columbus North high school sectional football playoff game probably already know the decision reached by the school board. The decision is incomprehensible.
Barry lost his positions as Assistant Athletic Director and Basketball Coach, but kept his teaching job. Of course, none of the details of the hearing they held last week were released, so the general public still has no information about the facts or evidence of the case.
What puzzles me is the nonsensical decision. If he's guilty of theft, he should have been terminated - end of story. If it was a misunderstanding, he should have been exonerated and returned to all of his duties. If he violated policy and procedures, but quickly admitted his errors and cooperated fully, maybe he would have been fired from the role of Assistant Athletic Director and/or suspended temporarily from the coaching position. But removing him from both the AD and coaching jobs while letting him keep the teaching job just doesn't make sense.
The ongoing problem is we really don't know the details. We don't know the evidence. We only know some vague and contradictory information that he indeed took some cash, in an amount somewhere between $100 and $3,000.
The school board's decision sounds a lot like a compromise. My logical best guess is that the board was split between retaining or terminating Barry, and they knew they had to come forward to the public united behind a specific resolution. So they compromised, letting him stay on as a teacher but taking away his responsibilities in the athletic department.
From my perspective, if he deserves to be fired as coach, he also deserves to be fired as a teacher. I can imagine a scenario where they decided he didn't have the skills or discipline to be an effective Athletic Director, so it could completely make sense if they terminated that role. But teacher and coach are pretty much the same to me - he should either be allowed to return in both or should be fired from both. Anything else, like the decision actually reached, sends the worst of mixed messages.
Welcome to Columbus, home of the Twilight Zone.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Interesting Stuff from the Weekend
Just a few interesting items from this weekend:
Barry Huckeby had a hearing of sorts in front of the School Board. According to The Republic newspaper, the board heard details of the charges against him and his own defense in a closed session. The public doesn't get to find out about all of it until everything's complete. Apparently they will decide on his termination tonight (Monday). There's no new information being made public, as far as I can tell.
Colts fans, forget any delusions of a Super Bowl appearance for this year. I could run for 200 yards against that defense. They can't stop anybody. Their linebackers play like girls.
A little story from Mike Sodrel about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress: When Mike beat Baron Hill, he was provided a small cubicle to use while getting settled for his term in congress. He was given the office space only after Baron's term was over. (This was when Republicans were in charge). Well, this time the Democrats are taking power, and they demanded that all of the congressmen who were defeated this time move out of their offices immediately and hand them over to their incoming replacements. JD Hayworth refused, telling them he is a congressman until December 31st, and if they want him out of his office before then, they can bring in the police to remove him.
I was a ringer in the tenor section for a church's Christmas cantata yesterday. It was pretty nice, a decent piece with a good brass sextet from IU playing along. Just challenging enough to make it interesting. Gotta sing again this evening for some old folks.
Barry Huckeby had a hearing of sorts in front of the School Board. According to The Republic newspaper, the board heard details of the charges against him and his own defense in a closed session. The public doesn't get to find out about all of it until everything's complete. Apparently they will decide on his termination tonight (Monday). There's no new information being made public, as far as I can tell.
Colts fans, forget any delusions of a Super Bowl appearance for this year. I could run for 200 yards against that defense. They can't stop anybody. Their linebackers play like girls.
A little story from Mike Sodrel about the difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress: When Mike beat Baron Hill, he was provided a small cubicle to use while getting settled for his term in congress. He was given the office space only after Baron's term was over. (This was when Republicans were in charge). Well, this time the Democrats are taking power, and they demanded that all of the congressmen who were defeated this time move out of their offices immediately and hand them over to their incoming replacements. JD Hayworth refused, telling them he is a congressman until December 31st, and if they want him out of his office before then, they can bring in the police to remove him.
I was a ringer in the tenor section for a church's Christmas cantata yesterday. It was pretty nice, a decent piece with a good brass sextet from IU playing along. Just challenging enough to make it interesting. Gotta sing again this evening for some old folks.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Eye on the Prize
Since I couldn't get the early morning flight out, I'm hanging out in the hotel room for another half hour before heading to the airport and home. It feels like a long week. Maybe it's the cold and snow.
Next week includes a meeting with a company that may sign up to keep me exclusively for the forseeable future. Ordinarily it seems like I'd be excited by that prospect, but instead I don't really care. Sure, it can be comforting to know there won't be a dry spell in work for a long time. And less travel is always good. But on the other hand, what I like most about this consulting thing is the variety. The deal I'm working on will be more like becoming a corporate employee again, which is restrictive and boring, among other negatives.
What I do instead is look at the big picture. I have to continue to take everything I can get and work like a maniac until the boys are out of college, the house is paid off, we have decent vehicles, and enough put away in the retirement accounts. Then I can just do this consulting stuff for fun, maybe taking around a dozen days of work a month and doing whatever I want the rest of the time.
That time seems a long way off right now. I just have to hope I make it there in time to enjoy it.
Next week includes a meeting with a company that may sign up to keep me exclusively for the forseeable future. Ordinarily it seems like I'd be excited by that prospect, but instead I don't really care. Sure, it can be comforting to know there won't be a dry spell in work for a long time. And less travel is always good. But on the other hand, what I like most about this consulting thing is the variety. The deal I'm working on will be more like becoming a corporate employee again, which is restrictive and boring, among other negatives.
What I do instead is look at the big picture. I have to continue to take everything I can get and work like a maniac until the boys are out of college, the house is paid off, we have decent vehicles, and enough put away in the retirement accounts. Then I can just do this consulting stuff for fun, maybe taking around a dozen days of work a month and doing whatever I want the rest of the time.
That time seems a long way off right now. I just have to hope I make it there in time to enjoy it.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
They Don't Hide it Anymore
This speaks volumes about the identity and objectives of the political party in power.
I guess they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Maybe it's because they don't have to.
Ever been out of the country? Ever seen how the rest of the world lives? Are you ready to reset our American living standard to that of Europe?
Maybe so. But I don't really believe it; I'm more inclined to believe most Americans haven't been there, haven't seen how the people live, and support the goals of that political party out of pure ignorance.
Speaking of ignorance, check out this article.
Add all this to the Iraq Study Commission deciding that we should ask for help from Iran and Syria, and I rest my case. The politicians are indeed clueless, incompetent, bought and paid for by those who want to destroy our country, or all of the above. The real WWIII is coming, and it will be much worse than WWI and WWII combined. I'm very sad for the terrible times ahead.
I guess they aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Maybe it's because they don't have to.
Ever been out of the country? Ever seen how the rest of the world lives? Are you ready to reset our American living standard to that of Europe?
Maybe so. But I don't really believe it; I'm more inclined to believe most Americans haven't been there, haven't seen how the people live, and support the goals of that political party out of pure ignorance.
Speaking of ignorance, check out this article.
Add all this to the Iraq Study Commission deciding that we should ask for help from Iran and Syria, and I rest my case. The politicians are indeed clueless, incompetent, bought and paid for by those who want to destroy our country, or all of the above. The real WWIII is coming, and it will be much worse than WWI and WWII combined. I'm very sad for the terrible times ahead.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Blog about Nothing
Here in the great white north I can't get warm anywhere but my hotel room. And I'm generally not one to get cold easily. It might be a great place to be in the winter if you like snowmobiling.
The cold I don't mind so much, but the real issue is the travel. It's an all day trip each way. So this week I use two full days to get here and back, and can only bill the three days I'm here. Next trip I'll have to give up Sunday and the following Saturday for travel to bill the full week.
Oh well, just part of life.
Trying to decide how much Christmas shopping to do. What to get, how much to spend, who all should get something anyway all part of the process. Christmas must be fun for the very rich, because if I were very rich, I would get nice stuff for all kinds of people. Just for the fun of it.
Right now I just wish I could go out and buy a decent vehicle to replace Jed. Jed's getting very old - well over 135K miles. Hard as I'm working, it would seem not to be all that tough. But whatever comes in just goes back out. Sigh.
I should also get business Christmas cards out to clients this weekend. I'll try to overcome laziness and get that done.
The cold I don't mind so much, but the real issue is the travel. It's an all day trip each way. So this week I use two full days to get here and back, and can only bill the three days I'm here. Next trip I'll have to give up Sunday and the following Saturday for travel to bill the full week.
Oh well, just part of life.
Trying to decide how much Christmas shopping to do. What to get, how much to spend, who all should get something anyway all part of the process. Christmas must be fun for the very rich, because if I were very rich, I would get nice stuff for all kinds of people. Just for the fun of it.
Right now I just wish I could go out and buy a decent vehicle to replace Jed. Jed's getting very old - well over 135K miles. Hard as I'm working, it would seem not to be all that tough. But whatever comes in just goes back out. Sigh.
I should also get business Christmas cards out to clients this weekend. I'll try to overcome laziness and get that done.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Voice in the Wilderness
I'm not becoming some bitter old guy. At least I don't think I am.
I generally think of myself as a pretty positive person overall. Given my circumstances, it seems to me there would not be many people who could hold it together. Not that I'm dealing with everything terrifically, but I think I'm doing the best I can. But my personal issues are none of anyone's business.
The concerns that get me blogging are more societal than personal, even though I meet more people that confirm those concerns than don't. I can spot a narcissist a mile away, but don't need to look that far, because there's one on every corner, so to speak.
The fact that this huge majority of Americans have no more than the shallowest notion of what the terror war is about, and what the stakes are in Iraq, gives me heartburn. Suppose after Gettysburg, popular opinion turned against the war between the states, and Lincoln was pressured by his political opponents to just give the Confederates what they want and quit. Or suppose that while Allied troops were giving up huge casualties fighting the Japanese Island by Island in the South Pacific, and political opponents successfully convinced Harry Truman to quit.
That's what's happening right now. Ignorant people who haven't bothered or can't grasp the global threats to our country seem to be driving the government down a path of capitulation in Iraq. As if we could just sort of say, "nevermind", and bid the Iraqi people good luck as we ship everyone home. Will we even bother to fight when the inevitable third world war ramps up as a result?
OK, rant over. I know, nobody cares. If I blogged about Tom and Katie or Brad and Angelina or Britney or Paris or Lindsey, I'd be more in tune with what people really care about. I suppose there's not much choice but to leave everyone to their clueless lives pursuing their own hedonism, drinking and toking, looking for sex, and dreaming about winning the lottery. I suppose actually having to think about world events just gives everyone a headache.
I'm really not so angry and bitter. I'm only trying to wake people up, even if I'm some voice in the wilderness.
I generally think of myself as a pretty positive person overall. Given my circumstances, it seems to me there would not be many people who could hold it together. Not that I'm dealing with everything terrifically, but I think I'm doing the best I can. But my personal issues are none of anyone's business.
The concerns that get me blogging are more societal than personal, even though I meet more people that confirm those concerns than don't. I can spot a narcissist a mile away, but don't need to look that far, because there's one on every corner, so to speak.
The fact that this huge majority of Americans have no more than the shallowest notion of what the terror war is about, and what the stakes are in Iraq, gives me heartburn. Suppose after Gettysburg, popular opinion turned against the war between the states, and Lincoln was pressured by his political opponents to just give the Confederates what they want and quit. Or suppose that while Allied troops were giving up huge casualties fighting the Japanese Island by Island in the South Pacific, and political opponents successfully convinced Harry Truman to quit.
That's what's happening right now. Ignorant people who haven't bothered or can't grasp the global threats to our country seem to be driving the government down a path of capitulation in Iraq. As if we could just sort of say, "nevermind", and bid the Iraqi people good luck as we ship everyone home. Will we even bother to fight when the inevitable third world war ramps up as a result?
OK, rant over. I know, nobody cares. If I blogged about Tom and Katie or Brad and Angelina or Britney or Paris or Lindsey, I'd be more in tune with what people really care about. I suppose there's not much choice but to leave everyone to their clueless lives pursuing their own hedonism, drinking and toking, looking for sex, and dreaming about winning the lottery. I suppose actually having to think about world events just gives everyone a headache.
I'm really not so angry and bitter. I'm only trying to wake people up, even if I'm some voice in the wilderness.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Equating Radical Islam with Fundamentalist Christianity
There was an atheist talking about religion, and I was curious enough to listen for awhile. Being a person of fairly strong religious conviction myself, I suppose I should have found his message insulting. Because, according to this leader of some sort of atheist organization in America, I'm a stupid uneducated troglodyte superstitious bigoted homophobic dogmatic ignoramus. I might have left out a few more adjectives to describe what the atheist thinks of me, but I suppose I recalled enough to get the point.
This guy was asked by the host if he was ruling out any possibility of a higher power or intelligent ordering of the universe. He said yes. His simple statement was that, absent empirical scientific evidence of the existence of God, there can be no God. With him, as well as many others I often hear railing against some imagined evils perpetuated by "organized religion", my first question is, what is it that happened to him in his life that has made him so hate Christianity?
His purpose was also made clear, and it should be noted by anyone who values their religious liberty. That purpose is the marginalization and eventual removal of religion from society. He has a quite Marxist philosophy in this area, believing not that people should be free to believe or not believe as they choose, but that the institutions of society should work hard to purge all their superstitious beliefs. By force of law, if necessary. Of course, this crusade begins in the public schools, which must use science education to convince all children that there is no God.
In this atheist's world, there is no difference between the Radical Islam factions that are currently wreaking havoc on people around the planet and a fundamentalist Christian. It doesn't seem to register with him that there aren't any Christians blowing themselves up in WalMart or flying airplanes into City Hall.
I discovered by listening long enough that this guy has no clue what a Christian really is, or what the faith actually teaches. His most often repeated example of why Christians are idiots was that many believe the world is only about 6,000 years old. His second example was that most Christians believe Christ will return to save the world in their lifetime. That most Christians are so ignorant as to have rejected macro evolution theory, which of course he regards as proven fact. And he was particularly upset at Christians who have suggested that events from 9/11 to Katrina might have been examples of God's wrath on our permissive society (homosexuality being the chief sin needing punished, by his inference).
What an amazingly distorted and ignorant view of the Christian faith he has. If I didn't go to church regularly myself, I would think from his description that Christian services were no different from Klan meetings. It seems that he has abandoned the very logical and critical thought he claims to value so highly in favor of his own particular brand of religion, called atheism.
I've found my own definition of an atheist. Atheist: A person who holds an intense hatred for organized religions and those who practice them, especially Christians. An atheist is a political activist, involved in an intense campaign to remove religion from society.
Delusional. And very sad.
It will make him angry, but I think I'll pray for him.
This guy was asked by the host if he was ruling out any possibility of a higher power or intelligent ordering of the universe. He said yes. His simple statement was that, absent empirical scientific evidence of the existence of God, there can be no God. With him, as well as many others I often hear railing against some imagined evils perpetuated by "organized religion", my first question is, what is it that happened to him in his life that has made him so hate Christianity?
His purpose was also made clear, and it should be noted by anyone who values their religious liberty. That purpose is the marginalization and eventual removal of religion from society. He has a quite Marxist philosophy in this area, believing not that people should be free to believe or not believe as they choose, but that the institutions of society should work hard to purge all their superstitious beliefs. By force of law, if necessary. Of course, this crusade begins in the public schools, which must use science education to convince all children that there is no God.
In this atheist's world, there is no difference between the Radical Islam factions that are currently wreaking havoc on people around the planet and a fundamentalist Christian. It doesn't seem to register with him that there aren't any Christians blowing themselves up in WalMart or flying airplanes into City Hall.
I discovered by listening long enough that this guy has no clue what a Christian really is, or what the faith actually teaches. His most often repeated example of why Christians are idiots was that many believe the world is only about 6,000 years old. His second example was that most Christians believe Christ will return to save the world in their lifetime. That most Christians are so ignorant as to have rejected macro evolution theory, which of course he regards as proven fact. And he was particularly upset at Christians who have suggested that events from 9/11 to Katrina might have been examples of God's wrath on our permissive society (homosexuality being the chief sin needing punished, by his inference).
What an amazingly distorted and ignorant view of the Christian faith he has. If I didn't go to church regularly myself, I would think from his description that Christian services were no different from Klan meetings. It seems that he has abandoned the very logical and critical thought he claims to value so highly in favor of his own particular brand of religion, called atheism.
I've found my own definition of an atheist. Atheist: A person who holds an intense hatred for organized religions and those who practice them, especially Christians. An atheist is a political activist, involved in an intense campaign to remove religion from society.
Delusional. And very sad.
It will make him angry, but I think I'll pray for him.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Basketball Post
The season for my favorite sport has begun. As much as I enjoy watching football, my favorite sport as a player was always hoops. What would you expect, me being a kid growing up in Indiana during the heyday of high school basketball? That is, before the state athletics association went all PC on us and wrecked the high school game with Class Basketball.
I'll get to the Class Basketball travesty another time.
The season has started, and I've seen the Hoosiers and Pacers play.
Indiana is starting over this year with a new coach. Kelvin Sampson. Coming from Oklahoma, he had done fairly well in a football college and state. Will he be a good fit at Indiana? I think it's far too early to say.
The team is struggling, already 3-2 in the young season. Even so, the two losses were to a hot Butler team (Tim's extremely excited) and a close loss at Duke last night. They'll have a tough year, having lost Marco Killingsworth, who was probably their most promising player from last year. They also lost Robert Vaden, but I don't think that has the same impact on the team as Killingsworth.
Sampson seems to have done a pretty good job keeping the rest of the team intact, as other players, such as DJ White, were upset at Mike Davis' firing and threatening to leave the program with Vaden and Killingsworth.
Now he says, and I agree, that this team needs to find its identity. I believe that was a true statement over the last couple of years under Davis. Offensively, they still show a tendency to stand around and wait for somebody else to make a play. That's when they lose.
They appear to play hard on defense, but even so get victimized too often by not playing the tight team defense for which Bob Knight's teams were so well known.
The guy I am most impressed by is in no way their best player. Angelo Pizzo has to make another Rudy movie, this time titled 'Errek'. Errek Suhr (yes, I spelled it correctly) is every bit the basketball version of Sean Astin's Rudy, but much more. I think it's a better story.
If you missed the Duke game last night, you missed an individual performance worthy of a standing ovation. The Hoosiers were struggling in the first half, slowly but steadily falling behind to the Dukies. In comes Errek, who brings energy and toughness and heart. He makes steals, takes charges, feeds teammates, breaks presses. And he's the smallest, least athletic guy on the floor.
The second half, Kelvin Sampson kept his starter on the bench and stayed with Errek. As the second half progressed, I kept seeing Errek making great defensive plays against guys two feet taller. Making steals, taking charges, driving into the lane, exhorting his teammates. And the Hoosiers got back into the game, tying it and keeping it close to the end.
At the end, Errek stole an inbounds pass from Duke, who was trying to run the last few seconds off the clock. As the final seconds ticked off the clock, it was Errek who found the ball back in his hands from timid teammates who didn't want the pressure of taking the game-tying 3-pointer. He did his best to lean in and draw a foul with an impossible shot, but the referrees wouldn't cooperate.
Indiana lost, but they wouldn't have even competed in the game without Errek. And the game was played for the most part with the bigger, stronger, faster, more talented Hoosier guards sitting on the bench.
ESPN showed a shot of Mike Krzyzewski wrapping his arms around the Indiana guard to talk earnestly into his ear. Dick Vitale noted the special attention, and everyone could only imagine the the message of respect and encouragement passed from Coach K to the senior Indiana former walk-on player.
If coach Sampson is looking for leadership and an identity for this team, he would do well to start with the little walk-on from Bloomington named Errek Suhr.
After all that, I hesitate to even talk about the NBA's Pacers.
Yes, I've seen them play. And they're a mediocre .500 team.
Jermaine O'Neal is a great player, but he's not a team leader. He needs a big, strong guy at Center to take pressure off him. Al Harrington is talented, and seems thrilled to be back in Indy, but he's not a center. I like Jeff Foster, but he's a backup.
The Pacers don't have a reliable point guard. Tinsley is erratic, and his backups aren't the answer. Sarunas (I can't spell his last name unless I look it up) is a pretty good shooter when he's open, but isn't fast enough to play point in the NBA.
Steven Jackson is erratic and streaky as well. Not to mention in legal jeopardy over a fight and illegal discharge of a handgun outside a strip club at 4 AM during training camp. That incident all by itself speaks volumes about this team, and how serious (not) they are about winning in the NBA.
Reggie Miller lost a step his last couple of seasons. But he was still the team leader, and still hit the clutch shots when called upon. The Pacers don't have leadership, consistency, chemistry or the quality it takes to win championships in the NBA.
And I don't think we'll be seeing them return to top-tier status again for quite some time.
Too bad, because I think Rick Carlisle is a pretty good coach. Unfortunately, after this season, I think he'll be shown the door. And it won't really be his fault.
Too bad the NBA doesn't have walk-on free agents like Errek Suhr. It would make the league vastly more entertaining.
I'll get to the Class Basketball travesty another time.
The season has started, and I've seen the Hoosiers and Pacers play.
Indiana is starting over this year with a new coach. Kelvin Sampson. Coming from Oklahoma, he had done fairly well in a football college and state. Will he be a good fit at Indiana? I think it's far too early to say.
The team is struggling, already 3-2 in the young season. Even so, the two losses were to a hot Butler team (Tim's extremely excited) and a close loss at Duke last night. They'll have a tough year, having lost Marco Killingsworth, who was probably their most promising player from last year. They also lost Robert Vaden, but I don't think that has the same impact on the team as Killingsworth.
Sampson seems to have done a pretty good job keeping the rest of the team intact, as other players, such as DJ White, were upset at Mike Davis' firing and threatening to leave the program with Vaden and Killingsworth.
Now he says, and I agree, that this team needs to find its identity. I believe that was a true statement over the last couple of years under Davis. Offensively, they still show a tendency to stand around and wait for somebody else to make a play. That's when they lose.
They appear to play hard on defense, but even so get victimized too often by not playing the tight team defense for which Bob Knight's teams were so well known.
The guy I am most impressed by is in no way their best player. Angelo Pizzo has to make another Rudy movie, this time titled 'Errek'. Errek Suhr (yes, I spelled it correctly) is every bit the basketball version of Sean Astin's Rudy, but much more. I think it's a better story.
If you missed the Duke game last night, you missed an individual performance worthy of a standing ovation. The Hoosiers were struggling in the first half, slowly but steadily falling behind to the Dukies. In comes Errek, who brings energy and toughness and heart. He makes steals, takes charges, feeds teammates, breaks presses. And he's the smallest, least athletic guy on the floor.
The second half, Kelvin Sampson kept his starter on the bench and stayed with Errek. As the second half progressed, I kept seeing Errek making great defensive plays against guys two feet taller. Making steals, taking charges, driving into the lane, exhorting his teammates. And the Hoosiers got back into the game, tying it and keeping it close to the end.
At the end, Errek stole an inbounds pass from Duke, who was trying to run the last few seconds off the clock. As the final seconds ticked off the clock, it was Errek who found the ball back in his hands from timid teammates who didn't want the pressure of taking the game-tying 3-pointer. He did his best to lean in and draw a foul with an impossible shot, but the referrees wouldn't cooperate.
Indiana lost, but they wouldn't have even competed in the game without Errek. And the game was played for the most part with the bigger, stronger, faster, more talented Hoosier guards sitting on the bench.
ESPN showed a shot of Mike Krzyzewski wrapping his arms around the Indiana guard to talk earnestly into his ear. Dick Vitale noted the special attention, and everyone could only imagine the the message of respect and encouragement passed from Coach K to the senior Indiana former walk-on player.
If coach Sampson is looking for leadership and an identity for this team, he would do well to start with the little walk-on from Bloomington named Errek Suhr.
After all that, I hesitate to even talk about the NBA's Pacers.
Yes, I've seen them play. And they're a mediocre .500 team.
Jermaine O'Neal is a great player, but he's not a team leader. He needs a big, strong guy at Center to take pressure off him. Al Harrington is talented, and seems thrilled to be back in Indy, but he's not a center. I like Jeff Foster, but he's a backup.
The Pacers don't have a reliable point guard. Tinsley is erratic, and his backups aren't the answer. Sarunas (I can't spell his last name unless I look it up) is a pretty good shooter when he's open, but isn't fast enough to play point in the NBA.
Steven Jackson is erratic and streaky as well. Not to mention in legal jeopardy over a fight and illegal discharge of a handgun outside a strip club at 4 AM during training camp. That incident all by itself speaks volumes about this team, and how serious (not) they are about winning in the NBA.
Reggie Miller lost a step his last couple of seasons. But he was still the team leader, and still hit the clutch shots when called upon. The Pacers don't have leadership, consistency, chemistry or the quality it takes to win championships in the NBA.
And I don't think we'll be seeing them return to top-tier status again for quite some time.
Too bad, because I think Rick Carlisle is a pretty good coach. Unfortunately, after this season, I think he'll be shown the door. And it won't really be his fault.
Too bad the NBA doesn't have walk-on free agents like Errek Suhr. It would make the league vastly more entertaining.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Sad News
Reports were out yesterday that births to unmarried mothers are at an all-time high. Something like 40%, if I heard correctly. Associated stories suggested kids are having sex at younger ages than ever, and there is an unprecedented number of unmarried couples cohabitating.
It is such a sad indictment of American society, where morality is a dirty word, right is wrong and wrong is right, bad is good and good is bad. In a country with cultural icons like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
For the gay rights people to point to their opponents as hypocrites for tolerating the anything goes status among heteros, they aren't off the mark. I'm certainly one that openly expresses the opinion that homosexual behavior is disordered and morally wrong. The important thing is that I am consistent, as I believe and express the parallel opinion that multiple marriage and promiscuity are just as wrong.
No wonder we have such an epidemic of spoiled, undisciplined, and narcissistic people. Beginning with the post-war 60's generation, our culture has declined steadily through each generation until it now seems to have crumbled into Sodom and Gomorrah, or the last decades of the Roman Empire.
For a young, unmarried man or woman out there, what might happen if you decided to stay chaste until you found your permanent mate? I'm thinking the best outcome would be that you would quickly move through the shallow and narcissistic to eventually find a like-minded match. Without the pressure of sex and the particular way it blinds you to the real person you're dating, there's tremendous freedom to explore true compatibility questions.
The fundamental truth is that spouses who did not have multiple partners before marriage are must less likely to be unfaithful. Solid and committed marital relationships lead to children who are more likely to share the same values, be happy and successful, and raise solid children themselves.
Sadly, such truth is generally scorned or laughed at by most people. Knowing where we've been, I'm sorry for where we have arrived.
It is such a sad indictment of American society, where morality is a dirty word, right is wrong and wrong is right, bad is good and good is bad. In a country with cultural icons like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
For the gay rights people to point to their opponents as hypocrites for tolerating the anything goes status among heteros, they aren't off the mark. I'm certainly one that openly expresses the opinion that homosexual behavior is disordered and morally wrong. The important thing is that I am consistent, as I believe and express the parallel opinion that multiple marriage and promiscuity are just as wrong.
No wonder we have such an epidemic of spoiled, undisciplined, and narcissistic people. Beginning with the post-war 60's generation, our culture has declined steadily through each generation until it now seems to have crumbled into Sodom and Gomorrah, or the last decades of the Roman Empire.
For a young, unmarried man or woman out there, what might happen if you decided to stay chaste until you found your permanent mate? I'm thinking the best outcome would be that you would quickly move through the shallow and narcissistic to eventually find a like-minded match. Without the pressure of sex and the particular way it blinds you to the real person you're dating, there's tremendous freedom to explore true compatibility questions.
The fundamental truth is that spouses who did not have multiple partners before marriage are must less likely to be unfaithful. Solid and committed marital relationships lead to children who are more likely to share the same values, be happy and successful, and raise solid children themselves.
Sadly, such truth is generally scorned or laughed at by most people. Knowing where we've been, I'm sorry for where we have arrived.
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Controversy Continues
Something I noticed from the newspaper articles is that I have probably been mis-spelling Barry's name. I've been spelling it Huckaby, but the newspaper spells it Huckeby. The best choice is to go with the newspaper's spelling, even though it is plausible that they have it wrong.
The story and its associated controversy continues. The Republic published several letters to the editor, many supporting Barry Huckeby and strongly suggesting that his dismissal is heavy-handed and based on some sort of political power struggle. His supporters tout the coach as a great and caring teacher, coach, and person, who couldn't possibly be guilty of the theft of $3,000 in football gate receipts.
Others either suggest everyone just let the process take its course, or take the stand that if he indeed stole money, he should be dismissed and prosecuted.
Again, given my own detached and objective view of the situation, I continue to line up with the latter. Innocent until proven guilty should rule, but the authorities should not just accept the office supply defense and drop the whole thing.
I wonder where those who claim he only took $100 to reimburse himself for the purchase of office supplies (even a specific reference to printer ink) got their information? It certainly is not public information. Did the Republic purposely omit this information, as at least one has suggested? Or is it simply rumor, being spread among supporters of the coach. These sorts of rumors can sometimes take on a life of their own.
Let's assume for a moment that it's true that Barry took $100 out of the gate receipts to buy printer ink for the athletic office. If the commentor on my previous post on the topic somehow has inside information, then it is also true that Barry produced a receipt as proof. It raises a series of additional questions:
Did Barry produce the receipt immediately prior to being accused of the theft, thinking it was an acceptable procedure for purchasing supplies? Or did he produce the receipt after he was accused (or caught), in an attempt to create a plausible defense?
Did he inform anyone, most importantly Hedy George, before, during, or after the fact, that he was taking some money for office supplies?
Who is in charge of purchasing office supplies, such as printer ink, for the athletic office? If Barry needed new ink cartridges, why didn't he just follow normal requisition procedures to acquire what was needed?
Where's the other $2,900?
A commenter suggested that this is nothing more than some sort of nasty political conflict between Barry Huckeby and Dr. John Quick. I'm trying to make sense of that charge logically, but no logical explanation presents itself. I don't understand why a new coach and assistant athletic director who had been on the job only a couple of months would already be actively feuding with the superintendent of the school corporation who just hired him. He hadn't even started official basketball practices yet.
The idea that these are trumped-up charges from powerful people in the school district, who exploited a minor violation of accounting procedures to fire a coach they had just hired, just doesn't make any logical sense.
If he openly pulled $100 out of the gate receipts to buy some supplies, and turned in the receipt the next day, it was a stupid thing to do, but would not merit his arrest and termination. On that basis alone I can't buy that story, because the reasonable response of the administration would be to demand he reimburse the $100 and follow proper procedures for requisitioning of office supplies. It stretches credibility that anyone would be prosecuted and fired for such a procedure violation.
On the other hand, I also have to take the other recent commentor with a grain of salt. Whether or not Barry is some sort of pathological thief and liar cannot be objectively confirmed, so whether or not it might be true is sort of irrelevant at this point.
I can't logically agree with his supporters and their contention about a vindictive conspiracy to ruin Barry's life and career. None of that makes any sense. Barry's an experienced teacher and coach, and there's no way he wasn't aware of the proper procedures for purchasing office supplies and handling gate receipts. If he had told Hedy George that night that he was going to take $100 to buy some printer cartridges, then she would have either told him go ahead, or that it's not acceptable procedure. If the facts are that he took money, didn't tell anyone, and produced the receipt after being accused, then it's theft. The remaining question comes down to how much did he actually steal?
I do think that the process should be allowed to play itself out. I'm looking forward hopefully to eventually learning what happened to the $2,900 that's still missing, whether Barry was forthcoming about his printer ink purchase or if he did it to try to cover up his theft, and what the school board decides about his dismissal.
The story and its associated controversy continues. The Republic published several letters to the editor, many supporting Barry Huckeby and strongly suggesting that his dismissal is heavy-handed and based on some sort of political power struggle. His supporters tout the coach as a great and caring teacher, coach, and person, who couldn't possibly be guilty of the theft of $3,000 in football gate receipts.
Others either suggest everyone just let the process take its course, or take the stand that if he indeed stole money, he should be dismissed and prosecuted.
Again, given my own detached and objective view of the situation, I continue to line up with the latter. Innocent until proven guilty should rule, but the authorities should not just accept the office supply defense and drop the whole thing.
I wonder where those who claim he only took $100 to reimburse himself for the purchase of office supplies (even a specific reference to printer ink) got their information? It certainly is not public information. Did the Republic purposely omit this information, as at least one has suggested? Or is it simply rumor, being spread among supporters of the coach. These sorts of rumors can sometimes take on a life of their own.
Let's assume for a moment that it's true that Barry took $100 out of the gate receipts to buy printer ink for the athletic office. If the commentor on my previous post on the topic somehow has inside information, then it is also true that Barry produced a receipt as proof. It raises a series of additional questions:
Did Barry produce the receipt immediately prior to being accused of the theft, thinking it was an acceptable procedure for purchasing supplies? Or did he produce the receipt after he was accused (or caught), in an attempt to create a plausible defense?
Did he inform anyone, most importantly Hedy George, before, during, or after the fact, that he was taking some money for office supplies?
Who is in charge of purchasing office supplies, such as printer ink, for the athletic office? If Barry needed new ink cartridges, why didn't he just follow normal requisition procedures to acquire what was needed?
Where's the other $2,900?
A commenter suggested that this is nothing more than some sort of nasty political conflict between Barry Huckeby and Dr. John Quick. I'm trying to make sense of that charge logically, but no logical explanation presents itself. I don't understand why a new coach and assistant athletic director who had been on the job only a couple of months would already be actively feuding with the superintendent of the school corporation who just hired him. He hadn't even started official basketball practices yet.
The idea that these are trumped-up charges from powerful people in the school district, who exploited a minor violation of accounting procedures to fire a coach they had just hired, just doesn't make any logical sense.
If he openly pulled $100 out of the gate receipts to buy some supplies, and turned in the receipt the next day, it was a stupid thing to do, but would not merit his arrest and termination. On that basis alone I can't buy that story, because the reasonable response of the administration would be to demand he reimburse the $100 and follow proper procedures for requisitioning of office supplies. It stretches credibility that anyone would be prosecuted and fired for such a procedure violation.
On the other hand, I also have to take the other recent commentor with a grain of salt. Whether or not Barry is some sort of pathological thief and liar cannot be objectively confirmed, so whether or not it might be true is sort of irrelevant at this point.
I can't logically agree with his supporters and their contention about a vindictive conspiracy to ruin Barry's life and career. None of that makes any sense. Barry's an experienced teacher and coach, and there's no way he wasn't aware of the proper procedures for purchasing office supplies and handling gate receipts. If he had told Hedy George that night that he was going to take $100 to buy some printer cartridges, then she would have either told him go ahead, or that it's not acceptable procedure. If the facts are that he took money, didn't tell anyone, and produced the receipt after being accused, then it's theft. The remaining question comes down to how much did he actually steal?
I do think that the process should be allowed to play itself out. I'm looking forward hopefully to eventually learning what happened to the $2,900 that's still missing, whether Barry was forthcoming about his printer ink purchase or if he did it to try to cover up his theft, and what the school board decides about his dismissal.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
We All Get a Raise!
Hooray for the kind-hearted Democrats, who have stated that their first legislative priority upon taking control of the congress will be to increase the minimum wage!
What a wonderful group of people, who really care about those stuck on the low end of the wage scale. They are about to force the evil corporations to pay their entry-level workers more. Who could possibly oppose such a fair and understanding law, especially since the evil GOP has blocked any attempt at raising it from the currently outrageous rate of $5.15 for how many years now?
I was just wondering:
Exactly who is being forced to work for $5.15 an hour right now? I'm very curious, because in my community it's well known that you can't hire anybody to do anything for less than around $6.50 starting rate. Well, maybe you can hire an illegal for less, but that's another topic.
What is the new minimum wage rate going to be? I've heard varying numbers, ranging from $6.15 to $7.50. I think I even heard somebody advocating $8.50. Certainly we don't want our entry-level workers having to endure hardships at these piddling amounts. Why not make it $20?
I did take Economics in graduate school, so even though it wasn't my best subject, I think I did pick up just enough to understand what happens when the government raises the minimum wage. Here's what we will see unfold over the next two years, as this fantastic new law goes into effect nationwide:
Employers will cut back on hiring of students and other temporary and seasonal workers. Employers will balk at paying the extra hourly rates because those workers are now getting too expensive. They will turn to temporary agencies for more experienced workers or do without for those jobs they were providing as part of their community service outreach.
Employees will get restless. After all, when the minimum wage goes up, everyone at the next wage tier will find themselves at or near minimum. That's not fair - why should an entry-level new hire earn almost as much as the employee with one or two years experience? Those employees will demand, and get, commensurate raises.
The domino effect kicks into place. Every wage worker demands a raise commensurate with the raises taking place below their level because of the new minimum rate mandated by law. The increased labor costs in turn put pressure on employers to outsource more work, cut back on their workforce, and/or raise prices. Those companies who can't keep up with the wage inflation will close.
So what happens when the federal minimum wage is increased? Best-case, a slight temporary increase in unemployment rates, a temporary inflationary period, and everyone makes a little more per hour, but their cost of living increases at the same time. So there's no real improvement in the quality of life for anyone at either end of the wage scale, but there will be lots of new people in the unemployment line.
Worse case, if the minimum wage is increased quickly and dramatically, a recession follows. Outsourcing to India and China explodes, companies hire even more illegal workers as long as they can get away with it, layoffs and plant closings happen everywhere, and small businesses close up shop. Everything costs more, so even workers who kept their jobs will feel the pinch of higher prices. Because with a dramatic wage inflation, the labor market will become saturated with laid off workers, which lets employers fill scarce available jobs at lower pay rates than before. In the end, everyone is worse off, at least until the new baseline is set.
I'm sorry, I must be wrecking the celebration. Go back to your party.
See you in the real world when the party's over.
What a wonderful group of people, who really care about those stuck on the low end of the wage scale. They are about to force the evil corporations to pay their entry-level workers more. Who could possibly oppose such a fair and understanding law, especially since the evil GOP has blocked any attempt at raising it from the currently outrageous rate of $5.15 for how many years now?
I was just wondering:
Exactly who is being forced to work for $5.15 an hour right now? I'm very curious, because in my community it's well known that you can't hire anybody to do anything for less than around $6.50 starting rate. Well, maybe you can hire an illegal for less, but that's another topic.
What is the new minimum wage rate going to be? I've heard varying numbers, ranging from $6.15 to $7.50. I think I even heard somebody advocating $8.50. Certainly we don't want our entry-level workers having to endure hardships at these piddling amounts. Why not make it $20?
I did take Economics in graduate school, so even though it wasn't my best subject, I think I did pick up just enough to understand what happens when the government raises the minimum wage. Here's what we will see unfold over the next two years, as this fantastic new law goes into effect nationwide:
Employers will cut back on hiring of students and other temporary and seasonal workers. Employers will balk at paying the extra hourly rates because those workers are now getting too expensive. They will turn to temporary agencies for more experienced workers or do without for those jobs they were providing as part of their community service outreach.
Employees will get restless. After all, when the minimum wage goes up, everyone at the next wage tier will find themselves at or near minimum. That's not fair - why should an entry-level new hire earn almost as much as the employee with one or two years experience? Those employees will demand, and get, commensurate raises.
The domino effect kicks into place. Every wage worker demands a raise commensurate with the raises taking place below their level because of the new minimum rate mandated by law. The increased labor costs in turn put pressure on employers to outsource more work, cut back on their workforce, and/or raise prices. Those companies who can't keep up with the wage inflation will close.
So what happens when the federal minimum wage is increased? Best-case, a slight temporary increase in unemployment rates, a temporary inflationary period, and everyone makes a little more per hour, but their cost of living increases at the same time. So there's no real improvement in the quality of life for anyone at either end of the wage scale, but there will be lots of new people in the unemployment line.
Worse case, if the minimum wage is increased quickly and dramatically, a recession follows. Outsourcing to India and China explodes, companies hire even more illegal workers as long as they can get away with it, layoffs and plant closings happen everywhere, and small businesses close up shop. Everything costs more, so even workers who kept their jobs will feel the pinch of higher prices. Because with a dramatic wage inflation, the labor market will become saturated with laid off workers, which lets employers fill scarce available jobs at lower pay rates than before. In the end, everyone is worse off, at least until the new baseline is set.
I'm sorry, I must be wrecking the celebration. Go back to your party.
See you in the real world when the party's over.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Weekend Update
Just to complete the thread of High School Football commentary, the game might have been a bit worse than expected. The victor was about 98% certain before the game started, but 59-0 was disappointing.
The North team was clearly rattled early, giving up 3 easy touchdowns to Warren Central in the first quarter. The first two were after North fumbles. It rattled the offense, and the defense was getting knocked around pretty soundly. Things continued to go badly, and the game was over at halftime, the score 35-0.
Something interesting about such games, where one team is so clearly and obviously superior. WC could probably beat a lot of college teams - not Division I, but quite possibly Division III and below.
Mike Hladik, the quarterback, was suddenly throwing a lot of balls over the heads of his receivers. Sometimes when he was rushed, but mostly it just seemed he just had too much adrenaline. When he was on target, the receivers suddenly developed stone hands. Brandon Butler, the wide receiver who I think has the single-season and possibly career receptions record for Columbus North, dropped nearly every pass. He nearly made some impossibly difficult catches, which you can't fault him for being unable to hang on, but he also dropped balls thrown to him into his hands and in the open.
Even the punter, Conor Koslowski, was shanking the ball out of bounds in the first half. The player who didn't have the lapses of the rest of the offense seemed to be the running back, Alex Turner. He was responsible for the fumble at the beginning of the game, but ran hard and strong for plenty of yards the rest of the way.
I've had the unfortunate experience myself of getting up against a team that's way beyond your own in size, strength, and speed. The psychological impact of that is this: You don't want to be embarrassed, and you tell yourself that you can beat these guys - all you have to do is play to your potential. That's when you start pressing. You think more about what you're doing, try to do more than you've been able to do before, and start trying to make the "big play" to help your team.
Instead, things just get worse. You think your effort is above and beyond anything you've done before, but you're failing miserably. You're out of synch, and all of a sudden you can't even seem to do the simple things right. It's almost as if you've forgotten how to play the game. The frustration mounts, and it seems the harder you try to recover, the worse things get.
That's what I saw with Columbus North. They reached that frustration point when they fell behind, and started pressing. Hladik tried to throw harder and it just resulted in overthrows and balls too strong for the receiver to handle. Butler thought about running with the ball after the catch, so he didn't make sure he had the catch first and the ball just skipped through his hands. The defense overpursued and got pulled out of position so the other team's running backs could run right past them.
I wonder how an athlete could overcome the tendency to press when things aren't going well, and learn to play with intensity but still play within their capabilities? If I were a psychologist and could figure this out, maybe I could earn big bucks as a consultant to professional athletes. Seems like a fun profession as well.
Hmmm.
The North team was clearly rattled early, giving up 3 easy touchdowns to Warren Central in the first quarter. The first two were after North fumbles. It rattled the offense, and the defense was getting knocked around pretty soundly. Things continued to go badly, and the game was over at halftime, the score 35-0.
Something interesting about such games, where one team is so clearly and obviously superior. WC could probably beat a lot of college teams - not Division I, but quite possibly Division III and below.
Mike Hladik, the quarterback, was suddenly throwing a lot of balls over the heads of his receivers. Sometimes when he was rushed, but mostly it just seemed he just had too much adrenaline. When he was on target, the receivers suddenly developed stone hands. Brandon Butler, the wide receiver who I think has the single-season and possibly career receptions record for Columbus North, dropped nearly every pass. He nearly made some impossibly difficult catches, which you can't fault him for being unable to hang on, but he also dropped balls thrown to him into his hands and in the open.
Even the punter, Conor Koslowski, was shanking the ball out of bounds in the first half. The player who didn't have the lapses of the rest of the offense seemed to be the running back, Alex Turner. He was responsible for the fumble at the beginning of the game, but ran hard and strong for plenty of yards the rest of the way.
I've had the unfortunate experience myself of getting up against a team that's way beyond your own in size, strength, and speed. The psychological impact of that is this: You don't want to be embarrassed, and you tell yourself that you can beat these guys - all you have to do is play to your potential. That's when you start pressing. You think more about what you're doing, try to do more than you've been able to do before, and start trying to make the "big play" to help your team.
Instead, things just get worse. You think your effort is above and beyond anything you've done before, but you're failing miserably. You're out of synch, and all of a sudden you can't even seem to do the simple things right. It's almost as if you've forgotten how to play the game. The frustration mounts, and it seems the harder you try to recover, the worse things get.
That's what I saw with Columbus North. They reached that frustration point when they fell behind, and started pressing. Hladik tried to throw harder and it just resulted in overthrows and balls too strong for the receiver to handle. Butler thought about running with the ball after the catch, so he didn't make sure he had the catch first and the ball just skipped through his hands. The defense overpursued and got pulled out of position so the other team's running backs could run right past them.
I wonder how an athlete could overcome the tendency to press when things aren't going well, and learn to play with intensity but still play within their capabilities? If I were a psychologist and could figure this out, maybe I could earn big bucks as a consultant to professional athletes. Seems like a fun profession as well.
Hmmm.
Friday, November 17, 2006
It Probably Doesn't Matter
I'm just wondering what's in the minds of the GOP in Congress. They just lost their majorities in both houses. You'd think it's time for fresh blood and new ideas.
Guess not.
They brought back Trent Lott. They kept Boehner in the House as their leader.
So, I guess that means they don't want new faces or new ideas. Boehner might or might not be a great guy, but when I've seen him on television he seems to have the charisma of a dead fish. If they had actually chosen Mike Pence, maybe they would have had a chance to rebuild and communicate a fresh message. But the good ol' boys won, obviously.
Could it be they don't mind being beaten by Democrats?
I suppose it doesn't really matter. Everywhere I look, all I see are power-drunk democrats celebrating with their sycophant news anchors. The news guys (and girls) aren't even bothering to talk to republicans, except perhaps their favorite, John McCain.
Party on, dudes. (Did I get that idiom right? Gotta brush up - the hippies are in charge now.)
Guess not.
They brought back Trent Lott. They kept Boehner in the House as their leader.
So, I guess that means they don't want new faces or new ideas. Boehner might or might not be a great guy, but when I've seen him on television he seems to have the charisma of a dead fish. If they had actually chosen Mike Pence, maybe they would have had a chance to rebuild and communicate a fresh message. But the good ol' boys won, obviously.
Could it be they don't mind being beaten by Democrats?
I suppose it doesn't really matter. Everywhere I look, all I see are power-drunk democrats celebrating with their sycophant news anchors. The news guys (and girls) aren't even bothering to talk to republicans, except perhaps their favorite, John McCain.
Party on, dudes. (Did I get that idiom right? Gotta brush up - the hippies are in charge now.)
TGIF
It's finally Friday. I'll catch the Semi-State game between Columbus North and Warren Central. Cathedral at Columbus East across town will probably be a more competitive game, but North's our school.
If I remember correctly, Warren Central's closest game this season was a 41-21 win. The rest of their schedule were blowouts. North's got high hopes, but the best I can hope for them is that they lose by 20 points or less.
There's no way to really game plan for Warren Central, because they're just bigger, stronger, and faster than any other high school team. I'm guessing that Coach Bless and his staff will load up the defense on the line of scrimmage in an attempt to stop WC's running game. The hope would be to at least slow down the running game and maybe force some passing, which might give them a chance at a turnover or two. On the Offensive side, North has to score every time they get the ball. If they can keep WC's offense off the field, or at least keep up with them by matching touchdowns, maybe they could steal a win with one more score.
Having both Columbus teams in the Dome next weekend for the state championship games in 5A and 4A is a great dream, but unfortunately is highly unlikely. East might make it, but even they will have a tough obstacle in Cathedral.
Anyway, Saturday we'll be at the Lego Robotics competition. Hopefully the kids are ready to make a good showing. Then off to Canada and back just in time for Thanksgiving.
If I remember correctly, Warren Central's closest game this season was a 41-21 win. The rest of their schedule were blowouts. North's got high hopes, but the best I can hope for them is that they lose by 20 points or less.
There's no way to really game plan for Warren Central, because they're just bigger, stronger, and faster than any other high school team. I'm guessing that Coach Bless and his staff will load up the defense on the line of scrimmage in an attempt to stop WC's running game. The hope would be to at least slow down the running game and maybe force some passing, which might give them a chance at a turnover or two. On the Offensive side, North has to score every time they get the ball. If they can keep WC's offense off the field, or at least keep up with them by matching touchdowns, maybe they could steal a win with one more score.
Having both Columbus teams in the Dome next weekend for the state championship games in 5A and 4A is a great dream, but unfortunately is highly unlikely. East might make it, but even they will have a tough obstacle in Cathedral.
Anyway, Saturday we'll be at the Lego Robotics competition. Hopefully the kids are ready to make a good showing. Then off to Canada and back just in time for Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Iraq Decision
The Democrats now seem to feel relatively free to speak their minds, now that the election is over. And from what I hear, they are of many diverse minds when it comes to the Iraq war.
The spectrum goes from the "Get out Now" group to the "Send More Troops" at the other end.
In a way, I think the President played it well, by inviting the new Dem leaders over for a visit, then telling them he'd listen to their ideas on Iraq. It seems to have worked pretty well, because they sure have a lot of ideas.
For what it's worth, here's what I'd do. If we could get other countries to help, that's great, but in general, we should have enough troops there to accomplish the mission in cooperation with Iraqi forces.
First, seal the borders. No weapons may cross. Anyone trying to cross somewhere other than an authorized checkpoint will be shot. Suspected foreign fighters from Syria and Iran will be arrested, interrogated, and released back to their home country when they are deemed not a threat.
Next, pacify the citizenry. City-by-city, house-by-house, Iraqis backed by US and other troops will search for weapons and IED's, which will be siezed and destroyed. Every city will then be occupied by troops, who will arrest anyone found with a weapon or bomb or generally disturbing the peace.
Muqtada al-Sadr will be arrested, tried and executed for being an anti-government militia leader. His army will be disbanded and disarmed. Likewise, Sunni insurgents will be disarmed and arrested.
Once the violence has been stopped, American and other forces will pull back and leave Iraqis in their place. Eventually, Iraq will be an independent, peaceful, and friendly country. America will have permanent bases there, just as they do in Germany and Korea.
The choice is really very simple. We either choose to do what it takes to finish the job or we quit. And the inevitable consequences of quitting, which would present Iraq to Al Quaeda and Iran on a silver platter, are unacceptable. So we finish the job, boldly and aggressively.
The spectrum goes from the "Get out Now" group to the "Send More Troops" at the other end.
In a way, I think the President played it well, by inviting the new Dem leaders over for a visit, then telling them he'd listen to their ideas on Iraq. It seems to have worked pretty well, because they sure have a lot of ideas.
For what it's worth, here's what I'd do. If we could get other countries to help, that's great, but in general, we should have enough troops there to accomplish the mission in cooperation with Iraqi forces.
First, seal the borders. No weapons may cross. Anyone trying to cross somewhere other than an authorized checkpoint will be shot. Suspected foreign fighters from Syria and Iran will be arrested, interrogated, and released back to their home country when they are deemed not a threat.
Next, pacify the citizenry. City-by-city, house-by-house, Iraqis backed by US and other troops will search for weapons and IED's, which will be siezed and destroyed. Every city will then be occupied by troops, who will arrest anyone found with a weapon or bomb or generally disturbing the peace.
Muqtada al-Sadr will be arrested, tried and executed for being an anti-government militia leader. His army will be disbanded and disarmed. Likewise, Sunni insurgents will be disarmed and arrested.
Once the violence has been stopped, American and other forces will pull back and leave Iraqis in their place. Eventually, Iraq will be an independent, peaceful, and friendly country. America will have permanent bases there, just as they do in Germany and Korea.
The choice is really very simple. We either choose to do what it takes to finish the job or we quit. And the inevitable consequences of quitting, which would present Iraq to Al Quaeda and Iran on a silver platter, are unacceptable. So we finish the job, boldly and aggressively.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Story Unfolds
The Republic newspaper published an update on the Barry Huckaby story today. New facts are that he admitted to stuffing a couple of fifties into his pocket when preparing the bank deposit from the football sectional gate proceeds. He was booked on theft charges and bonded out. He's pled Not Guilty, despite his admission to taking at least $100. His attorney says there's an explanation for everything, which will all come out at trial.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether he skimmed of a hundred bucks or three thousand. Theft is theft. It could raise an interesting question about where the other $2900 might have gone.
Still a mystery is the basic question, "What was he thinking?". Was it common practice to skim cash from sectional football games where he came from? What made him think he could get away with it?
The story did say that he was alone in the Athletic office, preparing a bank deposit with the gate receipts from that night's football sectional. Just a practical bit of advice for BCSC and Columbus North: May I suggest that you institute a policy that all proceeds from school events be handled by at least two people until the money has been counted and the bank deposit prepared and properly secured.
Such a policy would be more likely to insure that theft won't happen in the future. Unless both of the individuals handling the money decide to steal it together, it would be a built-in deterrent. It would also assure a witness who could substantiate or refute any potential charges of theft.
Given the information presented, the best logical explanation is that Huckaby was in the office by himself with a wad of cash. He impulsively stuffed some of it into his pocket, thinking nobody would miss it. And he got caught. I wonder if he's now feeling great remorse at having given into the temptation, or if he's just sorry he got caught and blaming the school administration for blowing it all out of proportion? The statement published in The Republic from his attorney would seem to suggest the latter.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether he skimmed of a hundred bucks or three thousand. Theft is theft. It could raise an interesting question about where the other $2900 might have gone.
Still a mystery is the basic question, "What was he thinking?". Was it common practice to skim cash from sectional football games where he came from? What made him think he could get away with it?
The story did say that he was alone in the Athletic office, preparing a bank deposit with the gate receipts from that night's football sectional. Just a practical bit of advice for BCSC and Columbus North: May I suggest that you institute a policy that all proceeds from school events be handled by at least two people until the money has been counted and the bank deposit prepared and properly secured.
Such a policy would be more likely to insure that theft won't happen in the future. Unless both of the individuals handling the money decide to steal it together, it would be a built-in deterrent. It would also assure a witness who could substantiate or refute any potential charges of theft.
Given the information presented, the best logical explanation is that Huckaby was in the office by himself with a wad of cash. He impulsively stuffed some of it into his pocket, thinking nobody would miss it. And he got caught. I wonder if he's now feeling great remorse at having given into the temptation, or if he's just sorry he got caught and blaming the school administration for blowing it all out of proportion? The statement published in The Republic from his attorney would seem to suggest the latter.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Friday Night Lights
I saw probably one of the best high school football games I can remember last night in the class 5A Regional with Columbus North and Evansville Reitz.
Time was running out late in the fourth quarter with Reitz trying to run out the clock to preserve a 14 point victory. But North wasn't quitting just yet - using a suddenly stout defense, judicious use of all three second-half timeouts, and an impressive 2-minute drill on offense, two touchdowns in the final two and a half minutes deadlocked the game at 28 and forced overtime. North's touchdown in overtime could not be matched by Reitz, and in a stunning finish, Columbus North became Regional Champions for the second time in three years, and the second time in school history.
After a 14-14 tie at the end of the first half, Columbus North fans began to become discouraged by the pounding ground game of Reitz, which dominated time of possession and scored twice in the third quarter. North's offense was moving the ball well, but an interception and fumble kept them off the scoreboard and led to Reitz's dominant option running game which kept North's defense on their heels and the offense on the sidelines.
The game included only one punt by Reitz, which was blocked and run in for a touchdown by Pat Kelly in the second quarter. Reitz used a pitch and quick-kick by their fullback, Mike Head, on the two occasions late when they were in punting situations. North did not punt the entire game, either scoring or turning the ball over on each of their possessions.
North finally eliminated mistakes with an impressive and efficient drive starting with about six and a half minutes left in the game, finally scoring on a 14 yard pass from Mike Hladik to Brandon Butler with 2:30 left on the clock. The fans around me in the home stands talked about how it might be too late for a North comeback, but hung on to hope and noted the determination being shown by the players.
But North's ensuing onside kick, though well executed, was fallen on just in time by a Reitz player. The end of the game was in sight, and everyone knew it was up to the Reitz offense to burn Columbus North's three remaining timeouts to close out their victory. North did use up their three timeouts, and the North defense successfully shut down the Reitz option attack when it mattered most. And on 4th down, Reitz ran a quick-kick by the fullback to return the ball to North's dangerous offense with only 2 minutes left.
At this point, the fans and parents in the home stands were hopeful. Two minutes is enough time for Mike Hladik to run the two-minute offense for the tying touchdown. Somebody jokingly yelled, "Let's go, Peyton" in encouragement to the Junior quarterback.
The drive took almost no time at all, with clutch catches by Keaton Shoutz, Brayden Barthlow and Brandon Butler, combining with a couple of poorly timed Reitz penalties - a Roughing the Passer and Pass Interference - to the well-executed touchdown pass to Barthlow after only 45 seconds. Unbelievably, and to the jubilation of the home crowd, the game had turned from a certain Reitz victory into overtime, where North had the momentum.
Time ran out on Reitz at the end of the fourth quarter, with a North sack of Reitz's Quarterback ending regulation.
In Indiana, overtime consists of giving each team the ball on the 10 yard line with 4 plays to score. North got the ball first, picked up 5 yards on two running plays to Alex Turner, then scored their touchdown with a nicely executed slant pass from Hladik to Butler.
Reitz got their chance, and also picked up about 5 yards on 3 running plays. On fourth down, they tried a pass, but a strong pass rush from North's defensive front and tight coverage in the end zone meant the pass was overthrown and incomplete.
There were some bizarre incidents with the officiating. The first occurred at the end of the first half, where a clearly incomplete pass to Brayden Barthlow went without a whistle. Finally realizing he hadn't heard the whistle on the play, a Reitz defender picked up the ball and ran back to the North 35. The officials stuck with their decision of a completed pass and fumble, and would not tolerate any discussion with the North coaches.
But then, after Reitz's final touchdown, their ensuing kickoff went out of bounds on about the two or three yard line. A flag was thrown for a kick out of bounds, and the ball placed at the 35. But the Reitz coach walked all the way out to the middle of the field as North was lining up for their first offensive play. Instead of flagging the coach, the officials listened to his objection (that a North player had touched the ball before it went out of bounds). Accepting the Reitz coach's arguments, they moved the ball back to the three.
From my perspective, both calls were incorrect. But to overturn one bad call based on a coach's objection while refusing to listen to the other coach on another missed call is terrible officiating. I can't recall ever seeing, at any level in sports, an official overturning a call based on a coach's objection. It's disappointing, because we should expect the best officials in the state to be working games at this stage. Fortunately, neither call had a direct effect on the outcome.
It was certainly an entertaining night for the fans, but also a game the players will probably remember with a smile the rest of their lives.
After this accomplishment, North gets a rematch of the 2004 SemiState blowout at the hands of perrenial Indiana 5A champion Warren Central. Most would predict that once again, North, or really every other high school team in the state, doesn't have a prayer against Warren Central's nationally recognized team of division I college football recruits. They defeated their rivals at Ben Davis on the same night by the score of 42 to 7. I hear they've got over 60 players who bench over 225. That's incredible for a high school program.
But don't tell these guys that.
Time was running out late in the fourth quarter with Reitz trying to run out the clock to preserve a 14 point victory. But North wasn't quitting just yet - using a suddenly stout defense, judicious use of all three second-half timeouts, and an impressive 2-minute drill on offense, two touchdowns in the final two and a half minutes deadlocked the game at 28 and forced overtime. North's touchdown in overtime could not be matched by Reitz, and in a stunning finish, Columbus North became Regional Champions for the second time in three years, and the second time in school history.
After a 14-14 tie at the end of the first half, Columbus North fans began to become discouraged by the pounding ground game of Reitz, which dominated time of possession and scored twice in the third quarter. North's offense was moving the ball well, but an interception and fumble kept them off the scoreboard and led to Reitz's dominant option running game which kept North's defense on their heels and the offense on the sidelines.
The game included only one punt by Reitz, which was blocked and run in for a touchdown by Pat Kelly in the second quarter. Reitz used a pitch and quick-kick by their fullback, Mike Head, on the two occasions late when they were in punting situations. North did not punt the entire game, either scoring or turning the ball over on each of their possessions.
North finally eliminated mistakes with an impressive and efficient drive starting with about six and a half minutes left in the game, finally scoring on a 14 yard pass from Mike Hladik to Brandon Butler with 2:30 left on the clock. The fans around me in the home stands talked about how it might be too late for a North comeback, but hung on to hope and noted the determination being shown by the players.
But North's ensuing onside kick, though well executed, was fallen on just in time by a Reitz player. The end of the game was in sight, and everyone knew it was up to the Reitz offense to burn Columbus North's three remaining timeouts to close out their victory. North did use up their three timeouts, and the North defense successfully shut down the Reitz option attack when it mattered most. And on 4th down, Reitz ran a quick-kick by the fullback to return the ball to North's dangerous offense with only 2 minutes left.
At this point, the fans and parents in the home stands were hopeful. Two minutes is enough time for Mike Hladik to run the two-minute offense for the tying touchdown. Somebody jokingly yelled, "Let's go, Peyton" in encouragement to the Junior quarterback.
The drive took almost no time at all, with clutch catches by Keaton Shoutz, Brayden Barthlow and Brandon Butler, combining with a couple of poorly timed Reitz penalties - a Roughing the Passer and Pass Interference - to the well-executed touchdown pass to Barthlow after only 45 seconds. Unbelievably, and to the jubilation of the home crowd, the game had turned from a certain Reitz victory into overtime, where North had the momentum.
Time ran out on Reitz at the end of the fourth quarter, with a North sack of Reitz's Quarterback ending regulation.
In Indiana, overtime consists of giving each team the ball on the 10 yard line with 4 plays to score. North got the ball first, picked up 5 yards on two running plays to Alex Turner, then scored their touchdown with a nicely executed slant pass from Hladik to Butler.
Reitz got their chance, and also picked up about 5 yards on 3 running plays. On fourth down, they tried a pass, but a strong pass rush from North's defensive front and tight coverage in the end zone meant the pass was overthrown and incomplete.
There were some bizarre incidents with the officiating. The first occurred at the end of the first half, where a clearly incomplete pass to Brayden Barthlow went without a whistle. Finally realizing he hadn't heard the whistle on the play, a Reitz defender picked up the ball and ran back to the North 35. The officials stuck with their decision of a completed pass and fumble, and would not tolerate any discussion with the North coaches.
But then, after Reitz's final touchdown, their ensuing kickoff went out of bounds on about the two or three yard line. A flag was thrown for a kick out of bounds, and the ball placed at the 35. But the Reitz coach walked all the way out to the middle of the field as North was lining up for their first offensive play. Instead of flagging the coach, the officials listened to his objection (that a North player had touched the ball before it went out of bounds). Accepting the Reitz coach's arguments, they moved the ball back to the three.
From my perspective, both calls were incorrect. But to overturn one bad call based on a coach's objection while refusing to listen to the other coach on another missed call is terrible officiating. I can't recall ever seeing, at any level in sports, an official overturning a call based on a coach's objection. It's disappointing, because we should expect the best officials in the state to be working games at this stage. Fortunately, neither call had a direct effect on the outcome.
It was certainly an entertaining night for the fans, but also a game the players will probably remember with a smile the rest of their lives.
After this accomplishment, North gets a rematch of the 2004 SemiState blowout at the hands of perrenial Indiana 5A champion Warren Central. Most would predict that once again, North, or really every other high school team in the state, doesn't have a prayer against Warren Central's nationally recognized team of division I college football recruits. They defeated their rivals at Ben Davis on the same night by the score of 42 to 7. I hear they've got over 60 players who bench over 225. That's incredible for a high school program.
But don't tell these guys that.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Ball State Assault
A couple of kids at Ball State got arrested when they tried to hit David Horowitz with a pie. The gist of the story I read was that the assault was part the overall protest of students and faculty against Horowitz speaking on campus.
Horowitz is the guy who wrote a book about liberal free speech suppression on college campuses. Ball State is one of the colleges he targeted, because they have had a saxophone teacher named George Wolfe in charge of the University's Peace Studies program. According to Horowitz, Wolfe turned the Peace Studies program into a taxpayer-funded protest movement against the Iraq war.
Besides questioning the qualifications of a saxophone teacher to lead an academic program, whether it be Peace Studies or anything else outside of music, Horowitz has set out to expose Wolfe as a Ward Churchill-style anti-American leftist agitator who uses his position at a State University to advance his personal political agenda.
The pie throwing assault and related protests of students and faculty during Horowitz's recent visit to speak on campus was one of many similar assaults on conservative speakers visiting campuses across the country. The story did not mention Horowitz's actual speaking event, and whether or not his speech was disrupted. There have been speeches by conservative activists in various colleges that have been disrupted and even broken up by faculty and students who resort to shouting the speaker down, rushing the stage, throwing pies, and even using physical assaults.
I haven't read Horowitz's book, but have read up on the guy and his basic message. I come away a bit puzzled, because the loudest proponents of free speech rights are generally liberal. So why is it that the liberal faculty and their student minions are the ones doing everything in their power to silence conservative speakers who arrive on campus?
How often have liberal speakers been assaulted and shouted down by conservative faculty and students when they arrive on college campuses? If it has happened recently, I haven't heard about it. If prominent left-wingers like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan showed up on campus to speak (and I don't know whether or how often they do), are they attacked by the Young Republicans?
As to Horowitz's message, he states that university faculty are monolithically liberal. Conservatives need not apply when it comes to university professor positions, at least outside of the practical engineering, math and science departments. He says that conservative thought is not only unwelcome on campus, it is actively suppressed. He says the Ball State president, Joann Gora, did not support his speaking engagement. I'm not sure what that means, given that he apparently did arrive in Muncie to speak.
What's the objection to Horowitz, anyway? Do those who hate the man disagree with his thesis? Is he lying about the political philosophies that dominate Ball State's faculty? Is he lying when he says that professors teaching classes in subjects that have nothing to do with politics, like English for example, spend hours of valuable classroom time ranting against George Bush and the military and the war in Iraq? Is there no truth to his assertion that taxpayer funds are paying salaries for unqualified saxophone teachers to transport students in the Peace Studies program to war protest marches in Washington, DC?
What is wrong with the idea that professors who don't teach political science or sociology shouldn't spend classroom time on political indoctrination, whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or anywhere in between? Why exempt political science and sociology from the discussion anyway? Shouldn't those courses of study be focused on a dispassionate examination of all forms of government and societal norms, open to debate and discussion from all about the relative pros and cons of each?
I'm a Ball State alum, and although I had my fair share of radical leftist professors, I don't recall that any of them ever mistreated anyone for expressing moderate or conservative viewpoints. If you were to ask me to name a professor who had a conservative policital philosophy at Ball State, I could not. There were professors who never expressed any sort of political point of view, but those who did were universally left or far-left. The most frequent comments I used to hear about communism (this was before the fall of the Soviet Union) were that communism was a really good idea that was poorly implemented and sadly corrupt in its Soviet form. But then I toured Russia and Poland and Latvia with the University Singers, and after seeing the reality of oppressive and repressive communism, became convinced that their pro-communist arguments were ridiculous.
The lesbian professor I had for a required sociology class was a living caricature of the liberal feminist. I felt sorry for her, because something horrible must have happened in her childhood to become filled with so much hatred for western civilization in general and white men specifically.
But I did have at least one professor who did a fantastic job of playing devil's advocate in classroom discussions: He would introduce a topic (relevant to the curriculum, by the way), and take a position generally at one extreme or the other. When a spirited classroom discussion came to a close, he would admit that he didn't actually hold that viewpoint, but wanted to use it to encourage thoughtful discussion and argument. Too bad he was the only one using that particular approach.
I wonder if there are still professors who encourage open debate on political and social topics in classes where such topics are consistent with the course being presented? Horowitz says probably not.
In America, if you have a problem with a message, you don't physically attack or shout down the messenger. You counter with your own message.
Horowitz is the guy who wrote a book about liberal free speech suppression on college campuses. Ball State is one of the colleges he targeted, because they have had a saxophone teacher named George Wolfe in charge of the University's Peace Studies program. According to Horowitz, Wolfe turned the Peace Studies program into a taxpayer-funded protest movement against the Iraq war.
Besides questioning the qualifications of a saxophone teacher to lead an academic program, whether it be Peace Studies or anything else outside of music, Horowitz has set out to expose Wolfe as a Ward Churchill-style anti-American leftist agitator who uses his position at a State University to advance his personal political agenda.
The pie throwing assault and related protests of students and faculty during Horowitz's recent visit to speak on campus was one of many similar assaults on conservative speakers visiting campuses across the country. The story did not mention Horowitz's actual speaking event, and whether or not his speech was disrupted. There have been speeches by conservative activists in various colleges that have been disrupted and even broken up by faculty and students who resort to shouting the speaker down, rushing the stage, throwing pies, and even using physical assaults.
I haven't read Horowitz's book, but have read up on the guy and his basic message. I come away a bit puzzled, because the loudest proponents of free speech rights are generally liberal. So why is it that the liberal faculty and their student minions are the ones doing everything in their power to silence conservative speakers who arrive on campus?
How often have liberal speakers been assaulted and shouted down by conservative faculty and students when they arrive on college campuses? If it has happened recently, I haven't heard about it. If prominent left-wingers like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan showed up on campus to speak (and I don't know whether or how often they do), are they attacked by the Young Republicans?
As to Horowitz's message, he states that university faculty are monolithically liberal. Conservatives need not apply when it comes to university professor positions, at least outside of the practical engineering, math and science departments. He says that conservative thought is not only unwelcome on campus, it is actively suppressed. He says the Ball State president, Joann Gora, did not support his speaking engagement. I'm not sure what that means, given that he apparently did arrive in Muncie to speak.
What's the objection to Horowitz, anyway? Do those who hate the man disagree with his thesis? Is he lying about the political philosophies that dominate Ball State's faculty? Is he lying when he says that professors teaching classes in subjects that have nothing to do with politics, like English for example, spend hours of valuable classroom time ranting against George Bush and the military and the war in Iraq? Is there no truth to his assertion that taxpayer funds are paying salaries for unqualified saxophone teachers to transport students in the Peace Studies program to war protest marches in Washington, DC?
What is wrong with the idea that professors who don't teach political science or sociology shouldn't spend classroom time on political indoctrination, whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or anywhere in between? Why exempt political science and sociology from the discussion anyway? Shouldn't those courses of study be focused on a dispassionate examination of all forms of government and societal norms, open to debate and discussion from all about the relative pros and cons of each?
I'm a Ball State alum, and although I had my fair share of radical leftist professors, I don't recall that any of them ever mistreated anyone for expressing moderate or conservative viewpoints. If you were to ask me to name a professor who had a conservative policital philosophy at Ball State, I could not. There were professors who never expressed any sort of political point of view, but those who did were universally left or far-left. The most frequent comments I used to hear about communism (this was before the fall of the Soviet Union) were that communism was a really good idea that was poorly implemented and sadly corrupt in its Soviet form. But then I toured Russia and Poland and Latvia with the University Singers, and after seeing the reality of oppressive and repressive communism, became convinced that their pro-communist arguments were ridiculous.
The lesbian professor I had for a required sociology class was a living caricature of the liberal feminist. I felt sorry for her, because something horrible must have happened in her childhood to become filled with so much hatred for western civilization in general and white men specifically.
But I did have at least one professor who did a fantastic job of playing devil's advocate in classroom discussions: He would introduce a topic (relevant to the curriculum, by the way), and take a position generally at one extreme or the other. When a spirited classroom discussion came to a close, he would admit that he didn't actually hold that viewpoint, but wanted to use it to encourage thoughtful discussion and argument. Too bad he was the only one using that particular approach.
I wonder if there are still professors who encourage open debate on political and social topics in classes where such topics are consistent with the course being presented? Horowitz says probably not.
In America, if you have a problem with a message, you don't physically attack or shout down the messenger. You counter with your own message.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Surreal Wednesday
This is a rather strange day.
I'm on the edge of panic, because I have to get something done and nobody seems to want to help me - even for $$.
I just finished the last scheduled web training session for the client that has me booked all week. The same client I can't reach today to find out what they want me to do next. Do they seriously mean to pay me to do nothing the next two days? It would be nice to know in advance, so I could make other plans.
The results are in from Tuesday. There's nothing left to say. We can only sit back and watch what happens. I think I'll take a vacation from the news for awhile - I seek the bliss of ignorance.
So what do I do next? There's that priority thing I need to get done for a customer, but I still don't have any help, and I can't do it by myself. There's got to be somebody out there willing to help me!?
I'm on the edge of panic, because I have to get something done and nobody seems to want to help me - even for $$.
I just finished the last scheduled web training session for the client that has me booked all week. The same client I can't reach today to find out what they want me to do next. Do they seriously mean to pay me to do nothing the next two days? It would be nice to know in advance, so I could make other plans.
The results are in from Tuesday. There's nothing left to say. We can only sit back and watch what happens. I think I'll take a vacation from the news for awhile - I seek the bliss of ignorance.
So what do I do next? There's that priority thing I need to get done for a customer, but I still don't have any help, and I can't do it by myself. There's got to be somebody out there willing to help me!?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Single Issue Vote
There was only one issue that influenced my vote, and only one race that counts toward that issue.
That issue is the war on terror. No, not Iraq per se, but the terror war overall. My vote cast to re-elect Mike Sodrel was primarily based on the knowledge that he supports victory in Iraq. His opponent, like most of the Democrats, wants us out of Iraq.
When Democrats say they support a "new direction" or a "smarter strategy" or "redeployment", they mean retreat. They want the troops to get out, and don't care about the consequences. Those consequences will be horrible for the Iraqis, the middle east in general, and us.
I'm saddened to hear the Bush haters who have bought the story made up by the left wing and nurtured by the Democrat leadership. Bush lied, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. We've all heard it ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Vladimir Lenin's idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth seems to have been validated.
The terrorists themselves have openly stated that they support Democrats, and will consider a Democrat victory today as a major victory for their jihad. It will embolden them to expand their terrorist activities, because we will have proven to them that terrorism works.
You see, all the other issues are moot if our country is no longer secure from terrorist attack. How important are arguments about minimum wage and universal healthcare when we are all wondering when and where the next car bomb will go off in our own cities? All of the Democrats' positions on the war promise that we will be attacked. We can't fight the terrorists in Iraq. We can't listen to their phone calls. We can't monitor their financial transactions. We have to give terrorist prisoners the same rights as American citizens. We can't interrogate captured terrorists. On and on and on ...
So what happens if Democrats win and they enforce their will to abandon Iraq?
Iraqis will die. You think a lot of them have died already? You haven't seen anything yet. The civil war will explode for control of the country as soon as we leave. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will be killed in a bloody civil war.
Iran will take control. Iran will cross the border with their full military might when we leave and take control of the country, partnering with their Shiite friends in Iran to form a powerful militant Islamic block which includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Lebanon. Everyone who stands in their way will be brutally killed.
Meanwhile, our Democrat leaders will wring their hands at the United Nations, pleading with the rest of the world to do something. Which, of course, the rest of the world will refuse, while the terrorists and their sponsor countries gloat.
Once the united forces of those countries have stabilized, they will take control of the other countries in the region, either through force or threat of force. And when they are ready, they will move all of their combined military might against Israel. There, millions more people will die. We may see the first use of an offensive nuclear weapon against an Israeli city within 5 years.
In the meantime, the Iranian-led coalition will send all sorts of bombers into a naive and politically correct America. They will bomb our cities incessantly, all along proclaiming that the bombing will stop if we cease all involvement in the middle east and all support for Israel. They believe this will work, as evidenced by the Democrats' campaign against the war on Terror these past 5 years. The Democrats will respond by attempting to negotiate.
Think I'm wrong? It is my most fervent wish to be wrong. It is my greatest fear that I am not only right, but underestimating the consequences.
That's why I voted for Mike Sodrel. But if the Democrats take control of the government, I will be tempted to hope I'm at ground zero when the first terrorist nuke is exploded in what used to be the best and proudest nation on the planet.
That issue is the war on terror. No, not Iraq per se, but the terror war overall. My vote cast to re-elect Mike Sodrel was primarily based on the knowledge that he supports victory in Iraq. His opponent, like most of the Democrats, wants us out of Iraq.
When Democrats say they support a "new direction" or a "smarter strategy" or "redeployment", they mean retreat. They want the troops to get out, and don't care about the consequences. Those consequences will be horrible for the Iraqis, the middle east in general, and us.
I'm saddened to hear the Bush haters who have bought the story made up by the left wing and nurtured by the Democrat leadership. Bush lied, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. We've all heard it ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Vladimir Lenin's idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth seems to have been validated.
The terrorists themselves have openly stated that they support Democrats, and will consider a Democrat victory today as a major victory for their jihad. It will embolden them to expand their terrorist activities, because we will have proven to them that terrorism works.
You see, all the other issues are moot if our country is no longer secure from terrorist attack. How important are arguments about minimum wage and universal healthcare when we are all wondering when and where the next car bomb will go off in our own cities? All of the Democrats' positions on the war promise that we will be attacked. We can't fight the terrorists in Iraq. We can't listen to their phone calls. We can't monitor their financial transactions. We have to give terrorist prisoners the same rights as American citizens. We can't interrogate captured terrorists. On and on and on ...
So what happens if Democrats win and they enforce their will to abandon Iraq?
Iraqis will die. You think a lot of them have died already? You haven't seen anything yet. The civil war will explode for control of the country as soon as we leave. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will be killed in a bloody civil war.
Iran will take control. Iran will cross the border with their full military might when we leave and take control of the country, partnering with their Shiite friends in Iran to form a powerful militant Islamic block which includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Lebanon. Everyone who stands in their way will be brutally killed.
Meanwhile, our Democrat leaders will wring their hands at the United Nations, pleading with the rest of the world to do something. Which, of course, the rest of the world will refuse, while the terrorists and their sponsor countries gloat.
Once the united forces of those countries have stabilized, they will take control of the other countries in the region, either through force or threat of force. And when they are ready, they will move all of their combined military might against Israel. There, millions more people will die. We may see the first use of an offensive nuclear weapon against an Israeli city within 5 years.
In the meantime, the Iranian-led coalition will send all sorts of bombers into a naive and politically correct America. They will bomb our cities incessantly, all along proclaiming that the bombing will stop if we cease all involvement in the middle east and all support for Israel. They believe this will work, as evidenced by the Democrats' campaign against the war on Terror these past 5 years. The Democrats will respond by attempting to negotiate.
Think I'm wrong? It is my most fervent wish to be wrong. It is my greatest fear that I am not only right, but underestimating the consequences.
That's why I voted for Mike Sodrel. But if the Democrats take control of the government, I will be tempted to hope I'm at ground zero when the first terrorist nuke is exploded in what used to be the best and proudest nation on the planet.
Mystery
There's a local story that has me fascinated. It involves the suspension and firing of the new high school basketball coach for misappropriation of funds. I'm fascinated because the newspaper has been doling out tiny bits of information over the course of the past week, but still has not told the whole story.
The coach's name is Barry Huckaby. He was just hired this year to take over what has been a dismal basketball program at Columbus North. I was planning to follow his progress, to see whether he could actually bring the program back to respectability.
So far, all the newspaper has said is that he was suspended by the school on suspicion that he took a little under $3,000 from the gate proceeds at a recent football game. The story seems to say that they discovered the receipts were short by about that amount, Barry was in charge of the gate receipts, the case was turned over to local police, and they have named him a "person of interest" in the ongoing investigation. They also have sent him a notice of termination.
There's plenty missing from the story. Are they withholding the information because of the ongoing investigation, or because they don't have it? Just a few of my questions -
Where is that money now? Is it still missing?
How do they know the exact amount that is missing?
What evidence has made them so certain Barry is guilty that they have suspended him and are firing him before he's even been charged?
The idea that someone in his position thought he could possibly get away with just walking off with that amount of cash is puzzling. Is it possible that he didn't actually steal it, but maybe was careless and lost it? Or that someone else stole it? Or that he simply took it home that night, fully intending to bring it back to deposit the next day?
There's an interesting little item in the newspaper that suggested things need to be calmed down for awhile to let the authorities complete their investigation. That there are some "strong personalities" in the North Athletic Department involved. I wonder what that's all about?
I don't know the guy, and am not at all involved with the basketball program. Maybe he stole the money and deserves full prosecution. Maybe it's a big misunderstanding, or even a nasty political battle within the athletic office as hinted by the newspaper. The people close to the situation probably know the answers to all of my questions.
From my reading of the news articles, I think everyone in the community should hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and see how this plays out. It should continue to be fascinating.
The coach's name is Barry Huckaby. He was just hired this year to take over what has been a dismal basketball program at Columbus North. I was planning to follow his progress, to see whether he could actually bring the program back to respectability.
So far, all the newspaper has said is that he was suspended by the school on suspicion that he took a little under $3,000 from the gate proceeds at a recent football game. The story seems to say that they discovered the receipts were short by about that amount, Barry was in charge of the gate receipts, the case was turned over to local police, and they have named him a "person of interest" in the ongoing investigation. They also have sent him a notice of termination.
There's plenty missing from the story. Are they withholding the information because of the ongoing investigation, or because they don't have it? Just a few of my questions -
Where is that money now? Is it still missing?
How do they know the exact amount that is missing?
What evidence has made them so certain Barry is guilty that they have suspended him and are firing him before he's even been charged?
The idea that someone in his position thought he could possibly get away with just walking off with that amount of cash is puzzling. Is it possible that he didn't actually steal it, but maybe was careless and lost it? Or that someone else stole it? Or that he simply took it home that night, fully intending to bring it back to deposit the next day?
There's an interesting little item in the newspaper that suggested things need to be calmed down for awhile to let the authorities complete their investigation. That there are some "strong personalities" in the North Athletic Department involved. I wonder what that's all about?
I don't know the guy, and am not at all involved with the basketball program. Maybe he stole the money and deserves full prosecution. Maybe it's a big misunderstanding, or even a nasty political battle within the athletic office as hinted by the newspaper. The people close to the situation probably know the answers to all of my questions.
From my reading of the news articles, I think everyone in the community should hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and see how this plays out. It should continue to be fascinating.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Choices
There are so many choices made by people that are obviously wrong from the point of view of others, but the individual making the choice is either blind or refuses to look.
I'm sort of a casual observer noticing many of these bad choices in people around me. Not that I've always made the best choices myself, but the reasons I don't do anything about my bad choices are my own. And maybe others would say the same about theirs:
Dropping out of school because, well, you hate school.
Taking a bad job because it was the best you could do at the time, or someone pressured you into it, or because you thought the money would make up for the misery.
Quitting a good job because someone pressured you, a "grass is greener" situation, or impulsively walking out when you were having a bad day.
Jumping into a bad relationship because you were lonely, or because you thought you could change the other person, or because you were afraid the music had stopped and she was the only chair left.
Getting hooked on drugs or alcohol because you wanted to seem cool for your friends. Then choosing your drug over everyone else; parents, spouse, children, friends.
Picking an abusive boyfriend over your own children.
Working as many hours as possible so you don't have to go home. Or hiding out in front of the TV to avoid family interaction.
Fighting too much over unimportant matters. Refusing to fight for important matters.
Rejecting people because of they way they look, what they do, how much money they have, or because they're boring. Wondering why you have no real friends, only superficial and self-absorbed social companions who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hit a rough patch.
Divorcing a spouse for the tired old, "The spark is gone." So much for promises made before God. What exactly could you be trusted to do?
Rationalizing bad behavior. "Those people over there do something even worse, so don't hassle me."
Missing key words from vocabulary: Empathy, Respect, Responsibility.
Losing faith.
I'm sort of a casual observer noticing many of these bad choices in people around me. Not that I've always made the best choices myself, but the reasons I don't do anything about my bad choices are my own. And maybe others would say the same about theirs:
Dropping out of school because, well, you hate school.
Taking a bad job because it was the best you could do at the time, or someone pressured you into it, or because you thought the money would make up for the misery.
Quitting a good job because someone pressured you, a "grass is greener" situation, or impulsively walking out when you were having a bad day.
Jumping into a bad relationship because you were lonely, or because you thought you could change the other person, or because you were afraid the music had stopped and she was the only chair left.
Getting hooked on drugs or alcohol because you wanted to seem cool for your friends. Then choosing your drug over everyone else; parents, spouse, children, friends.
Picking an abusive boyfriend over your own children.
Working as many hours as possible so you don't have to go home. Or hiding out in front of the TV to avoid family interaction.
Fighting too much over unimportant matters. Refusing to fight for important matters.
Rejecting people because of they way they look, what they do, how much money they have, or because they're boring. Wondering why you have no real friends, only superficial and self-absorbed social companions who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hit a rough patch.
Divorcing a spouse for the tired old, "The spark is gone." So much for promises made before God. What exactly could you be trusted to do?
Rationalizing bad behavior. "Those people over there do something even worse, so don't hassle me."
Missing key words from vocabulary: Empathy, Respect, Responsibility.
Losing faith.
Weekend Thoughts
It was a busy weekend, then I was knocked off my feet by some sort of virus. Skipped rehearsal and slept a lot, and feel almost human this morning.
Caught the Sectional final at Bloomington South after wondering whether it would be worth the trip. It was, in a tight and fun-to-watch game with the Columbus North guys winning their second sectional title in 3 years.
The Colts knocked off the Patriots last night. I didn't believe it would happen, and am appropriately chastened for my lack of faith. Surprisingly, the Colt's defense was the story of that game.
There was lots of angst over the weekend about the negative ads the politicians have been running this year. Both parties are involved. It was interesting to sit through a string of about 5 ads last night, with all but the very last a negative about some candidate. Some of them didn't even mention the candidate they were supporting.
Interestingly, I found I actually knew which negative ads were true, partly true, or completely false. Maybe I've been paying too much attention to this stuff. Want to know what ads are true and which are false? Just give me a call and I'll let you know.
The excuse given by the parties for this mudslinging approach was basically that it works. Or that the other candidate did it first, and they had to respond. It reminds me of kids fighting; the defense is always, "He started it!". So our politicians appear to suffer from arrested development.
I wonder what would happen if a politician simply ran an ad something like this: "If you want low taxes, an aggressive war against terrorism, keeping traditional marriage, pro-life, free trade, less government, etc., vote for me. If you want high taxes, retreat from the terror war, gay marriage, abortion, protectionism, more government, etc., vote for the other guy."
Interestingly, almost everyone would probably find some things they like and other things they don't about the candidate. But at least they would be able to decide which candidate is closer to their own opinions, instead of voting (or not) based on which candidate had the more disgusting negative ads.
Caught the Sectional final at Bloomington South after wondering whether it would be worth the trip. It was, in a tight and fun-to-watch game with the Columbus North guys winning their second sectional title in 3 years.
The Colts knocked off the Patriots last night. I didn't believe it would happen, and am appropriately chastened for my lack of faith. Surprisingly, the Colt's defense was the story of that game.
There was lots of angst over the weekend about the negative ads the politicians have been running this year. Both parties are involved. It was interesting to sit through a string of about 5 ads last night, with all but the very last a negative about some candidate. Some of them didn't even mention the candidate they were supporting.
Interestingly, I found I actually knew which negative ads were true, partly true, or completely false. Maybe I've been paying too much attention to this stuff. Want to know what ads are true and which are false? Just give me a call and I'll let you know.
The excuse given by the parties for this mudslinging approach was basically that it works. Or that the other candidate did it first, and they had to respond. It reminds me of kids fighting; the defense is always, "He started it!". So our politicians appear to suffer from arrested development.
I wonder what would happen if a politician simply ran an ad something like this: "If you want low taxes, an aggressive war against terrorism, keeping traditional marriage, pro-life, free trade, less government, etc., vote for me. If you want high taxes, retreat from the terror war, gay marriage, abortion, protectionism, more government, etc., vote for the other guy."
Interestingly, almost everyone would probably find some things they like and other things they don't about the candidate. But at least they would be able to decide which candidate is closer to their own opinions, instead of voting (or not) based on which candidate had the more disgusting negative ads.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Consequences of our Election
I know there are lots of you out there that want to bail out of Iraq. I hear it all the time - Iraq didn't attack us, it's not part of the war on terror, it's just about Bush and oil, and so on.
Suppose somebody went out and asked the terrorist leaders directly about what would happen to the US if we elected the Democrats and abandoned Iraq.
Somebody did. His name is Aaron Klein. And here's what he found out:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
Suppose somebody went out and asked the terrorist leaders directly about what would happen to the US if we elected the Democrats and abandoned Iraq.
Somebody did. His name is Aaron Klein. And here's what he found out:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Democrats keep saying they would be "smarter" about the terror war and Iraq. But the only specifics I've ever heard from them involve retreat and surrender, or in their terms, "redeployment".
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Clarity
The strange thing going on inside my head these days is this frightening clarity. It's as if I know all the answers, everything makes sense, and I understand everything that's going on. At the same time, I feel completely powerless to affect any of it.
Somehow it seems I understand everyone I know who's more than a casual acquaintance. I understand, but in the cases where I know they're messed up, am powerless to help them.
When two people I know well are in conflict, I understand both sides of the conflict, but can't do a thing to make either of them reconcile. Maybe because they don't want to reconcile. I just don't like it when they try to stick me in the middle. Because the truth is, they're both wrong more than either of them is right. And nobody likes being told they're wrong. And reconciliation requires humility and remorse, which proud and stubborn people will never express.
I understand every problem related to my business. Those problems I can solve, I solve. Those I can't, I just do the best I can.
I understand what people think about politics and next week's elections. But there's no way I can affect anybody else's voting decisions. Because everyone has chosen sides. Most are voting emotionally instead of logically, and that frightens me a bit.
I'm in a room full of people who are discussing something, which maybe is some sort of problem or decision they can't seem to solve. I understand their problem completely and know exactly what they need to do - I have the perfect answer. But I'm invisible. I try to get their attention, but they ignore me like I'm not there.
So with a sad shake of the head, I just leave the room and leave them to what I'm sure will be a bad decision for everyone. Including me.
Somehow it seems I understand everyone I know who's more than a casual acquaintance. I understand, but in the cases where I know they're messed up, am powerless to help them.
When two people I know well are in conflict, I understand both sides of the conflict, but can't do a thing to make either of them reconcile. Maybe because they don't want to reconcile. I just don't like it when they try to stick me in the middle. Because the truth is, they're both wrong more than either of them is right. And nobody likes being told they're wrong. And reconciliation requires humility and remorse, which proud and stubborn people will never express.
I understand every problem related to my business. Those problems I can solve, I solve. Those I can't, I just do the best I can.
I understand what people think about politics and next week's elections. But there's no way I can affect anybody else's voting decisions. Because everyone has chosen sides. Most are voting emotionally instead of logically, and that frightens me a bit.
I'm in a room full of people who are discussing something, which maybe is some sort of problem or decision they can't seem to solve. I understand their problem completely and know exactly what they need to do - I have the perfect answer. But I'm invisible. I try to get their attention, but they ignore me like I'm not there.
So with a sad shake of the head, I just leave the room and leave them to what I'm sure will be a bad decision for everyone. Including me.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Why Apologize?
The reaction to Senator John Kerry's slam on military people has been even more strident than I expected. Naturally, the whole story is buried or spun into some sort of Bush attack by the leftist media, but I imagine it's the lead story for the right radio talkers.
My take, as usual, is different from the talking heads from both sides. The lefties say it was just a botched joke about Bush. There's no way you can possibly twist his words into any conceivable Bush joke unless you just didn't see the video. Everyone else is demanding he apologize, while Kerry himself went insane in a press conference, where he blamed Bush. I like the trend of most Democrats, who automatically fall back to "it's Bush's fault" whenever something goes wrong, even when it was their own gaffe.
What I would suggest is that there's no need to demand Kerry apologize. If he were to apologize for stating his true belief, it would be a false and meaningless act. Kerry's statement that basically labels military personnel as a bunch of losers simply represents his true belief. The best and most believable apology he could make would be, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the military with my statement, but I stand by my belief that the military is the last resort for people who can't cut it anywhere else."
Politically, there's a pretty good comparison that illustrates the double standard among the press. A few years back, Trent Lott gave a speech at Strom Thurmond's retirement party, and got driven from his position as a Senate GOP leader just because he said something nice about Strom. He just said that the country might be better off today if Strom had been President. The Democrats and their media megaphone twisted that into the idea that Trent was a racist, because Strom was a civil rights opponent (and a Democrat) back in the days when he had Presidential aspirations. Trent didn't say anything at all racist, and certainly demeaned no one in his speech, but was driven out of his position.
What a contrast with Kerry, who simply says what he believes, which offends most of the population, but gets a pass from a press desperate to contain the damage less than a week before elections.
No apology required. Just let the man keep talking.
My take, as usual, is different from the talking heads from both sides. The lefties say it was just a botched joke about Bush. There's no way you can possibly twist his words into any conceivable Bush joke unless you just didn't see the video. Everyone else is demanding he apologize, while Kerry himself went insane in a press conference, where he blamed Bush. I like the trend of most Democrats, who automatically fall back to "it's Bush's fault" whenever something goes wrong, even when it was their own gaffe.
What I would suggest is that there's no need to demand Kerry apologize. If he were to apologize for stating his true belief, it would be a false and meaningless act. Kerry's statement that basically labels military personnel as a bunch of losers simply represents his true belief. The best and most believable apology he could make would be, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the military with my statement, but I stand by my belief that the military is the last resort for people who can't cut it anywhere else."
Politically, there's a pretty good comparison that illustrates the double standard among the press. A few years back, Trent Lott gave a speech at Strom Thurmond's retirement party, and got driven from his position as a Senate GOP leader just because he said something nice about Strom. He just said that the country might be better off today if Strom had been President. The Democrats and their media megaphone twisted that into the idea that Trent was a racist, because Strom was a civil rights opponent (and a Democrat) back in the days when he had Presidential aspirations. Trent didn't say anything at all racist, and certainly demeaned no one in his speech, but was driven out of his position.
What a contrast with Kerry, who simply says what he believes, which offends most of the population, but gets a pass from a press desperate to contain the damage less than a week before elections.
No apology required. Just let the man keep talking.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Voted
I voted today, because I might be out of town next Tuesday.
It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.
As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.
I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.
It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.
It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.
As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.
I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.
It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.
Contradiction
Does anybody else wonder about contradictions? I was just thinking about several:
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Monday, October 30, 2006
You better not vote if ...
You form all your impressions of the candidates from their TV ads
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Language
Last week's assignment was an assessment of a company's use of software. The goal was to solve their biggest problems and identify efficiencies they could realize through better use of available features in the product.
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Movie Review
I caught Flags of our Fathers on opening night. I was stuck in Kansas anyway, and had stayed in the hotel and worked pretty much every night this week. So for my big Friday night outing, I naturally chose to see the movie based on the book I enjoyed so much.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Grease - The Rest of the Story
I just happened to catch the movie Grease on TV, the one from 1978 with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. It just hit me as the movie was ending to write the rest of the story about Danny Zuko and Sandy (what is her last name?)
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)