Time to go back on the road for almost two weeks solid. I hoped to be completely recovered, but not quite. I'm better, but not all the way back yet. Doesn't matter, I have to get on the airplane today. I'll be home for one overnight this Sunday, then have to go right back out again.
Since I had a CASA hearing yesterday afternoon, I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went home and took a nap. Although it just put me even further behind, I enjoyed it immensely.
Here goes ...
Welcome. This blog is dedicated to a search for the truth. Truth in all aspects of life can often be elusive, due to efforts by all of us to shade facts to arrive at our predisposed version of truth. My blogs sometimes try to identify truth from fiction and sometimes are just for fun or to blow off steam. Comments are welcome.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Logic Pretzels
The change in the public political debates since last year's election put Democrats in power is becoming rather fascinating. Sure, the Iraq fight (not the one actually happening in Iraq, but the one in Washington) still gets lots of play. But I'm noticing that there are lots of new left-wing ideas beginning to pop up, because of course, domestic socialism is what that party's really about.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Could be Worse. But Not Much.
This week has been about the worst on record.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I'd be a Pacers Fan, if only
I want to follow the Pacers. It would be fun to have a pro basketball team in Indy that was as much fun to watch as the Colts.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
Friday, February 16, 2007
I'm Angry
I'm angry with Congress. Especially Democrats, but also Republicans who screwed up their chance to do something positive.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
On Retirement
My half-century milestone is visible ahead, which has me contemplating the idea of retirement.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Personality Trait
I've become more convinced than ever that political orientation is a personality trait.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Sky is Blue
The simple analogy for my experience these crazy days is a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Troubling Times
Simple logic. Critical Thinking. Informed Opinion.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Risky Travel
Tuesday afternoon was planned for the drive to Chicago. Going into the office first thing in the morning with my bag already packed and in Jed's back seat (Jed = my '99 Mercury Mountaineer), I heard weather forecasts on the radio predicting somewhere between 3 and 6 inches of snow later in the day.
But I had lots to accomplish in the office before hitting the road, so I got to work. By around 11AM, Claudia called to tell me it was snowing pretty heavily and she was hearing reports of people sliding off roads everywhere. Maybe I should postpone my trip for another day.
I responded that I had to go, because there were people coming to my training class up there from other parts of the country, and if I cancelled I'd be messing up their schedules and wasting their travel expenses. I decided to try getting as much of the most important work done in the office, then getting an earlier start on my drive north.
It was 2:00 when I finished the last of the most urgent tasks and began my trip. As I made my local stops at the ATM and gas station, I wondered whether it was a good idea to try driving all the way to Chicago in the storm.
Temperature was about 5 Farenheit, and so the snow had a sandy consistency, rattling the windshield as I drove. The roads were snow-covered and slippery, and I noted a couple of cars in the ditch as I slowly and carefully made my way to the interstate. Despite the heavy snow and poor road condition, I was able to drive through it all with about a quarter-mile of visibility, so I decided to try a few miles on the interstate and if it was too bad, I'd turn around.
The interstate wasn't too bad at first. The right lane was mostly open, and although it was snow-covered in places, I was able to move along at about 45MPH, so I decided to keep going.
But as I passed through Indianapolis, the road got worse. The extreme cold made the granular snow hit my warm windshield, melt briefly, then re-freeze against the windshield wipers until the wipers were completely encased in hard ice and useless.
I kept moving north of Indy, but gradually the average speed dropped to 30-35 as conditions worsened. I pulled off in the first roadside rest stop for a bathroom break, and cleaned off my windshield as best I could while knocking the ice off the wipers.
Then as I approached Lafayette, traffic came to a halt. Not being able to see ahead of the trucks I was parked behind, I found a report on the radio that there were a couple of jacknifed trucks in the Lafayette area that had stopped traffic. It was about an hour before the traffic moved beyond the jam, but even then I could not get up to speed on the icy highway.
I drove from Lafayette through the Region at about 30MPH, passing cars and trucks stuck in the median and the ditch on both sides of the road as I went. And getting rather stressed and tired. When I finally reached the Region, I considered pulling off the road for a break and some dinner, but decided that would just make the already long trip interminable. So I soldiered on.
Finally I made the turn on the 80-94 highway toward Chicago, and it looked pretty clear. I started to increase my speed, until an SUV ahead of me spun from left to right into the snow on the right shoulder. The road looked clear, but it was black ice. I tested my brakes and immediately felt Jed's back end begin to fishtail. So I backed down again to 30.
I finally reached my hotel after 8 hours after a trip that normally takes about 4 and a half. Exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep fairly quickly.
Should I have made the trip? Probably not. But I got there, taught my class, and drove home Thursday night in the normal 4 and a half hours.
But I had lots to accomplish in the office before hitting the road, so I got to work. By around 11AM, Claudia called to tell me it was snowing pretty heavily and she was hearing reports of people sliding off roads everywhere. Maybe I should postpone my trip for another day.
I responded that I had to go, because there were people coming to my training class up there from other parts of the country, and if I cancelled I'd be messing up their schedules and wasting their travel expenses. I decided to try getting as much of the most important work done in the office, then getting an earlier start on my drive north.
It was 2:00 when I finished the last of the most urgent tasks and began my trip. As I made my local stops at the ATM and gas station, I wondered whether it was a good idea to try driving all the way to Chicago in the storm.
Temperature was about 5 Farenheit, and so the snow had a sandy consistency, rattling the windshield as I drove. The roads were snow-covered and slippery, and I noted a couple of cars in the ditch as I slowly and carefully made my way to the interstate. Despite the heavy snow and poor road condition, I was able to drive through it all with about a quarter-mile of visibility, so I decided to try a few miles on the interstate and if it was too bad, I'd turn around.
The interstate wasn't too bad at first. The right lane was mostly open, and although it was snow-covered in places, I was able to move along at about 45MPH, so I decided to keep going.
But as I passed through Indianapolis, the road got worse. The extreme cold made the granular snow hit my warm windshield, melt briefly, then re-freeze against the windshield wipers until the wipers were completely encased in hard ice and useless.
I kept moving north of Indy, but gradually the average speed dropped to 30-35 as conditions worsened. I pulled off in the first roadside rest stop for a bathroom break, and cleaned off my windshield as best I could while knocking the ice off the wipers.
Then as I approached Lafayette, traffic came to a halt. Not being able to see ahead of the trucks I was parked behind, I found a report on the radio that there were a couple of jacknifed trucks in the Lafayette area that had stopped traffic. It was about an hour before the traffic moved beyond the jam, but even then I could not get up to speed on the icy highway.
I drove from Lafayette through the Region at about 30MPH, passing cars and trucks stuck in the median and the ditch on both sides of the road as I went. And getting rather stressed and tired. When I finally reached the Region, I considered pulling off the road for a break and some dinner, but decided that would just make the already long trip interminable. So I soldiered on.
Finally I made the turn on the 80-94 highway toward Chicago, and it looked pretty clear. I started to increase my speed, until an SUV ahead of me spun from left to right into the snow on the right shoulder. The road looked clear, but it was black ice. I tested my brakes and immediately felt Jed's back end begin to fishtail. So I backed down again to 30.
I finally reached my hotel after 8 hours after a trip that normally takes about 4 and a half. Exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep fairly quickly.
Should I have made the trip? Probably not. But I got there, taught my class, and drove home Thursday night in the normal 4 and a half hours.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Good Can Win
Having followed the Colts a little since they won the Super Bowl back in Baltimore when I was a kid, then much more closely when they relocated to Indy, I was of course very happy to see them win the Super Bowl finally this year.
But for me, it's more important that this victory showed that people of character and morals and ethics can win. It's true that any organization reflects its leader, and the Colts are no different. Their leader, Tony Dungy, is a soft-spoken man of integrity, sincerity, and strong faith. You don't catch him using profanity or yelling in the face of officials or players.
Tony's stated priorities are always faith, family, and football, in that order. I saw the televised celebration at the RCA dome from last night, where the stadium was jammed with people showing their appreciation for their championship team. Tony spoke to the crowd breifly, and told everyone that he was proud of his team, not as much for winning the Super Bowl, but for being great men of integrity. He assured everyone that we would be proud to have any one of those guys on the team as a son.
Sure, one could be cynical and suggest that multi-millionaire professional athletes can afford to portray whatever image they like to the public. But I think this group is unique. I know that the stars on this team do great things for charities of all sorts. Unlike our neighbors to the east in Cincinnati, we don't hear much about Colts players being arrested for drugs or assault or domestic issues.
Even the fans seem to have taken a page from Tony Dungy's playbook. The fan celebration in the city after the Super Bowl victory was exuberant but law-abiding. Unlike the stories you hear from many cities after big sports wins, Indianapolis did not experience vandalism or outrageous disorderly conduct on the streets after the Super Bowl.
I hope the message goes far and wide and is embraced by people everywhere.
Good Can Win.
But for me, it's more important that this victory showed that people of character and morals and ethics can win. It's true that any organization reflects its leader, and the Colts are no different. Their leader, Tony Dungy, is a soft-spoken man of integrity, sincerity, and strong faith. You don't catch him using profanity or yelling in the face of officials or players.
Tony's stated priorities are always faith, family, and football, in that order. I saw the televised celebration at the RCA dome from last night, where the stadium was jammed with people showing their appreciation for their championship team. Tony spoke to the crowd breifly, and told everyone that he was proud of his team, not as much for winning the Super Bowl, but for being great men of integrity. He assured everyone that we would be proud to have any one of those guys on the team as a son.
Sure, one could be cynical and suggest that multi-millionaire professional athletes can afford to portray whatever image they like to the public. But I think this group is unique. I know that the stars on this team do great things for charities of all sorts. Unlike our neighbors to the east in Cincinnati, we don't hear much about Colts players being arrested for drugs or assault or domestic issues.
Even the fans seem to have taken a page from Tony Dungy's playbook. The fan celebration in the city after the Super Bowl victory was exuberant but law-abiding. Unlike the stories you hear from many cities after big sports wins, Indianapolis did not experience vandalism or outrageous disorderly conduct on the streets after the Super Bowl.
I hope the message goes far and wide and is embraced by people everywhere.
Good Can Win.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Double Super
Whatever happens, this would have to be the best Super Bowl ever, if you're a Hoosier and fan of both the Colts and the Bears. The Colts are favored, and I'm personally hoping they win, but that hardly means that will happen. If the Bears were playing against any other team, I'd be solidly behind them.
The guys on the sports shows overanalyze the game. By now everybody knows that the Bears hope to win through their defense and rely on their running game over a small Colt defense. The Colts hope to get a lead early and force the Bears into a passing game, where their defense is best at pressuring the QB and forcing turnovers.
That all may be true from a strategy standpoint, but I think the winner will be determined on a much simpler level. The winner will be determined by which individuals on either side are able to play their best despite all the hype and pressure.
Somebody's going to get so emotionally pumped up before the game that he presses and tries to play above his abilities. When that happens, instead of playing the inspired football he wanted, the player can't seem to do anything right. Before he has the chance to settle down and rediscover his normal game, it's too late.
Somebody's going to have partied so hard all week that he arrives at the game dazed and sluggish.
A quarterback is going to overthrow his receivers because of the adrenaline. One or more receivers will drop easy passes because they're scoring a touchdown in their mind before the ball got to their hands. A running back will fumble the ball trying to make an extra effort to get one or two more yards. A defensive end will run past the quarterback while trying to get a sack, leaving his side wide open to the draw play. Linebackers will run fast to the ball carrier and overrun the play, leaving a wide open cutback lane. A kicker will miss a critical field goal after thinking about how everything in the Super Bowl hangs on that one kick.
These things are very likely to happen. The question is, which team will suffer more than the other? This is what will determine the outcome, more than strategy, more than talent, more than preparation.
Sunday's going to be a lot of fun.
The guys on the sports shows overanalyze the game. By now everybody knows that the Bears hope to win through their defense and rely on their running game over a small Colt defense. The Colts hope to get a lead early and force the Bears into a passing game, where their defense is best at pressuring the QB and forcing turnovers.
That all may be true from a strategy standpoint, but I think the winner will be determined on a much simpler level. The winner will be determined by which individuals on either side are able to play their best despite all the hype and pressure.
Somebody's going to get so emotionally pumped up before the game that he presses and tries to play above his abilities. When that happens, instead of playing the inspired football he wanted, the player can't seem to do anything right. Before he has the chance to settle down and rediscover his normal game, it's too late.
Somebody's going to have partied so hard all week that he arrives at the game dazed and sluggish.
A quarterback is going to overthrow his receivers because of the adrenaline. One or more receivers will drop easy passes because they're scoring a touchdown in their mind before the ball got to their hands. A running back will fumble the ball trying to make an extra effort to get one or two more yards. A defensive end will run past the quarterback while trying to get a sack, leaving his side wide open to the draw play. Linebackers will run fast to the ball carrier and overrun the play, leaving a wide open cutback lane. A kicker will miss a critical field goal after thinking about how everything in the Super Bowl hangs on that one kick.
These things are very likely to happen. The question is, which team will suffer more than the other? This is what will determine the outcome, more than strategy, more than talent, more than preparation.
Sunday's going to be a lot of fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)