The last time I had a day off that wasn't on a weekend was back around Christmastime. I recall looking forward to Memorial Day, because finally I could have a 3-day weekend. But something came up, and I worked Memorial Day.
So this long holiday weekend has got me sort of excited. I plan to take the whole weekend, including a trip to Goshen on Sunday and Monday. Back to work Wednesday, which will be quite a busy return.
Actually went on an interview today. Confirmed it's too far to commute, and although if they offer me a solid salary and benefits package it will be tempting, my gut tells me I don't want to uproot for it. No need to worry about it now. They will either offer or they won't. If they do, then I have to decide. I'd rather convince them to contract me, which seems the best solution for both parties.
On the drive, I picked up Air America on the radio. Talk about a parallel universe. The nicest thing I can say is, those people are nuts. I couldn't listen very long, because the whole thing was bizarre and just a bit scary.
How to describe Air America? The bottom line of the radio network starts from a visceral and irrational hatred of the President. The host started off her show by crowing (yes, it did sound like a crow) about how the Supreme Court "slapped down Bush". She was so excited, you would have thought the President had actually been physically assaulted. No analysis of the decision, no factual or thoughtful analysis of the decision itself. Just celebration, because the hated Bush didn't get his way on how to try the terrorists held in Guantanamo.
Oh, by the way, from Air America's perspective, the "detainees" at Gitmo aren't terrorists. They are just unfortunate slobs that got caught up in George Adolph Hitler Bush's reign of terror. I couldn't tell for certain whether she thought they were innocent, or just supported them because they would jump at the chance to shoot or blow up the President.
Clearly she lives her life on emotion, the foremost of which is hatred. Why does she (and her cronies at Air America) hate Bush so much? I think I listened long enough to figure that out. She hates him because he stole the presidency from her beloved Al Gore, then added insult to injury by stealing it again from John Kerry. So it really doesn't matter much what he does, she will assume it is done with the worst possible motives.
In her sad world, Bush manufactured the "war on terror" as a key strategy for a carefully planned power grab. Then he pushed through the Patriot Act, uses the NSA to spy on Americans, tracks everybody's financial transactions, incarcerates and tortures innocent people for no good reason, and generally created an intrusive dictatorship designed to control and suppress the population. If there is any justice in the world, Bush will not only be impeached, but tried in the Hague as a war criminal. Everything he does, in her delusional mind, is to advance his evil plan to become dictator.
I wonder what she will say in 2008 when a new president is elected. Gee, if Bush was all about this dictatorial power, why did he give it up? What if a Democrat wins? If Bush is actually spying on you, why haven't you been arrested or harrassed? So it would be OK with you, then, if we just let everybody in Gitmo loose in your home city? Oh yeah, one more thing - if Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, how do you explain the reports coming out now about the 500+ chemical warheads found and the Iraqi government documents describing specific plans to use a variety of such weapons on the US?
Facts are funny things when they refute such deeply held beliefs.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Pharmacist Persecution?
Heard something briefly that seemed to suggest that Illinois is either considering or has already passed a law forcing pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs. Yes, it's an abortion drug - I think we should call things what they are rather than use euphemisms.
The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.
To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.
Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?
Maybe, maybe not.
Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:
During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.
Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.
It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.
But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.
Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.
I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.
The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.
To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.
Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?
Maybe, maybe not.
Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:
During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.
Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.
It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.
But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.
Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.
I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Global Warming: Science or Politics?
There's too much to absorb in this topic if you're someone like me who likes to decide for himself about the issues of the day by researching the underlying data, finding out what "experts" think, listening to arguments pro and con, then making an informed decision.
With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.
The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:
1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?
I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.
The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.
We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.
Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.
So what to believe? Who to believe?
Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.
Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.
Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.
Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.
Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?
If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?
And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.
Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.
You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.
With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.
The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:
1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?
I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.
The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.
We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.
Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.
So what to believe? Who to believe?
Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.
Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.
Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.
Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.
Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?
If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?
And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.
Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.
You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Monday Blog Break
This afternoon I'm writing for no better reason than I just wanted to take a break from the drudgery of work.
Let's go with some brief observations.
How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.
If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.
I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.
I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.
And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?
Let's see if I can recap the facts:
Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.
Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:
1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.
It could work. But not from the UN.
Let's go with some brief observations.
How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.
If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.
I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.
I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.
And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?
Let's see if I can recap the facts:
Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.
Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:
1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.
It could work. But not from the UN.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
PC Religion
Something's been bothering me for a long time now. After reading an article in the local paper praising this trend I feel a strong need to vent. The article was from Mona Safley, a local religion writer who just last week wrote a piece about accepting and embracing homosexuals because Jesus would have. She has a habit of missing or distorting the truth.
PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.
I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".
A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)
So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)
They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.
Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.
But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?
I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.
Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.
The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.
And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.
PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.
I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".
A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)
So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)
They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.
Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.
But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?
I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.
Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.
The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.
And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Consulting Kookiness
Got a rather funny email today originating from the software company I do a lot of my contract consulting for these days. New rule: If you pay for a meal with a credit card, the receipt can't be the credit card receipt. It has to be one that shows what you actually ordered.
What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.
It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.
Here's how it works:
Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.
Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.
Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.
The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)
So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!
You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.
Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.
Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.
What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.
It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.
Here's how it works:
Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.
Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.
Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.
The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)
So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!
You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.
Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.
Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.
Friday Not Really
Normally I'd be happy for Friday. Not this week, because it's not a normal Friday. I've got so much work to do that I'll be late again today, then have to come back in to the office on Saturday. But not Sunday - that's a non-workday no matter what.
Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.
Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.
They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.
The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.
Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?
Who knows.
Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.
Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.
They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.
The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.
Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?
Who knows.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Godless
It's the title of a book by Ann Coulter that seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. Seems pretty provocative, as she uses "godless" to describe the political left.
My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.
OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.
But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.
So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.
Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.
Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.
Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?
When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?
Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.
My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.
OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.
But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.
So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.
Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.
Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.
Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?
When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?
Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Ancient Brilliance
I wonder how many people realize that modern society and law are based on the ancient law of Moses? Of which the essentials were boiled down to the 10 commandments.
Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).
He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.
Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.
So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)
1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.
2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.
3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.
4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.
5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.
6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.
7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.
8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.
9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.
10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.
You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.
If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.
Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.
Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.
Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.
That's what morality means.
Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).
He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.
Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.
So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)
1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.
2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.
3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.
4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.
5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.
6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.
7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.
8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.
9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.
10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.
You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.
If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.
Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.
Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.
Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.
That's what morality means.
Monday, June 19, 2006
What If
Thinking about a few "What if"s:
What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?
What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?
What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?
What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?
What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?
What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?
What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?
What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?
What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?
What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?
What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?
What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?
What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?
What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?
Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?
Would they make this a better country? A better world?
What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?
What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?
What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?
What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?
What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?
What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?
What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?
What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?
What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?
What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?
What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?
What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?
What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?
What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?
Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?
Would they make this a better country? A better world?
Thursday, June 15, 2006
World Cup Musings
The best thing about the DVR is that it can capture all the World Cup matches during the day. Then I can speed-watch them at night. I haven't watched one live yet, but will try to catch the US against Italy this weekend.
I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.
The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?
Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.
As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?
I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.
I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.
The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?
Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.
As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?
I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The Pump Metaphor
A long time ago I spent some time in Real Estate. I got some sales training back then, where a metaphor of a manual garden water pump was used to describe the process of establishing yourself in the market.
I was thinking about that metaphor recently, and think it's a good one not only for salespeople, but for just about any human endeavor. It is certainly true in business. Unfortunately, anybody under 40 years old or has never spent time in the country might not know much about the pumps I'm talking about. Thus the picture.
When I jumped into opening my own business over 2 years ago, after getting my office set up and attending some training, I enthusiastically grabbed the pump handle and started pumping as hard as I could.
But nothing came out at first. "What am I doing wrong?", I wondered. I was working the pump so hard my shoulder was starting to hurt. I was told there is plenty of water in this well, so why can't I seem to get any?
I was out talking to people and business everywhere, using whatever marketing strategies I thought I could afford, joined networking groups, and spread around business cards. But it seemed that none of it was paying off. Everybody was nice, they seemed to appreciate my product and service offerings, but when it came time to decide whether to write the check and move forward, it usually came down to a polite "Not now".
Just as I was beginning to wonder if this endeavor was ever going to get off the ground, I began to get a trickle of water. I was considering giving up, and had actually begun to rest a bit, begin thinking about doing something that wasn't so difficult, and began to reduce my pumping intensity. But right about that time, suddenly a trickle appeared.
Some people began to trust me with small projects. The trickle wasn't getting me what I needed, but it gave me enough encouragement to renew my pumping efforts. After awhile the trickle increased to a stream, then almost before I realized it, a full flow of water. This was exciting and a big relief, because my reservoir was getting very low.
Pretty soon the water filled my containers to capacity. So I had to stop pumping for awhile to carry the water everywhere it needed to go. I worked hard and got the water I had pumped distributed and got high praise from those I served with the fresh water. It was a great feeling.
But then I finished. The water was all distributed and the pump was idle. I had to start over.
So I began pumping again. This time I found I was better at pumping, but it still took awhile before the water began flowing again. And because I was too busy taking care of the immediate needs from last time, I hadn't refilled my reservoir.
This continued through my second year in business. The cycle repeated itself: Pumping vigorously to get a good flow, filling my water capacity, leaving the pump to carry the water, then starting over at the pump. Each time I got better and the dry spells became shorter, but I realized this was a problem.
So here I am today with the dilemma probably most entrepreneurs face at some point. How can I keep the pump going and still get the water carried? The obvious answer is, I need help. I either need someone who's good at pumping to man the pump while I carry the water. Or I need someone who's a good reliable water carrier to carry the water while I keep the pump flowing.
The question is Who? How? When? What? Most importantly, Whether?
Got work to do. The water's overflowing.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
See My Head Spinning
What a week.
I get a "free" week, with plans only to wrap up some administrative stuff, clean up the office, follow up on some marketing leads, that sort of stuff. I thought it would be a fairly easy and relaxed week.
No way.
My head is spinning from all that's happened in two days. All of a sudden I seem to have no less than three suitors; solid companies that are interested in either hiring me full-time or locking me into a big contract. How did that happen?
Not to mention I had my first meeting with a new prospective customer, who then said, "Let's go!". Wow, what if I could get one or two of those a week, I couldn't stand it.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks.
Had to visit the dentist this week. People who think the American military is torturing terrorist prisoners don't know what they're talking about. For me, the dentist chair is torture defined. I absolutely cringe at the very thought of somebody sticking their fingers into my mouth.
Want to get Al Quaeda prisoners to spill their guts? Just form the US 54th Dentist Brigade and send them to Gitmo or wherever. One look at a geeky dentist wielding a drill and the prisoner's will happily give up Osama himself.
And I had to pay an exhorbitant price for the priviledge of 2 hours of torture. It doesn't seem right.
Want to make me gag? Just douse yourself with perfume or cologne or hair spray in my presence, or stick a bite mold in my mouth. At least I didn't throw up all over the Dentist when he stuck that thing in yesterday.
Monday I went to the dentist and survived. Now I feel I can face anything. At least for this week.
I get a "free" week, with plans only to wrap up some administrative stuff, clean up the office, follow up on some marketing leads, that sort of stuff. I thought it would be a fairly easy and relaxed week.
No way.
My head is spinning from all that's happened in two days. All of a sudden I seem to have no less than three suitors; solid companies that are interested in either hiring me full-time or locking me into a big contract. How did that happen?
Not to mention I had my first meeting with a new prospective customer, who then said, "Let's go!". Wow, what if I could get one or two of those a week, I couldn't stand it.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks.
Had to visit the dentist this week. People who think the American military is torturing terrorist prisoners don't know what they're talking about. For me, the dentist chair is torture defined. I absolutely cringe at the very thought of somebody sticking their fingers into my mouth.
Want to get Al Quaeda prisoners to spill their guts? Just form the US 54th Dentist Brigade and send them to Gitmo or wherever. One look at a geeky dentist wielding a drill and the prisoner's will happily give up Osama himself.
And I had to pay an exhorbitant price for the priviledge of 2 hours of torture. It doesn't seem right.
Want to make me gag? Just douse yourself with perfume or cologne or hair spray in my presence, or stick a bite mold in my mouth. At least I didn't throw up all over the Dentist when he stuck that thing in yesterday.
Monday I went to the dentist and survived. Now I feel I can face anything. At least for this week.
Monday, June 05, 2006
For My Own Good
It is time to avoid watching news programs on TV. They do nothing but raise my blood pressure. For example, my flight into O'Hare was delayed Friday night, so I took a break from reading and watched CNN in the terminal for awhile.
It was OK for awhile. This new guy, Glenn Beck, was on first. He was goofy, but sort of likeable in a way. But after his show was over, I found myself wondering what it was about. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't come up with the point after it ended.
But then the guy shows up, I think John Roberts. Apparently he didn't get the anchor job back at, where was it, NBC? So here he's doing a "news" program on CNN. And it is a one-hour advertisement that could have (and maybe was?) produced by the Democrat National Committee. An unbelievable hour of propaganda, complete with one-sided reporting and the presentation of opinions as facts.
I have been sort of avoiding the mainline networks as far as new programming lately, because of their obvious bias. But this was outrageous. At first, I was thinking, "How stupid do they think we are?". But by the end I was thinking, "Maybe most of us really are as stupid as they think."
I haven't figured out whether to be angry or frightened. But if the polls and pundits are right, we won't have much longer to wait to see what happens when the Democrats take charge of the war on terror. That's what frightens me.
Then there's this thing that looks like a public service commercial. It's about HPV. I've been aware that HPV is probably the largest epidemic viral disease we've got these days, so at first I thought it was about time for public service messages.
But then the shocker. The commercial, or psa, or whatever it was, never mentioned what HPV is. Not one word. Nothing telling us that it's an STD. It was even misleading, in that it seemed to suggest it was a relatively benign virus like the common cold. Oh, but it can lead to cervical cancer in women, so women should get their pap tests regularly. No biggie.
What is wrong with this picture?! Like AIDS, HPV is a disease nobody needs to get! Simple monogamy is the best and guaranteed way that nobody will get HPV. What the heck is wrong with saying that?! Why suddenly decide that something needs to be done about the biggest epidemic in our society, then mislead everyone about what the disease is and how it is transmitted?
Unbelievable.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff, in addition to tuning out the news media. It's bad for my health.
It was OK for awhile. This new guy, Glenn Beck, was on first. He was goofy, but sort of likeable in a way. But after his show was over, I found myself wondering what it was about. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't come up with the point after it ended.
But then the guy shows up, I think John Roberts. Apparently he didn't get the anchor job back at, where was it, NBC? So here he's doing a "news" program on CNN. And it is a one-hour advertisement that could have (and maybe was?) produced by the Democrat National Committee. An unbelievable hour of propaganda, complete with one-sided reporting and the presentation of opinions as facts.
I have been sort of avoiding the mainline networks as far as new programming lately, because of their obvious bias. But this was outrageous. At first, I was thinking, "How stupid do they think we are?". But by the end I was thinking, "Maybe most of us really are as stupid as they think."
I haven't figured out whether to be angry or frightened. But if the polls and pundits are right, we won't have much longer to wait to see what happens when the Democrats take charge of the war on terror. That's what frightens me.
Then there's this thing that looks like a public service commercial. It's about HPV. I've been aware that HPV is probably the largest epidemic viral disease we've got these days, so at first I thought it was about time for public service messages.
But then the shocker. The commercial, or psa, or whatever it was, never mentioned what HPV is. Not one word. Nothing telling us that it's an STD. It was even misleading, in that it seemed to suggest it was a relatively benign virus like the common cold. Oh, but it can lead to cervical cancer in women, so women should get their pap tests regularly. No biggie.
What is wrong with this picture?! Like AIDS, HPV is a disease nobody needs to get! Simple monogamy is the best and guaranteed way that nobody will get HPV. What the heck is wrong with saying that?! Why suddenly decide that something needs to be done about the biggest epidemic in our society, then mislead everyone about what the disease is and how it is transmitted?
Unbelievable.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff, in addition to tuning out the news media. It's bad for my health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)