Monday, January 30, 2006

The Realm of Possibilities

Lately I was thinking about the things I enjoyed the most about being young. And wondered whether I could recapture any of them before I hit 50. Here are some of them:
  • Swimming and goofing off on a diving board. Why not?
  • Playing basketball. I mean really playing, on an actual team, and being a major contributor to said team, and having a shot at a league championship. Maybe an old fogey team if I got in decent enough shape - tall order.
  • Singing in front of a very large, appreciative audience, maybe even televised. Not likely.
  • Bike Rides. Easier said than done, but possible.
  • In good physical condition such that strange women flirt or double-take. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.
  • An evening with friends where I laugh so hard I get a mild bellyache. Don't think so.
  • An evening sitting around with friends just singing. Do people even do that anymore?
Interestingly, most of the above require losing weight and/or getting in shape. Maybe I've got to reframe my perspective to be happy and successful.

In the meantime, the key question - time for a new car or hang on awhile longer? Ponder this, I must.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Basketball Blahs

This isn't a great year for my favorite sport. Well, basketball was always my favorite sport as a player, whether or not it rivals football as a favorite spectator sport.

The two teams I have mostly followed through the years are Indiana (College=Hoosiers, NBA=Pacers). And these days both team are testing my loyalties.

The Pacers keep getting worse. They just lost to the worst team in the NBA (Atlanta), and they have been painful to watch recently. There's no cohesion with this team, and they don't play with any urgency. They stand around a lot on offense, waiting for somebody else to make a play.

Are they missing Artest? Sure, they miss his points and defense, but the bigger miss is Reggie. Reggie was their leader, helping bring a spark and intensity that rubbed off on his teammates. There is nobody on the team that has stepped into that role. Jermaine O'Neal acts like he's trying, but comes off as more of a whiner than a leader.

Apparently a trade of Artest isn't in the cards. Since Artest now says he wants to stay, I'd suggest Walsh and Bird sit him down and lay down the conditions for his return - keep his nose clean, don't talk to the press, be a team player, or you'll be suspended without pay the rest of the year then released. I can't say whether or not this would help turn the Pacers' season around, but at this point it couldn't hurt. Oh, and I'd also recommend they trade or sign a veteran free agent that can bring leadership to the squad - he wouldn't necessarily have to be a starter or major contributor on the floor.

Then there are the Hoosiers. Yes, they are better this year, but somehow I'm still uninspired by them. The two guys they brought in from Auburn are good, and Killingsworth has some great skills, but they don't feel like Indiana guys. The rest of the team just doesn't give me anything to connect or identify with like past teams; in other words, this team has no personality.

They looked very good against Ohio State and Illinois, but looked terrible last night against Iowa. Seems like a team that can't get a win on the road. They certainly looked intimidated by Steve Alford's smothering Iowa defense last night, and also looked sluggish and careless with the ball.

In the end, while I loved watching the great Indiana teams in the past, I also enjoyed the teams that didn't necessarily win that much, because they always seemed to leave it all on the floor. Not this team. This team is talented, but has no character.

It's going to be a long winter.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

There are Four Basic Categories

Through my own observation and experience, I think I have discovered something about people. There are four identifiable classes of people when it comes to political viewpoints.


There are
Secular Liberals, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives and Religious Conservatives.

It seems pretty clear these days that the Democrats have been taken over by the secular liberals, which might be the simplest explanation for why they haven’t been winning elections. Because, whether this group likes it or not, the majority of Americans don't see the world the way they do.

Republicans seem to have an ongoing battle happening between the religious and seculars. My view of the seculars is that they're mostly represented by the capitalists and CEO's, whose main objective is keeping the government from meddling in their business. Religious conservatives are in a battle for the party, with a somewhat more moderate view on the economic issues but firm belief in protecting traditional values and culture.

The best way I can think of to define these categories is through the following examples:

  1. There’s a guy on the streetcorner with the sign, “Will work for food”.

· Secular Liberal: Ignores him, thinks “The government needs to do something about that”.

· Religious Liberal: Gives the guy a dollar, thinks “Poor guy, the government should do something to help”

· Secular Conservative: Might yell out he window, “Get a job!”. Or might consider calling the police to arrest him for vagrancy. Thinks the guy’s a fraud anyway.

· Religious Conservative: Most likely to hand him a sandwich or a card with directions to the local soup kitchen where she volunteers a couple times a month.

  1. A 12-year-old girl comes to the person for advice, because she just got pregnant and is afraid to tell her parents.

· Secular Liberal: Will encourage the girl to get an abortion, support her in keeping it from her parents, and might even offer to drive her to the clinic.

· Religious Liberal: Is very conflicted, because they feel empathy for the girl’s situation but don’t want to force their religious views on her. This type might just suggest that the girl make whatever decision she feels is best for her.

· Secular Conservative: This type isn’t going to be terribly sensitive to the girl’s feelings, and will probably tell her that if she doesn’t tell her parents immediately that he will. He will strongly encourage her to have the baby and give it up for adoption.

· Religious Conservative: Will be very understanding of the girl’s dilemma, and will support her and maybe even help her with breaking the news to her parents. If the parents are unhelpful, demand she abort the baby, or disown her, this type will make sure she gets into a pregnancy care program that will help her through the entire process.

  1. The Iraq War

· Secular Liberal: Is still hung up on their belief that Bush “stole” the 2000 election, and still views everything Bush does as tainted or illegitimate. Tells everyone that “Bush lied” to get into the Iraq war, but actually agitates against the war in hopes it will somehow lead to Bush’s impeachment and a chance to get a Liberal back into the White House.

· Religious Liberal: Is a hand-wringer about all of the Iraqis killed in the war. Doesn’t support the Iraq war because of generally pacifist philosophy, feeling that we should reach out to our enemies to make peace or trust God to protect us.

· Secular Conservative: Believes we haven’t done enough in the Iraq war, that we should have used overwhelming force and dealt more firmly and harshly with the so-called “insurgents”. Believe Iraq is an example to the region of what will happen to rogue regimes that sponsor terrorism, which will force the other members of the “Axis of Evil” to think twice before helping Al Quaeda and other organizations attack America.

· Religious Conservatives: Are somewhat conflicted about the Iraq war because of its pre-emptive nature, but trust the President to be pursuing the right policies to protect our country from terrorist attacks.

  1. Oil and Energy

· Secular Liberal: Feels hatred and anger against the evil oil industry that is “raping the planet” to enrich themselves. Hates rich people who drive Hummers and Navigators, guzzling gas and polluting the air. Will go to any lengths to prevent oil drilling in the ANWR, not to protect the wildlife and environment there, but because they feel it’s unfair to allow an oil company to increase their riches by getting a sweetheart drilling deal from the Texas-based Bush administration. The wealthy part of this group buy a hybrid automobile for show, but have the gas-guzzlers in their garage and use more energy to heat and cool their California mansions than the average American can imagine.

· Religious Liberal: Thinks that Americans are wasteful of God’s resources and we should do more in caring for the planet He gave us. Have gullibly bought into the fallacious arguments made by the Secular Liberals (who know better) that the beautiful ANWR reserve will be blighted and wildlife wiped out by the irresponsible oil companies.

· Secular Conservative: Completely support oil exploration and drilling wherever it may be found. Don’t believe there are any environmental concerns that are relevant, but know that the best short-term path to American energy independence is full exploitation of our own untapped domestic supplies.

· Religious Conservatives: Are environmentally sensitive, and support research on alternative fuels. But also understand that responsible oil exploration and drilling are necessary to help keep a strong economy and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

  1. Taxes

· Secular Liberal: There are two groups inside this category: the rich SL and the rest of the SL’s. The rich support high taxes and soaking the rich, but most of them don’t care because most of their fortune is already well-hidden from the government in offshore accounts. The non-rich SL feels the rich are given special treatment by the Republican-run government and don’t think that it’s possible to raise taxes on them too much. But the non-rich SL also thinks they pay plenty of tax already.

· Religious Liberal: This group is made up of mostly lower to middle class people who are attracted to the rhetoric from their SL friends. Therefore they support soaking the rich, but would prefer to avoid higher taxes on their own families. On the other hand, if a liberal president or congress came to them and told them their taxes had to go up to help the poor, they would happily support the increase.

· Secular Conservative: This group firmly believes that tax cuts benefit everyone. Cutting taxes and social programs are certain to stimulate the economy, because letting people keep more of their own money directly translates into more consumer spending on products and services. That creates jobs and reduces the need for social services for the poor.

· Religious Conservative: This group supports the “Fair Tax” plan or flat tax plans, and are tired of the political favors and complexity of the existing tax code. The RC views social programs as the responsibility of each citizen, and that the government does a very poor job of actually addressing issues of the poor. This group is much more likely to donate the highest amounts of money to charity and actually participate in community programs that help the poor.

  1. Gay Rights

· Secular Liberal: This is the category where most gays live. They have been on a crusade to force American society to not only accept, but embrace the gay lifestyle. And for the most part, they seem to have succeeded through constant political activism and the significant contributions of their primary employers in the entertainment and media industries. SL’s see the legalization of Gay Marriage as the ultimate measure of their success in this crusade, but have yet to think through all the consequences of full marital rights and consequences.

· Religious Liberal: These people belong to “progressive” churches, or organizations within their denominations that are pushing for more understanding and recognition of gays. They ignore teachings of their faith that denounce the gay lifestyle, choosing instead to believe that our society is simply more enlightened and the faith can accommodate new social norms.

· Secular Conservative: This group’s philosophy on gay rights says that gays have the right to do whatever they want with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but they don’t have the right to push their sexuality into the rest of our faces. SC’s say to gays, “Do whatever you like in private, but don’ t expect special rights and privileges just because of your sexual behavior.”

· Religious Conservative: Religious conservatives continue to believe the teachings of their faith, that sex outside the sacrament of marriage is a sin. They feel sorry for gays, who they feel have been misled or entrapped by sexual predators into the lifestyle. They feel anyone who feels they are a homosexual can change their orientation through counseling and communion with God. They are appalled that one of their faith’s most important sacraments is being debased through it’s misuse by the Gay Rights movement.

There are plenty more issues I could do this with, but have spent enough time on this post already. The summary of these categories, as I see it:

The Secular Liberal: Is or was most likely of all these groups to have been a drug abuser, has socialist and/or communist sympathies, is either perpetually broke and blames rich people for it or is a very wealthy heir/heiress or entertainer that feels guilty about it, is or has been sexually promiscouous, and despises religious people they think want to "judge" them.

The Religious Liberal: Is in search of a better world and believe the government can implement idealistic and sensitive policies to help achieve it, believe in God and profess a strong personal spirituality but shun the staid traditions of organized religion in favor of new liberal-minded movements, want to protect animals and the environment, want workers to be paid a fair wage and think CEO's make obscene amounts of money and get too many tax breaks, are generally pacifists and think all conflicts can be resolved through understanding and diplomacy.

The Secular Conservative: The ultimate capitalist, tends toward a libertarian philosophy of extremely limited government, firmly believes in strong national defense and infrastructure but supports very little governmental social programs, thinks people need to be self-sufficient and accountable, have no use for crazy environmentalists and animal rights activists, and fight for low taxes and minimal government regulation.

The Religious Conservative: Feels that America became great because of its strong foundation of freedom and moral values, supports free trade and capitalism but with boundaries that protect people and the environment from abusive or unfair practices, believe it's the responsibility of the people and not the government to care for the poor, support fair and simple taxes, and hold great fear that they will soon be persecuted by an increasingly secular society that seems to hold them in contempt.

Which category best describes you?

Friday, January 20, 2006

Osama's a Democrat

It's been an extremely busy week, and I haven't had time to pay attention to the news. But I just came across the transcript of bin Laden's latest tape. I was immediately struck by how well informed he seems to be about the anti-war movement here in the US. His message was very well tailored to encourage the anti-war Bush-haters in hopes they can succeed in forcing our government to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan so he can crawl out of his cave and get back in business.

What a great group of friends he has in America, who are now pushing a Bush impeachment over their no-longer secret monitoring of cellphone conversations between people in the US and their al Quaida friends overseas. If his friends succeed, he'll most likely celebrate by blowing many of them up.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Two for Four

My predictions worked for only two of the four playoff games this weekend. New England surprised me by giving up something like 5 turnovers, while Denver showed that they're actually pretty good.

No surprises in the NFC, except the minor surprise at the score of Carolina/Chicago. I didn't expect either team to score more than 14 in that one. But the outcome was as expected.

Unfortunately, the Colts let us all down again. This was supposed to be their year, but Pittsburgh came out in the first quarter and kicked them in the teeth, and they never recovered. But then, to be given the gift of the overturned interception and still have a chance to tie with a makeable field goal at the end and blow it makes me wonder about the psyche of this Colts team. Are they stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy where deep down they don't believe they can play well enough to make it to the Super Bowl, regardless of how great they played in the season? How does it happen that Edge is a mainstay all year but hardly gets the ball? How do Reggie and Marvin suddenly get shut out of the passing game? How does the offensive line suddenly forget how to pass block? How does the great Peyton Manning allow himself to get rattled by the Pittsburgh defense? How does the most accurate kicker in the league miss the most important kick of the season?

Who knows. I'll keep an eye on the rest of the playoffs and probably watch the Super Bowl, but the excitement is gone. Maybe a post about what makes sports so popular that so many live and die with their favorite teams would be interesting. Sometime when I've got a free hour maybe.

Friday, January 13, 2006

My Friday Post

Now and then I like to do a post mostly for fun. And what can be more fun than sports? (OK, you have a suggestion, but that's not a topic I'm comfortable blogging about.)

How about my own semi-informed analysis of this weekend's NFL playoffs?

We'll start with the NFC, which I think is easy.

Seahawks/Redskins: How could you pick against Seattle this year? Especially given the dismal offensive performance of the Redskins last week in Tampa. I was actually sort of rooting for the Bucs, but their offense may have been even more pitiful than the Redskins. Unless the 'Skins defense is able to strip Alexander or pick off Hasselbeck three or four times, I don't see it happening for them. I think Seattle wins this one.

Bears/Panthers: Everybody's picking Carolina, who did look pretty good last weekend in shutting out the Giants. But Chicago's defense is capable of shutting almost anybody down. So this isn't as easy a pick as it seems. But I have to admit to be leaning toward Carolina, because it looks like it might be a warm weekend in Chicago, which takes the weather advantage away from the Bears. And Grossman has so little experience that I think he may get rattled and therefore intercepted a couple of times, especially if Chicago has to play from behind. I gotta pick Carolina in a close game - it could be a 7-6 victory.

Now the more interesting conference, from which the eventual Super Bowl champion will emerge:

Broncos/Patriots: Everybody's on the Patriots bandwagon, saying they're back and they're healthy. Sure, they finished the season looking pretty strong and blew out a pretty good Jacksonville team last week. But the Broncos aren't bad, with the second seed and home-field advantage. I view this game as a toss-up that could be decided at the very end. But then there's Plummer, who has a history of throwing picks in big games, which if that happens could result in a lopsided Patriots victory. It all hangs on the Pats' ability to stop Denver's running game and force Plummer to throw, playing catch-up from behind. As much as I fear a repeat of the Patriots bouncing the Colts once again on their way to another Super Bowl, I have to honestly predict that I think they'll probably find a way to win in Denver.

Steelers/Colts: There are several things that have made me feel pretty good about the Colts in this game. First, the stories about how close-knit and purposeful the team has become after the tragedy in Coach Dungy's family. Second, a quote from Peyton about how he has never felt more prepared for a game in his career. Third, the fact that the entire Colts roster - every starter - is healthy and ready to go. The Steelers recognize that they have to play their best game to win; Roethisberger said "We will need out A+ game to beat their B- game". And the Colts fans will be loud and effective in the dome. I think the Colts win fairly easily by 2 touchdowns and get ready for an AFC championship game at home against their nemesis Patriots.

Now wasn't that fun?

Monday, January 09, 2006

Celebrities Please Shut Up

They're making me crazy. All those entertainment celebrities who somewhere along the way decided it was en vogue to join the Bush-bashers. I wish they would all just shut up and go back to what they're supposed to be good at - entertaining us.

True, most of the loudest and silliest ones I didn't have much use for in the first place. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, The Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ... they can all be as stupid as they like, I don't watch their movies or listen to their music anyway. Streisand is a terrific vocalist, but I always believed she was a woman you would never want to hang out with, and she's proved why. Clooney's been overrated as an actor ever since he was a regular on ER (yawn). The Dixie Chicks, well, what do you expect from a group of airheads trying to get by on looks and hoping you don't notice their (lack of) talent. Robbins and Sarandon were kind of funny in Bull Durham, but even though they might possess passable acting skills, their communistic political ranting is probably only taken seriously by Sarandon's drug-addled Rocky Horror fans.

But I've got to put my foot down when it comes to those entertainers I sort of enjoyed until they got stupid. Whatever drove Linda Ronstadt, who's always had a great set of pipes, to offend her Vegas audience and get unceremoniously dumped for ranting about what a great guy Michael Moore is? I don't care if she was praising Moore or Rush Limbaugh; her audience paid for tickets to hear her sing, not to hear her ditsy political ramblings.

How ironic to see Viggo Mortensen, who I don't think is an American anyway, go off on Bush right after his triumphant LOTR trilogy. And this from an actor who portrayed a courageous leader who knew evil had to be defeated regardless of the terrible sacrifice involved. How badly did he damage his movie career by joining the Bush Bash Brigade?

Guys like Martin Sheen are known quantities, who seem to be trying to relive the glory days of VietNam protest. They probably get together in their Hollywood hangouts to toke up and fantasize about taking down Bush, Cheney, and their Military-Industrial Complex like they did in the 60's. Sheen probably thinks in his drug-addled memory that his role in Apocalypse Now was a real event.

Do the pin-up girls from our favorite movies, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Anniston, Kate Hudson, etc... have even the slightest clue how stupid they appear when they publicly go off on their anti-Bush rants? They are so obviously parroting the groupthink of their peers, and their poor attempts to make political statements are just silliness and confirmation of the stereotype of dumb blondes.

Comedians have always been known as lefties politically. But when you have Whoopie out there offending all the Catholics who loved her in Sister Act, or guys like Robin Williams and Chevy Chase using crude, vulgar, and outrageous language (that wasn't remotely funny) to express Bush hatred, how can they fail to understand the damage they do to their future marketability in entertainment?

Finally, I happened to be up late one night to see Letterman. He had Bill O'Reilly on, and I thought it might be an interesting discussion. But it really wasn't, and from my perspective, Dave didn't come off looking very good. He obviously had a predisposed hatred for O'Reilly, but had never seen his show and admitted to knowing nothing about what O'Reilly actually talks about or believes. But he felt free to trash him anyway, saying something along the lines of,
"I think about 60% of what you say is crap". O'Reilly asked him for an example, and he didn't have one.

Just in case there's anyone who sees this who is either an entertainer or an aspiring entertainer - and this applies to pro sports athletes as well: When it comes to politics, just shut up! Now, if you want to support causes for curing disease or helping children, go for it - the public loves that stuff. But unless you want to retire from entertainment and go full-time into politics (like Arnold), just shut up. Because as soon as you open your mouth, you will automatically offend at least 50% of your fans, and look stupid to probably another 25-30%.

So if your objective is to sell more tickets or CD's or whatever, stay away from politics! You can certainly donate money to your favorite candidates, but keep it away from the public eye. You think you're being "courageous"? What's courageous about spouting off what all your friends are telling you without bothering to find your own position?

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Peace

Pronunciation: 'pEs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom peace
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
- at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

First please note: This is not a political post. It is simply an expression of personal reflections on peace.

Peace of mind. Contentment. Acceptance.

Isn't that what most of us ultimately crave for ourselves?

To be at peace for me means many things, including:
  • Accepting myself as I am. Sure I'll try to change those things I don't like about myself that can be changed. But I won't keep beating myself up anymore.
  • Accepting others as they are. Some people are amazing. Some are jerks. But the vast majority can be a little of both. Just like I can. So I don't sweat it anymore. I won't waste my time with the jerks, and I won't expect much from the rest. And I'm never disappointed.
  • Accepting that life has ups and downs. When things are going great, I'll just enjoy the ride while it lasts. When the bad times come, I can endure. What's the worst God can throw at me? Ever read the story of Job? Well, I've never had it that bad, and he came out of it OK.
But peace doesn't mean these things:
  • Pacifying. Giving in to a bully just encourages the bully to continue bullying. Peace never means compromising core principles, because that sort of peace is false and temporary.
  • Hiding. Conflicts don't go away if we just run away from them. They must be confronted and resolved, even if resolution means great pain. The pain is only temporary.
  • Masquerading. Putting on a false face to appease someone to avoid conflict is dishonest, not just with those who see your act, but to yourself. Don't pretend to agree with someone who is spouting evil just to avoid conflict.
Real peace is being able to live with yourself every day, knowing you are doing the best you can and are true to yourself and your beliefs. Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of truth.

And this post has used philosophic constructs in place of specific examples in order to protect the innocent (or not so innocent).

Monday, January 02, 2006

Europe is anti-Christian; Can US be far behind?

What's more disturbing about this article, the message or the fact that over 200,000 people bought these?

Some Swedish Christians are feeling blue about the country's hottest new jeans, which their designer calls "an active statement against Christianity." The jeans, named "Cheap Monday," sell for $50 a pair and feature a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.

More than 200,000 pairs have been sold since 2004, leaving some leaders in the Christian community shaking their heads. The vicar of one Stockholm church calls the jeans "a deliberate provocation," adding, "No one wants to provoke Jews or Muslims, but it's totally OK to provoke Christians."

Nevertheless, the director of the Church of Sweden's culture department says that while the designer wants to create public opinion against the Christian faith, "I don't think it's much to be horrified about."