Do you know what the big education news is in Indiana?
The ISTEP. Not the test itself, but when it should be administered.
Apparently there's a big lobby working in Indy to change the testing schedule from the fall to the spring. Supposedly it's better to do the testing in the spring because all of the students have been in school for several months and the material should be reasonably fresh. Those who want it changed think the teachers are having to scramble at the beginning of each school year to "cram" the material with their students to prepare for the test. All so they can get good scores for their school and the praise and other goodies that come with them.
The whole thing is ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. The ISTEP isn't a GRE or MCAT or LSAT. It's not even close to the SAT or PSAT or any AP exam. The ISTEP is fundamental basics covering the 3 R's. And the tests are so simple only the severly learning disabled should have any trouble passing.
But Indiana kids don't pass. The failure rates are frighteningly high, which means that Indiana kids can't handle basic reading, writing, math and science. The numbers are somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of students fail. And the worst schools are in the larger cities - Indy, Gary, Ft. Wayne, Muncie, etc., where the failure rate is approaching half.
Whether they take the test in the fall or the spring is a stupid argument. The kids can read or they can't. They can perform simple computations or they can't.
The whole controversy is badly misplaced. How about discussing why so many can't read, write, or perform simple math? Why are the poor schools and city schools doing so badly? What can be done to improve those schools?
This is the frustrating thing about politics. Apparently the majority of the population is so shallow and stupid that they can be sidetracked on a stupid issue like when to give the ISTEP test without even understanding there's a major underlying problem making Indiana one of the worst states in the nation for education.
Reminds me of Forrest Gump. "Stupid is as stupid does." Sure seems to apply to our education system.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Free Speech Isn't Free
I saw a little article about somebody who got fired from a job because he was overheard expressing an opinion against gay marriage. Unless he expressed it directly to a gay person and threatened to beat them up over the issue, it seems to me he has a cause of action against his company.
It got me thinking about all the politically incorrect things I believe that would probably get me fired, if I worked for a university or a company with liberal Human Resources policies (like Cummins here in Columbus).
Here are the things I believe that could get me fired or otherwise persecuted if I happened to say them out loud.
1. Gay Rights: They don't have any special rights, nor do they deserve any. I don't support throwing them in jail, but there is no reason to pretend that their behavior merits special protections. They can do disgusting things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but I don't have to hear about it. And I don't have to hire an openly gay employee any more than I should be forced to hire anyone I consider of questionable morality. Why should gays receive health benefits at work for their "domestic partner" when hetero couples or non-sexual partners and roommates can't? Want to call me a "homophobe"? Wrong term. I'm more of a "homopitier", because I feel sorry for anyone who is brainwashed into joining the lifestyle and making their sexual behavior their single defining characteristic.
2. I support the Iraq war. Actually, I had some reservations when the debate was happening before the congress actually approved the war. But I firmly believe that once our country votes to commit troops to war, we all must do whatever possible to help make sure the war ends quickly and in victory. In fact, I think political opposition has caused the Bush Administration to soften their execution of the war, which I firmly believe causes us to lose more soldiers to the bombs planted by the "insurgents". We should be enforcing martial law, sealing Iraq's borders, finding and confiscating all unauthorized weapons and bombs, and forcing peace as we transition control to the new Iraqi government. I also believe that we should present Iraq with a bill for our liberation services, to be repaid in preferential oil options, free military base leases for, say, 50 years, etc.
3. I believe that men and women are inherently different by design. And that there are certain things that, in general, are best done by men, just as there are other things best handled by women. Of course, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule. So, fine: If women want to fight side-by-side with men in the military, they must meet all the same physical requirements as men. And there are plenty of other examples, but here's the one that would really get me in trouble in this PC world: There is no better way to raise children than to have their mother stay home with them. Day Care is harmful to child development, and having the father stay at home would be better, but men just aren't as good at nurturing children. It's all how we're wired, and that won't change just because we might wish it so.
4. The government has no business telling anybody against whom they may or may not discriminate. Affirmative Action is nothing more than a program to give rich black kids preference in university admissions and government jobs. My opinion is that you either outlaw all forms of discrimination or butt out. People are discriminated against every day for all sorts of reasons: She has an irritating personality. He looks like a hated ex-husband. She's too fat, so she must be lazy too. His pants are too short. I hear she's an awful gossip. He's a total klutz. Her hairstyle is hideous. He's got a bad acne problem. She just got married, so she'll probably just take off on maternity leave right after her health benefits kick in.
5. Abortion isn't a right, it's infanticide. No need to expand on that one.
The funny thought I just had - if somebody reads this entry who's on the opposite side of the philosophical fence, they might get so angry they might want to shoot me. But, too bad, that would mean they'd have to buy a firearm, but they can't because guns are offensive. So I'm safe from physical attacks and workplace harrassment. I could get some blog comment harrassment, but that would just be kind of fun to read. Unless it's vulgar, but I'd just click "Delete".
It got me thinking about all the politically incorrect things I believe that would probably get me fired, if I worked for a university or a company with liberal Human Resources policies (like Cummins here in Columbus).
Here are the things I believe that could get me fired or otherwise persecuted if I happened to say them out loud.
1. Gay Rights: They don't have any special rights, nor do they deserve any. I don't support throwing them in jail, but there is no reason to pretend that their behavior merits special protections. They can do disgusting things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but I don't have to hear about it. And I don't have to hire an openly gay employee any more than I should be forced to hire anyone I consider of questionable morality. Why should gays receive health benefits at work for their "domestic partner" when hetero couples or non-sexual partners and roommates can't? Want to call me a "homophobe"? Wrong term. I'm more of a "homopitier", because I feel sorry for anyone who is brainwashed into joining the lifestyle and making their sexual behavior their single defining characteristic.
2. I support the Iraq war. Actually, I had some reservations when the debate was happening before the congress actually approved the war. But I firmly believe that once our country votes to commit troops to war, we all must do whatever possible to help make sure the war ends quickly and in victory. In fact, I think political opposition has caused the Bush Administration to soften their execution of the war, which I firmly believe causes us to lose more soldiers to the bombs planted by the "insurgents". We should be enforcing martial law, sealing Iraq's borders, finding and confiscating all unauthorized weapons and bombs, and forcing peace as we transition control to the new Iraqi government. I also believe that we should present Iraq with a bill for our liberation services, to be repaid in preferential oil options, free military base leases for, say, 50 years, etc.
3. I believe that men and women are inherently different by design. And that there are certain things that, in general, are best done by men, just as there are other things best handled by women. Of course, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule. So, fine: If women want to fight side-by-side with men in the military, they must meet all the same physical requirements as men. And there are plenty of other examples, but here's the one that would really get me in trouble in this PC world: There is no better way to raise children than to have their mother stay home with them. Day Care is harmful to child development, and having the father stay at home would be better, but men just aren't as good at nurturing children. It's all how we're wired, and that won't change just because we might wish it so.
4. The government has no business telling anybody against whom they may or may not discriminate. Affirmative Action is nothing more than a program to give rich black kids preference in university admissions and government jobs. My opinion is that you either outlaw all forms of discrimination or butt out. People are discriminated against every day for all sorts of reasons: She has an irritating personality. He looks like a hated ex-husband. She's too fat, so she must be lazy too. His pants are too short. I hear she's an awful gossip. He's a total klutz. Her hairstyle is hideous. He's got a bad acne problem. She just got married, so she'll probably just take off on maternity leave right after her health benefits kick in.
5. Abortion isn't a right, it's infanticide. No need to expand on that one.
The funny thought I just had - if somebody reads this entry who's on the opposite side of the philosophical fence, they might get so angry they might want to shoot me. But, too bad, that would mean they'd have to buy a firearm, but they can't because guns are offensive. So I'm safe from physical attacks and workplace harrassment. I could get some blog comment harrassment, but that would just be kind of fun to read. Unless it's vulgar, but I'd just click "Delete".
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Academic Intolerance
There was a discussion I tuned into for a few minutes today about the fact that the vast majority of University professors are left-wingers, and there are a great many radically so. Apparently the person I was listening to was David Horowitz, who wrote the book called The Professors.
So I went to Amazon to check it out. Here's the gist of the book:
From the Inside Flap
Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists— you know them as The Professors.
It's no surprise that so many in academia are so radical. It was pretty much true way back when I was in College, although I wonder if it hasn't gone even further over the top. We’ve already heard plenty of stories about the fact that students can and are ostracized and even kicked out of liberal schools for simply expressing views in support of the Bush Administration and theIraq
Some people have tried to suggest that Horowitz is in favor of suppressing these profs' free speech rights. Not having read the book, I can't say whether or not they are right, but I have a feeling they're not. Because if he shares the view of most more conservative or moderate thinkers, he's not proposing that we make anybody shut up, but that we begin to let our universities - especially our State Universities that live on tax money - know that college should be about the exploration of knowledge and ideas, and not indoctrination of students by a bunch of leftover 60's communists and anarchists who somehow conned themselves into tenure.
My favorite professor at Ball State was a gregarious guy whose classes were always interesting and even entertaining. He was my Honors Humanities prof, and enjoyed creating lively debates in the classroom about various topics. To do this, he would sometimes bring in guests who held particularly radical points of view on the topic for the day. Or, in the absence of a guest, he would take it on himself to espouse a point of view deliberately chosen as most likely to be opposite of that of the majority of the class.
Spirited debates took place, with people in the classroom taking sides and expressing a variety of opinions on the topic. Sometimes the professor's arguments would evoke emotional responses from some class members, but at the end of class he would "come clean" and tell us that he really didn't personally hold those opinions, but wanted to present a controversial viewpoint for the sake of the discussion.
What I'm eventually getting to is this: Any professor worth his/her salt who engages their students in debate on the issues of the day must hold to some basic principles, regardless of their personal views. The discussion must be relevant to the course - it's obviously inappropriate to waste valuable classroom time in a math course debating, say, affirmative action.
The professor must not only permit, but encourage divergent opinions on the topic. Although the arguments made can be judged on their merits with good support, logic and reason. And the professor must never punish a student for offering an opinion in conflict with his own.
Finally, if public universities are employing terrorists and criminals, they are certainly more than justified in terminating such people. We're not talking about protecting free speech if there's an actual criminal on the faculty.
The sum of my argument on this topic is this: We should indeed do more to hold universities accountable for hiring and maintaining quality faculty that represent excellence in their instructional abilities. So it's OK to employ a Marxist professor of Political Science who lets his views be known in class, as long as he does not punish or suppress open disagreement and honestly presents the pros and cons of other non-Marxist models. But, if the professor is a rapist, drug abuser, and openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, they should be terminated.
So I went to Amazon to check it out. Here's the gist of the book:
From the Inside Flap
Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists— you know them as The Professors.
We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you’d be wrong. Today’s radical academics aren’t the exception—they’re legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians—all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who compared the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis who deserved what they got? You thought he was bad? In this shocking new book, New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz has news for you: American universities are full of radical academics like Ward Churchill—and worse.
Horowitz exposes 101 academics—representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people—who also happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who: — Say they want to kill white people. — Promote the views of the Iranian mullahs. — Support Osama bin Laden. — Lament the demise of the Soviet Union. — Defend pedophilia. — Advocate the killing of ordinary Americans.
David Horowitz’s riveting exposé is essential reading for parents, students, college alums, taxpayers, and patriotic Americans who don’t think college students should be indoctrinated by sympathizers of Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden.
The Professors is truly frightening—and an intellectual call to arms from a courageous author who knows the radicals all too well.It's no surprise that so many in academia are so radical. It was pretty much true way back when I was in College, although I wonder if it hasn't gone even further over the top. We’ve already heard plenty of stories about the fact that students can and are ostracized and even kicked out of liberal schools for simply expressing views in support of the Bush Administration and the
Some people have tried to suggest that Horowitz is in favor of suppressing these profs' free speech rights. Not having read the book, I can't say whether or not they are right, but I have a feeling they're not. Because if he shares the view of most more conservative or moderate thinkers, he's not proposing that we make anybody shut up, but that we begin to let our universities - especially our State Universities that live on tax money - know that college should be about the exploration of knowledge and ideas, and not indoctrination of students by a bunch of leftover 60's communists and anarchists who somehow conned themselves into tenure.
My favorite professor at Ball State was a gregarious guy whose classes were always interesting and even entertaining. He was my Honors Humanities prof, and enjoyed creating lively debates in the classroom about various topics. To do this, he would sometimes bring in guests who held particularly radical points of view on the topic for the day. Or, in the absence of a guest, he would take it on himself to espouse a point of view deliberately chosen as most likely to be opposite of that of the majority of the class.
Spirited debates took place, with people in the classroom taking sides and expressing a variety of opinions on the topic. Sometimes the professor's arguments would evoke emotional responses from some class members, but at the end of class he would "come clean" and tell us that he really didn't personally hold those opinions, but wanted to present a controversial viewpoint for the sake of the discussion.
What I'm eventually getting to is this: Any professor worth his/her salt who engages their students in debate on the issues of the day must hold to some basic principles, regardless of their personal views. The discussion must be relevant to the course - it's obviously inappropriate to waste valuable classroom time in a math course debating, say, affirmative action.
The professor must not only permit, but encourage divergent opinions on the topic. Although the arguments made can be judged on their merits with good support, logic and reason. And the professor must never punish a student for offering an opinion in conflict with his own.
Finally, if public universities are employing terrorists and criminals, they are certainly more than justified in terminating such people. We're not talking about protecting free speech if there's an actual criminal on the faculty.
The sum of my argument on this topic is this: We should indeed do more to hold universities accountable for hiring and maintaining quality faculty that represent excellence in their instructional abilities. So it's OK to employ a Marxist professor of Political Science who lets his views be known in class, as long as he does not punish or suppress open disagreement and honestly presents the pros and cons of other non-Marxist models. But, if the professor is a rapist, drug abuser, and openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, they should be terminated.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Good or Bad Old Days
There's a tendency to look at the past as somehow better. I remember when I was still a kid, there were lots of adults that talked about the "good old days". And back then, I wondered just what was so good about them.
The generation before mine lived through the Great Depression, WWII, and Korea. I suppose I'm sort of the tail end of the VietNam generation, but that war was basically over by the time I was 16. So when were their "good old days"? I'm thinking they were after V-E Day and V-J Day, up through the 50's and the first half of the 60's, which seem like idyllic times.
For me, what do I consider good about my own "good old days"? Here are some of them.
No crime. We kept our doors unlocked and the keys in the car and our bicycles outside the house, school, or library. Nothing ever was stolen. (Well, a delinquent kid down the street stole some stuff, but he got caught and had to spend a day shoveling rabbit manure to pay it back.)
Intact families. I remember my parents feeling very sorry for "broken families". The few kids I knew living with a divorced parent were messed up; if not actual delinquents, definitely in need of counseling.
Freedom. I rode my bicycle everywhere. Of course, my permitted range was controlled, but as I got older the range got expanded, until I was basically free to ride my bike anywhere in town. Today it's just the neglectful parents that give their kids that kind of freedom.
Friends. For me, the "good old days" were when I had friends. But before you start thinking I'm just feeling sorry for myself, let me explain what I mean by "friends". Friends were people you were so comfortable with that you could stop by their home or they yours at any time for any reason. They were sort of like a part of a big extended family. If that sort of thing happens anywhere today, it's either not happening here or the whole town is conspiring to keep it secret from me.
Simplicity. We never had much, but never needed much. The TV only got 3 channels, until PBS showed up to make if 4. Even then, the ABC station never really came in very well, so it didn't quite count. There were no computers or video games. Our lives were simple. We got our work done and then played until dinner. My mother was the best cook in the galaxy, and our entire family was almost always present for dinner (until we got to high school, which began to change that). Then before bedtime we might watch one or two television shows, unless it was summertime, when everything on TV was a rerun and it was more fun to go back outside to play. But when the TV was on, the adults-only content of today just wasn't there: Now you think it's safe to watch a family-oriented show, when suddenly it's wrecked by a bawdy "Desperate Housewives" commercial.
Innocence. Expanding on the theme that started above in "Simplicity", I never knew the first thing about promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, transgenders, etc. And today I wish I'd never found out. From a "good old days" perspective, I suppose this is the number one thing I want back: my innocence. And it's sad to see such cynicism in my own children, who found out about such things way too early.
So yes, I do sort of look back longingly at lots of things from the past, but I suppose Billy Joel got it close to the mark with "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."
The generation before mine lived through the Great Depression, WWII, and Korea. I suppose I'm sort of the tail end of the VietNam generation, but that war was basically over by the time I was 16. So when were their "good old days"? I'm thinking they were after V-E Day and V-J Day, up through the 50's and the first half of the 60's, which seem like idyllic times.
For me, what do I consider good about my own "good old days"? Here are some of them.
No crime. We kept our doors unlocked and the keys in the car and our bicycles outside the house, school, or library. Nothing ever was stolen. (Well, a delinquent kid down the street stole some stuff, but he got caught and had to spend a day shoveling rabbit manure to pay it back.)
Intact families. I remember my parents feeling very sorry for "broken families". The few kids I knew living with a divorced parent were messed up; if not actual delinquents, definitely in need of counseling.
Freedom. I rode my bicycle everywhere. Of course, my permitted range was controlled, but as I got older the range got expanded, until I was basically free to ride my bike anywhere in town. Today it's just the neglectful parents that give their kids that kind of freedom.
Friends. For me, the "good old days" were when I had friends. But before you start thinking I'm just feeling sorry for myself, let me explain what I mean by "friends". Friends were people you were so comfortable with that you could stop by their home or they yours at any time for any reason. They were sort of like a part of a big extended family. If that sort of thing happens anywhere today, it's either not happening here or the whole town is conspiring to keep it secret from me.
Simplicity. We never had much, but never needed much. The TV only got 3 channels, until PBS showed up to make if 4. Even then, the ABC station never really came in very well, so it didn't quite count. There were no computers or video games. Our lives were simple. We got our work done and then played until dinner. My mother was the best cook in the galaxy, and our entire family was almost always present for dinner (until we got to high school, which began to change that). Then before bedtime we might watch one or two television shows, unless it was summertime, when everything on TV was a rerun and it was more fun to go back outside to play. But when the TV was on, the adults-only content of today just wasn't there: Now you think it's safe to watch a family-oriented show, when suddenly it's wrecked by a bawdy "Desperate Housewives" commercial.
Innocence. Expanding on the theme that started above in "Simplicity", I never knew the first thing about promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, transgenders, etc. And today I wish I'd never found out. From a "good old days" perspective, I suppose this is the number one thing I want back: my innocence. And it's sad to see such cynicism in my own children, who found out about such things way too early.
So yes, I do sort of look back longingly at lots of things from the past, but I suppose Billy Joel got it close to the mark with "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Funny or Sad?
This week in the news has lots of noise and fury but very little substance. Particularly with the Cheney hunting accident, it amazes me that the press doesn't seem to realize how stupid they look. But that's why I'm not sure whether to keep laughing at them or to start crying, because this is the most baldly obvious example of who our mainstream news reporters really are.
In case you've been in a cave or deserted island since last weekend, the Veep shot a hunting partner with birdshot in Texas on Saturday. The victim was rushed to the hospital for treatment, and last word was he had a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot that got too close to his heart, but has been treated and is apparently fine. The local Sheriff was informed and is satisfied that it was an accident, and that's about all there is to the story.
But it's created this gigantic furor in Washington among the press and the Democrats. Why? Because the Washington press didn't get in on the story immediately after it happened and had to find out by reading the local news accounts from the Corpus Christi newspaper. They're so ticked off about the whole thing that they're making absolute fools of themselves, yelling like lunatics at the White House spokesman.
That was funny enough to watch, but then it got funnier when the Democrats started in on the whole "culture of secrecy and cover-up" at the White House. Led by people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, who apparently never heard the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.
But then they really got offended when Cheney went public at Fox News, which of course as far as they are concerned is just a tool of the Republicans. But who can really blame him? Let me see if I can come up with the questions he would have received from any one of the ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN anchors:
How many other people have you shot?
Were you drunk when you shot him?
Is it true that you shot your friend as a warning to anyone that might testify against you in the Valerie Plame case?
So will you finally resign now? Huh? Huh?
What were you trying to cover up by not talking with the press on Saturday?
Isn't this really just another example of your cavalier attitude toward guns and violence?
Aren't you lying about this incident just like you have continually lied about Iraq?
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still abuse your dog?
You get the idea. Ever wonder what the press would have said if Bill Clinton had been involved in the same accident? Suppose Bill really was drunk at the time? How would the press coverage been different, do you think?
And that's why it might be more sad than funny. Not to mention that there are lots of really important stories out there right now that the press doesn't seem to care about, because they're more focused on their mission to destroy the President & VP.
By the way, so Mike Davis had apparently already worked out a deal for his resignation by the time I wrote yesterday's post. Let the speculation on Steve Alford begin. I've even already heard somebody suggesting that maybe the university could bring back Bob Knight. Either way, this season's a bust for the Hoosiers. They got beat by a mediocre Penn State team last night in pretty much the same way they lost most of their last 5 or 6 games.
By the way, if you wonder why I care, maybe I shouldn't. I never went to IU (I went to Ball State undergrad and South Carolina graduate). But I've been following Indiana basketball since I was a kid, and was hooked when a guy from my High School, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter for the Hoosiers under Knight. And Indiana is the team that represents the state, and residents of Indiana are rightfully proud of the state's long tradition in basketball. Which was wrecked by the switch to High School Class Basketball, but that's another topic for another day.
In case you've been in a cave or deserted island since last weekend, the Veep shot a hunting partner with birdshot in Texas on Saturday. The victim was rushed to the hospital for treatment, and last word was he had a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot that got too close to his heart, but has been treated and is apparently fine. The local Sheriff was informed and is satisfied that it was an accident, and that's about all there is to the story.
But it's created this gigantic furor in Washington among the press and the Democrats. Why? Because the Washington press didn't get in on the story immediately after it happened and had to find out by reading the local news accounts from the Corpus Christi newspaper. They're so ticked off about the whole thing that they're making absolute fools of themselves, yelling like lunatics at the White House spokesman.
That was funny enough to watch, but then it got funnier when the Democrats started in on the whole "culture of secrecy and cover-up" at the White House. Led by people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, who apparently never heard the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.
But then they really got offended when Cheney went public at Fox News, which of course as far as they are concerned is just a tool of the Republicans. But who can really blame him? Let me see if I can come up with the questions he would have received from any one of the ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN anchors:
How many other people have you shot?
Were you drunk when you shot him?
Is it true that you shot your friend as a warning to anyone that might testify against you in the Valerie Plame case?
So will you finally resign now? Huh? Huh?
What were you trying to cover up by not talking with the press on Saturday?
Isn't this really just another example of your cavalier attitude toward guns and violence?
Aren't you lying about this incident just like you have continually lied about Iraq?
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still abuse your dog?
You get the idea. Ever wonder what the press would have said if Bill Clinton had been involved in the same accident? Suppose Bill really was drunk at the time? How would the press coverage been different, do you think?
And that's why it might be more sad than funny. Not to mention that there are lots of really important stories out there right now that the press doesn't seem to care about, because they're more focused on their mission to destroy the President & VP.
By the way, so Mike Davis had apparently already worked out a deal for his resignation by the time I wrote yesterday's post. Let the speculation on Steve Alford begin. I've even already heard somebody suggesting that maybe the university could bring back Bob Knight. Either way, this season's a bust for the Hoosiers. They got beat by a mediocre Penn State team last night in pretty much the same way they lost most of their last 5 or 6 games.
By the way, if you wonder why I care, maybe I shouldn't. I never went to IU (I went to Ball State undergrad and South Carolina graduate). But I've been following Indiana basketball since I was a kid, and was hooked when a guy from my High School, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter for the Hoosiers under Knight. And Indiana is the team that represents the state, and residents of Indiana are rightfully proud of the state's long tradition in basketball. Which was wrecked by the switch to High School Class Basketball, but that's another topic for another day.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
How Not to Deal with Pressure
Mike Davis is feeling the pressure, and isn't dealing with it very well. After missing Saturday's game against Iowa (a loss, but close) with the flu, there's been speculation that it was more of a "blue flu", where he skipped the game in a sort of snit or quasi-protest.
When he returned, he showed that there may be at least a little truth to the speculation, expressing disgust at the lack of fan support for the Hoosiers and throwing out a line that maybe Indiana needs to have "one of their own" running the show.
Now I can certainly appreciate the stress Mike's been under. He's under a well-known ultimatum from IU's Athletic Director this year; "win or else". And although the early season had the Hoosiers looking pretty good, they have stumbled badly over the past month or so. And not just because of DJ White's injury, because let's face it, DJ only played a few games, and contributed in even fewer, before his foot injury put him out for the year.
What has happened is fairly obvious to anybody who's watching and knows a little about basketball. To beat Indiana, all you have to do is pack in your defense and double-team Marco, while keeping somebody close to the team's best 3-point shooters. You can rattle and frustrate Marco, evidenced by the fact he fouled out in something like 3 of the last 4 or 5 games. And you can disrupt their offensive rhythm and get into the heads of the shooters, who will start forcing bad shots when they are behind.
The IU basketball team is the same group of guys that looked so good early in the season. The only differences are that, A) The rest of the Big Ten has found their weaknesses and they haven't adjusted, and B) The team in general has lost their swagger and are playing desperately instead of confidently.
Mike Davis, if you want some advice, here it is: Forget about the criticism and calls for your firing and work on bringing back the Indiana basketball team we saw earlier in the season. Indiana fans don't care who you are, where you came from, if you're a black man or a green midget. They just want to win. And they really know their basketball. Watch the last few games and see what I saw, recognize how teams are playing you, and adjust your offense to overcome that. Find ways to instill mental toughness and re-establish confidence in your players. Finally, just accept the simple fact that, if you turn the season around you'll keep your job; if you don't, it's time to update your resume. So stop blaming others and just coach. If you give it your best and fail, learn from it and move on. If you succeed, enjoy it and build on it.
That is, if it's not already too late.
When he returned, he showed that there may be at least a little truth to the speculation, expressing disgust at the lack of fan support for the Hoosiers and throwing out a line that maybe Indiana needs to have "one of their own" running the show.
Now I can certainly appreciate the stress Mike's been under. He's under a well-known ultimatum from IU's Athletic Director this year; "win or else". And although the early season had the Hoosiers looking pretty good, they have stumbled badly over the past month or so. And not just because of DJ White's injury, because let's face it, DJ only played a few games, and contributed in even fewer, before his foot injury put him out for the year.
What has happened is fairly obvious to anybody who's watching and knows a little about basketball. To beat Indiana, all you have to do is pack in your defense and double-team Marco, while keeping somebody close to the team's best 3-point shooters. You can rattle and frustrate Marco, evidenced by the fact he fouled out in something like 3 of the last 4 or 5 games. And you can disrupt their offensive rhythm and get into the heads of the shooters, who will start forcing bad shots when they are behind.
The IU basketball team is the same group of guys that looked so good early in the season. The only differences are that, A) The rest of the Big Ten has found their weaknesses and they haven't adjusted, and B) The team in general has lost their swagger and are playing desperately instead of confidently.
Mike Davis, if you want some advice, here it is: Forget about the criticism and calls for your firing and work on bringing back the Indiana basketball team we saw earlier in the season. Indiana fans don't care who you are, where you came from, if you're a black man or a green midget. They just want to win. And they really know their basketball. Watch the last few games and see what I saw, recognize how teams are playing you, and adjust your offense to overcome that. Find ways to instill mental toughness and re-establish confidence in your players. Finally, just accept the simple fact that, if you turn the season around you'll keep your job; if you don't, it's time to update your resume. So stop blaming others and just coach. If you give it your best and fail, learn from it and move on. If you succeed, enjoy it and build on it.
That is, if it's not already too late.
Valentine's Day
So if you're curious about the origins of Valentine's Day, check this.
I find the passage about the birds intriguing, given the fact that I observed the very acts in my backyard before going to work this morning.
On an unrelated topic, remember that divergence in the path I was writing about? Well, it just diverged again into a third option. Now I'm totally confused.
I find the passage about the birds intriguing, given the fact that I observed the very acts in my backyard before going to work this morning.
On an unrelated topic, remember that divergence in the path I was writing about? Well, it just diverged again into a third option. Now I'm totally confused.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Decisions
I've reached one of those metaphorical crossroads in my business, which became quite obvious in conversations I had today.
There are two distinct paths laid out before me. It's time to decide which path to follow. The one to the right looks fairly easy; it looks like a nice paved, flat, easy road that holds promise of easy money and relatively low stress. The one to the left doesn't look like it's so well paved, there could be potholes and maybe even cliffs I could fall off if I'm not careful, and there's a heavy fog concealing the path several yards ahead.
The easier path is so clear that I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where it will lead. And that path isn't bad at all, leading to a pretty good and steady income, at least for the next couple of years. That path will help me realize some financial goals and needs and is relatively risk-free.
So you might be thinking, "Sounds like a no-brainer. Take the easy path!" I wish it were so easy. Because the other, somewhat obscured path can lead to great things for me. Although I can't predict with any degree of certainty where that path will lead, I do know that if I can navigate it successfully, I won't just do "pretty well", but could find the means to fulfill my dreams. But with great reward comes risk. If I fall off that path along the way, even though it probably won't kill me, it will definitely be excruciatingly painful.
Ultimately it's a choice between taking the sure thing that's relatively secure and comfortable, or aiming higher for my dreams despite plenty of risk and danger.
Note that I speak in metaphors because I don't feel comfortable posting the actual situation I find myself considering. I'm glad it's Friday, because I want a weekend to think things over, then come back Monday and proceed with my chosen direction.
There are two distinct paths laid out before me. It's time to decide which path to follow. The one to the right looks fairly easy; it looks like a nice paved, flat, easy road that holds promise of easy money and relatively low stress. The one to the left doesn't look like it's so well paved, there could be potholes and maybe even cliffs I could fall off if I'm not careful, and there's a heavy fog concealing the path several yards ahead.
The easier path is so clear that I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where it will lead. And that path isn't bad at all, leading to a pretty good and steady income, at least for the next couple of years. That path will help me realize some financial goals and needs and is relatively risk-free.
So you might be thinking, "Sounds like a no-brainer. Take the easy path!" I wish it were so easy. Because the other, somewhat obscured path can lead to great things for me. Although I can't predict with any degree of certainty where that path will lead, I do know that if I can navigate it successfully, I won't just do "pretty well", but could find the means to fulfill my dreams. But with great reward comes risk. If I fall off that path along the way, even though it probably won't kill me, it will definitely be excruciatingly painful.
Ultimately it's a choice between taking the sure thing that's relatively secure and comfortable, or aiming higher for my dreams despite plenty of risk and danger.
Note that I speak in metaphors because I don't feel comfortable posting the actual situation I find myself considering. I'm glad it's Friday, because I want a weekend to think things over, then come back Monday and proceed with my chosen direction.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Life Paradox
Ever noticed how happiness and fulfillment in life never means that life is easy?
Suppose you have more money than you could ever spend, don't have to work, and could just hang out in your mansion or yacht all the time. To most of us, that sounds like a pretty good life, right? Sure, having the financial security to be able to do whatever I want would be great. And it might be fun for awhile to hang out in some monstrous mansion on the ocean, walking on the beach or swimming in my private pool.
But it would get boring within a couple of weeks. No challenges, no stimulation, no reason to get out of bed in the morning. If 100 million dollars dropped out of the sky tomorrow, I'd have quite a celebration. I'd buy a new home, a new car, and take a vacation. But then I'd come back to work and invest some of that money in my business, then see how far I can take the business.
Growing up in the 70's, the popular wisdom was "Don't worry about the money, just follow your passion." Sounded pretty good at the time, and so many of my friends and I did just that. We went to college to study music, art, history, and other liberal arts programs just because we bought the philosophy.
Then we graduated and faced the "real world". My complaint from those days is well remembered today; "Why didn't anybody tell me?". They didn't tell me that even though money isn't everything in life, it sure helps. How demoralizing to be struggling to make a subsistence-level living on my $10K teacher's salary, while seeing almost every low-level factory worker making 50 to 100 percent more for sweeping the floor or screwing widgets on dohickeys.
That's why I like sports. Sports is a metaphor for life. For example, let's say you're a member of a basketball team; high school, college or professional level are all relevant. You join the team with great dreams and expectations, as well as a love for the sport. You've spent lots of time in the driveway honing your shooting and dribbling skills, and it's paid off in a coveted spot on the team.
But it's difficult to be on that team - far more difficult than you ever expected. The coach is a jerk and a sadist. Practices are like torture sessions. Some of your teammates are arrogant jerks that you would never willingly hang out with otherwise. But you persevere, and somehow the practices become a little more bearable as you start to develop strength and stamina.
Then the season starts. You're on the bench, watching with increasing frustration as your teammates lose games that you know are winnable, if only the jerk coach would let you on the floor. You have a choice at this point; you can either sulk about the unfairness of being kept on the bench and give minimum effort at practice, or you can step up your dedication in practice and do extra work to help the team and develop your own skills.
Eventually, you get a chance on the court. If you make the most of that chance by playing solid fundamental basketball, hitting the open teammate for scores, rebounding, or sinking a few shots yourself, the coach is likely to try you again. And your court time begins to increase over time, and the wins begin to come - not because of your talent and contribution, but because the whole team is beginning to develop as an effective unit.
There are a select few key games that allow you and your team to test yourselves against the best. Somehow the team comes together and puts personal differences aside in order to achieve their shared goals. Maybe at first you just have to take some satisfaction in being competitive with the best, but one day you beat a team you really shouldn't have.
Then the tournament comes, with each successive win getting you and your team that much closer to the championship. If you can win through to the championship, the satisfaction of that achievement will remain for the rest of your life as a proud achievement nobody can take away from you. Even if nobody else really remembers that magical season, you know what a huge effort and sacrifice it took to achieve.
That's the essence of life. It's not just about you, but about those you journey beside. About the trials, difficulties, disappointments, sacrifices, and obstacles you endured along the way. And even if you didn't achieve the ultimate victory, you can feel good about the fact that you gave it everything and tasted success along the way.
Here I am at the age where I can look back and see a mixed bag of success and failure. And I realize that the successes were never mine alone and the failures were as much mine as anyone else's. But the biggest realization is that it's not over; I still have challenges I must face and give my all toward the next big victory or disappointing defeat. Either way, I'll persevere until I accomplish that next big victory, then begin working on the next season.
Suppose you have more money than you could ever spend, don't have to work, and could just hang out in your mansion or yacht all the time. To most of us, that sounds like a pretty good life, right? Sure, having the financial security to be able to do whatever I want would be great. And it might be fun for awhile to hang out in some monstrous mansion on the ocean, walking on the beach or swimming in my private pool.
But it would get boring within a couple of weeks. No challenges, no stimulation, no reason to get out of bed in the morning. If 100 million dollars dropped out of the sky tomorrow, I'd have quite a celebration. I'd buy a new home, a new car, and take a vacation. But then I'd come back to work and invest some of that money in my business, then see how far I can take the business.
Growing up in the 70's, the popular wisdom was "Don't worry about the money, just follow your passion." Sounded pretty good at the time, and so many of my friends and I did just that. We went to college to study music, art, history, and other liberal arts programs just because we bought the philosophy.
Then we graduated and faced the "real world". My complaint from those days is well remembered today; "Why didn't anybody tell me?". They didn't tell me that even though money isn't everything in life, it sure helps. How demoralizing to be struggling to make a subsistence-level living on my $10K teacher's salary, while seeing almost every low-level factory worker making 50 to 100 percent more for sweeping the floor or screwing widgets on dohickeys.
That's why I like sports. Sports is a metaphor for life. For example, let's say you're a member of a basketball team; high school, college or professional level are all relevant. You join the team with great dreams and expectations, as well as a love for the sport. You've spent lots of time in the driveway honing your shooting and dribbling skills, and it's paid off in a coveted spot on the team.
But it's difficult to be on that team - far more difficult than you ever expected. The coach is a jerk and a sadist. Practices are like torture sessions. Some of your teammates are arrogant jerks that you would never willingly hang out with otherwise. But you persevere, and somehow the practices become a little more bearable as you start to develop strength and stamina.
Then the season starts. You're on the bench, watching with increasing frustration as your teammates lose games that you know are winnable, if only the jerk coach would let you on the floor. You have a choice at this point; you can either sulk about the unfairness of being kept on the bench and give minimum effort at practice, or you can step up your dedication in practice and do extra work to help the team and develop your own skills.
Eventually, you get a chance on the court. If you make the most of that chance by playing solid fundamental basketball, hitting the open teammate for scores, rebounding, or sinking a few shots yourself, the coach is likely to try you again. And your court time begins to increase over time, and the wins begin to come - not because of your talent and contribution, but because the whole team is beginning to develop as an effective unit.
There are a select few key games that allow you and your team to test yourselves against the best. Somehow the team comes together and puts personal differences aside in order to achieve their shared goals. Maybe at first you just have to take some satisfaction in being competitive with the best, but one day you beat a team you really shouldn't have.
Then the tournament comes, with each successive win getting you and your team that much closer to the championship. If you can win through to the championship, the satisfaction of that achievement will remain for the rest of your life as a proud achievement nobody can take away from you. Even if nobody else really remembers that magical season, you know what a huge effort and sacrifice it took to achieve.
That's the essence of life. It's not just about you, but about those you journey beside. About the trials, difficulties, disappointments, sacrifices, and obstacles you endured along the way. And even if you didn't achieve the ultimate victory, you can feel good about the fact that you gave it everything and tasted success along the way.
Here I am at the age where I can look back and see a mixed bag of success and failure. And I realize that the successes were never mine alone and the failures were as much mine as anyone else's. But the biggest realization is that it's not over; I still have challenges I must face and give my all toward the next big victory or disappointing defeat. Either way, I'll persevere until I accomplish that next big victory, then begin working on the next season.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Paranoia
This whole business of NSA wiretapping got me curious, so I set about trying to find out about the "real" story. Here I am, shaking my head, because the story is either a non-story about eavesdropping on known Al Quaeda terrorists overseas who are making calls to people who happen to be in the US, which is perfectly legal, or Bush is some sort of evil dictator wiretapping all sorts of Americans for unfathomable reasons.
Among those who seem absolutely certain that Bush is somehow listening in on their conversations are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Julian Bond. Now I of course can't possibly say whether or not they are being monitored, but based on their public statements I'd say it would be prudent for the FBI to be keeping tabs on them. Oh yeah, perfectly legally with warrants and all that.
The weirdest of all was one I heard today from some bombastic leftie who is convinced that Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler. He claimed (or maybe a better term is "screamed") he could prove that the administration is wiretapping the Mormons. The Mormons? Huh? Sure has me scratching my head.
For those who have already gone off the deep end on this topic because of some premature and speculative press stories that have now been outrageously inflated beyond reason by the Bush-hater crowd, I suggest you Please Take a Breath!
Tell you what. As soon as you find a legitimate story from a "real" news outlet about somebody being detained for calling Bush a Nazi (or any expletive you wish to substitute) in a cellphone conversation with a non-Al Quaeda friend, please feel free to alert me right away. If the story turns out to be true, I'll be happy to agree that the pres has gone too far. But until then, I'm going to assume Bush and Negroponte and Goss are all telling us the truth. And I find nothing at all objectionable about what they have reported they are doing, not to mention am rather unhappy that classified information about this program was leaked, most likely by Democrat congress members (Jay Rockefeller, anyone?) who should know better.
Among those who seem absolutely certain that Bush is somehow listening in on their conversations are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Julian Bond. Now I of course can't possibly say whether or not they are being monitored, but based on their public statements I'd say it would be prudent for the FBI to be keeping tabs on them. Oh yeah, perfectly legally with warrants and all that.
The weirdest of all was one I heard today from some bombastic leftie who is convinced that Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler. He claimed (or maybe a better term is "screamed") he could prove that the administration is wiretapping the Mormons. The Mormons? Huh? Sure has me scratching my head.
For those who have already gone off the deep end on this topic because of some premature and speculative press stories that have now been outrageously inflated beyond reason by the Bush-hater crowd, I suggest you Please Take a Breath!
Tell you what. As soon as you find a legitimate story from a "real" news outlet about somebody being detained for calling Bush a Nazi (or any expletive you wish to substitute) in a cellphone conversation with a non-Al Quaeda friend, please feel free to alert me right away. If the story turns out to be true, I'll be happy to agree that the pres has gone too far. But until then, I'm going to assume Bush and Negroponte and Goss are all telling us the truth. And I find nothing at all objectionable about what they have reported they are doing, not to mention am rather unhappy that classified information about this program was leaked, most likely by Democrat congress members (Jay Rockefeller, anyone?) who should know better.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
No Smoking
Apparently, Columbus went smoke-free yesterday. The Republic did two or three stories on it today that were kind of fascinating, from a sociological viewpoint.
There are two local restaurant owners who fought the ordinance from the time it was proposed. They both cater to smokers and believed that the ban, which exempts bars and private clubs, would drive their business away to those other establishments. The Republic reporter went to some of the bars and clubs to check that out, but was told business was about the same.
As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I have the advantage of what I think is a pretty unbiased view of the whole issue. I agree that it seems a little unfair to exempt establishments from the ban just because they serve alcohol. But on the other hand, the exemption is based on the theory that restaurants are for families who generally would rather not have somebody at the next table blowing smoke at their kids, while bars are adults-only establishments that exist for the primary purpose of letting adults pickle their livers and pollute their lungs to their hearts' content. And private clubs are by definition outside of the public domain, and their members are presumably self-selected patrons that either smoke or don't mind others smoking in their club.
Good old Indiana has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, with our resident Hoosier Hicks viewing the habit as some sort of birthright. For the government to step in and tell these people they can't smoke somewhere is to them the equivalent of some sort of Nazi tyranny.
From a personal perspective, I'm happy for the ban. It's good to know that I can get a meal at just about any restaurant in town without any fear of having the meal ruined by a chain smoker 5 or 10 feet away. And I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace, having had the experience working in a smoke-filled room for a few years in the 80's to early 90's. I remember the constant stench of cigarette smoke permeating my clothing, the blue haze that was noticable whenever I entered the cubicle farm on my way to my pitiful workspace, and the unending scratchy throat and sinusitis from being forced to work in that environment 8 to 10 hours every day.
I find it interesting that smokers mostly are oblivious to how their smoke affects others around them. Ever been around a smoker and noticed how they blow the smoke up or to the side, as if that somehow is all they need to do to keep it from bothering you? Ever been with a smoker on a flight or in a no-smoking building, and noticed that they have the cigarette in their mouth and lighter at the ready as they quicken their pace to leave the building? These observations give proof to the addictive qualities of nicotine.
But for me, there are other observations that are really disturbing. At the county fair every summer, I'm almost guaranteed to see a young pregnant woman (or girl) puffing away on a cigarette. I want to go rip it out of her mouth and tell her the awful things her habit is doing to her baby. Driving around Columbus, I occasionally see a young mother with two or three very young toddlers to infants trapped in the car with her as she puffs away on her cancer stick. I have to resist the urge to force her off the road and take the children away.
I suppose there's no particular cohesive point I'm trying to make with this post. Only that after thinking about it, I've decided that smoking in public places is not some sort of civil liberty to be protected. That people are free to smoke if they want, but there's nothing wrong with enacting laws that keep the smoke away from their co-workers and co-diners. And that parents that smoke constantly at home and in the car around their kids are doing more harm to those children than they ever imagined, and maybe it's time to do more education to convince them to at least take it outside.
There are two local restaurant owners who fought the ordinance from the time it was proposed. They both cater to smokers and believed that the ban, which exempts bars and private clubs, would drive their business away to those other establishments. The Republic reporter went to some of the bars and clubs to check that out, but was told business was about the same.
As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I have the advantage of what I think is a pretty unbiased view of the whole issue. I agree that it seems a little unfair to exempt establishments from the ban just because they serve alcohol. But on the other hand, the exemption is based on the theory that restaurants are for families who generally would rather not have somebody at the next table blowing smoke at their kids, while bars are adults-only establishments that exist for the primary purpose of letting adults pickle their livers and pollute their lungs to their hearts' content. And private clubs are by definition outside of the public domain, and their members are presumably self-selected patrons that either smoke or don't mind others smoking in their club.
Good old Indiana has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, with our resident Hoosier Hicks viewing the habit as some sort of birthright. For the government to step in and tell these people they can't smoke somewhere is to them the equivalent of some sort of Nazi tyranny.
From a personal perspective, I'm happy for the ban. It's good to know that I can get a meal at just about any restaurant in town without any fear of having the meal ruined by a chain smoker 5 or 10 feet away. And I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace, having had the experience working in a smoke-filled room for a few years in the 80's to early 90's. I remember the constant stench of cigarette smoke permeating my clothing, the blue haze that was noticable whenever I entered the cubicle farm on my way to my pitiful workspace, and the unending scratchy throat and sinusitis from being forced to work in that environment 8 to 10 hours every day.
I find it interesting that smokers mostly are oblivious to how their smoke affects others around them. Ever been around a smoker and noticed how they blow the smoke up or to the side, as if that somehow is all they need to do to keep it from bothering you? Ever been with a smoker on a flight or in a no-smoking building, and noticed that they have the cigarette in their mouth and lighter at the ready as they quicken their pace to leave the building? These observations give proof to the addictive qualities of nicotine.
But for me, there are other observations that are really disturbing. At the county fair every summer, I'm almost guaranteed to see a young pregnant woman (or girl) puffing away on a cigarette. I want to go rip it out of her mouth and tell her the awful things her habit is doing to her baby. Driving around Columbus, I occasionally see a young mother with two or three very young toddlers to infants trapped in the car with her as she puffs away on her cancer stick. I have to resist the urge to force her off the road and take the children away.
I suppose there's no particular cohesive point I'm trying to make with this post. Only that after thinking about it, I've decided that smoking in public places is not some sort of civil liberty to be protected. That people are free to smoke if they want, but there's nothing wrong with enacting laws that keep the smoke away from their co-workers and co-diners. And that parents that smoke constantly at home and in the car around their kids are doing more harm to those children than they ever imagined, and maybe it's time to do more education to convince them to at least take it outside.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gotta Comment
I've been trying to avoid politics here lately, but just had to comment on last night's State of the Union.
I was kind of surprised how he came out early and tweaked the Dems on their obstruction of the war efforts. But I couldn't help imagining the Bush supporters all cheering while all the Bush enemies yelling "shut up!". Somehow I sort of doubt he made any converts there, even though I sort of enjoyed it.
He seemed to find a bunch of proposals that nobody could really disagree with on principle. It could be a brilliant move politically, if it's followed up by introducing that legislation in congress right away (like this week), then letting the Dems respond with their normal angry obstruction. They don't look very good when they try to block Bush even on his good ideas, just because they came from him.
The cheering from the left side last night when Bush mentioned that they had blocked his efforts to reform Social Security made them look infantile and irresponsible. But a bipartisan commission isn't going to solve the problem. They'll meet for a long time and eventually come out with some proposal which will be mostly meaningless and dismissed before it's even presented. I don't see anything happening with Social Security unless a solid and practical proposal is developed by someone and sold to the majority of Americans.
The energy technology stuff is all well and good, but even in the best of scenarios is decades down the road. Even though he has been blocked on every attempt to open up more domestic oil resources, it's still the right thing to do whether the environmental lobbies like it or not.
The healthcare stuff sounded good, but it didn't sound to me as if Bush was prepared to do much more besides health savings accounts and tort reform. Those may be a start, but the system's in dire need of a lot more reform than just those two items.
Then the Democrat response was something I wasn't sure I wanted to watch, but I'd never heard Kean speak before, so I stayed for his speech. And was very impressed. The guy is smooth and a terrific orator. It was kind of surprising that he came out as a marked departure from the normal Democrat message of the last 5 years or so, stressing bipartisanship and common sense instead of trashing Bush at every turn. But on the other hand, he presented no real new ideas; in fact, his whole speech was centered around the "There's a better way" theme, which basically said Democrats would do a better job than Republicans doing pretty much the same things.
So I also heard Cindy Sheehan got invited to attend the speech by some stupid Democrat congressman. Apparently, she got arrested before it even started for getting her disruptive protests ready. If there's one thing we all know about Cindy, it's all about her. I think it's way past time for everybody to just ignore the dingbat.
It all makes for an interesting sort of theatre.
I was kind of surprised how he came out early and tweaked the Dems on their obstruction of the war efforts. But I couldn't help imagining the Bush supporters all cheering while all the Bush enemies yelling "shut up!". Somehow I sort of doubt he made any converts there, even though I sort of enjoyed it.
He seemed to find a bunch of proposals that nobody could really disagree with on principle. It could be a brilliant move politically, if it's followed up by introducing that legislation in congress right away (like this week), then letting the Dems respond with their normal angry obstruction. They don't look very good when they try to block Bush even on his good ideas, just because they came from him.
The cheering from the left side last night when Bush mentioned that they had blocked his efforts to reform Social Security made them look infantile and irresponsible. But a bipartisan commission isn't going to solve the problem. They'll meet for a long time and eventually come out with some proposal which will be mostly meaningless and dismissed before it's even presented. I don't see anything happening with Social Security unless a solid and practical proposal is developed by someone and sold to the majority of Americans.
The energy technology stuff is all well and good, but even in the best of scenarios is decades down the road. Even though he has been blocked on every attempt to open up more domestic oil resources, it's still the right thing to do whether the environmental lobbies like it or not.
The healthcare stuff sounded good, but it didn't sound to me as if Bush was prepared to do much more besides health savings accounts and tort reform. Those may be a start, but the system's in dire need of a lot more reform than just those two items.
Then the Democrat response was something I wasn't sure I wanted to watch, but I'd never heard Kean speak before, so I stayed for his speech. And was very impressed. The guy is smooth and a terrific orator. It was kind of surprising that he came out as a marked departure from the normal Democrat message of the last 5 years or so, stressing bipartisanship and common sense instead of trashing Bush at every turn. But on the other hand, he presented no real new ideas; in fact, his whole speech was centered around the "There's a better way" theme, which basically said Democrats would do a better job than Republicans doing pretty much the same things.
So I also heard Cindy Sheehan got invited to attend the speech by some stupid Democrat congressman. Apparently, she got arrested before it even started for getting her disruptive protests ready. If there's one thing we all know about Cindy, it's all about her. I think it's way past time for everybody to just ignore the dingbat.
It all makes for an interesting sort of theatre.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Realm of Possibilities
Lately I was thinking about the things I enjoyed the most about being young. And wondered whether I could recapture any of them before I hit 50. Here are some of them:
In the meantime, the key question - time for a new car or hang on awhile longer? Ponder this, I must.
- Swimming and goofing off on a diving board. Why not?
- Playing basketball. I mean really playing, on an actual team, and being a major contributor to said team, and having a shot at a league championship. Maybe an old fogey team if I got in decent enough shape - tall order.
- Singing in front of a very large, appreciative audience, maybe even televised. Not likely.
- Bike Rides. Easier said than done, but possible.
- In good physical condition such that strange women flirt or double-take. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.
- An evening with friends where I laugh so hard I get a mild bellyache. Don't think so.
- An evening sitting around with friends just singing. Do people even do that anymore?
In the meantime, the key question - time for a new car or hang on awhile longer? Ponder this, I must.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Basketball Blahs
This isn't a great year for my favorite sport. Well, basketball was always my favorite sport as a player, whether or not it rivals football as a favorite spectator sport.
The two teams I have mostly followed through the years are Indiana (College=Hoosiers, NBA=Pacers). And these days both team are testing my loyalties.
The Pacers keep getting worse. They just lost to the worst team in the NBA (Atlanta), and they have been painful to watch recently. There's no cohesion with this team, and they don't play with any urgency. They stand around a lot on offense, waiting for somebody else to make a play.
Are they missing Artest? Sure, they miss his points and defense, but the bigger miss is Reggie. Reggie was their leader, helping bring a spark and intensity that rubbed off on his teammates. There is nobody on the team that has stepped into that role. Jermaine O'Neal acts like he's trying, but comes off as more of a whiner than a leader.
Apparently a trade of Artest isn't in the cards. Since Artest now says he wants to stay, I'd suggest Walsh and Bird sit him down and lay down the conditions for his return - keep his nose clean, don't talk to the press, be a team player, or you'll be suspended without pay the rest of the year then released. I can't say whether or not this would help turn the Pacers' season around, but at this point it couldn't hurt. Oh, and I'd also recommend they trade or sign a veteran free agent that can bring leadership to the squad - he wouldn't necessarily have to be a starter or major contributor on the floor.
Then there are the Hoosiers. Yes, they are better this year, but somehow I'm still uninspired by them. The two guys they brought in from Auburn are good, and Killingsworth has some great skills, but they don't feel like Indiana guys. The rest of the team just doesn't give me anything to connect or identify with like past teams; in other words, this team has no personality.
They looked very good against Ohio State and Illinois, but looked terrible last night against Iowa. Seems like a team that can't get a win on the road. They certainly looked intimidated by Steve Alford's smothering Iowa defense last night, and also looked sluggish and careless with the ball.
In the end, while I loved watching the great Indiana teams in the past, I also enjoyed the teams that didn't necessarily win that much, because they always seemed to leave it all on the floor. Not this team. This team is talented, but has no character.
It's going to be a long winter.
The two teams I have mostly followed through the years are Indiana (College=Hoosiers, NBA=Pacers). And these days both team are testing my loyalties.
The Pacers keep getting worse. They just lost to the worst team in the NBA (Atlanta), and they have been painful to watch recently. There's no cohesion with this team, and they don't play with any urgency. They stand around a lot on offense, waiting for somebody else to make a play.
Are they missing Artest? Sure, they miss his points and defense, but the bigger miss is Reggie. Reggie was their leader, helping bring a spark and intensity that rubbed off on his teammates. There is nobody on the team that has stepped into that role. Jermaine O'Neal acts like he's trying, but comes off as more of a whiner than a leader.
Apparently a trade of Artest isn't in the cards. Since Artest now says he wants to stay, I'd suggest Walsh and Bird sit him down and lay down the conditions for his return - keep his nose clean, don't talk to the press, be a team player, or you'll be suspended without pay the rest of the year then released. I can't say whether or not this would help turn the Pacers' season around, but at this point it couldn't hurt. Oh, and I'd also recommend they trade or sign a veteran free agent that can bring leadership to the squad - he wouldn't necessarily have to be a starter or major contributor on the floor.
Then there are the Hoosiers. Yes, they are better this year, but somehow I'm still uninspired by them. The two guys they brought in from Auburn are good, and Killingsworth has some great skills, but they don't feel like Indiana guys. The rest of the team just doesn't give me anything to connect or identify with like past teams; in other words, this team has no personality.
They looked very good against Ohio State and Illinois, but looked terrible last night against Iowa. Seems like a team that can't get a win on the road. They certainly looked intimidated by Steve Alford's smothering Iowa defense last night, and also looked sluggish and careless with the ball.
In the end, while I loved watching the great Indiana teams in the past, I also enjoyed the teams that didn't necessarily win that much, because they always seemed to leave it all on the floor. Not this team. This team is talented, but has no character.
It's going to be a long winter.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
There are Four Basic Categories
Through my own observation and experience, I think I have discovered something about people. There are four identifiable classes of people when it comes to political viewpoints.
There are Secular Liberals, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives and Religious Conservatives.
Republicans seem to have an ongoing battle happening between the religious and seculars. My view of the seculars is that they're mostly represented by the capitalists and CEO's, whose main objective is keeping the government from meddling in their business. Religious conservatives are in a battle for the party, with a somewhat more moderate view on the economic issues but firm belief in protecting traditional values and culture.
The best way I can think of to define these categories is through the following examples:
- There’s a guy on the streetcorner with the sign, “Will work for food”.
· Secular Liberal: Ignores him, thinks “The government needs to do something about that”.
· Religious Liberal: Gives the guy a dollar, thinks “Poor guy, the government should do something to help”
· Secular Conservative: Might yell out he window, “Get a job!”. Or might consider calling the police to arrest him for vagrancy. Thinks the guy’s a fraud anyway.
· Religious Conservative: Most likely to hand him a sandwich or a card with directions to the local soup kitchen where she volunteers a couple times a month.
- A 12-year-old girl comes to the person for advice, because she just got pregnant and is afraid to tell her parents.
· Secular Liberal: Will encourage the girl to get an abortion, support her in keeping it from her parents, and might even offer to drive her to the clinic.
· Religious Liberal: Is very conflicted, because they feel empathy for the girl’s situation but don’t want to force their religious views on her. This type might just suggest that the girl make whatever decision she feels is best for her.
· Secular Conservative: This type isn’t going to be terribly sensitive to the girl’s feelings, and will probably tell her that if she doesn’t tell her parents immediately that he will. He will strongly encourage her to have the baby and give it up for adoption.
· Religious Conservative: Will be very understanding of the girl’s dilemma, and will support her and maybe even help her with breaking the news to her parents. If the parents are unhelpful, demand she abort the baby, or disown her, this type will make sure she gets into a pregnancy care program that will help her through the entire process.
- The
· Secular Liberal: Is still hung up on their belief that Bush “stole” the 2000 election, and still views everything Bush does as tainted or illegitimate. Tells everyone that “Bush lied” to get into the Iraq war, but actually agitates against the war in hopes it will somehow lead to Bush’s impeachment and a chance to get a Liberal back into the White House.
· Religious Liberal: Is a hand-wringer about all of the Iraqis killed in the war. Doesn’t support the
· Secular Conservative: Believes we haven’t done enough in the
· Religious Conservatives: Are somewhat conflicted about the
- Oil and Energy
· Secular Liberal: Feels hatred and anger against the evil oil industry that is “raping the planet” to enrich themselves. Hates rich people who drive Hummers and Navigators, guzzling gas and polluting the air. Will go to any lengths to prevent oil drilling in the ANWR, not to protect the wildlife and environment there, but because they feel it’s unfair to allow an oil company to increase their riches by getting a sweetheart drilling deal from the Texas-based Bush administration. The wealthy part of this group buy a hybrid automobile for show, but have the gas-guzzlers in their garage and use more energy to heat and cool their California mansions than the average American can imagine.
· Religious Liberal: Thinks that Americans are wasteful of God’s resources and we should do more in caring for the planet He gave us. Have gullibly bought into the fallacious arguments made by the Secular Liberals (who know better) that the beautiful ANWR reserve will be blighted and wildlife wiped out by the irresponsible oil companies.
· Secular Conservative: Completely support oil exploration and drilling wherever it may be found. Don’t believe there are any environmental concerns that are relevant, but know that the best short-term path to American energy independence is full exploitation of our own untapped domestic supplies.
· Religious Conservatives: Are environmentally sensitive, and support research on alternative fuels. But also understand that responsible oil exploration and drilling are necessary to help keep a strong economy and reduce reliance on foreign oil.
- Taxes
· Secular Liberal: There are two groups inside this category: the rich SL and the rest of the SL’s. The rich support high taxes and soaking the rich, but most of them don’t care because most of their fortune is already well-hidden from the government in offshore accounts. The non-rich SL feels the rich are given special treatment by the Republican-run government and don’t think that it’s possible to raise taxes on them too much. But the non-rich SL also thinks they pay plenty of tax already.
· Religious Liberal: This group is made up of mostly lower to middle class people who are attracted to the rhetoric from their SL friends. Therefore they support soaking the rich, but would prefer to avoid higher taxes on their own families. On the other hand, if a liberal president or congress came to them and told them their taxes had to go up to help the poor, they would happily support the increase.
· Secular Conservative: This group firmly believes that tax cuts benefit everyone. Cutting taxes and social programs are certain to stimulate the economy, because letting people keep more of their own money directly translates into more consumer spending on products and services. That creates jobs and reduces the need for social services for the poor.
· Religious Conservative: This group supports the “Fair Tax” plan or flat tax plans, and are tired of the political favors and complexity of the existing tax code. The RC views social programs as the responsibility of each citizen, and that the government does a very poor job of actually addressing issues of the poor. This group is much more likely to donate the highest amounts of money to charity and actually participate in community programs that help the poor.
- Gay Rights
· Secular Liberal: This is the category where most gays live. They have been on a crusade to force American society to not only accept, but embrace the gay lifestyle. And for the most part, they seem to have succeeded through constant political activism and the significant contributions of their primary employers in the entertainment and media industries. SL’s see the legalization of Gay Marriage as the ultimate measure of their success in this crusade, but have yet to think through all the consequences of full marital rights and consequences.
· Religious Liberal: These people belong to “progressive” churches, or organizations within their denominations that are pushing for more understanding and recognition of gays. They ignore teachings of their faith that denounce the gay lifestyle, choosing instead to believe that our society is simply more enlightened and the faith can accommodate new social norms.
· Secular Conservative: This group’s philosophy on gay rights says that gays have the right to do whatever they want with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but they don’t have the right to push their sexuality into the rest of our faces. SC’s say to gays, “Do whatever you like in private, but don’ t expect special rights and privileges just because of your sexual behavior.”
· Religious Conservative: Religious conservatives continue to believe the teachings of their faith, that sex outside the sacrament of marriage is a sin. They feel sorry for gays, who they feel have been misled or entrapped by sexual predators into the lifestyle. They feel anyone who feels they are a homosexual can change their orientation through counseling and communion with God. They are appalled that one of their faith’s most important sacraments is being debased through it’s misuse by the Gay Rights movement.
The Secular Liberal: Is or was most likely of all these groups to have been a drug abuser, has socialist and/or communist sympathies, is either perpetually broke and blames rich people for it or is a very wealthy heir/heiress or entertainer that feels guilty about it, is or has been sexually promiscouous, and despises religious people they think want to "judge" them.
The Religious Liberal: Is in search of a better world and believe the government can implement idealistic and sensitive policies to help achieve it, believe in God and profess a strong personal spirituality but shun the staid traditions of organized religion in favor of new liberal-minded movements, want to protect animals and the environment, want workers to be paid a fair wage and think CEO's make obscene amounts of money and get too many tax breaks, are generally pacifists and think all conflicts can be resolved through understanding and diplomacy.
The Secular Conservative: The ultimate capitalist, tends toward a libertarian philosophy of extremely limited government, firmly believes in strong national defense and infrastructure but supports very little governmental social programs, thinks people need to be self-sufficient and accountable, have no use for crazy environmentalists and animal rights activists, and fight for low taxes and minimal government regulation.
The Religious Conservative: Feels that America became great because of its strong foundation of freedom and moral values, supports free trade and capitalism but with boundaries that protect people and the environment from abusive or unfair practices, believe it's the responsibility of the people and not the government to care for the poor, support fair and simple taxes, and hold great fear that they will soon be persecuted by an increasingly secular society that seems to hold them in contempt.
Which category best describes you?
Friday, January 20, 2006
Osama's a Democrat
It's been an extremely busy week, and I haven't had time to pay attention to the news. But I just came across the transcript of bin Laden's latest tape. I was immediately struck by how well informed he seems to be about the anti-war movement here in the US. His message was very well tailored to encourage the anti-war Bush-haters in hopes they can succeed in forcing our government to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan so he can crawl out of his cave and get back in business.
What a great group of friends he has in America, who are now pushing a Bush impeachment over their no-longer secret monitoring of cellphone conversations between people in the US and their al Quaida friends overseas. If his friends succeed, he'll most likely celebrate by blowing many of them up.
What a great group of friends he has in America, who are now pushing a Bush impeachment over their no-longer secret monitoring of cellphone conversations between people in the US and their al Quaida friends overseas. If his friends succeed, he'll most likely celebrate by blowing many of them up.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Two for Four
My predictions worked for only two of the four playoff games this weekend. New England surprised me by giving up something like 5 turnovers, while Denver showed that they're actually pretty good.
No surprises in the NFC, except the minor surprise at the score of Carolina/Chicago. I didn't expect either team to score more than 14 in that one. But the outcome was as expected.
Unfortunately, the Colts let us all down again. This was supposed to be their year, but Pittsburgh came out in the first quarter and kicked them in the teeth, and they never recovered. But then, to be given the gift of the overturned interception and still have a chance to tie with a makeable field goal at the end and blow it makes me wonder about the psyche of this Colts team. Are they stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy where deep down they don't believe they can play well enough to make it to the Super Bowl, regardless of how great they played in the season? How does it happen that Edge is a mainstay all year but hardly gets the ball? How do Reggie and Marvin suddenly get shut out of the passing game? How does the offensive line suddenly forget how to pass block? How does the great Peyton Manning allow himself to get rattled by the Pittsburgh defense? How does the most accurate kicker in the league miss the most important kick of the season?
Who knows. I'll keep an eye on the rest of the playoffs and probably watch the Super Bowl, but the excitement is gone. Maybe a post about what makes sports so popular that so many live and die with their favorite teams would be interesting. Sometime when I've got a free hour maybe.
No surprises in the NFC, except the minor surprise at the score of Carolina/Chicago. I didn't expect either team to score more than 14 in that one. But the outcome was as expected.
Unfortunately, the Colts let us all down again. This was supposed to be their year, but Pittsburgh came out in the first quarter and kicked them in the teeth, and they never recovered. But then, to be given the gift of the overturned interception and still have a chance to tie with a makeable field goal at the end and blow it makes me wonder about the psyche of this Colts team. Are they stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy where deep down they don't believe they can play well enough to make it to the Super Bowl, regardless of how great they played in the season? How does it happen that Edge is a mainstay all year but hardly gets the ball? How do Reggie and Marvin suddenly get shut out of the passing game? How does the offensive line suddenly forget how to pass block? How does the great Peyton Manning allow himself to get rattled by the Pittsburgh defense? How does the most accurate kicker in the league miss the most important kick of the season?
Who knows. I'll keep an eye on the rest of the playoffs and probably watch the Super Bowl, but the excitement is gone. Maybe a post about what makes sports so popular that so many live and die with their favorite teams would be interesting. Sometime when I've got a free hour maybe.
Friday, January 13, 2006
My Friday Post
Now and then I like to do a post mostly for fun. And what can be more fun than sports? (OK, you have a suggestion, but that's not a topic I'm comfortable blogging about.)
How about my own semi-informed analysis of this weekend's NFL playoffs?
We'll start with the NFC, which I think is easy.
Seahawks/Redskins: How could you pick against Seattle this year? Especially given the dismal offensive performance of the Redskins last week in Tampa. I was actually sort of rooting for the Bucs, but their offense may have been even more pitiful than the Redskins. Unless the 'Skins defense is able to strip Alexander or pick off Hasselbeck three or four times, I don't see it happening for them. I think Seattle wins this one.
Bears/Panthers: Everybody's picking Carolina, who did look pretty good last weekend in shutting out the Giants. But Chicago's defense is capable of shutting almost anybody down. So this isn't as easy a pick as it seems. But I have to admit to be leaning toward Carolina, because it looks like it might be a warm weekend in Chicago, which takes the weather advantage away from the Bears. And Grossman has so little experience that I think he may get rattled and therefore intercepted a couple of times, especially if Chicago has to play from behind. I gotta pick Carolina in a close game - it could be a 7-6 victory.
Now the more interesting conference, from which the eventual Super Bowl champion will emerge:
Broncos/Patriots: Everybody's on the Patriots bandwagon, saying they're back and they're healthy. Sure, they finished the season looking pretty strong and blew out a pretty good Jacksonville team last week. But the Broncos aren't bad, with the second seed and home-field advantage. I view this game as a toss-up that could be decided at the very end. But then there's Plummer, who has a history of throwing picks in big games, which if that happens could result in a lopsided Patriots victory. It all hangs on the Pats' ability to stop Denver's running game and force Plummer to throw, playing catch-up from behind. As much as I fear a repeat of the Patriots bouncing the Colts once again on their way to another Super Bowl, I have to honestly predict that I think they'll probably find a way to win in Denver.
Steelers/Colts: There are several things that have made me feel pretty good about the Colts in this game. First, the stories about how close-knit and purposeful the team has become after the tragedy in Coach Dungy's family. Second, a quote from Peyton about how he has never felt more prepared for a game in his career. Third, the fact that the entire Colts roster - every starter - is healthy and ready to go. The Steelers recognize that they have to play their best game to win; Roethisberger said "We will need out A+ game to beat their B- game". And the Colts fans will be loud and effective in the dome. I think the Colts win fairly easily by 2 touchdowns and get ready for an AFC championship game at home against their nemesis Patriots.
Now wasn't that fun?
How about my own semi-informed analysis of this weekend's NFL playoffs?
We'll start with the NFC, which I think is easy.
Seahawks/Redskins: How could you pick against Seattle this year? Especially given the dismal offensive performance of the Redskins last week in Tampa. I was actually sort of rooting for the Bucs, but their offense may have been even more pitiful than the Redskins. Unless the 'Skins defense is able to strip Alexander or pick off Hasselbeck three or four times, I don't see it happening for them. I think Seattle wins this one.
Bears/Panthers: Everybody's picking Carolina, who did look pretty good last weekend in shutting out the Giants. But Chicago's defense is capable of shutting almost anybody down. So this isn't as easy a pick as it seems. But I have to admit to be leaning toward Carolina, because it looks like it might be a warm weekend in Chicago, which takes the weather advantage away from the Bears. And Grossman has so little experience that I think he may get rattled and therefore intercepted a couple of times, especially if Chicago has to play from behind. I gotta pick Carolina in a close game - it could be a 7-6 victory.
Now the more interesting conference, from which the eventual Super Bowl champion will emerge:
Broncos/Patriots: Everybody's on the Patriots bandwagon, saying they're back and they're healthy. Sure, they finished the season looking pretty strong and blew out a pretty good Jacksonville team last week. But the Broncos aren't bad, with the second seed and home-field advantage. I view this game as a toss-up that could be decided at the very end. But then there's Plummer, who has a history of throwing picks in big games, which if that happens could result in a lopsided Patriots victory. It all hangs on the Pats' ability to stop Denver's running game and force Plummer to throw, playing catch-up from behind. As much as I fear a repeat of the Patriots bouncing the Colts once again on their way to another Super Bowl, I have to honestly predict that I think they'll probably find a way to win in Denver.
Steelers/Colts: There are several things that have made me feel pretty good about the Colts in this game. First, the stories about how close-knit and purposeful the team has become after the tragedy in Coach Dungy's family. Second, a quote from Peyton about how he has never felt more prepared for a game in his career. Third, the fact that the entire Colts roster - every starter - is healthy and ready to go. The Steelers recognize that they have to play their best game to win; Roethisberger said "We will need out A+ game to beat their B- game". And the Colts fans will be loud and effective in the dome. I think the Colts win fairly easily by 2 touchdowns and get ready for an AFC championship game at home against their nemesis Patriots.
Now wasn't that fun?
Monday, January 09, 2006
Celebrities Please Shut Up
They're making me crazy. All those entertainment celebrities who somewhere along the way decided it was en vogue to join the Bush-bashers. I wish they would all just shut up and go back to what they're supposed to be good at - entertaining us.
True, most of the loudest and silliest ones I didn't have much use for in the first place. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, The Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ... they can all be as stupid as they like, I don't watch their movies or listen to their music anyway. Streisand is a terrific vocalist, but I always believed she was a woman you would never want to hang out with, and she's proved why. Clooney's been overrated as an actor ever since he was a regular on ER (yawn). The Dixie Chicks, well, what do you expect from a group of airheads trying to get by on looks and hoping you don't notice their (lack of) talent. Robbins and Sarandon were kind of funny in Bull Durham, but even though they might possess passable acting skills, their communistic political ranting is probably only taken seriously by Sarandon's drug-addled Rocky Horror fans.
But I've got to put my foot down when it comes to those entertainers I sort of enjoyed until they got stupid. Whatever drove Linda Ronstadt, who's always had a great set of pipes, to offend her Vegas audience and get unceremoniously dumped for ranting about what a great guy Michael Moore is? I don't care if she was praising Moore or Rush Limbaugh; her audience paid for tickets to hear her sing, not to hear her ditsy political ramblings.
How ironic to see Viggo Mortensen, who I don't think is an American anyway, go off on Bush right after his triumphant LOTR trilogy. And this from an actor who portrayed a courageous leader who knew evil had to be defeated regardless of the terrible sacrifice involved. How badly did he damage his movie career by joining the Bush Bash Brigade?
Guys like Martin Sheen are known quantities, who seem to be trying to relive the glory days of VietNam protest. They probably get together in their Hollywood hangouts to toke up and fantasize about taking down Bush, Cheney, and their Military-Industrial Complex like they did in the 60's. Sheen probably thinks in his drug-addled memory that his role in Apocalypse Now was a real event.
Do the pin-up girls from our favorite movies, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Anniston, Kate Hudson, etc... have even the slightest clue how stupid they appear when they publicly go off on their anti-Bush rants? They are so obviously parroting the groupthink of their peers, and their poor attempts to make political statements are just silliness and confirmation of the stereotype of dumb blondes.
Comedians have always been known as lefties politically. But when you have Whoopie out there offending all the Catholics who loved her in Sister Act, or guys like Robin Williams and Chevy Chase using crude, vulgar, and outrageous language (that wasn't remotely funny) to express Bush hatred, how can they fail to understand the damage they do to their future marketability in entertainment?
Finally, I happened to be up late one night to see Letterman. He had Bill O'Reilly on, and I thought it might be an interesting discussion. But it really wasn't, and from my perspective, Dave didn't come off looking very good. He obviously had a predisposed hatred for O'Reilly, but had never seen his show and admitted to knowing nothing about what O'Reilly actually talks about or believes. But he felt free to trash him anyway, saying something along the lines of,
"I think about 60% of what you say is crap". O'Reilly asked him for an example, and he didn't have one.
Just in case there's anyone who sees this who is either an entertainer or an aspiring entertainer - and this applies to pro sports athletes as well: When it comes to politics, just shut up! Now, if you want to support causes for curing disease or helping children, go for it - the public loves that stuff. But unless you want to retire from entertainment and go full-time into politics (like Arnold), just shut up. Because as soon as you open your mouth, you will automatically offend at least 50% of your fans, and look stupid to probably another 25-30%.
So if your objective is to sell more tickets or CD's or whatever, stay away from politics! You can certainly donate money to your favorite candidates, but keep it away from the public eye. You think you're being "courageous"? What's courageous about spouting off what all your friends are telling you without bothering to find your own position?
True, most of the loudest and silliest ones I didn't have much use for in the first place. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, The Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ... they can all be as stupid as they like, I don't watch their movies or listen to their music anyway. Streisand is a terrific vocalist, but I always believed she was a woman you would never want to hang out with, and she's proved why. Clooney's been overrated as an actor ever since he was a regular on ER (yawn). The Dixie Chicks, well, what do you expect from a group of airheads trying to get by on looks and hoping you don't notice their (lack of) talent. Robbins and Sarandon were kind of funny in Bull Durham, but even though they might possess passable acting skills, their communistic political ranting is probably only taken seriously by Sarandon's drug-addled Rocky Horror fans.
But I've got to put my foot down when it comes to those entertainers I sort of enjoyed until they got stupid. Whatever drove Linda Ronstadt, who's always had a great set of pipes, to offend her Vegas audience and get unceremoniously dumped for ranting about what a great guy Michael Moore is? I don't care if she was praising Moore or Rush Limbaugh; her audience paid for tickets to hear her sing, not to hear her ditsy political ramblings.
How ironic to see Viggo Mortensen, who I don't think is an American anyway, go off on Bush right after his triumphant LOTR trilogy. And this from an actor who portrayed a courageous leader who knew evil had to be defeated regardless of the terrible sacrifice involved. How badly did he damage his movie career by joining the Bush Bash Brigade?
Guys like Martin Sheen are known quantities, who seem to be trying to relive the glory days of VietNam protest. They probably get together in their Hollywood hangouts to toke up and fantasize about taking down Bush, Cheney, and their Military-Industrial Complex like they did in the 60's. Sheen probably thinks in his drug-addled memory that his role in Apocalypse Now was a real event.
Do the pin-up girls from our favorite movies, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Anniston, Kate Hudson, etc... have even the slightest clue how stupid they appear when they publicly go off on their anti-Bush rants? They are so obviously parroting the groupthink of their peers, and their poor attempts to make political statements are just silliness and confirmation of the stereotype of dumb blondes.
Comedians have always been known as lefties politically. But when you have Whoopie out there offending all the Catholics who loved her in Sister Act, or guys like Robin Williams and Chevy Chase using crude, vulgar, and outrageous language (that wasn't remotely funny) to express Bush hatred, how can they fail to understand the damage they do to their future marketability in entertainment?
Finally, I happened to be up late one night to see Letterman. He had Bill O'Reilly on, and I thought it might be an interesting discussion. But it really wasn't, and from my perspective, Dave didn't come off looking very good. He obviously had a predisposed hatred for O'Reilly, but had never seen his show and admitted to knowing nothing about what O'Reilly actually talks about or believes. But he felt free to trash him anyway, saying something along the lines of,
"I think about 60% of what you say is crap". O'Reilly asked him for an example, and he didn't have one.
Just in case there's anyone who sees this who is either an entertainer or an aspiring entertainer - and this applies to pro sports athletes as well: When it comes to politics, just shut up! Now, if you want to support causes for curing disease or helping children, go for it - the public loves that stuff. But unless you want to retire from entertainment and go full-time into politics (like Arnold), just shut up. Because as soon as you open your mouth, you will automatically offend at least 50% of your fans, and look stupid to probably another 25-30%.
So if your objective is to sell more tickets or CD's or whatever, stay away from politics! You can certainly donate money to your favorite candidates, but keep it away from the public eye. You think you're being "courageous"? What's courageous about spouting off what all your friends are telling you without bothering to find your own position?
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Peace
Pronunciation: 'pEs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom peace
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
- at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity
First please note: This is not a political post. It is simply an expression of personal reflections on peace.
Peace of mind. Contentment. Acceptance.
Isn't that what most of us ultimately crave for ourselves?
To be at peace for me means many things, including:
And this post has used philosophic constructs in place of specific examples in order to protect the innocent (or not so innocent).
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom peace
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
- at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity
First please note: This is not a political post. It is simply an expression of personal reflections on peace.
Peace of mind. Contentment. Acceptance.
Isn't that what most of us ultimately crave for ourselves?
To be at peace for me means many things, including:
- Accepting myself as I am. Sure I'll try to change those things I don't like about myself that can be changed. But I won't keep beating myself up anymore.
- Accepting others as they are. Some people are amazing. Some are jerks. But the vast majority can be a little of both. Just like I can. So I don't sweat it anymore. I won't waste my time with the jerks, and I won't expect much from the rest. And I'm never disappointed.
- Accepting that life has ups and downs. When things are going great, I'll just enjoy the ride while it lasts. When the bad times come, I can endure. What's the worst God can throw at me? Ever read the story of Job? Well, I've never had it that bad, and he came out of it OK.
- Pacifying. Giving in to a bully just encourages the bully to continue bullying. Peace never means compromising core principles, because that sort of peace is false and temporary.
- Hiding. Conflicts don't go away if we just run away from them. They must be confronted and resolved, even if resolution means great pain. The pain is only temporary.
- Masquerading. Putting on a false face to appease someone to avoid conflict is dishonest, not just with those who see your act, but to yourself. Don't pretend to agree with someone who is spouting evil just to avoid conflict.
And this post has used philosophic constructs in place of specific examples in order to protect the innocent (or not so innocent).
Monday, January 02, 2006
Europe is anti-Christian; Can US be far behind?
What's more disturbing about this article, the message or the fact that over 200,000 people bought these?
Some Swedish Christians are feeling blue about the country's hottest new jeans, which their designer calls "an active statement against Christianity." The jeans, named "Cheap Monday," sell for $50 a pair and feature a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.
Some Swedish Christians are feeling blue about the country's hottest new jeans, which their designer calls "an active statement against Christianity." The jeans, named "Cheap Monday," sell for $50 a pair and feature a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.
More than 200,000 pairs have been sold since 2004, leaving some leaders in the Christian community shaking their heads. The vicar of one Stockholm church calls the jeans "a deliberate provocation," adding, "No one wants to provoke Jews or Muslims, but it's totally OK to provoke Christians."
Nevertheless, the director of the Church of Sweden's culture department says that while the designer wants to create public opinion against the Christian faith, "I don't think it's much to be horrified about."
Thursday, December 29, 2005
All the Wrong Reasons
Today I decided to write about a subject that covers so many bad marital decisions I happen to have had either direct or indirect knowledge of over the years. Most stories are quite sad, but it occurred to me that they might be useful as a cautionary tale for anyone who might not be married or are thinking about getting married someday soon.
Story One: The thief.
There was a retired teacher who tragically lost his wife to cancer. As he worked through the grief and loneliness of his loss, an attractive young woman came into his life. She seemed enamored of him and understanding of the grief he was experiencing. She made him feel young again. After a brief courtship, they married.
Unfortunately, only a couple of months after the wedding our retiree returned home from a trip to the store to find his new bride gone, along with all of his household valuables. To his disbelief, he also soon discovered that his bank accounts were emptied and his CD's and other liquid investments had been cashed in.
His retirement savings were decimated by a young woman who preyed on his grief and loneliness. There should be serious prison time for anyone who would do this to someone.
Story Two: The Loyal Wife.
There actually have been several versions of this story that I've witnessed over time. What they all have in common is this: Guy and girl date, maybe in high school or college or both. Guy likes girl OK, but isn't really interested in a permanent relationship. Girl, however, is focused on making guy her husband.
He tries to get away from time to time, believing he has broken off the relationship. But somehow he always seems to find that she is back. Maybe he feels guilt for "stringing her along" all that time. Maybe he just wants to spare her feelings. But in a weak moment, he finds himself agreeing to marry her. In some cases it's a shotgun wedding, where she succeeds in making a baby with him to seal the deal. Or perhaps there's an abortion that makes him feel terribly guilty and obligated to try making things right by marrying her.
Interestingly, this situation doesn't always end badly. But it often does. When the couple remains together, I often wonder whether he continues to resent her or has learned to accept and love her somehow.
Story Three: Blind Sided
Strangely, every case I've encountered with this scenario seems to happen to the man. Not that men don't step out on their wives, and I certainly have known of those circumstances, but only the men seem to be totally and completely blind-sided by the unexpected end to his marriage.
I've actually seen some cases of women running away with young guys they met on the internet. In the situations I've known based on the poor cuckold's stories, she in each case has planned her escape for months or even a year with her spouse clueless that there's anything at all out of the ordinary going on. She plans everything so well that she's taken almost everything he has through the legal system to her new life with the young stud before her grieving and depressed spouse even has time to consult his own lawyer. The saddest part of these stories is when the wayward wife builds a new house for herself and her young plaything, buys him a new sportscar, and hauls her ex back into court demanding more money to replace all she spent. And the courts, morally blind as they are today, even give her custody of the children despite the destructive behavior with her shack-up.
Story Four: The Shotgun
This remains common, although not as common as it was in previous generations because the stigma of illegitimacy and availability of abortion have greatly reduced it's practice. But there are plenty of examples that probably everyone has some contact with. Shotguns are not necessarily doomed, but do seem to have an extremely high divorce rate. The sad fact is that young kids are encouraged by the permissive society, especially through movies and television, to become sexually active at a young age. Because in the movies such behavior is never depicted to have consequences. The biggest victims are the children.
Story Five: The Military
Members of the military too often marry for the wrong reasons. They can acquire better housing and benefits from the military if they are married. And nobody wants to go off to war without a girl back home to care about whether he comes back. Who can face the "Dear John" letter sitting in the Green Zone in Baghdad, so if there's a wife back home it just seems safer.
Soldiers end up making horrible snap decisions to marry women who are crazy, unfaithful, needy, nags, and all sorts of undesirable things just because time is short.
Story Six: The Party Girl (or Guy)
What happens when a party girl marries a stay-at-home guy (or vice-versa)? Nothing good. The guy finds the girl attractive who seems so full of life and fun, who seems to know everybody and has such great social skills. But he's never been much for parties, and finds the nightclub scene a drag. It's no surprise when he finds himself dumped shortly after his wife discovers he's this boring homebody who doesn't want to go clubbing with her every night because he has a challenging job and needs his sleep or just isn't into the scene. So she just resumes her previous single life habits, much to his consternation, and before long she finds a new party animal guy and divorces her boring husband, bragging to her friends about how much money she took from him in the process.
Story Seven: Great Expectations
Here's the biggest mistake made by couples entering into marriage. Great expectations. She expects him to be a high wage earner who still has time to help out with housework, raise the kids, take her to dinner every week, do little projects around the house and in his workshop, court her every night just like he did when they were dating, etc.
He just wants a woman at home to help him recover from the hard day at work and not bother him with her petty housework and child behavior problems. He wants to go out with his buddies now and the without getting read the riot act from the wife. He wants to be able to watch the NFL game on Sunday afternoon without having his wife sulking in the next room because he didn't want to take her to the arts fair.
So many marriages could be saved if only both parties could recognize and plan for how their partnership will work before they walk down the aisle. Both have to recognize they have to share in the household chores, but also share in the fun and games. And they must figure out how to give each some of what they want and like without making the other feel slighted.
Not that I'm some sort of expert or anything.
Story One: The thief.
There was a retired teacher who tragically lost his wife to cancer. As he worked through the grief and loneliness of his loss, an attractive young woman came into his life. She seemed enamored of him and understanding of the grief he was experiencing. She made him feel young again. After a brief courtship, they married.
Unfortunately, only a couple of months after the wedding our retiree returned home from a trip to the store to find his new bride gone, along with all of his household valuables. To his disbelief, he also soon discovered that his bank accounts were emptied and his CD's and other liquid investments had been cashed in.
His retirement savings were decimated by a young woman who preyed on his grief and loneliness. There should be serious prison time for anyone who would do this to someone.
Story Two: The Loyal Wife.
There actually have been several versions of this story that I've witnessed over time. What they all have in common is this: Guy and girl date, maybe in high school or college or both. Guy likes girl OK, but isn't really interested in a permanent relationship. Girl, however, is focused on making guy her husband.
He tries to get away from time to time, believing he has broken off the relationship. But somehow he always seems to find that she is back. Maybe he feels guilt for "stringing her along" all that time. Maybe he just wants to spare her feelings. But in a weak moment, he finds himself agreeing to marry her. In some cases it's a shotgun wedding, where she succeeds in making a baby with him to seal the deal. Or perhaps there's an abortion that makes him feel terribly guilty and obligated to try making things right by marrying her.
Interestingly, this situation doesn't always end badly. But it often does. When the couple remains together, I often wonder whether he continues to resent her or has learned to accept and love her somehow.
Story Three: Blind Sided
Strangely, every case I've encountered with this scenario seems to happen to the man. Not that men don't step out on their wives, and I certainly have known of those circumstances, but only the men seem to be totally and completely blind-sided by the unexpected end to his marriage.
I've actually seen some cases of women running away with young guys they met on the internet. In the situations I've known based on the poor cuckold's stories, she in each case has planned her escape for months or even a year with her spouse clueless that there's anything at all out of the ordinary going on. She plans everything so well that she's taken almost everything he has through the legal system to her new life with the young stud before her grieving and depressed spouse even has time to consult his own lawyer. The saddest part of these stories is when the wayward wife builds a new house for herself and her young plaything, buys him a new sportscar, and hauls her ex back into court demanding more money to replace all she spent. And the courts, morally blind as they are today, even give her custody of the children despite the destructive behavior with her shack-up.
Story Four: The Shotgun
This remains common, although not as common as it was in previous generations because the stigma of illegitimacy and availability of abortion have greatly reduced it's practice. But there are plenty of examples that probably everyone has some contact with. Shotguns are not necessarily doomed, but do seem to have an extremely high divorce rate. The sad fact is that young kids are encouraged by the permissive society, especially through movies and television, to become sexually active at a young age. Because in the movies such behavior is never depicted to have consequences. The biggest victims are the children.
Story Five: The Military
Members of the military too often marry for the wrong reasons. They can acquire better housing and benefits from the military if they are married. And nobody wants to go off to war without a girl back home to care about whether he comes back. Who can face the "Dear John" letter sitting in the Green Zone in Baghdad, so if there's a wife back home it just seems safer.
Soldiers end up making horrible snap decisions to marry women who are crazy, unfaithful, needy, nags, and all sorts of undesirable things just because time is short.
Story Six: The Party Girl (or Guy)
What happens when a party girl marries a stay-at-home guy (or vice-versa)? Nothing good. The guy finds the girl attractive who seems so full of life and fun, who seems to know everybody and has such great social skills. But he's never been much for parties, and finds the nightclub scene a drag. It's no surprise when he finds himself dumped shortly after his wife discovers he's this boring homebody who doesn't want to go clubbing with her every night because he has a challenging job and needs his sleep or just isn't into the scene. So she just resumes her previous single life habits, much to his consternation, and before long she finds a new party animal guy and divorces her boring husband, bragging to her friends about how much money she took from him in the process.
Story Seven: Great Expectations
Here's the biggest mistake made by couples entering into marriage. Great expectations. She expects him to be a high wage earner who still has time to help out with housework, raise the kids, take her to dinner every week, do little projects around the house and in his workshop, court her every night just like he did when they were dating, etc.
He just wants a woman at home to help him recover from the hard day at work and not bother him with her petty housework and child behavior problems. He wants to go out with his buddies now and the without getting read the riot act from the wife. He wants to be able to watch the NFL game on Sunday afternoon without having his wife sulking in the next room because he didn't want to take her to the arts fair.
So many marriages could be saved if only both parties could recognize and plan for how their partnership will work before they walk down the aisle. Both have to recognize they have to share in the household chores, but also share in the fun and games. And they must figure out how to give each some of what they want and like without making the other feel slighted.
Not that I'm some sort of expert or anything.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
I Am ...
I've noticed how narrowly people seem to identify themselves lately, with their fill-in-the-blank answer to "I Am ______________".
The blank is filled by people with whatever is most prominent in their life.
"I am a teacher/doctor/engineer/business owner/..." means that the individual is most closely identified and absorbed by their profession.
"I am gay" is very sad, because the only identity this person seems to have is based on their sexual behavior. To me, it's as silly as saying "I am a serial adulterer" (or in today's parlance I understand the word may be "player")
"I am a husband/wife" means that the individual is focused mostly on their relationship with their spouse.
"I am a father/mother" indicates a primary focus on the family and being a good parent.
"I am a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Islamist/Buddist/Spiritual person/..." means that the individual is most closely identified with their chosen religion.
"I am a carpenter/model builder/handyman/..." when not representing the individual's actual profession, indicates a close association with one's hobbies and avocation.
"I am a baseball/basketball/football/soccer/... player" indicates that the individual is focused on their chosen athletic endeavors.
"I am black/asian/hispanic/..." indicates that race is the most important factor in self-identification.
"I am a (insert team name) Fan" indicates an obsession with the individual's favorite sports team.
For me, it seems unfair to require me to pigeonhole myself into any single statement of who I am. I am many things - Christian/Catholic, Husband/Father, businessperson, Child Advocate, consultant, computer software expert, singer, somewhat a history buff, sometime athlete, sports fan, traveler, reader, political observer and sometime commentator, salesperson, accountant, son, brother, neighbor. And I'm sure I left out some things.
For myself, how about this: "I am just a guy trying to live my life, seek God and Truth, and be the best man I can be while hopefully having a little fun along the way".
The blank is filled by people with whatever is most prominent in their life.
"I am a teacher/doctor/engineer/business owner/..." means that the individual is most closely identified and absorbed by their profession.
"I am gay" is very sad, because the only identity this person seems to have is based on their sexual behavior. To me, it's as silly as saying "I am a serial adulterer" (or in today's parlance I understand the word may be "player")
"I am a husband/wife" means that the individual is focused mostly on their relationship with their spouse.
"I am a father/mother" indicates a primary focus on the family and being a good parent.
"I am a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Islamist/Buddist/Spiritual person/..." means that the individual is most closely identified with their chosen religion.
"I am a carpenter/model builder/handyman/..." when not representing the individual's actual profession, indicates a close association with one's hobbies and avocation.
"I am a baseball/basketball/football/soccer/... player" indicates that the individual is focused on their chosen athletic endeavors.
"I am black/asian/hispanic/..." indicates that race is the most important factor in self-identification.
"I am a (insert team name) Fan" indicates an obsession with the individual's favorite sports team.
For me, it seems unfair to require me to pigeonhole myself into any single statement of who I am. I am many things - Christian/Catholic, Husband/Father, businessperson, Child Advocate, consultant, computer software expert, singer, somewhat a history buff, sometime athlete, sports fan, traveler, reader, political observer and sometime commentator, salesperson, accountant, son, brother, neighbor. And I'm sure I left out some things.
For myself, how about this: "I am just a guy trying to live my life, seek God and Truth, and be the best man I can be while hopefully having a little fun along the way".
Monday, December 26, 2005
Merry Christmas a Day Late
The past week was wild. But mostly pretty good. And this Christmas was better than average, I'd have to say, although I really felt the loss in realizing that there will be no Christmas with my mom. Things will never be the same, and I find myself missing the old family traditions.
But it's been very nice to have the boys home. It seems like it's been a long time already, maybe because they're changing so fast.
Chris and I were talking about the fact that this is his 14th Christmas, and I asked him how many of them he actually remembers. He seems to remember most of them. For me, let's just say I've seen so many Christmases by this point that they all sort of blend together. But there are plenty of great memories through all those years.
I think maybe that's the important thing to realize about the Christmas holiday as a parent. From here on my focus will be on making each Christmas memorable in some positive way. That doesn't necessarily require spending a lot of money on gifts, but rather making memories based on shared experiences. Our trip to Conseco Fieldhouse for the IU/Butler basketball game followed by a nice dinner is an example, which I think could even be improved upon next year.
Giving thought for next year's memory-making starts today.
But it's been very nice to have the boys home. It seems like it's been a long time already, maybe because they're changing so fast.
Chris and I were talking about the fact that this is his 14th Christmas, and I asked him how many of them he actually remembers. He seems to remember most of them. For me, let's just say I've seen so many Christmases by this point that they all sort of blend together. But there are plenty of great memories through all those years.
I think maybe that's the important thing to realize about the Christmas holiday as a parent. From here on my focus will be on making each Christmas memorable in some positive way. That doesn't necessarily require spending a lot of money on gifts, but rather making memories based on shared experiences. Our trip to Conseco Fieldhouse for the IU/Butler basketball game followed by a nice dinner is an example, which I think could even be improved upon next year.
Giving thought for next year's memory-making starts today.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Keeping Things Interesting
For me, at least, this weekend was very interesting.
You had the fantastic news of the amazingly successful election in Iraq alongside lots of stories pushed by the President and his supporters about how things there really aren't as bad as opponents want to paint them. Even though people like me who actually pay attention have known for some time that things have been progressing reasonably well there, the rest of the country that only catches the Nightly News now and then only hears the continuous criticism and Bush-bashing.
So this apparently gets the Dems and their friends at the NY Times down a bit, so here we go - time to call Bush a criminal again. They made public a classified story to the effect that for a brief time after 9/11, Bush authorized wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and their sympathizers in the US without obtaining a court order.
For me, that's not the real story. The real story that of course nobody in the so-called "mainstream media" will tell is that someone in the very small group of administration and congressional leadership (Republicans and Democrats, mind you) leaked this information to the Times. Which is, ahem, a felony. The leak was so obviously politically motivated that it seems like it wouldn't take too long to find the leaker - just check out the Democrat congresspersons who were briefed on the temporary policy, and you'll probably find your criminal rather quickly.
That Bush did what he did doesn't bother me in the slightest. Applying simple logic and reasoning to the situation, it's very easy to come up with the reasons - he felt it was necessary to protect the country. Also, it's been reported that those surveillance activities actually saved us from attacks that were being planned after 9/11. And whether it was lawful or not, no innocent party was harmed or abused in the process. Finally, a scandal generally requires that the perpetrator is acting for personal or political gain - in this case, everything was done above-board, with full disclosure to the proper judges and congressional leaders, and obviously completely with the safety of Americans at heart. Stupid people in Washington are calling for an investigation - unless you're going to investigate who leaked the story, I say drop it and move on to more important matters.
Anyway, we also saw the Colts lose their first game. It was sad, but predictable. I actually thought they were going to pull out the win until Peyton got called for the intentional grounding and then the Chargers' backup running back caught the defense asleep a couple minutes later. It was sort of disheartening to see the whole team lose focus like that and let the perfect season get away from them.
Then it was interesting that I got to the hotel room last night just in time to see Rex Grossman come in at QB for the Bears and proceed to break the game open against Atlanta. Although he looked good, I don't really think they needed him last night. From watching the Falcons on television last night suffering in the near-zero temperatures at Soldier Field, I figured they just wanted to get the game over with and go someplace warm anyway.
And we got Tim home this weekend. Both a good and bad thing; good because it's nice to see him, and bad because the conflicts have already begun. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
You had the fantastic news of the amazingly successful election in Iraq alongside lots of stories pushed by the President and his supporters about how things there really aren't as bad as opponents want to paint them. Even though people like me who actually pay attention have known for some time that things have been progressing reasonably well there, the rest of the country that only catches the Nightly News now and then only hears the continuous criticism and Bush-bashing.
So this apparently gets the Dems and their friends at the NY Times down a bit, so here we go - time to call Bush a criminal again. They made public a classified story to the effect that for a brief time after 9/11, Bush authorized wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and their sympathizers in the US without obtaining a court order.
For me, that's not the real story. The real story that of course nobody in the so-called "mainstream media" will tell is that someone in the very small group of administration and congressional leadership (Republicans and Democrats, mind you) leaked this information to the Times. Which is, ahem, a felony. The leak was so obviously politically motivated that it seems like it wouldn't take too long to find the leaker - just check out the Democrat congresspersons who were briefed on the temporary policy, and you'll probably find your criminal rather quickly.
That Bush did what he did doesn't bother me in the slightest. Applying simple logic and reasoning to the situation, it's very easy to come up with the reasons - he felt it was necessary to protect the country. Also, it's been reported that those surveillance activities actually saved us from attacks that were being planned after 9/11. And whether it was lawful or not, no innocent party was harmed or abused in the process. Finally, a scandal generally requires that the perpetrator is acting for personal or political gain - in this case, everything was done above-board, with full disclosure to the proper judges and congressional leaders, and obviously completely with the safety of Americans at heart. Stupid people in Washington are calling for an investigation - unless you're going to investigate who leaked the story, I say drop it and move on to more important matters.
Anyway, we also saw the Colts lose their first game. It was sad, but predictable. I actually thought they were going to pull out the win until Peyton got called for the intentional grounding and then the Chargers' backup running back caught the defense asleep a couple minutes later. It was sort of disheartening to see the whole team lose focus like that and let the perfect season get away from them.
Then it was interesting that I got to the hotel room last night just in time to see Rex Grossman come in at QB for the Bears and proceed to break the game open against Atlanta. Although he looked good, I don't really think they needed him last night. From watching the Falcons on television last night suffering in the near-zero temperatures at Soldier Field, I figured they just wanted to get the game over with and go someplace warm anyway.
And we got Tim home this weekend. Both a good and bad thing; good because it's nice to see him, and bad because the conflicts have already begun. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
Monday, December 12, 2005
Tookie No More
I read through the news on the web and noticed there seems to be quite a stir over the upcoming execution of Tookie Williams and the Terminator's refusal to grant clemency.
Obviously I know nothing about the guy or his crimes, although I glean from the articles about him that they were pretty grisly. But in this case, I'm not as focused on the individual case as the general topic.
There are lots of Hollywood types that have been agitating for clemency in this case. Based on recent history with actors getting political, that might be an argument against all by itself. But the stories raised a bunch of questions in my mind that aren't answered by any of the media coverage.
First question: One article states that Tookie is only the 12th person to be executed in California since 1977. Of the other 11, how many received the benefit of all this celebrity attention? If all did, then we can at least say that these celebrities are consistent in their anti-capital-punishment philosophy. But I don't really think so, because I don't recall anything recently about celebrities banding together to stop an execution.
Second question: Why get all over Arnold's case for letting the execution go forward? Like it or not, capital punishment is the law in California, and Tookie has had the benefit of the full range of appeals. No court has seen fit to overturn the verdict or the sentencing, which in arguably the most liberal state in the union you would have to think it's pretty safe to assume he's very guilty. Arnold would be violating his role as governor if he granted clemency for no reason other than a bunch of celebrities are pressuring him to do so. If Californians want to do away with capital punishment, they should vote for representatives who will do that; but don't trash your governator for doing his job.
Final question: Should a criminal's sentence be commuted, reduced or overturned if he turns his life around? The main reason being given for Tookie's clemency is that he's reformed, writing children's books and talking to kids about staying out of gangs. Some would question whether he's honestly reformed, or is just doing whatever he thinks might spare him from the needle. I remember the woman in Texas, Carla Tucker I think, that claimed to have become a born-again Christian and had a bunch of preachers lobbying the governor there to spare her life. He didn't.
The biggest fear seems to be that the blacks in LA will riot when Tookie's executed. They will certainly demonstrate. Such a sad situation.
Do I support capital punishment? Not to go against my church, but I think only if it's enforced immediately after sentencing. If there's any doubt or mitigating circumstances, the death penalty isn't an option anyway. The current system is ridiculous - how long has Tookie been on death row? 10 years? They should have taken him directly from the courtroom to the execution chamber and been done with it. If we're not willing to make justice swift, then what's the point?
Obviously I know nothing about the guy or his crimes, although I glean from the articles about him that they were pretty grisly. But in this case, I'm not as focused on the individual case as the general topic.
There are lots of Hollywood types that have been agitating for clemency in this case. Based on recent history with actors getting political, that might be an argument against all by itself. But the stories raised a bunch of questions in my mind that aren't answered by any of the media coverage.
First question: One article states that Tookie is only the 12th person to be executed in California since 1977. Of the other 11, how many received the benefit of all this celebrity attention? If all did, then we can at least say that these celebrities are consistent in their anti-capital-punishment philosophy. But I don't really think so, because I don't recall anything recently about celebrities banding together to stop an execution.
Second question: Why get all over Arnold's case for letting the execution go forward? Like it or not, capital punishment is the law in California, and Tookie has had the benefit of the full range of appeals. No court has seen fit to overturn the verdict or the sentencing, which in arguably the most liberal state in the union you would have to think it's pretty safe to assume he's very guilty. Arnold would be violating his role as governor if he granted clemency for no reason other than a bunch of celebrities are pressuring him to do so. If Californians want to do away with capital punishment, they should vote for representatives who will do that; but don't trash your governator for doing his job.
Final question: Should a criminal's sentence be commuted, reduced or overturned if he turns his life around? The main reason being given for Tookie's clemency is that he's reformed, writing children's books and talking to kids about staying out of gangs. Some would question whether he's honestly reformed, or is just doing whatever he thinks might spare him from the needle. I remember the woman in Texas, Carla Tucker I think, that claimed to have become a born-again Christian and had a bunch of preachers lobbying the governor there to spare her life. He didn't.
The biggest fear seems to be that the blacks in LA will riot when Tookie's executed. They will certainly demonstrate. Such a sad situation.
Do I support capital punishment? Not to go against my church, but I think only if it's enforced immediately after sentencing. If there's any doubt or mitigating circumstances, the death penalty isn't an option anyway. The current system is ridiculous - how long has Tookie been on death row? 10 years? They should have taken him directly from the courtroom to the execution chamber and been done with it. If we're not willing to make justice swift, then what's the point?
Friday, December 09, 2005
BreakTime
Like someone on the outside looking in, I find it somewhat fascinating that this person behind the computer has chosen to blog while taking a break from what has been an incredibly busy work week.
It's official/unofficial: I'm running for President. Check out my other blog if you're interested in my new political party, platform, and campaign. Sign up there to join my "Dan for President" committee.
The past two weeks are a blur. It's like being on a playground spinner way too long so you no longer can tell which way is up and are so dizzy you feel like throwing up, but you can't get the stupid thing to stop spinning so you can get off. Yeah, that's how it feels.
An update on the assertiveness thing. So far so good, I think. Still learning though.
Having what is shaping up as a terrific month for business. Maybe the best ever. That's a good thing, because I need the cash. Wierd thing about it, right now I feel like I have the best stuff out there for small businesses, to the point where I honestly feel that anybody running a small business would be stupid NOT to talk to me and sign up for at least one or two of my offerings. It must be starting to show through when I talk to new prospects, because my close rate's going up.
Ah, weekend. I only wish I had more work done so I could enjoy it. Plus I've gotta drive back to Chicago on Sunday. Oh well, it just keeps spinning and spinning ....
It's official/unofficial: I'm running for President. Check out my other blog if you're interested in my new political party, platform, and campaign. Sign up there to join my "Dan for President" committee.
The past two weeks are a blur. It's like being on a playground spinner way too long so you no longer can tell which way is up and are so dizzy you feel like throwing up, but you can't get the stupid thing to stop spinning so you can get off. Yeah, that's how it feels.
An update on the assertiveness thing. So far so good, I think. Still learning though.
Having what is shaping up as a terrific month for business. Maybe the best ever. That's a good thing, because I need the cash. Wierd thing about it, right now I feel like I have the best stuff out there for small businesses, to the point where I honestly feel that anybody running a small business would be stupid NOT to talk to me and sign up for at least one or two of my offerings. It must be starting to show through when I talk to new prospects, because my close rate's going up.
Ah, weekend. I only wish I had more work done so I could enjoy it. Plus I've gotta drive back to Chicago on Sunday. Oh well, it just keeps spinning and spinning ....
Monday, December 05, 2005
Bad Things in Bunches
So if it wasn't bad enough to have the furnace go out last week and have to pay to have two of it's most expensive parts replaced to get heat back in the house, I had to endure another trial that almost stranded me in Chicago over the weekend.
Friday morning I checked out of the hotel and went to my vehicle ("Jed") in the hotel parking lot. I hadn't driven it anywhere in two days, as the night before I didn't feel like going out for dinner, and I was working in a building I could walk to by crossing a grassy median.
So my intention that chilly Friday morning was just to start up the car and drive it over to the parking lot of the building that houses my client. I didn't have to, but just thought it was better to move it than leave it in the hotel parking lot, since I had checked out. But I digress.
The engine turned over fine, but refused to start. I spent nearly a half hour trying, and the engine refused to come to life. Part of the reason I spent almost a half hour was that about 15 minutes into my futile attempt, the engine did start ever so briefly, but would not keep running and stalled after only a couple of seconds.
Since it was an icy morning, somewhere in the 'teens, I thought maybe it just needed a little sunshine to warm it up. So I walked over to the office to begin my workday, thinking that I'd return at lunchtime to try to coax Jed back to life.
Walked back to the car at noon, with the outside temperature a balmy 21 degrees, thinking surely it will start now. I was wrong. Tried about 20 minutes this time before giving up, and walked back to the office and looked up the nearest Lincoln/Mercury dealer. They expressed doubts that they could get the repair done the same day, but suggested that if I could get it towed to them before 2PM, they would give it their best shot.
So I called my insurance company's roadside assistance hotline for a tow, and they located a towing company that would commit to showing up within an hour. I met the truck in the parking lot when he arrived, and rode with him and Jed to the dealership.
Once I got Jed checked in and signed the paperwork for the tow truck driver, I settled into the dealer's customer lounge. Somebody had on Court TV, which is just about the last television channel I would have any interest in, and unfortunately I hadn't brought a book along this trip. So it was a long afternoon for me with nothing to do but look at the cars in the showroom and try to ignore the endless analysis from talking heads on Court TV about whatever case they were following.
Finally, sometime after 5PM Chicago time, the service advisor gives me the bad news. Indeed, the fuel pump has failed. Not only that, but it resides inside the gas tank. So this is going to be not only an expensive repair, but there is no hope of getting Jed and driving home that night.
But there was an Enterprise Car Rental outlet there at the dealership, and for the first decent news of the day, I got a great weekend rate. In fact, the cost of the weekend car rental was going to be less than the mileage I would have charged the client, who by the way had decided they needed me back on Monday.
So by the time I got the car rented and pulled out of the lot, it was well past dark and too late to face the long drive home. So I decided to spend the weekend in Goshen.
Now, despite the expense and inconvenience of losing Jed for the weekend, things didn't turn out all that badly. I have Jed back and am busy working again at the client's office, and they have decided to extend me even further. That's a good thing, because the extension should cover the repairs and then some.
But enough adventure for me. Here's hoping that we're done with the big ticket repairs for now.
Friday morning I checked out of the hotel and went to my vehicle ("Jed") in the hotel parking lot. I hadn't driven it anywhere in two days, as the night before I didn't feel like going out for dinner, and I was working in a building I could walk to by crossing a grassy median.
So my intention that chilly Friday morning was just to start up the car and drive it over to the parking lot of the building that houses my client. I didn't have to, but just thought it was better to move it than leave it in the hotel parking lot, since I had checked out. But I digress.
The engine turned over fine, but refused to start. I spent nearly a half hour trying, and the engine refused to come to life. Part of the reason I spent almost a half hour was that about 15 minutes into my futile attempt, the engine did start ever so briefly, but would not keep running and stalled after only a couple of seconds.
Since it was an icy morning, somewhere in the 'teens, I thought maybe it just needed a little sunshine to warm it up. So I walked over to the office to begin my workday, thinking that I'd return at lunchtime to try to coax Jed back to life.
Walked back to the car at noon, with the outside temperature a balmy 21 degrees, thinking surely it will start now. I was wrong. Tried about 20 minutes this time before giving up, and walked back to the office and looked up the nearest Lincoln/Mercury dealer. They expressed doubts that they could get the repair done the same day, but suggested that if I could get it towed to them before 2PM, they would give it their best shot.
So I called my insurance company's roadside assistance hotline for a tow, and they located a towing company that would commit to showing up within an hour. I met the truck in the parking lot when he arrived, and rode with him and Jed to the dealership.
Once I got Jed checked in and signed the paperwork for the tow truck driver, I settled into the dealer's customer lounge. Somebody had on Court TV, which is just about the last television channel I would have any interest in, and unfortunately I hadn't brought a book along this trip. So it was a long afternoon for me with nothing to do but look at the cars in the showroom and try to ignore the endless analysis from talking heads on Court TV about whatever case they were following.
Finally, sometime after 5PM Chicago time, the service advisor gives me the bad news. Indeed, the fuel pump has failed. Not only that, but it resides inside the gas tank. So this is going to be not only an expensive repair, but there is no hope of getting Jed and driving home that night.
But there was an Enterprise Car Rental outlet there at the dealership, and for the first decent news of the day, I got a great weekend rate. In fact, the cost of the weekend car rental was going to be less than the mileage I would have charged the client, who by the way had decided they needed me back on Monday.
So by the time I got the car rented and pulled out of the lot, it was well past dark and too late to face the long drive home. So I decided to spend the weekend in Goshen.
Now, despite the expense and inconvenience of losing Jed for the weekend, things didn't turn out all that badly. I have Jed back and am busy working again at the client's office, and they have decided to extend me even further. That's a good thing, because the extension should cover the repairs and then some.
But enough adventure for me. Here's hoping that we're done with the big ticket repairs for now.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Introspection
Who said, "Tough times require tough people"?
Did anybody say that, or did I just make it up? Regardless, it seems appropriate to my current circumstances.
I can feel victimized and blame others for how they disappoint me. How they take advantage of me. How they discard my opinions and feelings out of hand. How they disrespect me. How I'm only important to them when I have something they want.
Or I can stand up and fight back.
Why is that so difficult for me? I've been giving that a lot of thought lately, and right now my conclusion is this:
It's extremely difficult for me to stand firm and fight others because I don't want to hurt them. And in the cases I'm facing today, the truth hurts like a pound of kidney stones. (That's my frame of reference as the most painful experience I've had in my life to date)
Some might suggest that they don't seem to care that what they are doing is hurting me, so why should I worry so much about hurting them? I suppose the answer is because I know firsthand how it feels to be mistreated, and don't want to cause anybody else to suffer that from me.
But I'm not really talking about "mistreating" anyone at all, but simply taking a firm stand that I should have done a long time ago. That action is certain to make those I stand firm against angry. But just maybe, if I do it the right way, it will also demand respect. On the other hand, it could also result in absolute isolation and alienation for me.
All I know is I can't continue being a doormat. I've been able to avoid it, ignore it, push it aside in the past, but now there's a giant elephant standing on my figurative mat and I have to use every ounce of strength to push it off, so i can pick myself off the ground and walk ahead.
Here goes ...
Did anybody say that, or did I just make it up? Regardless, it seems appropriate to my current circumstances.
I can feel victimized and blame others for how they disappoint me. How they take advantage of me. How they discard my opinions and feelings out of hand. How they disrespect me. How I'm only important to them when I have something they want.
Or I can stand up and fight back.
Why is that so difficult for me? I've been giving that a lot of thought lately, and right now my conclusion is this:
It's extremely difficult for me to stand firm and fight others because I don't want to hurt them. And in the cases I'm facing today, the truth hurts like a pound of kidney stones. (That's my frame of reference as the most painful experience I've had in my life to date)
Some might suggest that they don't seem to care that what they are doing is hurting me, so why should I worry so much about hurting them? I suppose the answer is because I know firsthand how it feels to be mistreated, and don't want to cause anybody else to suffer that from me.
But I'm not really talking about "mistreating" anyone at all, but simply taking a firm stand that I should have done a long time ago. That action is certain to make those I stand firm against angry. But just maybe, if I do it the right way, it will also demand respect. On the other hand, it could also result in absolute isolation and alienation for me.
All I know is I can't continue being a doormat. I've been able to avoid it, ignore it, push it aside in the past, but now there's a giant elephant standing on my figurative mat and I have to use every ounce of strength to push it off, so i can pick myself off the ground and walk ahead.
Here goes ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)