How many people have a To Do List of things they want to do before they die?
I'll share mine here if you promise not to make fun of me. These are the things I'd like to cross of my list before I'm dead.
1. Trim down and get into shape. Sounds easy, right? For some reason it's the hardest thing in the world for me right now.
2. Play in a basketball league. And play well. (requires prerequisite #1 above)
3. Sing for more weddings. I love to sing at weddings.
4. Sing a duet onstage with Celine Dion. And do better than hold my own next to her.
5. Cut my own CD Album. And have lots of people play it and like it. And not care if it ever earned a dime.
6. Dance like I once did. Un-self-consciously. (also requires prerequisite #1 above)
7. Build my dream rec room. With all the great stuff that it should have.
8. Get out of bed every morning with a "can't wait for today" attitude.
9. Take the Alaskan Cruise.
10. Tour the Holy Land.
11. Other trips (not necessarily all of them): British Isles, Germany/Austria, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Australia/New Zealand.
12. Be at weddings for all 3 boys. Be a best friend to them and their wives. Have a great relationship with my grandchildren. (I'm somewhat sad that I'll never get to walk a daughter down the aisle.)
13. Buy a new car just because I like it, even if it's completely impractical.
14. Have Colts Season Tickets with great seats and somebody to go with who's actually into it.
15. Go to lots of grandchildrens' sports events and concerts. Assuming I have grandchildren someday.
16. Save a life. Or have a major positive influence on one that is acknowledged by that person.
17. Die in my sleep the night after I've checked off the last item on the list. Having been pretty much healthy up to that moment.
There's more, but I'll never tell anyone about them, they are too personal.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
Education Inspiration
I've never done two blog entries in the same day, but this has been rambling around in my head all week, and maybe I can move on easier if I write it down.
Between hearing about my own kids' views of high school and remembering my own experiences, our current education system at the high school level doesn't make much sense.
True when I was that age, and apparently even more true today is the fact that most kids pretty much are marking time their Junior and Senior years in high school. For me, those years were much more about having fun in my sports and music activities and making money on the side than the education I got between 8 and 3:30 every day.
Sure, I was serious enough about my education to want to get good grades and go to college. But I'd have to say that was well down the list from my sports, playing trombone in the Jazz Ensemble, and the various singing groups and youth trips and just hanging out with friends. Academically, my senior year in particular was of very little value, and I was mostly just marking time and having fun while trying to get a decent SAT score and apply to colleges.
If anybody's really serious about "fixing" education, they should first face reality. By the end of the 10th grade, probably 80 percent of kids have all the education they will need, at least to get entry into college. Juniors and seniors are either taking the AP and college-prep classes, some are marking time in Vo-Tech programs, but most are just taking the easiest classes they can find and getting into trouble.
I think it's really easy. Public schools should be reconfigured to end after the 10th grade. After finishing the 10th grade, students should then be free to choose from a myriad of options. Some form of the good old "vouchers" system would probably be the main source of funding, but imagine the possibilities:
Kids who are headed for the trades could go directly into apprentice programs or Vo-Tech schools. Some might go to work immediately for construction companies, HVAC companies, Plumbers, Electricians, etc.
Others who just want to go to work are free to do so. They can go ahead and get the factory job, fast food job, retail, whatever. But, until they turn, say 19, they can access their "voucher" benefits to finish their education in evening or weekend programs at local schools or community colleges.
College-bound kids can go to college prep schools, community colleges, or the actual colleges and universities, where they would start with the fundamental courses they need before entering the degree programs one or two years later. This could lead to specialized schools and programs that cater to students interested in engineering, math & sciences, medicine, music & arts, or general studies programs for those who aren't sure yet.
Bottom line, give the kids freedom after the 10th grade to start their lives by going directly into their chosen life and career path, rather than have them mark time for two more years in dinosaur high schools. That means they will enter an environment of their own choosing, and be able to pursue their career aspirations through education and training that is relevant to their chosen life path. That would allow kids of similar interests to study together in a safer, smaller environment that's actually productive for them.
If this had happened when I was in school, my main concern would have been losing out on the stuff I really enjoyed, sports and music. Of course, none of that has to go away. For those who are interested in participating, the schools they go to after the 10th grade can still sponsor similar programs, either within their curricula or as extra-curricula programs. It seems to me that this approach would provide much greater opportunity for these types of activities instead of less, as there will be more, smaller, and better schools in the community providing the education they really want. For example, instead of 1 or 2 high schools in the county with basketball, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, etc., imagine there are 10 or 12 schools fielding teams. More kids get to participate, there's a lot more competition, and a lot more fun.
I know better than to think this idea has much of a prayer of catching the attention of enough people to make it a reality. There are way too many people who would fight this idea to the death even if it started to gain momentum, and too many politicians willing to pander to those entrenched interests.
It's still a good idea.
Between hearing about my own kids' views of high school and remembering my own experiences, our current education system at the high school level doesn't make much sense.
True when I was that age, and apparently even more true today is the fact that most kids pretty much are marking time their Junior and Senior years in high school. For me, those years were much more about having fun in my sports and music activities and making money on the side than the education I got between 8 and 3:30 every day.
Sure, I was serious enough about my education to want to get good grades and go to college. But I'd have to say that was well down the list from my sports, playing trombone in the Jazz Ensemble, and the various singing groups and youth trips and just hanging out with friends. Academically, my senior year in particular was of very little value, and I was mostly just marking time and having fun while trying to get a decent SAT score and apply to colleges.
If anybody's really serious about "fixing" education, they should first face reality. By the end of the 10th grade, probably 80 percent of kids have all the education they will need, at least to get entry into college. Juniors and seniors are either taking the AP and college-prep classes, some are marking time in Vo-Tech programs, but most are just taking the easiest classes they can find and getting into trouble.
I think it's really easy. Public schools should be reconfigured to end after the 10th grade. After finishing the 10th grade, students should then be free to choose from a myriad of options. Some form of the good old "vouchers" system would probably be the main source of funding, but imagine the possibilities:
Kids who are headed for the trades could go directly into apprentice programs or Vo-Tech schools. Some might go to work immediately for construction companies, HVAC companies, Plumbers, Electricians, etc.
Others who just want to go to work are free to do so. They can go ahead and get the factory job, fast food job, retail, whatever. But, until they turn, say 19, they can access their "voucher" benefits to finish their education in evening or weekend programs at local schools or community colleges.
College-bound kids can go to college prep schools, community colleges, or the actual colleges and universities, where they would start with the fundamental courses they need before entering the degree programs one or two years later. This could lead to specialized schools and programs that cater to students interested in engineering, math & sciences, medicine, music & arts, or general studies programs for those who aren't sure yet.
Bottom line, give the kids freedom after the 10th grade to start their lives by going directly into their chosen life and career path, rather than have them mark time for two more years in dinosaur high schools. That means they will enter an environment of their own choosing, and be able to pursue their career aspirations through education and training that is relevant to their chosen life path. That would allow kids of similar interests to study together in a safer, smaller environment that's actually productive for them.
If this had happened when I was in school, my main concern would have been losing out on the stuff I really enjoyed, sports and music. Of course, none of that has to go away. For those who are interested in participating, the schools they go to after the 10th grade can still sponsor similar programs, either within their curricula or as extra-curricula programs. It seems to me that this approach would provide much greater opportunity for these types of activities instead of less, as there will be more, smaller, and better schools in the community providing the education they really want. For example, instead of 1 or 2 high schools in the county with basketball, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, etc., imagine there are 10 or 12 schools fielding teams. More kids get to participate, there's a lot more competition, and a lot more fun.
I know better than to think this idea has much of a prayer of catching the attention of enough people to make it a reality. There are way too many people who would fight this idea to the death even if it started to gain momentum, and too many politicians willing to pander to those entrenched interests.
It's still a good idea.
Living in the Twilight Zone
What a strange week. But in its own way, it's been sort of fun.
It started off with an eerie sort of vision or dream or intuition about Nick that I emailed him about, and his response seems to indicate I might have been right. Cool.
Then I go for the planning sessions at my new consulting engagement. A casino. Comp'd me on a very nice suite, which was a good start. Then the fun began.
We want you to build us a system for HR and Payroll, and it has to be live by March 15th. But you can only talk to our staff (in HR and Payroll) for 4 hours. And you can't see any employee information. And nobody knows yet what the benefit plans will be.
The good news is that we're giving you this test data. It's got all our favorite cartoon characters, from Mickey Mouse to Sponge Bob. It's just names and addresses, though - no information about the cartoon characters' positions or taxes or voluntary deductions or anything else, really. Except their Direct Deposit accounts....
It started out strange, and quickly progressed to ludicrous. I spent lots of time preparing my explanations about why this just wasn't going to work, and giving them precisely what data I will need to be successful. They're going to aggressively pursue permission to get the information I need - we'll see how that works.
Then I get home and hear a hilarious update from Tim about his girlfriend screening. He broke off his previous relationship because she worked so much that they really couldn't spend much time together. So now, the girls are lined up for his attention - it brings to mind an image of the 'American Idol' auditions. Cracks me up.
In true Tim fashion, he's taking his time to make a choice. I asked him why make one at all - why not just date all of the ones you find interesting? He says it doesn't work that way. Strange generational change, I suppose. He knows it doesn't really matter that much, since everybody's graduating and going their separate ways in a few months anyway.
So what is it about Tim that seems to attract girls like moths to the porchlight?
I'm not totally sure, but it could be his looks (reminiscent of Kirk Douglas), his body (football player/lifeguard buff), his caveman attitude (very masculine, very private about personal feelings), his personality (kind of quiet, but funny and a practical joker).
Or maybe it's just that he doesn't care whether he's got a girl on his arm or not. He's not needy or possessive. He can be rude and direct, and won't put up with feminine nonsense and manipulation. He seems the opposite of what the feminist world advertises about what women want, but maybe he is not what they say they want but what they really want.
It's interesting and amusing at the same time. I hope I get to meet the girl when he finally makes up his mind.
It started off with an eerie sort of vision or dream or intuition about Nick that I emailed him about, and his response seems to indicate I might have been right. Cool.
Then I go for the planning sessions at my new consulting engagement. A casino. Comp'd me on a very nice suite, which was a good start. Then the fun began.
We want you to build us a system for HR and Payroll, and it has to be live by March 15th. But you can only talk to our staff (in HR and Payroll) for 4 hours. And you can't see any employee information. And nobody knows yet what the benefit plans will be.
The good news is that we're giving you this test data. It's got all our favorite cartoon characters, from Mickey Mouse to Sponge Bob. It's just names and addresses, though - no information about the cartoon characters' positions or taxes or voluntary deductions or anything else, really. Except their Direct Deposit accounts....
It started out strange, and quickly progressed to ludicrous. I spent lots of time preparing my explanations about why this just wasn't going to work, and giving them precisely what data I will need to be successful. They're going to aggressively pursue permission to get the information I need - we'll see how that works.
Then I get home and hear a hilarious update from Tim about his girlfriend screening. He broke off his previous relationship because she worked so much that they really couldn't spend much time together. So now, the girls are lined up for his attention - it brings to mind an image of the 'American Idol' auditions. Cracks me up.
In true Tim fashion, he's taking his time to make a choice. I asked him why make one at all - why not just date all of the ones you find interesting? He says it doesn't work that way. Strange generational change, I suppose. He knows it doesn't really matter that much, since everybody's graduating and going their separate ways in a few months anyway.
So what is it about Tim that seems to attract girls like moths to the porchlight?
I'm not totally sure, but it could be his looks (reminiscent of Kirk Douglas), his body (football player/lifeguard buff), his caveman attitude (very masculine, very private about personal feelings), his personality (kind of quiet, but funny and a practical joker).
Or maybe it's just that he doesn't care whether he's got a girl on his arm or not. He's not needy or possessive. He can be rude and direct, and won't put up with feminine nonsense and manipulation. He seems the opposite of what the feminist world advertises about what women want, but maybe he is not what they say they want but what they really want.
It's interesting and amusing at the same time. I hope I get to meet the girl when he finally makes up his mind.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Spring Break Planning
I forgot about the fact that it's hard to redeem miles for travel over Spring Break if you wait until late January. I'll keep trying, because I'd rather fly to Sarasota than drive.
It was an interesting experiment, where I told everyone I was going to Florida for Spring Break, and they could choose to come along or stay home. Chris was the first definitive "Yes". Then Tim did his usual schtick, starting with "I'll go if Nick goes". When I told him Nick couldn't go because his spring break wasn't the same week, he changed to "I'll go if Mom and Chris don't go". So I told him that Chris was definitely going, and it became "I'll go if Mom doesn't go".
Funny, Mom told Tim she was going if he was, but she was staying home if he stayed home. So we've got a standoff. I'm not going to bother trying to talk anybody into anything. If Tim wants to go, it's with the family; if not, he gets to stay home with his mother. I think the strategy actually is working out pretty well; only those who want to go and have a good time will do so, and the rest can stay home.
Now I just have to find a flight that hasn't already handed out all of their FF seats.
Gotta stop messing around with the blog and get my work done so I can get to Chicago at a reasonable hour this evening.
It was an interesting experiment, where I told everyone I was going to Florida for Spring Break, and they could choose to come along or stay home. Chris was the first definitive "Yes". Then Tim did his usual schtick, starting with "I'll go if Nick goes". When I told him Nick couldn't go because his spring break wasn't the same week, he changed to "I'll go if Mom and Chris don't go". So I told him that Chris was definitely going, and it became "I'll go if Mom doesn't go".
Funny, Mom told Tim she was going if he was, but she was staying home if he stayed home. So we've got a standoff. I'm not going to bother trying to talk anybody into anything. If Tim wants to go, it's with the family; if not, he gets to stay home with his mother. I think the strategy actually is working out pretty well; only those who want to go and have a good time will do so, and the rest can stay home.
Now I just have to find a flight that hasn't already handed out all of their FF seats.
Gotta stop messing around with the blog and get my work done so I can get to Chicago at a reasonable hour this evening.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Short Weekends and Mixed Blessings
Taking a few unavailable minutes out to blog today might be just my way of analyzing where recent events are leading. The number one reason I left my company last spring to start this business was being burned out on constant traveling and missing out on the boys. Well, it looks like I'm going to be forced to get back on the road to get the income the family needs.
My hiatus did succeed as far as being able to spend much more time with Tim & Chris. I met the primary goal of making it to every one of Tim's football games this past fall, for which I am thankful. It was too late for Nick, although while he was still around I did spend lots of time with him on weekends, mostly taking him to soccer games and tournaments.
Building a business is difficult, particularly from the standpoint of getting known in the area and building a reference base. Basically I discovered it takes a huge amount of effort to earn a few bucks when you're just getting started. I don't have the budget to do the kind of advertising and hire help that would help ramp up the business faster, which was probably my main miscalculation. I still believe in the business, but just think it's going to take a lot longer than I expected to build.
So, the old company beckons with consulting opportunities. I went on a little 2-day engagement in Chicago in early December that I was able to expand to about a 30-day project. Even though it meant being out of town a lot and having to basically drop most of my selling activities to local prospects, it allowed me to make a lot more money with much less effort.
Now they've asked me to take on an even bigger project, also in Chicago, that's going to take me through Spring Break. It's great in terms of money, but very tough as far as keeping momentum on the rest of my business. I was for awhile kind of hoping John would join me in incorporating the business, which would have allowed us to double our efforts and infuse a little more capital for marketing activities. But John decided to go with a job that sounded pretty attractive, so that didn't work.
Now I'm seriously considering advertising for an IMC (commission salesperson) to work the internet business while I rent myself out to the old company to keep paying the bills. If I can find somebody who's got good sales and marketing savvy and is a motivated self-starter, it can help keep that side of the business building momentum.
Interestingly enough, I find that when I'm out of town consulting, it's much less stressful than when I'm home. Strangely, it's very relaxing for me to finish the day consulting and return to the hotel room, where I can kick back and relax without being bugged or hassled or nagged about anything. It's kind of escaping life, not having to deal with anything difficult as long as I show up at the client and do consulting work that I can do in my sleep after so many years.
Well, the money I can earn is important, especially considering there will be 2 kids in college very soon, we've got 3 ancient vehicles that are all on the verge of falling apart, there's lots of work that needs to be done on the house, and I'd like to be able to get Nick the car he's been wanting for so many years.
Yeah, I know, if Nick had just been willing to work summers and part-time over the past 3-4 years, he could have earned plenty to invest in a vehicle. But what he did earn in a series of jobs he hated went toward computer stuff and movies and restaurants. On the other hand, he gave up the promised graduation car for a full ride in return for enrolling at Rose-Hulman, which is very expensive. That's a sacrifice you'd have to respect.
Anyway, it'll be at minimum summer or fall before we start to feel the impact of all this, but at least I'm no longer as worried about running out of funds and we're still debt-free outside of the mortgage. Counting blessings is a great perspective adjustment.
Gotta go take the family to a movie. I wanted to go see Phantom of the Opera, but they want to see Racing Stripes. Maybe I can catch Phantom in Chicago next week.
My hiatus did succeed as far as being able to spend much more time with Tim & Chris. I met the primary goal of making it to every one of Tim's football games this past fall, for which I am thankful. It was too late for Nick, although while he was still around I did spend lots of time with him on weekends, mostly taking him to soccer games and tournaments.
Building a business is difficult, particularly from the standpoint of getting known in the area and building a reference base. Basically I discovered it takes a huge amount of effort to earn a few bucks when you're just getting started. I don't have the budget to do the kind of advertising and hire help that would help ramp up the business faster, which was probably my main miscalculation. I still believe in the business, but just think it's going to take a lot longer than I expected to build.
So, the old company beckons with consulting opportunities. I went on a little 2-day engagement in Chicago in early December that I was able to expand to about a 30-day project. Even though it meant being out of town a lot and having to basically drop most of my selling activities to local prospects, it allowed me to make a lot more money with much less effort.
Now they've asked me to take on an even bigger project, also in Chicago, that's going to take me through Spring Break. It's great in terms of money, but very tough as far as keeping momentum on the rest of my business. I was for awhile kind of hoping John would join me in incorporating the business, which would have allowed us to double our efforts and infuse a little more capital for marketing activities. But John decided to go with a job that sounded pretty attractive, so that didn't work.
Now I'm seriously considering advertising for an IMC (commission salesperson) to work the internet business while I rent myself out to the old company to keep paying the bills. If I can find somebody who's got good sales and marketing savvy and is a motivated self-starter, it can help keep that side of the business building momentum.
Interestingly enough, I find that when I'm out of town consulting, it's much less stressful than when I'm home. Strangely, it's very relaxing for me to finish the day consulting and return to the hotel room, where I can kick back and relax without being bugged or hassled or nagged about anything. It's kind of escaping life, not having to deal with anything difficult as long as I show up at the client and do consulting work that I can do in my sleep after so many years.
Well, the money I can earn is important, especially considering there will be 2 kids in college very soon, we've got 3 ancient vehicles that are all on the verge of falling apart, there's lots of work that needs to be done on the house, and I'd like to be able to get Nick the car he's been wanting for so many years.
Yeah, I know, if Nick had just been willing to work summers and part-time over the past 3-4 years, he could have earned plenty to invest in a vehicle. But what he did earn in a series of jobs he hated went toward computer stuff and movies and restaurants. On the other hand, he gave up the promised graduation car for a full ride in return for enrolling at Rose-Hulman, which is very expensive. That's a sacrifice you'd have to respect.
Anyway, it'll be at minimum summer or fall before we start to feel the impact of all this, but at least I'm no longer as worried about running out of funds and we're still debt-free outside of the mortgage. Counting blessings is a great perspective adjustment.
Gotta go take the family to a movie. I wanted to go see Phantom of the Opera, but they want to see Racing Stripes. Maybe I can catch Phantom in Chicago next week.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Sports Drought
Well, the Colts went and blew it again in New England. Too bad, cause following your favorite team through the playoffs is a great release. It's not the end of the world that they lost, but it immediately drops my interest in divisional championship weekend by at least 50%.
My impression of the game wasn't quite the same as most of the sportswriters and commentators. Maybe it was my imagination, but from the Colts' very first 3-and-out, I thought they looked like they were really suffering in the cold. You could almost read the minds of the offensive players, "@#$% it's cold out here. Let's get this game over with and get out of here!".
Given the dropped passes, missed blocks, fumbles, etc., I'm thinking that's probably pretty close to the truth of the situation. Maybe Denver was partially right - the Colts receivers are soft, at least when it comes to playing outside in freezing temperatures and snow.
The defense played very well in the first half, but really let down in the second. Giving up the clock-crushing TD drive right at the beginning of the third quarter, then being unable to make the stops on 3rd-and-long was as much the story of the game as the offense's ineptitude. Early in the 4th, as I recall, the Colts "D" had the Pats in 3rd-and-long. They dropped into pass coverage, didn't get much of a pass rush, then let the back slip out and catch a short one in the flat without a Colt within 20 yards, running to the first down marker. The Pats drive went on to score while using so much of the 4th quarter clock that Peyton and the offense really had no chance.
Normally, this time of year I would just redirect my sports addiction to the Hoosiers basketball team. But they've been so disappointing it's kind of painful to watch them. I haven't been able to see them more than about 2 or 3 games so far, due to a variety of conflicts. But what I have seen is a talented group of players that don't seem to understand how to win.
The kids can be spectacular at times, and show some tremendous hustle play now and then. But they no longer play the traditional motion offense of Bob Knight. It looks more like an NBA offense, which is kind of like the power company. You know, when one guy does all the work and the rest of the guys stand around and watch him. That's my impression of the Indiana offense.
I've gotta believe that if you got that same team constantly moving, picking, and cutting, plus add a little more attitude and tough-mindedness, they'd be unstoppable. They may be a talented bunch, but they sure aren't talented enough to run one-on-one NBA-style offense and expect to win in the Big Ten.
Oh well, I've got so much work to do these days that I shouldn't spend much time and energy on the sports stuff. I will miss the release it gives me, though.
My impression of the game wasn't quite the same as most of the sportswriters and commentators. Maybe it was my imagination, but from the Colts' very first 3-and-out, I thought they looked like they were really suffering in the cold. You could almost read the minds of the offensive players, "@#$% it's cold out here. Let's get this game over with and get out of here!".
Given the dropped passes, missed blocks, fumbles, etc., I'm thinking that's probably pretty close to the truth of the situation. Maybe Denver was partially right - the Colts receivers are soft, at least when it comes to playing outside in freezing temperatures and snow.
The defense played very well in the first half, but really let down in the second. Giving up the clock-crushing TD drive right at the beginning of the third quarter, then being unable to make the stops on 3rd-and-long was as much the story of the game as the offense's ineptitude. Early in the 4th, as I recall, the Colts "D" had the Pats in 3rd-and-long. They dropped into pass coverage, didn't get much of a pass rush, then let the back slip out and catch a short one in the flat without a Colt within 20 yards, running to the first down marker. The Pats drive went on to score while using so much of the 4th quarter clock that Peyton and the offense really had no chance.
Normally, this time of year I would just redirect my sports addiction to the Hoosiers basketball team. But they've been so disappointing it's kind of painful to watch them. I haven't been able to see them more than about 2 or 3 games so far, due to a variety of conflicts. But what I have seen is a talented group of players that don't seem to understand how to win.
The kids can be spectacular at times, and show some tremendous hustle play now and then. But they no longer play the traditional motion offense of Bob Knight. It looks more like an NBA offense, which is kind of like the power company. You know, when one guy does all the work and the rest of the guys stand around and watch him. That's my impression of the Indiana offense.
I've gotta believe that if you got that same team constantly moving, picking, and cutting, plus add a little more attitude and tough-mindedness, they'd be unstoppable. They may be a talented bunch, but they sure aren't talented enough to run one-on-one NBA-style offense and expect to win in the Big Ten.
Oh well, I've got so much work to do these days that I shouldn't spend much time and energy on the sports stuff. I will miss the release it gives me, though.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Random Thoughts
Can't remember the last time I ended the day thinking, "Today was fun!" What will it take to get some fun back into life? Probably just a change in attitude. Now the trick is figuring out how to do that.
People probably think I'm some sort of rabid conservative/republican/right-winger, but I think there can be lots of common ground between my perspectives and those of somebody on the left wing. I find lots of the disagreements between people are based not on problems, but solutions. It's mostly the difference between the belief that government should solve problems and the belief that people should.
I think that:
People probably think I'm some sort of rabid conservative/republican/right-winger, but I think there can be lots of common ground between my perspectives and those of somebody on the left wing. I find lots of the disagreements between people are based not on problems, but solutions. It's mostly the difference between the belief that government should solve problems and the belief that people should.
I think that:
- Government should not treat anyone differently from anyone else. That goes for rich, poor, racial and ethnic majorities and minorities, huge corporations and tiny start-up businesses, etc. There are way too many examples of preferential treatment that should be ended, period.
- Unions and Collective Bargaining are not inherently evil or bad for the country. If they're not corrupt and willing to negotiate in good faith, they can be very positive.
- Globalization is hurting our standard of living. Gigantic trade deficits, offshoring and outsourcing, and illegal immigration are all acting to drive down wages. When billions of dollars go out of the country never to return, that's wealth we no longer control, and that's bad.
- There's not really anything fundamentally wrong with basic worker protection laws setting minimum wage, overtime rules, safety standards, etc. I'd even support new laws like banning the "use it or lose it" vacation policies so popular today, tougher overtime regulations that insure people earning less than, say, $40-$50K get paid for overtime.
- "Separation of Church and State" is not a constitutional principle, but was fabricated by the ACLU. We should get back to the original intent, which was that there cannot be a state-sponsored religion, people have complete freedom to worship as they please (within the law), and nobody can be coerced into joining any religious institution.
- Abortion can't be outlawed until we all agree it's wrong. That takes education and efforts from everyone to offer alternatives, especially adoption and maternal care for unwed and unfit mothers. Sorry, I'll never agree with the whole "women's right to choose" argument.
Was thinking about our life journey. How the decisions I've made over the past 40-something years have put me on the path that's eventually led to where I am today. Different decisions in the past could have completely changed my career path, my wife, my children, my income, where I live, what I drive, even what I look like. Just think about a single decision - if I had simply chosen another college, almost everything I've experienced in my adult life would probably be completely different.
It just makes me realize what an important message I have to share with any young persons just getting started with their own life pathways. Decisions made about college choices, majors, girl/boy friends, and behavior can place us on a path that may or may not be the one we hoped for once we near it's end and look back. We've got to try to pick whatever path looks best for us, and avoid the one that looks easiest; the rocky and steep path may turn out to be the most rewarding in the end.
All this might not make any sense at all, but there it is.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Greatness
I must be getting old, because this is a topic that's getting more and more play time in my head. The basic questions of what determines greatness, how do you measure a successful life, and what would be a satisfying epitaph?
So, who's greater?
So, who's greater?
- Bill Gates (Mega-Rich CEO) or Mother Teresa (Saint)
- Peyton Manning (NFL MVP) or Pat Tillman (KIA Afghanistan)
- George W. Bush (Commander-in-Chief, USA) or Mahatma Ghandi (Indian Peace Activist)
- Career Mom (3 kids, earns 6 or 7 figures, hired nanny) or Stay-at-Home Mom (3 kids, full-time mom & housekeeper, husband earns average wages)
- Pat Robertson (televangelist, multi-million dollar worldwide evangelistic empire) or unknown local pastor with struggling congregation of a couple hundred people
- Tort Lawyer, Car Salesman, Congressman, Insurance Salesman, CPA, etc.
It's probably too late for me to become a great achiever - definitely in sports, and most probably in business. On the other hand, I don't know if I ever aspired to such achievement. I'm not nearly as ambitious as I was early in my career; when I reached that goal of becoming an IS Director, I found out it wasn't at all what I imagined. It's more fun and less stress to be an individual contributor, and the long hours and constant pressure of the position of responsibility may not be worth the little extra in the paycheck.
Whatever one's profession, I think doesn't matter too much in the long run. What really matters is what impact you had on those you touched over your lifetime. Maybe we should all spend a little time thinking about the people who influenced our lives in a positive way during our lifetime, and then sending them a thank-you note.
No, a satisfying epitaph for me is "Dan, a good guy". I suppose I could live with that.
Anybody happening on this blog - tell me what you think the right epitaph would be for yourself, and what defines greatness in your mind?
Friday, January 07, 2005
Loretta Mae (Weyrick) Slabaugh 1936-2004
Known to all as "Lori", she was born near Cleveland, Ohio to Monroe and Catherine. Lori's father was one of 11 brothers from Elyria, and her mother emigrated with her family from Scotland.
Lori was the first child of Monroe and Catherine, although she had an older half-brother she never met. When Catherine was 13, she eloped. Her mother pursued the newlyweds and forced her daughter to return home, sending the boy away. She had the marriage anulled and gave the subsequent baby up for adoption. Catherine named the boy Frank, a name we can't be sure was kept by the adoptive parents. Where Frank may be today, or whether he still lives, remains a mystery.
Lori grew up on a small farm in Columbia Station, Ohio, and was a teen before her younger brother, James, was born. She was tall with dark brown hair, blue eyes, and fair skin that was easily covered in freckles. In Junior High school, she was walking between classes one day, when a baseball caught her full in the mouth as she rounded a corner. The result was a bridge for her upper front teeth that she wore for the rest of her life.
Ashland College was a small liberal-arts school that was not too far from her Columbia Station home, and she enrolled in their Home Economics program. It was at Ashland that she met Max, who happened to sit next to her in choir. They married while both were still in school, and moved into a cramped married student apartment on campus. Ten months later, Lori gave birth to her first child, Daniel, and dropped out of school. In the meantime, Max took a job loading boxcars on the third shift for a local manufacturing company while attending classes during the day.
Lori was a singer, with a pleasant alto voice, but she preferred singing in choirs or small groups over solo singing. She also proved an excellent actress, landing the lead in the Ashland College production of "A Man Named Peter", where she received great reviews and was recognized as the best actress of the year for the drama club. Telling the story about how she landed the part, she described being placed in the scene for her audition reading. To rattle the auditioners, the director had the prop telephone ring as each girl read her lines. She was somewhat flustered by the unexpected interruption, and her realistic response to the situation was just what they were looking for in the character.
After Max's graduation, they moved to nearby Ohio City, where Max had his first job as a high school teacher, basketball coach, and bus driver. Shortly after arriving in Ohio City, Lori gave birth to their second child, Julie. After only two years in Ohio City, a job opened up near Max's home town of Nappannee, Indiana, and they packed up their family to move to Goshen, Indiana.
In Goshen, they rented a home in a working-class neighborhood while Max worked as Principal, eighth-grade teacher, and basketball coach for an Amish school in the county. Shortly after settling into their new home in Goshen, Lori gave birth to child number three, Jill. The occasion of Dan's 5th birthday brought the family dog, a collie puppie christened "Sam".
Max supplemented his meager teacher's income with summer jobs at a local mobile home factory, later joining a local builder in constructing custom homes. Many summers, Max earned more in the three-month break than he received over the 9 month teaching contract. This allowed them to purchase a modest home in Goshen's growing west side on a spacious 1-acre lot. Max also landed a job with the Goshen schools, teaching 6th grade, for a more lucrative, if still meager, contract than the Amish school.
When she learned that a fourth child was on the way, Lori was distraught. Money was tight, Max was busy between teaching, coaching, and the constant part-time factory and construction jobs needed to keep the family afloat. Complicating the scenario was Max's need to complete a Master's degree, which was then required by the state for teachers to maintain their certifications. Max had to spend two summers in Bloomington to obtain the Master's in Education while Lori scraped by at home with their four young children.
Lori's father died unexpectedly of heart failure while being treated for back pain. He had been experiencing chronic back pain for most of the year, which may have been symptomatic of his cardiac problems which went unrecognized and untreated. Her mother, Catherine, sold their property (they had moved to the Chicago area), and moved in with Lori and Max, where she began helping to care for the children.
Max completed his degree, and friction grew between the similarly strong-willed Mother-in-Law and Son-in-Law, until the solution was reached that moved Catherine into a small rental home just down the street. Catherine worked full-time for a few years before retiring, but stayed close with the family until her passing.
While the children were young, Lori kept busy with parenting, keeping up with a large half-acre garden, canning fruits and vegetables, and enduring the menagerie of a dog (Sam), cat (Cat), Dan's rabbits (up to over 100 at one point), and even Chickens. The variety of pets and other animals created many funny stories and great childhood experiences. The neighborhood had many other children close in age to the family, and her home became the popular gathering place for kids from the neighborhood and later schools and church.
Lori was the ultimate mother, able to keep her children (relatively) well-behaved completely without the threat or use of corporal punishment. Her approach was always gentle and loving, and if she ever said anything she later came to regret, nobody in the family remembers it. For example, if two siblings were fighting, her method was never to take sides, but to order the two to go somewhere private and resolve their differences. The private place of choice was often a bedroom closet, where the two feuding siblings would sit across from each other and eventually burst out laughing, the dispute quickly forgotten.
If the day had been particularly trying or the children rambunctious, Lori would bring out the "quiet candles". This signaled to everyone in the family (including Dad) that Mom has had a rough day, and just wants a quiet evening meal. I remain amazed to this day how well that worked, and some special memories are of those quiet dinners lit only by a couple of candles.
There was always music in the house, and singing was a normal part of everyday life because of Lori. It was even used as a teaching tool, and I still remember the little jingle she made up to teach us our telephone number. When the children reached the teen years, the house was often full of young people on a Sunday afternoon, with 3 or 4 guitarists leading everyone singing (mostly) songs of faith, playing games like "rhythm", and generally having a great time. The family also teamed up with Max's sister Mary's family to do a number of performances for churches and nursing homes.
Lori and Max were sure to keep the family involved in the church, and faith was the most consistent and important aspect of family life. The entire family stayed active with church activities, and all six family members participated in the church choir. The kids also were active in and served in leadership positions for the church youth program; David was elected the National Youth Moderator for the Brethren denomination as a high school senior.
When David entered school, Lori began working full-time. She had previously tried some part-time and temporary jobs, such as substitute teaching, but it was too difficult to be away from her four young children until all were of school age. Eventually, Lori was able to take full-time employment, and worked in primarily clerical positions throughout her working life. Lori never sought a "career", but simply viewed her jobs as means to provide more income to the household. She never allowed any job to interfere with important family events and needs; when Jill gave birth to a grandchild, Lori asked for some time off to help with the new baby. Her employer initially told her they would not authorize the time off. Lori told them she was sorry, but if they would not approve the time off, she would be forced to resign. The employer gave in, and Lori was there to help Jill care for her newborn.
Lori was known as an indispensible member of her department at Goshen Rubber, the company where she was employed the longest. However, even knowing her value to the company, the managers never acknowledged her with any substantial rewards, promotions, or recognition. She finally chose to retire when her supervisor, the department manager, retired himself and recommended her for his position. The company considered offering her the job, schemed to have her take the duties without an increase in pay, then finally gave it to another, less qualified candidate. Although the corporate shenanigans upset her somewhat for a brief time, she never dwelt on injustice, never complained, and just moved on.
After retirement, she worked part-time as the church secretary, but mostly just enjoyed spending time with her grandchildren as much as possible.
Lori was known by everyone as sweet, kind, and generous. She was always focused on others; anyone coming to visit could expect their favorite meal, prepared by the best home cook on the planet. She always showed care and concern for everyone, whether they were experiencing problems or tragedy in life or just needed a warm coat in the wintertime.
Lori lost her youngest son, David, who was killed by a drunk driver on the way home from work. David was 26. It happened on the day that Lori and Max were waiting for him to arrive at David's home to celebrate Max's birthday. David's passing devastated both parents, but Lori never dwelt on self-pity. Everyone was amazed, not only at her strength at such a tragic time, but at how she was encouraging and helping everyone else. Friends and relatives, coming to offer their condolences, would break down and find themselves being consoled by Lori, the very person they were hoping to comfort. She even reached out to the family of the drunk driver, sending a card with a consoling note expressing her sympathies, as he was also killed in the accident. That family was reportedly puzzled and unable to respond to such an unexpected gesture of sympathy and forgiveness from the victim's mother.
She passed away in June from complications of a variety of ailments that assaulted her recently. She had endured about 30 years of diabetes, which was taking a toll on her eyesight and circulation, especially in her legs, where she had serious wound problems and pain that limited her mobility. Two strokes, Uterine cancer, and a pelvic fracture all contributed to the weakness and pain from which she was unable to recover, finally succumbing in June when her kidneys failed.
People who never knew Lori might think she was just an ordinary woman. All of us who knew her would have to strongly disagree. What did she accomplish? Here are just a few examples:
All four children completed 4-year degrees, three at Ashland. One went on for an MBA.
Raised in strong Christian faith, all of her children remain active in the church, including musically, of course. Both daughters are pastors' wives in the Brethren denomination, the same in which she raised her family.
David's wife remarried a Brethren pastor. Max has been a part-time pastor as well since his retirement from teaching.
She leaves behind a husband, 3 children, and 11 grand-children who will always remember the positive influence she had on their lives.
She leaves behind countless people she affected, from school, church, and the workplace, who all learned about love, compassion, and unselfishness from her gentle nature.
In these days of feminist values of selfishness and greed, we need far more examples like Lori to remind us of what is really important in life.
Goodbye Mom. It's taken me this long just to be able to accept your passing. My only hope and prayer is that I can be just half the person you were. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be with you more, especially in your last year. I wish I would have made sure my boys spent more time with you as they were growing - there's so much more they would have learned from you.
Rest in peace, Mom.
Lori was the first child of Monroe and Catherine, although she had an older half-brother she never met. When Catherine was 13, she eloped. Her mother pursued the newlyweds and forced her daughter to return home, sending the boy away. She had the marriage anulled and gave the subsequent baby up for adoption. Catherine named the boy Frank, a name we can't be sure was kept by the adoptive parents. Where Frank may be today, or whether he still lives, remains a mystery.
Lori grew up on a small farm in Columbia Station, Ohio, and was a teen before her younger brother, James, was born. She was tall with dark brown hair, blue eyes, and fair skin that was easily covered in freckles. In Junior High school, she was walking between classes one day, when a baseball caught her full in the mouth as she rounded a corner. The result was a bridge for her upper front teeth that she wore for the rest of her life.
Ashland College was a small liberal-arts school that was not too far from her Columbia Station home, and she enrolled in their Home Economics program. It was at Ashland that she met Max, who happened to sit next to her in choir. They married while both were still in school, and moved into a cramped married student apartment on campus. Ten months later, Lori gave birth to her first child, Daniel, and dropped out of school. In the meantime, Max took a job loading boxcars on the third shift for a local manufacturing company while attending classes during the day.
Lori was a singer, with a pleasant alto voice, but she preferred singing in choirs or small groups over solo singing. She also proved an excellent actress, landing the lead in the Ashland College production of "A Man Named Peter", where she received great reviews and was recognized as the best actress of the year for the drama club. Telling the story about how she landed the part, she described being placed in the scene for her audition reading. To rattle the auditioners, the director had the prop telephone ring as each girl read her lines. She was somewhat flustered by the unexpected interruption, and her realistic response to the situation was just what they were looking for in the character.
After Max's graduation, they moved to nearby Ohio City, where Max had his first job as a high school teacher, basketball coach, and bus driver. Shortly after arriving in Ohio City, Lori gave birth to their second child, Julie. After only two years in Ohio City, a job opened up near Max's home town of Nappannee, Indiana, and they packed up their family to move to Goshen, Indiana.
In Goshen, they rented a home in a working-class neighborhood while Max worked as Principal, eighth-grade teacher, and basketball coach for an Amish school in the county. Shortly after settling into their new home in Goshen, Lori gave birth to child number three, Jill. The occasion of Dan's 5th birthday brought the family dog, a collie puppie christened "Sam".
Max supplemented his meager teacher's income with summer jobs at a local mobile home factory, later joining a local builder in constructing custom homes. Many summers, Max earned more in the three-month break than he received over the 9 month teaching contract. This allowed them to purchase a modest home in Goshen's growing west side on a spacious 1-acre lot. Max also landed a job with the Goshen schools, teaching 6th grade, for a more lucrative, if still meager, contract than the Amish school.
When she learned that a fourth child was on the way, Lori was distraught. Money was tight, Max was busy between teaching, coaching, and the constant part-time factory and construction jobs needed to keep the family afloat. Complicating the scenario was Max's need to complete a Master's degree, which was then required by the state for teachers to maintain their certifications. Max had to spend two summers in Bloomington to obtain the Master's in Education while Lori scraped by at home with their four young children.
Lori's father died unexpectedly of heart failure while being treated for back pain. He had been experiencing chronic back pain for most of the year, which may have been symptomatic of his cardiac problems which went unrecognized and untreated. Her mother, Catherine, sold their property (they had moved to the Chicago area), and moved in with Lori and Max, where she began helping to care for the children.
Max completed his degree, and friction grew between the similarly strong-willed Mother-in-Law and Son-in-Law, until the solution was reached that moved Catherine into a small rental home just down the street. Catherine worked full-time for a few years before retiring, but stayed close with the family until her passing.
While the children were young, Lori kept busy with parenting, keeping up with a large half-acre garden, canning fruits and vegetables, and enduring the menagerie of a dog (Sam), cat (Cat), Dan's rabbits (up to over 100 at one point), and even Chickens. The variety of pets and other animals created many funny stories and great childhood experiences. The neighborhood had many other children close in age to the family, and her home became the popular gathering place for kids from the neighborhood and later schools and church.
Lori was the ultimate mother, able to keep her children (relatively) well-behaved completely without the threat or use of corporal punishment. Her approach was always gentle and loving, and if she ever said anything she later came to regret, nobody in the family remembers it. For example, if two siblings were fighting, her method was never to take sides, but to order the two to go somewhere private and resolve their differences. The private place of choice was often a bedroom closet, where the two feuding siblings would sit across from each other and eventually burst out laughing, the dispute quickly forgotten.
If the day had been particularly trying or the children rambunctious, Lori would bring out the "quiet candles". This signaled to everyone in the family (including Dad) that Mom has had a rough day, and just wants a quiet evening meal. I remain amazed to this day how well that worked, and some special memories are of those quiet dinners lit only by a couple of candles.
There was always music in the house, and singing was a normal part of everyday life because of Lori. It was even used as a teaching tool, and I still remember the little jingle she made up to teach us our telephone number. When the children reached the teen years, the house was often full of young people on a Sunday afternoon, with 3 or 4 guitarists leading everyone singing (mostly) songs of faith, playing games like "rhythm", and generally having a great time. The family also teamed up with Max's sister Mary's family to do a number of performances for churches and nursing homes.
Lori and Max were sure to keep the family involved in the church, and faith was the most consistent and important aspect of family life. The entire family stayed active with church activities, and all six family members participated in the church choir. The kids also were active in and served in leadership positions for the church youth program; David was elected the National Youth Moderator for the Brethren denomination as a high school senior.
When David entered school, Lori began working full-time. She had previously tried some part-time and temporary jobs, such as substitute teaching, but it was too difficult to be away from her four young children until all were of school age. Eventually, Lori was able to take full-time employment, and worked in primarily clerical positions throughout her working life. Lori never sought a "career", but simply viewed her jobs as means to provide more income to the household. She never allowed any job to interfere with important family events and needs; when Jill gave birth to a grandchild, Lori asked for some time off to help with the new baby. Her employer initially told her they would not authorize the time off. Lori told them she was sorry, but if they would not approve the time off, she would be forced to resign. The employer gave in, and Lori was there to help Jill care for her newborn.
Lori was known as an indispensible member of her department at Goshen Rubber, the company where she was employed the longest. However, even knowing her value to the company, the managers never acknowledged her with any substantial rewards, promotions, or recognition. She finally chose to retire when her supervisor, the department manager, retired himself and recommended her for his position. The company considered offering her the job, schemed to have her take the duties without an increase in pay, then finally gave it to another, less qualified candidate. Although the corporate shenanigans upset her somewhat for a brief time, she never dwelt on injustice, never complained, and just moved on.
After retirement, she worked part-time as the church secretary, but mostly just enjoyed spending time with her grandchildren as much as possible.
Lori was known by everyone as sweet, kind, and generous. She was always focused on others; anyone coming to visit could expect their favorite meal, prepared by the best home cook on the planet. She always showed care and concern for everyone, whether they were experiencing problems or tragedy in life or just needed a warm coat in the wintertime.
Lori lost her youngest son, David, who was killed by a drunk driver on the way home from work. David was 26. It happened on the day that Lori and Max were waiting for him to arrive at David's home to celebrate Max's birthday. David's passing devastated both parents, but Lori never dwelt on self-pity. Everyone was amazed, not only at her strength at such a tragic time, but at how she was encouraging and helping everyone else. Friends and relatives, coming to offer their condolences, would break down and find themselves being consoled by Lori, the very person they were hoping to comfort. She even reached out to the family of the drunk driver, sending a card with a consoling note expressing her sympathies, as he was also killed in the accident. That family was reportedly puzzled and unable to respond to such an unexpected gesture of sympathy and forgiveness from the victim's mother.
She passed away in June from complications of a variety of ailments that assaulted her recently. She had endured about 30 years of diabetes, which was taking a toll on her eyesight and circulation, especially in her legs, where she had serious wound problems and pain that limited her mobility. Two strokes, Uterine cancer, and a pelvic fracture all contributed to the weakness and pain from which she was unable to recover, finally succumbing in June when her kidneys failed.
People who never knew Lori might think she was just an ordinary woman. All of us who knew her would have to strongly disagree. What did she accomplish? Here are just a few examples:
All four children completed 4-year degrees, three at Ashland. One went on for an MBA.
Raised in strong Christian faith, all of her children remain active in the church, including musically, of course. Both daughters are pastors' wives in the Brethren denomination, the same in which she raised her family.
David's wife remarried a Brethren pastor. Max has been a part-time pastor as well since his retirement from teaching.
She leaves behind a husband, 3 children, and 11 grand-children who will always remember the positive influence she had on their lives.
She leaves behind countless people she affected, from school, church, and the workplace, who all learned about love, compassion, and unselfishness from her gentle nature.
In these days of feminist values of selfishness and greed, we need far more examples like Lori to remind us of what is really important in life.
Goodbye Mom. It's taken me this long just to be able to accept your passing. My only hope and prayer is that I can be just half the person you were. I'm sorry I wasn't able to be with you more, especially in your last year. I wish I would have made sure my boys spent more time with you as they were growing - there's so much more they would have learned from you.
Rest in peace, Mom.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Less Seriousness, More Fun
Reading through recent posts, I've decided I'm getting way too serious. It's way past time to lighten up on my blogs.
There isn't really anything specific bugging me today, so I'll just run with some general stuff.
Know what the ACLU stands for? The Atheist Communist anti-Liberty Union
Now our school choirs can't sign Christmas music at their winter concerts anymore because it offends non-Christians? Give me a break! Carols are the most classic, uplifting music there is, and I'm getting really tired of the Grinches.
I just noticed a whole bunch of people who claim to be Christian Liberals and how they rationalize that. They've misinterpreted church teachings aimed at each of us as individuals and decided Jesus was talking about the Government when he said we should take care of the poor. They think since Jesus dined with sinners and saved the adulteress from stoning, he's "tolerant", ignoring the fact that he turned the lives of those sinners around and told the adulteress to, "Go, and sin no more". They all of a sudden have become Amish, embracing pacifism, but of course only when it's a Republican waging the war for our country's security. Funny how I never heard about their pacifist ideals back when we went to Bosnia and Somalia. All I wonder about is whether they're calculating rationalizers because of their political connections, or just ignorant about their faith.
Heard two funny stories today. Both about crazy people who shouldn't hold positions of authority. One was a city councilman in PA who tried to bully a booth vendor at a city market into taking down a picture of President Bush, because the councilman was offended by it. And the picture wasn't violent, pornographic, or anything - just your typical presidential portrait. The second was about the high school in GA that gives kids detention if they have to go to the bathroom during class. Hate to get diarrhea at that school; you could get a whole year of detention in a single day!
Thinking about the constant barrage of ads for viagara and related products for men of, well, my age. What is confusing is that since most guys our age were cut off by their wives years ago, what in the heck do they need these products for? (Don't answer that)
I'm looking forward to a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, a great 2005, and hopefully won't get thrown in jail for celebrating Christmas a year from now.
There isn't really anything specific bugging me today, so I'll just run with some general stuff.
Know what the ACLU stands for? The Atheist Communist anti-Liberty Union
Now our school choirs can't sign Christmas music at their winter concerts anymore because it offends non-Christians? Give me a break! Carols are the most classic, uplifting music there is, and I'm getting really tired of the Grinches.
I just noticed a whole bunch of people who claim to be Christian Liberals and how they rationalize that. They've misinterpreted church teachings aimed at each of us as individuals and decided Jesus was talking about the Government when he said we should take care of the poor. They think since Jesus dined with sinners and saved the adulteress from stoning, he's "tolerant", ignoring the fact that he turned the lives of those sinners around and told the adulteress to, "Go, and sin no more". They all of a sudden have become Amish, embracing pacifism, but of course only when it's a Republican waging the war for our country's security. Funny how I never heard about their pacifist ideals back when we went to Bosnia and Somalia. All I wonder about is whether they're calculating rationalizers because of their political connections, or just ignorant about their faith.
Heard two funny stories today. Both about crazy people who shouldn't hold positions of authority. One was a city councilman in PA who tried to bully a booth vendor at a city market into taking down a picture of President Bush, because the councilman was offended by it. And the picture wasn't violent, pornographic, or anything - just your typical presidential portrait. The second was about the high school in GA that gives kids detention if they have to go to the bathroom during class. Hate to get diarrhea at that school; you could get a whole year of detention in a single day!
Thinking about the constant barrage of ads for viagara and related products for men of, well, my age. What is confusing is that since most guys our age were cut off by their wives years ago, what in the heck do they need these products for? (Don't answer that)
I'm looking forward to a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, a great 2005, and hopefully won't get thrown in jail for celebrating Christmas a year from now.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Why Civil Unions are Discriminatory
I'll bet you wonder what I'm talking about - discriminatory?
First of all, the talk of "Gay Marriage" is nothing but a transparent effort by the homosexual rights movement and their liberal friends to marginalize religion. You hear it in the constant barrage that says, "Nobody has the right to impose their morals on anyone else", or variations on that theme. I think the goal of the gay marriage proponents is probably more about removing religion from society than letting same-sex partners parade down the aisle and exchange rings, deciding which will wear the tux and which the white dress.
Taking away the whole religious disrespect aspect, the real remaining agenda is about benefits, which of course equals money. Gay couples want the same benefits of married families, like health insurance, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. I maintain that's discrimination, and here's why:
When considering these benefits that today are generally provided only to married couples, think about the reasons why those benefits should be extended to any other sort of couple. To do this, I'll use the same arguments used by the gay rights crowd:
First of all, the talk of "Gay Marriage" is nothing but a transparent effort by the homosexual rights movement and their liberal friends to marginalize religion. You hear it in the constant barrage that says, "Nobody has the right to impose their morals on anyone else", or variations on that theme. I think the goal of the gay marriage proponents is probably more about removing religion from society than letting same-sex partners parade down the aisle and exchange rings, deciding which will wear the tux and which the white dress.
Taking away the whole religious disrespect aspect, the real remaining agenda is about benefits, which of course equals money. Gay couples want the same benefits of married families, like health insurance, survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc. I maintain that's discrimination, and here's why:
When considering these benefits that today are generally provided only to married couples, think about the reasons why those benefits should be extended to any other sort of couple. To do this, I'll use the same arguments used by the gay rights crowd:
- A pair of adults committed to each other
- Both want to live in a "family" environment with full benefits to their family members
So, the question is, why should these benefits be provided to gay couples only? That is terribly discriminatory, just as the benefit plans of many corporations are already discriminating against other family units in favor of gay partnerships.
Let me create a scenario: Suppose due to tragic or unfortunate circumstances, my sister and I both were to find ourselves widowed or divorced, with minor children still in each of our households. So, to economize and regain a semblance of family life, my sister and I move into my home together and blend our children into a family unit. How would this situation differ from a homosexual couple in terms of access to family benefits?
The answer is that there is really only one difference, which is the presence or absence of sex in the relationship. (How many married people are already living in a partnership without sex? But, I digress.)
Ultimately, my point: To accord special status to homosexual couples at that very instant disenfranchises untold numbers of other family arrangements that in most cases would be more deserving of family benefits. Any committed family relationship living under the same roof, whether father/son, father/daughter., mother/son, mother/daughter, sister/brother, cousins, best friends, I could go on forever. Even hetero "shack-ups" aren't getting the corporate insurance benefits being given to homosexual couples already - that seems wildly discriminatory to me.
So, here's my take on the whole situation. Any unmarried adult should be able to name whomever they wish as their beneficiary or immediate family member without regard to gender or blood relationship. But I am strongly opposed to any special treatment for gay couples, because I will never believe that anyone is entitled to discriminatory rights just because of their chosen behavior. And that's not marriage, it's not even a civil union - it's just freedom.
(P.S. - Julie and Jill, don't worry, I'm not suggesting anything by the brother/sister household thing. I used it for illustration purposes only.)
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Baby Baby
Time for the abortion rant.
The so-called right to abortion was a fabrication of activist courts, when Roe v. Wade caused a lib supreme court to create a vague privacy right out of thin air.
If you want to talk constitutionality, the actual article that applies is the Equal Protection clause. Babies are people too, actually. In case anybody didn't know, science has proven it: A fetus is not some blob of tissue, but a living, feeling, heart-beating baby. Abortion is the barbaric practice of tearing that baby limb-from-limb out of it's mother's womb and tossing the remains in the trash.
OK, tell me all about how hard-hearted I am by ignoring the rights of women, being the insensitive male I am. No, don't say I don't understand - I understand completely. Pregnancies occur by mistake regularly, and can be incredibly inconvenient. These circumstances usually involve somebody who's made a mistake, and is unprepared financially or otherwise to birth, care for, and raise a child.
I heard someone say once during an abortion debate that most women would rather abort than give up a child for adoption. How can anybody who thinks about that for more than 2 seconds logically justify that choice? Here's the real choice for crisis pregnancy: have the child and give the best gift in the world to a young family who longs for that baby.
Of course, it sounds easier than it is. The embarrassment of letting friends and family know about a pregnancy, the likelihood that the boyfriend will run away faster than you can say "I'm pregnant", being in the middle of a challenging collegiate program or bidding for that job promotion, or possibly being disowned by unforgiving parents. It is all tough, I know.
But if that life growing inside is your little child, who is completely dependent on you and is already bonding to your voice, is important enough, there is a way. You can take a semester off and go live in a group home until the baby arrives. You can stay in school or at the job and plan a short vacation around the due date to give birth, then return immediately after recovery. You can live with friends or relatives who will gladly help in any way they can to make sure your child is healthy and well cared for. If all that fails, call me - I'll be happy to take your baby rather than see it aborted.
Recently I saw a story that pointed out that the vast majority of abortions in America are performed for racial minorities; particularly blacks. What a terribly racist system, supported by the libs who are supposed to be champions of minorities. Somebody needs to get the truth out about this, plus the lies being tossed around about "protecting the mother's health" to justify partial-birth abortion.
I hold no illusions of an overturn of the bad court decision anytime soon. But I was thinking about all the energy spent by the government under the Clintons around smoking. If the same energy was expended by national leaders in communicating the facts about abortion, alternatives to abortion, and promoting adoption, I believe it would be incredibly successful.
If we teach everyone about fetal development while removing all possible reasons women choose abortion today, there's a real chance we could nearly eliminate the practice in our lifetimes. I just hope we can find national leaders who are willing to take it on.
The so-called right to abortion was a fabrication of activist courts, when Roe v. Wade caused a lib supreme court to create a vague privacy right out of thin air.
If you want to talk constitutionality, the actual article that applies is the Equal Protection clause. Babies are people too, actually. In case anybody didn't know, science has proven it: A fetus is not some blob of tissue, but a living, feeling, heart-beating baby. Abortion is the barbaric practice of tearing that baby limb-from-limb out of it's mother's womb and tossing the remains in the trash.
OK, tell me all about how hard-hearted I am by ignoring the rights of women, being the insensitive male I am. No, don't say I don't understand - I understand completely. Pregnancies occur by mistake regularly, and can be incredibly inconvenient. These circumstances usually involve somebody who's made a mistake, and is unprepared financially or otherwise to birth, care for, and raise a child.
I heard someone say once during an abortion debate that most women would rather abort than give up a child for adoption. How can anybody who thinks about that for more than 2 seconds logically justify that choice? Here's the real choice for crisis pregnancy: have the child and give the best gift in the world to a young family who longs for that baby.
Of course, it sounds easier than it is. The embarrassment of letting friends and family know about a pregnancy, the likelihood that the boyfriend will run away faster than you can say "I'm pregnant", being in the middle of a challenging collegiate program or bidding for that job promotion, or possibly being disowned by unforgiving parents. It is all tough, I know.
But if that life growing inside is your little child, who is completely dependent on you and is already bonding to your voice, is important enough, there is a way. You can take a semester off and go live in a group home until the baby arrives. You can stay in school or at the job and plan a short vacation around the due date to give birth, then return immediately after recovery. You can live with friends or relatives who will gladly help in any way they can to make sure your child is healthy and well cared for. If all that fails, call me - I'll be happy to take your baby rather than see it aborted.
Recently I saw a story that pointed out that the vast majority of abortions in America are performed for racial minorities; particularly blacks. What a terribly racist system, supported by the libs who are supposed to be champions of minorities. Somebody needs to get the truth out about this, plus the lies being tossed around about "protecting the mother's health" to justify partial-birth abortion.
I hold no illusions of an overturn of the bad court decision anytime soon. But I was thinking about all the energy spent by the government under the Clintons around smoking. If the same energy was expended by national leaders in communicating the facts about abortion, alternatives to abortion, and promoting adoption, I believe it would be incredibly successful.
If we teach everyone about fetal development while removing all possible reasons women choose abortion today, there's a real chance we could nearly eliminate the practice in our lifetimes. I just hope we can find national leaders who are willing to take it on.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Basketbrawl
So everybody knows about the brawl in Detroit last weekend that has resulted in the "death penalty" for the Indiana Pacers. The incident has raised lots of questions and generated lots of opinions, many of which are ludicrous.
I've heard wild theories from people who want to sound smart, talking about coddled athletes, drunken fans, societal failures, the so-called hip-hop culture, and even the war in Iraq to try to explain what happened. It's laughable.
What happened is easily seen on the constant video replays our television networks are only too happy to provide, ad nauseum. Pacers player (Artest) fouls Pistons player (Wallace), who is frustrated anyway by the fact that his team is being beaten and doesn't personally like the player who fouled him. He reacts by trying to instigate an on-court fight, but the Pacers player retreats. Players and coaches from each side move in to assist the officials with restoring order.
That's where the story should have ended. Had the Pistons had adequate security in place, it would have ended there. As the players, coaches, and officials worked to calm down Wallace, who by the way was still trying to get to Artest, presumably to deliver a few punches, Artest made a show of being above the fray by lying down on the scorer's table.
This enraged nearby Pistons fans, at least one of which threw his full beer cup at Artest, which hit him sqarely in the mid-section. This set off the tempermental Artest, who immediately jumped into the seats to find the offending fan. Unfortunately, he had no idea which fan threw the beer, and began pummeling a fan who was probably innocent. (I don't know whether that particular fan was taunting him.)
The action of jumping into the stands triggered a general riot, with several drunken Pistons fans converging to try to get their own shots at Artest, again with no security personnel in sight. Another Pacer, Jackson, either trying to protect his teammate or caught up in the emotions of the moment, joined Artest in the stands and began pummelling fans that were attempting to attack Artest.
In the meantime, a few fans spilled onto the court, and O'Neal punched one that confronted him there. Apparently somewhere else in the arena a chair was thrown by a fan that missed his intended Pacer target and injured another fan.
Finally, the teams were escorted off the court. The Pacers made their way to the locker room through a gauntlet of beer cups, popcorn, and whatever else could be found by fans to hurl at the players.
So, is there some deeper meaning or explanation for this terrible incident? Not at all. How many men in this situation would react similarly? I consider myself to have a fairly cool head, but if I was assaulted by a full beer cup during a sporting event, I can't be absolutely certain that I wouldn't react with similar anger.
This incident has little to do with race, culture, "hip-hop", and certainly nothing to do with the Iraq war. It is simply a tragic combination of elite athletes in the heat of competition, an emotional contest between bitter rivals, drunken fans, and an inexcusable lack of security.
Do the offending players deserve to be punished? Absolutely. Is the punishment meted out by the Commissioner appropriate? I don't think so. In my opinion, Artest should receive a 20-game suspension with strict probation the rest of the season. In other words, any unacceptable behavior when he returns to the court would result in immediate suspension for a full year.
Jackson and O'Neal should also receive suspensions, but for fewer games.
Finally, the Detroit franchise should be fined heavily. I'm thinking in the millions of dollars. They should forfeit their remaining games to the Pacers this season, and be forced to hire security for all future games. They also should be forced to discontinue beer sales at their games, and all fans involved in assaulting players should be banned from attending any future events.
I've heard wild theories from people who want to sound smart, talking about coddled athletes, drunken fans, societal failures, the so-called hip-hop culture, and even the war in Iraq to try to explain what happened. It's laughable.
What happened is easily seen on the constant video replays our television networks are only too happy to provide, ad nauseum. Pacers player (Artest) fouls Pistons player (Wallace), who is frustrated anyway by the fact that his team is being beaten and doesn't personally like the player who fouled him. He reacts by trying to instigate an on-court fight, but the Pacers player retreats. Players and coaches from each side move in to assist the officials with restoring order.
That's where the story should have ended. Had the Pistons had adequate security in place, it would have ended there. As the players, coaches, and officials worked to calm down Wallace, who by the way was still trying to get to Artest, presumably to deliver a few punches, Artest made a show of being above the fray by lying down on the scorer's table.
This enraged nearby Pistons fans, at least one of which threw his full beer cup at Artest, which hit him sqarely in the mid-section. This set off the tempermental Artest, who immediately jumped into the seats to find the offending fan. Unfortunately, he had no idea which fan threw the beer, and began pummeling a fan who was probably innocent. (I don't know whether that particular fan was taunting him.)
The action of jumping into the stands triggered a general riot, with several drunken Pistons fans converging to try to get their own shots at Artest, again with no security personnel in sight. Another Pacer, Jackson, either trying to protect his teammate or caught up in the emotions of the moment, joined Artest in the stands and began pummelling fans that were attempting to attack Artest.
In the meantime, a few fans spilled onto the court, and O'Neal punched one that confronted him there. Apparently somewhere else in the arena a chair was thrown by a fan that missed his intended Pacer target and injured another fan.
Finally, the teams were escorted off the court. The Pacers made their way to the locker room through a gauntlet of beer cups, popcorn, and whatever else could be found by fans to hurl at the players.
So, is there some deeper meaning or explanation for this terrible incident? Not at all. How many men in this situation would react similarly? I consider myself to have a fairly cool head, but if I was assaulted by a full beer cup during a sporting event, I can't be absolutely certain that I wouldn't react with similar anger.
This incident has little to do with race, culture, "hip-hop", and certainly nothing to do with the Iraq war. It is simply a tragic combination of elite athletes in the heat of competition, an emotional contest between bitter rivals, drunken fans, and an inexcusable lack of security.
Do the offending players deserve to be punished? Absolutely. Is the punishment meted out by the Commissioner appropriate? I don't think so. In my opinion, Artest should receive a 20-game suspension with strict probation the rest of the season. In other words, any unacceptable behavior when he returns to the court would result in immediate suspension for a full year.
Jackson and O'Neal should also receive suspensions, but for fewer games.
Finally, the Detroit franchise should be fined heavily. I'm thinking in the millions of dollars. They should forfeit their remaining games to the Pacers this season, and be forced to hire security for all future games. They also should be forced to discontinue beer sales at their games, and all fans involved in assaulting players should be banned from attending any future events.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Weekend Update
Well, my analysis of the football game was correct in every respect but one; I predicted a close game, and it was a blowout in favor of the visiting team.
Columbus North was unable to stop Warren Central's potent triple-option, and the WC offensive line dwarfed and dominated the North defensive front 7. WC scored on every possession until late in the fourth quarter, when they had already emptied their bench. On many occasions throughout the game, North's defense seemed to have them stopped for a third-and-long, but each time WC broke a big play, in several cases for a TD.
North's offense didn't have a bad night - they actually proved that they could move the ball on WC, although they stalled drives with some mistakes and some good WC defensive plays.
It was still a great run, and the season provided lots of positive memories for the players, coaches, families, and the Columbus community.
Too bad it's over, but now we can turn our attention to other things.
Columbus North was unable to stop Warren Central's potent triple-option, and the WC offensive line dwarfed and dominated the North defensive front 7. WC scored on every possession until late in the fourth quarter, when they had already emptied their bench. On many occasions throughout the game, North's defense seemed to have them stopped for a third-and-long, but each time WC broke a big play, in several cases for a TD.
North's offense didn't have a bad night - they actually proved that they could move the ball on WC, although they stalled drives with some mistakes and some good WC defensive plays.
It was still a great run, and the season provided lots of positive memories for the players, coaches, families, and the Columbus community.
Too bad it's over, but now we can turn our attention to other things.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
High School Football Final 4
Yes, this is all about the Columbus North Bulldogs (Columbus, Indiana) playing Warren Central for the Semi-State title and the right to play for the 5A State Championship on Thanksgiving weekend in the RCA Dome.
Nobody around the state seems to believe the 'Dogs stand a chance against the perennial powerhouse Warren Central, who by the way is the defending state champion. Win or lose, our team has had a great, historic run, that has already made great memories for the players (including our own Tim).
Here's the game analysis for this Friday night:
Warren Central is a super-sized Indianapolis high school that has built a tradition of state champion football teams. They run a Wing-T Option offense that relies on speed and deception, with a gigantic offensive line and a group of 3 very talented speedy backs. They have one loss for the season, to Center Grove, a team that was beaten by Avon in the Sectional first round. Avon was defeated by Columbus North in a tough but convincing game in the Sectional Semifinal, where they were held to only 6 points. Warren Central and Columbus North have played and beaten three teams in common, with Warren Central owning the overall largest win margins. North beat one team by a wider margin, but Warren Central drubbed the other two with what look like running-up-the score games.
Warren Central got to this game by defeating fellow Indy powerhouse Ben Davis by two points with a late come-from-behind score. Columbus North comes off a convincing 24-0 shutout of Castle High School to earn the right to represent the southern half of the state in this semifinal matchup.
Game conditions are predicted to be wet and muddy, which many think slightly favors Columbus North. Apparently Warren Central has had some turnover and offensive production problems in wet and muddy conditions, while North's defense seems to thrive in those games.
To win, North must continue to play shut-down defense, as their run-oriented offense is unlikely to generate a lot of points. Offensively, if North cannot get their '3-headed monster' running backs going, they will have to be able to throw effectively. The expectation is that Warren Central has thoroughly scouted North's offense, and will probably pack 9 guys in the box on defense to stifle the run and dare them to throw down the field. That strategy was used to great effectiveness by Bloomington South last year in eliminating North from the playoffs, as well as by Columbus East in the second game of this season in handing the 'Dogs their only loss this year.
For Warren Central to win, they will have to first avoid overconfidence. It has been a very long time since a southern school has been competitive on a state level, and Warren Central doesn't appear to be giving Columbus North much respect. On the field, WC will probably find North to be much tougher on defense than they expect, just as their other playoff opponents have this post-season. WC will have to find a way to break some big plays with their running offense and rely on their defense to shut down North's offense, or they will have to throw the ball to win.
I won't make any predictions on the game, mainly because I haven't seen Warren Central play. I do expect it to be a close, hard-fought game, which will most likely be decided on one or two key big plays and/or turnovers.
Either way, it's fun and exciting, but what can be most fun and exciting is if North pulls out the victory and goes to the RCA Dome next weekend. What a great experience for the kids, and what fun for the parents!
Nobody around the state seems to believe the 'Dogs stand a chance against the perennial powerhouse Warren Central, who by the way is the defending state champion. Win or lose, our team has had a great, historic run, that has already made great memories for the players (including our own Tim).
Here's the game analysis for this Friday night:
Warren Central is a super-sized Indianapolis high school that has built a tradition of state champion football teams. They run a Wing-T Option offense that relies on speed and deception, with a gigantic offensive line and a group of 3 very talented speedy backs. They have one loss for the season, to Center Grove, a team that was beaten by Avon in the Sectional first round. Avon was defeated by Columbus North in a tough but convincing game in the Sectional Semifinal, where they were held to only 6 points. Warren Central and Columbus North have played and beaten three teams in common, with Warren Central owning the overall largest win margins. North beat one team by a wider margin, but Warren Central drubbed the other two with what look like running-up-the score games.
Warren Central got to this game by defeating fellow Indy powerhouse Ben Davis by two points with a late come-from-behind score. Columbus North comes off a convincing 24-0 shutout of Castle High School to earn the right to represent the southern half of the state in this semifinal matchup.
Game conditions are predicted to be wet and muddy, which many think slightly favors Columbus North. Apparently Warren Central has had some turnover and offensive production problems in wet and muddy conditions, while North's defense seems to thrive in those games.
To win, North must continue to play shut-down defense, as their run-oriented offense is unlikely to generate a lot of points. Offensively, if North cannot get their '3-headed monster' running backs going, they will have to be able to throw effectively. The expectation is that Warren Central has thoroughly scouted North's offense, and will probably pack 9 guys in the box on defense to stifle the run and dare them to throw down the field. That strategy was used to great effectiveness by Bloomington South last year in eliminating North from the playoffs, as well as by Columbus East in the second game of this season in handing the 'Dogs their only loss this year.
For Warren Central to win, they will have to first avoid overconfidence. It has been a very long time since a southern school has been competitive on a state level, and Warren Central doesn't appear to be giving Columbus North much respect. On the field, WC will probably find North to be much tougher on defense than they expect, just as their other playoff opponents have this post-season. WC will have to find a way to break some big plays with their running offense and rely on their defense to shut down North's offense, or they will have to throw the ball to win.
I won't make any predictions on the game, mainly because I haven't seen Warren Central play. I do expect it to be a close, hard-fought game, which will most likely be decided on one or two key big plays and/or turnovers.
Either way, it's fun and exciting, but what can be most fun and exciting is if North pulls out the victory and goes to the RCA Dome next weekend. What a great experience for the kids, and what fun for the parents!
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Got Healthcare?
How about some real solutions to problems for a change?
If you don't really care much for reading about healthcare, go ahead and stop reading now. If you are, and know somebody who might be able to do something about it, please send my blog link to them.
To solve any problem, you first have to understand it. Here are the basics of the healthcare problem:
1. It costs too much.
2. Individuals can't get insurance, especially if they already have a health problem.
3. Our life expectancy keeps rising, partly because we're able to use drugs, surgery, and technology to keep us alive a lot longer than in the past.
4. Providers are in the business for the money rather than more altruistic motives. Healthcare is a profit-making enterprise that's becoming a huge chunk of our GDP.
5. People who have disappointing results are egged on by trial lawyers to sue the doctors & hospitals, which drives up cost further.
6. Medicine is focused on treatment instead of prevention.
It's tempting to throw up our hands and admit defeat. The system is nearly broken, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. I'd say there's plenty that can be done about it, but every solution has a rich and powerful anti-constituency that will fight to the bitter end to keep them from being implemented.
It's admittedly very high-level, and nothing here is an original idea. However, there isn't anybody on the national scene that I know who is promoting all of these solutions together.
Anyway, here's how we fix the system:
1. Provide employers with attractive tax incentives to cover their employees in comprehensive health plans, including prevention and wellness. I also like Bush's idea for health insurance portability, which allows individuals and families to keep their plan as they change jobs. The logistics might be tricky, but it could be an excellent idea.
2. Let small businesses band together to purchase health coverage for their employees at the same rates the big companies get.
3. Implement tort reform that takes the following form: Before a malpractice lawsuit may be brought against a doctor, hospital, hmo, etc., the complaint must first be presented to a medical review board for determination of whether there is reasonable evidence of malpractice. The board must be made up of a mix of medical professionals and laymen proven to have no conflict of interest, who review each case and the evidence and decide whether the suit has merit. Along with this, get rid of the silly restrictions against suing HMO's for malpractice or improper denial of care.
4. Set up clinics and hospitals and/or provide subsidies to community health service organizations that provide indigent and uninsured patient care. Anyone can avail themselves of the services at these identified providers, and will be asked to pay as much as they can afford up to the limit of standard usual, reasonable, customary established rates. Provide interest-free government-guaranteed loans to help patients pay for their care, and use tax dollars (gasp!) to fill the gaps. For the average person, the message is, "if you need care, come to this location and you'll receive it regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. However, you will be asked to pay as much as you can afford toward your treatment."
5. At these government-supported public healthcare organizations, focus on teaching hospitals and utilize young medical students as much as possible, supervised of course by professional staff.
6. Provide attractive tax incentives for physicians and surgeons who provide indigent care with minimal or waived fees. For example, a heart surgeon who does 50 bypass surgeries per month could perform 5 per month for uninsured patients, taking whatever they can afford. The difference between what the patient pays and the normal fee for the surgery would be deductible on the surgeon's tax return.
7. Eliminate the mountains of paperwork. The government and private insurers have required such extensive paperwork that providers are getting buried in administrative overhead costs, not to mention delayed payments. A unified, standard electronic reporting form must be developed and accepted by all insurers, which all providers create on their computer system and transmit directly to the appropriate insurer. The technology exists, all that's needed is standards to eliminate the huge and growing costs of compliance with insurer's paperwork requirements.
Yes, my concept is a partnership between government and private healthcare companies. Let's not delude ourselves - we're going to provide these services to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. So we have to accept the fact that there will always be uninsured people who get sick and need treatment. Rather than turning them away, we should be prepared to subsidize their treatments, surgery and drugs. With help from private organizations, plus hospitals, physicians, and drug companies, along with making it as easy and attractive as possible for all employers to cover their employees, I think the tax-funded portion could be managed.
We've already got Medicare and Medicaid, which are both socialized medicine. All I'm suggesting is that we could manage these programs more efficiently by opening or subsidizing specific clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. for those who don't have private coverage. By the way, these places would not be government-run, but managed by private companies licensed by the government who are encouraged to be efficient and keep costs down while maintaining a high level of service.
Seems pretty simple to me, but of course it isn't perfect. There is no perfect, but there can be pretty good - this approach I think is pretty good.
If you don't really care much for reading about healthcare, go ahead and stop reading now. If you are, and know somebody who might be able to do something about it, please send my blog link to them.
To solve any problem, you first have to understand it. Here are the basics of the healthcare problem:
1. It costs too much.
2. Individuals can't get insurance, especially if they already have a health problem.
3. Our life expectancy keeps rising, partly because we're able to use drugs, surgery, and technology to keep us alive a lot longer than in the past.
4. Providers are in the business for the money rather than more altruistic motives. Healthcare is a profit-making enterprise that's becoming a huge chunk of our GDP.
5. People who have disappointing results are egged on by trial lawyers to sue the doctors & hospitals, which drives up cost further.
6. Medicine is focused on treatment instead of prevention.
It's tempting to throw up our hands and admit defeat. The system is nearly broken, and there seems to be nothing we can do about it. I'd say there's plenty that can be done about it, but every solution has a rich and powerful anti-constituency that will fight to the bitter end to keep them from being implemented.
It's admittedly very high-level, and nothing here is an original idea. However, there isn't anybody on the national scene that I know who is promoting all of these solutions together.
Anyway, here's how we fix the system:
1. Provide employers with attractive tax incentives to cover their employees in comprehensive health plans, including prevention and wellness. I also like Bush's idea for health insurance portability, which allows individuals and families to keep their plan as they change jobs. The logistics might be tricky, but it could be an excellent idea.
2. Let small businesses band together to purchase health coverage for their employees at the same rates the big companies get.
3. Implement tort reform that takes the following form: Before a malpractice lawsuit may be brought against a doctor, hospital, hmo, etc., the complaint must first be presented to a medical review board for determination of whether there is reasonable evidence of malpractice. The board must be made up of a mix of medical professionals and laymen proven to have no conflict of interest, who review each case and the evidence and decide whether the suit has merit. Along with this, get rid of the silly restrictions against suing HMO's for malpractice or improper denial of care.
4. Set up clinics and hospitals and/or provide subsidies to community health service organizations that provide indigent and uninsured patient care. Anyone can avail themselves of the services at these identified providers, and will be asked to pay as much as they can afford up to the limit of standard usual, reasonable, customary established rates. Provide interest-free government-guaranteed loans to help patients pay for their care, and use tax dollars (gasp!) to fill the gaps. For the average person, the message is, "if you need care, come to this location and you'll receive it regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay. However, you will be asked to pay as much as you can afford toward your treatment."
5. At these government-supported public healthcare organizations, focus on teaching hospitals and utilize young medical students as much as possible, supervised of course by professional staff.
6. Provide attractive tax incentives for physicians and surgeons who provide indigent care with minimal or waived fees. For example, a heart surgeon who does 50 bypass surgeries per month could perform 5 per month for uninsured patients, taking whatever they can afford. The difference between what the patient pays and the normal fee for the surgery would be deductible on the surgeon's tax return.
7. Eliminate the mountains of paperwork. The government and private insurers have required such extensive paperwork that providers are getting buried in administrative overhead costs, not to mention delayed payments. A unified, standard electronic reporting form must be developed and accepted by all insurers, which all providers create on their computer system and transmit directly to the appropriate insurer. The technology exists, all that's needed is standards to eliminate the huge and growing costs of compliance with insurer's paperwork requirements.
Yes, my concept is a partnership between government and private healthcare companies. Let's not delude ourselves - we're going to provide these services to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. So we have to accept the fact that there will always be uninsured people who get sick and need treatment. Rather than turning them away, we should be prepared to subsidize their treatments, surgery and drugs. With help from private organizations, plus hospitals, physicians, and drug companies, along with making it as easy and attractive as possible for all employers to cover their employees, I think the tax-funded portion could be managed.
We've already got Medicare and Medicaid, which are both socialized medicine. All I'm suggesting is that we could manage these programs more efficiently by opening or subsidizing specific clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. for those who don't have private coverage. By the way, these places would not be government-run, but managed by private companies licensed by the government who are encouraged to be efficient and keep costs down while maintaining a high level of service.
Seems pretty simple to me, but of course it isn't perfect. There is no perfect, but there can be pretty good - this approach I think is pretty good.
Friday, November 12, 2004
High School Football Fridays
It's regional championship night. For me, that means taking a bus full of parents way down to Indiana's toe to watch Columbus North and Castle. Should be fun, if rather chilly. There's something kind of special about watching the next generation play a sport you played about 30 years ago.
Even when I've got no more kids playing, I think I'll still try to make the time to get to the high school games on Friday nights. The whole experience of sitting in the bleachers, watching the kids on the field, their classmates in the stands, the band, the cheerleaders, the concession stands; it all evokes memories of special days that we can relive to some degree by revisiting that high school stadium on Friday night.
Tim's had ups and downs for his senior year. On the up-side, he's been on the field more than in any one of his 5 years playing football. A perennial benchwarmer, even though he still has been unable to break through the starting lineup, he has seen some decent playing time and been able to contribute with tackles, a fumble recovery, and even a touchdown catch! On the other hand, a sprained ankle and maybe a little time in the coach's doghouse has kept him off the field for 5 games.
As an admittedly biased Dad, it's been a little bit frustrating having him on the sidelines when healthy while believing he could be contributing on the field. Once the winning combination was identified by the coach, he's stayed with the starters only until a game is well out of reach, which means at least a 28-point lead. By then, Tim doesn't really care if he plays, because he feels the playing time is meaningless. I don't blame him.
Even though I may have had some more success as far as playing time in my high school football days, I certainly never caught a TD pass (I was a lineman). Our HS team, especially in my senior year, was in a rebuilding phase with a brand new coach. Coach Mirer was a great coach, though. It really didn't surprise me when just a few years after I graduated, my alma mater won the State Championship with my brother David on the team.
There are a few noticeable changes since my high school days. Weightlifting has become a huge factor - we just had a Universal machine, but even then conditioning was focused on leg strength, neck strength, and speed. It would be more difficult for me to play with these bulked-up weightlifters given my 1974 6'2" 180 lb playing size.
The CN Bulldogs are expected to beat Castle, but a business acquaintance in Bloomington who's son played the same team in the Regional a few years ago tells me it's a tough place to win. He felt their visiting Bloomington South team was hurt by "homer" officials who overlooked constant fouls by Castle while flagging non-existant violations on the visitors to wipe out big plays. I certainly hope that's not what we'll see tonight.
Even with a win tonight, virtually nobody gives the 'Dogs a chance against their Semi-State opponent, the winner between Warren Central and Ben Davis. On the other hand, nobody around the state really knows very much about this Columbus team that came out of nowhere to win a share of their conference championship and beat very good teams to get this far. Let's hope they can sneak up on that next powerhouse opponent to get into the dome Thanksgiving weekend.
Go Dogs - Beat Castle! Go Tim - show them your stuff!
Even when I've got no more kids playing, I think I'll still try to make the time to get to the high school games on Friday nights. The whole experience of sitting in the bleachers, watching the kids on the field, their classmates in the stands, the band, the cheerleaders, the concession stands; it all evokes memories of special days that we can relive to some degree by revisiting that high school stadium on Friday night.
Tim's had ups and downs for his senior year. On the up-side, he's been on the field more than in any one of his 5 years playing football. A perennial benchwarmer, even though he still has been unable to break through the starting lineup, he has seen some decent playing time and been able to contribute with tackles, a fumble recovery, and even a touchdown catch! On the other hand, a sprained ankle and maybe a little time in the coach's doghouse has kept him off the field for 5 games.
As an admittedly biased Dad, it's been a little bit frustrating having him on the sidelines when healthy while believing he could be contributing on the field. Once the winning combination was identified by the coach, he's stayed with the starters only until a game is well out of reach, which means at least a 28-point lead. By then, Tim doesn't really care if he plays, because he feels the playing time is meaningless. I don't blame him.
Even though I may have had some more success as far as playing time in my high school football days, I certainly never caught a TD pass (I was a lineman). Our HS team, especially in my senior year, was in a rebuilding phase with a brand new coach. Coach Mirer was a great coach, though. It really didn't surprise me when just a few years after I graduated, my alma mater won the State Championship with my brother David on the team.
There are a few noticeable changes since my high school days. Weightlifting has become a huge factor - we just had a Universal machine, but even then conditioning was focused on leg strength, neck strength, and speed. It would be more difficult for me to play with these bulked-up weightlifters given my 1974 6'2" 180 lb playing size.
The CN Bulldogs are expected to beat Castle, but a business acquaintance in Bloomington who's son played the same team in the Regional a few years ago tells me it's a tough place to win. He felt their visiting Bloomington South team was hurt by "homer" officials who overlooked constant fouls by Castle while flagging non-existant violations on the visitors to wipe out big plays. I certainly hope that's not what we'll see tonight.
Even with a win tonight, virtually nobody gives the 'Dogs a chance against their Semi-State opponent, the winner between Warren Central and Ben Davis. On the other hand, nobody around the state really knows very much about this Columbus team that came out of nowhere to win a share of their conference championship and beat very good teams to get this far. Let's hope they can sneak up on that next powerhouse opponent to get into the dome Thanksgiving weekend.
Go Dogs - Beat Castle! Go Tim - show them your stuff!
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
The Real Church
The level of hatred of Christianity by the election losers, now that the "blue states" folks feel free to show their true colors, is stunning. What horrible examples did these people have growing up that gave them such a negative perspective on people of faith? Is it a result of their actual first-hand experience with Christians, or perhaps more a misguided perception fed by their friends and acquaintances in those coastal megolopoles where the groupthink has taken over the mob?
As I try to sift through the vitriol from the Atheist Left, the main issues that seem to come through are that Christians want to round up gays, outlaw abortion and throw any Doctors and women who participate in them in jail, spy on adults in their bedrooms, etc. And of course, all of this comes from a bunch of evil hypocrites who engage in these activities themselves but want to pretend they're above reproach.
Christians need to engage in more introspection, and the Church as a whole (Catholic and Protestant) is badly in need of a revival. Truly the Church cannot decry ungodliness in this country without first looking inside itself. How many churches now either provide open or tacit approval to those in their midst who are living in a state of sin; to avoid the hypocrisy label, we must be equally strong in counseling against premarital relations, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, and homosexual behavior.
I think part of the hatred being expressed toward people of faith is based on the apparent hypocrisy of a church that is outspoken against Gay Marriage, but strangely silent on adultery and multiple marriages so prevalent in our society. Catholics have been harmed terribly by the horrible actions of a few priests, Episcopalians by the ordination of an openly Gay bishop, and many other sects by a watered down, feel-good approach trying to be relevant but teaching people nothing.
The answer is for the Church to be consistent on issues of morality, while being sure to make those cases in a loving manner. We have to be firm on issues of sin, but never strident or hateful. Our message to the world must be clear on the basic tenets of our faith; love and acceptance, redemption for sinners, and the joy of being part of the family of God.
As I try to sift through the vitriol from the Atheist Left, the main issues that seem to come through are that Christians want to round up gays, outlaw abortion and throw any Doctors and women who participate in them in jail, spy on adults in their bedrooms, etc. And of course, all of this comes from a bunch of evil hypocrites who engage in these activities themselves but want to pretend they're above reproach.
Christians need to engage in more introspection, and the Church as a whole (Catholic and Protestant) is badly in need of a revival. Truly the Church cannot decry ungodliness in this country without first looking inside itself. How many churches now either provide open or tacit approval to those in their midst who are living in a state of sin; to avoid the hypocrisy label, we must be equally strong in counseling against premarital relations, cohabitation, abortion, adultery, and homosexual behavior.
I think part of the hatred being expressed toward people of faith is based on the apparent hypocrisy of a church that is outspoken against Gay Marriage, but strangely silent on adultery and multiple marriages so prevalent in our society. Catholics have been harmed terribly by the horrible actions of a few priests, Episcopalians by the ordination of an openly Gay bishop, and many other sects by a watered down, feel-good approach trying to be relevant but teaching people nothing.
The answer is for the Church to be consistent on issues of morality, while being sure to make those cases in a loving manner. We have to be firm on issues of sin, but never strident or hateful. Our message to the world must be clear on the basic tenets of our faith; love and acceptance, redemption for sinners, and the joy of being part of the family of God.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Thankful it's almost over
I voted early after discovering I'd be out of town on Tuesday. It was fairly busy at the courthouse with other early voters, but I didn't have to wait too long.
The outcome of the election, if it is as close as the pollsters say it is, will be disappointing on many levels even if my choice wins. This election, I am convinced, represents a turning point in our country's history that will decide whether our country will continue to be the great success story or just another secular socialist country like those in Europe.
Whether he wins election or even comes close, all this support for Kerry tells us that somewhere close to half of the country believes these things:
1. Iraq is no threat to us, electing Kerry doesn't encourage terrorists, and the war was just about making Cheney & Haliburton rich.
2. Abortion on demand, no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers who morally object, provided to teen and pre-teen girls without their parent's knowledge, and available all the way up to killing a fully developed baby just before delivery, are all just part of a woman's right to choose.
3. People of faith, including Christians and Jews but excluding Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. should shut up and stop imposing their morality on everyone, their churches should be taxed on donations, and clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals even if their theology clearly teaches it to be antithetical to their faith.
4. The rich need to pay more taxes, notwithstanding that they already pay the lion's share and a huge segment of the population doesn't pay any at all. We should go back to Jimmy Carter's days with 80% marginal tax rates on earnings over $100K everyone except the liberal leadership and entertainers, even if it destroys our economy.
5. While we're at it, we should also destroy our economy with Kyoto-type environmental laws that shut down whatever's left of our industrial base and completes the transition of all of those jobs to places like China and India, then forcing us to ride bicycles to work and no longer be able to heat or cool our homes economically.
6. Now the FCC can finally be forced to stop hassling the Howard Sterns of the world and permit public radio and television programming that includes as much pornography, violence and vulgarity as the public will take. If parents don't want their kids to see it, they can always change the channel, right?
7. Finally we can fix healthcare, giving everyone full access to the system through a government-controlled single-payer system funded by those taxes on the rich. Of course it's worth the damage to the economy, and so what if people need the whole day off to see the doctor after waiting a month to get an appointment, then waiting a few more weeks to fill the prescription?
8. And now the trial lawyers will have the freedom they need to sue everyone with money for whatever wrong they might have committed on an unsuspecting public. Lawyers love Kerry & Edwards, who will make sure they can continue to get multi-million dollar settlements from corporations through class-action lawsuits where the victims get a little grocery money in compensation after the lawyers collect their one-third to one-half share of those millions they won for their clients.
9. Public schools will now be free and encouraged to teach all of the diversity-friendly values that conservatives have been blocking all these years. Elementary school kids all need to know how gay people have sex, that promiscuity is OK as long as you use a condom, that white males are the scourge of the planet and will be made to pay for their crimes, and that religion is for the weak minded.
I've got more, but I'm tired and sad. Good luck everybody with your new society, I'm praying for mercy.
The outcome of the election, if it is as close as the pollsters say it is, will be disappointing on many levels even if my choice wins. This election, I am convinced, represents a turning point in our country's history that will decide whether our country will continue to be the great success story or just another secular socialist country like those in Europe.
Whether he wins election or even comes close, all this support for Kerry tells us that somewhere close to half of the country believes these things:
1. Iraq is no threat to us, electing Kerry doesn't encourage terrorists, and the war was just about making Cheney & Haliburton rich.
2. Abortion on demand, no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers who morally object, provided to teen and pre-teen girls without their parent's knowledge, and available all the way up to killing a fully developed baby just before delivery, are all just part of a woman's right to choose.
3. People of faith, including Christians and Jews but excluding Muslims, Atheists, Humanists, Pagans, Wiccans, etc. should shut up and stop imposing their morality on everyone, their churches should be taxed on donations, and clergy should be forced to marry homosexuals even if their theology clearly teaches it to be antithetical to their faith.
4. The rich need to pay more taxes, notwithstanding that they already pay the lion's share and a huge segment of the population doesn't pay any at all. We should go back to Jimmy Carter's days with 80% marginal tax rates on earnings over $100K everyone except the liberal leadership and entertainers, even if it destroys our economy.
5. While we're at it, we should also destroy our economy with Kyoto-type environmental laws that shut down whatever's left of our industrial base and completes the transition of all of those jobs to places like China and India, then forcing us to ride bicycles to work and no longer be able to heat or cool our homes economically.
6. Now the FCC can finally be forced to stop hassling the Howard Sterns of the world and permit public radio and television programming that includes as much pornography, violence and vulgarity as the public will take. If parents don't want their kids to see it, they can always change the channel, right?
7. Finally we can fix healthcare, giving everyone full access to the system through a government-controlled single-payer system funded by those taxes on the rich. Of course it's worth the damage to the economy, and so what if people need the whole day off to see the doctor after waiting a month to get an appointment, then waiting a few more weeks to fill the prescription?
8. And now the trial lawyers will have the freedom they need to sue everyone with money for whatever wrong they might have committed on an unsuspecting public. Lawyers love Kerry & Edwards, who will make sure they can continue to get multi-million dollar settlements from corporations through class-action lawsuits where the victims get a little grocery money in compensation after the lawyers collect their one-third to one-half share of those millions they won for their clients.
9. Public schools will now be free and encouraged to teach all of the diversity-friendly values that conservatives have been blocking all these years. Elementary school kids all need to know how gay people have sex, that promiscuity is OK as long as you use a condom, that white males are the scourge of the planet and will be made to pay for their crimes, and that religion is for the weak minded.
I've got more, but I'm tired and sad. Good luck everybody with your new society, I'm praying for mercy.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Almost Polled
I was almost polled for the election.
Almost?
The pollster called me this weekend at my home phone. She went right into the questions - first the Presidential race, asking me my preference and attitudes toward the candidates.
But strangely, just as we were getting started, but after I'd made my strongly-held views clear, the call dropped. Did she hang up? Did the connection go down? I'll never know, but clearly the call ended before the poll was complete, and she made no attempt to call me back.
OK, this wasn't a cellular call, where disconnects are normal. It's extremely rare for a call to be lost on the land line, but it seems strange that it happened on this particular call. By the way, no calls since have had any problems whatsoever, and there were no weather problems or other circumstances that could have explained the failure.
Is it possible that they had their quota of respondents already who indicated a strong preference that matched mine? Do you think that the polling company, the supervisor, or the caller herself were disconnecting calls that didn't give them the results they were looking for to force the result to be what they wanted to report? What if the race isn't really close at all, but the polls are being manipulated to make people think it's close to make those on the opposing side turn out?
I guess we'll never know.
Almost?
The pollster called me this weekend at my home phone. She went right into the questions - first the Presidential race, asking me my preference and attitudes toward the candidates.
But strangely, just as we were getting started, but after I'd made my strongly-held views clear, the call dropped. Did she hang up? Did the connection go down? I'll never know, but clearly the call ended before the poll was complete, and she made no attempt to call me back.
OK, this wasn't a cellular call, where disconnects are normal. It's extremely rare for a call to be lost on the land line, but it seems strange that it happened on this particular call. By the way, no calls since have had any problems whatsoever, and there were no weather problems or other circumstances that could have explained the failure.
Is it possible that they had their quota of respondents already who indicated a strong preference that matched mine? Do you think that the polling company, the supervisor, or the caller herself were disconnecting calls that didn't give them the results they were looking for to force the result to be what they wanted to report? What if the race isn't really close at all, but the polls are being manipulated to make people think it's close to make those on the opposing side turn out?
I guess we'll never know.
Monday, October 25, 2004
Who are Catholics?
Given such clear-cut social and moral issues at stake right now - abortion/partial-birth abortion, gay marriage among the most prominent - you might think that Catholics would be united behind the candidate that's strongest on these issues.
Interestingly enough, that's not the candidate that claims to be a Catholic himself. After what appears to be a long record of supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, Kerry came out during the campaign to say he personally believes in the teachings of his Church. I imagine that sort of contradiction would leave even his abortion-rights friends scratching their heads.
But doesn't Kerry sort of reflect a deeper problem in the Catholic Church? As an adult convert to Catholicism, one of the things that has troubled me most about the Church is their apparent weakness on issues of morality. Even though the Church officially strongly teaches moral principles of respect for life and personal chastity and responsibility, their membership is reported to be just as likely as the rest of the public to have an abortion.
How can we reconcile this contradiction? Let me try to suggest my own theory of the multiple reasons for Catholics who aren't really Catholic:
1. They really don't know any better: I'm surprised at how many fellow church members I've encountered who really don't know their Catechism. There isn't much emphasis on study of the faith or the Bible in the Church, which I believe results in an uninformed body.
2. They don't embrace the Church's teachings: The contrast is that there are lots of Catholics who nominally understand what the church believes, but don't feel obligated to follow those teachings. Many will pick and choose based on their own personal feelings or convenience; a great example is a majority of Catholics who oppose abortion yet use contraception. It seems that once the door is open to make individual choices on issues of morality, there's no limit to what teachings will be rejected because of thinking clouded by cultural norms.
3. They lack exemplary leadership: Incredibly distressing are the many stories of priests who have molested children, people who have become atheist at least partly due to experiences with sadistic nuns as children, and priests and religious today who publicly flaunt their apostacy without consequence from the Church itself.
A prominent argument taking place among Catholics today relates to ordaining women and accepting married priests. Both are aimed at addressing a near-crisis shortage of priests in our country. Before action is taken on these questions, I would hope that the Church will first ask the question, "Does this change serve God or is it just a capitulation to popular secular ideas?" Might I suggest that the real cause of the shortage is directly related to a Church that has lost its voice and moral authority, standing up for very little for fear of offending an increasingly secular congregation.
A Church focused on being a light to the world and a commitment to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ never need fear a lack of priests. As soon as our Bishops gather the courage to discipline their parishes and teach their congregations what God wants from His people, there will be no more shortages.
Interestingly enough, that's not the candidate that claims to be a Catholic himself. After what appears to be a long record of supporting abortion rights and Planned Parenthood, Kerry came out during the campaign to say he personally believes in the teachings of his Church. I imagine that sort of contradiction would leave even his abortion-rights friends scratching their heads.
But doesn't Kerry sort of reflect a deeper problem in the Catholic Church? As an adult convert to Catholicism, one of the things that has troubled me most about the Church is their apparent weakness on issues of morality. Even though the Church officially strongly teaches moral principles of respect for life and personal chastity and responsibility, their membership is reported to be just as likely as the rest of the public to have an abortion.
How can we reconcile this contradiction? Let me try to suggest my own theory of the multiple reasons for Catholics who aren't really Catholic:
1. They really don't know any better: I'm surprised at how many fellow church members I've encountered who really don't know their Catechism. There isn't much emphasis on study of the faith or the Bible in the Church, which I believe results in an uninformed body.
2. They don't embrace the Church's teachings: The contrast is that there are lots of Catholics who nominally understand what the church believes, but don't feel obligated to follow those teachings. Many will pick and choose based on their own personal feelings or convenience; a great example is a majority of Catholics who oppose abortion yet use contraception. It seems that once the door is open to make individual choices on issues of morality, there's no limit to what teachings will be rejected because of thinking clouded by cultural norms.
3. They lack exemplary leadership: Incredibly distressing are the many stories of priests who have molested children, people who have become atheist at least partly due to experiences with sadistic nuns as children, and priests and religious today who publicly flaunt their apostacy without consequence from the Church itself.
A prominent argument taking place among Catholics today relates to ordaining women and accepting married priests. Both are aimed at addressing a near-crisis shortage of priests in our country. Before action is taken on these questions, I would hope that the Church will first ask the question, "Does this change serve God or is it just a capitulation to popular secular ideas?" Might I suggest that the real cause of the shortage is directly related to a Church that has lost its voice and moral authority, standing up for very little for fear of offending an increasingly secular congregation.
A Church focused on being a light to the world and a commitment to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ never need fear a lack of priests. As soon as our Bishops gather the courage to discipline their parishes and teach their congregations what God wants from His people, there will be no more shortages.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Religion Musings
Religious __________;
Right
Zealots
Fanatics
Conservatives
Fundamentalists
Nuts
Just a few of the perjoratives I hear from the left wingers in our country today. I've even heard evangelical Christians referred to as the equivalent of the Taliban. How have we reached this place in our society?
There seems to be this irrational fear among the non-religious libs that somehow Christian Conservatives are out to "impose their views" on everyone. If a Christian suggests that adultery, homosexuality, and abortion are morally wrong, they are immediately slapped down by the "thought police" who are supremely indignant that anyone should dare to suggest anything is wrong on the basis of any religious belief.
We're supposed to be "tolerant" and to celebrate "diversity" in our culture today. Whenever I hear those two code words, I now experience an internal shudder. Those words don't mean repecting people of other races and religions anymore; they really mean embracing "alternative lifestyles" up to the point of this year's unbelievable debate about gay marriage.
It was interesting hearing about some reported "study" that seemed to find some specific genetic characteristic that was consistent among homosexuals. It made me wonder; if they looked hard enough, might they also find genetic characteristics for pedophilia, anti-social behavior, serial killers, etc.? It seems to me that if a suggestion can be made of a genetic pre-disposition to anything acts to remove personal responsibility and morality from the equation. Or is that ultimately the goal?
Let's be clear, just in case there happens to be a reader who's an atheist/agnostic that is frightened that Christians are going to take over the country and turn it into some sort of repressive Taliban-like regime:
First, Christians are completely supportive of the Constitution, which does not permit the Establishment of Religion. That doesn't mean what too many people have tried to make it mean, where the "Separation of Church and State" grants government the authority to deny people of faith their First Amendment rights. It simply means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, which I do not believe public displays of the ten commandments or creches violates in any way.
Second, Christianity itself is based on free will. Nobody is forced to join the faith, but must reach a sincere decision on their own. Sure, evangelicals see it as their mission to convert as many people as possible, but even they will not use force to accomplish that mission.
Finally, I believe any action by the government to force Gay Marriage on the country violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Think of it in this way: Marriage is one of the main sacraments of the Christian faith, and to force recognition of same-sex marriage is an affront to all members of the faith.
I'm very sorry to see that many Christian denominations have begun the slide down that slippery slope toward apostacy in the name of progressivism. Truth is truth, regardless of where our cultural values lead. Trying to "stay relevant" and "update to modern thinking" will make such churches irrelevant and lead many away from God. We can't ignore the fact that divorce and promiscuity are rampant, but not being addressed from pulpits out of fear people involved in these behaviors will take offense. The Church must refocus on being the light of the world rather than following the path of shades of gray that leads to darkness.
Right
Zealots
Fanatics
Conservatives
Fundamentalists
Nuts
Just a few of the perjoratives I hear from the left wingers in our country today. I've even heard evangelical Christians referred to as the equivalent of the Taliban. How have we reached this place in our society?
There seems to be this irrational fear among the non-religious libs that somehow Christian Conservatives are out to "impose their views" on everyone. If a Christian suggests that adultery, homosexuality, and abortion are morally wrong, they are immediately slapped down by the "thought police" who are supremely indignant that anyone should dare to suggest anything is wrong on the basis of any religious belief.
We're supposed to be "tolerant" and to celebrate "diversity" in our culture today. Whenever I hear those two code words, I now experience an internal shudder. Those words don't mean repecting people of other races and religions anymore; they really mean embracing "alternative lifestyles" up to the point of this year's unbelievable debate about gay marriage.
It was interesting hearing about some reported "study" that seemed to find some specific genetic characteristic that was consistent among homosexuals. It made me wonder; if they looked hard enough, might they also find genetic characteristics for pedophilia, anti-social behavior, serial killers, etc.? It seems to me that if a suggestion can be made of a genetic pre-disposition to anything acts to remove personal responsibility and morality from the equation. Or is that ultimately the goal?
Let's be clear, just in case there happens to be a reader who's an atheist/agnostic that is frightened that Christians are going to take over the country and turn it into some sort of repressive Taliban-like regime:
First, Christians are completely supportive of the Constitution, which does not permit the Establishment of Religion. That doesn't mean what too many people have tried to make it mean, where the "Separation of Church and State" grants government the authority to deny people of faith their First Amendment rights. It simply means that the government cannot favor one religion over another, which I do not believe public displays of the ten commandments or creches violates in any way.
Second, Christianity itself is based on free will. Nobody is forced to join the faith, but must reach a sincere decision on their own. Sure, evangelicals see it as their mission to convert as many people as possible, but even they will not use force to accomplish that mission.
Finally, I believe any action by the government to force Gay Marriage on the country violates the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Think of it in this way: Marriage is one of the main sacraments of the Christian faith, and to force recognition of same-sex marriage is an affront to all members of the faith.
I'm very sorry to see that many Christian denominations have begun the slide down that slippery slope toward apostacy in the name of progressivism. Truth is truth, regardless of where our cultural values lead. Trying to "stay relevant" and "update to modern thinking" will make such churches irrelevant and lead many away from God. We can't ignore the fact that divorce and promiscuity are rampant, but not being addressed from pulpits out of fear people involved in these behaviors will take offense. The Church must refocus on being the light of the world rather than following the path of shades of gray that leads to darkness.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Perfect President
No more debate watching for me. I've seen and heard all I need from the two candidates, and as you probably can tell from prior blogs, there's no way I'm voting for Kerry.
That's not to say I'm a great lover of W. I kind of like him, or at least his down-to-earth and no-nonsense persona. But I've got some serious issues with some of the things he's done.
So, here's the profile of what I think is the perfect president:
That's not to say I'm a great lover of W. I kind of like him, or at least his down-to-earth and no-nonsense persona. But I've got some serious issues with some of the things he's done.
So, here's the profile of what I think is the perfect president:
- Pro-Life, but realistic enough to know he'll be hated if he's too aggressive about reversing Roe v. Wade. How about a pres who asks the American people to join with him in encouraging alternatives to abortion and removing all the reasons women seek them to make it irrelevant?
- Resolute and tough in the war on terror.
- Solving the Illegal Immigration problem. It's not just a problem of poor immigrants streaming over the Mexican border, but is also part of the war on terror to keep criminals and terrorists from sneaking into the country and creating havoc. He must stop the unholy alliance between businesses who rely on the government to look the other way while they hire illegals at low wages, and Democrats, who have traditionally pandered to the illegal immigrants by offering them amnesty in return for their votes.
- Committed to appointing real judges who interpret law instead of trying to make it up on their own.
- Friendly to business and free trade, but in a balanced way that does not cater to the corporate world or the workers. Trade that's free but fair, labor rules that protect workers from harmful corporate practices and permit unions, but not to the point that it hurts our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
- Committed to Education at all levels, making sure kids get the best education possible even in poor and troubled districts, and helping make college more affordable and reducing massive student loan debts.
- Getting real Tax Reform done, removing pork-barrel and wasteful spending, simplifying the tax code, and making sure nobody's exempt from paying taxes just because they contributed to the right candidates.
- Finding real solutions to Health Care problems, again with a balanced approach that is focused on reducing costs and increasing accessibility without favoring any one constituency over another (Doctors, Hospitals, Lawyers, Patients, Insurers, Drug Companies, Government Bureaucracy)
- A friend of Religious institutions, working to stop the secularists from removing all references to God from the public square. People have the right to believe what they choose and tell others about their beliefs, but it's not right that some wish to silence them because they are "offended" by their speech.
- Fiscally Responsible, refusing to sign any spending legislation until all the pork is cut, priorities are taken care of, stupid programs are discontinued, and income at least equals (if not exceeds) spending.
- Committed to a gradual conversion of Social Security to become actually what it was created to be; a retirement and disability insurance program. Let American workers actually fund their own Social Security account, allowing investments in income-producing instruments and insurance in their own accounts which become available to them and their families upon retirement, death, or disability.
- A Sensible Foreign Policy that helps countries who need it in return for their alliance and friendship, leads the world in rewarding countries who value freedom and human rights while sanctioning those who do not, and continues to engage the world in initiatives for peace and stamping out disease, famine, and civil strife.
OK, tell me I'm dreaming. But is it really so hard to get leadership in this country that actually will work to implement these common-sense policies and protect our values and freedoms?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Just Bloggin'
How about some generalized bloggin' thoughts for a Friday.
Will probably miss the debate tonight to see the Bulldogs hopefully chalk up another win. Too bad Tim's down with an ankle sprain this week, but hopefully he'll be back for Pike next week.
Got the website posted finally. It's still in need of some work, but you might find it interesting. It's at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/northhs/athletics/football/
Here's what I'd like Bush to tell everyone tonight:
"During this election year, you have been hearing my opponent repeat as a mantra that my administration lied and misled the American people to rush into war in Iraq. What is most disappointing to me about his rhetoric is that I am certain he knows that those statements are completely and totally wrong."
"Given his poor attendance record in the Senate, and especially the Intelligence committee, I can't be sure he was there at the time, but Senator Kerry received every shred of intelligence available and reached the same conclusion I did at the time: Iraq possessed WMD's, supported terrorists, and presented a real and building threat to our security. Now he wants to pretend that he knew better how to deal with Iraq, even though he publicly stated his support for the war and voted for it."
"Now he's trying to tell you that he will take care of Iraq by getting the French and Germans involved, as if our coalition is invalid without their participation. What he's hoping you won't find out is that the report he's so fond of citing that declared there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time we began the war, but it also indicated that Saddam was actively bribing high-level officials in both countries to try to insure any action against him would be vetoed in the UN. In addition, the evidence clearly shows that he had definitive plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities, including Nuclear weapons, as soon as he was successful at getting the UN out of the way."
"The fact is that we're winning the war on terror. Yes, it's a tough road in Iraq, but we have succeeded in not only decimating the ranks of al Qaida, but also attracting them to fighting our troops there so they are unable to bring their terrorism to our own shores. Not only will we succeed in helping Iraq transform into a peaceful democracy, but the war on terror will be won as long as we stay the course and do not waver. Clearly, a Kerry presidency will place polling and political expedience above our country's security; something we cannot afford at this critical time."
OK, I'll never be a presidential speechwriter, but this is the general message that should be conveyed, along with lots of other messages about protecting the constitution, rebuilding the economy, dealing with the healthcare crisis, etc.
Will probably miss the debate tonight to see the Bulldogs hopefully chalk up another win. Too bad Tim's down with an ankle sprain this week, but hopefully he'll be back for Pike next week.
Got the website posted finally. It's still in need of some work, but you might find it interesting. It's at http://www.bcsc.k12.in.us/northhs/athletics/football/
Here's what I'd like Bush to tell everyone tonight:
"During this election year, you have been hearing my opponent repeat as a mantra that my administration lied and misled the American people to rush into war in Iraq. What is most disappointing to me about his rhetoric is that I am certain he knows that those statements are completely and totally wrong."
"Given his poor attendance record in the Senate, and especially the Intelligence committee, I can't be sure he was there at the time, but Senator Kerry received every shred of intelligence available and reached the same conclusion I did at the time: Iraq possessed WMD's, supported terrorists, and presented a real and building threat to our security. Now he wants to pretend that he knew better how to deal with Iraq, even though he publicly stated his support for the war and voted for it."
"Now he's trying to tell you that he will take care of Iraq by getting the French and Germans involved, as if our coalition is invalid without their participation. What he's hoping you won't find out is that the report he's so fond of citing that declared there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time we began the war, but it also indicated that Saddam was actively bribing high-level officials in both countries to try to insure any action against him would be vetoed in the UN. In addition, the evidence clearly shows that he had definitive plans to rebuild his WMD capabilities, including Nuclear weapons, as soon as he was successful at getting the UN out of the way."
"The fact is that we're winning the war on terror. Yes, it's a tough road in Iraq, but we have succeeded in not only decimating the ranks of al Qaida, but also attracting them to fighting our troops there so they are unable to bring their terrorism to our own shores. Not only will we succeed in helping Iraq transform into a peaceful democracy, but the war on terror will be won as long as we stay the course and do not waver. Clearly, a Kerry presidency will place polling and political expedience above our country's security; something we cannot afford at this critical time."
OK, I'll never be a presidential speechwriter, but this is the general message that should be conveyed, along with lots of other messages about protecting the constitution, rebuilding the economy, dealing with the healthcare crisis, etc.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate Thoughts
The presidential debate was interesting, and seemed to project a very clear picture of the differences between the two on Iraq. Kerry's taken up the pacifist position that we shouldn't be there at all, and if he'd been president we would still be talking and negotiating with Saddam. Bush counters that it was the right thing to do, has effectively taken the war on terror to the enemy and away from our shores, and our best approach to win is to stay steadfast and unwavering.
I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.
That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.
Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.
Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.
I'm very certain that each candidate appealed to their own base constituencies, but doubt that anybody was won over to either camp. Supporters of the President will continue to agree that he's taken the right course, although it can be fair to raise some criticism of some of the current tactics. Getting the Iraqis up to speed with their own security forces is definitely what we should be focused on right now, and I think it might be fair to criticize the President on not moving aggressively enough in that area.
That said, can Kerry do a better job of pacifying Iraq? Absolutely not. His approach is to hold endless "summits" and try to be the world's foremost statesman. Talking has its place, but my impression of Kerry is that, had he been President the last 4 years, he'd still be talking to the UN about Saddam and getting nowhere, and would probably still be working on his coalition to go into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. His simplistic, idealistic approach assumes that the terrorists can be pacified by being made to see that we're not such bad people, and other countries will come to our aid in Iraq simply because he asks them.
Bush missed some big opportunities. For example, Kerry referred to his refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. Bush could have scored big points by simply pointing out that Kyoto is an effort by other nations to decimate the US economy through outrageous environmental restrictions, which by the way would not apply to competitor nations such as China. Another example was when Kerry referred to his protest activities after he returned from Viet Nam. Bush could very easily have pointed out how that made Kerry the VietCong's greatest ally and led to resurgence by an enemy who was given hope by his activities. He also could have pointed out the suffering it caused for our POW's. Finally, he could have pointed out the obvious self-contradiction of Kerry in calling for direct talks with North Korea above the multilateral negotiations Bush is pursuing; it's funny that he criticizes the president about not bringing enough allies into the Iraq fight while suggesting we discard our partners in the Korean problem.
Finally, if style counts over substance, you'd have to say Kerry won the debate. Kerry was well prepared, articulate, and confident, in contrast to Bush, who was defensive, halting, stuttering, and irritable. If I were to give advice to the Bush campaign, I'd strongly suggest he work on eliminating those negatives and speak clearly, forcefully, calmly, and confidently in the next debate.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
News Nirvana
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the term "investigative journalist" was no longer an oxymoron?
Let's just imagine for a moment a world where journalists really had the integrity to report the news, interview all relevant sources, and give the public full disclosure without adding their own perjoratives. Just think how it would benefit all of us if, say 60 Minutes, did the following stories:
"Did President Bush Lie to get us into the Iraq war?": A story that actually interviews the Dem's making the charge and asks them 'tough' questions like, "What evidence do you have to show us that the president lied, what specific lies did he tell, and how do they invalidate the decision that was made to remove Saddam Hussein?" Then examine the actual facts to find out if there is any evidence to support the claim.
"Are the Swift Boat Veterans Lying about John Kerry?": A story that interviews all of those in the Swift Vets group about their specific observations and experiences with Kerry in VietNam, a review of all available documentation from the time, and interviews with Kerry himself.
"Did President Bush Steal the 2000 Election?": A story about the Florida recount(s), the court challenges, the eventual outcome, what specific voters were "disenfranchised" and how, and the results of the unofficial recounts done by news organizations after the fact.
"Haliburton - Proof of Corruption?": A story that examines once and for all Haliburton's contracts and Iraq involvement, and whether any evidence exists to support Dem claims it's corruption.
"Kerry - consistent or flip-flopper?": Examine John Kerry's Senate voting record and public statements and air answers to everyone's questions about what he really believes.
"Farenheit 911 - Documentary or Fiction?": An honest analysis of Michael Moore's movie that actually breaks down what's truth, lies, and propaganda.
and my favorite topic: "Media Bias": A story about the three broadcast network news organizations, the cable news channels, the political leanings of their reporters, and how often biased reports are aired and whether those reports lean to the left or right.
For a truly balanced and objective treatment of these and many other stories, I know I'd watch, and I'll bet lots of other Americans would as well. Given the truth on these and related important topics, I wonder how it would affect the outcome of the upcoming election? I have a pretty good guess.
Let's just imagine for a moment a world where journalists really had the integrity to report the news, interview all relevant sources, and give the public full disclosure without adding their own perjoratives. Just think how it would benefit all of us if, say 60 Minutes, did the following stories:
"Did President Bush Lie to get us into the Iraq war?": A story that actually interviews the Dem's making the charge and asks them 'tough' questions like, "What evidence do you have to show us that the president lied, what specific lies did he tell, and how do they invalidate the decision that was made to remove Saddam Hussein?" Then examine the actual facts to find out if there is any evidence to support the claim.
"Are the Swift Boat Veterans Lying about John Kerry?": A story that interviews all of those in the Swift Vets group about their specific observations and experiences with Kerry in VietNam, a review of all available documentation from the time, and interviews with Kerry himself.
"Did President Bush Steal the 2000 Election?": A story about the Florida recount(s), the court challenges, the eventual outcome, what specific voters were "disenfranchised" and how, and the results of the unofficial recounts done by news organizations after the fact.
"Haliburton - Proof of Corruption?": A story that examines once and for all Haliburton's contracts and Iraq involvement, and whether any evidence exists to support Dem claims it's corruption.
"Kerry - consistent or flip-flopper?": Examine John Kerry's Senate voting record and public statements and air answers to everyone's questions about what he really believes.
"Farenheit 911 - Documentary or Fiction?": An honest analysis of Michael Moore's movie that actually breaks down what's truth, lies, and propaganda.
and my favorite topic: "Media Bias": A story about the three broadcast network news organizations, the cable news channels, the political leanings of their reporters, and how often biased reports are aired and whether those reports lean to the left or right.
For a truly balanced and objective treatment of these and many other stories, I know I'd watch, and I'll bet lots of other Americans would as well. Given the truth on these and related important topics, I wonder how it would affect the outcome of the upcoming election? I have a pretty good guess.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Anybody trust the news now?
Wow, has Dan Rather gone completely off the deep end?
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
Friday, September 10, 2004
September 11th - Remembering
On September 11th three years ago, I got up early and hopped into a rental car to make the drive to Chicago for a client meeting, to be followed by an internal company meeting out in Lisle. Somewhere on the north side of Indianapolis, the first report came through the radio about an airplane that seemed to have crashed into a World Trade Center tower.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Saving Marriage
Given the controversy over gay marriage, I was thinking it was time to take the steps long overdue to help save the whole institution. Unfortunately, it seems to me that too many people get married sort of like teenagers "go steady". It's viewed as a commitment for the moment, but the whole lifetime aspect is not taken very seriously.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Labor Day thoughts - Here's to everyone who works for a living
Labor Day is that one-day holiday that marks the end of summer vacation, the start of school, and time for businesses to get busy.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)