The season for my favorite sport has begun. As much as I enjoy watching football, my favorite sport as a player was always hoops. What would you expect, me being a kid growing up in Indiana during the heyday of high school basketball? That is, before the state athletics association went all PC on us and wrecked the high school game with Class Basketball.
I'll get to the Class Basketball travesty another time.
The season has started, and I've seen the Hoosiers and Pacers play.
Indiana is starting over this year with a new coach. Kelvin Sampson. Coming from Oklahoma, he had done fairly well in a football college and state. Will he be a good fit at Indiana? I think it's far too early to say.
The team is struggling, already 3-2 in the young season. Even so, the two losses were to a hot Butler team (Tim's extremely excited) and a close loss at Duke last night. They'll have a tough year, having lost Marco Killingsworth, who was probably their most promising player from last year. They also lost Robert Vaden, but I don't think that has the same impact on the team as Killingsworth.
Sampson seems to have done a pretty good job keeping the rest of the team intact, as other players, such as DJ White, were upset at Mike Davis' firing and threatening to leave the program with Vaden and Killingsworth.
Now he says, and I agree, that this team needs to find its identity. I believe that was a true statement over the last couple of years under Davis. Offensively, they still show a tendency to stand around and wait for somebody else to make a play. That's when they lose.
They appear to play hard on defense, but even so get victimized too often by not playing the tight team defense for which Bob Knight's teams were so well known.
The guy I am most impressed by is in no way their best player. Angelo Pizzo has to make another Rudy movie, this time titled 'Errek'. Errek Suhr (yes, I spelled it correctly) is every bit the basketball version of Sean Astin's Rudy, but much more. I think it's a better story.
If you missed the Duke game last night, you missed an individual performance worthy of a standing ovation. The Hoosiers were struggling in the first half, slowly but steadily falling behind to the Dukies. In comes Errek, who brings energy and toughness and heart. He makes steals, takes charges, feeds teammates, breaks presses. And he's the smallest, least athletic guy on the floor.
The second half, Kelvin Sampson kept his starter on the bench and stayed with Errek. As the second half progressed, I kept seeing Errek making great defensive plays against guys two feet taller. Making steals, taking charges, driving into the lane, exhorting his teammates. And the Hoosiers got back into the game, tying it and keeping it close to the end.
At the end, Errek stole an inbounds pass from Duke, who was trying to run the last few seconds off the clock. As the final seconds ticked off the clock, it was Errek who found the ball back in his hands from timid teammates who didn't want the pressure of taking the game-tying 3-pointer. He did his best to lean in and draw a foul with an impossible shot, but the referrees wouldn't cooperate.
Indiana lost, but they wouldn't have even competed in the game without Errek. And the game was played for the most part with the bigger, stronger, faster, more talented Hoosier guards sitting on the bench.
ESPN showed a shot of Mike Krzyzewski wrapping his arms around the Indiana guard to talk earnestly into his ear. Dick Vitale noted the special attention, and everyone could only imagine the the message of respect and encouragement passed from Coach K to the senior Indiana former walk-on player.
If coach Sampson is looking for leadership and an identity for this team, he would do well to start with the little walk-on from Bloomington named Errek Suhr.
After all that, I hesitate to even talk about the NBA's Pacers.
Yes, I've seen them play. And they're a mediocre .500 team.
Jermaine O'Neal is a great player, but he's not a team leader. He needs a big, strong guy at Center to take pressure off him. Al Harrington is talented, and seems thrilled to be back in Indy, but he's not a center. I like Jeff Foster, but he's a backup.
The Pacers don't have a reliable point guard. Tinsley is erratic, and his backups aren't the answer. Sarunas (I can't spell his last name unless I look it up) is a pretty good shooter when he's open, but isn't fast enough to play point in the NBA.
Steven Jackson is erratic and streaky as well. Not to mention in legal jeopardy over a fight and illegal discharge of a handgun outside a strip club at 4 AM during training camp. That incident all by itself speaks volumes about this team, and how serious (not) they are about winning in the NBA.
Reggie Miller lost a step his last couple of seasons. But he was still the team leader, and still hit the clutch shots when called upon. The Pacers don't have leadership, consistency, chemistry or the quality it takes to win championships in the NBA.
And I don't think we'll be seeing them return to top-tier status again for quite some time.
Too bad, because I think Rick Carlisle is a pretty good coach. Unfortunately, after this season, I think he'll be shown the door. And it won't really be his fault.
Too bad the NBA doesn't have walk-on free agents like Errek Suhr. It would make the league vastly more entertaining.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Sad News
Reports were out yesterday that births to unmarried mothers are at an all-time high. Something like 40%, if I heard correctly. Associated stories suggested kids are having sex at younger ages than ever, and there is an unprecedented number of unmarried couples cohabitating.
It is such a sad indictment of American society, where morality is a dirty word, right is wrong and wrong is right, bad is good and good is bad. In a country with cultural icons like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
For the gay rights people to point to their opponents as hypocrites for tolerating the anything goes status among heteros, they aren't off the mark. I'm certainly one that openly expresses the opinion that homosexual behavior is disordered and morally wrong. The important thing is that I am consistent, as I believe and express the parallel opinion that multiple marriage and promiscuity are just as wrong.
No wonder we have such an epidemic of spoiled, undisciplined, and narcissistic people. Beginning with the post-war 60's generation, our culture has declined steadily through each generation until it now seems to have crumbled into Sodom and Gomorrah, or the last decades of the Roman Empire.
For a young, unmarried man or woman out there, what might happen if you decided to stay chaste until you found your permanent mate? I'm thinking the best outcome would be that you would quickly move through the shallow and narcissistic to eventually find a like-minded match. Without the pressure of sex and the particular way it blinds you to the real person you're dating, there's tremendous freedom to explore true compatibility questions.
The fundamental truth is that spouses who did not have multiple partners before marriage are must less likely to be unfaithful. Solid and committed marital relationships lead to children who are more likely to share the same values, be happy and successful, and raise solid children themselves.
Sadly, such truth is generally scorned or laughed at by most people. Knowing where we've been, I'm sorry for where we have arrived.
It is such a sad indictment of American society, where morality is a dirty word, right is wrong and wrong is right, bad is good and good is bad. In a country with cultural icons like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
For the gay rights people to point to their opponents as hypocrites for tolerating the anything goes status among heteros, they aren't off the mark. I'm certainly one that openly expresses the opinion that homosexual behavior is disordered and morally wrong. The important thing is that I am consistent, as I believe and express the parallel opinion that multiple marriage and promiscuity are just as wrong.
No wonder we have such an epidemic of spoiled, undisciplined, and narcissistic people. Beginning with the post-war 60's generation, our culture has declined steadily through each generation until it now seems to have crumbled into Sodom and Gomorrah, or the last decades of the Roman Empire.
For a young, unmarried man or woman out there, what might happen if you decided to stay chaste until you found your permanent mate? I'm thinking the best outcome would be that you would quickly move through the shallow and narcissistic to eventually find a like-minded match. Without the pressure of sex and the particular way it blinds you to the real person you're dating, there's tremendous freedom to explore true compatibility questions.
The fundamental truth is that spouses who did not have multiple partners before marriage are must less likely to be unfaithful. Solid and committed marital relationships lead to children who are more likely to share the same values, be happy and successful, and raise solid children themselves.
Sadly, such truth is generally scorned or laughed at by most people. Knowing where we've been, I'm sorry for where we have arrived.
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Controversy Continues
Something I noticed from the newspaper articles is that I have probably been mis-spelling Barry's name. I've been spelling it Huckaby, but the newspaper spells it Huckeby. The best choice is to go with the newspaper's spelling, even though it is plausible that they have it wrong.
The story and its associated controversy continues. The Republic published several letters to the editor, many supporting Barry Huckeby and strongly suggesting that his dismissal is heavy-handed and based on some sort of political power struggle. His supporters tout the coach as a great and caring teacher, coach, and person, who couldn't possibly be guilty of the theft of $3,000 in football gate receipts.
Others either suggest everyone just let the process take its course, or take the stand that if he indeed stole money, he should be dismissed and prosecuted.
Again, given my own detached and objective view of the situation, I continue to line up with the latter. Innocent until proven guilty should rule, but the authorities should not just accept the office supply defense and drop the whole thing.
I wonder where those who claim he only took $100 to reimburse himself for the purchase of office supplies (even a specific reference to printer ink) got their information? It certainly is not public information. Did the Republic purposely omit this information, as at least one has suggested? Or is it simply rumor, being spread among supporters of the coach. These sorts of rumors can sometimes take on a life of their own.
Let's assume for a moment that it's true that Barry took $100 out of the gate receipts to buy printer ink for the athletic office. If the commentor on my previous post on the topic somehow has inside information, then it is also true that Barry produced a receipt as proof. It raises a series of additional questions:
Did Barry produce the receipt immediately prior to being accused of the theft, thinking it was an acceptable procedure for purchasing supplies? Or did he produce the receipt after he was accused (or caught), in an attempt to create a plausible defense?
Did he inform anyone, most importantly Hedy George, before, during, or after the fact, that he was taking some money for office supplies?
Who is in charge of purchasing office supplies, such as printer ink, for the athletic office? If Barry needed new ink cartridges, why didn't he just follow normal requisition procedures to acquire what was needed?
Where's the other $2,900?
A commenter suggested that this is nothing more than some sort of nasty political conflict between Barry Huckeby and Dr. John Quick. I'm trying to make sense of that charge logically, but no logical explanation presents itself. I don't understand why a new coach and assistant athletic director who had been on the job only a couple of months would already be actively feuding with the superintendent of the school corporation who just hired him. He hadn't even started official basketball practices yet.
The idea that these are trumped-up charges from powerful people in the school district, who exploited a minor violation of accounting procedures to fire a coach they had just hired, just doesn't make any logical sense.
If he openly pulled $100 out of the gate receipts to buy some supplies, and turned in the receipt the next day, it was a stupid thing to do, but would not merit his arrest and termination. On that basis alone I can't buy that story, because the reasonable response of the administration would be to demand he reimburse the $100 and follow proper procedures for requisitioning of office supplies. It stretches credibility that anyone would be prosecuted and fired for such a procedure violation.
On the other hand, I also have to take the other recent commentor with a grain of salt. Whether or not Barry is some sort of pathological thief and liar cannot be objectively confirmed, so whether or not it might be true is sort of irrelevant at this point.
I can't logically agree with his supporters and their contention about a vindictive conspiracy to ruin Barry's life and career. None of that makes any sense. Barry's an experienced teacher and coach, and there's no way he wasn't aware of the proper procedures for purchasing office supplies and handling gate receipts. If he had told Hedy George that night that he was going to take $100 to buy some printer cartridges, then she would have either told him go ahead, or that it's not acceptable procedure. If the facts are that he took money, didn't tell anyone, and produced the receipt after being accused, then it's theft. The remaining question comes down to how much did he actually steal?
I do think that the process should be allowed to play itself out. I'm looking forward hopefully to eventually learning what happened to the $2,900 that's still missing, whether Barry was forthcoming about his printer ink purchase or if he did it to try to cover up his theft, and what the school board decides about his dismissal.
The story and its associated controversy continues. The Republic published several letters to the editor, many supporting Barry Huckeby and strongly suggesting that his dismissal is heavy-handed and based on some sort of political power struggle. His supporters tout the coach as a great and caring teacher, coach, and person, who couldn't possibly be guilty of the theft of $3,000 in football gate receipts.
Others either suggest everyone just let the process take its course, or take the stand that if he indeed stole money, he should be dismissed and prosecuted.
Again, given my own detached and objective view of the situation, I continue to line up with the latter. Innocent until proven guilty should rule, but the authorities should not just accept the office supply defense and drop the whole thing.
I wonder where those who claim he only took $100 to reimburse himself for the purchase of office supplies (even a specific reference to printer ink) got their information? It certainly is not public information. Did the Republic purposely omit this information, as at least one has suggested? Or is it simply rumor, being spread among supporters of the coach. These sorts of rumors can sometimes take on a life of their own.
Let's assume for a moment that it's true that Barry took $100 out of the gate receipts to buy printer ink for the athletic office. If the commentor on my previous post on the topic somehow has inside information, then it is also true that Barry produced a receipt as proof. It raises a series of additional questions:
Did Barry produce the receipt immediately prior to being accused of the theft, thinking it was an acceptable procedure for purchasing supplies? Or did he produce the receipt after he was accused (or caught), in an attempt to create a plausible defense?
Did he inform anyone, most importantly Hedy George, before, during, or after the fact, that he was taking some money for office supplies?
Who is in charge of purchasing office supplies, such as printer ink, for the athletic office? If Barry needed new ink cartridges, why didn't he just follow normal requisition procedures to acquire what was needed?
Where's the other $2,900?
A commenter suggested that this is nothing more than some sort of nasty political conflict between Barry Huckeby and Dr. John Quick. I'm trying to make sense of that charge logically, but no logical explanation presents itself. I don't understand why a new coach and assistant athletic director who had been on the job only a couple of months would already be actively feuding with the superintendent of the school corporation who just hired him. He hadn't even started official basketball practices yet.
The idea that these are trumped-up charges from powerful people in the school district, who exploited a minor violation of accounting procedures to fire a coach they had just hired, just doesn't make any logical sense.
If he openly pulled $100 out of the gate receipts to buy some supplies, and turned in the receipt the next day, it was a stupid thing to do, but would not merit his arrest and termination. On that basis alone I can't buy that story, because the reasonable response of the administration would be to demand he reimburse the $100 and follow proper procedures for requisitioning of office supplies. It stretches credibility that anyone would be prosecuted and fired for such a procedure violation.
On the other hand, I also have to take the other recent commentor with a grain of salt. Whether or not Barry is some sort of pathological thief and liar cannot be objectively confirmed, so whether or not it might be true is sort of irrelevant at this point.
I can't logically agree with his supporters and their contention about a vindictive conspiracy to ruin Barry's life and career. None of that makes any sense. Barry's an experienced teacher and coach, and there's no way he wasn't aware of the proper procedures for purchasing office supplies and handling gate receipts. If he had told Hedy George that night that he was going to take $100 to buy some printer cartridges, then she would have either told him go ahead, or that it's not acceptable procedure. If the facts are that he took money, didn't tell anyone, and produced the receipt after being accused, then it's theft. The remaining question comes down to how much did he actually steal?
I do think that the process should be allowed to play itself out. I'm looking forward hopefully to eventually learning what happened to the $2,900 that's still missing, whether Barry was forthcoming about his printer ink purchase or if he did it to try to cover up his theft, and what the school board decides about his dismissal.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
We All Get a Raise!
Hooray for the kind-hearted Democrats, who have stated that their first legislative priority upon taking control of the congress will be to increase the minimum wage!
What a wonderful group of people, who really care about those stuck on the low end of the wage scale. They are about to force the evil corporations to pay their entry-level workers more. Who could possibly oppose such a fair and understanding law, especially since the evil GOP has blocked any attempt at raising it from the currently outrageous rate of $5.15 for how many years now?
I was just wondering:
Exactly who is being forced to work for $5.15 an hour right now? I'm very curious, because in my community it's well known that you can't hire anybody to do anything for less than around $6.50 starting rate. Well, maybe you can hire an illegal for less, but that's another topic.
What is the new minimum wage rate going to be? I've heard varying numbers, ranging from $6.15 to $7.50. I think I even heard somebody advocating $8.50. Certainly we don't want our entry-level workers having to endure hardships at these piddling amounts. Why not make it $20?
I did take Economics in graduate school, so even though it wasn't my best subject, I think I did pick up just enough to understand what happens when the government raises the minimum wage. Here's what we will see unfold over the next two years, as this fantastic new law goes into effect nationwide:
Employers will cut back on hiring of students and other temporary and seasonal workers. Employers will balk at paying the extra hourly rates because those workers are now getting too expensive. They will turn to temporary agencies for more experienced workers or do without for those jobs they were providing as part of their community service outreach.
Employees will get restless. After all, when the minimum wage goes up, everyone at the next wage tier will find themselves at or near minimum. That's not fair - why should an entry-level new hire earn almost as much as the employee with one or two years experience? Those employees will demand, and get, commensurate raises.
The domino effect kicks into place. Every wage worker demands a raise commensurate with the raises taking place below their level because of the new minimum rate mandated by law. The increased labor costs in turn put pressure on employers to outsource more work, cut back on their workforce, and/or raise prices. Those companies who can't keep up with the wage inflation will close.
So what happens when the federal minimum wage is increased? Best-case, a slight temporary increase in unemployment rates, a temporary inflationary period, and everyone makes a little more per hour, but their cost of living increases at the same time. So there's no real improvement in the quality of life for anyone at either end of the wage scale, but there will be lots of new people in the unemployment line.
Worse case, if the minimum wage is increased quickly and dramatically, a recession follows. Outsourcing to India and China explodes, companies hire even more illegal workers as long as they can get away with it, layoffs and plant closings happen everywhere, and small businesses close up shop. Everything costs more, so even workers who kept their jobs will feel the pinch of higher prices. Because with a dramatic wage inflation, the labor market will become saturated with laid off workers, which lets employers fill scarce available jobs at lower pay rates than before. In the end, everyone is worse off, at least until the new baseline is set.
I'm sorry, I must be wrecking the celebration. Go back to your party.
See you in the real world when the party's over.
What a wonderful group of people, who really care about those stuck on the low end of the wage scale. They are about to force the evil corporations to pay their entry-level workers more. Who could possibly oppose such a fair and understanding law, especially since the evil GOP has blocked any attempt at raising it from the currently outrageous rate of $5.15 for how many years now?
I was just wondering:
Exactly who is being forced to work for $5.15 an hour right now? I'm very curious, because in my community it's well known that you can't hire anybody to do anything for less than around $6.50 starting rate. Well, maybe you can hire an illegal for less, but that's another topic.
What is the new minimum wage rate going to be? I've heard varying numbers, ranging from $6.15 to $7.50. I think I even heard somebody advocating $8.50. Certainly we don't want our entry-level workers having to endure hardships at these piddling amounts. Why not make it $20?
I did take Economics in graduate school, so even though it wasn't my best subject, I think I did pick up just enough to understand what happens when the government raises the minimum wage. Here's what we will see unfold over the next two years, as this fantastic new law goes into effect nationwide:
Employers will cut back on hiring of students and other temporary and seasonal workers. Employers will balk at paying the extra hourly rates because those workers are now getting too expensive. They will turn to temporary agencies for more experienced workers or do without for those jobs they were providing as part of their community service outreach.
Employees will get restless. After all, when the minimum wage goes up, everyone at the next wage tier will find themselves at or near minimum. That's not fair - why should an entry-level new hire earn almost as much as the employee with one or two years experience? Those employees will demand, and get, commensurate raises.
The domino effect kicks into place. Every wage worker demands a raise commensurate with the raises taking place below their level because of the new minimum rate mandated by law. The increased labor costs in turn put pressure on employers to outsource more work, cut back on their workforce, and/or raise prices. Those companies who can't keep up with the wage inflation will close.
So what happens when the federal minimum wage is increased? Best-case, a slight temporary increase in unemployment rates, a temporary inflationary period, and everyone makes a little more per hour, but their cost of living increases at the same time. So there's no real improvement in the quality of life for anyone at either end of the wage scale, but there will be lots of new people in the unemployment line.
Worse case, if the minimum wage is increased quickly and dramatically, a recession follows. Outsourcing to India and China explodes, companies hire even more illegal workers as long as they can get away with it, layoffs and plant closings happen everywhere, and small businesses close up shop. Everything costs more, so even workers who kept their jobs will feel the pinch of higher prices. Because with a dramatic wage inflation, the labor market will become saturated with laid off workers, which lets employers fill scarce available jobs at lower pay rates than before. In the end, everyone is worse off, at least until the new baseline is set.
I'm sorry, I must be wrecking the celebration. Go back to your party.
See you in the real world when the party's over.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Weekend Update
Just to complete the thread of High School Football commentary, the game might have been a bit worse than expected. The victor was about 98% certain before the game started, but 59-0 was disappointing.
The North team was clearly rattled early, giving up 3 easy touchdowns to Warren Central in the first quarter. The first two were after North fumbles. It rattled the offense, and the defense was getting knocked around pretty soundly. Things continued to go badly, and the game was over at halftime, the score 35-0.
Something interesting about such games, where one team is so clearly and obviously superior. WC could probably beat a lot of college teams - not Division I, but quite possibly Division III and below.
Mike Hladik, the quarterback, was suddenly throwing a lot of balls over the heads of his receivers. Sometimes when he was rushed, but mostly it just seemed he just had too much adrenaline. When he was on target, the receivers suddenly developed stone hands. Brandon Butler, the wide receiver who I think has the single-season and possibly career receptions record for Columbus North, dropped nearly every pass. He nearly made some impossibly difficult catches, which you can't fault him for being unable to hang on, but he also dropped balls thrown to him into his hands and in the open.
Even the punter, Conor Koslowski, was shanking the ball out of bounds in the first half. The player who didn't have the lapses of the rest of the offense seemed to be the running back, Alex Turner. He was responsible for the fumble at the beginning of the game, but ran hard and strong for plenty of yards the rest of the way.
I've had the unfortunate experience myself of getting up against a team that's way beyond your own in size, strength, and speed. The psychological impact of that is this: You don't want to be embarrassed, and you tell yourself that you can beat these guys - all you have to do is play to your potential. That's when you start pressing. You think more about what you're doing, try to do more than you've been able to do before, and start trying to make the "big play" to help your team.
Instead, things just get worse. You think your effort is above and beyond anything you've done before, but you're failing miserably. You're out of synch, and all of a sudden you can't even seem to do the simple things right. It's almost as if you've forgotten how to play the game. The frustration mounts, and it seems the harder you try to recover, the worse things get.
That's what I saw with Columbus North. They reached that frustration point when they fell behind, and started pressing. Hladik tried to throw harder and it just resulted in overthrows and balls too strong for the receiver to handle. Butler thought about running with the ball after the catch, so he didn't make sure he had the catch first and the ball just skipped through his hands. The defense overpursued and got pulled out of position so the other team's running backs could run right past them.
I wonder how an athlete could overcome the tendency to press when things aren't going well, and learn to play with intensity but still play within their capabilities? If I were a psychologist and could figure this out, maybe I could earn big bucks as a consultant to professional athletes. Seems like a fun profession as well.
Hmmm.
The North team was clearly rattled early, giving up 3 easy touchdowns to Warren Central in the first quarter. The first two were after North fumbles. It rattled the offense, and the defense was getting knocked around pretty soundly. Things continued to go badly, and the game was over at halftime, the score 35-0.
Something interesting about such games, where one team is so clearly and obviously superior. WC could probably beat a lot of college teams - not Division I, but quite possibly Division III and below.
Mike Hladik, the quarterback, was suddenly throwing a lot of balls over the heads of his receivers. Sometimes when he was rushed, but mostly it just seemed he just had too much adrenaline. When he was on target, the receivers suddenly developed stone hands. Brandon Butler, the wide receiver who I think has the single-season and possibly career receptions record for Columbus North, dropped nearly every pass. He nearly made some impossibly difficult catches, which you can't fault him for being unable to hang on, but he also dropped balls thrown to him into his hands and in the open.
Even the punter, Conor Koslowski, was shanking the ball out of bounds in the first half. The player who didn't have the lapses of the rest of the offense seemed to be the running back, Alex Turner. He was responsible for the fumble at the beginning of the game, but ran hard and strong for plenty of yards the rest of the way.
I've had the unfortunate experience myself of getting up against a team that's way beyond your own in size, strength, and speed. The psychological impact of that is this: You don't want to be embarrassed, and you tell yourself that you can beat these guys - all you have to do is play to your potential. That's when you start pressing. You think more about what you're doing, try to do more than you've been able to do before, and start trying to make the "big play" to help your team.
Instead, things just get worse. You think your effort is above and beyond anything you've done before, but you're failing miserably. You're out of synch, and all of a sudden you can't even seem to do the simple things right. It's almost as if you've forgotten how to play the game. The frustration mounts, and it seems the harder you try to recover, the worse things get.
That's what I saw with Columbus North. They reached that frustration point when they fell behind, and started pressing. Hladik tried to throw harder and it just resulted in overthrows and balls too strong for the receiver to handle. Butler thought about running with the ball after the catch, so he didn't make sure he had the catch first and the ball just skipped through his hands. The defense overpursued and got pulled out of position so the other team's running backs could run right past them.
I wonder how an athlete could overcome the tendency to press when things aren't going well, and learn to play with intensity but still play within their capabilities? If I were a psychologist and could figure this out, maybe I could earn big bucks as a consultant to professional athletes. Seems like a fun profession as well.
Hmmm.
Friday, November 17, 2006
It Probably Doesn't Matter
I'm just wondering what's in the minds of the GOP in Congress. They just lost their majorities in both houses. You'd think it's time for fresh blood and new ideas.
Guess not.
They brought back Trent Lott. They kept Boehner in the House as their leader.
So, I guess that means they don't want new faces or new ideas. Boehner might or might not be a great guy, but when I've seen him on television he seems to have the charisma of a dead fish. If they had actually chosen Mike Pence, maybe they would have had a chance to rebuild and communicate a fresh message. But the good ol' boys won, obviously.
Could it be they don't mind being beaten by Democrats?
I suppose it doesn't really matter. Everywhere I look, all I see are power-drunk democrats celebrating with their sycophant news anchors. The news guys (and girls) aren't even bothering to talk to republicans, except perhaps their favorite, John McCain.
Party on, dudes. (Did I get that idiom right? Gotta brush up - the hippies are in charge now.)
Guess not.
They brought back Trent Lott. They kept Boehner in the House as their leader.
So, I guess that means they don't want new faces or new ideas. Boehner might or might not be a great guy, but when I've seen him on television he seems to have the charisma of a dead fish. If they had actually chosen Mike Pence, maybe they would have had a chance to rebuild and communicate a fresh message. But the good ol' boys won, obviously.
Could it be they don't mind being beaten by Democrats?
I suppose it doesn't really matter. Everywhere I look, all I see are power-drunk democrats celebrating with their sycophant news anchors. The news guys (and girls) aren't even bothering to talk to republicans, except perhaps their favorite, John McCain.
Party on, dudes. (Did I get that idiom right? Gotta brush up - the hippies are in charge now.)
TGIF
It's finally Friday. I'll catch the Semi-State game between Columbus North and Warren Central. Cathedral at Columbus East across town will probably be a more competitive game, but North's our school.
If I remember correctly, Warren Central's closest game this season was a 41-21 win. The rest of their schedule were blowouts. North's got high hopes, but the best I can hope for them is that they lose by 20 points or less.
There's no way to really game plan for Warren Central, because they're just bigger, stronger, and faster than any other high school team. I'm guessing that Coach Bless and his staff will load up the defense on the line of scrimmage in an attempt to stop WC's running game. The hope would be to at least slow down the running game and maybe force some passing, which might give them a chance at a turnover or two. On the Offensive side, North has to score every time they get the ball. If they can keep WC's offense off the field, or at least keep up with them by matching touchdowns, maybe they could steal a win with one more score.
Having both Columbus teams in the Dome next weekend for the state championship games in 5A and 4A is a great dream, but unfortunately is highly unlikely. East might make it, but even they will have a tough obstacle in Cathedral.
Anyway, Saturday we'll be at the Lego Robotics competition. Hopefully the kids are ready to make a good showing. Then off to Canada and back just in time for Thanksgiving.
If I remember correctly, Warren Central's closest game this season was a 41-21 win. The rest of their schedule were blowouts. North's got high hopes, but the best I can hope for them is that they lose by 20 points or less.
There's no way to really game plan for Warren Central, because they're just bigger, stronger, and faster than any other high school team. I'm guessing that Coach Bless and his staff will load up the defense on the line of scrimmage in an attempt to stop WC's running game. The hope would be to at least slow down the running game and maybe force some passing, which might give them a chance at a turnover or two. On the Offensive side, North has to score every time they get the ball. If they can keep WC's offense off the field, or at least keep up with them by matching touchdowns, maybe they could steal a win with one more score.
Having both Columbus teams in the Dome next weekend for the state championship games in 5A and 4A is a great dream, but unfortunately is highly unlikely. East might make it, but even they will have a tough obstacle in Cathedral.
Anyway, Saturday we'll be at the Lego Robotics competition. Hopefully the kids are ready to make a good showing. Then off to Canada and back just in time for Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Iraq Decision
The Democrats now seem to feel relatively free to speak their minds, now that the election is over. And from what I hear, they are of many diverse minds when it comes to the Iraq war.
The spectrum goes from the "Get out Now" group to the "Send More Troops" at the other end.
In a way, I think the President played it well, by inviting the new Dem leaders over for a visit, then telling them he'd listen to their ideas on Iraq. It seems to have worked pretty well, because they sure have a lot of ideas.
For what it's worth, here's what I'd do. If we could get other countries to help, that's great, but in general, we should have enough troops there to accomplish the mission in cooperation with Iraqi forces.
First, seal the borders. No weapons may cross. Anyone trying to cross somewhere other than an authorized checkpoint will be shot. Suspected foreign fighters from Syria and Iran will be arrested, interrogated, and released back to their home country when they are deemed not a threat.
Next, pacify the citizenry. City-by-city, house-by-house, Iraqis backed by US and other troops will search for weapons and IED's, which will be siezed and destroyed. Every city will then be occupied by troops, who will arrest anyone found with a weapon or bomb or generally disturbing the peace.
Muqtada al-Sadr will be arrested, tried and executed for being an anti-government militia leader. His army will be disbanded and disarmed. Likewise, Sunni insurgents will be disarmed and arrested.
Once the violence has been stopped, American and other forces will pull back and leave Iraqis in their place. Eventually, Iraq will be an independent, peaceful, and friendly country. America will have permanent bases there, just as they do in Germany and Korea.
The choice is really very simple. We either choose to do what it takes to finish the job or we quit. And the inevitable consequences of quitting, which would present Iraq to Al Quaeda and Iran on a silver platter, are unacceptable. So we finish the job, boldly and aggressively.
The spectrum goes from the "Get out Now" group to the "Send More Troops" at the other end.
In a way, I think the President played it well, by inviting the new Dem leaders over for a visit, then telling them he'd listen to their ideas on Iraq. It seems to have worked pretty well, because they sure have a lot of ideas.
For what it's worth, here's what I'd do. If we could get other countries to help, that's great, but in general, we should have enough troops there to accomplish the mission in cooperation with Iraqi forces.
First, seal the borders. No weapons may cross. Anyone trying to cross somewhere other than an authorized checkpoint will be shot. Suspected foreign fighters from Syria and Iran will be arrested, interrogated, and released back to their home country when they are deemed not a threat.
Next, pacify the citizenry. City-by-city, house-by-house, Iraqis backed by US and other troops will search for weapons and IED's, which will be siezed and destroyed. Every city will then be occupied by troops, who will arrest anyone found with a weapon or bomb or generally disturbing the peace.
Muqtada al-Sadr will be arrested, tried and executed for being an anti-government militia leader. His army will be disbanded and disarmed. Likewise, Sunni insurgents will be disarmed and arrested.
Once the violence has been stopped, American and other forces will pull back and leave Iraqis in their place. Eventually, Iraq will be an independent, peaceful, and friendly country. America will have permanent bases there, just as they do in Germany and Korea.
The choice is really very simple. We either choose to do what it takes to finish the job or we quit. And the inevitable consequences of quitting, which would present Iraq to Al Quaeda and Iran on a silver platter, are unacceptable. So we finish the job, boldly and aggressively.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
The Story Unfolds
The Republic newspaper published an update on the Barry Huckaby story today. New facts are that he admitted to stuffing a couple of fifties into his pocket when preparing the bank deposit from the football sectional gate proceeds. He was booked on theft charges and bonded out. He's pled Not Guilty, despite his admission to taking at least $100. His attorney says there's an explanation for everything, which will all come out at trial.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether he skimmed of a hundred bucks or three thousand. Theft is theft. It could raise an interesting question about where the other $2900 might have gone.
Still a mystery is the basic question, "What was he thinking?". Was it common practice to skim cash from sectional football games where he came from? What made him think he could get away with it?
The story did say that he was alone in the Athletic office, preparing a bank deposit with the gate receipts from that night's football sectional. Just a practical bit of advice for BCSC and Columbus North: May I suggest that you institute a policy that all proceeds from school events be handled by at least two people until the money has been counted and the bank deposit prepared and properly secured.
Such a policy would be more likely to insure that theft won't happen in the future. Unless both of the individuals handling the money decide to steal it together, it would be a built-in deterrent. It would also assure a witness who could substantiate or refute any potential charges of theft.
Given the information presented, the best logical explanation is that Huckaby was in the office by himself with a wad of cash. He impulsively stuffed some of it into his pocket, thinking nobody would miss it. And he got caught. I wonder if he's now feeling great remorse at having given into the temptation, or if he's just sorry he got caught and blaming the school administration for blowing it all out of proportion? The statement published in The Republic from his attorney would seem to suggest the latter.
It seems to me that it doesn't matter whether he skimmed of a hundred bucks or three thousand. Theft is theft. It could raise an interesting question about where the other $2900 might have gone.
Still a mystery is the basic question, "What was he thinking?". Was it common practice to skim cash from sectional football games where he came from? What made him think he could get away with it?
The story did say that he was alone in the Athletic office, preparing a bank deposit with the gate receipts from that night's football sectional. Just a practical bit of advice for BCSC and Columbus North: May I suggest that you institute a policy that all proceeds from school events be handled by at least two people until the money has been counted and the bank deposit prepared and properly secured.
Such a policy would be more likely to insure that theft won't happen in the future. Unless both of the individuals handling the money decide to steal it together, it would be a built-in deterrent. It would also assure a witness who could substantiate or refute any potential charges of theft.
Given the information presented, the best logical explanation is that Huckaby was in the office by himself with a wad of cash. He impulsively stuffed some of it into his pocket, thinking nobody would miss it. And he got caught. I wonder if he's now feeling great remorse at having given into the temptation, or if he's just sorry he got caught and blaming the school administration for blowing it all out of proportion? The statement published in The Republic from his attorney would seem to suggest the latter.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Friday Night Lights
I saw probably one of the best high school football games I can remember last night in the class 5A Regional with Columbus North and Evansville Reitz.
Time was running out late in the fourth quarter with Reitz trying to run out the clock to preserve a 14 point victory. But North wasn't quitting just yet - using a suddenly stout defense, judicious use of all three second-half timeouts, and an impressive 2-minute drill on offense, two touchdowns in the final two and a half minutes deadlocked the game at 28 and forced overtime. North's touchdown in overtime could not be matched by Reitz, and in a stunning finish, Columbus North became Regional Champions for the second time in three years, and the second time in school history.
After a 14-14 tie at the end of the first half, Columbus North fans began to become discouraged by the pounding ground game of Reitz, which dominated time of possession and scored twice in the third quarter. North's offense was moving the ball well, but an interception and fumble kept them off the scoreboard and led to Reitz's dominant option running game which kept North's defense on their heels and the offense on the sidelines.
The game included only one punt by Reitz, which was blocked and run in for a touchdown by Pat Kelly in the second quarter. Reitz used a pitch and quick-kick by their fullback, Mike Head, on the two occasions late when they were in punting situations. North did not punt the entire game, either scoring or turning the ball over on each of their possessions.
North finally eliminated mistakes with an impressive and efficient drive starting with about six and a half minutes left in the game, finally scoring on a 14 yard pass from Mike Hladik to Brandon Butler with 2:30 left on the clock. The fans around me in the home stands talked about how it might be too late for a North comeback, but hung on to hope and noted the determination being shown by the players.
But North's ensuing onside kick, though well executed, was fallen on just in time by a Reitz player. The end of the game was in sight, and everyone knew it was up to the Reitz offense to burn Columbus North's three remaining timeouts to close out their victory. North did use up their three timeouts, and the North defense successfully shut down the Reitz option attack when it mattered most. And on 4th down, Reitz ran a quick-kick by the fullback to return the ball to North's dangerous offense with only 2 minutes left.
At this point, the fans and parents in the home stands were hopeful. Two minutes is enough time for Mike Hladik to run the two-minute offense for the tying touchdown. Somebody jokingly yelled, "Let's go, Peyton" in encouragement to the Junior quarterback.
The drive took almost no time at all, with clutch catches by Keaton Shoutz, Brayden Barthlow and Brandon Butler, combining with a couple of poorly timed Reitz penalties - a Roughing the Passer and Pass Interference - to the well-executed touchdown pass to Barthlow after only 45 seconds. Unbelievably, and to the jubilation of the home crowd, the game had turned from a certain Reitz victory into overtime, where North had the momentum.
Time ran out on Reitz at the end of the fourth quarter, with a North sack of Reitz's Quarterback ending regulation.
In Indiana, overtime consists of giving each team the ball on the 10 yard line with 4 plays to score. North got the ball first, picked up 5 yards on two running plays to Alex Turner, then scored their touchdown with a nicely executed slant pass from Hladik to Butler.
Reitz got their chance, and also picked up about 5 yards on 3 running plays. On fourth down, they tried a pass, but a strong pass rush from North's defensive front and tight coverage in the end zone meant the pass was overthrown and incomplete.
There were some bizarre incidents with the officiating. The first occurred at the end of the first half, where a clearly incomplete pass to Brayden Barthlow went without a whistle. Finally realizing he hadn't heard the whistle on the play, a Reitz defender picked up the ball and ran back to the North 35. The officials stuck with their decision of a completed pass and fumble, and would not tolerate any discussion with the North coaches.
But then, after Reitz's final touchdown, their ensuing kickoff went out of bounds on about the two or three yard line. A flag was thrown for a kick out of bounds, and the ball placed at the 35. But the Reitz coach walked all the way out to the middle of the field as North was lining up for their first offensive play. Instead of flagging the coach, the officials listened to his objection (that a North player had touched the ball before it went out of bounds). Accepting the Reitz coach's arguments, they moved the ball back to the three.
From my perspective, both calls were incorrect. But to overturn one bad call based on a coach's objection while refusing to listen to the other coach on another missed call is terrible officiating. I can't recall ever seeing, at any level in sports, an official overturning a call based on a coach's objection. It's disappointing, because we should expect the best officials in the state to be working games at this stage. Fortunately, neither call had a direct effect on the outcome.
It was certainly an entertaining night for the fans, but also a game the players will probably remember with a smile the rest of their lives.
After this accomplishment, North gets a rematch of the 2004 SemiState blowout at the hands of perrenial Indiana 5A champion Warren Central. Most would predict that once again, North, or really every other high school team in the state, doesn't have a prayer against Warren Central's nationally recognized team of division I college football recruits. They defeated their rivals at Ben Davis on the same night by the score of 42 to 7. I hear they've got over 60 players who bench over 225. That's incredible for a high school program.
But don't tell these guys that.
Time was running out late in the fourth quarter with Reitz trying to run out the clock to preserve a 14 point victory. But North wasn't quitting just yet - using a suddenly stout defense, judicious use of all three second-half timeouts, and an impressive 2-minute drill on offense, two touchdowns in the final two and a half minutes deadlocked the game at 28 and forced overtime. North's touchdown in overtime could not be matched by Reitz, and in a stunning finish, Columbus North became Regional Champions for the second time in three years, and the second time in school history.
After a 14-14 tie at the end of the first half, Columbus North fans began to become discouraged by the pounding ground game of Reitz, which dominated time of possession and scored twice in the third quarter. North's offense was moving the ball well, but an interception and fumble kept them off the scoreboard and led to Reitz's dominant option running game which kept North's defense on their heels and the offense on the sidelines.
The game included only one punt by Reitz, which was blocked and run in for a touchdown by Pat Kelly in the second quarter. Reitz used a pitch and quick-kick by their fullback, Mike Head, on the two occasions late when they were in punting situations. North did not punt the entire game, either scoring or turning the ball over on each of their possessions.
North finally eliminated mistakes with an impressive and efficient drive starting with about six and a half minutes left in the game, finally scoring on a 14 yard pass from Mike Hladik to Brandon Butler with 2:30 left on the clock. The fans around me in the home stands talked about how it might be too late for a North comeback, but hung on to hope and noted the determination being shown by the players.
But North's ensuing onside kick, though well executed, was fallen on just in time by a Reitz player. The end of the game was in sight, and everyone knew it was up to the Reitz offense to burn Columbus North's three remaining timeouts to close out their victory. North did use up their three timeouts, and the North defense successfully shut down the Reitz option attack when it mattered most. And on 4th down, Reitz ran a quick-kick by the fullback to return the ball to North's dangerous offense with only 2 minutes left.
At this point, the fans and parents in the home stands were hopeful. Two minutes is enough time for Mike Hladik to run the two-minute offense for the tying touchdown. Somebody jokingly yelled, "Let's go, Peyton" in encouragement to the Junior quarterback.
The drive took almost no time at all, with clutch catches by Keaton Shoutz, Brayden Barthlow and Brandon Butler, combining with a couple of poorly timed Reitz penalties - a Roughing the Passer and Pass Interference - to the well-executed touchdown pass to Barthlow after only 45 seconds. Unbelievably, and to the jubilation of the home crowd, the game had turned from a certain Reitz victory into overtime, where North had the momentum.
Time ran out on Reitz at the end of the fourth quarter, with a North sack of Reitz's Quarterback ending regulation.
In Indiana, overtime consists of giving each team the ball on the 10 yard line with 4 plays to score. North got the ball first, picked up 5 yards on two running plays to Alex Turner, then scored their touchdown with a nicely executed slant pass from Hladik to Butler.
Reitz got their chance, and also picked up about 5 yards on 3 running plays. On fourth down, they tried a pass, but a strong pass rush from North's defensive front and tight coverage in the end zone meant the pass was overthrown and incomplete.
There were some bizarre incidents with the officiating. The first occurred at the end of the first half, where a clearly incomplete pass to Brayden Barthlow went without a whistle. Finally realizing he hadn't heard the whistle on the play, a Reitz defender picked up the ball and ran back to the North 35. The officials stuck with their decision of a completed pass and fumble, and would not tolerate any discussion with the North coaches.
But then, after Reitz's final touchdown, their ensuing kickoff went out of bounds on about the two or three yard line. A flag was thrown for a kick out of bounds, and the ball placed at the 35. But the Reitz coach walked all the way out to the middle of the field as North was lining up for their first offensive play. Instead of flagging the coach, the officials listened to his objection (that a North player had touched the ball before it went out of bounds). Accepting the Reitz coach's arguments, they moved the ball back to the three.
From my perspective, both calls were incorrect. But to overturn one bad call based on a coach's objection while refusing to listen to the other coach on another missed call is terrible officiating. I can't recall ever seeing, at any level in sports, an official overturning a call based on a coach's objection. It's disappointing, because we should expect the best officials in the state to be working games at this stage. Fortunately, neither call had a direct effect on the outcome.
It was certainly an entertaining night for the fans, but also a game the players will probably remember with a smile the rest of their lives.
After this accomplishment, North gets a rematch of the 2004 SemiState blowout at the hands of perrenial Indiana 5A champion Warren Central. Most would predict that once again, North, or really every other high school team in the state, doesn't have a prayer against Warren Central's nationally recognized team of division I college football recruits. They defeated their rivals at Ben Davis on the same night by the score of 42 to 7. I hear they've got over 60 players who bench over 225. That's incredible for a high school program.
But don't tell these guys that.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Ball State Assault
A couple of kids at Ball State got arrested when they tried to hit David Horowitz with a pie. The gist of the story I read was that the assault was part the overall protest of students and faculty against Horowitz speaking on campus.
Horowitz is the guy who wrote a book about liberal free speech suppression on college campuses. Ball State is one of the colleges he targeted, because they have had a saxophone teacher named George Wolfe in charge of the University's Peace Studies program. According to Horowitz, Wolfe turned the Peace Studies program into a taxpayer-funded protest movement against the Iraq war.
Besides questioning the qualifications of a saxophone teacher to lead an academic program, whether it be Peace Studies or anything else outside of music, Horowitz has set out to expose Wolfe as a Ward Churchill-style anti-American leftist agitator who uses his position at a State University to advance his personal political agenda.
The pie throwing assault and related protests of students and faculty during Horowitz's recent visit to speak on campus was one of many similar assaults on conservative speakers visiting campuses across the country. The story did not mention Horowitz's actual speaking event, and whether or not his speech was disrupted. There have been speeches by conservative activists in various colleges that have been disrupted and even broken up by faculty and students who resort to shouting the speaker down, rushing the stage, throwing pies, and even using physical assaults.
I haven't read Horowitz's book, but have read up on the guy and his basic message. I come away a bit puzzled, because the loudest proponents of free speech rights are generally liberal. So why is it that the liberal faculty and their student minions are the ones doing everything in their power to silence conservative speakers who arrive on campus?
How often have liberal speakers been assaulted and shouted down by conservative faculty and students when they arrive on college campuses? If it has happened recently, I haven't heard about it. If prominent left-wingers like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan showed up on campus to speak (and I don't know whether or how often they do), are they attacked by the Young Republicans?
As to Horowitz's message, he states that university faculty are monolithically liberal. Conservatives need not apply when it comes to university professor positions, at least outside of the practical engineering, math and science departments. He says that conservative thought is not only unwelcome on campus, it is actively suppressed. He says the Ball State president, Joann Gora, did not support his speaking engagement. I'm not sure what that means, given that he apparently did arrive in Muncie to speak.
What's the objection to Horowitz, anyway? Do those who hate the man disagree with his thesis? Is he lying about the political philosophies that dominate Ball State's faculty? Is he lying when he says that professors teaching classes in subjects that have nothing to do with politics, like English for example, spend hours of valuable classroom time ranting against George Bush and the military and the war in Iraq? Is there no truth to his assertion that taxpayer funds are paying salaries for unqualified saxophone teachers to transport students in the Peace Studies program to war protest marches in Washington, DC?
What is wrong with the idea that professors who don't teach political science or sociology shouldn't spend classroom time on political indoctrination, whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or anywhere in between? Why exempt political science and sociology from the discussion anyway? Shouldn't those courses of study be focused on a dispassionate examination of all forms of government and societal norms, open to debate and discussion from all about the relative pros and cons of each?
I'm a Ball State alum, and although I had my fair share of radical leftist professors, I don't recall that any of them ever mistreated anyone for expressing moderate or conservative viewpoints. If you were to ask me to name a professor who had a conservative policital philosophy at Ball State, I could not. There were professors who never expressed any sort of political point of view, but those who did were universally left or far-left. The most frequent comments I used to hear about communism (this was before the fall of the Soviet Union) were that communism was a really good idea that was poorly implemented and sadly corrupt in its Soviet form. But then I toured Russia and Poland and Latvia with the University Singers, and after seeing the reality of oppressive and repressive communism, became convinced that their pro-communist arguments were ridiculous.
The lesbian professor I had for a required sociology class was a living caricature of the liberal feminist. I felt sorry for her, because something horrible must have happened in her childhood to become filled with so much hatred for western civilization in general and white men specifically.
But I did have at least one professor who did a fantastic job of playing devil's advocate in classroom discussions: He would introduce a topic (relevant to the curriculum, by the way), and take a position generally at one extreme or the other. When a spirited classroom discussion came to a close, he would admit that he didn't actually hold that viewpoint, but wanted to use it to encourage thoughtful discussion and argument. Too bad he was the only one using that particular approach.
I wonder if there are still professors who encourage open debate on political and social topics in classes where such topics are consistent with the course being presented? Horowitz says probably not.
In America, if you have a problem with a message, you don't physically attack or shout down the messenger. You counter with your own message.
Horowitz is the guy who wrote a book about liberal free speech suppression on college campuses. Ball State is one of the colleges he targeted, because they have had a saxophone teacher named George Wolfe in charge of the University's Peace Studies program. According to Horowitz, Wolfe turned the Peace Studies program into a taxpayer-funded protest movement against the Iraq war.
Besides questioning the qualifications of a saxophone teacher to lead an academic program, whether it be Peace Studies or anything else outside of music, Horowitz has set out to expose Wolfe as a Ward Churchill-style anti-American leftist agitator who uses his position at a State University to advance his personal political agenda.
The pie throwing assault and related protests of students and faculty during Horowitz's recent visit to speak on campus was one of many similar assaults on conservative speakers visiting campuses across the country. The story did not mention Horowitz's actual speaking event, and whether or not his speech was disrupted. There have been speeches by conservative activists in various colleges that have been disrupted and even broken up by faculty and students who resort to shouting the speaker down, rushing the stage, throwing pies, and even using physical assaults.
I haven't read Horowitz's book, but have read up on the guy and his basic message. I come away a bit puzzled, because the loudest proponents of free speech rights are generally liberal. So why is it that the liberal faculty and their student minions are the ones doing everything in their power to silence conservative speakers who arrive on campus?
How often have liberal speakers been assaulted and shouted down by conservative faculty and students when they arrive on college campuses? If it has happened recently, I haven't heard about it. If prominent left-wingers like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky or Cindy Sheehan showed up on campus to speak (and I don't know whether or how often they do), are they attacked by the Young Republicans?
As to Horowitz's message, he states that university faculty are monolithically liberal. Conservatives need not apply when it comes to university professor positions, at least outside of the practical engineering, math and science departments. He says that conservative thought is not only unwelcome on campus, it is actively suppressed. He says the Ball State president, Joann Gora, did not support his speaking engagement. I'm not sure what that means, given that he apparently did arrive in Muncie to speak.
What's the objection to Horowitz, anyway? Do those who hate the man disagree with his thesis? Is he lying about the political philosophies that dominate Ball State's faculty? Is he lying when he says that professors teaching classes in subjects that have nothing to do with politics, like English for example, spend hours of valuable classroom time ranting against George Bush and the military and the war in Iraq? Is there no truth to his assertion that taxpayer funds are paying salaries for unqualified saxophone teachers to transport students in the Peace Studies program to war protest marches in Washington, DC?
What is wrong with the idea that professors who don't teach political science or sociology shouldn't spend classroom time on political indoctrination, whether it is left-wing, right-wing, or anywhere in between? Why exempt political science and sociology from the discussion anyway? Shouldn't those courses of study be focused on a dispassionate examination of all forms of government and societal norms, open to debate and discussion from all about the relative pros and cons of each?
I'm a Ball State alum, and although I had my fair share of radical leftist professors, I don't recall that any of them ever mistreated anyone for expressing moderate or conservative viewpoints. If you were to ask me to name a professor who had a conservative policital philosophy at Ball State, I could not. There were professors who never expressed any sort of political point of view, but those who did were universally left or far-left. The most frequent comments I used to hear about communism (this was before the fall of the Soviet Union) were that communism was a really good idea that was poorly implemented and sadly corrupt in its Soviet form. But then I toured Russia and Poland and Latvia with the University Singers, and after seeing the reality of oppressive and repressive communism, became convinced that their pro-communist arguments were ridiculous.
The lesbian professor I had for a required sociology class was a living caricature of the liberal feminist. I felt sorry for her, because something horrible must have happened in her childhood to become filled with so much hatred for western civilization in general and white men specifically.
But I did have at least one professor who did a fantastic job of playing devil's advocate in classroom discussions: He would introduce a topic (relevant to the curriculum, by the way), and take a position generally at one extreme or the other. When a spirited classroom discussion came to a close, he would admit that he didn't actually hold that viewpoint, but wanted to use it to encourage thoughtful discussion and argument. Too bad he was the only one using that particular approach.
I wonder if there are still professors who encourage open debate on political and social topics in classes where such topics are consistent with the course being presented? Horowitz says probably not.
In America, if you have a problem with a message, you don't physically attack or shout down the messenger. You counter with your own message.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Surreal Wednesday
This is a rather strange day.
I'm on the edge of panic, because I have to get something done and nobody seems to want to help me - even for $$.
I just finished the last scheduled web training session for the client that has me booked all week. The same client I can't reach today to find out what they want me to do next. Do they seriously mean to pay me to do nothing the next two days? It would be nice to know in advance, so I could make other plans.
The results are in from Tuesday. There's nothing left to say. We can only sit back and watch what happens. I think I'll take a vacation from the news for awhile - I seek the bliss of ignorance.
So what do I do next? There's that priority thing I need to get done for a customer, but I still don't have any help, and I can't do it by myself. There's got to be somebody out there willing to help me!?
I'm on the edge of panic, because I have to get something done and nobody seems to want to help me - even for $$.
I just finished the last scheduled web training session for the client that has me booked all week. The same client I can't reach today to find out what they want me to do next. Do they seriously mean to pay me to do nothing the next two days? It would be nice to know in advance, so I could make other plans.
The results are in from Tuesday. There's nothing left to say. We can only sit back and watch what happens. I think I'll take a vacation from the news for awhile - I seek the bliss of ignorance.
So what do I do next? There's that priority thing I need to get done for a customer, but I still don't have any help, and I can't do it by myself. There's got to be somebody out there willing to help me!?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Single Issue Vote
There was only one issue that influenced my vote, and only one race that counts toward that issue.
That issue is the war on terror. No, not Iraq per se, but the terror war overall. My vote cast to re-elect Mike Sodrel was primarily based on the knowledge that he supports victory in Iraq. His opponent, like most of the Democrats, wants us out of Iraq.
When Democrats say they support a "new direction" or a "smarter strategy" or "redeployment", they mean retreat. They want the troops to get out, and don't care about the consequences. Those consequences will be horrible for the Iraqis, the middle east in general, and us.
I'm saddened to hear the Bush haters who have bought the story made up by the left wing and nurtured by the Democrat leadership. Bush lied, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. We've all heard it ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Vladimir Lenin's idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth seems to have been validated.
The terrorists themselves have openly stated that they support Democrats, and will consider a Democrat victory today as a major victory for their jihad. It will embolden them to expand their terrorist activities, because we will have proven to them that terrorism works.
You see, all the other issues are moot if our country is no longer secure from terrorist attack. How important are arguments about minimum wage and universal healthcare when we are all wondering when and where the next car bomb will go off in our own cities? All of the Democrats' positions on the war promise that we will be attacked. We can't fight the terrorists in Iraq. We can't listen to their phone calls. We can't monitor their financial transactions. We have to give terrorist prisoners the same rights as American citizens. We can't interrogate captured terrorists. On and on and on ...
So what happens if Democrats win and they enforce their will to abandon Iraq?
Iraqis will die. You think a lot of them have died already? You haven't seen anything yet. The civil war will explode for control of the country as soon as we leave. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will be killed in a bloody civil war.
Iran will take control. Iran will cross the border with their full military might when we leave and take control of the country, partnering with their Shiite friends in Iran to form a powerful militant Islamic block which includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Lebanon. Everyone who stands in their way will be brutally killed.
Meanwhile, our Democrat leaders will wring their hands at the United Nations, pleading with the rest of the world to do something. Which, of course, the rest of the world will refuse, while the terrorists and their sponsor countries gloat.
Once the united forces of those countries have stabilized, they will take control of the other countries in the region, either through force or threat of force. And when they are ready, they will move all of their combined military might against Israel. There, millions more people will die. We may see the first use of an offensive nuclear weapon against an Israeli city within 5 years.
In the meantime, the Iranian-led coalition will send all sorts of bombers into a naive and politically correct America. They will bomb our cities incessantly, all along proclaiming that the bombing will stop if we cease all involvement in the middle east and all support for Israel. They believe this will work, as evidenced by the Democrats' campaign against the war on Terror these past 5 years. The Democrats will respond by attempting to negotiate.
Think I'm wrong? It is my most fervent wish to be wrong. It is my greatest fear that I am not only right, but underestimating the consequences.
That's why I voted for Mike Sodrel. But if the Democrats take control of the government, I will be tempted to hope I'm at ground zero when the first terrorist nuke is exploded in what used to be the best and proudest nation on the planet.
That issue is the war on terror. No, not Iraq per se, but the terror war overall. My vote cast to re-elect Mike Sodrel was primarily based on the knowledge that he supports victory in Iraq. His opponent, like most of the Democrats, wants us out of Iraq.
When Democrats say they support a "new direction" or a "smarter strategy" or "redeployment", they mean retreat. They want the troops to get out, and don't care about the consequences. Those consequences will be horrible for the Iraqis, the middle east in general, and us.
I'm saddened to hear the Bush haters who have bought the story made up by the left wing and nurtured by the Democrat leadership. Bush lied, Iraq had no WMD, Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. We've all heard it ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Vladimir Lenin's idea that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth seems to have been validated.
The terrorists themselves have openly stated that they support Democrats, and will consider a Democrat victory today as a major victory for their jihad. It will embolden them to expand their terrorist activities, because we will have proven to them that terrorism works.
You see, all the other issues are moot if our country is no longer secure from terrorist attack. How important are arguments about minimum wage and universal healthcare when we are all wondering when and where the next car bomb will go off in our own cities? All of the Democrats' positions on the war promise that we will be attacked. We can't fight the terrorists in Iraq. We can't listen to their phone calls. We can't monitor their financial transactions. We have to give terrorist prisoners the same rights as American citizens. We can't interrogate captured terrorists. On and on and on ...
So what happens if Democrats win and they enforce their will to abandon Iraq?
Iraqis will die. You think a lot of them have died already? You haven't seen anything yet. The civil war will explode for control of the country as soon as we leave. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, will be killed in a bloody civil war.
Iran will take control. Iran will cross the border with their full military might when we leave and take control of the country, partnering with their Shiite friends in Iran to form a powerful militant Islamic block which includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Lebanon. Everyone who stands in their way will be brutally killed.
Meanwhile, our Democrat leaders will wring their hands at the United Nations, pleading with the rest of the world to do something. Which, of course, the rest of the world will refuse, while the terrorists and their sponsor countries gloat.
Once the united forces of those countries have stabilized, they will take control of the other countries in the region, either through force or threat of force. And when they are ready, they will move all of their combined military might against Israel. There, millions more people will die. We may see the first use of an offensive nuclear weapon against an Israeli city within 5 years.
In the meantime, the Iranian-led coalition will send all sorts of bombers into a naive and politically correct America. They will bomb our cities incessantly, all along proclaiming that the bombing will stop if we cease all involvement in the middle east and all support for Israel. They believe this will work, as evidenced by the Democrats' campaign against the war on Terror these past 5 years. The Democrats will respond by attempting to negotiate.
Think I'm wrong? It is my most fervent wish to be wrong. It is my greatest fear that I am not only right, but underestimating the consequences.
That's why I voted for Mike Sodrel. But if the Democrats take control of the government, I will be tempted to hope I'm at ground zero when the first terrorist nuke is exploded in what used to be the best and proudest nation on the planet.
Mystery
There's a local story that has me fascinated. It involves the suspension and firing of the new high school basketball coach for misappropriation of funds. I'm fascinated because the newspaper has been doling out tiny bits of information over the course of the past week, but still has not told the whole story.
The coach's name is Barry Huckaby. He was just hired this year to take over what has been a dismal basketball program at Columbus North. I was planning to follow his progress, to see whether he could actually bring the program back to respectability.
So far, all the newspaper has said is that he was suspended by the school on suspicion that he took a little under $3,000 from the gate proceeds at a recent football game. The story seems to say that they discovered the receipts were short by about that amount, Barry was in charge of the gate receipts, the case was turned over to local police, and they have named him a "person of interest" in the ongoing investigation. They also have sent him a notice of termination.
There's plenty missing from the story. Are they withholding the information because of the ongoing investigation, or because they don't have it? Just a few of my questions -
Where is that money now? Is it still missing?
How do they know the exact amount that is missing?
What evidence has made them so certain Barry is guilty that they have suspended him and are firing him before he's even been charged?
The idea that someone in his position thought he could possibly get away with just walking off with that amount of cash is puzzling. Is it possible that he didn't actually steal it, but maybe was careless and lost it? Or that someone else stole it? Or that he simply took it home that night, fully intending to bring it back to deposit the next day?
There's an interesting little item in the newspaper that suggested things need to be calmed down for awhile to let the authorities complete their investigation. That there are some "strong personalities" in the North Athletic Department involved. I wonder what that's all about?
I don't know the guy, and am not at all involved with the basketball program. Maybe he stole the money and deserves full prosecution. Maybe it's a big misunderstanding, or even a nasty political battle within the athletic office as hinted by the newspaper. The people close to the situation probably know the answers to all of my questions.
From my reading of the news articles, I think everyone in the community should hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and see how this plays out. It should continue to be fascinating.
The coach's name is Barry Huckaby. He was just hired this year to take over what has been a dismal basketball program at Columbus North. I was planning to follow his progress, to see whether he could actually bring the program back to respectability.
So far, all the newspaper has said is that he was suspended by the school on suspicion that he took a little under $3,000 from the gate proceeds at a recent football game. The story seems to say that they discovered the receipts were short by about that amount, Barry was in charge of the gate receipts, the case was turned over to local police, and they have named him a "person of interest" in the ongoing investigation. They also have sent him a notice of termination.
There's plenty missing from the story. Are they withholding the information because of the ongoing investigation, or because they don't have it? Just a few of my questions -
Where is that money now? Is it still missing?
How do they know the exact amount that is missing?
What evidence has made them so certain Barry is guilty that they have suspended him and are firing him before he's even been charged?
The idea that someone in his position thought he could possibly get away with just walking off with that amount of cash is puzzling. Is it possible that he didn't actually steal it, but maybe was careless and lost it? Or that someone else stole it? Or that he simply took it home that night, fully intending to bring it back to deposit the next day?
There's an interesting little item in the newspaper that suggested things need to be calmed down for awhile to let the authorities complete their investigation. That there are some "strong personalities" in the North Athletic Department involved. I wonder what that's all about?
I don't know the guy, and am not at all involved with the basketball program. Maybe he stole the money and deserves full prosecution. Maybe it's a big misunderstanding, or even a nasty political battle within the athletic office as hinted by the newspaper. The people close to the situation probably know the answers to all of my questions.
From my reading of the news articles, I think everyone in the community should hold to the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and see how this plays out. It should continue to be fascinating.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Choices
There are so many choices made by people that are obviously wrong from the point of view of others, but the individual making the choice is either blind or refuses to look.
I'm sort of a casual observer noticing many of these bad choices in people around me. Not that I've always made the best choices myself, but the reasons I don't do anything about my bad choices are my own. And maybe others would say the same about theirs:
Dropping out of school because, well, you hate school.
Taking a bad job because it was the best you could do at the time, or someone pressured you into it, or because you thought the money would make up for the misery.
Quitting a good job because someone pressured you, a "grass is greener" situation, or impulsively walking out when you were having a bad day.
Jumping into a bad relationship because you were lonely, or because you thought you could change the other person, or because you were afraid the music had stopped and she was the only chair left.
Getting hooked on drugs or alcohol because you wanted to seem cool for your friends. Then choosing your drug over everyone else; parents, spouse, children, friends.
Picking an abusive boyfriend over your own children.
Working as many hours as possible so you don't have to go home. Or hiding out in front of the TV to avoid family interaction.
Fighting too much over unimportant matters. Refusing to fight for important matters.
Rejecting people because of they way they look, what they do, how much money they have, or because they're boring. Wondering why you have no real friends, only superficial and self-absorbed social companions who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hit a rough patch.
Divorcing a spouse for the tired old, "The spark is gone." So much for promises made before God. What exactly could you be trusted to do?
Rationalizing bad behavior. "Those people over there do something even worse, so don't hassle me."
Missing key words from vocabulary: Empathy, Respect, Responsibility.
Losing faith.
I'm sort of a casual observer noticing many of these bad choices in people around me. Not that I've always made the best choices myself, but the reasons I don't do anything about my bad choices are my own. And maybe others would say the same about theirs:
Dropping out of school because, well, you hate school.
Taking a bad job because it was the best you could do at the time, or someone pressured you into it, or because you thought the money would make up for the misery.
Quitting a good job because someone pressured you, a "grass is greener" situation, or impulsively walking out when you were having a bad day.
Jumping into a bad relationship because you were lonely, or because you thought you could change the other person, or because you were afraid the music had stopped and she was the only chair left.
Getting hooked on drugs or alcohol because you wanted to seem cool for your friends. Then choosing your drug over everyone else; parents, spouse, children, friends.
Picking an abusive boyfriend over your own children.
Working as many hours as possible so you don't have to go home. Or hiding out in front of the TV to avoid family interaction.
Fighting too much over unimportant matters. Refusing to fight for important matters.
Rejecting people because of they way they look, what they do, how much money they have, or because they're boring. Wondering why you have no real friends, only superficial and self-absorbed social companions who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hit a rough patch.
Divorcing a spouse for the tired old, "The spark is gone." So much for promises made before God. What exactly could you be trusted to do?
Rationalizing bad behavior. "Those people over there do something even worse, so don't hassle me."
Missing key words from vocabulary: Empathy, Respect, Responsibility.
Losing faith.
Weekend Thoughts
It was a busy weekend, then I was knocked off my feet by some sort of virus. Skipped rehearsal and slept a lot, and feel almost human this morning.
Caught the Sectional final at Bloomington South after wondering whether it would be worth the trip. It was, in a tight and fun-to-watch game with the Columbus North guys winning their second sectional title in 3 years.
The Colts knocked off the Patriots last night. I didn't believe it would happen, and am appropriately chastened for my lack of faith. Surprisingly, the Colt's defense was the story of that game.
There was lots of angst over the weekend about the negative ads the politicians have been running this year. Both parties are involved. It was interesting to sit through a string of about 5 ads last night, with all but the very last a negative about some candidate. Some of them didn't even mention the candidate they were supporting.
Interestingly, I found I actually knew which negative ads were true, partly true, or completely false. Maybe I've been paying too much attention to this stuff. Want to know what ads are true and which are false? Just give me a call and I'll let you know.
The excuse given by the parties for this mudslinging approach was basically that it works. Or that the other candidate did it first, and they had to respond. It reminds me of kids fighting; the defense is always, "He started it!". So our politicians appear to suffer from arrested development.
I wonder what would happen if a politician simply ran an ad something like this: "If you want low taxes, an aggressive war against terrorism, keeping traditional marriage, pro-life, free trade, less government, etc., vote for me. If you want high taxes, retreat from the terror war, gay marriage, abortion, protectionism, more government, etc., vote for the other guy."
Interestingly, almost everyone would probably find some things they like and other things they don't about the candidate. But at least they would be able to decide which candidate is closer to their own opinions, instead of voting (or not) based on which candidate had the more disgusting negative ads.
Caught the Sectional final at Bloomington South after wondering whether it would be worth the trip. It was, in a tight and fun-to-watch game with the Columbus North guys winning their second sectional title in 3 years.
The Colts knocked off the Patriots last night. I didn't believe it would happen, and am appropriately chastened for my lack of faith. Surprisingly, the Colt's defense was the story of that game.
There was lots of angst over the weekend about the negative ads the politicians have been running this year. Both parties are involved. It was interesting to sit through a string of about 5 ads last night, with all but the very last a negative about some candidate. Some of them didn't even mention the candidate they were supporting.
Interestingly, I found I actually knew which negative ads were true, partly true, or completely false. Maybe I've been paying too much attention to this stuff. Want to know what ads are true and which are false? Just give me a call and I'll let you know.
The excuse given by the parties for this mudslinging approach was basically that it works. Or that the other candidate did it first, and they had to respond. It reminds me of kids fighting; the defense is always, "He started it!". So our politicians appear to suffer from arrested development.
I wonder what would happen if a politician simply ran an ad something like this: "If you want low taxes, an aggressive war against terrorism, keeping traditional marriage, pro-life, free trade, less government, etc., vote for me. If you want high taxes, retreat from the terror war, gay marriage, abortion, protectionism, more government, etc., vote for the other guy."
Interestingly, almost everyone would probably find some things they like and other things they don't about the candidate. But at least they would be able to decide which candidate is closer to their own opinions, instead of voting (or not) based on which candidate had the more disgusting negative ads.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Consequences of our Election
I know there are lots of you out there that want to bail out of Iraq. I hear it all the time - Iraq didn't attack us, it's not part of the war on terror, it's just about Bush and oil, and so on.
Suppose somebody went out and asked the terrorist leaders directly about what would happen to the US if we elected the Democrats and abandoned Iraq.
Somebody did. His name is Aaron Klein. And here's what he found out:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
Suppose somebody went out and asked the terrorist leaders directly about what would happen to the US if we elected the Democrats and abandoned Iraq.
Somebody did. His name is Aaron Klein. And here's what he found out:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.
The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."
"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."
"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."
Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.
In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."
WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."
Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."
While the terror leaders each independently urged American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Democrats keep saying they would be "smarter" about the terror war and Iraq. But the only specifics I've ever heard from them involve retreat and surrender, or in their terms, "redeployment".
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Clarity
The strange thing going on inside my head these days is this frightening clarity. It's as if I know all the answers, everything makes sense, and I understand everything that's going on. At the same time, I feel completely powerless to affect any of it.
Somehow it seems I understand everyone I know who's more than a casual acquaintance. I understand, but in the cases where I know they're messed up, am powerless to help them.
When two people I know well are in conflict, I understand both sides of the conflict, but can't do a thing to make either of them reconcile. Maybe because they don't want to reconcile. I just don't like it when they try to stick me in the middle. Because the truth is, they're both wrong more than either of them is right. And nobody likes being told they're wrong. And reconciliation requires humility and remorse, which proud and stubborn people will never express.
I understand every problem related to my business. Those problems I can solve, I solve. Those I can't, I just do the best I can.
I understand what people think about politics and next week's elections. But there's no way I can affect anybody else's voting decisions. Because everyone has chosen sides. Most are voting emotionally instead of logically, and that frightens me a bit.
I'm in a room full of people who are discussing something, which maybe is some sort of problem or decision they can't seem to solve. I understand their problem completely and know exactly what they need to do - I have the perfect answer. But I'm invisible. I try to get their attention, but they ignore me like I'm not there.
So with a sad shake of the head, I just leave the room and leave them to what I'm sure will be a bad decision for everyone. Including me.
Somehow it seems I understand everyone I know who's more than a casual acquaintance. I understand, but in the cases where I know they're messed up, am powerless to help them.
When two people I know well are in conflict, I understand both sides of the conflict, but can't do a thing to make either of them reconcile. Maybe because they don't want to reconcile. I just don't like it when they try to stick me in the middle. Because the truth is, they're both wrong more than either of them is right. And nobody likes being told they're wrong. And reconciliation requires humility and remorse, which proud and stubborn people will never express.
I understand every problem related to my business. Those problems I can solve, I solve. Those I can't, I just do the best I can.
I understand what people think about politics and next week's elections. But there's no way I can affect anybody else's voting decisions. Because everyone has chosen sides. Most are voting emotionally instead of logically, and that frightens me a bit.
I'm in a room full of people who are discussing something, which maybe is some sort of problem or decision they can't seem to solve. I understand their problem completely and know exactly what they need to do - I have the perfect answer. But I'm invisible. I try to get their attention, but they ignore me like I'm not there.
So with a sad shake of the head, I just leave the room and leave them to what I'm sure will be a bad decision for everyone. Including me.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Why Apologize?
The reaction to Senator John Kerry's slam on military people has been even more strident than I expected. Naturally, the whole story is buried or spun into some sort of Bush attack by the leftist media, but I imagine it's the lead story for the right radio talkers.
My take, as usual, is different from the talking heads from both sides. The lefties say it was just a botched joke about Bush. There's no way you can possibly twist his words into any conceivable Bush joke unless you just didn't see the video. Everyone else is demanding he apologize, while Kerry himself went insane in a press conference, where he blamed Bush. I like the trend of most Democrats, who automatically fall back to "it's Bush's fault" whenever something goes wrong, even when it was their own gaffe.
What I would suggest is that there's no need to demand Kerry apologize. If he were to apologize for stating his true belief, it would be a false and meaningless act. Kerry's statement that basically labels military personnel as a bunch of losers simply represents his true belief. The best and most believable apology he could make would be, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the military with my statement, but I stand by my belief that the military is the last resort for people who can't cut it anywhere else."
Politically, there's a pretty good comparison that illustrates the double standard among the press. A few years back, Trent Lott gave a speech at Strom Thurmond's retirement party, and got driven from his position as a Senate GOP leader just because he said something nice about Strom. He just said that the country might be better off today if Strom had been President. The Democrats and their media megaphone twisted that into the idea that Trent was a racist, because Strom was a civil rights opponent (and a Democrat) back in the days when he had Presidential aspirations. Trent didn't say anything at all racist, and certainly demeaned no one in his speech, but was driven out of his position.
What a contrast with Kerry, who simply says what he believes, which offends most of the population, but gets a pass from a press desperate to contain the damage less than a week before elections.
No apology required. Just let the man keep talking.
My take, as usual, is different from the talking heads from both sides. The lefties say it was just a botched joke about Bush. There's no way you can possibly twist his words into any conceivable Bush joke unless you just didn't see the video. Everyone else is demanding he apologize, while Kerry himself went insane in a press conference, where he blamed Bush. I like the trend of most Democrats, who automatically fall back to "it's Bush's fault" whenever something goes wrong, even when it was their own gaffe.
What I would suggest is that there's no need to demand Kerry apologize. If he were to apologize for stating his true belief, it would be a false and meaningless act. Kerry's statement that basically labels military personnel as a bunch of losers simply represents his true belief. The best and most believable apology he could make would be, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the military with my statement, but I stand by my belief that the military is the last resort for people who can't cut it anywhere else."
Politically, there's a pretty good comparison that illustrates the double standard among the press. A few years back, Trent Lott gave a speech at Strom Thurmond's retirement party, and got driven from his position as a Senate GOP leader just because he said something nice about Strom. He just said that the country might be better off today if Strom had been President. The Democrats and their media megaphone twisted that into the idea that Trent was a racist, because Strom was a civil rights opponent (and a Democrat) back in the days when he had Presidential aspirations. Trent didn't say anything at all racist, and certainly demeaned no one in his speech, but was driven out of his position.
What a contrast with Kerry, who simply says what he believes, which offends most of the population, but gets a pass from a press desperate to contain the damage less than a week before elections.
No apology required. Just let the man keep talking.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Voted
I voted today, because I might be out of town next Tuesday.
It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.
As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.
I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.
It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.
It was easy, and didn't take long. I don't see what the flap is all about with having to show an ID. No problem.
As far as the new computer terminal, it seemed to work OK. I can understand where people might get concerned about hacking, but it seems to me that with adequate security measures and other checks and balances, like making sure the number of people who voted on the machine matches the number of people who showed up to vote, should help insure it doesn't get hacked.
I took my own advice. There was a local board that I didn't know anything about, and didn't know anybody running for it. So I didn't vote for anyone for that board. Otherwise I had done my homework and voted for the best options in each race.
It will be interesting to see how I did after all the votes are in next week.
Contradiction
Does anybody else wonder about contradictions? I was just thinking about several:
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Why protest against killing animals and serial killers, then fight to keep infanticide a basic right?
Why block all domestic oil exploration, power plants, and refineries, then accuse others of jacking up energy prices to enrich their friends in the energy business?
How can one be a socialist and be filthy rich?
Why demagogue the Kyoto treaty when one knows it exempts the world's greatest polluters while just picking America's pocket?
Why demagogue government-funded embryonic stem cell research when there hasn't been a single success with them?
Why pass laws to keep people from smoking and eating fatty foods, while demonstrating for legalization of recreational drugs?
Why continue to harrass Christians to keep them from expressing their faith anywhere in public, yet promote atheism, paganism, buddism, and even Islam in public schools?
How do pacifists decide to demand military intervention in Darfur?
How is it inclusive to support preferences based on skin color? How does granting preferences in college admissions to government contracts to wealthy non-white and non-asian people advance any social good?
Why does science only count if at least one scientist claims to have proven one's view?
How can supporting illegal immigration be in the interest of labor unions?
If the minimum wage isn't enough to live on at $5.15, would you suggest it is enough at $6.50?
Just wondering.
Monday, October 30, 2006
You better not vote if ...
You form all your impressions of the candidates from their TV ads
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
You have no idea where each candidate stands on the key issues they will vote on as your representative
You're voting against someone instead of for someone
Your opinions on issues were formed by watching CNN or CBS, or what people you know say.
You haven't bothered to at least read the newspaper profiles on the candidates for local offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that difficult, you know. The internet is a very fast resource to find out who's running for what, their qualifications (or lack thereof), their positions on important issues, and what they've promised to do if you elect them.
It's funny - I saw some political ads up in Northern Indiana this week, then a couple over the weekend after I got home. I can't see how anybody could take these ads seriously.
For example, up north there was an ad against congressman Chocola. I don't really know anything about the guy, but the ad was kind of funny. The basic message from the ad was, "Don't vote for Chocola, who's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". It made me curious about how much his opponent is worth.
Even funnier was when I got home and saw virtually the same ad here against Sodrel. "Don't vote for Sodrel because he's a millionaire and is cozy with George W. Bush". I guess they just produced the same ad across the country and substituted the candidate name for each campaign.
But then I saw a couple of Sodrel's ads. One was a pleasant surprise, showing Sodrel with some of the reasons he should be re-elected. That's the kind of ad I wish every candidate would run.
But then I saw an ad against Sodrel's opponent, Baron Hill. It accused him of "cashing in" on his position as a former congressman by taking a job with a Washington lobbying firm. Yawn. I can't imagine that ad would influence anyone's vote one way or the other.
Why can't both candidates just do what Sodrel did with his positive ad? Better yet, why not just show the voters where each of them stands? Wouldn't the best approach be to just show us the facts and let us decide? Very simply, all we really need to know is:
Abortion: Hill Pro-Abortion, Sodrel Pro-Life
Iraq: Hill Pro-Withdrawal, Sodrel Pro-Win first
Taxes: Hill Pro-Repeal Bush's Tax Cuts, Sodrel Pro-Keep Bush Tax Cuts
Healthcare: Hill Pro-Socialized Medicine, Sodrel Pro-Private System
You get the idea.
Apparently, both sides seem to be afraid to put their positions out there. By attempting to trash the other, they hope to gain a protest vote, or at least disgust voters from the other side into staying home.
If I were to run for office, I'd want to run that way. Here's my position on the issues, and here's how my position is different from that of my opponent. Vote for me if you agree with me; vote for my opponent if you agree with him (her).
I think we would end up with a much better government if that happened.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Language
Last week's assignment was an assessment of a company's use of software. The goal was to solve their biggest problems and identify efficiencies they could realize through better use of available features in the product.
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Naturally, I found a plethora of opportunities for improvement. That's not particularly unusual, because most companies don't deign to use their software consultants in a way that brings them true value; their attitude is usually, "Just give us a couple of weeks training, and we'll take it from there, thanks." The decision-making process most favored is generally known as "penny-wise, pound foolish".
I wrote a 30-page tome with all my findings and solutions, and shared it with the client group. I also shared it with the managers at the software company, suggesting that they have an opportunity to do some more business with this client.
The funny part of the story is that the software company manager sent me an email. The report was "OK". Actually, it was better than anything anybody else at the company ever created, but "OK" will do. I laughed when I read her feedback that notified me of a "typo". My "typo" was the use of "en masse" in a phrase, related to an alternative method for entry of data. Apparently she is unfamiliar with the common usage of "en masse". Do you suppose she missed the fact that Microsoft Word didn't even give it the red underline?
It's not all that unusual to get asked what I meant by a word or phrase. Perhaps it is a fault of mine to sometimes exploit an extended vocabulary in expressing myself. I truly never use vocabulary to impress; I merely choose the words I feel best fit the message. It's funny when someone tells me a perfectly appropriate word or phrase is a typo.
Not to pick on this individual, in fact, you should have seen what I saw back when I was myself a manager for the software company. Part of my role back then was to review reports created by consultants, mainly to keep up with what was happening in the various projects. They were mostly awful. Most of these folks couldn't pass a Freshman Composition class. Freshman in High School. That is, depending on what high schools are teaching these days - you never know. I often found myself wondering, while reading a particularly poor example of a consultant status report, how in the world this consultant actually graduated from a real university. Maybe I should send the consultant's alma mater English department a copy of one of their status reports, along with a letter asking whether this was a representative writing example of their university graduates.
Some of them couldn't put a coherent sentence together if their job depended on it. And they're professional, highly-paid consultants? So glad I'm not responsible for that anymore.
Wouldn't it be nice if the average person had at least enough education to be able to express themself in a reasonably coherent sentence? With at least most words spelled correctly?
Recalling Professor Henry Higgins about the English language; "In America, they haven't spoken it in years."
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Movie Review
I caught Flags of our Fathers on opening night. I was stuck in Kansas anyway, and had stayed in the hotel and worked pretty much every night this week. So for my big Friday night outing, I naturally chose to see the movie based on the book I enjoyed so much.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Here's what I was worried about going into the movie:
That the story would be used for some sort of political statement,
That the story wouldn't stay true to the story, becoming "Hollywoodized" and therefore ruined like other great stories that get shredded by the movie interpretation,
That the depiction of the battle for Iwo Jima would be too graphic.
I was relieved to find none of the above happened in the movie. I found it moving and compelling and well acted. I enjoyed the way it told the story by intertwining scenes from the Bond Tour with flashbacks to battle scenes. I appreciated the fact that the violence depicted was enough to convey the brutality of the battle, but was never gratuitous. For example, when Doc finally finds his buddy Iggy, they don't even show Iggy's body - just Doc's reaction.
If you want to see this movie, I suggest you first pick up and read the book. I believe the film is much easier to follow and understand if you've already read the book. There are lots of subtleties you will find and appreciate in the movie depiction only if you have read the book.
Don't worry about the book spoiling the movie. It's not that kind of story. It's no problem if you already know how it turns out.
If you follow my advice, you will find the combined experience of both the book and the movie provide a great sensitive, multilayered look at war and heroes. After the movie, let me know who your heroes are, and what your definition of a hero is.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Grease - The Rest of the Story
I just happened to catch the movie Grease on TV, the one from 1978 with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John. It just hit me as the movie was ending to write the rest of the story about Danny Zuko and Sandy (what is her last name?)
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
So, here you go - picking up where the movie left off:
Sandy graduates from Rydell with Honors and Danny barely gets a diploma. They're inseparable, and Danny likes her new biker-chick attitude, but is kind of uncomfortable with it because part of what attracted him to Sandy was her straight-laced, upper-middle-class status.
Sandy's parents are beside themselves. Their terrific daughter, straight-A student who's destined for the Ivy League, is now dressing like a prostitute and hanging out with a gang banger from the wrong side of town. Now she's staying out all hours at night, has started smoking, has new piercings in strange places, and her mother is pretty sure she spotted a tattoo!
The parents both keep trying to convince Sandy that there's nothing but bad that can happen, and she should dump Danny immediately. But the more they press her, the more she rebels, until she is barely speaking to her parents. At least she's headed for Princeton at the end of the summer, then maybe she'll get over this temporary stage.
But Sandy misses her monthly time in July. Only a couple of weeks before she is scheduled to leave for college, she gets confirmation - she is pregnant. Danny is the only person she tells, and he steps up bravely and offers to marry her. After all, he's got a job down at the shop pumping gas and working on cars.
She can't tell her parents; it would be unbearable to hear their wrath. So she and Danny decide to elope. They get married one night after she sneaked out of the house, then for their honeymoon went out for dinner and stayed at the little motel in the next town over.
Danny rented a trailer from Kinicki's uncle, and they set up housekeeping. Sandy tries to keep house as best she can on Danny's small income. Of course, they let her distraught parents in on the wedding almost right away, but wait a month before telling them about the pregnancy. Sandy figures when the baby arrives, it will be close enough to nine months to partially allay suspicion.
At first, Danny and Sandy are ecstatic. But it doesn't take long before Sandy's showing, and Danny starts losing interest and spends more and more nights hanging out with the T-Birds. And he's started drinking heavily. But if Sandy tries to talk with him about the late nights, the drinking binges, being late for work, he just tells her to mind her own business and stays out even later.
When Danny Junior is born, things seem to improve for awhile. Danny starts to take his responsibilities as a father more seriously. Even though he got fired from the garage, he found another garage to take him on, and had not been late or missed work yet.
After awhile, Sandy decides to get a job of her own. After all, she was the fastest in her high school typing class, and is very intelligent. She's a terrific clerk/typist for a local business, and their finances start to improve gradually. But Danny doesn't like the idea of Sandy working, and especially doesn't approve of Sandy's parents watching little Danny Junior while Sandy's at work.
Gradually, Danny starts to fall back into his old habits. He spends more time with his old T-Bird pals, getting drunk just about every night now. And he's been late for work a lot lately, and has been given an ultimatum by his boss; one more time and he will be fired.
That was a bad day. He went straight to the bar after work and got drunk as he angrily thought about how unfair his boss was, what a jerk he was for threatening him over showing up a little late once in awhile. When the bar closes and kicks him out, he finally goes home, still boiling over with anger over his boss.
Sandy's waiting for him with her hands on her hips, and he's sure she's about to lay into him. His own wife is against him. He is so angry that before she says anything, he starts yelling at her and throwing things. Then he starts hitting her.
Worse yet, Sandy's pregnant again. She leaves with Danny Junior and moves in with her parents. A despondent Danny loses his job and drinks more than ever.
Next:
What happens to Sandy and Danny? Do they divorce? Can Sandy salvage her life and move ahead with her two kids? Can Danny overcome his alcoholism and recover his family?
Saturday, October 14, 2006
End of Quarter Rant
Very little gets me in a bad mood like the end of the quarter. Once again, I say everyone should pay their own taxes every quarter. Then there would be the most gigantic tax revolt in history, when people actually have to write a check to the Federal, State, and Local goverments.
The high taxes is part of it, but the bigger thing is the stupid paperwork. I need somewhere between 8 and 12 hours at the end of each quarter to file all of the stupid little forms and reports. Last quarter I got blind-sided with some worker training tax I never heard of, but has to be paid by every "employer" once a year. The notice came about 2 weeks before the payment was due, and I didn't open the envelope until the actual due date. So I paid it right away, but too late - I got a bill for a late charge that was more than the tax itself. Arrgghh!
So you see it blows my mind that, at least according to the news media, the country is dead set on giving control of the federal government to the people who don't think we pay enough. They think we "fat cats" who happen to run our own small businesses aren't paying enough, plus we should be filling out more stupid forms and paying more "special" socialist taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I happen to think there are plenty of Republican jerks in office. But to cut my own throat to kick them out by electing a Democrat that's even more of a jerk? Get real!
Seriously, to anybody reading this who wants Democrats in charge, please answer these questions for me:
Do you pay taxes? Do you think you pay too much or not enough? Are you OK with paying more taxes starting next year? And that wouldn't make you just a little bit angry with those who stuck you with those taxes?
How much tax do you suppose the rich pay? What do you think the definition of "rich" is? I mean in terms of annual income, or total net worth? Is somebody who makes $50K a year rich? If somebody's worth a half million total, is he rich? How much do you think the rich should pay in taxes, total? What's a fair percentage, 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%?
If you're rich and still vote Socialist (oh, I mean Democrat), does that mean you want the government to have most of what you earn? If so, you know you could just make it a gift to the government - I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. Rich actor, how much of that $10mil per picture do you get to keep, after taxes? If you're not cheating, I'm thinking you can't possibly keep more than about 4 or 4.5 mil of that 10. Especially if you live in NY or LA. So you're saying you are not only OK with that, but you think they should take more? How much more?
Rich heir or heiress, you're voting Democrat. I can sort of understand you better than the entertainers, because Democrats like to tax productivity instead of wealth while we're alive. And you don't produce anything, you just party hard and look down your nose at the rest of us poor slobs who have to work for a living. You inherited yours, so it's pretty safe from taxes except for your capital gains, and of course you don't have a problem paying that tax. I'm guessing you keep most of your "real" wealth offshore to hide it from the government. Yeah, I know, you're a hypocrite. I just wonder how many others know that too. But besides that, you're really OK with letting the government take most of your estate when you die, leaving the short end of the stick for your own kids? All I can figure out is that you've got so much hidden offshore that you don't care, or you hate your kids and won't let them see a penny of your estate if you can help it.
Somebody explain it to me. It just blows my mind.
The high taxes is part of it, but the bigger thing is the stupid paperwork. I need somewhere between 8 and 12 hours at the end of each quarter to file all of the stupid little forms and reports. Last quarter I got blind-sided with some worker training tax I never heard of, but has to be paid by every "employer" once a year. The notice came about 2 weeks before the payment was due, and I didn't open the envelope until the actual due date. So I paid it right away, but too late - I got a bill for a late charge that was more than the tax itself. Arrgghh!
So you see it blows my mind that, at least according to the news media, the country is dead set on giving control of the federal government to the people who don't think we pay enough. They think we "fat cats" who happen to run our own small businesses aren't paying enough, plus we should be filling out more stupid forms and paying more "special" socialist taxes.
Don't get me wrong, I happen to think there are plenty of Republican jerks in office. But to cut my own throat to kick them out by electing a Democrat that's even more of a jerk? Get real!
Seriously, to anybody reading this who wants Democrats in charge, please answer these questions for me:
Do you pay taxes? Do you think you pay too much or not enough? Are you OK with paying more taxes starting next year? And that wouldn't make you just a little bit angry with those who stuck you with those taxes?
How much tax do you suppose the rich pay? What do you think the definition of "rich" is? I mean in terms of annual income, or total net worth? Is somebody who makes $50K a year rich? If somebody's worth a half million total, is he rich? How much do you think the rich should pay in taxes, total? What's a fair percentage, 50%? 60%? 80%? 100%?
If you're rich and still vote Socialist (oh, I mean Democrat), does that mean you want the government to have most of what you earn? If so, you know you could just make it a gift to the government - I'm sure they'd be happy to take it. Rich actor, how much of that $10mil per picture do you get to keep, after taxes? If you're not cheating, I'm thinking you can't possibly keep more than about 4 or 4.5 mil of that 10. Especially if you live in NY or LA. So you're saying you are not only OK with that, but you think they should take more? How much more?
Rich heir or heiress, you're voting Democrat. I can sort of understand you better than the entertainers, because Democrats like to tax productivity instead of wealth while we're alive. And you don't produce anything, you just party hard and look down your nose at the rest of us poor slobs who have to work for a living. You inherited yours, so it's pretty safe from taxes except for your capital gains, and of course you don't have a problem paying that tax. I'm guessing you keep most of your "real" wealth offshore to hide it from the government. Yeah, I know, you're a hypocrite. I just wonder how many others know that too. But besides that, you're really OK with letting the government take most of your estate when you die, leaving the short end of the stick for your own kids? All I can figure out is that you've got so much hidden offshore that you don't care, or you hate your kids and won't let them see a penny of your estate if you can help it.
Somebody explain it to me. It just blows my mind.
Friday, October 13, 2006
On Ambition
Had a discussion with someone this week about the trade-offs ambition requires. We agreed that there's a real conflict between keeping the relatively stress-free 9 to 5 job and striving for the better job that brings great stress along with the higher pay and prestige.
I've been warned by my own father many times about getting so wrapped up in career and monetary success that everything else gets left behind. I think he's right.
Just as in the other conversation, the person I was talking with stated the dilemma very clearly. The better job is stimulating and challenging and pays more, which are all good things. But the job also can be all-consuming. You're at work all the time, and when you're home, you still are working, or at least thinking about work. You miss family events. Errands don't get run, little broken things around the house don't get fixed, you lose touch with your spouse and kids.
Sometimes you want to go back to that old job, where you simply showed up and did your work. It was easy, relatively stress-free, and very boring. Back then you knew you had so much more to contribute. You were pretty sure you could do your boss's job better. You sometimes envied the higer-ups for their bigger houses and nicer cars.
Now you've got the better job and the responsibilities and the prestige. Sure, the money's better, but somehow it hasn't made you happier. You find that even though you bend over backward to be fair and respectful to your subordinates, they don't appreciate it. In fact, some of them are always undermining or disrespecting your leadership. There's no way to get all of the work done.
You work extra hours at the office and take work home, but it seems you continue to fall farther behind. Your superiors don't seem to notice how hard you've been working, but keep the pressure on by asking you to do even more. They also hold you accountable when one of your staff makes a mess of things.
In the meantime, things aren't so great at home. Your spouse is giving you grief about "always" working and never being there for the family. You miss the soccer or football games, music performances, plays, or spelling bees your kids are in more and more often. You're mostly not home for dinner these days.
What will you do? You can't quit; your income is badly needed to support the lifestyle your family enjoys. You can't spend less time at work; you're already in trouble with your boss for problems in your department.
So you resolve to just try to become more efficient, and do a better job budgeting your time to get more quality time at home. Only that never seems to quite work out.
Ambition. Do you still have it?
I've been warned by my own father many times about getting so wrapped up in career and monetary success that everything else gets left behind. I think he's right.
Just as in the other conversation, the person I was talking with stated the dilemma very clearly. The better job is stimulating and challenging and pays more, which are all good things. But the job also can be all-consuming. You're at work all the time, and when you're home, you still are working, or at least thinking about work. You miss family events. Errands don't get run, little broken things around the house don't get fixed, you lose touch with your spouse and kids.
Sometimes you want to go back to that old job, where you simply showed up and did your work. It was easy, relatively stress-free, and very boring. Back then you knew you had so much more to contribute. You were pretty sure you could do your boss's job better. You sometimes envied the higer-ups for their bigger houses and nicer cars.
Now you've got the better job and the responsibilities and the prestige. Sure, the money's better, but somehow it hasn't made you happier. You find that even though you bend over backward to be fair and respectful to your subordinates, they don't appreciate it. In fact, some of them are always undermining or disrespecting your leadership. There's no way to get all of the work done.
You work extra hours at the office and take work home, but it seems you continue to fall farther behind. Your superiors don't seem to notice how hard you've been working, but keep the pressure on by asking you to do even more. They also hold you accountable when one of your staff makes a mess of things.
In the meantime, things aren't so great at home. Your spouse is giving you grief about "always" working and never being there for the family. You miss the soccer or football games, music performances, plays, or spelling bees your kids are in more and more often. You're mostly not home for dinner these days.
What will you do? You can't quit; your income is badly needed to support the lifestyle your family enjoys. You can't spend less time at work; you're already in trouble with your boss for problems in your department.
So you resolve to just try to become more efficient, and do a better job budgeting your time to get more quality time at home. Only that never seems to quite work out.
Ambition. Do you still have it?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Clarity
Events are so simple, transparent, and easy to understand. But it seems most of the time I'm one of a very tiny group of people that understand. Right now may be a critical stage in history, and the future of the world could hang in the balance.
North Korea is throwing a gigantic tantrum. The nuclear test that maybe they thought would yield 4 kilotons actually might have been below 1 kiloton, but they did get an explosion. They continue to jump up and down to get the attention of the United States. Why? Extortion. They want us to pay them off in food, money, and technology. Sort of like a mob protection racket. We just have to keep them isolated and try to figure out how to keep them from selling nukes to Iran or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. And hope Kim Jong Il isn't stupid enough to try tossing a nuke over the DMZ into South Korea.
Iran's a different problem. They are building nukes, and have a stated purpose which involves wiping Israel off the map and driving the United States completely out of the Middle East. As soon as they have nukes, it seems pretty certain that they will use them as soon as they think they can get away with it. They've infiltrated heavily into Iraq, and some who seem to know are saying they are orchestrating much of the current violence there. It's turning out to be a pretty good strategy for them, because here at home, people seem to be blaming Bush instead of Iran for that violence.
Ultimately, Iran wants to build their grand caliphate, making all of the middle east and northern Africa part of their own brand of Islam. When they have consolidated power, they will proceed to expand toward world domination. Very Hitleresque, don't you think?
In the meantime, we in the US are war weary. Not that any combat death should be shrugged off, but we lose more people to car accidents every month in California than we lose in a year in Iraq. People who don't really know, or perhaps don't care to know the stakes in Iraq and Iran and Syria and North Korea, just want to give them their wish. I hear them all the time, once they're done calling Bush some sort of profanity, saying we should just pull the troops home and turtle up. Just create some sort of big shell around the United States and hope we don't get another 9/11. Then the Democrats can take control of the government and try to get Iran and North Korea to like us, using Clinton diplomacy to give them that protection payoff for a promise to leave us alone.
So my crystal ball is clearer than it's ever been on this stuff. If Democrats take over Congress next month, they will start with myriad investigations of the Bush Administration, possibly including a bill of impeachment. They will move ahead with defunding of the war in Iraq and increasing demands we get out of there, plus of course a rollback of everything else that happened during the Bush years.
Then we'll get attacked again. I'm not sure when, or where, or even how. The Democrats will of course blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop the attack. Gas prices spike again, taxes go out of site, unemployment gets out of control, and terrorism increases steadily across the country. Iran takes control of Iraq, and with their Syrian alliance begins to threaten the rest of the middle east. Maybe they take over Kuwait first, then cast their evil eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
North Korea will likely be allowed to develop their nukes, and will demand and receive their protection deal from the U.S. It might keep them at bay for a couple years, but pretty soon they will demand more protection money. They will continue to ratchet up their demands as time goes on: Give us what we want or we'll toss a nuke at South Korea or Japan. Maybe they'll give a nuke to somebody who can sneak it into a major US city.
What I'm not completely sure about is what the Democrats will do when things go south. I'm pretty sure they'll leave Iraq to the Iranians. There's precedent for that - Jimmy Carter is the one who gave Iran to the Ayatollahs to begin with. What I don't know is what they will do when terrorists once again begin to successfully blow things up here at home. Again, precedent and their rhetoric throughout the war on terror suggests that they will take no action beyond trying to find the individuals responsible for each attack, and if they find them, hauling them in for prosecution in US courts.
It is all so clear and simple. But so many don't understand. Perhaps they choose not to understand. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, give it a year and then come back to this post to see if I was prophetic.
North Korea is throwing a gigantic tantrum. The nuclear test that maybe they thought would yield 4 kilotons actually might have been below 1 kiloton, but they did get an explosion. They continue to jump up and down to get the attention of the United States. Why? Extortion. They want us to pay them off in food, money, and technology. Sort of like a mob protection racket. We just have to keep them isolated and try to figure out how to keep them from selling nukes to Iran or Al Quaeda or Hezbollah. And hope Kim Jong Il isn't stupid enough to try tossing a nuke over the DMZ into South Korea.
Iran's a different problem. They are building nukes, and have a stated purpose which involves wiping Israel off the map and driving the United States completely out of the Middle East. As soon as they have nukes, it seems pretty certain that they will use them as soon as they think they can get away with it. They've infiltrated heavily into Iraq, and some who seem to know are saying they are orchestrating much of the current violence there. It's turning out to be a pretty good strategy for them, because here at home, people seem to be blaming Bush instead of Iran for that violence.
Ultimately, Iran wants to build their grand caliphate, making all of the middle east and northern Africa part of their own brand of Islam. When they have consolidated power, they will proceed to expand toward world domination. Very Hitleresque, don't you think?
In the meantime, we in the US are war weary. Not that any combat death should be shrugged off, but we lose more people to car accidents every month in California than we lose in a year in Iraq. People who don't really know, or perhaps don't care to know the stakes in Iraq and Iran and Syria and North Korea, just want to give them their wish. I hear them all the time, once they're done calling Bush some sort of profanity, saying we should just pull the troops home and turtle up. Just create some sort of big shell around the United States and hope we don't get another 9/11. Then the Democrats can take control of the government and try to get Iran and North Korea to like us, using Clinton diplomacy to give them that protection payoff for a promise to leave us alone.
So my crystal ball is clearer than it's ever been on this stuff. If Democrats take over Congress next month, they will start with myriad investigations of the Bush Administration, possibly including a bill of impeachment. They will move ahead with defunding of the war in Iraq and increasing demands we get out of there, plus of course a rollback of everything else that happened during the Bush years.
Then we'll get attacked again. I'm not sure when, or where, or even how. The Democrats will of course blame the Bush administration for not doing enough to stop the attack. Gas prices spike again, taxes go out of site, unemployment gets out of control, and terrorism increases steadily across the country. Iran takes control of Iraq, and with their Syrian alliance begins to threaten the rest of the middle east. Maybe they take over Kuwait first, then cast their evil eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
North Korea will likely be allowed to develop their nukes, and will demand and receive their protection deal from the U.S. It might keep them at bay for a couple years, but pretty soon they will demand more protection money. They will continue to ratchet up their demands as time goes on: Give us what we want or we'll toss a nuke at South Korea or Japan. Maybe they'll give a nuke to somebody who can sneak it into a major US city.
What I'm not completely sure about is what the Democrats will do when things go south. I'm pretty sure they'll leave Iraq to the Iranians. There's precedent for that - Jimmy Carter is the one who gave Iran to the Ayatollahs to begin with. What I don't know is what they will do when terrorists once again begin to successfully blow things up here at home. Again, precedent and their rhetoric throughout the war on terror suggests that they will take no action beyond trying to find the individuals responsible for each attack, and if they find them, hauling them in for prosecution in US courts.
It is all so clear and simple. But so many don't understand. Perhaps they choose not to understand. Or maybe they just don't care. Either way, give it a year and then come back to this post to see if I was prophetic.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Creating Our Own Problems
The more direct experience I have with the "system", the more convinced I am that it desperately needs an overhaul.
Nobody wants others to suffer. We're largely a compassionate people, turning to both the government and private charities to take care of the "less fortunate".
Well, I've been seeing a lot of the "less fortunate" through my work with CASA. And I've gotta say, the way our government "helps" them is making their problems worse, not better.
Here's the reality. Social welfare programs have created generations of leeches. There's a whole class of people that don't get educated, have kids in poverty and out of wedlock, and make a career out of getting the maximum in benefits from the government and local charities.
There are too many 21-year-old girls who already have 4 kids. She has never worked, never married, and gets by on handouts. She can get a decent house from the government, or if she's really lucky, a charity like Habitat for Humanity will build her a really nice one.
In the meantime, her boyfriends will move in and are likely to physically or sexually abuse her kids. She doesn't much care, either because she wants the man around (even if he's an abusive bum), or because she's so stoned she hasn't noticed.
She gets food stamps, but is as likely to sell them for drugs as use them for groceries for her children. She gets regular government checks, which of course are as likely to be spent on the drugs as anything else.
Eventually somebody will catch up with her and get her children out of there. "There" being the home that she got for free, that in only a few months' time has been utterly trashed. Her children probably will have to be split up between foster homes. The foster parents may not be able to deal with the destructive behaviors of the children, who are already at risk to stay in the system until they end up in prison as adults.
These programs are well-meaning, but terribly misguided. Here's what I would do, assuming you put me in charge:
No more cash payments. If you're poor, you can't get cash from the government.
Instead, the government will partner with charities to provide services. Need help? Come on in, and we'll help.
But first, you have to help yourself. If you need emergency shelter, food, or clothing, it will be provided. But going forward, you have to work for whatever benefits you get. If you don't work for a local business, we'll give you a job. Show up and you'll get paid; fail to show up, tough luck.
If you're strung out, we'll get you into a rehab program. Need someone to take care of your kids while you dry out? We'll take care of the kids. If and when you're through rehab and demonstrate you can hold a job and stay clean, you get your kids back. That's assuming you can do that in less than 2 years, by the way.
Bottom line, if you've fallen on hard times, we'll be there to help. But the help won't be free houses, free food stamps, or checks. It will be in drug and alcohol treatment, education or job training, job placement, and whatever you need to become self-sufficient. No more government coddling.
It might sound kind of tough, and it is. But this approach is the only way to make sure people take responsibility for themselves, instead of adding themselves to the ever-increasing rolls of leeches on the rest of us. Nobody starves, and nobody has to be homeless; but if turning to the government for those needs is less desirable than going to work and taking care of themselves, I believe most will choose self-sufficiency.
Nobody wants others to suffer. We're largely a compassionate people, turning to both the government and private charities to take care of the "less fortunate".
Well, I've been seeing a lot of the "less fortunate" through my work with CASA. And I've gotta say, the way our government "helps" them is making their problems worse, not better.
Here's the reality. Social welfare programs have created generations of leeches. There's a whole class of people that don't get educated, have kids in poverty and out of wedlock, and make a career out of getting the maximum in benefits from the government and local charities.
There are too many 21-year-old girls who already have 4 kids. She has never worked, never married, and gets by on handouts. She can get a decent house from the government, or if she's really lucky, a charity like Habitat for Humanity will build her a really nice one.
In the meantime, her boyfriends will move in and are likely to physically or sexually abuse her kids. She doesn't much care, either because she wants the man around (even if he's an abusive bum), or because she's so stoned she hasn't noticed.
She gets food stamps, but is as likely to sell them for drugs as use them for groceries for her children. She gets regular government checks, which of course are as likely to be spent on the drugs as anything else.
Eventually somebody will catch up with her and get her children out of there. "There" being the home that she got for free, that in only a few months' time has been utterly trashed. Her children probably will have to be split up between foster homes. The foster parents may not be able to deal with the destructive behaviors of the children, who are already at risk to stay in the system until they end up in prison as adults.
These programs are well-meaning, but terribly misguided. Here's what I would do, assuming you put me in charge:
No more cash payments. If you're poor, you can't get cash from the government.
Instead, the government will partner with charities to provide services. Need help? Come on in, and we'll help.
But first, you have to help yourself. If you need emergency shelter, food, or clothing, it will be provided. But going forward, you have to work for whatever benefits you get. If you don't work for a local business, we'll give you a job. Show up and you'll get paid; fail to show up, tough luck.
If you're strung out, we'll get you into a rehab program. Need someone to take care of your kids while you dry out? We'll take care of the kids. If and when you're through rehab and demonstrate you can hold a job and stay clean, you get your kids back. That's assuming you can do that in less than 2 years, by the way.
Bottom line, if you've fallen on hard times, we'll be there to help. But the help won't be free houses, free food stamps, or checks. It will be in drug and alcohol treatment, education or job training, job placement, and whatever you need to become self-sufficient. No more government coddling.
It might sound kind of tough, and it is. But this approach is the only way to make sure people take responsibility for themselves, instead of adding themselves to the ever-increasing rolls of leeches on the rest of us. Nobody starves, and nobody has to be homeless; but if turning to the government for those needs is less desirable than going to work and taking care of themselves, I believe most will choose self-sufficiency.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Observations on People and Places
Did I mention I've been pretty much everywhere?
Everywhere in the Continental United States, that is. I've never been to Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont. Or Puerto Rico, if that counts. But I've been in every other state, and in pretty much every major city.
I've been in most Canadian provinces, but admit that I haven't explored Canada much beyond the offices and hotels. There is just a bit of hesitation in striking out to explore a different country on my own. I have explored Toronto, and wandered around Montreal a bit.
My conclusions, if you're interested, are these.
No matter where I go, the bottom line is that people are people. I don't find a fundamental difference between Argentines and Californians, in the sense that they are all just living their lives and doing the best they can to take care of their families.
That said, I found different attitudes and group personalities in different places. From my personal experiences,
New Yorkers are the rudest and most profane.
Bostonians aren't far behind New Yorkers.
Texans are the friendliest and most hospitable.
Californians are the strangest.
Midwesterners are the most taciturn, but warm up to people after they get to know them.
Florida's a fascinating blend of southerners and midwestern snowbirds and New Yorkers, depending on where you are.
The southwest is hard to pin down. For example, Phoenix is full of people from somewhere else. Then there are the indians, with their own fiercely guarded heritage and interesting attitudes toward "white men".
The southeast is friendly and very laid back. They do things there on their own time. It's nice, if you can put aside your frenetic pace and go with the flow.
The mountain states seem to attract the hardcore skiers and mountian biker types. Not to mention Mormons, who are wonderfully friendly, hospitable, and family-oriented people.
People in major cities seem edgier. They're less trusting, and unfortunately many are also less trustworthy. They're always watching to make sure you're not taking advantage, while also watching for opportunities to take advantage of you. I'm glad I'm not a city dweller.
But of all the big cities, I think Chicago and Atlanta are less deserving of the previous characterization.
My favorite big cities are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago. Maybe Seattle.
My least favorite big cities are Los Angeles, New York, Miami. Maybe Boston.
I feel like I can place people from listening to them speak for a few minutes. I can definitely pick out a Chicagoan, Bostonian, New Yorker, Texan, Dakotas/Minnesota, Wisconsin, Southeasterner (Georgia/Alabama/Carolinas). I could place a Californian sometimes.
Since I've been everywhere, why do I choose to live in Indiana? Honestly, I don't believe there's anywhere else in the country I would prefer. Partly it's home for me. But mostly, Indiana has low cost of living, is quieter, has no traffic to speak of, is a hospitable and simple place to live and raise a family. There are lots of other places in the country that are great to visit, but when the visit is over, I want to come back home to Indiana.
Everywhere in the Continental United States, that is. I've never been to Alaska, Idaho, or Vermont. Or Puerto Rico, if that counts. But I've been in every other state, and in pretty much every major city.
I've been in most Canadian provinces, but admit that I haven't explored Canada much beyond the offices and hotels. There is just a bit of hesitation in striking out to explore a different country on my own. I have explored Toronto, and wandered around Montreal a bit.
My conclusions, if you're interested, are these.
No matter where I go, the bottom line is that people are people. I don't find a fundamental difference between Argentines and Californians, in the sense that they are all just living their lives and doing the best they can to take care of their families.
That said, I found different attitudes and group personalities in different places. From my personal experiences,
New Yorkers are the rudest and most profane.
Bostonians aren't far behind New Yorkers.
Texans are the friendliest and most hospitable.
Californians are the strangest.
Midwesterners are the most taciturn, but warm up to people after they get to know them.
Florida's a fascinating blend of southerners and midwestern snowbirds and New Yorkers, depending on where you are.
The southwest is hard to pin down. For example, Phoenix is full of people from somewhere else. Then there are the indians, with their own fiercely guarded heritage and interesting attitudes toward "white men".
The southeast is friendly and very laid back. They do things there on their own time. It's nice, if you can put aside your frenetic pace and go with the flow.
The mountain states seem to attract the hardcore skiers and mountian biker types. Not to mention Mormons, who are wonderfully friendly, hospitable, and family-oriented people.
People in major cities seem edgier. They're less trusting, and unfortunately many are also less trustworthy. They're always watching to make sure you're not taking advantage, while also watching for opportunities to take advantage of you. I'm glad I'm not a city dweller.
But of all the big cities, I think Chicago and Atlanta are less deserving of the previous characterization.
My favorite big cities are Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago. Maybe Seattle.
My least favorite big cities are Los Angeles, New York, Miami. Maybe Boston.
I feel like I can place people from listening to them speak for a few minutes. I can definitely pick out a Chicagoan, Bostonian, New Yorker, Texan, Dakotas/Minnesota, Wisconsin, Southeasterner (Georgia/Alabama/Carolinas). I could place a Californian sometimes.
Since I've been everywhere, why do I choose to live in Indiana? Honestly, I don't believe there's anywhere else in the country I would prefer. Partly it's home for me. But mostly, Indiana has low cost of living, is quieter, has no traffic to speak of, is a hospitable and simple place to live and raise a family. There are lots of other places in the country that are great to visit, but when the visit is over, I want to come back home to Indiana.
Unhinged
It's shaping up to be the ugliest campaign season I've ever seen.
The ongoing dirty tricks campaign against Michael Steele in Maryland continues. He's endured racial slandering from his opponents, Senator Schumer's staff got caught illegally stealing his credit report, campaign activists trail him everywhere and film everything he says and does, trying to splice together misleading footage to discredit him, and the latest case the Dem hit team was filming him trying to offer private condolence to parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Then there's an ugly attack ad against JD Hayworth in Arizona. Bad enough it smeared him with a lie about ties to Abramoff. That's a reality of politics these days. But it also ran a picture of his head centered in crosshairs of a rifle scope. Unbelievable.
Even locally, today Baron Hill announced that Mike Sodrel should return money from the Republican National Campaign Committee because of the Foley mess. What a sad and disgusting example of political opportunism.
What ever happened to campaigning on issues? Why can't Hayworth's opponent simply say that JD's a supporter of the war in Iraq and a leader on Border security, among other positions he opposes? Could it be because he can't win on the issues?
What else can Baron Hill do? The reality is that when you get into an actual issues discussion, Baron comes pretty close to Mike on most of them. And where he doesn't agree, he probably doesn't want to mention it because his stance is opposite of the voters.
OK, now tell me that both sides use dirty tricks in campaigning. Maybe so. But so far I haven't seen any from the Republicans. Of course, the real campaign is only beginning; just wait until the TV and radio ads come in full force.
Tell you what. As soon as I see a Republican ad that's unfairly trashing the Democrat, I'll post it.
The ongoing dirty tricks campaign against Michael Steele in Maryland continues. He's endured racial slandering from his opponents, Senator Schumer's staff got caught illegally stealing his credit report, campaign activists trail him everywhere and film everything he says and does, trying to splice together misleading footage to discredit him, and the latest case the Dem hit team was filming him trying to offer private condolence to parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Then there's an ugly attack ad against JD Hayworth in Arizona. Bad enough it smeared him with a lie about ties to Abramoff. That's a reality of politics these days. But it also ran a picture of his head centered in crosshairs of a rifle scope. Unbelievable.
Even locally, today Baron Hill announced that Mike Sodrel should return money from the Republican National Campaign Committee because of the Foley mess. What a sad and disgusting example of political opportunism.
What ever happened to campaigning on issues? Why can't Hayworth's opponent simply say that JD's a supporter of the war in Iraq and a leader on Border security, among other positions he opposes? Could it be because he can't win on the issues?
What else can Baron Hill do? The reality is that when you get into an actual issues discussion, Baron comes pretty close to Mike on most of them. And where he doesn't agree, he probably doesn't want to mention it because his stance is opposite of the voters.
OK, now tell me that both sides use dirty tricks in campaigning. Maybe so. But so far I haven't seen any from the Republicans. Of course, the real campaign is only beginning; just wait until the TV and radio ads come in full force.
Tell you what. As soon as I see a Republican ad that's unfairly trashing the Democrat, I'll post it.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Hostility Against Religion
When explaining my rightward-leaning viewpoints to Democrat acquaintences, I've cited the left's hostility toward Christianity as one of the most important reasons. In response, Democrats will usually scoff, and say there's no campaign against Christians. They claim to simply believe in the "Separation between Church and State".
I beg to differ. Check out this story from the Washington Post. Sure, you might make the case that the Assistant Principal involved stepped over the line, and it's just an isolated case. I don't think so.
Across the country there have been cases of school administrators shutting down religious expression, either out of contempt for such expression or fear of ACLU lawsuits. This is just the latest of many examples ranging from schools kicking out small student-led bible studies to shutting off the microphone of a student attempting to cite her faith in God in a graduation speech to suspending students for praying.
Then there's the general attitude toward Christians from the left as expressed in recent days by Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher. If that's not hostility, then we need a new definition of the word.
Also today came the news that the Senate failed to achieve cloture to move a simple parental notification abortion measure. What parent could possibly be comfortable with the fact that their 14-year-old daughter can be transported across state lines, for example from Indiana to Illinois, by another adult for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without the parents' knowledge or consent?
Apparently 45 Democrats in the Senate are or would be such parents. And I haven't even started on the Partial-Birth abortion topic.
How could anyone with a conscience affiliate with a political party that is so clearly wrong on so many issues of faith and morality?
I beg to differ. Check out this story from the Washington Post. Sure, you might make the case that the Assistant Principal involved stepped over the line, and it's just an isolated case. I don't think so.
Across the country there have been cases of school administrators shutting down religious expression, either out of contempt for such expression or fear of ACLU lawsuits. This is just the latest of many examples ranging from schools kicking out small student-led bible studies to shutting off the microphone of a student attempting to cite her faith in God in a graduation speech to suspending students for praying.
Then there's the general attitude toward Christians from the left as expressed in recent days by Rosie O'Donnell and Bill Maher. If that's not hostility, then we need a new definition of the word.
Also today came the news that the Senate failed to achieve cloture to move a simple parental notification abortion measure. What parent could possibly be comfortable with the fact that their 14-year-old daughter can be transported across state lines, for example from Indiana to Illinois, by another adult for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without the parents' knowledge or consent?
Apparently 45 Democrats in the Senate are or would be such parents. And I haven't even started on the Partial-Birth abortion topic.
How could anyone with a conscience affiliate with a political party that is so clearly wrong on so many issues of faith and morality?
Monday, October 02, 2006
Book Review
I picked up Flags of our Fathers by James Bradley at the airport.
It's about Iwo Jima. As someone who has always had a particular interest in the many stories of WWII, of course it didn't take me long to grab it off the shelf and take it to the checkout counter.
I knew the basic story of Iwo Jima, and have been moved at the sight of the half dozen soldiers hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi, knowing a bit about the tremendous cost in lives spent in taking that summit.
But the book takes the reader much deeper into the campaign for that tiny hunk of rock in the Pacific. It introduces the flag-raisers and tells each of their stories: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, and the author's father, John Bradley.
Using what is described as exhaustive research combining military records and interviews with survivors, the book weaves a compelling tale of this group of ordinary American kids who lived through unimaginable events.
Whether you're interested in WWII stories or not, I'd highly recommend you get your hands on this book. There is much to be learned in its pages, about war, courage, and men.
I understand it's coming out in movie form. Assuming the movie is true to the story, I believe I would find it difficult to watch. But I'll probably be in line at the theatre when it opens.
It's about Iwo Jima. As someone who has always had a particular interest in the many stories of WWII, of course it didn't take me long to grab it off the shelf and take it to the checkout counter.
I knew the basic story of Iwo Jima, and have been moved at the sight of the half dozen soldiers hoisting the flag atop Mount Suribachi, knowing a bit about the tremendous cost in lives spent in taking that summit.
But the book takes the reader much deeper into the campaign for that tiny hunk of rock in the Pacific. It introduces the flag-raisers and tells each of their stories: Ira Hayes, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, Mike Strank, Rene Gagnon, and the author's father, John Bradley.
Using what is described as exhaustive research combining military records and interviews with survivors, the book weaves a compelling tale of this group of ordinary American kids who lived through unimaginable events.
Whether you're interested in WWII stories or not, I'd highly recommend you get your hands on this book. There is much to be learned in its pages, about war, courage, and men.
I understand it's coming out in movie form. Assuming the movie is true to the story, I believe I would find it difficult to watch. But I'll probably be in line at the theatre when it opens.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Breathe
Returned from a week-long trip to Canada, which seemed longer.
Dropped by the office after the Colt's game (a great game, by the way), just to take care of a couple of pressing items before the new week starts. I'm now very happy not to be traveling again this week, which actually was planned up until about a week ago when the client cancelled.
The piles on my desk have reached critical mass, and this week has to be dedicated to digging out of the hole created by what's been a crazy month. There's unopened mail, which I hope isn't anything terribly important. There are unreturned phone calls, most of which are probably too late to return anyway. Then there's just piles of administrative work that make me wish I could afford an assistant.
Did I mention that TV in Canada is terrible? They've got the basic US networks and CNN, and that's about it. Aside from my usual (and seemingly never-ending) evening online work, there wasn't much to do besides sleep. CNN is already in election mode, with almost every story designed to convey just how rotten Bush is. Doesn't anybody else get tired of that, over and over and over and over ...?
During the Colts' game this afternoon, they did a short ad for 60 Minutes. What do you know, here's the almost verbatim pitch:
"Is Bush lying to the American People about the Iraq war? Bob Woodward says he is. Tune in tonight to hear us trash Bush on another 60 Minutes."
OK, that last sentence wasn't verbatim. But it's close enough. What's that they say? Repeat a lie often enough and most people will begin to accept it as the truth? With the news dominated by crusading leftists who care more about influencing people than about reporting facts, as I've said before, our grand American experiment is over. The power-hungry left is taking charge, and before long the rest of us will just be hungry.
Dropped by the office after the Colt's game (a great game, by the way), just to take care of a couple of pressing items before the new week starts. I'm now very happy not to be traveling again this week, which actually was planned up until about a week ago when the client cancelled.
The piles on my desk have reached critical mass, and this week has to be dedicated to digging out of the hole created by what's been a crazy month. There's unopened mail, which I hope isn't anything terribly important. There are unreturned phone calls, most of which are probably too late to return anyway. Then there's just piles of administrative work that make me wish I could afford an assistant.
Did I mention that TV in Canada is terrible? They've got the basic US networks and CNN, and that's about it. Aside from my usual (and seemingly never-ending) evening online work, there wasn't much to do besides sleep. CNN is already in election mode, with almost every story designed to convey just how rotten Bush is. Doesn't anybody else get tired of that, over and over and over and over ...?
During the Colts' game this afternoon, they did a short ad for 60 Minutes. What do you know, here's the almost verbatim pitch:
"Is Bush lying to the American People about the Iraq war? Bob Woodward says he is. Tune in tonight to hear us trash Bush on another 60 Minutes."
OK, that last sentence wasn't verbatim. But it's close enough. What's that they say? Repeat a lie often enough and most people will begin to accept it as the truth? With the news dominated by crusading leftists who care more about influencing people than about reporting facts, as I've said before, our grand American experiment is over. The power-hungry left is taking charge, and before long the rest of us will just be hungry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)