Defining Extremism

Reading a letter to the editor in this morning's newspaper from the Indiana Director of Planned Parenthood sort of got under my skin.

Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.

The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".

Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.

Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.

Class dismissed.

Natural Disasters

The spring floods were the worst this year since we moved to the farm. The first spring in the house we got lots of water in the basement, but this time it just won't go away. Every night we're all in the basement, baling and pumping and mopping. By the next morning, it's all flooded again.

It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.

So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.

Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.

Major Moves

It's quite a catchy name for the deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-led consortium for 75 years. The deal seems to have passed narrowly last night on a party-line vote in the State House. The lease deal is a front-loaded payment of 3.8 billion dollars, which is a lot of money for Indiana, even though not all that much by Washington DC standards.

The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.

It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.

The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.

I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.

My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:

1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.

2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.

One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.

Story Time

Here's a funny story from my trip to the grocery store yesterday.

After work, I stopped in at the grocery to pick up just a few things before going home. Trying to get in and out quickly, I walked fast until I was forced to fall in behind an older woman who was moving rather slowly.

She looked rather like Miss Gulch. Think this picture without the hat. But less attractive.

Grocery store aisles are generally about 2 people wide, but my slow-moving and oblivious friend was meandering straight down the middle, stopping every few steps to examine some bit of produce. And there was simply no way I could get past her, until finally a detour opened up around one of the produce tables.

I proceeded to grab the oranges and bananas I wanted from the produce aile, then moved further into the store. But almost immediately after moving away from the fresh fruits, she somehow caught up with me and pushed her cart directly into my path. I had to stop in mid-stride, finding myself once again caught in her very own bizarre grocery store traffic jam. Although she showed no sign of even sensing my presence behind her, I couldn't help but wonder if she was secretly reveling in her successful obstruction of my progress.

Patiently, I waited for another opportunity to get around her, by this time thinking (rather uncharitably, I admit), "What a hag". And finally the opportunity presented itself, and I proceeded into the next aisle in search of the rest of my shopping list.

But my encounter with the Wicked Witch of the West wasn't over yet. I arrived at the back of the store and walked past the meat cases toward the cheese and butter, and there she was. She was stopped in front of the beef, talking with someone on her cellphone. Now, the aisle is extra wide in the back, probably enough for 3 people with carts. But she had the whole thing covered. She was standing next to the beef case, with the cart positioned diagonally to her left and across the entire aisle. My first thought was wondering who in the world would voluntarily chat with that woman on the phone?

Between me and Madam Gulch was a young mother with a toddler in her cart, looking somewhat perplexed. I imagined that she was considering whether to intrude on Ms. Gulch's conversation to request passage through the aisle. I couldn't help myself, and briefly let out a laugh. That drew a smile from the young mother and even a glance from Ms. Gulch, who nonetheless seemingly remained oblivious to the plight of the shoppers she was inconveniencing. Two other shoppers approached behind me, and I wondered how long the line would become before Lady Gulch got the hint.

Instead of waiting around to find out, I ducked into another aisle to go around. And felt fortunate when I picked up my last items without a further encounter with Ms. Gulch. That is, until I approached the checkout lanes.

But this time I would not be blocked again. I spotted her several feet away, and so quickened my step and ducked into the self-service checkout. "Hah!" I thought to myself. I had foiled her evil plans.

I scanned and bagged my groceries, headed to the parking lot and home.

Busy Times Ahead

It looks like a large new project is starting up for me in a little over a week. That's good news, as it looks like it will keep me busy for the next 3-4 months, at least. Maybe it's a good time to start shopping for a car.

I've been reasonably busy the last few weeks, but somehow kind of bored at the same time. There just doesn't seem to be all that much going on, aside from work. No big news events, no great movies coming out, and nothing really to get me excited or interested.

Some of you might think there's political stuff happening of interest. I don't. Dubai and the ports? Big deal. I knew that was doomed when I first heard about it.

The stupid communist high school geography teacher caught on tape (what's his name, Jay Bennish or something like that?). Like it's some surprise that lots of high school teachers are communists? Want to guess why? Ever heard the phrase, "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach?". He's just another bitter outcast hoping to someday be a communist official forcibly taking for himself the money and possessions some "capitalist" bully went out and earned by unfairly exploiting losers like him. And people still don't understand why we graduate so many idiots from our public schools.

Illegal immigration? Congress is nothing but, to quote, "... sound and fury, signifying nothing". The Oscars? Come on. Eminent Domain abuse? Same thing. The Iraq war? Almost over. Iran? Yep, they're probably next, unless we're stupid enough to elect Hillary. But nothing's going to happen either way for awhile yet, at least until they try to blow up New York or LA with a nuke. Abortion ban in North Dakota? Mildly interesting, but I won't really pay attention unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. The 2006 election? I'm actually pleasantly surprised that we're not being barraged with campaign ads already.

Boring can be good, because excitement can come from either good or bad events. I'll count my blessings for now that the bad events will stay away awhile longer.

Bush and Clinton

We went to the event at Butler last night to see George H. W. Bush. One of the major personal studies I looked forward to was comparing the crowds between the Bush event and Clinton's last Fall. What I observed was fascinating, although predictable.

The Clinton crowd was a visibly Democratic crowd. To illustrate that fact, I need only describe the people who sat directly on either side of me at the Clinton event. To my right was a lesbian couple. To my left was a College professor.

How do I know? OK, the prof was grading essays before the event started. And the lesbians - come on, all I needed was a glance in their direction.

The characteristics of the Clinton crowd were fairly easy to discern. The Clinton crowd was heavily populated with professors and teachers, gays and lesbians, whole sections of black folks that I guessed were from churches or other organizations that picked up their tickets in blocks, and lots of, hmm, how to describe? Let's go with strangely dressed and mannered young people who could be described variously as free spirits, hippies, artists, bohemians, etc.

In attitude, the Clinton crowd bordered on rowdy, and showed their love and approval for their favorite president loudly and enthusiastically. During the speech, whenever it seemed that Clinton might rip on current President Bush, they could barely contain their excitement, but it was often squashed when Clinton stopped short of a 2-barreled blast. But they certainly cheered loudest for Clinton's more subtle jabs at his replacement.

The contrast between the Clinton crowd and the Bush crowd was dramatic. The Bush crowd was more reserved, more polite. They were more conservatively dressed, and I saw a lot more suits and ties. There were more seniors, but also more children. There were blacks present, but in much fewer numbers. The strange looking young people from the Clinton event were nowhere to be seen at the Bush event.

The contrast between speeches was dramatic as well. Clinton's speech was heavy on globalism and government policy, while Bush's speech was mostly about people. While we all gathered from Clinton's speech all the things the government was doing or should be doing to solve problems and bring peace, Bush's speech was fundamentally about how each of us has a responsibility to get involved and do whatever we can to help make the world a better place.

In other words, the essence of each reflected the essence of their political philosophies: Clinton believes in government, and Bush believes in people.

I enjoyed the Bush speech, and found him surprisingly funny, especially during the early part of the speech. He was right on with comments about the lack of objectivity and civility in the press, and the inappropriateness of former president Carter's political demagoging at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. He talked about being a proud father and grandfather, and about how we all can make a difference just by getting involved.

There was one story that the Clinton crowd would have found objectionable, but I found rather funny. To paraphrase:

Once during my presidency, I had the opportunity to visit San Francisco. And you all know how dangerous it is for someone like me to show my face in that city. We were driving into the city, with two limosines, you know, the decoy and the real one, with all the armoring and security stuff. And of course, there were protestors everywhere. Suddenly, a woman - and I'm talking about probably the ugliest woman I ever saw in my life - jumps in front of my limo waving a sign. And the sign says, "Get out of my womb!". So I say, "Whoa, lady. OK, Believe me, No Problem!" (Hands in the air in a sign of surrender)

Writing that, I realized much of the effect is in the delivery, which was hilarious. But of course, the radical feminists and lesbians in the Clinton crowd would have been horribly offended. Because if something strikes too close to home, it is offensive to those living in the home. What makes it funny to the rest of us is that it's probably true.

Oh yeah, the other thing I had hoped to observe was the difference between the two crowds in their generosity. There were fraternity guys outside of Hinkle Fieldhouse again this time taking donations for Riley Hospital for Children. But we arrived a little early and left before the main crowd, so I didn't really have the opportunity to observe what happened with the large crowd of people passing the frat guys. Except there were some people walking in front of us to and from the Bush event, of which I observed several dropping dollar bills into the guys' buckets. Contrast that to the Clinton event, when there were probably 10 times the number of people in the crowd, and I didn't see a single person drop even spare change into the buckets.

Interpret that how you will.

Economics

I have to admit, I wasn't the best student ever when it came to my courses in Economics. In the MBA, I had to take macro and micro, and can't say I enjoyed either one. Especially the macro class, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was one of those academic disciplines created mainly for the purpose of employing college professors.

But lately I'm hearing a lot of debate about the US economy, basically with Republicans saying it's great and Democrats saying it stinks. At its most basic level, the debate is clearly one of perspective; Republicans see the glass as half full, while Democrats prefer to see it as half empty.

Let's see if I can apply my humble logic and reasoning skills to separate each side's truth from their BS.

Republicans say:

The economy is terrific! There is more home ownership than ever before. We have achieved full employment, with unemployment rates lower than they've been in the last decade. The stock market is strong, corporate profits are up. All true.

Why should Republicans and the President get credit? Because of the tax cuts. Tax cuts stimulate the economy by allowing companies and individuals to keep more of what they earn, which they in turn spend on things that help boost the economy. True, but there's room for debate on how significant the tax cuts were in boosting the economy.

Democrats say:

The economy is only terrific if you're rich. The poor and middle class are getting slammed with higher energy prices, higher education costs, out-of-control healthcare costs, and all this while their wages are declining. I can't deny that there is truth to all of this. It's easy to agree, because we're all experiencing firsthand or know plenty of others who lost jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, can't get or can't afford health insurance, and our household budgets are all getting slammed by high energy costs. And my consulting work is involved regularly with setting up payrolls for companies, and I see it all the time: A handful of executives are raking in outrageous salaries, bonuses, and stock options, while the vast majority of the employee base only gets somewhere between minimum wage and around $50-$60K per year. The middle pay grades are practically gone - I saw the transition from the 80's and 90's, as the whole group we used to call "middle management" disappeared. It's true, they are gone forever.

Democrats also say the tax cuts are responsible for today's struggle in the lower and middle class. That's bunk. First of all, the tax cuts went to everyone, not just the rich. The Democrats make their living on class envy, misleading their consitituents into believing that the rich are somehow getting away with avoiding their fair share of taxes. That's just not true, unless of course you consider socialism the model of "fair share", where we go back to the late 60's and early 70's with marginal tax rates at 70 to 80 percent.

The fundamental dilemma should be defined independent of the rhetoric of both sides. Sending high-tech and other formerly good-paying jobs to India is helping corporations post record profits on the backs of their own country's workers. Illegal immigration is taking entry-level jobs away from young Americans every day; it is misleading to suggest that they only do those jobs Americans won't take. Basic economic fact says that you can fill any job simply by paying the market wage, but that market wage is artificially skewed by uninvited foreign workers. Finally, I find it morally reprehensible to do what Cummins and other big companies all around the country have done to their high-tech workers: Fire them all and replace them with immigrants from India who will do the work for a fraction of the compensation.

What is the solution? I don't like the so-called "solutions" offered by either party. Of course, the Republicans have no solutions, because they don't believe there is a problem. And the Democrats' solution has nothing to do with solving the problem, because they are more focused on regaining their political power to move the country closer to European-style socialism than actually dealing with any problems.

I say we need to ignore the political parties and find leaders who actually have real positive ideas that solve the real problems. Those solutions have to include sealing the borders and revamping the immigration system so it makes sense for everyone. It's not necessary to punish corporations for doing what they do, but it's certainly a good idea to stop the current preferential treatment they are getting from the government and begin actually enforcing our anti-trust laws again.

Actual solutions to the healthcare crisis that make it possible for average citizens to afford medical care and prescription drugs without turning the whole system over to an inefficient and corrupt government bureaucracy are badly needed. Oil exploration and drilling wherever reserves are found on our own soil must be permitted, starting with ANWR and continuing with the vast reserves we already know are sitting just offshore. More refinery capacity should be encouraged, mostly by enforcing anti-trust laws on the oil industry to foster competition.

Education needs to be fixed. We should not longer accept the outrageous failure rate of our public schools, and must demand our schools produce results or we'll close them down and send the students to schools that work.

There's more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some work done. But isn't it interesting how all these issues intertwine? We have two choices if we continue the status quo of the two political parties in America: We can either become like Europe, with a socialist society where nobody starves but nobody is allowed to earn much either, and we all can live in cramped little apartments while squeaking by on the government dole. Or we can continue the current course, with a gradual consolidation of business power into fewer and fewer mega corporations, who can reach around the globe for the cheapest workers and continue to chip away at employee health and retirement benefits.

There's a third way, and it requires a third party. My other blog talks about the tenets of this party, but it takes a huge number of people to band together to begin to make it a force for change. Maybe someday.

Testing Nonsense

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.

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".

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.

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 Iraq war, against homosexuality, or about their Christian faith.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

• 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?

Interestingly, most of the above require losing weight and/or getting in shape. Maybe I've got to reframe my perspective to be happy and successful.

In the meantime, the key question - time for a new car or hang on awhile longer? Ponder this, I must.

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.

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.

It seems pretty clear these days that the Democrats have been taken over by the secular liberals, which might be the simplest explanation for why they haven’t been winning elections. Because, whether this group likes it or not, the majority of Americans don't see the world the way they do.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. The Iraq War

· 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 Iraq war because of generally pacifist philosophy, feeling that we should reach out to our enemies to make peace or trust God to protect us.

· Secular Conservative: Believes we haven’t done enough in the Iraq war, that we should have used overwhelming force and dealt more firmly and harshly with the so-called “insurgents”. Believe Iraq is an example to the region of what will happen to rogue regimes that sponsor terrorism, which will force the other members of the “Axis of Evil” to think twice before helping Al Quaeda and other organizations attack America.

· Religious Conservatives: Are somewhat conflicted about the Iraq war because of its pre-emptive nature, but trust the President to be pursuing the right policies to protect our country from terrorist attacks.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

There are plenty more issues I could do this with, but have spent enough time on this post already. The summary of these categories, as I see it:

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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:

• 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.

But peace doesn't mean these things:

• 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.

Real peace is being able to live with yourself every day, knowing you are doing the best you can and are true to yourself and your beliefs. Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of truth.

And this post has used philosophic constructs in place of specific examples in order to protect the innocent (or not so innocent).

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.

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."