But this is an exception. I saw Invincible last night. Loved it.
Right off the bat the movie starts with Jim Croce's "I've Got a Name". You couldn't have picked anything better to set the tone. The music throughout the film was perfect.
The film was inspiring but low-key. I thought it was masterful the way they didn't slap you across the face with sappy dialogue. Instead, Wahlberg really doesn't say much at all throughout the movie. You get to know his character instead through his expressions and body language and some great camera work.
I have some vague memories of the story that provided the inspiration for this movie. I do remember there was a guy who got on the Philadelphia Eagles team through an open tryout. Otherwise I didn't pay much attention. I've never had much use for the Eagles.
I can't imagine anybody disliking this film. Best movie I've seen in a long time. Is it better than "Rudy"? Hard to say definitively, but it's definitely in the same league.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Stupid Stuff
Just for fun, today we will think about stupid stuff. The sad thing about these stupid things is that somewhere over 50 percent of the population actually seems to believe in them.
"Hate Crimes" - This is the idea that we should only punish criminals if they killed or maimed or raped somebody out of hate. It requires courts to try figuring out what was in the criminal's head when the crime was committed, because if there was some sort of racial or sexual orientation element, the punishment must be severe. If it was drug-induced or the perp was just a little crazy, well that's OK. And if the victim is a white christian, that doesn't count as a hate crime, because it's perfectly understandable to hate them.
Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Sure, and Ahmadinejad is telling the truth when he says his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
If we stop all oil drilling and stop importing foreign oil and switch to "alternative energy", all our political and environmental problems will be solved. That one's so ignorant it's funny.
The way to improve the lives of poor and middle-class people is to stick much higher taxes on rich people. Wierd.
Having moral values these days is evil. How dare anyone "judge" others by suggesting that adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, serial marriage and divorce, abortion, vulgar language, gambling, etc. are wrong. Those who participate in those behaviors are not the problem, but just try to say out loud that they are wrong and you find out very quickly who is labeled "evil".
The belief that illegal immigrants are necessary for our economy and take jobs citizens don't want. It doesn't require membership in either political party to see through this big lie.
Global Warming is going to kill us all. Please.
"Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. Ever read the constitution? Try reading the first amendment and see what it actually says about religion.
I've got more, but it's time to pack up and head to the airport.
"Hate Crimes" - This is the idea that we should only punish criminals if they killed or maimed or raped somebody out of hate. It requires courts to try figuring out what was in the criminal's head when the crime was committed, because if there was some sort of racial or sexual orientation element, the punishment must be severe. If it was drug-induced or the perp was just a little crazy, well that's OK. And if the victim is a white christian, that doesn't count as a hate crime, because it's perfectly understandable to hate them.
Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Sure, and Ahmadinejad is telling the truth when he says his nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
If we stop all oil drilling and stop importing foreign oil and switch to "alternative energy", all our political and environmental problems will be solved. That one's so ignorant it's funny.
The way to improve the lives of poor and middle-class people is to stick much higher taxes on rich people. Wierd.
Having moral values these days is evil. How dare anyone "judge" others by suggesting that adultery, homosexuality, drug abuse, serial marriage and divorce, abortion, vulgar language, gambling, etc. are wrong. Those who participate in those behaviors are not the problem, but just try to say out loud that they are wrong and you find out very quickly who is labeled "evil".
The belief that illegal immigrants are necessary for our economy and take jobs citizens don't want. It doesn't require membership in either political party to see through this big lie.
Global Warming is going to kill us all. Please.
"Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution. Ever read the constitution? Try reading the first amendment and see what it actually says about religion.
I've got more, but it's time to pack up and head to the airport.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Marry a Career Woman? This is hilarious.
I stumbled across this only because I happened to be channel-surfing on Friday morning while getting ready for work and found a heated discussion taking place with Matt Lauer and some women.
It's about an article in Forbes by a guy suggesting men should avoid marrying career women. The link is here.
What was so hilarious about the argument on the Today show was the extreme level of outrage shown by the token feminist Matt had on to discuss the article. Even funnier was that he had another woman on who more or less agreed with the basic idea. The problem with the feminist's argument was that she ignored the facts of the studies that formed the thesis of this article (don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument).
So it got even more ridiculous and hilarious when she started to sputter something like, "well, if America was more like Europe, where women can take a whole year off for having children and still draw 60 to 90 percent of their salaries, there wouldn't be the stresses on women that cause all this divorce."
Forbes got so much heat for printing the article that they posted a second article right beside it that purports to refute it. The second article is from a woman who attempts to prove the theory wrong on the basis that she herself is a career woman and has been married for 18 years to the same man. This just adds to the humor, because she completely misses the point.
I just find all this so incredibly funny. The article simply boils down the essence of social science studies which pretty much reach the obvious conclusion that marriage to a career woman is more likely to end in failure. As if that isn't patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.
Just to add my own little observations, I'd expand the advice to say men should probably avoid marrying militant feminist career women. Because many women obviously come out of college thinking they are career women.
But there are plenty of career women who, after giving birth to their first child, suddenly discover they'd rather be a great mother than a great manager/lawyer/accountant/etc. But I would suggest that the militant feminist career woman may be less likely to allow her maternal instincts to override her chosen life views which for what ever reason drive her to compete with men in the working world.
The bottom line in this whole manufactured controversy is this: If you marry a woman who is focused on her career, then what happens if each of you gets a terrific job offer, but yours is on the west coast and hers is on the east coast. Who sacrifices their career to accomodate the other? And more importantly, if one of you makes that sacrifice, how long will it be before the bitterness sets in as the one making the sacrifice begins to wonder why?
What happens when the husband feels well established in his career and is ready to start a family, but the wife is working long hours toward that promotion she's got her eye on and doesn't want to disrupt her career with a child?
What happens when a child arrives, whether planned or not, and both parents begin to feel some guilt at leaving that child to be raised by somebody else while they're at work? When the child gets sick, who takes time off to care for him or her? Later, which parent leaves work early to drive the child(ren) to their activities (sports, music lessons, birthday parties, etc.)?
See what I mean? It's just common sense. I'm convinced that the worst thing that could happen to a child is to be raised by a minimum-wage day care worker. Somebody's got to stay home with the kids as much as possible. And here's the inescapable fact: men and women are different. Men just aren't good at the whole child care thing. We're just not wired to be nurturing. Women, on the other hand, have the nurturing ability implanted.
Sure, some men may have been successful "stay-at-home dads". But I would make a considerable bet that the vast majority of them would admit privately that they find the Mr. Mom gig demoralizing. They most likely feel they've given up their masculinity to their wife. After all, she's out slaying dragons in the business world while he's home cooking and changing diapers. How could that be good for a marriage?
Anyway, good premarital advice is that all couples should figure out the answers to these critical questions before they tie the knot. And I would suggest that if the woman is adamant that her career will always come first, the man should probably do what's best for both of them and move on.
It's about an article in Forbes by a guy suggesting men should avoid marrying career women. The link is here.
What was so hilarious about the argument on the Today show was the extreme level of outrage shown by the token feminist Matt had on to discuss the article. Even funnier was that he had another woman on who more or less agreed with the basic idea. The problem with the feminist's argument was that she ignored the facts of the studies that formed the thesis of this article (don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument).
So it got even more ridiculous and hilarious when she started to sputter something like, "well, if America was more like Europe, where women can take a whole year off for having children and still draw 60 to 90 percent of their salaries, there wouldn't be the stresses on women that cause all this divorce."
Forbes got so much heat for printing the article that they posted a second article right beside it that purports to refute it. The second article is from a woman who attempts to prove the theory wrong on the basis that she herself is a career woman and has been married for 18 years to the same man. This just adds to the humor, because she completely misses the point.
I just find all this so incredibly funny. The article simply boils down the essence of social science studies which pretty much reach the obvious conclusion that marriage to a career woman is more likely to end in failure. As if that isn't patently obvious to anybody who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.
Just to add my own little observations, I'd expand the advice to say men should probably avoid marrying militant feminist career women. Because many women obviously come out of college thinking they are career women.
But there are plenty of career women who, after giving birth to their first child, suddenly discover they'd rather be a great mother than a great manager/lawyer/accountant/etc. But I would suggest that the militant feminist career woman may be less likely to allow her maternal instincts to override her chosen life views which for what ever reason drive her to compete with men in the working world.
The bottom line in this whole manufactured controversy is this: If you marry a woman who is focused on her career, then what happens if each of you gets a terrific job offer, but yours is on the west coast and hers is on the east coast. Who sacrifices their career to accomodate the other? And more importantly, if one of you makes that sacrifice, how long will it be before the bitterness sets in as the one making the sacrifice begins to wonder why?
What happens when the husband feels well established in his career and is ready to start a family, but the wife is working long hours toward that promotion she's got her eye on and doesn't want to disrupt her career with a child?
What happens when a child arrives, whether planned or not, and both parents begin to feel some guilt at leaving that child to be raised by somebody else while they're at work? When the child gets sick, who takes time off to care for him or her? Later, which parent leaves work early to drive the child(ren) to their activities (sports, music lessons, birthday parties, etc.)?
See what I mean? It's just common sense. I'm convinced that the worst thing that could happen to a child is to be raised by a minimum-wage day care worker. Somebody's got to stay home with the kids as much as possible. And here's the inescapable fact: men and women are different. Men just aren't good at the whole child care thing. We're just not wired to be nurturing. Women, on the other hand, have the nurturing ability implanted.
Sure, some men may have been successful "stay-at-home dads". But I would make a considerable bet that the vast majority of them would admit privately that they find the Mr. Mom gig demoralizing. They most likely feel they've given up their masculinity to their wife. After all, she's out slaying dragons in the business world while he's home cooking and changing diapers. How could that be good for a marriage?
Anyway, good premarital advice is that all couples should figure out the answers to these critical questions before they tie the knot. And I would suggest that if the woman is adamant that her career will always come first, the man should probably do what's best for both of them and move on.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
If CNN was all there was, I'd be ignorant too
Spending the week in Canada, the only news I've been able to see is CNN.
For a person like myself who wants the facts, and only the facts, so I can make up my own mind about the news, it feels sort of like what it must have been like in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Or today in places like Cuba and China and Iran.
CNN does every story with a backdrop message about Bush. Like I've written before, whatever is going wrong in the world is Bush's fault.
There was this panel discussion on Iran and their nuclear program, their support for Hezbollah, and their designs on becoming the dominant power in the middle east. Surprisingly, two of the three guys on the panel were discussing their opinions about what can and should be done to try to solve the problem before Iran gets out of control and starts blowing up the planet.
But the third guy, identified as a "Democrat Strategist", didn't want to talk about solutions. He only wanted to talk about Bush. He held a little contest for himself to see how many negative adjectives he could throw out disparaging the President before the discussion ended. He was challenged by the host, then later by another panelist, to get off the President for a moment and tell everyone what should be done about the problem. He didn't have a solution of his own, unless you consider impeachment or some other means of removing Bush from office a solution.
I laughed out loud when caught by surprise by one of the panelists, who got so frustrated with the guy that he basically called him a naive idiot. On CNN, no less! I guess he won't be asked back on any panels anytime soon.
In case you were wondering, I have a solution for Iran and North Korea that nobody's talking about. I think it's a very simple solution that doesn't require military action. President Bush should go to Russia and China and tell them straight: As clients and arms suppliers to both Iran and North Korea, we will hold you responsible for any aggressive moves made by either country. That means if you don't lead the effort to stop the craziness of Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong Il, we will impose economic sanctions, not just on those countries, but on you!
Close the American consumer market to Russia and China even for a little while and see how fast they shut the lid on those rogue states.
It seems to me that if we had the courage to take out Saddam in Iraq, surely we've got the guts to get tough on trade with Russia and China to get what we need from them to assure peace.
But of course, the stupid and ignorant and CNN viewers can't think for themselves about solutions. They're only capable of yelling "Bush S*^ks" and blaming him, the military, and the oil companies for all the world's problems.
For a person like myself who wants the facts, and only the facts, so I can make up my own mind about the news, it feels sort of like what it must have been like in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Or today in places like Cuba and China and Iran.
CNN does every story with a backdrop message about Bush. Like I've written before, whatever is going wrong in the world is Bush's fault.
There was this panel discussion on Iran and their nuclear program, their support for Hezbollah, and their designs on becoming the dominant power in the middle east. Surprisingly, two of the three guys on the panel were discussing their opinions about what can and should be done to try to solve the problem before Iran gets out of control and starts blowing up the planet.
But the third guy, identified as a "Democrat Strategist", didn't want to talk about solutions. He only wanted to talk about Bush. He held a little contest for himself to see how many negative adjectives he could throw out disparaging the President before the discussion ended. He was challenged by the host, then later by another panelist, to get off the President for a moment and tell everyone what should be done about the problem. He didn't have a solution of his own, unless you consider impeachment or some other means of removing Bush from office a solution.
I laughed out loud when caught by surprise by one of the panelists, who got so frustrated with the guy that he basically called him a naive idiot. On CNN, no less! I guess he won't be asked back on any panels anytime soon.
In case you were wondering, I have a solution for Iran and North Korea that nobody's talking about. I think it's a very simple solution that doesn't require military action. President Bush should go to Russia and China and tell them straight: As clients and arms suppliers to both Iran and North Korea, we will hold you responsible for any aggressive moves made by either country. That means if you don't lead the effort to stop the craziness of Ahmadinijad and Kim Jong Il, we will impose economic sanctions, not just on those countries, but on you!
Close the American consumer market to Russia and China even for a little while and see how fast they shut the lid on those rogue states.
It seems to me that if we had the courage to take out Saddam in Iraq, surely we've got the guts to get tough on trade with Russia and China to get what we need from them to assure peace.
But of course, the stupid and ignorant and CNN viewers can't think for themselves about solutions. They're only capable of yelling "Bush S*^ks" and blaming him, the military, and the oil companies for all the world's problems.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Still Alive
So if there was a major terrorist event planned for today, I guess we missed it. Some have guessed that the big flap with liquid explosives a couple weeks back was the actual plan.
In the meantime, I'm back in Canada. At the border I got sent into Immigration again, and was afraid they'd kick me out again. But this time they waved me through. I just never know what's going to happen here. September might be interesting, since I'm supposed to be up here most of that month.
So there were two guys applying for the same position with Cummins. One was a Yankee from New York and the other a Bubba from Arkansas. Their qualifications looked almost identical, they both interviewed well, then they both were given the same pre-employment test, on which they received an identical score.
The hiring manager offered the job to the Yankee. Bubba, who was unhappy with the choice, stormed into the office and asked the hiring manager, "why did y'all hire the yankee when I was ever bit as qualified for the job?"
The hiring manager explained, "The test was what helped seal our decision."
Bubba said, "But we both got the exact same score on the test."
The hiring manager responded, "Yes, and in fact both of you missed only one question. It also happened to be the same question. The answer from our other candidate to that question was 'I don't know'. "
"Your answer to that question was, 'Neither do I'.
Kudos to the original author of the above, whoever you may be.
In the meantime, I'm back in Canada. At the border I got sent into Immigration again, and was afraid they'd kick me out again. But this time they waved me through. I just never know what's going to happen here. September might be interesting, since I'm supposed to be up here most of that month.
So there were two guys applying for the same position with Cummins. One was a Yankee from New York and the other a Bubba from Arkansas. Their qualifications looked almost identical, they both interviewed well, then they both were given the same pre-employment test, on which they received an identical score.
The hiring manager offered the job to the Yankee. Bubba, who was unhappy with the choice, stormed into the office and asked the hiring manager, "why did y'all hire the yankee when I was ever bit as qualified for the job?"
The hiring manager explained, "The test was what helped seal our decision."
Bubba said, "But we both got the exact same score on the test."
The hiring manager responded, "Yes, and in fact both of you missed only one question. It also happened to be the same question. The answer from our other candidate to that question was 'I don't know'. "
"Your answer to that question was, 'Neither do I'.
Kudos to the original author of the above, whoever you may be.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Football Season
The best part about this time of year? Football season!
Hard to tell watching pre-season NFL games. Except that if the Colts get any of their starters injured, they will be in big trouble. Because their backups have looked horrible. I'm sure Jim Sorgi's a great guy, but I have a feeling I could have done better than he did in the first two preseason games. Maybe it's time to pick up a competent backup at QB, but then again, if Peyton gets hurt we can pretty much write off the season regardless.
We haven't seen much from the running backs with the Colts yet. If they can't get the running game going with Edge gone to Arizona, it will make things a lot tougher on Peyton. I think early in the season teams will gear up to stop the pass and ignore the run until the Colt's prove they can run. We'll see.
Gotta get the Columbus North site up and running for this year. Just need to find the time. The first game's already in the books - yikes!
I was surprised to see Notre Dame ranked second preseason. Seems too high. I wonder if they'll be able to build on a pretty good season last year.
I wonder if Indiana will make more improvements this year. They started out somewhat promising, but folded when they got to the Big Ten schedule. This year they won't be contending for the Big Ten title, but maybe they could move from the bottom to near the middle.
If my favorite teams do well this year, I'll be happy.
Hard to tell watching pre-season NFL games. Except that if the Colts get any of their starters injured, they will be in big trouble. Because their backups have looked horrible. I'm sure Jim Sorgi's a great guy, but I have a feeling I could have done better than he did in the first two preseason games. Maybe it's time to pick up a competent backup at QB, but then again, if Peyton gets hurt we can pretty much write off the season regardless.
We haven't seen much from the running backs with the Colts yet. If they can't get the running game going with Edge gone to Arizona, it will make things a lot tougher on Peyton. I think early in the season teams will gear up to stop the pass and ignore the run until the Colt's prove they can run. We'll see.
Gotta get the Columbus North site up and running for this year. Just need to find the time. The first game's already in the books - yikes!
I was surprised to see Notre Dame ranked second preseason. Seems too high. I wonder if they'll be able to build on a pretty good season last year.
I wonder if Indiana will make more improvements this year. They started out somewhat promising, but folded when they got to the Big Ten schedule. This year they won't be contending for the Big Ten title, but maybe they could move from the bottom to near the middle.
If my favorite teams do well this year, I'll be happy.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Disappointment
How often are you disappointed by other people?
Never, seldom, sometimes, often, almost always, always?
Lately I'm finding myself in the "often" to "almost always" range. People consistently disappoint me. The question I've begun to ask myself is whether that is because of them, or is it because of me?
It is disturbing to find myself in this mindset. Because I know about the miserable people in the "always" category. Nobody measures up to the standards set by the "always" person. In fact, nobody could ever measure up, because the standards are impossible to understand, let alone meet. I don't want to be an "always".
How do they disappoint me? By failing to follow through on promises. By being unscrupulous in their dealings with others, whether or not with me. By taking advantage of my generosity, then giving me the impression they turned me into a chump. By showing themselves to be less honorable than I thought. By shallowness, arrogance, duplicitousness, self-centeredness. With vulgarity, immorality. With ignorance.
Some may tell me it's my problem. I'm not accepting enough. I haven't learned to be "tolerant" and "embrace diversity". I'm too judgemental. Maybe I have unrealistically high expectations of others.
On the other hand, maybe the time has come to find new friends. Friends who can prove to me that they can be trustworthy, moral, and ethical.
There's the dilemma. I'm back on the road. I'm home 2 days a week, sometimes less. I don't just feel isolated, I am isolated.
Maybe I just need to relax and try harder to find my own joy. Life is indeed short.
Never, seldom, sometimes, often, almost always, always?
Lately I'm finding myself in the "often" to "almost always" range. People consistently disappoint me. The question I've begun to ask myself is whether that is because of them, or is it because of me?
It is disturbing to find myself in this mindset. Because I know about the miserable people in the "always" category. Nobody measures up to the standards set by the "always" person. In fact, nobody could ever measure up, because the standards are impossible to understand, let alone meet. I don't want to be an "always".
How do they disappoint me? By failing to follow through on promises. By being unscrupulous in their dealings with others, whether or not with me. By taking advantage of my generosity, then giving me the impression they turned me into a chump. By showing themselves to be less honorable than I thought. By shallowness, arrogance, duplicitousness, self-centeredness. With vulgarity, immorality. With ignorance.
Some may tell me it's my problem. I'm not accepting enough. I haven't learned to be "tolerant" and "embrace diversity". I'm too judgemental. Maybe I have unrealistically high expectations of others.
On the other hand, maybe the time has come to find new friends. Friends who can prove to me that they can be trustworthy, moral, and ethical.
There's the dilemma. I'm back on the road. I'm home 2 days a week, sometimes less. I don't just feel isolated, I am isolated.
Maybe I just need to relax and try harder to find my own joy. Life is indeed short.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Sigh and Shake Your Head
That's all we can do.
The UN successfully got Israel to back off in Lebanon. Hezbollah claims victory. They are right. they did win. Israel lost. It remains to be seen how badly. Anybody remember their kidnapped soldiers? Care to guess their fate?
Iran continues their nuclear weapons development program. The UN continues to dither and do nothing.
Democrats are optimistically predicting they will own the congress at year-end, when they will impeach Bush and pull all our troops out of Iraq.
Major planned airliner attacks were foiled last week. Democrats blamed the Bush administration for failing to do the right things to protect us (say what?). The ACLU found a lefty judge that was happy to play along and order the government to suspend all international terrorist eavesdropping. Such eavesdropping which appears to have played a substantial role in foiling last week's attacks.
Our borders are still unsecured.
The courts say we can't hold enemy terrorist combatants.
Iran today sent soldiers out in Tehran to smash all the satellite dishes on top of the city's buildings.
August 22nd is a date of some significance for the Islamic terrorists.
Scared yet?
The UN successfully got Israel to back off in Lebanon. Hezbollah claims victory. They are right. they did win. Israel lost. It remains to be seen how badly. Anybody remember their kidnapped soldiers? Care to guess their fate?
Iran continues their nuclear weapons development program. The UN continues to dither and do nothing.
Democrats are optimistically predicting they will own the congress at year-end, when they will impeach Bush and pull all our troops out of Iraq.
Major planned airliner attacks were foiled last week. Democrats blamed the Bush administration for failing to do the right things to protect us (say what?). The ACLU found a lefty judge that was happy to play along and order the government to suspend all international terrorist eavesdropping. Such eavesdropping which appears to have played a substantial role in foiling last week's attacks.
Our borders are still unsecured.
The courts say we can't hold enemy terrorist combatants.
Iran today sent soldiers out in Tehran to smash all the satellite dishes on top of the city's buildings.
August 22nd is a date of some significance for the Islamic terrorists.
Scared yet?
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Barbarians at the Gate
The Roman Empire fell, leading to the period we today call the Dark Ages. According to historians, even though today's historians have a tendency to distort and revise to fit their personal biases, Rome established their far-reaching empire through the use of a ruthless imperialism. Pax Romana was the rule of the Romans across the western world, and as far east as that troubled middle eastern region from Israel to Iran.
The Romans enjoyed a long run of prosperity and peace. A peace achieved, in many cases, by ruthless oppression of their would-be enemies across the known world. But relative peace. They were the enforcers of peace across their empire.
But they got lazy and bored. They became debauched, corrupt. They ate, drank, engaged in all manner of sexual deviancy, and lined up to watch great spectacles in their coliseum. Their experiment with democracy degenerated into a succession of tyrannical emperor dictators, each seemingly worse then the last.
Eventually, the barbarians from the north overtook the depleted Roman armies to reach Rome itself. The Roman empire crumbled under its own weight. And it took a thousand years for the world to recover.
Has the human race learned anything from the Romans? Apparently not.
The United States ascended as the dominant global power. Not by invading the rest of the world, but by unleashing a new concept of freedom that incorporated some of the democratic ideas of the Greeks and Romans so long ago. The grand political experiment, along with the vast untapped resources of the North American continent, made the US the envy of the world.
The country held firmly to its ideals through a difficult Civil War, then bailed Europe out of two devastating world wars and held Soviet and Chinese communism at bay. The standard of living among Americans exploded to unprecedented levels of wealth and ease. Until now.
The barbarians are at the gates. Instead of the Huns, they are represented by the radical Islamic hordes born out of the oil-rich middle east. Their ancient hatred of Jews, dating back to when Ishmael was slighted by Abraham in favor of his first wife's son Isaac, inflamed when the United Nations allowed the Jews to return to their sacred homeland in a small strip of Palestine and establish their own nation.
The battles in the region would most likely been left alone to reach a conclusion on their own if it weren't for the vast oilfields. The rest of the world relies heavily on those oilfields to power their economic engines. So the West, mainly America and Europe, focused a great deal of attention and resources in the attempt to pacify the middle east powderkeg.
But those efforts are failing. Because the Western world is becoming weary of the unceasing violence and terrorism. And mistakenly thought they could buy off the middle-eastern barbarians by letting them control their own countries and oilfields without western "meddling". Evidenced by Jimmy Carter's enabling of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, a liberal pacifist policy for which he was rewarded with the American embassy overrun and the staff taken hostage. And the takeover of the Iranian government by radical Ayatollahs.
Now the regimes of Iran and Syria are openly supporting one of their terrorist offshoots, Hezbollah, in an open war against Israel. Iran is building nuclear weapons. Iran and Syria are sending insurgents and resources into Iraq to undermine the new fledgling government there with the belief that the soft Americans will give up and leave if they keep the instability and violence there long enough.
And what is the biggest superpower on earth doing about all this? Surrendering.
I was in Washington state last week, where the only news I could see were the main networks and CNN. The propaganda from our own news media in those outlets about all these problems convinced me it is true. The barbarians are at the gates, and most Americans are in denial.
The news I watched last week was mostly CNN, with an occasional look at NBC. Both outlets have the same routine. Do a story about one of the big problems in the world, then do a follow-on story about why it's Bush's fault.
Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other in Iraq. Bush's fault.
Israel fighting Hezbollah. Bush's fault.
BP pipeline in Alaska being shut down for repairs, causing oil supply disruption. Bush's fault.
Joe Lieberman loses primary. Because he doesn't hate Bush enough.
Terrorist plan to crash airliners using liquid explosive materials thwarted. Bush got lucky, but the terrorists wouldn't be trying to blow them up if he wasn't president.
Instead of recognizing the threat and banding together as a country, here's what our citizens are focused on:
Celebrity gossip
Gay Marriage
Getting out of Iraq
Global Warming
The NFL season
Outrage at the kinds of surveillance and intelligence-gathering techniques that foiled this week's terrorist plot.
Forcing Israel into a unilateral cease fire.
Forcing oil companies to lower gas prices.
Outrage at Republicans who try to allow oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Blaming Christians and Appeasing Muslims.
As I said, the Barbarians are at the Gate and the gate is unlocked.
The Romans enjoyed a long run of prosperity and peace. A peace achieved, in many cases, by ruthless oppression of their would-be enemies across the known world. But relative peace. They were the enforcers of peace across their empire.
But they got lazy and bored. They became debauched, corrupt. They ate, drank, engaged in all manner of sexual deviancy, and lined up to watch great spectacles in their coliseum. Their experiment with democracy degenerated into a succession of tyrannical emperor dictators, each seemingly worse then the last.
Eventually, the barbarians from the north overtook the depleted Roman armies to reach Rome itself. The Roman empire crumbled under its own weight. And it took a thousand years for the world to recover.
Has the human race learned anything from the Romans? Apparently not.
The United States ascended as the dominant global power. Not by invading the rest of the world, but by unleashing a new concept of freedom that incorporated some of the democratic ideas of the Greeks and Romans so long ago. The grand political experiment, along with the vast untapped resources of the North American continent, made the US the envy of the world.
The country held firmly to its ideals through a difficult Civil War, then bailed Europe out of two devastating world wars and held Soviet and Chinese communism at bay. The standard of living among Americans exploded to unprecedented levels of wealth and ease. Until now.
The barbarians are at the gates. Instead of the Huns, they are represented by the radical Islamic hordes born out of the oil-rich middle east. Their ancient hatred of Jews, dating back to when Ishmael was slighted by Abraham in favor of his first wife's son Isaac, inflamed when the United Nations allowed the Jews to return to their sacred homeland in a small strip of Palestine and establish their own nation.
The battles in the region would most likely been left alone to reach a conclusion on their own if it weren't for the vast oilfields. The rest of the world relies heavily on those oilfields to power their economic engines. So the West, mainly America and Europe, focused a great deal of attention and resources in the attempt to pacify the middle east powderkeg.
But those efforts are failing. Because the Western world is becoming weary of the unceasing violence and terrorism. And mistakenly thought they could buy off the middle-eastern barbarians by letting them control their own countries and oilfields without western "meddling". Evidenced by Jimmy Carter's enabling of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, a liberal pacifist policy for which he was rewarded with the American embassy overrun and the staff taken hostage. And the takeover of the Iranian government by radical Ayatollahs.
Now the regimes of Iran and Syria are openly supporting one of their terrorist offshoots, Hezbollah, in an open war against Israel. Iran is building nuclear weapons. Iran and Syria are sending insurgents and resources into Iraq to undermine the new fledgling government there with the belief that the soft Americans will give up and leave if they keep the instability and violence there long enough.
And what is the biggest superpower on earth doing about all this? Surrendering.
I was in Washington state last week, where the only news I could see were the main networks and CNN. The propaganda from our own news media in those outlets about all these problems convinced me it is true. The barbarians are at the gates, and most Americans are in denial.
The news I watched last week was mostly CNN, with an occasional look at NBC. Both outlets have the same routine. Do a story about one of the big problems in the world, then do a follow-on story about why it's Bush's fault.
Sunnis and Shi'ites are killing each other in Iraq. Bush's fault.
Israel fighting Hezbollah. Bush's fault.
BP pipeline in Alaska being shut down for repairs, causing oil supply disruption. Bush's fault.
Joe Lieberman loses primary. Because he doesn't hate Bush enough.
Terrorist plan to crash airliners using liquid explosive materials thwarted. Bush got lucky, but the terrorists wouldn't be trying to blow them up if he wasn't president.
Instead of recognizing the threat and banding together as a country, here's what our citizens are focused on:
Celebrity gossip
Gay Marriage
Getting out of Iraq
Global Warming
The NFL season
Outrage at the kinds of surveillance and intelligence-gathering techniques that foiled this week's terrorist plot.
Forcing Israel into a unilateral cease fire.
Forcing oil companies to lower gas prices.
Outrage at Republicans who try to allow oil drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
Blaming Christians and Appeasing Muslims.
As I said, the Barbarians are at the Gate and the gate is unlocked.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Fiddler on the Roof - MatchMaker
Watched the video recently and thought it might be kind of cool if we went back to the old tradition of arranged marriages.
I think I could do a pretty good job with my boys. I especially like the dowry tradition, considering the fact I don't have any daughters.
So, if I was to seek out the right match for Nick, here's where I would start.
Physical attributes:
Cute, petite. Not necessarily athletic, but enjoys running, biking, and rollerblading enough to keep up with Nick. Prototypes are Emmy Rossum or maybe Natalie Portman.
Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Good career choices would be English, Literature, or Spanish teacher, psychologist, nurse. Has to love music - if she's a great singer and/or musician, that would be perfect. Must like going to concerts. Should be intelligent enough to hold her own or challenge Nick with discussions on philosophy and music.
Personal Traits:
Cheerful, upbeat, positive. Steady, not moody. Able to pick Nick up when he's way down and pull the reigns back on him a bit when he's soaring too high. Also able to understand and accept his mood swings without judgement but with empathy and support. Likes long walks and deep conversation, equally mixed with fun.
Preferred Role:
Good housewife desirable, but not required. Willing to share housework and cooking with Nick. Willing to trade cooking duties with Nick and appreciates his culinary ability. Got to be great with children.
With Nick:
Is completely dedicated and committed to Nick through good and bad, but not smothering or possessive. Knows when to get close and when to give him space.
That was fun, now let's do Tim:
Physical Attributes: Pretty, athletic, preferably blonde. Prototype is Maria Sharapova.
Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Doctor or Nurse, teacher or coach, Personal Trainer. Loves sports. Likes to stay active, try new things, play games. Must love animals, especially dogs. Loves movies.
Personal Traits:
Fun-loving, bit unpredictable, adventurous. Likes to keep things light, never too serious. Sees Tim as the only guy that can keep up with her. Loves to laugh. Social and outgoing, but not dominating. Cannot be hard-headed or opinionated.
Preferred Role:
Traditional housewife. Willing to take on household chores and cooking, because Tim won't. Leaves maintenance and yard work to Tim, which he can be convinced to do. Should want lots of kids and plenty of animals in the house.
With Tim:
Keeps the relationship fresh, fun, and adventurous. Is devoted to Tim but not posessive or smothering. Strong ability to influence Tim to see things her way by making him think it's his idea. Tim's partner in social activities, work, home, and family.
I'd do pretty well, don' t you think?
I think I could do a pretty good job with my boys. I especially like the dowry tradition, considering the fact I don't have any daughters.
So, if I was to seek out the right match for Nick, here's where I would start.
Physical attributes:
Cute, petite. Not necessarily athletic, but enjoys running, biking, and rollerblading enough to keep up with Nick. Prototypes are Emmy Rossum or maybe Natalie Portman.
Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Good career choices would be English, Literature, or Spanish teacher, psychologist, nurse. Has to love music - if she's a great singer and/or musician, that would be perfect. Must like going to concerts. Should be intelligent enough to hold her own or challenge Nick with discussions on philosophy and music.
Personal Traits:
Cheerful, upbeat, positive. Steady, not moody. Able to pick Nick up when he's way down and pull the reigns back on him a bit when he's soaring too high. Also able to understand and accept his mood swings without judgement but with empathy and support. Likes long walks and deep conversation, equally mixed with fun.
Preferred Role:
Good housewife desirable, but not required. Willing to share housework and cooking with Nick. Willing to trade cooking duties with Nick and appreciates his culinary ability. Got to be great with children.
With Nick:
Is completely dedicated and committed to Nick through good and bad, but not smothering or possessive. Knows when to get close and when to give him space.
That was fun, now let's do Tim:
Physical Attributes: Pretty, athletic, preferably blonde. Prototype is Maria Sharapova.
Careers, Interests, Hobbies:
Doctor or Nurse, teacher or coach, Personal Trainer. Loves sports. Likes to stay active, try new things, play games. Must love animals, especially dogs. Loves movies.
Personal Traits:
Fun-loving, bit unpredictable, adventurous. Likes to keep things light, never too serious. Sees Tim as the only guy that can keep up with her. Loves to laugh. Social and outgoing, but not dominating. Cannot be hard-headed or opinionated.
Preferred Role:
Traditional housewife. Willing to take on household chores and cooking, because Tim won't. Leaves maintenance and yard work to Tim, which he can be convinced to do. Should want lots of kids and plenty of animals in the house.
With Tim:
Keeps the relationship fresh, fun, and adventurous. Is devoted to Tim but not posessive or smothering. Strong ability to influence Tim to see things her way by making him think it's his idea. Tim's partner in social activities, work, home, and family.
I'd do pretty well, don' t you think?
The Case for Chastity
This isn't intended to be preachy or prudish or anything of the sort. In fact, let's just take for granted that the Christian religion generally suggests that sex outside of marriage is considered sinful.
Instead of going into the obvious religious arguments, let me try to make the argument from a practical point of view. There are lots of things that can result from sexual activity outside of marriage. And most of them are bad.
The case for chastity:
1. There is absolutely no risk of contracting one of the many sexually transmitted diseases.
2. There is absolutely no risk of unplanned pregnancy.
3. The corollary to #2; there is no risk of compounding the problem with an abortion, or having to give up a child forever to adoption.
4. There is no risk of a shotgun wedding.
5. A man and woman can date without pressure for sex.
6. A dating relationship without sex lets the couple focus on their compatibility instead of their libido. The couple can discover much more quickly whether or not they are compatible, and the breakup is much less painful and difficult.
7. The anticipation related to waiting for marriage is the definition of "marital bliss".
8. Those couples who save it for marriage are must more likely to be highly compatible, committed, and disciplined, which serves both very well for their lifetimes together.
9. Side effects, cancer, sterility and diseases caused by artificial birth control are absent.
10. Divorce is much less likely when a couple marries because of mutual love and understanding not clouded by sex.
11. Those who have had multiple partners tend to view sex as "no big deal", therefore they are much more likely to continue side affairs after marriage.
12. The memory of previous sexual partners doesn't hang over the couple's marriage like a black cloud.
As you see, I've made a compelling case for chastity without bringing religion into the argument. From my perspective, to whatever degree one's faith is important, it should only enhance the practical reasons presented for waiting. Sure, supposedly strong and committed Christian young people have been reported in studies to be just as sexually active as their less religious peers. I attribute that more to the strength of the natural reproductive drive than anything else. Deciding on chastity and sticking to that choice might be one of the most difficult but rewarding ventures anyone ever undertakes in life.
If this post just gets one or two people thinking, I'll be thrilled.
Instead of going into the obvious religious arguments, let me try to make the argument from a practical point of view. There are lots of things that can result from sexual activity outside of marriage. And most of them are bad.
The case for chastity:
1. There is absolutely no risk of contracting one of the many sexually transmitted diseases.
2. There is absolutely no risk of unplanned pregnancy.
3. The corollary to #2; there is no risk of compounding the problem with an abortion, or having to give up a child forever to adoption.
4. There is no risk of a shotgun wedding.
5. A man and woman can date without pressure for sex.
6. A dating relationship without sex lets the couple focus on their compatibility instead of their libido. The couple can discover much more quickly whether or not they are compatible, and the breakup is much less painful and difficult.
7. The anticipation related to waiting for marriage is the definition of "marital bliss".
8. Those couples who save it for marriage are must more likely to be highly compatible, committed, and disciplined, which serves both very well for their lifetimes together.
9. Side effects, cancer, sterility and diseases caused by artificial birth control are absent.
10. Divorce is much less likely when a couple marries because of mutual love and understanding not clouded by sex.
11. Those who have had multiple partners tend to view sex as "no big deal", therefore they are much more likely to continue side affairs after marriage.
12. The memory of previous sexual partners doesn't hang over the couple's marriage like a black cloud.
As you see, I've made a compelling case for chastity without bringing religion into the argument. From my perspective, to whatever degree one's faith is important, it should only enhance the practical reasons presented for waiting. Sure, supposedly strong and committed Christian young people have been reported in studies to be just as sexually active as their less religious peers. I attribute that more to the strength of the natural reproductive drive than anything else. Deciding on chastity and sticking to that choice might be one of the most difficult but rewarding ventures anyone ever undertakes in life.
If this post just gets one or two people thinking, I'll be thrilled.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
You Cannot Solve any Problem Unless You Understand It
The standard line most news outlets want to feed us these days is that the world would be a much more peaceful place if not for President Bush. It's not a terribly cogent or well-supported argument, but it goes something like this:
Bush's invasion of Iraq enraged the Islamic world, which led to the Iraqi insurgency and the ascension of Ahmadinijad in Iran and the election of Hamas in the Palestinian authority. His heavy-handed foreign policy also somehow inspired North Korea's dangerous nuclear activities and missile tests.
Basically, it's all Bush's fault, including the Sunni-Shi'ite turf war in Iraq, Hamas tossing rockets into Israel from the area in Gaza they were voluntarily given only a few months earlier to buy peace, and both Hamas and Hezbollah raiding Israel to kill and capture soldiers.
I have this little character flaw, where I want to hear the facts to support whatever conclusion is being made about any issue. The Hate Bush movement has been so relentless that it seems to permeate everything these days, and the impression is that most Americans seem to agree that he's somehow responsible for all these problems in the world.
My own search for facts, while not completely exhonerating Bush, doesn't make him the villain either. Here are a few basic facts:
Iran and Syria are the two most prominent terrorist states. They fund and support Hamas, Hezbollah, and anybody else who shares their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Hezbollah's weapons are supplied by Iran with logistical support from Syria. (And most of the weapons are purchased from Russia and China.)
The Hezbollah incursion into Israel that started the current war in Lebanon just happened to take place within a day of Iran's deadline for responding to the UN on the demand they stop nuclear weapons development. Could it reasonably be concluded that the Hezbollah agression was ordered by Iran as a distraction?
Most of the escalating violence in Iraq is Sunni vs. Shi'a. It's not so much an insurgency as it is a civil war to determine which sect will rule Iraq. I think both sides see what's happening in America and figure our troops will be gone by the next presidential election, if not shortly after this year's elections. So they are trying to establish an advantage for when the power vacuum occurs after our troops leave. If and when we leave Iraq, the most likely outcome will see the Iranian-backed Shi'ites taking over. Want Ahmadinijad in charge of Iran and Iraq? Vote Democrat.
Everyone but the US and Israel is yelling at Israel to "cease fire". As if Israel's the culprit in the conflict. It conjures and image of the referee at a boxing match (the UN) grabbing the winning fighter's arms and pinning them behind his back so the losing fighter can pummel him at will. It seems to me that everybody knows that's not the way to stop a fight. This weekend, Israel saw rockets being launched from that Lebanese town and bombed it, killing some civilians in the process. What incredible outrage was leveled at Israel. But what about the outrage toward Hezbollah, who routinely targets civilians and launches their rockets at Israeli towns indiscriminately every day? CNN bends over backward to present both sides of the conflict equally?
Finally, what the critics seem to be saying is that Bush should essentially give the rogue countries what they want. Stop helping Israel. Leave Iraq. Leave the entire middle east alone. Make a deal with Ahmadinijad so he'll stop building nuclear weapons. Make a deal with Kim Jong Il so he'll stop building nuclear weapons and trying to launch them at us.
Let's see, how has that worked in the past? Well, as I mentioned before, Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians for peace, and how did the Palestinians respond? In case you haven't heard, by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border into Israeli towns and a cross-border raid that killed soldiers and captured others. Then there's North Korea, where Bill Clinton gave them food and nuclear technology in exchange for a promise they wouldn't use it for weapons. How did they respond? By immediately breaking the agreement to feverishly develop a nuclear weapons development program.
Finally, there's the Islamic radical agenda. They haven't been secretive about their goals. First, they want to wipe Israel off the map and remove all western influence from the middle east. Then they want to spread Islam, by force if necessary, across the planet. To be specific, that means that governments around the world will be run by the Ayatollahs. Islam is the only religion permitted by law. Anyone holding onto any other religion will be executed, or if they are lucky, enslaved.
And what was that you were saying again? Oh yeah, all this is Bush's fault.
Good luck in your fantasy world. Elect your favorite liberal pacifist to congress this fall and see what happens. You might want to get a head start on those Koran studies and go shopping for a prayer rug and burkha.
Bush's invasion of Iraq enraged the Islamic world, which led to the Iraqi insurgency and the ascension of Ahmadinijad in Iran and the election of Hamas in the Palestinian authority. His heavy-handed foreign policy also somehow inspired North Korea's dangerous nuclear activities and missile tests.
Basically, it's all Bush's fault, including the Sunni-Shi'ite turf war in Iraq, Hamas tossing rockets into Israel from the area in Gaza they were voluntarily given only a few months earlier to buy peace, and both Hamas and Hezbollah raiding Israel to kill and capture soldiers.
I have this little character flaw, where I want to hear the facts to support whatever conclusion is being made about any issue. The Hate Bush movement has been so relentless that it seems to permeate everything these days, and the impression is that most Americans seem to agree that he's somehow responsible for all these problems in the world.
My own search for facts, while not completely exhonerating Bush, doesn't make him the villain either. Here are a few basic facts:
Iran and Syria are the two most prominent terrorist states. They fund and support Hamas, Hezbollah, and anybody else who shares their goal of wiping Israel off the map. Hezbollah's weapons are supplied by Iran with logistical support from Syria. (And most of the weapons are purchased from Russia and China.)
The Hezbollah incursion into Israel that started the current war in Lebanon just happened to take place within a day of Iran's deadline for responding to the UN on the demand they stop nuclear weapons development. Could it reasonably be concluded that the Hezbollah agression was ordered by Iran as a distraction?
Most of the escalating violence in Iraq is Sunni vs. Shi'a. It's not so much an insurgency as it is a civil war to determine which sect will rule Iraq. I think both sides see what's happening in America and figure our troops will be gone by the next presidential election, if not shortly after this year's elections. So they are trying to establish an advantage for when the power vacuum occurs after our troops leave. If and when we leave Iraq, the most likely outcome will see the Iranian-backed Shi'ites taking over. Want Ahmadinijad in charge of Iran and Iraq? Vote Democrat.
Everyone but the US and Israel is yelling at Israel to "cease fire". As if Israel's the culprit in the conflict. It conjures and image of the referee at a boxing match (the UN) grabbing the winning fighter's arms and pinning them behind his back so the losing fighter can pummel him at will. It seems to me that everybody knows that's not the way to stop a fight. This weekend, Israel saw rockets being launched from that Lebanese town and bombed it, killing some civilians in the process. What incredible outrage was leveled at Israel. But what about the outrage toward Hezbollah, who routinely targets civilians and launches their rockets at Israeli towns indiscriminately every day? CNN bends over backward to present both sides of the conflict equally?
Finally, what the critics seem to be saying is that Bush should essentially give the rogue countries what they want. Stop helping Israel. Leave Iraq. Leave the entire middle east alone. Make a deal with Ahmadinijad so he'll stop building nuclear weapons. Make a deal with Kim Jong Il so he'll stop building nuclear weapons and trying to launch them at us.
Let's see, how has that worked in the past? Well, as I mentioned before, Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians for peace, and how did the Palestinians respond? In case you haven't heard, by daily rocket and mortar attacks across the border into Israeli towns and a cross-border raid that killed soldiers and captured others. Then there's North Korea, where Bill Clinton gave them food and nuclear technology in exchange for a promise they wouldn't use it for weapons. How did they respond? By immediately breaking the agreement to feverishly develop a nuclear weapons development program.
Finally, there's the Islamic radical agenda. They haven't been secretive about their goals. First, they want to wipe Israel off the map and remove all western influence from the middle east. Then they want to spread Islam, by force if necessary, across the planet. To be specific, that means that governments around the world will be run by the Ayatollahs. Islam is the only religion permitted by law. Anyone holding onto any other religion will be executed, or if they are lucky, enslaved.
And what was that you were saying again? Oh yeah, all this is Bush's fault.
Good luck in your fantasy world. Elect your favorite liberal pacifist to congress this fall and see what happens. You might want to get a head start on those Koran studies and go shopping for a prayer rug and burkha.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Who is Responsible?
Conventional wisdom these days says that we are all responsible for our own successes and failures. We create our own problems, and have the capacity to solve them. That the measure of a man is how effective he is at meeting life's problems head-on and turning problems into opportunities.
I keep trying to tell myself the same thing. My problems are really opportunities to grow and succeed in life. They are the hot flame that hardens and refines me. They help me grow in wisdom.
Thanks, but I'm at the point where I think it's time to turn down the heat a bit. There seems to be too much being thrown at me at once this summer, and I'm ready to surrender. Stress makes me stupid - I almost took a bad job just for the change, and health insurance. I've been working like a maniac, but somehow it's never enough. I've been trying to make everyone happy, but nobody is; especially me.
When there are too many problems that I can't solve, I feel out of control. This is one of those times. I know I must snap out of it, and solve the problems. But right now I'd rather just hide out for awhile.
Somehow over the course of the next few weeks I'll find a way to make things a little better. But just temporarily better, not solved.
Gotta stop before I give away what I must keep to myself.
I keep trying to tell myself the same thing. My problems are really opportunities to grow and succeed in life. They are the hot flame that hardens and refines me. They help me grow in wisdom.
Thanks, but I'm at the point where I think it's time to turn down the heat a bit. There seems to be too much being thrown at me at once this summer, and I'm ready to surrender. Stress makes me stupid - I almost took a bad job just for the change, and health insurance. I've been working like a maniac, but somehow it's never enough. I've been trying to make everyone happy, but nobody is; especially me.
When there are too many problems that I can't solve, I feel out of control. This is one of those times. I know I must snap out of it, and solve the problems. But right now I'd rather just hide out for awhile.
Somehow over the course of the next few weeks I'll find a way to make things a little better. But just temporarily better, not solved.
Gotta stop before I give away what I must keep to myself.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Wishing for a Weekend
This whole exile thing doesn't seem such a good idea at this moment. Between the stress of working long hours for the clients I'm visiting, I've also been hit with a variety of urgent things I also have to do. It's too much work, too much stress, too much frustration.
Enough of that.
The last few days I've been at a casino. It's full of grey/white/blue-haired folks. There's a continental breakfast off the lobby that was so jammed with elders this morning I didn't get much and couldn't sit down to eat. Is that what retirees do these days? Go spend a weekend at some casino? That doesn't seem like much fun to me, but I guess the casinos love the old folks.
Between state lotteries and the spread of casinos across the country, I'm more than a little disgusted. I'm old enough to remember when gambling was considered a kind of lowbrow and sinful activity. Now everybody does it, and the government loves it.
Lotteries are taxes on poor and stupid people. I've met many folks during my lifetime who routinely buy their quota of lottery tickets in the sad belief that someday the numbers will come up and make them rich. Maybe it's not much to worry about for many of those people, but the really poor are getting poorer chasing that impossible dream.
The big secret about what happens to towns when casinos arrive isn't all the locals who get the low-paying jobs there. Is everybody really OK with the increase in crime that comes with the casinos? Is replacing the manufacturing jobs that went overseas with casino jobs at half the pay worth the side effects of drugs, theft, prostitution, etc.?
Yeah, I do a lot of consulting for casino companies. So it's true that I'm making part of my living in the same industry. It presents a bit of a dilemma for me, working for the very businesses I find distasteful.
Maybe I can fall into a pile of money so I don't have to work for the evil casinos. At least I, who never gamble, get about the same odds of coming into big money as those who spend money they don't have on lottery tickets and casino games.
Enough of that.
The last few days I've been at a casino. It's full of grey/white/blue-haired folks. There's a continental breakfast off the lobby that was so jammed with elders this morning I didn't get much and couldn't sit down to eat. Is that what retirees do these days? Go spend a weekend at some casino? That doesn't seem like much fun to me, but I guess the casinos love the old folks.
Between state lotteries and the spread of casinos across the country, I'm more than a little disgusted. I'm old enough to remember when gambling was considered a kind of lowbrow and sinful activity. Now everybody does it, and the government loves it.
Lotteries are taxes on poor and stupid people. I've met many folks during my lifetime who routinely buy their quota of lottery tickets in the sad belief that someday the numbers will come up and make them rich. Maybe it's not much to worry about for many of those people, but the really poor are getting poorer chasing that impossible dream.
The big secret about what happens to towns when casinos arrive isn't all the locals who get the low-paying jobs there. Is everybody really OK with the increase in crime that comes with the casinos? Is replacing the manufacturing jobs that went overseas with casino jobs at half the pay worth the side effects of drugs, theft, prostitution, etc.?
Yeah, I do a lot of consulting for casino companies. So it's true that I'm making part of my living in the same industry. It presents a bit of a dilemma for me, working for the very businesses I find distasteful.
Maybe I can fall into a pile of money so I don't have to work for the evil casinos. At least I, who never gamble, get about the same odds of coming into big money as those who spend money they don't have on lottery tickets and casino games.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Stem Cells and Terrorists and Gays (Oh my!)
The political stuff is beginning to bore me, but I'll go ahead and post my particular take on the things that have been happening over the last week.
How about using the order established in the title.
Stem Cells. The argument's been going on for several years. People like the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan have all been publicly lobbying for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I've heard both side of the argument. Proponents say that embryonic stem cells have a potential for curing damaged spinal cords, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. (See Reeve, Fox, Reagan). Their emotion-filled argument sounds full of hope that they or their family members could be (or could have been) cured of their terrible diseases, except the evil Bush refused to fund the research.
The other side fears a slippery slope. They have a somewhat cynical view that many proponents of this research are in it to further rationalize abortion than a sincere belief in cures. But their bottom line is that it is immoral to create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying (read, killing) it to search for a cure that isn't even likely.
Here's what I understand about the issue. Embryonic stem cells have not yet proven therapeutic for any disease, despite scientists worldwide apparently working hard in their labs to solve the puzzle. However, adult and placental stem cells, which by the way don't require killing anybody, are already being used successfully to treat all sorts of diseases.
What people on the "pro" side either miss or cynically avoid admitting are the basic facts I outlined above, plus the fact that Bush didn't "ban" stem cell research at all - he merely refuses to fund it with federal tax dollars.
What some people on the "con" side may miss is the fact that nobody is proposing the use of aborted fetuses for this research. They instead are asking permission to obtain unused embryos from fertility clinics. But those on this side who do understand that still oppose the research because #1: They have a moral objection to killing embryos under any circumstances, even from fertility clinics; #2: They are convinced that those who do the research will quickly be back demanding they be allowed to use aborted fetuses or even create embryos themselves for destruction in their research; and #3: They believe there are plenty of private biotech companies doing the research on their own without any help from Uncle Sam, and there's no reason to use tax dollars from people morally opposed to this research to support research that may eventually make some biotech company extremely rich.
So I've got no problem with Bush's veto of the bill out of congress today.
Next, terrorists. It's kind of scary to see the escalating conflict between Israel and their enemies. The crazy thing is everybody from Kofi Annan to CNN to Howard Dean running around blaming the current war on, you guessed it, President Bush. The twisted logic is that if Bush had somehow left Iraq alone, none of this stuff with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas and North Korea would have happened.
Did our invasion of Iraq enrage a lot of radical Islamic terrorist types? Sure. News Flash! War usually does make the enemy hate you more when you fight them. The idea from the pacifists is that we could have somehow brought everyone in the world together to scold the terrorists, as if they were little children, to suddenly love us and stop trying to kill us. Iran, North Korea, and Syria were our enemies in 2001 and they remain our enemies today. Right now they've decided to take on Israel in full-on warfare through their proxies. Next they will do their best to attack American cities.
I know I said it before, but it's really very simple. Aggressors cannot be appeased. Never in history has anyone successfully appeased them. They are either defeated or they win.
Finally, gays. Congress tried to get the gay marriage amendment rolling and failed. They got lots of votes but not the two-thirds it requires. Why did they push this amendment? Was it some sort of campaign stunt, or were they serious?
I'd say both. Conservatives in the House can most definitely use their "Yes" votes to hold off their liberal challengers who mostly think Gay Marriage should be the law of the land. But the fundamental reason they tried the amendment was to keep the courts from forcing it on all of us without our approval. Massachusetts is the first example, and there likely will be other left-wing judges more than happy to dictate the subject against the wishes of the majority.
We live in interesting times.
How about using the order established in the title.
Stem Cells. The argument's been going on for several years. People like the late Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, and Nancy Reagan have all been publicly lobbying for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
I've heard both side of the argument. Proponents say that embryonic stem cells have a potential for curing damaged spinal cords, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. (See Reeve, Fox, Reagan). Their emotion-filled argument sounds full of hope that they or their family members could be (or could have been) cured of their terrible diseases, except the evil Bush refused to fund the research.
The other side fears a slippery slope. They have a somewhat cynical view that many proponents of this research are in it to further rationalize abortion than a sincere belief in cures. But their bottom line is that it is immoral to create a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying (read, killing) it to search for a cure that isn't even likely.
Here's what I understand about the issue. Embryonic stem cells have not yet proven therapeutic for any disease, despite scientists worldwide apparently working hard in their labs to solve the puzzle. However, adult and placental stem cells, which by the way don't require killing anybody, are already being used successfully to treat all sorts of diseases.
What people on the "pro" side either miss or cynically avoid admitting are the basic facts I outlined above, plus the fact that Bush didn't "ban" stem cell research at all - he merely refuses to fund it with federal tax dollars.
What some people on the "con" side may miss is the fact that nobody is proposing the use of aborted fetuses for this research. They instead are asking permission to obtain unused embryos from fertility clinics. But those on this side who do understand that still oppose the research because #1: They have a moral objection to killing embryos under any circumstances, even from fertility clinics; #2: They are convinced that those who do the research will quickly be back demanding they be allowed to use aborted fetuses or even create embryos themselves for destruction in their research; and #3: They believe there are plenty of private biotech companies doing the research on their own without any help from Uncle Sam, and there's no reason to use tax dollars from people morally opposed to this research to support research that may eventually make some biotech company extremely rich.
So I've got no problem with Bush's veto of the bill out of congress today.
Next, terrorists. It's kind of scary to see the escalating conflict between Israel and their enemies. The crazy thing is everybody from Kofi Annan to CNN to Howard Dean running around blaming the current war on, you guessed it, President Bush. The twisted logic is that if Bush had somehow left Iraq alone, none of this stuff with Iran and Syria and Hezbollah and Hamas and North Korea would have happened.
Did our invasion of Iraq enrage a lot of radical Islamic terrorist types? Sure. News Flash! War usually does make the enemy hate you more when you fight them. The idea from the pacifists is that we could have somehow brought everyone in the world together to scold the terrorists, as if they were little children, to suddenly love us and stop trying to kill us. Iran, North Korea, and Syria were our enemies in 2001 and they remain our enemies today. Right now they've decided to take on Israel in full-on warfare through their proxies. Next they will do their best to attack American cities.
I know I said it before, but it's really very simple. Aggressors cannot be appeased. Never in history has anyone successfully appeased them. They are either defeated or they win.
Finally, gays. Congress tried to get the gay marriage amendment rolling and failed. They got lots of votes but not the two-thirds it requires. Why did they push this amendment? Was it some sort of campaign stunt, or were they serious?
I'd say both. Conservatives in the House can most definitely use their "Yes" votes to hold off their liberal challengers who mostly think Gay Marriage should be the law of the land. But the fundamental reason they tried the amendment was to keep the courts from forcing it on all of us without our approval. Massachusetts is the first example, and there likely will be other left-wing judges more than happy to dictate the subject against the wishes of the majority.
We live in interesting times.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Exile
My 2 week exile is underway. Just finished in DC with a day that went 8-8, and now here I am writing a blog entry for reasons I can't quite fathom. Maybe because I usually go 8-9 and feel like I have to do something with the extra hour.
Tomorrow an early-morning flight to Seattle. And I actually look forward to it a bit, because I don't have to do any actual work, and nobody will be able to reach me because the airlines make you turn off your cellphones during flight. Hopefully my upgrade went through and I can sit back in first class with a good book to pass the time.
Not that anybody cares, but the rest of my exile is a return flight to DC next weekend with the same trip back to Seattle again same time, next week. If I'm lucky, the exile will end before August rolls around.
This post was going to have a bit more, but I just got a big reminder from somewhere behind my navel that it's time to stop messing around and get some food.
Tomorrow an early-morning flight to Seattle. And I actually look forward to it a bit, because I don't have to do any actual work, and nobody will be able to reach me because the airlines make you turn off your cellphones during flight. Hopefully my upgrade went through and I can sit back in first class with a good book to pass the time.
Not that anybody cares, but the rest of my exile is a return flight to DC next weekend with the same trip back to Seattle again same time, next week. If I'm lucky, the exile will end before August rolls around.
This post was going to have a bit more, but I just got a big reminder from somewhere behind my navel that it's time to stop messing around and get some food.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Back to the 70's
Had an all-70's web radio playing while I worked yesterday, and it got me thinking about the evolution of popular music.
Call me biased, since of course the 70's is the decade in which I came of age, but I think it might be the best music decade in the modern era. Let me make the case.
Reason #1: Some of the greatest bands and artists made timeless classics.
Many of these are still around, and others are iconic. Just a short list:
Aerosmith, The Who, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Elton John, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Eagles, Genesis, Boston, Nugent, Clapton, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan. I probably forgot somebody important.
Reason #2: Music so good I personally haven't heard better since.
There were the bands and artists so well known that I listed above, but some of my favorites have never been duplicated.
My personal all-time favorites were Chicago, Harry Chapin, Jim Croce, and I, uh, had this crush on Olivia.
Reason #3: There was something for everyone.
From acid or metal to folk, there was a lot of great music for any taste. I was a great fan of Chapin's story songs. Others enjoyed Carly Simon and James Taylor (who by the way were married briefly back then).
We've gotta give Barry Manilow his due. I find it rather funny that nobody will admit to ever being a Manilow fan, but somebody had to be to explain his huge album sales and airplay. OK, I admit that I sort of liked Manilow. I listened to him when he came on the radio, saw him in concert once, and even did one of his songs as a solo in U. Singers.
Then there's disco. I think everybody who hates or makes fun of disco missed the point. Disco never tried to be about serious music. It was all about fun. And the girls were really into the disco dancing scene, which meant guys actually went out and learned the Hustle for the sole purpose of meeting them. Listen to the Bee Gees and Donna Summer and the Village People, and I think you'll hear that they're not about anything but having a good time.
Generally what I miss most about the music of the 70's in contrast to today's popular music is the spirit. In the 70's, music was about love and fun and hopefulness. Sure, lots of songs were kind of sappy by today's terms, but I don't have a problem with that. Today's music seems much more cynical and worldly and much less soulful. And in my humble opinion, it's hard to find an artist these days that can actually sing with range and pitch and tone. It seems like these days, good singers need not apply.
I think I'll listen to that 70's station some more. It takes me back, bringing some feelings and memories of people and events I haven't thought about in a long time.
Call me biased, since of course the 70's is the decade in which I came of age, but I think it might be the best music decade in the modern era. Let me make the case.
Reason #1: Some of the greatest bands and artists made timeless classics.
Many of these are still around, and others are iconic. Just a short list:
Aerosmith, The Who, Elton John, Rolling Stones, Elton John, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Eagles, Genesis, Boston, Nugent, Clapton, Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan. I probably forgot somebody important.
Reason #2: Music so good I personally haven't heard better since.
There were the bands and artists so well known that I listed above, but some of my favorites have never been duplicated.
My personal all-time favorites were Chicago, Harry Chapin, Jim Croce, and I, uh, had this crush on Olivia.
Reason #3: There was something for everyone.
From acid or metal to folk, there was a lot of great music for any taste. I was a great fan of Chapin's story songs. Others enjoyed Carly Simon and James Taylor (who by the way were married briefly back then).
We've gotta give Barry Manilow his due. I find it rather funny that nobody will admit to ever being a Manilow fan, but somebody had to be to explain his huge album sales and airplay. OK, I admit that I sort of liked Manilow. I listened to him when he came on the radio, saw him in concert once, and even did one of his songs as a solo in U. Singers.
Then there's disco. I think everybody who hates or makes fun of disco missed the point. Disco never tried to be about serious music. It was all about fun. And the girls were really into the disco dancing scene, which meant guys actually went out and learned the Hustle for the sole purpose of meeting them. Listen to the Bee Gees and Donna Summer and the Village People, and I think you'll hear that they're not about anything but having a good time.
Generally what I miss most about the music of the 70's in contrast to today's popular music is the spirit. In the 70's, music was about love and fun and hopefulness. Sure, lots of songs were kind of sappy by today's terms, but I don't have a problem with that. Today's music seems much more cynical and worldly and much less soulful. And in my humble opinion, it's hard to find an artist these days that can actually sing with range and pitch and tone. It seems like these days, good singers need not apply.
I think I'll listen to that 70's station some more. It takes me back, bringing some feelings and memories of people and events I haven't thought about in a long time.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Inevitable
The mess in the middle east continues. An emboldened Hamas ratchets up the conflict with Israel, which in turn emboldens Hezbollah to do the same. Is peace in that region a pipe dream, or has everyone just been looking in the wrong places for peace?
Going back to the original speech by the President in the buildup to the Iraq war, we can still point to the forces of evil in the world named by him: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. The only thing that has changed is Iraq, which isn't a state sponsor of terrorism but is going through the birth pains of a democratic state. Iran and Syria are still out there, arming and moving "insurgents" into Iraq and pulling the strings of both Hamas and Hezbollah.
The constant warring and turmoil could be stopped in a number of ways. For example, if the UN was an effective organization rather than the corrupt and dysfunctional waste of money it is today, they should get together to solve the problem.
The solution is simple: Work with Israel to draw the lines between Israel and Palestine, then send a multinational force to enforce those borders indefinitely. And enforcement doesn't mean a bunch of unarmed blue helmets standing around making good targets for terrorists. It means a force armed to the teeth that puts up with no nonsense. Anybody who violates the border or tosses rockets across the border or otherwise threatens the peace is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly until such activities cease.
Iran stops building nukes or we take out the facilities. They and Syria stop supporting terrorists or we build a big wall around their countries through which nothing comes out or goes in.
Basically, the US could do all these things all by ourselves if we wanted to, but such an action will be so opposed as to make the Iraq war opposition look trite. Because too many people in this country and the world live in a fantasy world where all that needs to be done is discuss these things reasonably with combatants until they see the light and voluntarily choose peace.
Iran and Syria are behind an Islamic jihad. There is a clearly stated goal of erasing Israel from the planet, then bringing about a world dominated by Islam. From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, talks and peace plans and "frameworks" have taken place on a nearly continuous basis until Israel was finally convinced to give up territories to the Palestinians in return for peace. See what that got them.
My reading of history suggests that no aggressor has never been successfully appeased. They either attack and win or are defeated. Peace must be won, not negotiated.
As much as we wish there was another way, there is not. We can solve the problem through strength and resolve now, or be pulled into a long, difficult, and costly war later. Unfortunately the world's leaders are committed to later.
Going back to the original speech by the President in the buildup to the Iraq war, we can still point to the forces of evil in the world named by him: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. The only thing that has changed is Iraq, which isn't a state sponsor of terrorism but is going through the birth pains of a democratic state. Iran and Syria are still out there, arming and moving "insurgents" into Iraq and pulling the strings of both Hamas and Hezbollah.
The constant warring and turmoil could be stopped in a number of ways. For example, if the UN was an effective organization rather than the corrupt and dysfunctional waste of money it is today, they should get together to solve the problem.
The solution is simple: Work with Israel to draw the lines between Israel and Palestine, then send a multinational force to enforce those borders indefinitely. And enforcement doesn't mean a bunch of unarmed blue helmets standing around making good targets for terrorists. It means a force armed to the teeth that puts up with no nonsense. Anybody who violates the border or tosses rockets across the border or otherwise threatens the peace is dealt with swiftly and ruthlessly until such activities cease.
Iran stops building nukes or we take out the facilities. They and Syria stop supporting terrorists or we build a big wall around their countries through which nothing comes out or goes in.
Basically, the US could do all these things all by ourselves if we wanted to, but such an action will be so opposed as to make the Iraq war opposition look trite. Because too many people in this country and the world live in a fantasy world where all that needs to be done is discuss these things reasonably with combatants until they see the light and voluntarily choose peace.
Iran and Syria are behind an Islamic jihad. There is a clearly stated goal of erasing Israel from the planet, then bringing about a world dominated by Islam. From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, talks and peace plans and "frameworks" have taken place on a nearly continuous basis until Israel was finally convinced to give up territories to the Palestinians in return for peace. See what that got them.
My reading of history suggests that no aggressor has never been successfully appeased. They either attack and win or are defeated. Peace must be won, not negotiated.
As much as we wish there was another way, there is not. We can solve the problem through strength and resolve now, or be pulled into a long, difficult, and costly war later. Unfortunately the world's leaders are committed to later.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
American Mythology
There is a great deal of mythology happening in the American public discourse. Any reasoned and logical analysis of the kinds of political arguments being made these days would have to conclude that the most commonly held beliefs held by people and promulgated by those who stand to benefit from them are mythological rather than factual.
Here's a long list of mythological theories held by huge segments of the population:
Here's a long list of mythological theories held by huge segments of the population:
- "Bush lied" - complete myth promulgated by the anti-war crowd, continuing in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.
- Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al broke the law by exposing the name of Valerie Plame.
- High oil prices are because of some Bush/Cheney scheme to enrich their buddies in the oil business.
- Illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won't do.
- Raising the minimum wage to $6 or $6.50 would wreck the economy.
- There are no anti-trust violations in corporate America, or mega-monopolistic corporations aren't a problem.
- Tax cuts only benefited the "rich".
- Network and NY Times reporting is fair and unbiased.
- Republicans are more fiscally responsible than Democrats.
- Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans.
- The US Senate is in touch and cares about what's best for their consituents.
- Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats.
- Right-wing conservatives want to make the US a theocracy.
- Democrats have a plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
- Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq and the War on Terror.
- There were no WMD in Iraq.
- If we just stop "meddling" in the middle east, the terrorists will become our friends, or at least leave us alone.
- The Iranian nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
- The Iranian nuclear threat is Clinton's fault.
- The North Korean nuclear threat is Bush's fault.
- The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese are our friends.
- The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese would be our friends if it wasn't for Bush.
- Government deficits exist because the rich aren't taxed enough.
- 9/11 was an "inside job".
- All conservatives are racists or fascists.
- All liberals are communists.
- Prisoners in Iraq and Gitmo are routinely tortured by American troops under the direction of the Bush administration.
- Abortion is a fundamental human right, not infanticide.
- It's not possible to secure the borders.
- It's not possible to enforce laws against employers hiring illegal immigrants.
- Politicians refust to solve the illegal immigration problem because they care about the welfare of immigrants.
- The Supreme Court makes all decisions strictly on interpretation of U.S. law and the constitution.
- American "war criminal" troops routinely murder, rape, and loot innocent Iraqis.
- Bush "stole" both his elections for President.
- Colleges and Universities are havens for diversity of thought and freedom of expression of all ideas and philosophies.
- The NY Times has the right to publish details of classified intelligence programs to expose a president that has overreached his powers, even if such publication damages efforts to protect the country from terrorist attack.
- Congressmen aren't beholden to big special-interest donors, and don't pass or block legislation to favor those who help keep them in office. Such as coporate interests, foreign interests (China), trade unions, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, banks and investment firms, environmental organizations, George Soros, etc.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Back to Work
Getting a four day weekend after not a day off all year was fantastic. Trip to Goshen and a lazy 4th were a nice combination to recharge batteries a bit. The main problem was that I really didn't want to go back to work on Wednesday.
Wednesday was crazy enough that it seemed to justify my reluctance to return.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just work whenever we felt like it and still be able to pay the bills? There's a dream job for ya. Show up whenever you like, leave when you're done or just have had enough. If you wake up one morning and the sun is shining, just skip work and go play golf. Or you wake up and feel rotten, just turn over and go back to sleep.
How many days would we work per month if we had such dream jobs? Or would they really be dream jobs after awhile? If the job isn't important enough that you can just skip out whenever you feel the urge, would you ever really want to show up? I think eventually most of us would end up trying to find something more challenging, or we would just show up every day and try to make something out of the job that makes us feel useful.
Life's dilemma, I suppose. What's worthwhile is very difficult. What's easy is boring and unsatisfying. We can choose.
Wednesday was crazy enough that it seemed to justify my reluctance to return.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just work whenever we felt like it and still be able to pay the bills? There's a dream job for ya. Show up whenever you like, leave when you're done or just have had enough. If you wake up one morning and the sun is shining, just skip work and go play golf. Or you wake up and feel rotten, just turn over and go back to sleep.
How many days would we work per month if we had such dream jobs? Or would they really be dream jobs after awhile? If the job isn't important enough that you can just skip out whenever you feel the urge, would you ever really want to show up? I think eventually most of us would end up trying to find something more challenging, or we would just show up every day and try to make something out of the job that makes us feel useful.
Life's dilemma, I suppose. What's worthwhile is very difficult. What's easy is boring and unsatisfying. We can choose.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Boy Do I Need a Vacation
The last time I had a day off that wasn't on a weekend was back around Christmastime. I recall looking forward to Memorial Day, because finally I could have a 3-day weekend. But something came up, and I worked Memorial Day.
So this long holiday weekend has got me sort of excited. I plan to take the whole weekend, including a trip to Goshen on Sunday and Monday. Back to work Wednesday, which will be quite a busy return.
Actually went on an interview today. Confirmed it's too far to commute, and although if they offer me a solid salary and benefits package it will be tempting, my gut tells me I don't want to uproot for it. No need to worry about it now. They will either offer or they won't. If they do, then I have to decide. I'd rather convince them to contract me, which seems the best solution for both parties.
On the drive, I picked up Air America on the radio. Talk about a parallel universe. The nicest thing I can say is, those people are nuts. I couldn't listen very long, because the whole thing was bizarre and just a bit scary.
How to describe Air America? The bottom line of the radio network starts from a visceral and irrational hatred of the President. The host started off her show by crowing (yes, it did sound like a crow) about how the Supreme Court "slapped down Bush". She was so excited, you would have thought the President had actually been physically assaulted. No analysis of the decision, no factual or thoughtful analysis of the decision itself. Just celebration, because the hated Bush didn't get his way on how to try the terrorists held in Guantanamo.
Oh, by the way, from Air America's perspective, the "detainees" at Gitmo aren't terrorists. They are just unfortunate slobs that got caught up in George Adolph Hitler Bush's reign of terror. I couldn't tell for certain whether she thought they were innocent, or just supported them because they would jump at the chance to shoot or blow up the President.
Clearly she lives her life on emotion, the foremost of which is hatred. Why does she (and her cronies at Air America) hate Bush so much? I think I listened long enough to figure that out. She hates him because he stole the presidency from her beloved Al Gore, then added insult to injury by stealing it again from John Kerry. So it really doesn't matter much what he does, she will assume it is done with the worst possible motives.
In her sad world, Bush manufactured the "war on terror" as a key strategy for a carefully planned power grab. Then he pushed through the Patriot Act, uses the NSA to spy on Americans, tracks everybody's financial transactions, incarcerates and tortures innocent people for no good reason, and generally created an intrusive dictatorship designed to control and suppress the population. If there is any justice in the world, Bush will not only be impeached, but tried in the Hague as a war criminal. Everything he does, in her delusional mind, is to advance his evil plan to become dictator.
I wonder what she will say in 2008 when a new president is elected. Gee, if Bush was all about this dictatorial power, why did he give it up? What if a Democrat wins? If Bush is actually spying on you, why haven't you been arrested or harrassed? So it would be OK with you, then, if we just let everybody in Gitmo loose in your home city? Oh yeah, one more thing - if Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, how do you explain the reports coming out now about the 500+ chemical warheads found and the Iraqi government documents describing specific plans to use a variety of such weapons on the US?
Facts are funny things when they refute such deeply held beliefs.
So this long holiday weekend has got me sort of excited. I plan to take the whole weekend, including a trip to Goshen on Sunday and Monday. Back to work Wednesday, which will be quite a busy return.
Actually went on an interview today. Confirmed it's too far to commute, and although if they offer me a solid salary and benefits package it will be tempting, my gut tells me I don't want to uproot for it. No need to worry about it now. They will either offer or they won't. If they do, then I have to decide. I'd rather convince them to contract me, which seems the best solution for both parties.
On the drive, I picked up Air America on the radio. Talk about a parallel universe. The nicest thing I can say is, those people are nuts. I couldn't listen very long, because the whole thing was bizarre and just a bit scary.
How to describe Air America? The bottom line of the radio network starts from a visceral and irrational hatred of the President. The host started off her show by crowing (yes, it did sound like a crow) about how the Supreme Court "slapped down Bush". She was so excited, you would have thought the President had actually been physically assaulted. No analysis of the decision, no factual or thoughtful analysis of the decision itself. Just celebration, because the hated Bush didn't get his way on how to try the terrorists held in Guantanamo.
Oh, by the way, from Air America's perspective, the "detainees" at Gitmo aren't terrorists. They are just unfortunate slobs that got caught up in George Adolph Hitler Bush's reign of terror. I couldn't tell for certain whether she thought they were innocent, or just supported them because they would jump at the chance to shoot or blow up the President.
Clearly she lives her life on emotion, the foremost of which is hatred. Why does she (and her cronies at Air America) hate Bush so much? I think I listened long enough to figure that out. She hates him because he stole the presidency from her beloved Al Gore, then added insult to injury by stealing it again from John Kerry. So it really doesn't matter much what he does, she will assume it is done with the worst possible motives.
In her sad world, Bush manufactured the "war on terror" as a key strategy for a carefully planned power grab. Then he pushed through the Patriot Act, uses the NSA to spy on Americans, tracks everybody's financial transactions, incarcerates and tortures innocent people for no good reason, and generally created an intrusive dictatorship designed to control and suppress the population. If there is any justice in the world, Bush will not only be impeached, but tried in the Hague as a war criminal. Everything he does, in her delusional mind, is to advance his evil plan to become dictator.
I wonder what she will say in 2008 when a new president is elected. Gee, if Bush was all about this dictatorial power, why did he give it up? What if a Democrat wins? If Bush is actually spying on you, why haven't you been arrested or harrassed? So it would be OK with you, then, if we just let everybody in Gitmo loose in your home city? Oh yeah, one more thing - if Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq, how do you explain the reports coming out now about the 500+ chemical warheads found and the Iraqi government documents describing specific plans to use a variety of such weapons on the US?
Facts are funny things when they refute such deeply held beliefs.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Pharmacist Persecution?
Heard something briefly that seemed to suggest that Illinois is either considering or has already passed a law forcing pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs. Yes, it's an abortion drug - I think we should call things what they are rather than use euphemisms.
The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.
To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.
Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?
Maybe, maybe not.
Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:
During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.
Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.
It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.
But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.
Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.
I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.
The issue got me thinking. I don't know any specifics about such a law, or even whether it's being seriously considered or already in force in Illinois. But if such a law exists, I have to assume it will and should be challenged to the Supreme Court, as it's clearly unconstitutional.
To me, a pharmacy should have every right to sell or not sell whatever drugs they please. Refusing to dispense an abortion pill because of moral objection to me is no different from refusing to sell tobacco products because they cause cancer or Yoo-Hoo drinks because they are fattening. If you want that stuff, you're just going to have to go somewhere else that will happily take your money.
Taking it to the next level, what if a pharmacy that does sell abortion pills has a pharmacist employee with a moral objection? Would firing that pharmacist for refusing to fill prescriptions of the abortifacient fairly represent religious persecution?
Maybe, maybe not.
Here's one example where I would think the firing of a pharmacist refusing to fill such prescriptions might be justified:
During the hiring process, the pharmacy owner or manager was clear with the pharmacist employee on the fact that this pharmacy dispenses abortion pills. As such, they understand that some pharmacists may have a moral problem with providing the means to an abortion to any customer. Therefore, in the interest of full disclosure, they tell the new pharmacist that it is their company's policy that no prescriptions may be refused except under specific circumstances such as suspicion of fraud, etc.
Under this scenario, the new pharmacist agrees to the terms of employment, then begins refusing to fill abortion pill prescriptions. I'd say it's OK to fire the pharmacist in this situation, because he or she knowingly accepted the position and confirmed that they understood the conditions of employment included dispensing drugs they might find morally offensive.
It would be no different from a retail store with their biggest sales day on Saturday that could not hire or keep a seventh day adventist or observant jew who cannot disobey their religious admonition against working on the Sabbath. Or the restaurant that's biggest day is Sunday, which would not be able to hire or keep wait staff that cannot work Sunday because of their deeply held Christian values. The employer has a choice to either hire someone and accept the fact of one day a week they will not work, or the employee has the choice to take the job and work on the Sabbath or find a job that does not include that requirement.
But other scenarios seem somewhat less clear-cut. Consider an older pharmacist who has been at the same pharmacy for 20 or 30 years. When the abortion pills were approved and began to be distributed, the pharmacist went to management and explained his moral objection to this particular drug. Management at that time was understanding and agreed that they would not force the pharmacist to dispense this particular drug.
Then new management took over, whether through a merger or just turnover of management staff. And the new management has no patience for the older pharmacist, telling him he will dispense the drug from now on or face termination. That I think is religious discrimination.
I suppose there could be plenty of scenarios in between my two examples. But generally, I believe there should be no laws aimed at forcing people to break their own moral laws.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Global Warming: Science or Politics?
There's too much to absorb in this topic if you're someone like me who likes to decide for himself about the issues of the day by researching the underlying data, finding out what "experts" think, listening to arguments pro and con, then making an informed decision.
With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.
The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:
1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?
I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.
The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.
We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.
Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.
So what to believe? Who to believe?
Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.
Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.
Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.
Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.
Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?
If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?
And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.
Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.
You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.
With the topic of global warming, it's impossible. Based on all the information I've been able to gather, I'm close to concluding the "experts" don't really have a definitive answer either.
The unanswered questions about this topic are legion, but here are the important ones:
1. Is global warming really happening?
2. If so, is it caused by human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, other natural causes, or just normal climate cycles?
3. If it is cause by human invention, is it possible to reverse by some aggressive "green" policies that significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse emissions?
I can see how a resident of Los Angeles can go outside and look at the brown haze covering the valley and believe that humans are destroying the earth with their cars, trucks and suv's. Maybe they don't escape that smog bowl often enough to see that the rest of the country isn't really all that bad.
The most overwrought of greenies predicted global calamities, such as coastal cities under water. But they also predicted those events would occur several years ago, if I remember correctly. And that didn't happen.
We had a heavy hurricane season last year. Who can forget Katrina? Plenty of green alarmists are still screaming that it was caused by global warming. But the guys at the National Hurricane center, who I assume to be the leading experts on hurricanes, have been adamant and authoritative in stating that global warming had nothing to do with it. Hurricane seasons go in cycles, they say, and we're in a peak cycle.
Other seemingly sane scientists, according to what I've read, have said those who predict doom for the planet based on rising temperatures just don't know their climate history very well. If I understood correctly, as recently as 1930 we had a nearly identical melting of arctic glaciers. And global temperatures got colder than usual in the 60's and 70's. I've even come across alarmists in the 70's who were claiming catastrophic global cooling that was certain to lead to a new ice age.
So what to believe? Who to believe?
Here's my thought for now. Look at the loudest proponents of one side or the other, and think about what they might have to gain.
Al Gore: The self-anointed global climatologist who wants to be President. Hmm, the core Democrat base are greens, which means he could grab the extra votes from radical greens away from Ralph Nader and maybe get just enough from them to put him over the top against whoever the Republicans run. Yeah, I'd say he has ulterior motives. And I also think he's a nutcase.
Radical Environmentalists: They come from all sorts of places, like the Green Party and Earth First and The Sierra Club and PETA. All of those organizations are not only radical environmental groups that worship Mother Earth like pagans; they also are uniformly communist in their political philosophy. So their agenda may include a pristine environment, but it also includes the overthrow of our Republic in favor of Soviet-style communism.
Bush, Cheney, et al: They come from Texas and the oil industry. Therefore, the assumption is made that they will be happy to sacrifice the well-being of the planet to keep their beloved oil industry fat and wealthy. The evidence? Why, the war in Iraq, their political enemies will say.
"Blood for Oil". Trying to get approval to drill in the ANWR.
Honestly, I would have to say that Bush does appear to be overly friendly to Corporate interests. His position on illegal immigration is strong and visible proof of that. But from what I see, it's not focused just on the oil industry; he's obsequious to Corporate America in general. If there's evidence that some cheap alternative to gasoline is actually being suppressed by the government in order to keep us addicted to oil, show me. But people have had those conspiracy theories since the oil crisis in the 70's, and nobody ever found evidence to support them. Besides, suppose somebody came up with a fuel that burned clean and cost a fraction of gasoline to power vehicles. Does anybody really believe that any government on the planet could suppress such a breakthrough in technology, especially in a free market system such as ours?
If the Iraq war really was a simple grab for oil, why didn't we just take the oil when we ousted Saddam? Why are we helping a new government stand up there and helping them rebuild their own oil revenues without even asking for reimbursement for the heavy costs of the war?
And objecting to drilling for oil in ANWR doesn't make any sense to me. The environmental impact is negligible, including to the most highly publicized caribou herds. So why do the greens and their congressional lackeys continue to fight it? I suspect the reasons have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns, and everything to do with harming the economy and by extension the President.
Bottom line, I'm all in favor of reasonable steps to protect the environment. Interesting that even though the US refused to sign on to Kyoto, reports say we're actually closer to compliance with its goals than almost any other country that did sign. And it exempted the world's largest polluters, China and India, who just happen to be the biggest commercial competitors of the US these days because of their cheap labor and lax environmental laws.
You can't say "alternative fuels" and simply declare the problems of oil dependence solved. You can't declare that every car made has to get 50 miles to the gallon if the technology doesn't exist to meet that standard. You can't outlaw coal and nuclear power plants and expect the lights to stay on in everyone's homes for a price people can afford. You can't be a rich liberal proudly driving a Prius to the airport to get on your private jet to fly to your next concert or movie set while sneering at the poor slobs driving 10-year-old gas-guzzlers they can't afford to fill with $3 gas.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Monday Blog Break
This afternoon I'm writing for no better reason than I just wanted to take a break from the drudgery of work.
Let's go with some brief observations.
How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.
If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.
I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.
I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.
And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?
Let's see if I can recap the facts:
Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.
Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:
1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.
It could work. But not from the UN.
Let's go with some brief observations.
How can NBC credibly claim any sense of balance when Meet the Press this Sunday had not one single Republican or Conservative to respond to the litany of idiocy and pandering spouted by their left-wing guests? I turned it off after about 10 minutes of Russ Feingold demonstrating why he is the worst possible choice for the job of Commander in Chief in two years.
If Feingold is being honest, he's a dangerous idiot. If not, he's just a John Kerry clone. I saw Jack Murtha, and sure hope somebody's running against him in his district, because the old coot's senile. Hillary's pandering with her proposal that sounds a lot like what the President and his generals are actually doing, but at least she seems halfway logical.
I think it would be cool if we let North Korea shoot their missile across the Pacific, but take it out in flight with our "Star Wars" system. For one thing, I'm interested to see if the system actually works. For another, just think about the impact that would make on the rest of the world: Go ahead if you want to shoot at us, we'll just knock your missiles out of the air.
I'm wondering how anybody can possibly take the weekend attack in Israel as Israel's fault? Some Hamas militants build a tunnel under the fence from Gaza, which by the way was territory just given them by the Israelis in hope it would lead to peace. They engage the Israeli military in a shootout, then escape back to their territory with a captive Israeli soldier.
And this was Israel's fault how? And Israel should give them even more territory why?
Let's see if I can recap the facts:
Israel's a soverign nation. They have prospered and built an oasis in what used to be an impoverished desert region. They employ Palestinian Arabs and help them prosper as well, as long as those Arabs don't shoot at them or blow them up. They have agreed in principle, and have actually ceded big chunks of their territory to allow the Palestinians their own country.
Again, in what way exactly does this make Israel the villain in this conflict? Sometimes the road to peace isn't through pacifism, but victory. If the UN was anything close to an effective organization, here's what they should do:
1. Broker a final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians for borders and peace.
2. Help both countries create that border and enforce it with International Troops. Bill both countries for the security forces.
3. Impose severe sanctions on anybody that disrupts the peace. Do this in every way possible, including incarceration of individual terrorists up to financial sanctions on the government that might have supported them in any way.
It could work. But not from the UN.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
PC Religion
Something's been bothering me for a long time now. After reading an article in the local paper praising this trend I feel a strong need to vent. The article was from Mona Safley, a local religion writer who just last week wrote a piece about accepting and embracing homosexuals because Jesus would have. She has a habit of missing or distorting the truth.
PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.
I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".
A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)
So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)
They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.
Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.
But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?
I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.
Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.
The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.
And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.
PC is running amok in churches these days. The one place I had always hoped would remain a refuge from the insanity of popular culture has joined that very popular culture.
I'm talking about something called "inclusiveness".
A few activist feminists in churches have decided it's offensive that so much of what goes on there violates their sensitivities by calling God "The Father". 200 year old hymns contain lyrics referring to people as "men" or "mankind". (Show of hands, how many are offended by the phrase "good will toward men" in a hymn we all know by heart?)
So they went about rewriting everything they could get their hands on. Ancient hymns I used to be able to sing without cracking the hymnal have now been rewritten so thoroughly that sometimes they don't even convey the same message. (Some hymnals have replaced or rewritten verses that refer to uncomfortable issues like "sin" and "repentance" because we don't want any sinners to feel bad)
They've even rewritten the entire Bible into the New Revised Standard Inclusive Edition, which has completely neutered God.
Our singing group did a kind of tour of local churches over the last few weeks. In two of these churches, the theology of inclusiveness was in full display. The first church's female pastor was making opening remarks before the service, during which she apologized to the congregation because that day's service included the singing of the Gloria Patri. The apology was that this ancient piece of sacred music was not "as inclusive as we here at (church name) prefer". But she went on to explain that it was an ancient traditional song that had long been sung on this particular Sunday. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Another church had the "inclusive" hymnals of course, which isn't really all that unusual. I did get sort of caught singing a favorite old hymn without looking at the words, but nobody seemed to notice when I sang the offensive male-gender lyric in place of its neutered replacement.
But it was during the sermon that it hit like fingernails on the chalkboard. The pastor (a male this time) on several occasions chose to refer to God as "she" or "her". Why wreck an otherwise good sermon with such hubris?
I cantor regularly in the Catholic Church, which officially frowns on the "inclusive language" movement. But that doesn't stop local parishes from forging ahead. My personal little act of disobedience in the big church that we mostly don't attend anymore was to ignore the instructions to replace the text in the Gloria. I refused to change "and peace to His people on earth" to "and peace to God's people on earth". But nobody ever confronted me about it.
Here's my bottom line. God self-identifies himself in the masculine. The Bible is full of teaching on the roles of men and women that our modern feminist society can't accept. What people fail to recognize most of all is that Christianity in no way seeks to demean or oppress women. What it clearly does instead is honors women, and teaches that men and women were created to complement each other.
The truth, even though it may offend modern feminists, is this: Men are given certain abilities and strengths and women are given other abilities and strengths. Together, a man and woman can make a great team if they recognize and honor the capabilities of each other.
And if people spend all their time being offended at hearing God referred to as Father, then I suggest they may be more focused on things temporal than things divine.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Consulting Kookiness
Got a rather funny email today originating from the software company I do a lot of my contract consulting for these days. New rule: If you pay for a meal with a credit card, the receipt can't be the credit card receipt. It has to be one that shows what you actually ordered.
What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.
It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.
Here's how it works:
Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.
Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.
Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.
The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)
So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!
You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.
Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.
Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.
What's funny about that is the idea that somebody out there searches through every receipt from every consultant expense invoice, looking for something to question. It's an old practice that is really kind of ridiculous, where somebody actually gets paid (or maybe gets some odd kick) to look at every single receipt.
It's not because they are being thorough, although it is partially to keep consultants honest. The real reason, as I discovered back in my consulting management days, is to delay payment as long as humanly possible.
Here's how it works:
Consulting delivered, expense report processed, invoice sent to customer. Customer demands copies of all receipts in order to approve any expenses for payment.
Photocopies of receipts sometimes don't come out very clearly. So they reject the entire expense invoice until the company provides a legible receipt.
Receipts sometimes are handwritten. Rejected for illegibility.
The receipt doesn't match the invoice. For example, the consultant forgot to include the tip when charging a meal. Rejected for unmatched amount. (even though it's in the customer's favor)
So imagine what the game is now, with this new demand to see the actual meal. Let me guess: An alcoholic beverage with dinner - rejected. Meal included steak, or heaven forbid, veal - rejected by the vegan chick who reviews the receipts! Ordered dessert - rejected. The tip for the waitress was more than 10% - rejected!
You see, there's already a sort of daily meal maximum. Most reasonable customers don't mind if you exceed it now and then - say you're in town for the whole week and you want to have dinner at a decent restaurant one night. Generally no sweat. You only spent $20 to $30 bucks a day, and on one day it went up to $50. No biggie.
Except for the type of customer that makes these sorts of demands. They will hold up payment on every invoice you sent them over the last 6 months because they are questioning a $2 discrepancy on a single expense report. You think I'm exaggerating? Nope, I've actually seen it happen. Again, not because they're worried about getting ripped off by shady consultants padding their expenses. The real truth is they just use it as an excuse to keep from paying their bill.
Personally, if I had a contract opportunity with a company I knew played such games, I wouldn't take it. Or I'd demand a rate high enough to compensate for the hassle, not to mention make up for the slow-paying customer.
Friday Not Really
Normally I'd be happy for Friday. Not this week, because it's not a normal Friday. I've got so much work to do that I'll be late again today, then have to come back in to the office on Saturday. But not Sunday - that's a non-workday no matter what.
Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.
Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.
They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.
The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.
Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?
Who knows.
Sad to see the US out of the World Cup. Since I got home after 10 last night, I just replayed the first half. Apparently that's all I really needed to see, as no other goals were scored.
Sure, the penalty kick was a terrible call. So was at least one, if not both of the red cards in the Italy game. It does seem rather suspicious to see the US singled out for so many bad calls. But they can't totally blame the referees for being out of the running.
They wouldn't have beaten Ghana even without the penalty kick. A 1-1 tie would have knocked them out of the competition just as effectively as the loss. The referees didn't really need their terrible calls, if indeed their objective was to drum the US out of the competition, because this US team just couldn't score. One goal in 3 games actually scored by the US team tells the whole story.
The US team plays a ball-control style that kept them in possession most of all 3 games. That's great if you want to play keep-away at midfield all day, but it doesn't get the ball in the net. In every game, whenever the US moved toward the opponent's goal, the other team just stacked up in a human wall. The US guys couldn't get quality shots, let alone score.
Were they not good enough for the World Cup? Results say yes. Was it Bruce Arena's fault? In the sense that he's the head coach, who sets the strategy and chooses the players, sure. This was probably the best team the US could put on the field, but would better coaching have brought out the best of the talent?
Who knows.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Godless
It's the title of a book by Ann Coulter that seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. Seems pretty provocative, as she uses "godless" to describe the political left.
My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.
OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.
But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.
So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.
Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.
Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.
Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?
When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?
Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.
My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.
OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.
But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.
So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.
Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.
Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.
Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?
When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?
Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Ancient Brilliance
I wonder how many people realize that modern society and law are based on the ancient law of Moses? Of which the essentials were boiled down to the 10 commandments.
Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).
He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.
Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.
So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)
1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.
2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.
3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.
4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.
5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.
6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.
7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.
8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.
9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.
10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.
You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.
If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.
Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.
Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.
Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.
That's what morality means.
Now for sake of argument, let's say that Moses wrote them by himself without God's help. (although as a Christian, I tend to believe otherwise).
He then was the most brilliant leader in world history, at least as far as we know.
Because the 10 commandments is a social code of behavior developed to bring order to a very large body of ethnic Jews who suddenly found themselves free in the desert and without any sort of government structure.
So where's the brilliance, you ask? Let me show you:
(paraphrasing)
1. Have no other gods before me: They lived in Egypt, where there were all sorts of gods. Imagine the conflicts that might have caused between people. One God, that's it. Brilliant.
2. No graven images: Don't waste your gold and other precious materials making stupid gods to try to win their favor. Very good idea for a bunch of people wandering the desert with limited resources.
3. Don't take God's name in vain: Watch your mouth. Don't curse or disrespect God. Foul language is offensive in general, but disrespecting God is the worst.
4. Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy: Take a day off every week to rest and gather together for nice peaceful worship. Great for building a unified community. And makes sure everybody, even slaves, get a day off once a week.
5. Honor your father and mother: 'nuff said. What an excellent commandment, if I may say so.
6. Don't Murder: Duh. Strange thing, I get the idea these days it's more like, "don't murder anybody unless they are a total creep." Personally I tend to believe this is a pretty good commandment.
7. Don't commit adultery: Why is this a good commandment? Our society today has a particular problem with this one, because people don't like to be told what to do in this area. But think about it this way: what happens when a man or woman has sex with someone not his or her husband or wife? For starters, they break up their families. The distraught spouse might become suicidal or homicidal or both. They pass around all sorts of horrible diseases. You see, it's actually a very civilized rule.
8. Don't Steal: Seems obvious, but I notice people chip away at this one too. For example, some might find Robin Hood to be virtuous, even though he clearly violated this commandment. Lots of people steal stuff from their parents, siblings, or employers just because they can, or because they make up silly rationalizations for why it's not really "stealing". Bottom line, people going around stealing other people's stuff isn't a very good way to keep a stable society.
9. Don't Lie: It's sad that most people seem to have forgotten this one. Imagine, if like in the Jim Carrey movie nobody was able to tell a lie. It's OK to say nothing if the truth would hurt somebody, but generally speaking, little lies lead to bigger and bigger lies and then, well, it's just a mess.
10. Don't be jealous: Don't be a Democrat (just kidding, sort of). Don't spend all your time looking at somebody who has stuff you don't and thinking you are more deserving of all that stuff than he or she. It also mentions this about the other guy's wife (or woman's husband), which could lead to a violation of #7.
You see, I don't really understand the whole atheist hatred of people like me who take these rules seriously. Because, whether you want to follow the first three or not, they all really are extremely valuable for the building and maintenance of a stable and peaceful society. Not to mention good for everyone in general.
If more people just decided to go ahead and follow these rules for living, I can think of a whole host of social ills that would just go away. You know what I'm talking about - don't say you don't! Greatly reduced divorce, which in turn greatly reduces problem children that grow up to be problem adults who might do things like murder, steal, adulter (is that a verb?). Overall, better communication and unity, where people share common values, communicate better and focus more on God and others than themselves.
Want peace? Just follow the ten commandments and get 10 other people to do the same.
Ultimately most of these rules are hard to enforce. My reading of the context of the commandments is that they are meant to be internalized and followed by people out of free will. They're not rules designed to stop people from having fun, but to help people live full, happy, and peaceful lives.
Translating into morality, Jesus Christ himself said it best when he identified the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love One Another. See, if you internalize those two, the rest of the commandments are merely corollaries.
That's what morality means.
Monday, June 19, 2006
What If
Thinking about a few "What if"s:
What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?
What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?
What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?
What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?
What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?
What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?
What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?
What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?
What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?
What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?
What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?
What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?
What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?
What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?
Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?
Would they make this a better country? A better world?
What if indisputable evidence was found that Saddam had all sorts of WMD in Iraq?
What if that evidence showed that those weapons were in the hands of Iran's Dictator/President?
What if evidence of persecution of Christians in America was made public, such as the girl in Nevada who had her microphone turned off by administrators during her speech because she dared to suggest that her faith was an important part of her experience?
What if studies were publicized that strongly suggested homosexuality was not a natural preference, but was actually due to childhood abuse and disfunctional home environments?
What if every pregnant woman was given an ultrasound that showed her the growing child within before making an abortion decision?
What if the epidemic of STD's was made public and the truth simply stated that the only way to stop it was lifelong fidelity to a single mate?
What if everybody understood that a plurality of their political leaders were beholden to those who pay to keep them in office, not the people who voted for them?
What if every tax we pay was billed separately with everything we buy, and all of our income taxes were billed every month by the federal and state governments so that we had to write a check?
What if a law was passed that no government- federal, state, or local - may exempt or reduce taxes of any sort for any individual or corporation?
What if everyone no longer had any health insurance and had to pay for their health care out of their own personal funds?
What if government-run social programs were required to spend no more than 10% of their budget on administration?
What if companies could not fire or lay off anyone without paying severance based on years of service, especially if the purpose of the layoff is to replace them with illegal (or legal) immigrants who will work for less?
What if the people, through a plurality referendum, could recall their elected officials with a new election before their term ended?
What if there was a "Neither" option on the ballot, and when "Neither" gets the highest number of votes, both candidates are thrown out and new ones must campaign for the office?
Would these things change people's minds? Would they change people's behavior?
Would they make this a better country? A better world?
Thursday, June 15, 2006
World Cup Musings
The best thing about the DVR is that it can capture all the World Cup matches during the day. Then I can speed-watch them at night. I haven't watched one live yet, but will try to catch the US against Italy this weekend.
I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.
The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?
Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.
As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?
I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.
I've seen some pretty amazing players, and some dramatic games. Like yesterday, when it looked like Poland had a 0-0 tie in the bag. They went into extra time just having dodged a major bullet with two German balls hitting the crossbar. But a perfect centering pass to a German who stretched out to redirect the ball into the net killed Poland. Wow.
The US didn't look like they belonged. Even though they controlled the ball for the majority of their match with the Czechs, they got no more than 1 serious scoring chance, while giving up 3. Granted, 2 of the 3 Czech goals were amazing. But isn't that what it takes to compete a the World Cup level?
Offensively, the US seemed to spend most of their time playing keep-away at midfield. They were so plodding and methodical that whenever they began to try advancing the ball toward the Czech box, it was simply taken away by an obviously faster and more skilled team toward a good chance on the US end.
As one who was hoping to see a good effort by the US team in this event, I'm probably as disappointed in this team as anybody. The question is, is the US Team overrated and not good enough for the Cup? Or did they have a nervous and tentative first outing against a very good Czech team, and they can rebound to beat Italy and Ghana to advance to the next round?
I hope for the latter, but suspect the former.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
The Pump Metaphor
A long time ago I spent some time in Real Estate. I got some sales training back then, where a metaphor of a manual garden water pump was used to describe the process of establishing yourself in the market.
I was thinking about that metaphor recently, and think it's a good one not only for salespeople, but for just about any human endeavor. It is certainly true in business. Unfortunately, anybody under 40 years old or has never spent time in the country might not know much about the pumps I'm talking about. Thus the picture.
When I jumped into opening my own business over 2 years ago, after getting my office set up and attending some training, I enthusiastically grabbed the pump handle and started pumping as hard as I could.
But nothing came out at first. "What am I doing wrong?", I wondered. I was working the pump so hard my shoulder was starting to hurt. I was told there is plenty of water in this well, so why can't I seem to get any?
I was out talking to people and business everywhere, using whatever marketing strategies I thought I could afford, joined networking groups, and spread around business cards. But it seemed that none of it was paying off. Everybody was nice, they seemed to appreciate my product and service offerings, but when it came time to decide whether to write the check and move forward, it usually came down to a polite "Not now".
Just as I was beginning to wonder if this endeavor was ever going to get off the ground, I began to get a trickle of water. I was considering giving up, and had actually begun to rest a bit, begin thinking about doing something that wasn't so difficult, and began to reduce my pumping intensity. But right about that time, suddenly a trickle appeared.
Some people began to trust me with small projects. The trickle wasn't getting me what I needed, but it gave me enough encouragement to renew my pumping efforts. After awhile the trickle increased to a stream, then almost before I realized it, a full flow of water. This was exciting and a big relief, because my reservoir was getting very low.
Pretty soon the water filled my containers to capacity. So I had to stop pumping for awhile to carry the water everywhere it needed to go. I worked hard and got the water I had pumped distributed and got high praise from those I served with the fresh water. It was a great feeling.
But then I finished. The water was all distributed and the pump was idle. I had to start over.
So I began pumping again. This time I found I was better at pumping, but it still took awhile before the water began flowing again. And because I was too busy taking care of the immediate needs from last time, I hadn't refilled my reservoir.
This continued through my second year in business. The cycle repeated itself: Pumping vigorously to get a good flow, filling my water capacity, leaving the pump to carry the water, then starting over at the pump. Each time I got better and the dry spells became shorter, but I realized this was a problem.
So here I am today with the dilemma probably most entrepreneurs face at some point. How can I keep the pump going and still get the water carried? The obvious answer is, I need help. I either need someone who's good at pumping to man the pump while I carry the water. Or I need someone who's a good reliable water carrier to carry the water while I keep the pump flowing.
The question is Who? How? When? What? Most importantly, Whether?
Got work to do. The water's overflowing.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
See My Head Spinning
What a week.
I get a "free" week, with plans only to wrap up some administrative stuff, clean up the office, follow up on some marketing leads, that sort of stuff. I thought it would be a fairly easy and relaxed week.
No way.
My head is spinning from all that's happened in two days. All of a sudden I seem to have no less than three suitors; solid companies that are interested in either hiring me full-time or locking me into a big contract. How did that happen?
Not to mention I had my first meeting with a new prospective customer, who then said, "Let's go!". Wow, what if I could get one or two of those a week, I couldn't stand it.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks.
Had to visit the dentist this week. People who think the American military is torturing terrorist prisoners don't know what they're talking about. For me, the dentist chair is torture defined. I absolutely cringe at the very thought of somebody sticking their fingers into my mouth.
Want to get Al Quaeda prisoners to spill their guts? Just form the US 54th Dentist Brigade and send them to Gitmo or wherever. One look at a geeky dentist wielding a drill and the prisoner's will happily give up Osama himself.
And I had to pay an exhorbitant price for the priviledge of 2 hours of torture. It doesn't seem right.
Want to make me gag? Just douse yourself with perfume or cologne or hair spray in my presence, or stick a bite mold in my mouth. At least I didn't throw up all over the Dentist when he stuck that thing in yesterday.
Monday I went to the dentist and survived. Now I feel I can face anything. At least for this week.
I get a "free" week, with plans only to wrap up some administrative stuff, clean up the office, follow up on some marketing leads, that sort of stuff. I thought it would be a fairly easy and relaxed week.
No way.
My head is spinning from all that's happened in two days. All of a sudden I seem to have no less than three suitors; solid companies that are interested in either hiring me full-time or locking me into a big contract. How did that happen?
Not to mention I had my first meeting with a new prospective customer, who then said, "Let's go!". Wow, what if I could get one or two of those a week, I couldn't stand it.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of weeks.
Had to visit the dentist this week. People who think the American military is torturing terrorist prisoners don't know what they're talking about. For me, the dentist chair is torture defined. I absolutely cringe at the very thought of somebody sticking their fingers into my mouth.
Want to get Al Quaeda prisoners to spill their guts? Just form the US 54th Dentist Brigade and send them to Gitmo or wherever. One look at a geeky dentist wielding a drill and the prisoner's will happily give up Osama himself.
And I had to pay an exhorbitant price for the priviledge of 2 hours of torture. It doesn't seem right.
Want to make me gag? Just douse yourself with perfume or cologne or hair spray in my presence, or stick a bite mold in my mouth. At least I didn't throw up all over the Dentist when he stuck that thing in yesterday.
Monday I went to the dentist and survived. Now I feel I can face anything. At least for this week.
Monday, June 05, 2006
For My Own Good
It is time to avoid watching news programs on TV. They do nothing but raise my blood pressure. For example, my flight into O'Hare was delayed Friday night, so I took a break from reading and watched CNN in the terminal for awhile.
It was OK for awhile. This new guy, Glenn Beck, was on first. He was goofy, but sort of likeable in a way. But after his show was over, I found myself wondering what it was about. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't come up with the point after it ended.
But then the guy shows up, I think John Roberts. Apparently he didn't get the anchor job back at, where was it, NBC? So here he's doing a "news" program on CNN. And it is a one-hour advertisement that could have (and maybe was?) produced by the Democrat National Committee. An unbelievable hour of propaganda, complete with one-sided reporting and the presentation of opinions as facts.
I have been sort of avoiding the mainline networks as far as new programming lately, because of their obvious bias. But this was outrageous. At first, I was thinking, "How stupid do they think we are?". But by the end I was thinking, "Maybe most of us really are as stupid as they think."
I haven't figured out whether to be angry or frightened. But if the polls and pundits are right, we won't have much longer to wait to see what happens when the Democrats take charge of the war on terror. That's what frightens me.
Then there's this thing that looks like a public service commercial. It's about HPV. I've been aware that HPV is probably the largest epidemic viral disease we've got these days, so at first I thought it was about time for public service messages.
But then the shocker. The commercial, or psa, or whatever it was, never mentioned what HPV is. Not one word. Nothing telling us that it's an STD. It was even misleading, in that it seemed to suggest it was a relatively benign virus like the common cold. Oh, but it can lead to cervical cancer in women, so women should get their pap tests regularly. No biggie.
What is wrong with this picture?! Like AIDS, HPV is a disease nobody needs to get! Simple monogamy is the best and guaranteed way that nobody will get HPV. What the heck is wrong with saying that?! Why suddenly decide that something needs to be done about the biggest epidemic in our society, then mislead everyone about what the disease is and how it is transmitted?
Unbelievable.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff, in addition to tuning out the news media. It's bad for my health.
It was OK for awhile. This new guy, Glenn Beck, was on first. He was goofy, but sort of likeable in a way. But after his show was over, I found myself wondering what it was about. Maybe I missed it, but I couldn't come up with the point after it ended.
But then the guy shows up, I think John Roberts. Apparently he didn't get the anchor job back at, where was it, NBC? So here he's doing a "news" program on CNN. And it is a one-hour advertisement that could have (and maybe was?) produced by the Democrat National Committee. An unbelievable hour of propaganda, complete with one-sided reporting and the presentation of opinions as facts.
I have been sort of avoiding the mainline networks as far as new programming lately, because of their obvious bias. But this was outrageous. At first, I was thinking, "How stupid do they think we are?". But by the end I was thinking, "Maybe most of us really are as stupid as they think."
I haven't figured out whether to be angry or frightened. But if the polls and pundits are right, we won't have much longer to wait to see what happens when the Democrats take charge of the war on terror. That's what frightens me.
Then there's this thing that looks like a public service commercial. It's about HPV. I've been aware that HPV is probably the largest epidemic viral disease we've got these days, so at first I thought it was about time for public service messages.
But then the shocker. The commercial, or psa, or whatever it was, never mentioned what HPV is. Not one word. Nothing telling us that it's an STD. It was even misleading, in that it seemed to suggest it was a relatively benign virus like the common cold. Oh, but it can lead to cervical cancer in women, so women should get their pap tests regularly. No biggie.
What is wrong with this picture?! Like AIDS, HPV is a disease nobody needs to get! Simple monogamy is the best and guaranteed way that nobody will get HPV. What the heck is wrong with saying that?! Why suddenly decide that something needs to be done about the biggest epidemic in our society, then mislead everyone about what the disease is and how it is transmitted?
Unbelievable.
I've got to stop thinking about this stuff, in addition to tuning out the news media. It's bad for my health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)