Why do I let it get to me? Whenever I go to Canada, my only source for news is CNN. Even knowing that CNN is the United States' modern equivalent to the Soviet Pravda, I watch anyway. Eventually after awhile I can't stand it anymore and turn it off or turn to something else.
This week I decided to try an experiment. On the news programs, whenever they did a segment on politics and the presidential race, I decided to try keeping track of some basic questions:
Did they spend more time on Democrats or Republicans?
Did they present any usable information about candidates' stands on issues?
Did they tend to be positive or negative in reporting about each candidate?
Here's what I gathered, between their morning program with John Roberts and Kieren Chetra (sp?) and Wolf Blitzer's program in the evening.
From a time perspective, they spend more time talking about Hillary and Barack than about McCain. My estimate on the ratio is about 4 to 1.
Issues? No. I learned nothing about any candidates' positions on issues. With the two Democrats all they talked about the fighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and fretted about how it was bad for the Democrat party. I laughed in one segment where they had all their "policital analysts" on, not one of them a conservative, and the "analysts" let slip more than once an "us" or "our" when referring to the Democrat party.
When they talk about the flaps over Barack's pastor or Hillary's big Bosnia lie, they are mostly focused on urging the campaigns and the rest of the media to shut up about both. They fret openly that the big fights on the Democrat side might open the door to a McCain victory, which they have made clear is their vision of Hell on Earth.
Interestingly, the only policy stuff I got to hear was a sound bite from McCain. He was talking about why he feels it is so important not to abandon Iraq at this critical time. I thought, "wait for it..." and they didn't disappoint. They brought in their "panel", the most vocal of whom was their own communist curmudgeon Cafferty, who pretty much just made fun of McCain's stance and denounced him as just another George W. Bush. With nobody even giving a thought to offering a counter argument to his rants.
Policy information about Obama and Clinton? None. Nada. Oh sure, platitudes like Obama's continued themes on "hope" and "change". And general vague statements about Hillary's wonderful plan to fix Healthcare. Nothing of substance.
No wonder Canadians have such a skewed view of the US. CNN being their only source for US news, they have no idea how badly CNN and their media cousins distort things, let alone that there are actually points of view on current events that strongly differ from those so carefully propagandized at CNN 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Nobody Left for Hoosiers
It was exciting to have four Indiana schools in the NCAA basketball men's tournament. Unfortunately with the end of Easter weekend, none of the four have made it through to the Sweet 16.
Least surprising to me was Indiana University. The wheels came off that team when the Sampson scandal broke, and the team that played Arkansas this weekend barely resembled the team we saw pre-scandal. That team would have beaten Arkansas soundly, although they would have needed an inspired game to advance past North Carolina.
But the Indiana team that took the court against Arkansas probably didn't even deserve an entry into the tournament. They flatly aren't very good. They lost their energy and aggressiveness, which shows up on both defense and offense. Defensively they were disappointingly easy for Arkansas to break down for wide open baskets. Offensively most of the team stood around and waited for DJ White or Eric Gordon to make a play. DJ made his share, but Gordon has looked shellshocked over the last half-dozen games.
Purdue had a very nice outing for their first game, but their talented freshmen couldn't catch up with a very good Xavier team. The future is bright for Purdue, which I expect to contend for the Big Ten title next season and probably go farther in the tournament.
Notre Dame had a disappointing collapse, dropping their second-round game to Washington State by 20 points. It's hard to say what happened to the Irish, which I believed to be a better team than they showed in that game. Nerves, perhaps?
Finally, the team with the best chance of the four to make it through to next weekend was Butler. Butler's effort against Tennessee cannot be faulted, but I was surprised at the number of missed layups by Butler in the second half. Sometimes it's possible to give too much effort, which results in things like missed layups.
It was still a great and exciting game to watch, with Tennessee matching Butler's intensity. So close, but Butler just caught some bad breaks, missed some layups, and had a critical non-call on what looked like a goaltend late in the overtime period.
So I've got no teams left in the tournament to follow. Although I've considered a temporary adoption of Davidson. There's an underdog team that's been fun to watch.
The sports desert of spring and summer is otherwise here. I lost interest in baseball after their last strike, and no other summer sports appeal. So there's not much for me to follow in sports until football starts again at summer's end.
Least surprising to me was Indiana University. The wheels came off that team when the Sampson scandal broke, and the team that played Arkansas this weekend barely resembled the team we saw pre-scandal. That team would have beaten Arkansas soundly, although they would have needed an inspired game to advance past North Carolina.
But the Indiana team that took the court against Arkansas probably didn't even deserve an entry into the tournament. They flatly aren't very good. They lost their energy and aggressiveness, which shows up on both defense and offense. Defensively they were disappointingly easy for Arkansas to break down for wide open baskets. Offensively most of the team stood around and waited for DJ White or Eric Gordon to make a play. DJ made his share, but Gordon has looked shellshocked over the last half-dozen games.
Purdue had a very nice outing for their first game, but their talented freshmen couldn't catch up with a very good Xavier team. The future is bright for Purdue, which I expect to contend for the Big Ten title next season and probably go farther in the tournament.
Notre Dame had a disappointing collapse, dropping their second-round game to Washington State by 20 points. It's hard to say what happened to the Irish, which I believed to be a better team than they showed in that game. Nerves, perhaps?
Finally, the team with the best chance of the four to make it through to next weekend was Butler. Butler's effort against Tennessee cannot be faulted, but I was surprised at the number of missed layups by Butler in the second half. Sometimes it's possible to give too much effort, which results in things like missed layups.
It was still a great and exciting game to watch, with Tennessee matching Butler's intensity. So close, but Butler just caught some bad breaks, missed some layups, and had a critical non-call on what looked like a goaltend late in the overtime period.
So I've got no teams left in the tournament to follow. Although I've considered a temporary adoption of Davidson. There's an underdog team that's been fun to watch.
The sports desert of spring and summer is otherwise here. I lost interest in baseball after their last strike, and no other summer sports appeal. So there's not much for me to follow in sports until football starts again at summer's end.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
More on Root Causes
I've been on this theme lately of boiling problems down to their root causes. The mental exercise keeps expanding until I get to the root of all root causes. And the most obvious root causes for most of our modern problems can be found in our culture.
So much is evident from just simply reading the newspaper or watching television. Our society is now driven on a cultural phenomenon of narcissism.
Just a few examples.
The typical Obama supporter is drawn to the man's charisma. Some support him because of his race. But most support him because they think they'll get something for themselves out of his presidency. They hope it will be "free" healthcare, or higher wages, or debt forgiveness, or just simply the prospect he will slap rich people with high taxes to cut them down to size, then somehow give the money to those more deserving. Like the Obama supporters.
I read an article the other day about religion. It said most Americans still believe generally in the Judeo-Christian God, and consider themselves Christian. But an incredibly high percentage of Americans don't belong to a church. Many others have "shopped" churches until they find the one most palatable to their needs and desires. It seems to begin to explain the rise of the non-denominational megachurches, which don't adhere to any specific doctrine, but preach feel-good sermons about self-actualization.
Christians often call this massive and growing group "Cafeteria Christians". They like to choose just those elements of faith that make them feel good. Love and fellowship and forgiveness are embraced, but put aside uncomfortable things like sin and charity.
Then there's the occasional interview with some celebrity or another talking about their latest divorce. It fascinates me to hear them speak of ending a marriage as if they merely replaced an old pair of shoes.
A very apt observation I was given is that people used to pursue a profession to make a living. Now they pursue their professions to get rich.
It is an historical truth that when societies reach a high level of prosperity and peace, they tend to abandon the virtues that bought them that prosperity. Eventually the barbarians invade and the society is ruined.
It seems to me the question is not whether this will happen. In fact, the barbarians are already knocking at the gates. I find it fascinating that so many are either ignoring that fact or even campaigning to open the gates wide and let them all in. They actually desire the destruction of our country, but somehow think they can escape such destruction unscathed.
There are tough times ahead.
So much is evident from just simply reading the newspaper or watching television. Our society is now driven on a cultural phenomenon of narcissism.
Just a few examples.
The typical Obama supporter is drawn to the man's charisma. Some support him because of his race. But most support him because they think they'll get something for themselves out of his presidency. They hope it will be "free" healthcare, or higher wages, or debt forgiveness, or just simply the prospect he will slap rich people with high taxes to cut them down to size, then somehow give the money to those more deserving. Like the Obama supporters.
I read an article the other day about religion. It said most Americans still believe generally in the Judeo-Christian God, and consider themselves Christian. But an incredibly high percentage of Americans don't belong to a church. Many others have "shopped" churches until they find the one most palatable to their needs and desires. It seems to begin to explain the rise of the non-denominational megachurches, which don't adhere to any specific doctrine, but preach feel-good sermons about self-actualization.
Christians often call this massive and growing group "Cafeteria Christians". They like to choose just those elements of faith that make them feel good. Love and fellowship and forgiveness are embraced, but put aside uncomfortable things like sin and charity.
Then there's the occasional interview with some celebrity or another talking about their latest divorce. It fascinates me to hear them speak of ending a marriage as if they merely replaced an old pair of shoes.
A very apt observation I was given is that people used to pursue a profession to make a living. Now they pursue their professions to get rich.
It is an historical truth that when societies reach a high level of prosperity and peace, they tend to abandon the virtues that bought them that prosperity. Eventually the barbarians invade and the society is ruined.
It seems to me the question is not whether this will happen. In fact, the barbarians are already knocking at the gates. I find it fascinating that so many are either ignoring that fact or even campaigning to open the gates wide and let them all in. They actually desire the destruction of our country, but somehow think they can escape such destruction unscathed.
There are tough times ahead.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Economic Cycles
There is a natural cycle that trends up and down in the economy, which I've observed several times over my lifetime. Now that it's the political season, we hear lots of doom and gloom over the current slump.
The news media, shallow partisans as they happen to be these days, would have us believe the economic problems should all be hung on their public enemy #1, George Bush. But as we analyze some of the root cause problems, how many of them are Bush's fault?
Energy Prices. Why is oil over $100 a barrel and gas over $3 at the pump? Because of the Iraq war?
Partly, but it's a much deeper problem than that. I caught a report yesterday that basically said there isn't a supply and demand problem, but a problem with the US Dollar. So if you want to blame Iraq as a contributory factor to the out-of-control spending of our government that has weakened the dollar significantly, you would be partly right. But to do so would fairly need to include the Senate and House, where both Republicans and Democrats have spent wildly and irresponsibly over the past decade and contributed to the currency problem.
Credit Crisis. Why the big crisis that started with mortgage defaults and is apparently now extending into consumer credit? Is Bush responsible?
If you consider Bush's clearly stated goals of opening home ownership to the population as the reason, that might be partly correct. But did he force lenders to open up the subprime market as they did, leading to mortgages granted to a huge population that truly could not qualify? Who is really culpable in the mess, where unqualified borrowers were given adjustable and teaser rate mortgages that would increase beyond their ability to pay in two or three years?
Sure, the lenders are culpable. So are the borrowers, who should have known better. And even the government, which put pressure on lenders to make loans to high-risk borrowers because of their race.
Consumer Confidence. Who created the fear among consumers that has caused most of them to reduce spending? High energy prices contributed. But the biggest contributor was the media, so anxious to report hour-by-hour for the last two years that the economy's headed for the tank. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? This is a terrific example.
You may recall there was a short recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, although it received almost no press coverage until after Bush was inaugurated. Then, of course, they immediately began hammering Bush as if he caused the recession instead of inherited it.
Then you also might recall that Bush got his tax cuts through congress and the economy improved dramatically. That also was barely reported. Just in time for 9-11. The economic slump that resulted from that event was very predictable, but again, we recovered in remarkable fashion.
Can the next president impact the length and depth of this recession?
I think only on the margins. If the president can get congress to spend less and tax less, that should improve the value of the dollar. Also, if the president can inspire confidence among the population to go out and start buying things again, that will help as well. But that's about it.
The news media, shallow partisans as they happen to be these days, would have us believe the economic problems should all be hung on their public enemy #1, George Bush. But as we analyze some of the root cause problems, how many of them are Bush's fault?
Energy Prices. Why is oil over $100 a barrel and gas over $3 at the pump? Because of the Iraq war?
Partly, but it's a much deeper problem than that. I caught a report yesterday that basically said there isn't a supply and demand problem, but a problem with the US Dollar. So if you want to blame Iraq as a contributory factor to the out-of-control spending of our government that has weakened the dollar significantly, you would be partly right. But to do so would fairly need to include the Senate and House, where both Republicans and Democrats have spent wildly and irresponsibly over the past decade and contributed to the currency problem.
Credit Crisis. Why the big crisis that started with mortgage defaults and is apparently now extending into consumer credit? Is Bush responsible?
If you consider Bush's clearly stated goals of opening home ownership to the population as the reason, that might be partly correct. But did he force lenders to open up the subprime market as they did, leading to mortgages granted to a huge population that truly could not qualify? Who is really culpable in the mess, where unqualified borrowers were given adjustable and teaser rate mortgages that would increase beyond their ability to pay in two or three years?
Sure, the lenders are culpable. So are the borrowers, who should have known better. And even the government, which put pressure on lenders to make loans to high-risk borrowers because of their race.
Consumer Confidence. Who created the fear among consumers that has caused most of them to reduce spending? High energy prices contributed. But the biggest contributor was the media, so anxious to report hour-by-hour for the last two years that the economy's headed for the tank. Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? This is a terrific example.
You may recall there was a short recession at the end of the Clinton presidency, although it received almost no press coverage until after Bush was inaugurated. Then, of course, they immediately began hammering Bush as if he caused the recession instead of inherited it.
Then you also might recall that Bush got his tax cuts through congress and the economy improved dramatically. That also was barely reported. Just in time for 9-11. The economic slump that resulted from that event was very predictable, but again, we recovered in remarkable fashion.
Can the next president impact the length and depth of this recession?
I think only on the margins. If the president can get congress to spend less and tax less, that should improve the value of the dollar. Also, if the president can inspire confidence among the population to go out and start buying things again, that will help as well. But that's about it.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Discrimination
A topic came up this week discussing discrimination. The discussion was centered around the typical message which says it's bad to discriminate against people based on their appearance.
I wanted to ask my questions about that to the speaker, but of course didn't want to cause trouble and stayed silent. But I can ask my questions here.
In the context of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of appearance, it's fairly easy to agree that people should not be excluded from a job, housing, a loan, or a school based on their race. Sure, if you have good credit you should get the loan or mortgage or be able to rent the apartment regardless of how you look. If you are the most qualified for the job among the applicants, you should get the job.
Here's where I have an issue. Discrimination happens every day and for a multitude of reasons. Who hasn't been in the market for a new job and found out they can't get many jobs for which they are highly qualified because the company decides to hire a friend or relative of a manager or executive?
When I was in college during the tight job market and awful Jimmy Carter economy, I had a couple of friends who lost great jobs simply because the company was under pressure to comply with affirmative action. Later, a terribly unqualified person was hired in the computer lab in which I worked because she threatened to bring a discrimination suit against the college for having no black employees in that department.
If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I would tend to discriminate against these types of people:
obese?
a smoker?
a harelip or cleft palate?
bad acne?
bad breath?
discolored, broken, or missing teeth?
a deformity or birthmark?
poor personal hygiene?
a 70's style wardrobe?
What if the person is -
a fundamentalist evangelical Christian?
a Muslim?
a Mormon?
a Catholic?
a Buddist?
an Atheist?
a variant of Paganism, like Wicca?
Back to the basics, is it OK to discriminate based on race if
Is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals if it's combined with other factors like inappropriate dress and behavior?
What's the point I'm trying to make?
Discrimination happens every day. Many times we can all agree that the discrimination in company hiring is unfair.
The problem is that when the government is asked to step in and force it to be fair, it can never work. Because the government then gets into the business of choosing winners and losers.
I wanted to ask my questions about that to the speaker, but of course didn't want to cause trouble and stayed silent. But I can ask my questions here.
In the context of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of appearance, it's fairly easy to agree that people should not be excluded from a job, housing, a loan, or a school based on their race. Sure, if you have good credit you should get the loan or mortgage or be able to rent the apartment regardless of how you look. If you are the most qualified for the job among the applicants, you should get the job.
Here's where I have an issue. Discrimination happens every day and for a multitude of reasons. Who hasn't been in the market for a new job and found out they can't get many jobs for which they are highly qualified because the company decides to hire a friend or relative of a manager or executive?
When I was in college during the tight job market and awful Jimmy Carter economy, I had a couple of friends who lost great jobs simply because the company was under pressure to comply with affirmative action. Later, a terribly unqualified person was hired in the computer lab in which I worked because she threatened to bring a discrimination suit against the college for having no black employees in that department.
If I am interviewing applicants for a job, I would tend to discriminate against these types of people:
- Women that wear too much perfume or men too much cologne (I'm allergic)
- Anyone who does not wear clean and professional clothing to the interview
- Anyone who cannot speak clearly using proper English grammar
- Anyone who is militantly __________(fill in the blank)
- Those with personalities I don't like (extreme arrogance, fail to make eye contact, foul-mouthed, etc.)
obese?
a smoker?
a harelip or cleft palate?
bad acne?
bad breath?
discolored, broken, or missing teeth?
a deformity or birthmark?
poor personal hygiene?
a 70's style wardrobe?
What if the person is -
a fundamentalist evangelical Christian?
a Muslim?
a Mormon?
a Catholic?
a Buddist?
an Atheist?
a variant of Paganism, like Wicca?
Back to the basics, is it OK to discriminate based on race if
- it's combined with other factors like appropriate dress and speech?
- the intent is to give underprivileged minorities an opportunity?
- the company is owned by a racial minority who wants to hire just members of his own race?
- the company is owned by an immigrant who hires only other immigrants from his country of origin?
Is it OK to discriminate against homosexuals if it's combined with other factors like inappropriate dress and behavior?
What's the point I'm trying to make?
Discrimination happens every day. Many times we can all agree that the discrimination in company hiring is unfair.
The problem is that when the government is asked to step in and force it to be fair, it can never work. Because the government then gets into the business of choosing winners and losers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)