When I arrived at my destination this week, the Avis agent had a paniced expression when I approached the counter. She informed me that they'd run out of cars. If I would be a bit patient and wait an hour or so, more cars were on their way from another city.
Fortunately I didn't have to be anywhere immediately, and actually wasn't too upset about having to wait in the airport for a car. Now that airports have finally put in free wi-fi, I was able to find a seat and fire up the laptop to get some work done while I waited.
The bonus for being the inconvenienced high-volume "Preferred" customer was getting an unusual vehicle - a new red Camaro.
OK, I must admit to those who are true car aficionados that the significance of lucking into a new Camaro might be a bit wasted on me. Certainly I thought it was a sporty-looking car and noticed it has a bit more power than the run of the mill Avis rental. But in general, as long as it gets me from point A to point B in reasonable comfort, I don't care too much what sort of car I am given.
But the significance of driving around in this car has become clear over the past few days. People at my client were buzzing about the red Camaro in the parking lot. When the folks I'm working with there figured out it was mine, I found myself needing to explain that, no, it's not my car, and no, they're not getting charged for a premium rental vehicle when I send my expense bill.
When I go to lunch, the server can't resist asking me about the car. When I walk to the parking lot in the client lot, the hotel lot, a restaurant lot, etc., I sometimes find some folks lingering by the Camaro, looking it over. I even got a bold question from somebody who just wanted to know what I paid for the car (I had to disappoint her with the fact it isn't mine).
So I don't think I would seek to own a Camaro, which has a pretty significant blind spot that makes me nervous whenever I get on the interstate. But all the attention it draws is certainly turning into an interesting experience, as I have the car for another week.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Did I Miss Something?
On the road this week I was doing a bit of channel surfing in the hotel room. At home with the satellite television service I generally just scan the channel guide and pick something, but in the hotel there is no channel guide. So I found myself flipping from channel to channel in search of something distracting.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Whether I've missed it, my perceptions are different, or I'm just getting older, I was actually shocked at the state of television in general. See, I mostly watch sports, news, a lot of History Channel, and a few selected ongoing television shows. I don't ever stop on channels like MTV or VH1, and generally only catch movie channels like HBO when I'm in hotels - and then only if they're playing a movie that interests me.
But my surfing resulted in this discovery about those channels that admittedly shocked me. Many channels have "Reality" programming that seemingly sets up ordinary people in situations that provide a sort of voyeuristic interest for viewers. My first shock is at the astounding ignorance, narcissism, amorality, and general lack of any identifiable standards exhibited by the people in those programs. I'm not sure whether that's the point of the programs themselves, or if these people exemplify the typical 21st century American. I sincerely hope it's not the latter.
But it's not just the "Reality" genre that I found shocking. Spending a few minutes on current versions of what I'd generally consider Situation Comedies, I discovered that fictional situations presented on those programs portray even more shallow, ignorant, narcissistic, and amoral protagonists. As far as I can tell, these programs have no point other than trying to figure out new and (they think) funny ways to get the characters "hooked up".
Fortunately I'd discovered the King of the Narcissists, Bill Maher, on HBO some time ago and learned to avoid his inane program. Just the idea that he gets enough viewers to keep his insulting political show on the air for more than a month is enough to lose respect for the American public.
It occurred to me that Maher's program is the very political show that would draw the same people who find the "Reality" show characters and shallow actors in the other programs relevant.
Everything's beginning to make sense, but in a demoralizing way that tells me the ills of our country are absolutely traceable to the behavior, attitudes, and ignorance of the bulk of the population.
If TV truly reflects the mainstream of America, then it's already too late to save her.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Somebody Please Explain
This entry is my personal appeal to a big-L Liberal to please explain your thought process. Once upon a time I felt like I was a pretty (small-l) liberal-minded person. I thought I was compassionate and tolerant and so forth. Actually, I still believe that, although I've learned to define and differentiate between compassion and practicality, and between tolerance and permissiveness.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
So in the off chance you are a (big-L) Liberal and happen to be reading this blog, please explain some things to me.
1. If you're poor or concerned about the poor, what outcome do you prefer for helping them out of poverty? Helping them find a decent job, or confiscating money from me to give them? Since the policies of your leaders seem to favor the latter, please explain why this is a reasonable or desirable outcome, and how you expect it to solve the problem of poverty?
2. I know you believe mankind is the cause of global warming, so rather than argue that point, let me ask the questions about what you seem to believe is the best solution to the problem. Your leaders say that burning fossil fuels is the main contributor to the environmental problems related to global warming, so those fuels need to be replaced by clean, renewable sources of energy. But the only truly clean and renewable sources of energy are wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Maybe hydrogen will become a viable option someday, but so far nobody's really solved that one to the point where we will see it in this generation.
But you've ruled out nuclear and hydro. Given this, my question: Do you really believe that we can furnish all the energy needs of the nation with only windmills and solar panels? Please explain how that's going to happen.
Your leaders are working to pass a bill called "Cap and Trade", which is designed to add huge costs to energy producers and users who exceed a defined level of CO2 emissions. The idea is that driving costs up will force them to seek cleaner alternatives, because the punitive taxes imposed will make the cost of alternative energy more attractive.
My question is, does the idea that this bill is also designed to enrich and empower a cabal of government bureaucrats and well-connected individuals (like Al Gore) at the expense of every person in the country give you pause?
3. Your leaders believe that if we are more friendly, less threatening, and willing to negotiate with our enemies that we'll be safer in the long run. Here my question is simple.
How exactly does it make us safer to pretend there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism?
If Bush was evil for pursuing and killing terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, then why is it fine with you that Obama so far continues both campaigns?
I know we'll never agree on the definition of torture. But allow me to present a simple scenario for your consideration: Suppose a criminal gang has kidnapped your daughter, and one of the leaders of the gang has been captured. If you don't find your daughter very soon, she will certainly be killed, and most likely she's already being subjected to unspeakable abuse.
If you were permitted 20 minutes alone with the gang leader, what would you be willing to do to extract the information from him that will give you a chance to save her?
4. Your leaders have given no indication that massive national debt levels climbing toward 10 Trillion dollars give them little or no cause for concern. Do you have any conception of how much a trillion is? Have you calculated how much debt that is per citizen? How exactly do you think that debt can be paid? Do you think it's possible or fair to pay all of it through huge tax increases? How much tax, as a percentage of your own annual income, are you willing to pay to help fund the programs your leaders plan to create?
5. Are you indeed comfortable with giving a Federal bureaucracy of political appointees power to dictate what medical treatments you may receive? How much in increased taxes are you willing to pay to support a national health insurance program? How exactly do you think adding a layer of government bureaucracy without any attempt to address root causes of high healthcare costs is going to save money or improve quality, as promised by the president?
6. One more topic. Your leaders are moving rapidly to assume control over the private sector. Banking, Automotive, Energy and Healthcare industries are already substantially government owned and operated or the president is moving rapidly to acquire control.
If that is not de-facto socialist/communist, then how would you define them?
In what way do you believe government has either the right or the ability to run these industries?
The larger question that encompasses all of the above is this: How do you define freedom? Would you say that you're willing to give up your personal freedoms in exchange for a government that promises to meet your needs?
I look forward to answers to my questions. Although it's highly unlikely those answers will change my attitudes toward government in general or Liberal government in particular, I hope at least to understand.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Spin or Denial?
The only way to know for sure is to get into the minds of the Democrat power base.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Is it merely desperate spin or simple denial for Obama and his minions to dismiss the massive 9/12 march in Washington as of little consequence?
Do they actually believe it's some sort of white racist movement that's more about personal animus toward Obama than serious opposition to his socialist policy?
One piece of evidence that seems to support the denial theory is the fact that Obama seems to believe if he talks up his healthcare programs enough, getting on TV every single day to push the healthcare "reform" legislation and trash those who oppose it, somehow he can change people's minds.
There seems to be a mindset at work among the Left that no rational person will oppose their socialist healthcare agenda if they can just be made to understand that their motives are compassion for people who can't afford insurance. Obama can't imagine that anyone might oppose socialism because of its inevitable effect of draining a society of its wealth and benefiting nobody outside the government bureaucratic monster it creates and feeds.
The historic march on Washington this weekend wasn't about ignorant mobs of people who were ginned up by insurance companies with misinformation about the intent of Democrat "reforms". Instead, they see an accelerated effort to change America into something resembling socialist Europe. Where government intrudes into the daily lives of the people, dictating limits on what they can earn, taxing them into poverty, and taking away their freedom to choose what they do with their property, what sort of car they can drive, what doctor they can see and what treatments and prescription drugs they are permitted.
The president thinks those millions of people who oppose him just oppose him on his healthcare reform. But it's much more than that - they oppose the extreme and irresponsible spending that is creating a national debt that may never be repaid. They oppose policies designed to favor poor minorities other other poor folks. They oppose policies that favor illegal immigrants over citizens. They oppose policies that force businesses to accept union labor. The oppose policies that weaken our national security and seek to appease our enemies. They oppose government theft from the productive to line the pockets of bureaucrats, then distribute what's left to the non-productive.
President Obama thinks these Americans don't get it. These Americans wonder whether the president gets it.
I think he does, but believes his elevation to benevolent dictator is what's best for America. That the ends justify the means. Therefore, the answer leans heavily toward spin, although there's also a healthy dose of denial.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Best Review of Obama's Healthcare Speech
Saving time over writing something of my own, I found an article at Powerlineblog that pretty much sums it up.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
I don't think you'll find a better or more reasoned analysis.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Taking Virginia's Temperature
Apparently the leading candidate in Virginia's governor race is a conservative named Bob McDonnell. Polling has had him way ahead of his Democrat opponent, so the Washington Post jumped in to do their best to destroy him.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
So disregarding the more obvious problem of one of the most celebrated newspapers in America showing an unvarnished partisanship and abandoning even the appearance of balanced reporting, what is it exactly that they are finding so reprehensible about Bob?
He's a conservative and a Christian. At WaPo, that's pretty much like being Satan's right hand demon.
He actually wrote a graduate thesis 20 years ago suggesting extremist radical ideas, such as committed lifelong marriages between a man and a woman are best for society. (Gasp!)
That "fornicators" break down society mores, harm children, and therefore damage society. (Blasphemy!)
That men and women are best raising family in their natural roles. (Crucify Him!)
As if that wasn't enough to lock the crazy guy in prison for life, they found out he strongly supported the firing of a judge who happened to be incompetent and homosexual. Although WaPo conveniently left out the incompetent part and the part about her sexual harrassment (or was it assault?) of a female staffer as the objective reasons for her dismissal, apparently this story just proved for them that Bob McDonnell should be imprisoned for the sin of gross intolerance, not elected Governor.
The core question comes down to this: If WaPo's efforts pay off and help catapult Terry McAuliffe (an old Clinton crony) into office, the message to all of us about the sort of country America has become will be crystal clear.
And I for one will grieve for the America that was.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Heaven & Hell
I've noticed a lot of discussion floating around recently about Hell, basically arguing whether it's an actual place of torment for the damned or just a story made up to scare people who might be tempted to depart from the faith.
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Is Hell eternal torture for unrepentant sinners? Is it just a state of separation from God for those who choose rebellion, and the torture is emotional rather than physical because of that separation? Or is it nothing but a myth created by men?
Rather than get involved in a theological discussion on the nature of Hell, I thought instead I'd ruminate on some of my thoughts about Heaven.
I've heard comments before from folks that heaven must be a rather tedious and boring place, if all everyone does is sit around on clouds praising God and learning to play the harp. It's a rather funny image, but is the root of my own thoughts about heaven.
If heaven is a place where we can eternally experience peace and love and happiness, I naturally would relate that to human experience on earth. What are the greatest, most heavenly experiences we can have on earth?
Of course, most would list things like love and friendship, fun, great food, sex, beauty, wealth and achievement. I suppose those things are more important to us in our worldly experiences, but perhaps not so important in the afterlife.
But even though those experiences may seem to us to be the most heavenly, none of them are all that terrific without some struggle, pain or conflict.
Isn't friendship rather shallow without shared experiences? It seems to me that the best friends come from people who go through great challenges or difficulties together, which is what bonds their friendship for life.
Love is very much like friendship, but these days people seem to confuse it with sex. In addition to shared trials, isn't the most heavenly bond of love found by a young newlywed couple who both begin their first night together as virgins?
The best gourmet food is nothing compared to a simple meal of rice and beans for someone who is starving. The best wine can't hold a candle to a drink of water for someone who is extremely thirsty.
Achievement isn't fully appreciated unless it came at great cost. Think of a sports team that wins a championship; when their victory comes against all odds and with extraordinary sacrifice and practice and physical conditioning, it means much more than if it were achieved against inferior competition.
Wealth doesn't mean much without loved ones to share it with, which seems to be a truth discovered by many who sacrifice love and friendship to achieve it.
So the paradox of heaven for me is, how is it that heaven can be such a wonderful place if it removes the pain, suffering, and hard labor we must experience on earth in order to find our glimpses of heaven?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)