Wouldn't it be wonderful if the term "investigative journalist" was no longer an oxymoron?
Let's just imagine for a moment a world where journalists really had the integrity to report the news, interview all relevant sources, and give the public full disclosure without adding their own perjoratives. Just think how it would benefit all of us if, say 60 Minutes, did the following stories:
"Did President Bush Lie to get us into the Iraq war?": A story that actually interviews the Dem's making the charge and asks them 'tough' questions like, "What evidence do you have to show us that the president lied, what specific lies did he tell, and how do they invalidate the decision that was made to remove Saddam Hussein?" Then examine the actual facts to find out if there is any evidence to support the claim.
"Are the Swift Boat Veterans Lying about John Kerry?": A story that interviews all of those in the Swift Vets group about their specific observations and experiences with Kerry in VietNam, a review of all available documentation from the time, and interviews with Kerry himself.
"Did President Bush Steal the 2000 Election?": A story about the Florida recount(s), the court challenges, the eventual outcome, what specific voters were "disenfranchised" and how, and the results of the unofficial recounts done by news organizations after the fact.
"Haliburton - Proof of Corruption?": A story that examines once and for all Haliburton's contracts and Iraq involvement, and whether any evidence exists to support Dem claims it's corruption.
"Kerry - consistent or flip-flopper?": Examine John Kerry's Senate voting record and public statements and air answers to everyone's questions about what he really believes.
"Farenheit 911 - Documentary or Fiction?": An honest analysis of Michael Moore's movie that actually breaks down what's truth, lies, and propaganda.
and my favorite topic: "Media Bias": A story about the three broadcast network news organizations, the cable news channels, the political leanings of their reporters, and how often biased reports are aired and whether those reports lean to the left or right.
For a truly balanced and objective treatment of these and many other stories, I know I'd watch, and I'll bet lots of other Americans would as well. Given the truth on these and related important topics, I wonder how it would affect the outcome of the upcoming election? I have a pretty good guess.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Anybody trust the news now?
Wow, has Dan Rather gone completely off the deep end?
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
He rushes to get stuff on the air that seems to suggest Dubya shirked his duties in the Guard, then everyone who looks at the documents says they're not only forgeries, but bad ones. He won't give up, digging up so-called "experts" to back him up, then those same "experts" start complaining that he misled them to get what he wanted them to say.
I'm reading Bernie Goldberg's book about Dan and media bias, and it's chilling. Sure, Bernie's got a bit of an axe to grind, but who wouldn't under the circumstances? He simply wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that pointed out a particularly egregious example of biased reporting at CBS, and pretty much lost his job and was black-balled for it. Amazing.
So, I'm thinking that we have to question everything, no matter what so-called "news" organizations are feeding us. Is anybody out there really fair and balanced? I don't get Fox News at home, but it's been amazing in the times I've been able to see it how much it contrasts with the other network news shows.
Once I saw a story about the Iraq war on CBS, then watched coverage of the same events on Fox. It was the same event, but the presentation of the story was completely different between the two reports. CBS basically seemed to be trying to suggest that US Soldiers caused the problem (I think it was another bombing in Fallujah) by their careless killing of innocent civilians. The take away from Fox was that a relatively small group of terrorists was making life miserable for Iraqi citizens, who actually support the efforts of American troops to root out the terrorist elements.
So, CBS wants us to see "Iraqi Insurgents" or "Iraqi Resistance" against evil American invaders, while Fox is showing us terrorists who are doing everything in their power to obstruct the creation of a free Iraq.
We can't go to Iraq ourselves to find out the truth, so we have to rely on journalists to tell us what's happening there. Unfortunately, CBS and their friends at NBC and ABC have muddied the waters so much that we can no longer trust anything they tell us. That's an extremely serious problem that will bring down our society if something is not done about it immediately. Their propaganda can lead only to an uninformed populace, which leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
I'm very concerned, and hope others are as well.
Friday, September 10, 2004
September 11th - Remembering
On September 11th three years ago, I got up early and hopped into a rental car to make the drive to Chicago for a client meeting, to be followed by an internal company meeting out in Lisle. Somewhere on the north side of Indianapolis, the first report came through the radio about an airplane that seemed to have crashed into a World Trade Center tower.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
As I continued driving the story continued to unfold, including a chilling interview with a man on a cellphone within sight of the towers, who in near hysteria described seeing a second airplane crashing into the other tower. Then we heard about the plane crashing into the pentagon, followed by all kinds of speculation and unconfirmed rumors about other planes in the skies that may or may not be targeting other buildings. Everyone knows the rest of the story, heard on the car radio as I approached the Windy City.
I arrived in Chicago, where the local radio stations were broadcasting advice for people to leave the tall buildings in the city in case they were targeted as well. My meeting was scheduled in one of those big buildings, and I tried to call my colleagues, but was unable to reach them. So, I called our office in the suburb of Lisle, and reached my boss, who suggested I skip the meeting and come into the office.
It was an interesting contrast that while all this was going on that day, the newly hired VP, who was in town to meet with his management team, went on with business as usual and seemed unaffected by the events of the day. He even went forward that very day with the termination of my direct supervisor, who just before had told me to reschedule the client meeting and come on in.
Anyway, after completing a day of meetings that would be stressful enough, given the reorganizing and job uncertainty, not to mention losing the supervisor that had been a great mentor, I was sort of emotionally numb.
Jerry, a co-worker from Louisville who had flown into Chicago, now had no way to get home since all flights were suspended indefinitely. So I brought him as far as Columbus in my rental car, then he hired a taxi to take him the rest of the way. It was interesting that when we stopped for gas, I think around Lafayette, they were just cleaning up lots of cones and barricades at the station. We asked the guy what all that was for, and he explained that there had been a pretty serious run on the station that day from people who were filling up on gas, and the lines had been long.
What a day, the likes of which I hope we do not see again.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Saving Marriage
Given the controversy over gay marriage, I was thinking it was time to take the steps long overdue to help save the whole institution. Unfortunately, it seems to me that too many people get married sort of like teenagers "go steady". It's viewed as a commitment for the moment, but the whole lifetime aspect is not taken very seriously.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
How can we fix this?
1. Reform divorce laws: No-fault divorces - what an incredibly stupid idea. Somebody's always at fault, and often there's an innocent spouse that gets destroyed in the process. Here's what should happen:
a. If one partner is dumping the other in favor of a new partner, they're free to leave with nothing. OK, they can take whatever they may have brought into the marriage and their personal effects, but that's it. The other spouse has no responsibility for spousal support and gets to keep the major marital assets.
b. Child custody decisions should favor the innocent party as well, regardless of whether that's the father or mother, as long as that party is capable of caring for the child(ren).
c. Make "irreconcilable differences" a very difficult process for divorce. Require spouses who wish to divorce on this vague reason enroll in mandatory counseling and agree to make every effort to reconcile, with a 1-year waiting period before the divorce is finally granted.
d. Physical abuse might be subject to the same consequences as (a.) above, but must be proven rather than just alleged by a vindictive spouse. Of course, physical abuse must dictate that the non-abusive partner gain custody of children.
e. Eliminate "emotional abuse". This would need an extremely heavy burden of proof, since any unhappy spouse would be likely to try using this argument.
2. Add premarital counseling to the requirement for obtaining a marriage license in every state. This could be tough to do, especially in Nevada where quickie weddings are a profitable industry, but is certain to make a great contribution to stronger marriages.
The counseling that is already taking place in churches could be supplemented by community or even commercial counseling programs, which will help prepare couples for marriage or possibly help them discover incompatibility before it's too late.
My summary point is that we need to get back to the traditional definition of marriage and teach people to understand and live that relationship. Then maybe it will become clearer to those who support the hijacking of the sacrament of marriage by homosexuals what the real definition has always been.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Labor Day thoughts - Here's to everyone who works for a living
Labor Day is that one-day holiday that marks the end of summer vacation, the start of school, and time for businesses to get busy.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
It's always seemed to me that everybody kind of kicks back in the summer as a rule. Of course, the workplace keeps going along through summer, but seemingly at a slower pace. Now that I'm building a business of my own, it seems like the beginning of September has marked a definite increase in activity and interest in tackling those new computer projects that weren't there over the summer.
If the day comes that my business joins the big time, I hope I remember all of those years spent as a wage slave. Times have changed, but if ever given the chance, I hope I can influence in some way a change back to some basic principles:
1. Workers should be able to count on their job being there as long as they're showing up, doing good work, and helping the company stay profitable and successful.
2. Employers must foster that long-lost principle with their employees, called loyalty. Loyalty is a two-way street, and must be returned to those workers who display it toward their employers.
3. Employees should never be treated as faceless "Human Resources". Every individual has specific talents and abilities that should be tapped to make the company successful.
4. There is a direct correlation between employee and company performance. Instead of paying the obscene bonuses to top management and ignoring the front-line workers, company successes should be shared by all. The same goes for downward trends - if you ask the workers to sacrifice, management should sacrifice as well, but all promised appropriate rewards with the hard times are overcome.
5. Fairness means never loading excessive unpaid overtime on a low-level supervisor just to save money on overtime or adding staff to the department. It also means supporting employees in ways that help them succeed, and tailoring compensation to give incentives for them to achieve specific results.
6. Playing politics must be forbidden. Anyone trying to elevate their status within the company by undermining or criticizing others will be immediately reprimanded, and if it continues, terminated. Everyone in the organization must be committed to the same goals, and all focus must be on solving problems rather than assessing blame.
In summary, I commit that my organization, no matter how large or small, will always value employees and encourage them to treat the company as if it were their own. A goal for what I hope to be a strong, successful company is that all those who work here wholeheartedly refer to this as the best place they've ever worked.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Honest Politician - an oxymoron
I'm getting weary of the political morass, so I might take a break on that topic for awhile after this one.
I wonder if there was ever a time since the Civil War when the population was so divided politically? There are two distinct camps with almost polar opposite beliefs who really can't understand the other side's point of view. I admit to being on the Conservative side, and also admit to being completely unable to grasp why anyone would support the other side this election year.
Here's why -
My jury's in on the Swift Vets. After reading everything out there, both supportive and not, with the exception of the book itself, I'm satisfied that the Swiftees are telling the truth. At least as far as they are able to know what's true.
What really fascinates me is the mainline press treatment of the whole story. What I always used to believe about journalists was that they were dedicated to finding and reporting the truth. Amazingly, that's not the case with this particular story.
While the press vigorously pursues the President in every aspect from whether he was implicated in Abu Graib to Haliburton corruption to lying about Iraq's WMD's to stealing milk from babies, they do their level best to sweep the swift boat vets story under the rug or try to impugn their characters and motives.
Absolutely no mainstream reporter has ventured to do a thorough, objective, non-biased investigation on the claims made by those vets. Whenever an article or reporter takes on the topic, there is no analysis of the actual claims. Instead, the story is inevitably about the political motivation of the vets, who's paying for their ads, and quotes of blanket statements from Kerry's staff that the vets are liars.
Others say let's stop focusing on what happened 30 years ago, and the issues of today. I'm for that. Here are the issues of today and what you can expect from each candidate:
1. Iraq: Bush will see the campaign through no matter what, and Iraq will become a free friendly country. Kerry will hand Iraq over to the U.N., and doesn't really care if somebody like (like al-Sadr) turns the country into another Iran.
2. Social Issues: Bush is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment that defends marriage, is friendly to our churches and people of faith, and believes we must continue to foster morality. Kerry is pro-choice to an extreme, supports gay marriage, aligned with ACLU efforts to turn our country into a secular society, and does not believe government has any moral authority.
3. Taxes: Bush got tax cuts done and wants them to stay in place. Kerry wants to not only repeal the tax cuts but raise them further on the "rich" (watch out, you might be rich and not know it). Never mind the tax cuts seem to have had a positive impact on the sluggish economy.
4. Spending: Actually, they're both big spenders. The deficits we've got today are somewhat unavoidable given the expensive Iraq war, but Bush could be doing more to encourage congress to sharpen their pencils and cut out pork. The Kerry difference is mainly that he wants to spend more - a lot more - expecially on Healthcare. I'm concerned about what are very serious healthcare problems in our country, but do not believe the answer is to simply tax and spend for socialized medicine.
5. Illegal Immigration: Sorry no help in sight from either candidate. Here's one I really wish we had a candidate focusing on, but there seem to be big political benefits on both sides to maintain the status quo.
6. Economy and Jobs: I understand the classic economic arguments that free trade benefits everyone. However, it pains me to see entire professions shipped to eastern countries simply because they're living standard allows them to provide those resources much more cheaply. Being an IT professional, all of a sudden what used to be a great job market has all but dried up: That means not only pain and suffering for everyone in that industry, but also means we're going to lose those skills entirely within our borders. That can't be good. Bush has presented no proposals to address this, and appears to be sticking with the economic theory. Kerry's promised to do something about it, but is suspiciously short on specifics.
7. Healthcare: A huge issue for our society, which is extremely complex and difficult to solve. Bush's proposals I think fall short, and I do not like the Socialized Medicine approach from Kerry. Again, I wish there was a candidate who had realistic plans and strategies that will move us in the direction of high quality, accessible healthcare that doesn't bankrupt people, businesses, and taxpayers.
8. Tort Reform: Clearly the proponent for this is Bush. The Dem Veep candidate is a classic tort lawyer and that party is heavily supported by the trial lawyers. Clear choice here.
Seems a simple voter guide to me. Once again, I'd love to have just one Kerry supporter explain to me why they think the above leftist positions make any sense. I'm in the group on the right that just doesn't get the other side...
I wonder if there was ever a time since the Civil War when the population was so divided politically? There are two distinct camps with almost polar opposite beliefs who really can't understand the other side's point of view. I admit to being on the Conservative side, and also admit to being completely unable to grasp why anyone would support the other side this election year.
Here's why -
My jury's in on the Swift Vets. After reading everything out there, both supportive and not, with the exception of the book itself, I'm satisfied that the Swiftees are telling the truth. At least as far as they are able to know what's true.
What really fascinates me is the mainline press treatment of the whole story. What I always used to believe about journalists was that they were dedicated to finding and reporting the truth. Amazingly, that's not the case with this particular story.
While the press vigorously pursues the President in every aspect from whether he was implicated in Abu Graib to Haliburton corruption to lying about Iraq's WMD's to stealing milk from babies, they do their level best to sweep the swift boat vets story under the rug or try to impugn their characters and motives.
Absolutely no mainstream reporter has ventured to do a thorough, objective, non-biased investigation on the claims made by those vets. Whenever an article or reporter takes on the topic, there is no analysis of the actual claims. Instead, the story is inevitably about the political motivation of the vets, who's paying for their ads, and quotes of blanket statements from Kerry's staff that the vets are liars.
Others say let's stop focusing on what happened 30 years ago, and the issues of today. I'm for that. Here are the issues of today and what you can expect from each candidate:
1. Iraq: Bush will see the campaign through no matter what, and Iraq will become a free friendly country. Kerry will hand Iraq over to the U.N., and doesn't really care if somebody like (like al-Sadr) turns the country into another Iran.
2. Social Issues: Bush is pro-life, supports a constitutional amendment that defends marriage, is friendly to our churches and people of faith, and believes we must continue to foster morality. Kerry is pro-choice to an extreme, supports gay marriage, aligned with ACLU efforts to turn our country into a secular society, and does not believe government has any moral authority.
3. Taxes: Bush got tax cuts done and wants them to stay in place. Kerry wants to not only repeal the tax cuts but raise them further on the "rich" (watch out, you might be rich and not know it). Never mind the tax cuts seem to have had a positive impact on the sluggish economy.
4. Spending: Actually, they're both big spenders. The deficits we've got today are somewhat unavoidable given the expensive Iraq war, but Bush could be doing more to encourage congress to sharpen their pencils and cut out pork. The Kerry difference is mainly that he wants to spend more - a lot more - expecially on Healthcare. I'm concerned about what are very serious healthcare problems in our country, but do not believe the answer is to simply tax and spend for socialized medicine.
5. Illegal Immigration: Sorry no help in sight from either candidate. Here's one I really wish we had a candidate focusing on, but there seem to be big political benefits on both sides to maintain the status quo.
6. Economy and Jobs: I understand the classic economic arguments that free trade benefits everyone. However, it pains me to see entire professions shipped to eastern countries simply because they're living standard allows them to provide those resources much more cheaply. Being an IT professional, all of a sudden what used to be a great job market has all but dried up: That means not only pain and suffering for everyone in that industry, but also means we're going to lose those skills entirely within our borders. That can't be good. Bush has presented no proposals to address this, and appears to be sticking with the economic theory. Kerry's promised to do something about it, but is suspiciously short on specifics.
7. Healthcare: A huge issue for our society, which is extremely complex and difficult to solve. Bush's proposals I think fall short, and I do not like the Socialized Medicine approach from Kerry. Again, I wish there was a candidate who had realistic plans and strategies that will move us in the direction of high quality, accessible healthcare that doesn't bankrupt people, businesses, and taxpayers.
8. Tort Reform: Clearly the proponent for this is Bush. The Dem Veep candidate is a classic tort lawyer and that party is heavily supported by the trial lawyers. Clear choice here.
Seems a simple voter guide to me. Once again, I'd love to have just one Kerry supporter explain to me why they think the above leftist positions make any sense. I'm in the group on the right that just doesn't get the other side...
Friday, August 20, 2004
Rules for Living
It's Friday! How about some of my own life rules. Just be sure to note that these are rules I might try to live by, but don't necessarily always succeed.
Start with God's rules. 10 Commandments and Golden Rule especially
In a disagreement never be disagreeable
Instead of arguing, ask why the other person thinks that
To get what you want, find a way to help get others what they want
pray daily
read as much as possible
sing daily
be honest unless it hurts someone - then just be quiet
at parties or gatherings, pick out the person that's by him/her self and learn something
never forget that your kids learn from what you do, not what you say
study before making decisions
hate no one
ask for help; ask to help
listen carefully, ask questions, and listen again
find out what you like to do, then do it as well as possible
seek out the other side of the story
free advice is worth the price
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Does Anybody Care about the Olympics?
Is it just me, or is the Olympic games becoming a big yawn?
I was just thinking about "Miracle", the movie that came out this year about the 1980 US Hockey gold medal team. That's a great story that really inspired a lot of national pride, with a group of college hockey players coming together to beat the best in the world.
Watching the Olympics this week, I can't seem to rouse anything close to the feelings of past Games. First, I can't relate to any of our athletes. Profiles done by NBC are trite and shallow, perhaps reflecting the personalities of the current batch of American "heroes". The profile of Amanda Beard was startling, then insulting, I would think as much to Amanda as to the audience. Rather than giving us insight into the talent, dedication, and sacrifice Amanda presumably brings to the representation of her country, we got instead a sort of tawdry Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition profile.
Then there's basketball. I never thought I would actually cease to care about the US Basketball team's success in the Olympics, but it has happened. We've got a bunch of rich, spoiled NBA guys who expect a gold medal just for showing up but are finding out that the rest of the teams in the event actually take pride in playing for their country and care about much more than picking up some more endorsement deals. Also notice the number of marquee NBA players that said "no thanks" this year; it speaks volumes about their priorities. Note to the US Olympic Committee - go back to College for your basketball team! They might lose, but at least they'll play with heart and pride.
OK, part of the problem is that the big, bad Soviet Union isn't there anymore. It's just not the same to root for the US to beat the "bad guys", when the baddest guys in the Games are China, Cuba, and N. Korea (are they even there?).
I hope next time around we'll see more athletes of great personal stature representing our country, which is exactly what we all want to root for. Give us real American Heroes!
August 19th Update: OK, there is a notable exception. Congratulations Paul Hamm on a gutsy comeback for the gymnastics gold!
I was just thinking about "Miracle", the movie that came out this year about the 1980 US Hockey gold medal team. That's a great story that really inspired a lot of national pride, with a group of college hockey players coming together to beat the best in the world.
Watching the Olympics this week, I can't seem to rouse anything close to the feelings of past Games. First, I can't relate to any of our athletes. Profiles done by NBC are trite and shallow, perhaps reflecting the personalities of the current batch of American "heroes". The profile of Amanda Beard was startling, then insulting, I would think as much to Amanda as to the audience. Rather than giving us insight into the talent, dedication, and sacrifice Amanda presumably brings to the representation of her country, we got instead a sort of tawdry Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition profile.
Then there's basketball. I never thought I would actually cease to care about the US Basketball team's success in the Olympics, but it has happened. We've got a bunch of rich, spoiled NBA guys who expect a gold medal just for showing up but are finding out that the rest of the teams in the event actually take pride in playing for their country and care about much more than picking up some more endorsement deals. Also notice the number of marquee NBA players that said "no thanks" this year; it speaks volumes about their priorities. Note to the US Olympic Committee - go back to College for your basketball team! They might lose, but at least they'll play with heart and pride.
OK, part of the problem is that the big, bad Soviet Union isn't there anymore. It's just not the same to root for the US to beat the "bad guys", when the baddest guys in the Games are China, Cuba, and N. Korea (are they even there?).
I hope next time around we'll see more athletes of great personal stature representing our country, which is exactly what we all want to root for. Give us real American Heroes!
August 19th Update: OK, there is a notable exception. Congratulations Paul Hamm on a gutsy comeback for the gymnastics gold!
Friday, August 13, 2004
Fun Stuff for Friday the 13th
Does anybody think Friday the 13th is an unlucky day? I don't recall it ever being either lucky or unlucky - just another day. But then, I've never been a lucky person as a rule.
Football is finally starting again! It seems interminable waiting for the season - I don't care what level, high school, college, NFL.
Just give me football.
Go Colts! Is their defense going to be good enough to get them to the Super Bowl?
Is Notre Dame going to be great again, or will they never again rise above mediocrity?
Will Indiana be at least respectable this year?
Go Columbus North! Go Tim! Have a great senior year. Can the Bulldogs go to state with a great running offense, solid defense, but below-average passing game?
Wouldn't football be more entertaining if none of the players took steroids?
What makes a great football team? Linemen. Big, strong, fast guys on the front o-lines open holes for the backs, give the QB time to find his receiver, make the offense work. Same on defense, with big, strong guys that can't be blocked, keep LB's free to roam, and put the pressure on the passer that makes him throw INT's.
2004 Predictions:
Columbus North: 10-2, make it to Semi-State.
Indiana Hoosiers: 3-8, but staying in more games.
Notre Dame Irish: 7-4, maybe a minor bowl. Won't meet expectations
Indianapolis Colts: 11-5, another loss in Eastern Conference Finals
Football is finally starting again! It seems interminable waiting for the season - I don't care what level, high school, college, NFL.
Just give me football.
Go Colts! Is their defense going to be good enough to get them to the Super Bowl?
Is Notre Dame going to be great again, or will they never again rise above mediocrity?
Will Indiana be at least respectable this year?
Go Columbus North! Go Tim! Have a great senior year. Can the Bulldogs go to state with a great running offense, solid defense, but below-average passing game?
Wouldn't football be more entertaining if none of the players took steroids?
What makes a great football team? Linemen. Big, strong, fast guys on the front o-lines open holes for the backs, give the QB time to find his receiver, make the offense work. Same on defense, with big, strong guys that can't be blocked, keep LB's free to roam, and put the pressure on the passer that makes him throw INT's.
2004 Predictions:
Columbus North: 10-2, make it to Semi-State.
Indiana Hoosiers: 3-8, but staying in more games.
Notre Dame Irish: 7-4, maybe a minor bowl. Won't meet expectations
Indianapolis Colts: 11-5, another loss in Eastern Conference Finals
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
The Truth about Social Issues
The clearest delineation between Republicans/Democrats, Conservatives/Liberals, or whatever label you prefer, is on social issues. One simple word describes the schism that is rapidly growing in our country: Morality.
Gay Rights and Gay Marriage, Abortion, STD's and AIDS, and the crisis of dysfunctional families are all built on the question of Morality.
The incredible rancor on the Left in all of these issues is toward people of faith who think morality matters. The Left, which supports the morally wrong side of each of these issues, loudly proclaims that nobody has the right to impose their morality on anyone else. What they are talking about, of course, is sex. The Left is made up by a giant population of sex-obsessed people who feel it is their right to not only be able to engage in it whenever and with whomever they wish, but the rest of us should be "tolerant" of their chosen "lifestyle". The current fight over gay marriage goes beyond even tolerance: What they wish to do is impose on the rest of us open recognition and even celebration of their pairings even though it runs contrary to the most basic of our principles.
The society we live in is based on personal freedom. I haven't met anyone who would want to spy on people in their bedrooms for the purpose of prosecuting and jailing them if they're engaged in immoral sexual behavior. Most people, whether they find such behavior abhorrent or not, simply would rather their acquaintances keep it to themselves. Isn't it funny that most heterosexuals prefer to keep their relationships private, but the gay crowd seems to want to tell everybody? Then if we happen to cringe or dare to suggest that's not morally acceptable behavior, the name-calling and censorship appears in full force.
Let's deal with these issues from both a religious and practical perspective. Religion clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, abortion is murder, and a family is a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. What has to be remembered by everyone who takes these positions based on their religious values is that when it comes to sexual sin, we must not ignore other facets of that sin while speaking out against homosexuality. The unfortunate reality of today is a horrible epidemic of out-of-wedlock sex, adultery, and divorce. Even many people of faith have been divorced, and have been sexually active outside of marriage. The message has to be, "We have sinned and made mistakes for which we are truly sorry and are suffering the consequences, and are reaching out in love to other sinners to try to help them see their own error."
From a practical point of view, let's look at the common sense view of these issues. Regardless of anyone's religious belief, it has to be acknowledged that our society's "anything goes" mentality is harming huge numbers of the population. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, we all have to acknowledge it is a horrible tragedy. Every abortion takes the life of a valuable person, who could have been the next great leader, theologian, athlete, musician, inventor, or discoverer. What's wrong with two consenting adults having sex? They're not hurting anybody, right? Wrong. Let's look at all of the terrible consequences of this attitude:
Abortion
Broken homes, broken families
Unpaid child support
STD's
AIDS
Unloved, abused, and neglected children
Poverty
Mental and Psychological disorders
Crime
Drug Abuse
Disruptive students dragging down educational performance
High healthcare costs
All simply because people want to have sex without consequences.
Think about it.
Gay Rights and Gay Marriage, Abortion, STD's and AIDS, and the crisis of dysfunctional families are all built on the question of Morality.
The incredible rancor on the Left in all of these issues is toward people of faith who think morality matters. The Left, which supports the morally wrong side of each of these issues, loudly proclaims that nobody has the right to impose their morality on anyone else. What they are talking about, of course, is sex. The Left is made up by a giant population of sex-obsessed people who feel it is their right to not only be able to engage in it whenever and with whomever they wish, but the rest of us should be "tolerant" of their chosen "lifestyle". The current fight over gay marriage goes beyond even tolerance: What they wish to do is impose on the rest of us open recognition and even celebration of their pairings even though it runs contrary to the most basic of our principles.
The society we live in is based on personal freedom. I haven't met anyone who would want to spy on people in their bedrooms for the purpose of prosecuting and jailing them if they're engaged in immoral sexual behavior. Most people, whether they find such behavior abhorrent or not, simply would rather their acquaintances keep it to themselves. Isn't it funny that most heterosexuals prefer to keep their relationships private, but the gay crowd seems to want to tell everybody? Then if we happen to cringe or dare to suggest that's not morally acceptable behavior, the name-calling and censorship appears in full force.
Let's deal with these issues from both a religious and practical perspective. Religion clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination, abortion is murder, and a family is a union of one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation and the raising of children. What has to be remembered by everyone who takes these positions based on their religious values is that when it comes to sexual sin, we must not ignore other facets of that sin while speaking out against homosexuality. The unfortunate reality of today is a horrible epidemic of out-of-wedlock sex, adultery, and divorce. Even many people of faith have been divorced, and have been sexually active outside of marriage. The message has to be, "We have sinned and made mistakes for which we are truly sorry and are suffering the consequences, and are reaching out in love to other sinners to try to help them see their own error."
From a practical point of view, let's look at the common sense view of these issues. Regardless of anyone's religious belief, it has to be acknowledged that our society's "anything goes" mentality is harming huge numbers of the population. Whether one supports abortion rights or not, we all have to acknowledge it is a horrible tragedy. Every abortion takes the life of a valuable person, who could have been the next great leader, theologian, athlete, musician, inventor, or discoverer. What's wrong with two consenting adults having sex? They're not hurting anybody, right? Wrong. Let's look at all of the terrible consequences of this attitude:
Abortion
Broken homes, broken families
Unpaid child support
STD's
AIDS
Unloved, abused, and neglected children
Poverty
Mental and Psychological disorders
Crime
Drug Abuse
Disruptive students dragging down educational performance
High healthcare costs
All simply because people want to have sex without consequences.
Think about it.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Truth & Lies in Presidential Campaign
Isn't it fascinating to watch the Bush vs. Kerry campaign with the continuous charges of "lying to the American people" leveled by both parties at the other? Let's explore some of the more serious charges, shall we?
Kerry to Bush: "He misled the congress and the American people to get us into an ill-advised and poorly managed war in Iraq" (not a direct quote, but you can't dispute the sentiment). Kerry himself hasn't used the word "lied", but "misled" means the same thing in my dictionary, and most of his friends and supporters are not shy about using the "L" word.
Let's consider the facts as we think we understand them. Kerry's argument is based on the fact that we never did find the famous WMD's in Iraq, which admittedly were a cornerstone in the foundation of the Bush administration's argument for pre-emtive action to remove Saddam. If Kerry's telling the truth in saying that Bush lied about those, that assumes that the president was fully aware before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom that no WMD's existed, Saddam represented no threat to the United States, and there was absolutely no cooperation or support being provided from Saddam to Al Qaida.
First, the WMD's: Even Russia, Germany, and France acknowledged prior to the war that Iraq most likely did possess WMD's and was actively pursuing the development and manufacture of more. At this point, weapons searchers are saying they don't appear to be there now. Given the knowledge they existed in the past and the whole world believed Saddam was developing more, shouldn't that raise a more disturbing question than Kerry's intellectually dishonest thesis: If Iraq did have them before the war, what happened to them?
Next, the relationship (or lack thereof) between Iraq and Al Qaida: The 9/11 Commission found no involvement from Iraq with the actual 9/11 attack. However, the commission also stated that there was an established relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, with multiple meetings between leaders. Iraq has also long been a refuge for Al Qaida and other terrorists. So, if the Kerry charge is that Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, he should first produce a tape or transcript with Bush stating that connection. The only truthful charge against Bush on this point is that he allowed the American people to believe there was a connection, but that's a far cry from lying about a specific hand in the 9/11 attack.
Here's the bottom line: If President Bush indeed knew that Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaida, and was no threat to the United States before launching the invasion, he should not only be voted out of office, but impeached. However, the available facts do not support any of these ideas; in addition, one would have to credit Bush with an astoundingly masterful ruse, since for Kerry's charges to be correct, Bush would have successfully misled not only our people, but his own cabinet and nearly every other country in the world to get to where we are today.
Verdict: Bush Not Guilty and a judge might even rule Kerry Guilty of false reporting - oh wait, that's lying!
Now let's look at an accusation of lying from the other side.
So far accusations of Kerry lying have not come from the official Bush campaign, which has rather been pointing out his voting record in the Senate, left-wing leanings, etc. No "Kerry lied" from them, but there is a recent book apparently coming out from a group of Vietnam Vets who are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record.
What are the facts about Kerry's war record? It seems that he was a "swift boat captain" patrolling the rivers of VietNam, served about four months, and was sent home with 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
What this group of veterans are saying is that Kerry lied about his heroism and war record, was awarded at least two of the purple hearts for self-inflicted and insignificant wounds, fabricated the story that got him the bronze star, shot a defenseless teenage VietCong in the back, and burned down a peaceful village with his Zippo.
Are they telling the truth? I don't know if we can fully answer that question just yet, as it seems to be a story that is still developing. To honestly analyze the accusations, what must be done is a thorough, impartial investigation. All documentation of Kerry's war record must be reviewed, all who served with him (all supporters, detractors, and neutral comrades-in-arms) must be interviewed, and a picture is sure to emerge of the truth.
Will that happen? Based on my observations of the press the last few years, don't be so sure. We've seen the "liberal" press repeat the Democratic party line daily while asking the hard questions of Republicans, while the "conservative" pundits and internet reporters also highlight the stories that best serve their cause. Whatever happened to unbiased investigative journalism? The American people deserve the truth about these issues and many more being tossed about in the media maelstrom. Where are the new journalistic heroes who are prepared to go find the real truth and report it to the world, no matter who it helps or harms?
Verdict: Not enough evidence to bring to trial (yet)
Kerry to Bush: "He misled the congress and the American people to get us into an ill-advised and poorly managed war in Iraq" (not a direct quote, but you can't dispute the sentiment). Kerry himself hasn't used the word "lied", but "misled" means the same thing in my dictionary, and most of his friends and supporters are not shy about using the "L" word.
Let's consider the facts as we think we understand them. Kerry's argument is based on the fact that we never did find the famous WMD's in Iraq, which admittedly were a cornerstone in the foundation of the Bush administration's argument for pre-emtive action to remove Saddam. If Kerry's telling the truth in saying that Bush lied about those, that assumes that the president was fully aware before launching Operation Iraqi Freedom that no WMD's existed, Saddam represented no threat to the United States, and there was absolutely no cooperation or support being provided from Saddam to Al Qaida.
First, the WMD's: Even Russia, Germany, and France acknowledged prior to the war that Iraq most likely did possess WMD's and was actively pursuing the development and manufacture of more. At this point, weapons searchers are saying they don't appear to be there now. Given the knowledge they existed in the past and the whole world believed Saddam was developing more, shouldn't that raise a more disturbing question than Kerry's intellectually dishonest thesis: If Iraq did have them before the war, what happened to them?
Next, the relationship (or lack thereof) between Iraq and Al Qaida: The 9/11 Commission found no involvement from Iraq with the actual 9/11 attack. However, the commission also stated that there was an established relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, with multiple meetings between leaders. Iraq has also long been a refuge for Al Qaida and other terrorists. So, if the Kerry charge is that Bush lied about Iraq's involvement in 9/11, he should first produce a tape or transcript with Bush stating that connection. The only truthful charge against Bush on this point is that he allowed the American people to believe there was a connection, but that's a far cry from lying about a specific hand in the 9/11 attack.
Here's the bottom line: If President Bush indeed knew that Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaida, and was no threat to the United States before launching the invasion, he should not only be voted out of office, but impeached. However, the available facts do not support any of these ideas; in addition, one would have to credit Bush with an astoundingly masterful ruse, since for Kerry's charges to be correct, Bush would have successfully misled not only our people, but his own cabinet and nearly every other country in the world to get to where we are today.
Verdict: Bush Not Guilty and a judge might even rule Kerry Guilty of false reporting - oh wait, that's lying!
Now let's look at an accusation of lying from the other side.
So far accusations of Kerry lying have not come from the official Bush campaign, which has rather been pointing out his voting record in the Senate, left-wing leanings, etc. No "Kerry lied" from them, but there is a recent book apparently coming out from a group of Vietnam Vets who are accusing Kerry of lying about his war record.
What are the facts about Kerry's war record? It seems that he was a "swift boat captain" patrolling the rivers of VietNam, served about four months, and was sent home with 3 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star.
What this group of veterans are saying is that Kerry lied about his heroism and war record, was awarded at least two of the purple hearts for self-inflicted and insignificant wounds, fabricated the story that got him the bronze star, shot a defenseless teenage VietCong in the back, and burned down a peaceful village with his Zippo.
Are they telling the truth? I don't know if we can fully answer that question just yet, as it seems to be a story that is still developing. To honestly analyze the accusations, what must be done is a thorough, impartial investigation. All documentation of Kerry's war record must be reviewed, all who served with him (all supporters, detractors, and neutral comrades-in-arms) must be interviewed, and a picture is sure to emerge of the truth.
Will that happen? Based on my observations of the press the last few years, don't be so sure. We've seen the "liberal" press repeat the Democratic party line daily while asking the hard questions of Republicans, while the "conservative" pundits and internet reporters also highlight the stories that best serve their cause. Whatever happened to unbiased investigative journalism? The American people deserve the truth about these issues and many more being tossed about in the media maelstrom. Where are the new journalistic heroes who are prepared to go find the real truth and report it to the world, no matter who it helps or harms?
Verdict: Not enough evidence to bring to trial (yet)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)