Growing up down the road from South Bend, I had always held out the desire to go to a Notre Dame football game someday. According to most people who seemed to know, that's one of the toughest tickets in the country, so I had never really made an effort to get any. Many years ago, we had some friends who were ND alums who had season tickets and told us they would let us have a couple if they ever couldn't make it to a game themselves. But that never happened - they never missed a game, at least up until the point when we moved away and lost touch.
So this year, sort of out of the blue, Nick scores some tickets from being in the right place at the right time with the right friends. And he arranged them for Tim and me, so we all got to experience the event together.
And that's the main point of the game vs. Syracuse at ND stadium this weekend. It wasn't just a football game; it was an event. I'm still in awe, and now understand a little bit more about the tradition and pageantry and mystique that are Notre Dame Football.
I've been to lots of football games. Indy Colts, Indiana, Ball State, Clemson, South Carolina, Ashland, Rose-Hulman. None measured up, from the standpoint of the overall experience, to this weekend at Notre Dame.
And I'm not really talking about the game itself. Sure, ND dominated Syracuse on the field. What put me in awe was the atmosphere, the crowd, the band, the stadium, the lights - everything was on a grand scale and exceeded just about anything I've seen before.
In South Carolina, where I obtained my Master's degree, they love their Gamecocks. I had season tickets to USC football while we lived in Columbia, and up to that point would have to say there were no other venues I had been to that were more impressive. Carolina sold out their 70 thousand plus stadium for every home game, the weather was on the whole much warmer there for football games, and Tim and I even got to sort of participate in the filming of a movie.
And the RCA Dome is a nice venue to see the Colts, even though it's about to be replaced with a whole new, more modern stadium. But pro football just isn't the same. The fans are different, there aren't any student sections, no band, no fight song or alma mater, there's just no comparison.
The whole experience was greatly enjoyed and appreciated by all three of us. Even the hike I led Nick on when trying to find the parking lot after the game wasn't enough to dampen the experience. I think I can feel my legs again today, now that I've had a chance to recover from that adventure. It involved going the wrong way in trying to find the parking lot and walking around the perimeter of the Notre Dame Campus for some untold number of miles before returning to the stadium to hop a shuttle bus for the parking lot, which was what we should have done in the first place.
Anyway, here's hoping we get another chance to return. At least I've got enough experience from the first time to use toward an even better one next time.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Smoking Rules
The Columbus City Council passed an ordinance banning smoking in all public buildings, giving exceptions to bars and private clubs. This has resulted in a group of extremely angry smokers, led by local restaurant owner Debbie Kramer, who are determined to defy the new ordinance.
I've found myself on the fence on this issue, because both sides make some sense in their arguments. But both sides also stretch the truth sometimes in their attempts to influence people to support their point of view.
I'm old enough to easily remember the bad old days when nearly everyone smoked. My father smoked, just about every adult I knew smoked, and plenty of teens smoked as well. The smoke bothered me quite a bit as a child, and those who study such things would say that my life-long allergy and asthma problems are most likely attributable to having a smoker in the house.
The basis for the new ordinance is the same as the reasons given for the statewide smoking ban in California and the many major cities who have followed suit. Secondhand smoke has been proven, at least according to "experts", to have detrimental effects similar to those that have long been known to impact smokers themselves. People who work in offices or serve in restaurants have the right to be protected from having to inhale secondhand smoke 8 hours per day, every day of their working lives.
I agree with banning smoking in offices. Back in South Carolina with the trucking company, I served on the committee that created the non-smoking policies adopted by management. Before the company banned smoking in the offices, the cubicle area in which I worked was constantly enveloped in the blue-gray haze of cigarette smoke. Walking through the cubicle maze on a typical day, it appeared as if a heavy fog had settled indoors. My sinuses seemed to never clear, I had a cough that never quite went away, my throat was always dry and scratchy, and my clothes reeked of cigarette smoke. I was often struck by the denial most smokers maintained that their smoking had any negative impact on those around them; for example, a typical smoker seems to believe that as long as they don't blow their smoke right in your face, you can't be bothered by it.
When my company went smoke-free, I was amazed at the immediate difference. Fresh air made me feel better, my coughing stopped, the scratchy throat and sinusitis went away. I didn't realize how much the smoke was impacting me until I got to experience clean air.
That didn't end the controversy, though. Going smoke-free inside the offices created a new problem. Smokers spent way too much time outdoors getting their nicotine fixes, and work wasn't getting done. Non-smokers resented the smokers, who they felt were getting away with frequent and extended breaks not available to the rest of the employees. As it was a trucking company, hardest hit were the dispatch departments. Dispatchers are expected to spend their entire shift on the phone, assigning shipments, working out directions with drivers, taking orders from customers. Suddenly they were missing calls, missing shipments, missing customer calls, because they were outside burning cigarettes for a significant part of their shift.
These days I am even more sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm in a restaurant and someone nearby lights up, I find myself irritated by their intrusion on my enjoyment of a meal. Sometimes at a sporting event someone will light up nearby and I'll send murderous thoughts his way, because his smoke is irritating me and others around him.
There are some restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections that present no problem at all for a non-smoker. The sections are partitioned from each other and ventilated such that those of us in the non-smoking section don't have to see or smell anything unpleasant from the smokers' side. But there are many restaurants that don't have a good separation between the smoking and non-smoking areas. Especially those fast-food places that still allow smoking which designate a portion of their dining room for smokers, so you could find youself sitting in the non-smoking section but next to a table in the smoking section.
Since there aren't that many places left with the open dining rooms like I described above, those that remain have become hangouts for smokers. These restaurants now cater to the smoking customer, who can't find many places these days to have a cigarette with their meal. Likewise, such establishments are generally avoided by non-smokers.
So it seems reasonable to say, why not just let things continue as they are? Who is it hurting to have mostly non-smoking restaurants, with a few other restaurants catering to smokers?
According to the City Council, the answer is because the harm is to the non-smoking server (or "waitress", if you're not PC). The young waitress who is a non-smoker probably has a family to support and works in the restaurant that caters to a large smoking clientele certainly is being exposed to unhealthy conditions and is at risk for those diseases linked to prolonged exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.
You could make a case that says these waitresses don't have to work there. Why not just get a job at a non-smoking restaurant? That might be a legitimate question, I don't know. Then again, maybe the smoking restaurant is the only place she could find a job, and she has decided to take the risk simply because she needs to work. Again, I don't know anyone in that situation firsthand, so I can't judge.
At first I thought, go ahead and ban smoking in all public buildings but exempt the bars and clubs. Because bars are places people go for the express purpose of pickling their livers and polluting their lungs, and private clubs aren't really private once the government starts poking thier nose into what they can and can't do in their own place.
But now I tend to think, if you're going to require an indoor smoking ban in all public places, why should anyone be exempted? Like Debbie Kramer rightly says, she may lose all her smoking customers to the bars, because they aren't subject to the ban. On a side note, it's long been a mystery to me how we can enact strict laws against drunk driving, yet see on any given night plenty of folks driving to and from their favorite bars.
Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to eat at any restaurant I choose without having to worry about having my meal ruined by some chain smoker a few feet away. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an ordinance was needed, because over time more and more restaurants have been voluntarily going smoke-free because that's what their customers demand. It seems to be an issue that the free market is gradually addressing without any help from the government.
As for Debbie Kramer, I wish her luck, but I believe that as long as she serves great food in a pleasant atmosphere with fast and friendly servers, she doesn't have to worry about losing customers. In fact, I suspect she might see an increase in the non-smoking clientele who might otherwise have missed her culinary offerings served in the clean air of her now smoke-free restaurant.
I've found myself on the fence on this issue, because both sides make some sense in their arguments. But both sides also stretch the truth sometimes in their attempts to influence people to support their point of view.
I'm old enough to easily remember the bad old days when nearly everyone smoked. My father smoked, just about every adult I knew smoked, and plenty of teens smoked as well. The smoke bothered me quite a bit as a child, and those who study such things would say that my life-long allergy and asthma problems are most likely attributable to having a smoker in the house.
The basis for the new ordinance is the same as the reasons given for the statewide smoking ban in California and the many major cities who have followed suit. Secondhand smoke has been proven, at least according to "experts", to have detrimental effects similar to those that have long been known to impact smokers themselves. People who work in offices or serve in restaurants have the right to be protected from having to inhale secondhand smoke 8 hours per day, every day of their working lives.
I agree with banning smoking in offices. Back in South Carolina with the trucking company, I served on the committee that created the non-smoking policies adopted by management. Before the company banned smoking in the offices, the cubicle area in which I worked was constantly enveloped in the blue-gray haze of cigarette smoke. Walking through the cubicle maze on a typical day, it appeared as if a heavy fog had settled indoors. My sinuses seemed to never clear, I had a cough that never quite went away, my throat was always dry and scratchy, and my clothes reeked of cigarette smoke. I was often struck by the denial most smokers maintained that their smoking had any negative impact on those around them; for example, a typical smoker seems to believe that as long as they don't blow their smoke right in your face, you can't be bothered by it.
When my company went smoke-free, I was amazed at the immediate difference. Fresh air made me feel better, my coughing stopped, the scratchy throat and sinusitis went away. I didn't realize how much the smoke was impacting me until I got to experience clean air.
That didn't end the controversy, though. Going smoke-free inside the offices created a new problem. Smokers spent way too much time outdoors getting their nicotine fixes, and work wasn't getting done. Non-smokers resented the smokers, who they felt were getting away with frequent and extended breaks not available to the rest of the employees. As it was a trucking company, hardest hit were the dispatch departments. Dispatchers are expected to spend their entire shift on the phone, assigning shipments, working out directions with drivers, taking orders from customers. Suddenly they were missing calls, missing shipments, missing customer calls, because they were outside burning cigarettes for a significant part of their shift.
These days I am even more sensitive to cigarette smoke. If I'm in a restaurant and someone nearby lights up, I find myself irritated by their intrusion on my enjoyment of a meal. Sometimes at a sporting event someone will light up nearby and I'll send murderous thoughts his way, because his smoke is irritating me and others around him.
There are some restaurants with smoking and non-smoking sections that present no problem at all for a non-smoker. The sections are partitioned from each other and ventilated such that those of us in the non-smoking section don't have to see or smell anything unpleasant from the smokers' side. But there are many restaurants that don't have a good separation between the smoking and non-smoking areas. Especially those fast-food places that still allow smoking which designate a portion of their dining room for smokers, so you could find youself sitting in the non-smoking section but next to a table in the smoking section.
Since there aren't that many places left with the open dining rooms like I described above, those that remain have become hangouts for smokers. These restaurants now cater to the smoking customer, who can't find many places these days to have a cigarette with their meal. Likewise, such establishments are generally avoided by non-smokers.
So it seems reasonable to say, why not just let things continue as they are? Who is it hurting to have mostly non-smoking restaurants, with a few other restaurants catering to smokers?
According to the City Council, the answer is because the harm is to the non-smoking server (or "waitress", if you're not PC). The young waitress who is a non-smoker probably has a family to support and works in the restaurant that caters to a large smoking clientele certainly is being exposed to unhealthy conditions and is at risk for those diseases linked to prolonged exposure to high levels of secondhand smoke.
You could make a case that says these waitresses don't have to work there. Why not just get a job at a non-smoking restaurant? That might be a legitimate question, I don't know. Then again, maybe the smoking restaurant is the only place she could find a job, and she has decided to take the risk simply because she needs to work. Again, I don't know anyone in that situation firsthand, so I can't judge.
At first I thought, go ahead and ban smoking in all public buildings but exempt the bars and clubs. Because bars are places people go for the express purpose of pickling their livers and polluting their lungs, and private clubs aren't really private once the government starts poking thier nose into what they can and can't do in their own place.
But now I tend to think, if you're going to require an indoor smoking ban in all public places, why should anyone be exempted? Like Debbie Kramer rightly says, she may lose all her smoking customers to the bars, because they aren't subject to the ban. On a side note, it's long been a mystery to me how we can enact strict laws against drunk driving, yet see on any given night plenty of folks driving to and from their favorite bars.
Personally, I appreciate the opportunity to eat at any restaurant I choose without having to worry about having my meal ruined by some chain smoker a few feet away. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree that an ordinance was needed, because over time more and more restaurants have been voluntarily going smoke-free because that's what their customers demand. It seems to be an issue that the free market is gradually addressing without any help from the government.
As for Debbie Kramer, I wish her luck, but I believe that as long as she serves great food in a pleasant atmosphere with fast and friendly servers, she doesn't have to worry about losing customers. In fact, I suspect she might see an increase in the non-smoking clientele who might otherwise have missed her culinary offerings served in the clean air of her now smoke-free restaurant.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Blissful Ignorance
It's getting to the point where I sort of wish I could join the rest of the world in their ignorance. Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" got it right. There's something to be said for having nothing more to worry about than the petty fight you're having with your significant other, what's for dinner tonight, or what you plan to wear tomorrow.
But the problem as I see it is all this shallow-minded ignorance is already leading us to our own destruction.
I don't care what political stripe you've chosen, the more important question is whether you really try to find out the truth or do you just fall for the hype?
All worked up about the so-called debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution? News flash - there are so many more serious problems in education than that! Whichever way you fall on that meaningless little debate doesn't amount to beans if you don't understand that our school systems milk taxpayers and property owners dry, only to spew out stupid, ignorant and illiterate kids that cost us even more taxes in social services to try to clean up the mess. Intelligent Design? It's a distraction simply being used by both sides to drive a wedge between "conservatives" and "liberals" and obscure what's really wrong in education.
You a Bush-hater or Bush-lover? News flash #2 - He's worthy of neither your love or your hate! He's a politician, not God, not Satan. Get a clue about the real issues out there, and when he's right, support him, and when he's wrong, be able to articulate to him and your congressional representative why he's wrong and what the policy should be instead. I say he's right on Iraq, taxes, and ANWR, and wrong on illegal immigration, trade policy, spending, healthcare and education. And I can back up those positions with actual facts - can you do the same?
Do you think other countries might be more enlightened, better places to live? Ever been to those countries? Ever had the chance to find out specifically how living standards here compare to those of your favorite foreign countries? I suggest you find out these things for yourself before making such judgements.
What do you think about religion and its place in our society? Do you believe in morality, or does even the mention of the word make you angry? Let me make another suggestion: If you think the "Religious Right" is evil and wants to turn America into some sort of theocratic Taliban-like regime, have a talk with an evangelical Christian. If you're a committed Christian who fears that persecution of the Church in America is already underway, find that same counterpart with the opposite attitude and talk with them. I believe you will both learn from each other, if you're willing to go into the discussion with an open mind.
I've become weary of the daily rants from TV, Radio, even the Net from people who are either ignorant of facts or so blinded by their political ideology that they are incapable of even separating truth from spin, let alone using facts to make an informed and independent decision about some issue or other.
Do you know the true, factual stories behind Katrina, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Iraq, DeLay, Global Warming & Kyoto, ANWR, Al Quaeda, Prisoner Abuse? I'm guessing for most the answer would be no. Or more dangerous would be those who think they know, but actually don't because they only listen to "their side", where the story's most likely been spun and distorted beyond any semblance of reality.
Let me make one more suggestion for anyone who might stumble upon this rant. Set up an experiment over the next week. Choose one or two issues that are being discussed heavily in the media these days, put aside your predisposed opinions, and go learn everything you can about it (or them). Read articles from a variety of sources in a critical manner that analyzes whether the article is dealing in fact or was written expressly to influence you with author's point of view on the subject. Watch the coverage of the issue on the network news and then on Fox news. Listen to or read blogs and website articles from both the right and left to see what each has to say about the issue.
Then sit down and figure out what you learned from the process. Which news outlet did the best job of presenting all the facts and balanced opinions from both sides? Which did the worst job? Which pundits and commentators made the most logical and reasoned arguments for their side of the controversy, and which almost completely ignored the issue and instead personally attacked high profile leaders supporting the opposite side?
It's what I did, and it set me free. But it also made me angry and frustrated as I realized that on any given issue, the vast majority of the public falls in line like sheep to whatever they are told to think by the spinmeisters they have chosen to trust. And that is why we are already losing sanity and may soon lose our way of life.
But the problem as I see it is all this shallow-minded ignorance is already leading us to our own destruction.
I don't care what political stripe you've chosen, the more important question is whether you really try to find out the truth or do you just fall for the hype?
All worked up about the so-called debate on Intelligent Design vs. Evolution? News flash - there are so many more serious problems in education than that! Whichever way you fall on that meaningless little debate doesn't amount to beans if you don't understand that our school systems milk taxpayers and property owners dry, only to spew out stupid, ignorant and illiterate kids that cost us even more taxes in social services to try to clean up the mess. Intelligent Design? It's a distraction simply being used by both sides to drive a wedge between "conservatives" and "liberals" and obscure what's really wrong in education.
You a Bush-hater or Bush-lover? News flash #2 - He's worthy of neither your love or your hate! He's a politician, not God, not Satan. Get a clue about the real issues out there, and when he's right, support him, and when he's wrong, be able to articulate to him and your congressional representative why he's wrong and what the policy should be instead. I say he's right on Iraq, taxes, and ANWR, and wrong on illegal immigration, trade policy, spending, healthcare and education. And I can back up those positions with actual facts - can you do the same?
Do you think other countries might be more enlightened, better places to live? Ever been to those countries? Ever had the chance to find out specifically how living standards here compare to those of your favorite foreign countries? I suggest you find out these things for yourself before making such judgements.
What do you think about religion and its place in our society? Do you believe in morality, or does even the mention of the word make you angry? Let me make another suggestion: If you think the "Religious Right" is evil and wants to turn America into some sort of theocratic Taliban-like regime, have a talk with an evangelical Christian. If you're a committed Christian who fears that persecution of the Church in America is already underway, find that same counterpart with the opposite attitude and talk with them. I believe you will both learn from each other, if you're willing to go into the discussion with an open mind.
I've become weary of the daily rants from TV, Radio, even the Net from people who are either ignorant of facts or so blinded by their political ideology that they are incapable of even separating truth from spin, let alone using facts to make an informed and independent decision about some issue or other.
Do you know the true, factual stories behind Katrina, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Iraq, DeLay, Global Warming & Kyoto, ANWR, Al Quaeda, Prisoner Abuse? I'm guessing for most the answer would be no. Or more dangerous would be those who think they know, but actually don't because they only listen to "their side", where the story's most likely been spun and distorted beyond any semblance of reality.
Let me make one more suggestion for anyone who might stumble upon this rant. Set up an experiment over the next week. Choose one or two issues that are being discussed heavily in the media these days, put aside your predisposed opinions, and go learn everything you can about it (or them). Read articles from a variety of sources in a critical manner that analyzes whether the article is dealing in fact or was written expressly to influence you with author's point of view on the subject. Watch the coverage of the issue on the network news and then on Fox news. Listen to or read blogs and website articles from both the right and left to see what each has to say about the issue.
Then sit down and figure out what you learned from the process. Which news outlet did the best job of presenting all the facts and balanced opinions from both sides? Which did the worst job? Which pundits and commentators made the most logical and reasoned arguments for their side of the controversy, and which almost completely ignored the issue and instead personally attacked high profile leaders supporting the opposite side?
It's what I did, and it set me free. But it also made me angry and frustrated as I realized that on any given issue, the vast majority of the public falls in line like sheep to whatever they are told to think by the spinmeisters they have chosen to trust. And that is why we are already losing sanity and may soon lose our way of life.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Character Flaw
Time to face facts. I have a major character flaw.
The flaw is hiding from conflict. I hate conflict and avoid it at all costs. If I see the storm brewing I run away when I should stand and fight. When important problems desperately need to be solved, I procrastinate and hope they will disappear on their own.
There are conversations I should be having. Firm statements of my position I should be making. Probing and direct questions I should be asking. Ultimatums I should be declaring.
But I won't. Maybe because I've tried before and failed miserably. Maybe because of my tendency to freeze and forget everything I know about the English language when I'm under stress. Maybe because I really don't want to find out the true answers to my questions.
I've always admired people who are direct but somehow never mean. There have been a small number of people I've met in my life who radiate self-confidence and as such seem to be able to address any issue in a calm and reasonable fashion without procrastination and without giving offense. I wonder if that's a skill I could learn, or if there's anyone who would or could teach me.
In the meantime I just keep kicking myself over cowardly ignoring the elephant in the room, unable to even point and say, "Umm, excuse me, but does anybody else see that elephant over there?"
The flaw is hiding from conflict. I hate conflict and avoid it at all costs. If I see the storm brewing I run away when I should stand and fight. When important problems desperately need to be solved, I procrastinate and hope they will disappear on their own.
There are conversations I should be having. Firm statements of my position I should be making. Probing and direct questions I should be asking. Ultimatums I should be declaring.
But I won't. Maybe because I've tried before and failed miserably. Maybe because of my tendency to freeze and forget everything I know about the English language when I'm under stress. Maybe because I really don't want to find out the true answers to my questions.
I've always admired people who are direct but somehow never mean. There have been a small number of people I've met in my life who radiate self-confidence and as such seem to be able to address any issue in a calm and reasonable fashion without procrastination and without giving offense. I wonder if that's a skill I could learn, or if there's anyone who would or could teach me.
In the meantime I just keep kicking myself over cowardly ignoring the elephant in the room, unable to even point and say, "Umm, excuse me, but does anybody else see that elephant over there?"
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The Final Football Post (for now)
This is the last of the football posts, if for no other reason than to finish what I started.
Since there's only one NFL team in Indiana, I'll extend the radius slightly to include immediate neighbors Cincinnati and Chicago. No, I won't go beyond to the Rams, Lions, and Browns, because they are further away, don't interest me much, and are pitiful teams anyway.
Fans of "Da Bears" are loving their return to their roots this season. A healthy Urlacher is leading a mean and bruising defense in keeping scores low and occasionally helping the offense with forced turnovers and defensive touchdowns. The running game is back, with Purdue rookie Kyle Orton just asked to protect the ball and hand it off to guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson.
It looks like the 2005 version of the old-time Bears, reminding us of Butkus and Plank, the Fridge and Danimal on defense. Maybe there's no Gale Sayers or Walter Payton on offense, but that ball-control running game does harken back to the traditional Bears.
Fortunately for the Bears, they get to play in probably the weakest division in the NFL. A division championship should more than satisfy their fans this year, because that's about all they will accomplish. They just aren't good enough to make it any further this year. But all the same, it is nice to see "Da Bears" back on the rise again.
Cincinnati has been getting better every year since the brought in Marvin Lewis. He's steadily brought the team from a perennial joke (they used to be called the "Ben-Gals") to a dangerous factor in the AFC. Suddenly they have a quality quarterback who's getting better with experience in Palmer, a pretty good offensive line, and some very good brash young receivers.
They're picked by many as the team most likely to hand the Colts their first loss of this season. There's no question it's going to be a game everybody will want to see, coming up in less than 2 weeks.
But let's get to the man event - the Colts. They are 8-0, just off a Monday night pasting of New England. That finally got them over their psychological barrier, having been unable to beat the Pats in Foxboro.
They look unbeatable, having finally pieced together a solid defense to go with their unstoppable offense. Teams early this season tried to stop Peyton and the offense by focusing on shutting down the passing game. The Colts responded by handing the ball to Edgerrin, who's the top running back in the NFL so far this season.
So teams started trying to stop the run. That was OK with Peyton too, he just tosses the ball to Marvin and Reggie over the top for more touchdowns.
The main question opponents of the Colts have to answer so far is, do we want to lose quickly or slowly? Line up to stop the pass and the Colts will run over you, knock you silly, and use up the clock so your offense can't get on the field. Load up on the line of scrimmage to stop the run and Peyton will run up the score on you with the pass. Neither choice seems right.
Meanwhile, the two best defensive ends in the NFL, Freeney and Mathis, will spend most of their time in your offensive backfield harassing your quarterback. You can complete passes to your wide receivers because the Colts' corners are vulnerable, but that's only if you can set up to throw before Freeney or Mathis knock you to the turf.
As impressive as the Colts are so far, they can be beaten. It will take a very good team with a talented and strong defense and an excellent balanced offense, but it can be done.
To beat the Colts, your offense must use a ball-control offense that exploits the weaknesses of the Colts' defense. Draws and screens can be effective, but you can't over-use them like the Patriots did on Monday night. Freeney especially tends to overrun the quarterback on the pass rush, and you can toss a quick screen to his side or hand off for the draw.
The passing game can also beat the Colts, as long as you can protect the quarterback long enough to get the throw out to a receiver. Quick throws on slant routes work, as do sideline routes. If you've got a mobile quarterback like Vick, you can use sprint-outs to buy time or pick up first downs with a good running quarterback.
Defensively, you have to stop the "stretch" play to Edgerrin. Watch films and practice recognizing and stopping Edgerrin before he makes it outside. Jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage to throw off their timing - New England's stragegy the past few years of jamming the receivers should still work, but be careful; if you miss jamming Marvin or Reggie at the line of scrimmage, they will most certainly end up with a wide-open touchdown catch.
The Colts are really fun to watch, and it would be a huge disappointment if they didn't make it to the Super Bowl this year. Is it possible that they could match the Dolphins' undefeated season? Yes. Is it likely? No.
This season is one for just enjoying while it lasts. It makes for a nice distraction from the drudgery of everyday life. That's why I like football.
Since there's only one NFL team in Indiana, I'll extend the radius slightly to include immediate neighbors Cincinnati and Chicago. No, I won't go beyond to the Rams, Lions, and Browns, because they are further away, don't interest me much, and are pitiful teams anyway.
Fans of "Da Bears" are loving their return to their roots this season. A healthy Urlacher is leading a mean and bruising defense in keeping scores low and occasionally helping the offense with forced turnovers and defensive touchdowns. The running game is back, with Purdue rookie Kyle Orton just asked to protect the ball and hand it off to guys like Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson.
It looks like the 2005 version of the old-time Bears, reminding us of Butkus and Plank, the Fridge and Danimal on defense. Maybe there's no Gale Sayers or Walter Payton on offense, but that ball-control running game does harken back to the traditional Bears.
Fortunately for the Bears, they get to play in probably the weakest division in the NFL. A division championship should more than satisfy their fans this year, because that's about all they will accomplish. They just aren't good enough to make it any further this year. But all the same, it is nice to see "Da Bears" back on the rise again.
Cincinnati has been getting better every year since the brought in Marvin Lewis. He's steadily brought the team from a perennial joke (they used to be called the "Ben-Gals") to a dangerous factor in the AFC. Suddenly they have a quality quarterback who's getting better with experience in Palmer, a pretty good offensive line, and some very good brash young receivers.
They're picked by many as the team most likely to hand the Colts their first loss of this season. There's no question it's going to be a game everybody will want to see, coming up in less than 2 weeks.
But let's get to the man event - the Colts. They are 8-0, just off a Monday night pasting of New England. That finally got them over their psychological barrier, having been unable to beat the Pats in Foxboro.
They look unbeatable, having finally pieced together a solid defense to go with their unstoppable offense. Teams early this season tried to stop Peyton and the offense by focusing on shutting down the passing game. The Colts responded by handing the ball to Edgerrin, who's the top running back in the NFL so far this season.
So teams started trying to stop the run. That was OK with Peyton too, he just tosses the ball to Marvin and Reggie over the top for more touchdowns.
The main question opponents of the Colts have to answer so far is, do we want to lose quickly or slowly? Line up to stop the pass and the Colts will run over you, knock you silly, and use up the clock so your offense can't get on the field. Load up on the line of scrimmage to stop the run and Peyton will run up the score on you with the pass. Neither choice seems right.
Meanwhile, the two best defensive ends in the NFL, Freeney and Mathis, will spend most of their time in your offensive backfield harassing your quarterback. You can complete passes to your wide receivers because the Colts' corners are vulnerable, but that's only if you can set up to throw before Freeney or Mathis knock you to the turf.
As impressive as the Colts are so far, they can be beaten. It will take a very good team with a talented and strong defense and an excellent balanced offense, but it can be done.
To beat the Colts, your offense must use a ball-control offense that exploits the weaknesses of the Colts' defense. Draws and screens can be effective, but you can't over-use them like the Patriots did on Monday night. Freeney especially tends to overrun the quarterback on the pass rush, and you can toss a quick screen to his side or hand off for the draw.
The passing game can also beat the Colts, as long as you can protect the quarterback long enough to get the throw out to a receiver. Quick throws on slant routes work, as do sideline routes. If you've got a mobile quarterback like Vick, you can use sprint-outs to buy time or pick up first downs with a good running quarterback.
Defensively, you have to stop the "stretch" play to Edgerrin. Watch films and practice recognizing and stopping Edgerrin before he makes it outside. Jam the receivers at the line of scrimmage to throw off their timing - New England's stragegy the past few years of jamming the receivers should still work, but be careful; if you miss jamming Marvin or Reggie at the line of scrimmage, they will most certainly end up with a wide-open touchdown catch.
The Colts are really fun to watch, and it would be a huge disappointment if they didn't make it to the Super Bowl this year. Is it possible that they could match the Dolphins' undefeated season? Yes. Is it likely? No.
This season is one for just enjoying while it lasts. It makes for a nice distraction from the drudgery of everyday life. That's why I like football.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
College Football
The season for Indiana colleges will be over soon, and most likely only one will be playing after Thanksgiving.
How about Notre Dame? The turnaround from the last couple of years is pretty amazing. For the best illustration, just look at the USC game. Last year, basically the same ND team couldn't even stay on the field with USC. This year USC is even better and ND not only stayed on the field with them, but had them beaten until that game-ending miracle TD that allowed USC to steal the game.
Even though Charlie Weis seems to have worked miracles this season with the same guys Ty couldn't turn into winners, I do think it seems a little early to give him that juicy 10-year contract. Rumors were that the NFL was calling, and ND didn't want to lose him. Nice deal for Charlie, I suppose.
It would be hard to bet against Notre Dame for the national championship next year. They're already back in the top 10, and probably are capable of beating any team in the country this year. What the need to put them over the top next year is the same thing the Colts needed to get them (hopefully) to the Super Bowl this year: Defense.
While the USC game was awesome, the outcome has to be hung on the defense. The failure of the defense to stop USC in their last possession was an embarrassing gaffe. If Weis can upgrade the defense by next year, they will be good enough to win it all.
Specifically, ND needs better linebackers and better corner coverage. A standout defensive end couldn't hurt.
For other Indiana teams, what in the world happened to Purdue? They turned around in the opposite direction as dramatically as Notre Dame did in the positive. All of a sudden they can't stop anybody on defense and their offense is inconsistent.
The only thing I sort of take issue with coach Tiller on is his shuffling at quarterback. I think he pulled Kirsch a little too quickly, and it seemed to hurt their ability to establish consistency. But it doesn't matter all that much in the big picture, because that picture is of a defense that doesn't measure up to Division I standards.
I'm guessing that coach Tiller's going to find a way to turn things around soon.
Poor Indiana. They almost seemed exciting when they began their season with 3 wins in a row. But looking at the teams they played, I knew better than to get too excited. Then the Big Ten part of the season started and the Hoosiers came back to reality.
The Hoosiers have two bright spots. Their quarterback and primary receiver, Blake Powers and James Hardy, are a couple of very promising guys. But they can't overcome a weak running game and receiving corps that drop more balls than they catch.
But even if the offense is clicking, Indiana shares the defensive woes of their rivals in Lafayette. Perhaps even worse than Purdue. When I watched Indiana last weekend in their loss at home to Minnesota, I saw them trying to play defense with a group of boys against Minnesota's men. The middle linebacker, Killian, is really a safety. They have a decent defensive end in Adayanju, but he's not enough to rescue what essentially is an undersized team that might be competitive in Division III.
I feel for new coach Hoeppner. He has a very steep hill to climb if he ever wants to bring IU back to respectability. I like his positive attitude and goal-oriented approach, though. He is still hanging onto his goal of making it to a bowl game this year, even though it's all but impossible. He's got to recruit better athletes, get a solid strength and conditioning program installed, and coach the team to reduce the errors they've been making on the field all season. Hopefully Indiana will give him a few years to build the program - maybe he'll have a chance for success.
Ball State is a below average team that hasn't had a good season in several years. Butler is embarrassing, but at least had the sense to fire their head coach.
At least here in Indiana we have the Irish to cheer for in January.
How about Notre Dame? The turnaround from the last couple of years is pretty amazing. For the best illustration, just look at the USC game. Last year, basically the same ND team couldn't even stay on the field with USC. This year USC is even better and ND not only stayed on the field with them, but had them beaten until that game-ending miracle TD that allowed USC to steal the game.
Even though Charlie Weis seems to have worked miracles this season with the same guys Ty couldn't turn into winners, I do think it seems a little early to give him that juicy 10-year contract. Rumors were that the NFL was calling, and ND didn't want to lose him. Nice deal for Charlie, I suppose.
It would be hard to bet against Notre Dame for the national championship next year. They're already back in the top 10, and probably are capable of beating any team in the country this year. What the need to put them over the top next year is the same thing the Colts needed to get them (hopefully) to the Super Bowl this year: Defense.
While the USC game was awesome, the outcome has to be hung on the defense. The failure of the defense to stop USC in their last possession was an embarrassing gaffe. If Weis can upgrade the defense by next year, they will be good enough to win it all.
Specifically, ND needs better linebackers and better corner coverage. A standout defensive end couldn't hurt.
For other Indiana teams, what in the world happened to Purdue? They turned around in the opposite direction as dramatically as Notre Dame did in the positive. All of a sudden they can't stop anybody on defense and their offense is inconsistent.
The only thing I sort of take issue with coach Tiller on is his shuffling at quarterback. I think he pulled Kirsch a little too quickly, and it seemed to hurt their ability to establish consistency. But it doesn't matter all that much in the big picture, because that picture is of a defense that doesn't measure up to Division I standards.
I'm guessing that coach Tiller's going to find a way to turn things around soon.
Poor Indiana. They almost seemed exciting when they began their season with 3 wins in a row. But looking at the teams they played, I knew better than to get too excited. Then the Big Ten part of the season started and the Hoosiers came back to reality.
The Hoosiers have two bright spots. Their quarterback and primary receiver, Blake Powers and James Hardy, are a couple of very promising guys. But they can't overcome a weak running game and receiving corps that drop more balls than they catch.
But even if the offense is clicking, Indiana shares the defensive woes of their rivals in Lafayette. Perhaps even worse than Purdue. When I watched Indiana last weekend in their loss at home to Minnesota, I saw them trying to play defense with a group of boys against Minnesota's men. The middle linebacker, Killian, is really a safety. They have a decent defensive end in Adayanju, but he's not enough to rescue what essentially is an undersized team that might be competitive in Division III.
I feel for new coach Hoeppner. He has a very steep hill to climb if he ever wants to bring IU back to respectability. I like his positive attitude and goal-oriented approach, though. He is still hanging onto his goal of making it to a bowl game this year, even though it's all but impossible. He's got to recruit better athletes, get a solid strength and conditioning program installed, and coach the team to reduce the errors they've been making on the field all season. Hopefully Indiana will give him a few years to build the program - maybe he'll have a chance for success.
Ball State is a below average team that hasn't had a good season in several years. Butler is embarrassing, but at least had the sense to fire their head coach.
At least here in Indiana we have the Irish to cheer for in January.
Friday, November 04, 2005
The Football Post
If you're curious about what really interests me, you are about to find out.
Football!
So here's my rundown of this season (so far).
High School
I continued to follow Columbus North again this year, since I still maintain their website.
But I just made it to their home games and the game at Columbus East. No away games this year. I did ask Tim if he wanted to go with me to one of the games in Indy, but he turned me down for some girl (just kidding, Stephanie).
North clearly wasn't as good this year as their record-setting team from last year. But they weren't bad either, and have several bright spots. If they can improve in some specific areas, they could be very good again, possibly as early as next year.
They have a very promising sophomore quarterback in Mikey Hladik, who is tall and has a very good arm. The passing game, at least to one wide-out, Brandon Butler (another soph), was looking pretty good until Mike broke his collarbone. That hurt them through the rest of the season, as Brayden Barthlow came in and did a very nice job, but they had to return to mostly a rushing offense from there on.
To become an elite 5A team next year, they need to get their sophomore running back, Alex Turner, stronger and able to withstand the pounding of a whole season and avoid injury. Alex is fast and talented, and is good when there's a big hole for him to run through, but he's too easy to tackle. He needs to add strength to his speed to allow him to break tackles and get more yards on his own. The team had to convert a fullback (Matt Garman) to tight end, and Matt made a few nice receptions but lacked the size to effectively help block for the running game.
The other area they need to improve offensively is to find another reliable receiver besides Brandon Butler. Brandon put up impressive stats, at least until Mike was injured. But the other wide receivers and tight end were all but missing from the stats sheet. If the team can find reliable receivers at the other wide receiver and/or tight end to take some attention away from Brandon, they have a chance to be one of the most potent passing offenses in the state next year.
Defensively, they have lots of holes to fill. Their defensive lineman were undersized or too slow this year. Their best athlete this year, Stephen Whited, was moved from defensive end to middle linebacker. Stephen was far and away the best member of an otherwise questionable defense, accounting for about two times the tackles of the next best defensive player (Eric Bell) this season. They also had to move their best senior safety, Chris Gerth, up to linebacker this year, which helped them against the run but hurt them against the pass. Just imagine if North had enough defensive talent this year to allow Stephen and Chris to play their natural positions; I think they might still be playing in the 5A state tournament right now.
For me, the defense is the biggest question mark for North next year. The offense is going to be better with the development of Mike, Brandon, and Alex. But can they find better size and speed on the defensive line, can they replace their 3 graduating senior linebackers, and can they improve speed at corner and strength at safety? The weight room is going to have to be an important factor there.
In the meantime, I kind of feel sorry for the cross-town rivals at Columbus East. They got Seymour for their first playoff game, and got crushed by their southern neighbors. That's unfortunate for the team that went undefeated in the regular season, had very few close games throughout the year, and was ranked #1 in 4A going into the post-season. Did they get caught taking Seymour for granted? Or did Seymour just play the best game of their lives on that particular night? Maybe a little of both. Too bad for East.
Next post I think I'll review College Football.
Football!
So here's my rundown of this season (so far).
High School
I continued to follow Columbus North again this year, since I still maintain their website.
But I just made it to their home games and the game at Columbus East. No away games this year. I did ask Tim if he wanted to go with me to one of the games in Indy, but he turned me down for some girl (just kidding, Stephanie).
North clearly wasn't as good this year as their record-setting team from last year. But they weren't bad either, and have several bright spots. If they can improve in some specific areas, they could be very good again, possibly as early as next year.
They have a very promising sophomore quarterback in Mikey Hladik, who is tall and has a very good arm. The passing game, at least to one wide-out, Brandon Butler (another soph), was looking pretty good until Mike broke his collarbone. That hurt them through the rest of the season, as Brayden Barthlow came in and did a very nice job, but they had to return to mostly a rushing offense from there on.
To become an elite 5A team next year, they need to get their sophomore running back, Alex Turner, stronger and able to withstand the pounding of a whole season and avoid injury. Alex is fast and talented, and is good when there's a big hole for him to run through, but he's too easy to tackle. He needs to add strength to his speed to allow him to break tackles and get more yards on his own. The team had to convert a fullback (Matt Garman) to tight end, and Matt made a few nice receptions but lacked the size to effectively help block for the running game.
The other area they need to improve offensively is to find another reliable receiver besides Brandon Butler. Brandon put up impressive stats, at least until Mike was injured. But the other wide receivers and tight end were all but missing from the stats sheet. If the team can find reliable receivers at the other wide receiver and/or tight end to take some attention away from Brandon, they have a chance to be one of the most potent passing offenses in the state next year.
Defensively, they have lots of holes to fill. Their defensive lineman were undersized or too slow this year. Their best athlete this year, Stephen Whited, was moved from defensive end to middle linebacker. Stephen was far and away the best member of an otherwise questionable defense, accounting for about two times the tackles of the next best defensive player (Eric Bell) this season. They also had to move their best senior safety, Chris Gerth, up to linebacker this year, which helped them against the run but hurt them against the pass. Just imagine if North had enough defensive talent this year to allow Stephen and Chris to play their natural positions; I think they might still be playing in the 5A state tournament right now.
For me, the defense is the biggest question mark for North next year. The offense is going to be better with the development of Mike, Brandon, and Alex. But can they find better size and speed on the defensive line, can they replace their 3 graduating senior linebackers, and can they improve speed at corner and strength at safety? The weight room is going to have to be an important factor there.
In the meantime, I kind of feel sorry for the cross-town rivals at Columbus East. They got Seymour for their first playoff game, and got crushed by their southern neighbors. That's unfortunate for the team that went undefeated in the regular season, had very few close games throughout the year, and was ranked #1 in 4A going into the post-season. Did they get caught taking Seymour for granted? Or did Seymour just play the best game of their lives on that particular night? Maybe a little of both. Too bad for East.
Next post I think I'll review College Football.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Churches in Turmoil
So when grandpa passed away, he found himself at the gates of heaven where he was met by Saint Peter.
"Welcome, John. Let me show you around." Said Peter.
As they floated through the heavenly precincts, Saint Peter pointed out the various groups. "Here are the Lutherans, over there are the Pentecostals, there are the Methodists, that huge group over there are the Catholics, ..." and on and on as the tour of heaven continued.
Spying a small group far in the distance, John asked Peter, "Who are those people way over there by themselves?".
"Shhh, whispered Peter. Those are the Baptists. They think they're the only ones here."
Actually, the Baptists could be replaced by any Christian group you choose, because there seem to be plenty of sects these days who believe they have a monopoly on truth.
That's a sad commentary, because these days it seems to be more important for like-minded people of faith to focus less on their differences and more on their shared faith and values. While I believe many mainstream denominations have lost their way in modernistic thinking, abandoning moral absolutes in favor of secular values. But in general, most Christians can't help but agree on the foundations of their faith and recognize that a positive and united message on moral issues can be tremendously helpful in making our country a better place.
I want to share a couple of stories that illustrate some of the dysfunctional tendencies in churches I've seen first-hand.
In the Catholic church, there is theoretically a hierarchy that is to disseminate and enforce the faith and practices of the church. However, the United States Catholics have become like the petulant child of the Catholic family. Maybe it's a function of our Democratic political philosophy, but lots of American Catholics resent being told what to believe and how to conduct the liturgy by stodgy old Rome.
Illustrative of this is the local story of the music program. The church was able to hire an excellent music director who has just finished his Doctorate at Indiana University. An excellent musician, a Catholic, and an able choral director, he was making a positive impact on the music program at the local parish.
However, there were some problems from the beginning of his tenure. First, there were various ad-hoc music groups in place in the parish, which the music director was told on his first day that he was not allowed to "meddle". In fact, members of the parish staff held a particular affinity for the bluegrass-style group, which was given first choice for masses and special events without any input permitted from the new music director.
The music director was concerned about being so severely restricted in his ability to form an integrated and unified music program. But he went forward with the one group he was allowed to "meddle" with, the adult choir. The choir grew in numbers almost immediately, as members immediately responded to the chance to do high quality music under a well qualified director.
But as time went on, conflicts between the parish staff and the new music director intensified. The new music director installed a tasteful mix of music with the choir, ranging from Gregorian Chant to contemporary sacred selections. The Latin music drew a nearly immediate indignant objection from the staff, one of which told the music director that he was not permitted to use any Latin pieces in the Mass, "ever".
So he got a better offer at another, Protestant, church. And the parish no longer has a music program. The ad-hoc groups, led by the bluegrass band, are now responsible for providing music for all Masses. The choir is disbanded and disillusioned. And the parish priest apologized publicly for his non-involvement, but reallocated the music budget, refused an invitation to meet with members of the choir, and has taken no apparent steps toward replacing the music director.
That story is only one of many which, added together, explain why the parish can barely afford to pay the bills on their beautiful new church building as parishioners vote with their wallets or leave the parish for another, more Catholic, better managed place.
The second story involves the small protestant church in which I happened to be brought up. Our family were active in this church as long as we were around, and my parents stayed until they could no longer. After all those years, what could have gone wrong?
Well, in this denomination, there is complete autonomy at the local level. The national denomination sets basic theological standards and facilitates placement of pastors, but are generally hands-off when it comes to decisions made by individual churches.
A lay pastor worked in the church for several years as an associate to the senior pastor that led the church for many years. When the senior pastor retired, a search commenced for his replacement. The associate lay pastor lobbied hard to be elevated to the senior position, despite his lack of any formal training.
He was given the job on an interim basis, where he worked hard to develop a small group of devoted supporters. Through some manipulation of scheduling and a violation of the church's constitution in voting for a new pastor, he was able to get the job he coveted.
The church my family had spent so many years attending, working, building, and leading became unrecognizable. The self-styled pastor departed from the denomination's philosophies, abandoned the rules and procedures set out by the church's own constitution, and spent the church's money on unauthorized purchases.
Today there are reportedly few members left in the church. The rogue pastor is no longer there, as he was eventually forced to leave and took those of his supporters who remained with him to a new church he is trying to build. My parents attend elsewhere.
How many other similar examples of tragic stories of conflict, poor leadership, and bad management are out there? No wonder the churches are so ineffective in getting the true Christian message out to the world, as they can't even follow the message within their own church buildings?
Here's one of those times that makes me feel old, because I find myself longing for the "good old days". But they are gone.
"Welcome, John. Let me show you around." Said Peter.
As they floated through the heavenly precincts, Saint Peter pointed out the various groups. "Here are the Lutherans, over there are the Pentecostals, there are the Methodists, that huge group over there are the Catholics, ..." and on and on as the tour of heaven continued.
Spying a small group far in the distance, John asked Peter, "Who are those people way over there by themselves?".
"Shhh, whispered Peter. Those are the Baptists. They think they're the only ones here."
Actually, the Baptists could be replaced by any Christian group you choose, because there seem to be plenty of sects these days who believe they have a monopoly on truth.
That's a sad commentary, because these days it seems to be more important for like-minded people of faith to focus less on their differences and more on their shared faith and values. While I believe many mainstream denominations have lost their way in modernistic thinking, abandoning moral absolutes in favor of secular values. But in general, most Christians can't help but agree on the foundations of their faith and recognize that a positive and united message on moral issues can be tremendously helpful in making our country a better place.
I want to share a couple of stories that illustrate some of the dysfunctional tendencies in churches I've seen first-hand.
In the Catholic church, there is theoretically a hierarchy that is to disseminate and enforce the faith and practices of the church. However, the United States Catholics have become like the petulant child of the Catholic family. Maybe it's a function of our Democratic political philosophy, but lots of American Catholics resent being told what to believe and how to conduct the liturgy by stodgy old Rome.
Illustrative of this is the local story of the music program. The church was able to hire an excellent music director who has just finished his Doctorate at Indiana University. An excellent musician, a Catholic, and an able choral director, he was making a positive impact on the music program at the local parish.
However, there were some problems from the beginning of his tenure. First, there were various ad-hoc music groups in place in the parish, which the music director was told on his first day that he was not allowed to "meddle". In fact, members of the parish staff held a particular affinity for the bluegrass-style group, which was given first choice for masses and special events without any input permitted from the new music director.
The music director was concerned about being so severely restricted in his ability to form an integrated and unified music program. But he went forward with the one group he was allowed to "meddle" with, the adult choir. The choir grew in numbers almost immediately, as members immediately responded to the chance to do high quality music under a well qualified director.
But as time went on, conflicts between the parish staff and the new music director intensified. The new music director installed a tasteful mix of music with the choir, ranging from Gregorian Chant to contemporary sacred selections. The Latin music drew a nearly immediate indignant objection from the staff, one of which told the music director that he was not permitted to use any Latin pieces in the Mass, "ever".
So he got a better offer at another, Protestant, church. And the parish no longer has a music program. The ad-hoc groups, led by the bluegrass band, are now responsible for providing music for all Masses. The choir is disbanded and disillusioned. And the parish priest apologized publicly for his non-involvement, but reallocated the music budget, refused an invitation to meet with members of the choir, and has taken no apparent steps toward replacing the music director.
That story is only one of many which, added together, explain why the parish can barely afford to pay the bills on their beautiful new church building as parishioners vote with their wallets or leave the parish for another, more Catholic, better managed place.
The second story involves the small protestant church in which I happened to be brought up. Our family were active in this church as long as we were around, and my parents stayed until they could no longer. After all those years, what could have gone wrong?
Well, in this denomination, there is complete autonomy at the local level. The national denomination sets basic theological standards and facilitates placement of pastors, but are generally hands-off when it comes to decisions made by individual churches.
A lay pastor worked in the church for several years as an associate to the senior pastor that led the church for many years. When the senior pastor retired, a search commenced for his replacement. The associate lay pastor lobbied hard to be elevated to the senior position, despite his lack of any formal training.
He was given the job on an interim basis, where he worked hard to develop a small group of devoted supporters. Through some manipulation of scheduling and a violation of the church's constitution in voting for a new pastor, he was able to get the job he coveted.
The church my family had spent so many years attending, working, building, and leading became unrecognizable. The self-styled pastor departed from the denomination's philosophies, abandoned the rules and procedures set out by the church's own constitution, and spent the church's money on unauthorized purchases.
Today there are reportedly few members left in the church. The rogue pastor is no longer there, as he was eventually forced to leave and took those of his supporters who remained with him to a new church he is trying to build. My parents attend elsewhere.
How many other similar examples of tragic stories of conflict, poor leadership, and bad management are out there? No wonder the churches are so ineffective in getting the true Christian message out to the world, as they can't even follow the message within their own church buildings?
Here's one of those times that makes me feel old, because I find myself longing for the "good old days". But they are gone.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Nature vs. Nurture
Why can't we all just get along?
There's a simple question with an elusive answer.
It seems that whether it's men vs. women, conservatives vs. liberals, blacks vs. whites, jews vs. arabs, protestants vs. catholics, north vs. south; it almost seems like we're programmed for conflict.
Personally, I hate conflict, and admit to going to great lengths to avoid a fight. In many areas of dispute, if I get the opportunity to truly understand where both sides of the argument are coming from, I can often understand both sides even though my agreement is with only one. But there are some issues I have to admit I have absolutely no understanding of the argument opposite of my own. Usually in those issues I study the opposing argument and find no intelligent or logical basis.
Some examples -
Partial Birth Abortion. Those who think this procedure should continue to be protected must be terribly mis-informed or just callous. Why kill a baby that would be perfectly viable and healthy right before it's delivered, then pretend like that was just abortion and not murder simply because the baby was killed before it emerged from its mother?
What women want (from men). The eternal mystery for men. These days I think I almost understand, but the dilemma is that it may be impossible to meet the expectations of a woman. Maybe we could for awhile, but we would end up bitter, frustrated, and unhappy. And that in itself would make us fail. So we guys can try all we want, but I'm afraid we'll never quite measure up to a woman's image of the perfect man. Somebody once said that for women, the only perfect men are gay. That's a confusing thought.
Supreme Court Nomination Fights. So only a day after Bush named his choice for the Supreme Court, after the previous nominee quit, a huge fight seems to have already started. Apparently, even though the new nominee (Alito) is deemed to be well qualified for the job and was unanimously approved for his current judicial position by the same Senate, Democrats will use every procedural device they can to stop him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Affirmative Action. How giving preferential treatment to wealthy and middle-class students for entry into prestigious graduate schools just because they are black escapes me. Why give preferences to black students, when hispanics and asians and even non-native blacks don't seem to need the help? If we want to help elevate the disadvantaged, why not be color blind and offer a few preferred spots to applicants from economically deprived backgrounds?
Christian Paranoia. The liberal atheist crowd exhibits an astounding paranoia toward what they call the "Religious Right". Their apocalyptic hysterical rhetoric against Christians suggests that people who attend church and believe in Jesus Christ are worse than Islamic terrorists. How is it so terrible that people of faith exercise their rights to speak out on moral issues like abortion, homosexuality and pornography? It's bizarre to me that a huge portion of our population only see evil in those who would try to speak out against real evil.
Government as Mommy and Daddy. The liberal idea that the primary role of government is to take care of all citizens puzzles me. Did giving away free housing, food stamps, and checks to single mothers solve any problems with poverty? No, it created an entire permanent welfare underclass, while incenting young mothers to avoid marriage in order to keep their benefits. How can those who built the "projects" and whole welfare system get away with suggesting it was a success? For those who really need help, their first option should be the rest of us - churches, service clubs, etc., where they can get help finding a job, feeding and housing their families, getting back on their feet. People in the local communities are the best source of real help for the poor. My experiences as a volunteer in social services has proven to me that the absolute worst thing you can do to a poor person is give them a check. Rather, they need a boost and incentives toward self-sufficiency, not encouragement to be a freeloader.
The loss of integrity. It seems that the truth is no longer a matter of honor in our country. We can't even get the truth from the news media anymore, because they get so attached to their favored political party that they help spread spin and lies, or at least report opinion and spin as fact. Business people used to be able to work on a handshake and a verbal promise. Now, both verbal and written contracts are routinely violated whenever a businessperson believes they can gain an advantage.
One thing that is nearly impossible is finding common ground with a Bush-hating anti-war liberal. If someone wanted to make a reasonable argument that the war in Iraq was a bad idea because it's going to be very difficult to establish a stable democracy in the hotbed of Islamic radicalism, and that the various factions in Iraq will never allow a democratic government to take hold, I can listen and understand their position. I think it's a moot argument, since we're already committed to supporting a new Iraqi democracy; but I can accept it as a well-reasoned and logical argument.
But when I encounter a Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type, who goes on and on about the "illegal" war, Bush lying about WMD, its all about making Halliburton and the oil companies rich, ad nauseum, there is no chance for mutual understanding. Their entire world view relies on emotion and propaganda, and facts don't matter. I sort of pity them, because they don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to seek out the facts and put aside preconceptions and emotions long enough to at least form a reasoned opinion.
There's a simple question with an elusive answer.
It seems that whether it's men vs. women, conservatives vs. liberals, blacks vs. whites, jews vs. arabs, protestants vs. catholics, north vs. south; it almost seems like we're programmed for conflict.
Personally, I hate conflict, and admit to going to great lengths to avoid a fight. In many areas of dispute, if I get the opportunity to truly understand where both sides of the argument are coming from, I can often understand both sides even though my agreement is with only one. But there are some issues I have to admit I have absolutely no understanding of the argument opposite of my own. Usually in those issues I study the opposing argument and find no intelligent or logical basis.
Some examples -
Partial Birth Abortion. Those who think this procedure should continue to be protected must be terribly mis-informed or just callous. Why kill a baby that would be perfectly viable and healthy right before it's delivered, then pretend like that was just abortion and not murder simply because the baby was killed before it emerged from its mother?
What women want (from men). The eternal mystery for men. These days I think I almost understand, but the dilemma is that it may be impossible to meet the expectations of a woman. Maybe we could for awhile, but we would end up bitter, frustrated, and unhappy. And that in itself would make us fail. So we guys can try all we want, but I'm afraid we'll never quite measure up to a woman's image of the perfect man. Somebody once said that for women, the only perfect men are gay. That's a confusing thought.
Supreme Court Nomination Fights. So only a day after Bush named his choice for the Supreme Court, after the previous nominee quit, a huge fight seems to have already started. Apparently, even though the new nominee (Alito) is deemed to be well qualified for the job and was unanimously approved for his current judicial position by the same Senate, Democrats will use every procedural device they can to stop him from becoming a Supreme Court justice.
Affirmative Action. How giving preferential treatment to wealthy and middle-class students for entry into prestigious graduate schools just because they are black escapes me. Why give preferences to black students, when hispanics and asians and even non-native blacks don't seem to need the help? If we want to help elevate the disadvantaged, why not be color blind and offer a few preferred spots to applicants from economically deprived backgrounds?
Christian Paranoia. The liberal atheist crowd exhibits an astounding paranoia toward what they call the "Religious Right". Their apocalyptic hysterical rhetoric against Christians suggests that people who attend church and believe in Jesus Christ are worse than Islamic terrorists. How is it so terrible that people of faith exercise their rights to speak out on moral issues like abortion, homosexuality and pornography? It's bizarre to me that a huge portion of our population only see evil in those who would try to speak out against real evil.
Government as Mommy and Daddy. The liberal idea that the primary role of government is to take care of all citizens puzzles me. Did giving away free housing, food stamps, and checks to single mothers solve any problems with poverty? No, it created an entire permanent welfare underclass, while incenting young mothers to avoid marriage in order to keep their benefits. How can those who built the "projects" and whole welfare system get away with suggesting it was a success? For those who really need help, their first option should be the rest of us - churches, service clubs, etc., where they can get help finding a job, feeding and housing their families, getting back on their feet. People in the local communities are the best source of real help for the poor. My experiences as a volunteer in social services has proven to me that the absolute worst thing you can do to a poor person is give them a check. Rather, they need a boost and incentives toward self-sufficiency, not encouragement to be a freeloader.
The loss of integrity. It seems that the truth is no longer a matter of honor in our country. We can't even get the truth from the news media anymore, because they get so attached to their favored political party that they help spread spin and lies, or at least report opinion and spin as fact. Business people used to be able to work on a handshake and a verbal promise. Now, both verbal and written contracts are routinely violated whenever a businessperson believes they can gain an advantage.
One thing that is nearly impossible is finding common ground with a Bush-hating anti-war liberal. If someone wanted to make a reasonable argument that the war in Iraq was a bad idea because it's going to be very difficult to establish a stable democracy in the hotbed of Islamic radicalism, and that the various factions in Iraq will never allow a democratic government to take hold, I can listen and understand their position. I think it's a moot argument, since we're already committed to supporting a new Iraqi democracy; but I can accept it as a well-reasoned and logical argument.
But when I encounter a Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan type, who goes on and on about the "illegal" war, Bush lying about WMD, its all about making Halliburton and the oil companies rich, ad nauseum, there is no chance for mutual understanding. Their entire world view relies on emotion and propaganda, and facts don't matter. I sort of pity them, because they don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to seek out the facts and put aside preconceptions and emotions long enough to at least form a reasoned opinion.
Monday, October 31, 2005
No More Weekends, Please
The weekend was incredibly hectic, not to mention like a bad episode of The Twilight Zone, and I'm glad it's over. In fact, I am tempted to declare a moratorium on weekends for a few weeks. I don't think I can handle too many more of these.
But we got to the play, although about 15 minutes late. There was very little sleep Friday or Saturday nights. There was lots of driving around Indiana. We saw lots of relatives and old friends we haven't seen in a very long time. And I now have new brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. It can make for interesting family holiday gatherings.
But I don't know when I've felt more helpless or hopeless.
No more weekends. Work is easier. I can hole up in my office where at least it's safe.
But we got to the play, although about 15 minutes late. There was very little sleep Friday or Saturday nights. There was lots of driving around Indiana. We saw lots of relatives and old friends we haven't seen in a very long time. And I now have new brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. It can make for interesting family holiday gatherings.
But I don't know when I've felt more helpless or hopeless.
No more weekends. Work is easier. I can hole up in my office where at least it's safe.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
On Careers and Such
This post is inspired by something other than my own musings. About careers and the everlasting question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?"
I remember when I was a kid that was probably the question almost every adult I met asked me. And I never really knew the answer. When I was very young, maybe up to around 4th grade, my answer usually shifted between "cowboy" and "teacher". My favorite books at the time were about cowboys, and the only other profession I had any clue about was my Dad's (teaching).
So I went to college without a clue about what I wanted to do. I had a vague idea about entering some sort of music-related business. It might have been running a music store or recording studio, but there wasn't a concrete career idea there.
So I started out as a freshman with a tentatively declared Business Management major. In the meantime, I joined the band and took trombone lessons, started voice lessons, and took some freshman-level music theory and history classes. Oh yeah, I took some freshman-level business classes too.
By the end of my Freshman year, I noticed that
a. Business Classes were incredibly dull
b. I was spending almost all my time in the Music School
c. I was dating mostly music majors
d. I just got into University Singers
e. I was having a great time (in music)
So, voila, I became a music major. Actually, I still held onto the basic plan of entering some part of the music business, but at that time it seemed as far away as retirement does today.
Fast-forward to my senior year. I was finishing up a BS in Music Education, Area Music Major. That meant I was theoretically qualified to teach any music to K-12; band, choir, orchestra. But I did my student teaching and began to seriously question my choice. It really was pretty much clear to me by this point that being a music teacher wasn't a good fit for my personality, interests, or abilities. I found out that just because I enjoyed singing and performing, that did not mean I was intended to lead kids in those ventures.
As I finished my degree that Senior year, I seriously considered staying in school another year or so. Because I made a discovery that year - computers! I found out that they fascinated me, and I could spend an entire day writing programs in the computer lab and not even realize that I had been so wrapped up that I lost track of time, even to the point of skipping a meal. (If you know me, that's big.)
But I was already married. And tired of being a student. And tired of being broke. And ready for a change of scenery.
So, I found a teaching job and began what turned out to be one of the most stressful and painful years of my life. I was a square peg in a round hole. And the pay was so bad, we struggled more to eke out a minimum living standard that year than at any time while we were still in school. By Christmastime, I knew that this wasn't right for me. At the end of the school year, I packed up and left the high school, and never looked back.
I went back to school, selling real estate and working various part-time jobs, and in no time settled into a new career as a computer programmer. I loved it. And it actually paid a decent living wage.
But I wasn't a computer programmer all that long, if you take the view from up here at age 48. Management beckoned, and as time went on the distance from the computer programming start widened. Today I'd say it's been around 15 years since I wrote a significant amount of code. Sure, I'd do a little maintenance programming or write a simple interface now and then over the years just to keep my hand in, but generally my job in all those years has had little to do with that "computer programmer" tag.
Now that I'm self-employed and becoming aware that my most productive working years may be falling behind me, I find myself reassessing the whole issue of career. Once again, the pertinent question in my life is, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" To answer that, I'm now asking other questions, such as, "When am I grown up?", and "What does 'to be' refer to? Does it necessarily have to refer to what I do, or is it more important to focus on who I am?"
Take a poll of adults you know. How many of them are working today in the field they went to college to get into? You might be surprised. I'm not. Almost every member of my extended family is not. Many of my friends and acquaintenace are not.
Engineers have become company owners, entrepreneurs, high school math teachers, real estate salespersons. Teachers have become factory workers, bank tellers, psychologists, computer sales and repair people. History majors have become lawyers. Musicians have become salespersons, real estate investors, or ministers.
Life and change are fundamental. Every one of us is walking along a path that is full of alternatives and detours. Whenever the path arrives at a major intersection, we have to make a decision. Stay straight, turn right, turn left, go back? Those decisions are made more difficult by the fact that we really don't know what's ahead. We've heard rumors and hints, but no matter which way we choose, there is no way we can know for certain whether it will turn out to be the right choice.
So ultimately we just have to rely on our faith, family, and friends to give us insight, then choose our path. Whatever the path we choose, we must be prepared to discover whether it was right. Today I can look back and say that some of the paths I chose were not right, but they led me to where I am and showed me people and places and experiences I would never have known otherwise. So how can I really say any of my choices were wrong? They just were part of the journey.
What I will do is choose the path that looks right - not easy, not popular, not impossibly difficult. Just the one that looks like it's the right one for me. Whatever I find along that path I will simply deal with as it comes and keep moving forward.
Have faith.
I remember when I was a kid that was probably the question almost every adult I met asked me. And I never really knew the answer. When I was very young, maybe up to around 4th grade, my answer usually shifted between "cowboy" and "teacher". My favorite books at the time were about cowboys, and the only other profession I had any clue about was my Dad's (teaching).
So I went to college without a clue about what I wanted to do. I had a vague idea about entering some sort of music-related business. It might have been running a music store or recording studio, but there wasn't a concrete career idea there.
So I started out as a freshman with a tentatively declared Business Management major. In the meantime, I joined the band and took trombone lessons, started voice lessons, and took some freshman-level music theory and history classes. Oh yeah, I took some freshman-level business classes too.
By the end of my Freshman year, I noticed that
a. Business Classes were incredibly dull
b. I was spending almost all my time in the Music School
c. I was dating mostly music majors
d. I just got into University Singers
e. I was having a great time (in music)
So, voila, I became a music major. Actually, I still held onto the basic plan of entering some part of the music business, but at that time it seemed as far away as retirement does today.
Fast-forward to my senior year. I was finishing up a BS in Music Education, Area Music Major. That meant I was theoretically qualified to teach any music to K-12; band, choir, orchestra. But I did my student teaching and began to seriously question my choice. It really was pretty much clear to me by this point that being a music teacher wasn't a good fit for my personality, interests, or abilities. I found out that just because I enjoyed singing and performing, that did not mean I was intended to lead kids in those ventures.
As I finished my degree that Senior year, I seriously considered staying in school another year or so. Because I made a discovery that year - computers! I found out that they fascinated me, and I could spend an entire day writing programs in the computer lab and not even realize that I had been so wrapped up that I lost track of time, even to the point of skipping a meal. (If you know me, that's big.)
But I was already married. And tired of being a student. And tired of being broke. And ready for a change of scenery.
So, I found a teaching job and began what turned out to be one of the most stressful and painful years of my life. I was a square peg in a round hole. And the pay was so bad, we struggled more to eke out a minimum living standard that year than at any time while we were still in school. By Christmastime, I knew that this wasn't right for me. At the end of the school year, I packed up and left the high school, and never looked back.
I went back to school, selling real estate and working various part-time jobs, and in no time settled into a new career as a computer programmer. I loved it. And it actually paid a decent living wage.
But I wasn't a computer programmer all that long, if you take the view from up here at age 48. Management beckoned, and as time went on the distance from the computer programming start widened. Today I'd say it's been around 15 years since I wrote a significant amount of code. Sure, I'd do a little maintenance programming or write a simple interface now and then over the years just to keep my hand in, but generally my job in all those years has had little to do with that "computer programmer" tag.
Now that I'm self-employed and becoming aware that my most productive working years may be falling behind me, I find myself reassessing the whole issue of career. Once again, the pertinent question in my life is, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" To answer that, I'm now asking other questions, such as, "When am I grown up?", and "What does 'to be' refer to? Does it necessarily have to refer to what I do, or is it more important to focus on who I am?"
Take a poll of adults you know. How many of them are working today in the field they went to college to get into? You might be surprised. I'm not. Almost every member of my extended family is not. Many of my friends and acquaintenace are not.
Engineers have become company owners, entrepreneurs, high school math teachers, real estate salespersons. Teachers have become factory workers, bank tellers, psychologists, computer sales and repair people. History majors have become lawyers. Musicians have become salespersons, real estate investors, or ministers.
Life and change are fundamental. Every one of us is walking along a path that is full of alternatives and detours. Whenever the path arrives at a major intersection, we have to make a decision. Stay straight, turn right, turn left, go back? Those decisions are made more difficult by the fact that we really don't know what's ahead. We've heard rumors and hints, but no matter which way we choose, there is no way we can know for certain whether it will turn out to be the right choice.
So ultimately we just have to rely on our faith, family, and friends to give us insight, then choose our path. Whatever the path we choose, we must be prepared to discover whether it was right. Today I can look back and say that some of the paths I chose were not right, but they led me to where I am and showed me people and places and experiences I would never have known otherwise. So how can I really say any of my choices were wrong? They just were part of the journey.
What I will do is choose the path that looks right - not easy, not popular, not impossibly difficult. Just the one that looks like it's the right one for me. Whatever I find along that path I will simply deal with as it comes and keep moving forward.
Have faith.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
October Dreaming
Had a long trip through the Indiana countryside yesterday. The fall colors were inspiring, especially in the rural hills of Southern Indiana.
The driving and even the meeting yesterday served a good personal purpose. Both gave me a chance to reflect on my life's direction. Although I can't say there was any great revelation taking place, I can say that it helped me separate the important from the unimportant.
I returned with a new resolve to double my efforts toward those things that are important, and stop worrying about those that are not.
In the meantime, here are some things I miss from my younger days:
1. Playing sports, especially basketball and football.
2. Seeing women I don't know do double-takes, smile, even flirt with me in random places.
3. Performing in front of large audiences and getting enthusiastic response.
4. Hanging out with "real" friends, having "deep" discussions.
5. Laughing so hard it brings tears.
6. Hugs.
The driving and even the meeting yesterday served a good personal purpose. Both gave me a chance to reflect on my life's direction. Although I can't say there was any great revelation taking place, I can say that it helped me separate the important from the unimportant.
I returned with a new resolve to double my efforts toward those things that are important, and stop worrying about those that are not.
In the meantime, here are some things I miss from my younger days:
1. Playing sports, especially basketball and football.
2. Seeing women I don't know do double-takes, smile, even flirt with me in random places.
3. Performing in front of large audiences and getting enthusiastic response.
4. Hanging out with "real" friends, having "deep" discussions.
5. Laughing so hard it brings tears.
6. Hugs.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Fun Friday
How about some things I think would be really fun, or funny:
For one week, everyone on television has to go without makeup. News reporters, actors, singers, reality show participants, everybody! I think it would be great fun to see what they all REALLY look like.
I want to see a golf tournament where the golfers can't have caddies. They have to lug their own bags, figure out their own distances, and keep their own scores. And the gallery doesn't have to shut up for each shot - they can make all the noise they want.
Each NBA team has to play all of their games for a week using only players under 6 feet tall. Good old-time basketball.
Every NFL team has to cut any player who's been charged with domestic abuse or any felony offense, tested positive for drugs, had out-of-wedlock children with more than one woman, or participated in that Viking's lake cruise last week. I wonder how many players would be left? How many teams would have to forfeit?
Staying with the same theme, how about this weekend in College Football, only players with a 2.5 GPA or greater, who are within one semester of being on track for their degree, can be on the field. And the GPA standard becomes 3.5 for those players taking stupid majors designed for no purpose other than keeping them academically eligible. Let's do the same this winter for College Basketball. Only the true "student/athletes" can participate.
For a whole week, every tv news program has to do only positive stories. No negatives, controversy, or protesting allowed. Just an entire week of stories, delivered by reporters sans makeup, devoted to charitable people, successful people and organizations, inventions, etc.
Have a hat day, where everybody everywhere wears their favorite hat all day long. It would be fun to walk around and see all the people and their crazy hats.
Finally, a random act of kindness day. Everybody has to anonymously do something nice for someone else. Like paying the toll for the person behind you. Or picking up the tab for a stranger's lunch. Or raking leaves for an elderly person when they're not around. Or any other random act of kindness, the rules being it has to be anonymous and done for a total stranger.
For one week, everyone on television has to go without makeup. News reporters, actors, singers, reality show participants, everybody! I think it would be great fun to see what they all REALLY look like.
I want to see a golf tournament where the golfers can't have caddies. They have to lug their own bags, figure out their own distances, and keep their own scores. And the gallery doesn't have to shut up for each shot - they can make all the noise they want.
Each NBA team has to play all of their games for a week using only players under 6 feet tall. Good old-time basketball.
Every NFL team has to cut any player who's been charged with domestic abuse or any felony offense, tested positive for drugs, had out-of-wedlock children with more than one woman, or participated in that Viking's lake cruise last week. I wonder how many players would be left? How many teams would have to forfeit?
Staying with the same theme, how about this weekend in College Football, only players with a 2.5 GPA or greater, who are within one semester of being on track for their degree, can be on the field. And the GPA standard becomes 3.5 for those players taking stupid majors designed for no purpose other than keeping them academically eligible. Let's do the same this winter for College Basketball. Only the true "student/athletes" can participate.
For a whole week, every tv news program has to do only positive stories. No negatives, controversy, or protesting allowed. Just an entire week of stories, delivered by reporters sans makeup, devoted to charitable people, successful people and organizations, inventions, etc.
Have a hat day, where everybody everywhere wears their favorite hat all day long. It would be fun to walk around and see all the people and their crazy hats.
Finally, a random act of kindness day. Everybody has to anonymously do something nice for someone else. Like paying the toll for the person behind you. Or picking up the tab for a stranger's lunch. Or raking leaves for an elderly person when they're not around. Or any other random act of kindness, the rules being it has to be anonymous and done for a total stranger.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Generation Gap
When I was young, there was a lot of talk about the "Generation Gap". It was a real thing, and not surprising given the Hippie generation's rejection of their parents' values, embracing of socialist and communist political philosophies, wearing ratty jeans and tie-dyed t-shirts, abusing dangerous drugs and abandoning all sexual mores.
But the Hippies were actually in between my generation and my parents', and those of us in the 70's generation didn't really buy into that whole 60's "scene". From my personal experience, I didn't see the sort of confrontational intergenerational conflict of the 60's. I'm sure the end of the VietNam war was part of the reason for the narrowing of that generation gap.
Today there is a new generation, and although there clearly aren't the same issues between generations that we saw in the 60's, there still are a number of things that I don't understand.
I don't understand video gaming obsession. I'm sure that video games are very entertaining, but how could they replace playing sports or games with one's friends? I fear the video game generation is becoming increasingly detached from other people and much more self-absorbed.
I don't understand courtship rituals. The approach I was familiar with of a casual date to get to know someone before jumping into a "relationship" seems to have all but disappeared. I'm mystified by how anyone can establish a strong and meaningful connection without a gradual and casual get-to-know-you dating process.
I don't understand the casual attitudes toward marriage. Today a huge percentage of households are either single-parent or blended families. What part of "till death do us part" don't people understand? If Hollywood's example is any indication, it seems that marriage today is the equivalent of "going steady" 30 years ago. People change spouses like they change shoes.
I don't understand the music. I can't remember the last time I heard a new popular single I liked. So-called "recording artists" can't even sing anymore; they are vocally challenged, but the new generation snaps them up like crazy. Lots of artists don't even bother to sing anymore, but just "rap". Since when is that music? I want to hear a well-written song that isn't vulgar and has a story or message I can identify with and is performed skillfully and musically. Is that too much to ask?
I don't understand the vulgarity. Why does every sentence uttered by this generation have to include a vulgar reference to a sex act or bodily function? Have we done such a poor job of educating these kids that they no longer have enough vocabulary to make an impactful statement without using epithets and vulgarity? It's embarrassing.
I don't understand the dress. When did it become acceptable for girls to dress like prostitutes and guys to dress like gang bangers?
I don't understand piercings and tattoos. Why mutilate and permanently mar your body? What happens to that barbed wire tattoo around your bicep when you're 70 and no longer have a bicep? What happens to all those facial piercings when you get old and your skin loses its elasticity and your cartilage grows larger?
I don't understand the sexual free-for-all. It seems monogamy is disappearing from the language. When did virginity become a joke, even for young teens? Where is the concern for STD's and AIDS, pregnancy, and the emotional baggage that comes from casual sex? Maybe this is one of the most negative outcomes of the 60's generation; anybody who even suggests sexual restraint at all is held up to ridicule, while STD's approach epidemic status, babies are aborted or born to parents who can't raise them properly. And married partners don't think adultery is a big deal. I suspect this problem is tied closely to the courtship issue I discussed earlier.
I don't understand the selfishness. From my perspective, this may be the most selfish and self-absorbed generation in history. The focus seems to be on each individual's personal happiness. Constant complaints of "I'm not happy", "I'm bored", "My needs aren't being met", and the like suggest a complete lack of empathy and understanding or any spirit of helping someone else just because it's the right thing to do.
Am I wrong about any of the above? Certainly everyone's an individual, and I'm sure there are plenty of individuals who don't fit into the above descriptions. But have I accurately described this generation as a whole?
Anyone from this generation is invited to set me straight, if you can.
But the Hippies were actually in between my generation and my parents', and those of us in the 70's generation didn't really buy into that whole 60's "scene". From my personal experience, I didn't see the sort of confrontational intergenerational conflict of the 60's. I'm sure the end of the VietNam war was part of the reason for the narrowing of that generation gap.
Today there is a new generation, and although there clearly aren't the same issues between generations that we saw in the 60's, there still are a number of things that I don't understand.
I don't understand video gaming obsession. I'm sure that video games are very entertaining, but how could they replace playing sports or games with one's friends? I fear the video game generation is becoming increasingly detached from other people and much more self-absorbed.
I don't understand courtship rituals. The approach I was familiar with of a casual date to get to know someone before jumping into a "relationship" seems to have all but disappeared. I'm mystified by how anyone can establish a strong and meaningful connection without a gradual and casual get-to-know-you dating process.
I don't understand the casual attitudes toward marriage. Today a huge percentage of households are either single-parent or blended families. What part of "till death do us part" don't people understand? If Hollywood's example is any indication, it seems that marriage today is the equivalent of "going steady" 30 years ago. People change spouses like they change shoes.
I don't understand the music. I can't remember the last time I heard a new popular single I liked. So-called "recording artists" can't even sing anymore; they are vocally challenged, but the new generation snaps them up like crazy. Lots of artists don't even bother to sing anymore, but just "rap". Since when is that music? I want to hear a well-written song that isn't vulgar and has a story or message I can identify with and is performed skillfully and musically. Is that too much to ask?
I don't understand the vulgarity. Why does every sentence uttered by this generation have to include a vulgar reference to a sex act or bodily function? Have we done such a poor job of educating these kids that they no longer have enough vocabulary to make an impactful statement without using epithets and vulgarity? It's embarrassing.
I don't understand the dress. When did it become acceptable for girls to dress like prostitutes and guys to dress like gang bangers?
I don't understand piercings and tattoos. Why mutilate and permanently mar your body? What happens to that barbed wire tattoo around your bicep when you're 70 and no longer have a bicep? What happens to all those facial piercings when you get old and your skin loses its elasticity and your cartilage grows larger?
I don't understand the sexual free-for-all. It seems monogamy is disappearing from the language. When did virginity become a joke, even for young teens? Where is the concern for STD's and AIDS, pregnancy, and the emotional baggage that comes from casual sex? Maybe this is one of the most negative outcomes of the 60's generation; anybody who even suggests sexual restraint at all is held up to ridicule, while STD's approach epidemic status, babies are aborted or born to parents who can't raise them properly. And married partners don't think adultery is a big deal. I suspect this problem is tied closely to the courtship issue I discussed earlier.
I don't understand the selfishness. From my perspective, this may be the most selfish and self-absorbed generation in history. The focus seems to be on each individual's personal happiness. Constant complaints of "I'm not happy", "I'm bored", "My needs aren't being met", and the like suggest a complete lack of empathy and understanding or any spirit of helping someone else just because it's the right thing to do.
Am I wrong about any of the above? Certainly everyone's an individual, and I'm sure there are plenty of individuals who don't fit into the above descriptions. But have I accurately described this generation as a whole?
Anyone from this generation is invited to set me straight, if you can.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Incivility
There isn't anyone who hasn't been angry with someone else at one time or another. Anger is fine, but the response to that anger is the real test. And from my experience, most people fail that test. Miserably.
I know that I have disappointed and angered people in my life, much more often than I would like. But has anyone ever responded to their anger with me in a positive way? Not that I can remember - at least not very often.
When people get angry, they generally resort to these basic responses:
How about responding in a way that doesn't punish the other, but actually might succeed in getting a change in behavior? Let's use a scenario that comes partly from my own experiences way back when:
A couple has just returned from a party. During the car ride home, the woman is clearly icy with the man for reasons he can't begin to fathom. He thinks the party was pretty good, they got to catch up with lots of old friends, and can't figure out why she's suddenly angry.
She saw him talking and laughing with an attractive female at the party who she believes may have been a former girlfriend, and is fuming about his gall in flirting with her at the party.
So rather than going through a combination of the four destructive responses listed above, what if she did the following:
1. Open up to the man by telling him about what she saw him doing at the party and how it made her feel.
2. Suggest a specific and realistic solution to the problem, such as introducing her to his old friends and including her in party conversations.
3. Allow open discussion and listen carefully to what he has to say, and give him positive feedback for suggesting his own ideas for solving the problem, listening to her, and caring about her feelings.
Of course, if the man show himself to be a jerk, dismissive of her feelings, or his behavior at the party went beyond just friendly conversation, all she needs is to inform him why she's ending the relationship. But if he's worth it, she can try the positive approach or test for how many times he'll put up with the four destructive reactions.
It's just tiring.
I know that I have disappointed and angered people in my life, much more often than I would like. But has anyone ever responded to their anger with me in a positive way? Not that I can remember - at least not very often.
When people get angry, they generally resort to these basic responses:
- Sullen and Uncommunicative: When I'm the subject of this response, I have no idea what caused it, and start racking my brain for what I might have done to offend. When I do wheedle an answer to "what's wrong?", it usually is "If you don't know, then we have an even bigger problem". Great, what did I do now? But if this approach is used too many times, I will just ignore the silent treatment because I don't have the energy to play the game anymore.
- Attack: A verbal barrage laying out every one of my faults and past sins, real or imagined, designed to batter me into complete and total submission. I end up feeling completely worthless, and don't even remember the original transgression. Besides, I've just been told I'm the scum of the earth, so there's not much point in trying to do better.
- Sarcasm: A chilly attitude with plenty of little barbs and digs designed to inflict pain. This is similar to the sullen and uncommunicative in that I still have no clue about my offense. But the sarcastic treatment is more likely to cause me to avoid contact, just like you might avoid the neighborhood bully when walking home from school.
- Whispering Campaign: A particularly nasty approach to dealing with a pique is to avoid the subject completely in my presence, but proceed to tell everyone else in the country about my horrible offense. The offended has given no indication of anything wrong at all in person, and I'm going about my business as usual until suddenly I hear from a completely unexpected third party about what a terrible thing I did. Huh?
How about responding in a way that doesn't punish the other, but actually might succeed in getting a change in behavior? Let's use a scenario that comes partly from my own experiences way back when:
A couple has just returned from a party. During the car ride home, the woman is clearly icy with the man for reasons he can't begin to fathom. He thinks the party was pretty good, they got to catch up with lots of old friends, and can't figure out why she's suddenly angry.
She saw him talking and laughing with an attractive female at the party who she believes may have been a former girlfriend, and is fuming about his gall in flirting with her at the party.
So rather than going through a combination of the four destructive responses listed above, what if she did the following:
1. Open up to the man by telling him about what she saw him doing at the party and how it made her feel.
2. Suggest a specific and realistic solution to the problem, such as introducing her to his old friends and including her in party conversations.
3. Allow open discussion and listen carefully to what he has to say, and give him positive feedback for suggesting his own ideas for solving the problem, listening to her, and caring about her feelings.
Of course, if the man show himself to be a jerk, dismissive of her feelings, or his behavior at the party went beyond just friendly conversation, all she needs is to inform him why she's ending the relationship. But if he's worth it, she can try the positive approach or test for how many times he'll put up with the four destructive reactions.
It's just tiring.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Welcoming Work
It was sort of nice to get back into the office today, knowing I have a solid pile of work ahead of me. Too bad it doesn't all pay - in fact, some of it specifically costs me money. Anybody want to join me in a tax revolt?
Anyway, despite the beautiful weather, it was not a pleasant weekend. It's not possible to get into the reasons, but it left me fighting to avoid a deep and lasting funk. I think I succeeded to a degree - I got up and came into the office this morning, where I'm moving ahead slowly but surely on the pile.
There was a good sign this morning in an actual phone call from the software company that owes me a pile of money and seems incapable of just processing the invoices. There is an actual person assigned who actually talked to me over the phone and actually gave me a fax number for sending all of my open items. That's only about the third time I've re-sent the same stuff, which they seem to have lost each time. Dare I hope after all this time that something might actually get done there and I might see a check before Christmas? We shall see.
Chris and I went to see Wallace & Gromit. There were some funny moments, and I was surprised at the multiple levels of humor woven into the story. It was sort of fun to notice the little kids laughing at the slapstick, then the adults taking their turn laughing at the more subtle adult-oriented lines.
Gotta get back to work.
Anyway, despite the beautiful weather, it was not a pleasant weekend. It's not possible to get into the reasons, but it left me fighting to avoid a deep and lasting funk. I think I succeeded to a degree - I got up and came into the office this morning, where I'm moving ahead slowly but surely on the pile.
There was a good sign this morning in an actual phone call from the software company that owes me a pile of money and seems incapable of just processing the invoices. There is an actual person assigned who actually talked to me over the phone and actually gave me a fax number for sending all of my open items. That's only about the third time I've re-sent the same stuff, which they seem to have lost each time. Dare I hope after all this time that something might actually get done there and I might see a check before Christmas? We shall see.
Chris and I went to see Wallace & Gromit. There were some funny moments, and I was surprised at the multiple levels of humor woven into the story. It was sort of fun to notice the little kids laughing at the slapstick, then the adults taking their turn laughing at the more subtle adult-oriented lines.
Gotta get back to work.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Sharing a Major Pet Peeve
A major irritant for me may not be shared by a lot of other people. Then again, maybe it is, and I just don't hear it much from others. It's women doing bathroom stuff in public (no, not the waste function).
Some already know of my sensitivity to strong odors. Perfumes, hand cremes, hairspray, cologne, and other similar stinky stuff make me physically ill. The worst recent experience was on a flight; I was sitting in first class as the plane descended to land at the Indy airport, when the woman next to me pulled out her perfume bottle and proceeded to douse herself liberally. A few seconds later, I emptied the contents of my stomach into the airsick bag. It wasn't until I walked outside and gulped greedily at the fresh air that the nausea began to dissipate.
What's so difficult for women to understand - some of us don't appreciate their favorite scents. Especially when they bathe in them. Have they been dousing so much of the stuff on themselves that it completely burned out their olfactories? The same women probably don't appreciate cigarette smoke being blown in their faces, so why wouldn't they understand that applying strong and offensive odors to their own bodies can be just as objectionable to someone sitting near them?
During my last project, there were two women who made things difficult. One I had to work with fairly closely, and it was made very difficult by the hand creme she slathered on several times each day. The routine went something like this: We'd be working on something, and she'd pull out the bottle of creme and dump a big gob on her palm. Then I'd excuse myself, get up and leave the area, spend about 10-15 minutes out in the unpolluted air, then return, hoping the worst of the odor had dissipated. Once I wasn't quick enough or didn't notice what she was doing, and began dry-heaving as I quickly turned my back and headed for the restroom. She either never caught on to my subtle hints or didn't care to catch on.
There was another woman who worked in an adjoining cubicle to the one I was assigned for awhile. She had some sort of fruity body spray product that she would apply at random times throughout the day. The odor conjured up the purple cloud I used to remember from cartoons, which as soon as it comes in contact renders the victim unconscious. Well, for me not unconscious but very nauseous. So, once again, I would get up and leave as soon as the malodorous toxic cloud reached my nostrils, returning after I figured enough time had passed for it to dissipate.
On my trip home this weekend, fortunately this didn't happen close enough to me to cause any ill effects, but it did irritate me. A woman was sitting in the gate area awaiting boarding for the Indy flight. She got out her bag, and right there in front of all the other waiting passengers, proceeded to paint her face. She applied all sorts of products, none of which I really care to understand well enough to describe, apparently in an attempt to transform her face into whatever illusion she desired.
So maybe it's some sort of social requirement for women to wear lots of makeup. But my general philosophy is that pretty women don't need it, and ugly women can't get much help anyway. But even if I grudgingly agree that women feel social pressure to plaster stuff on their faces, shouldn't they do it in private? Why couldn't this woman get up and walk the 50 feet to the nearest ladies room to trowel on all that stuff, rather than subject everyone in the area to her attempt at facial artistry?
After all, if women and their makeup are all about illusion, shouldn't the secrets of that illusion be kept private?
I feel better now with my rant over. I'm also breathing deeply to appreciate the complete lack of obnoxious odors in my private refuge of the office. (Let me check - no, even my armpits are fairly odor-free. I won't take off my shoes, though.) Ahh.
Some already know of my sensitivity to strong odors. Perfumes, hand cremes, hairspray, cologne, and other similar stinky stuff make me physically ill. The worst recent experience was on a flight; I was sitting in first class as the plane descended to land at the Indy airport, when the woman next to me pulled out her perfume bottle and proceeded to douse herself liberally. A few seconds later, I emptied the contents of my stomach into the airsick bag. It wasn't until I walked outside and gulped greedily at the fresh air that the nausea began to dissipate.
What's so difficult for women to understand - some of us don't appreciate their favorite scents. Especially when they bathe in them. Have they been dousing so much of the stuff on themselves that it completely burned out their olfactories? The same women probably don't appreciate cigarette smoke being blown in their faces, so why wouldn't they understand that applying strong and offensive odors to their own bodies can be just as objectionable to someone sitting near them?
During my last project, there were two women who made things difficult. One I had to work with fairly closely, and it was made very difficult by the hand creme she slathered on several times each day. The routine went something like this: We'd be working on something, and she'd pull out the bottle of creme and dump a big gob on her palm. Then I'd excuse myself, get up and leave the area, spend about 10-15 minutes out in the unpolluted air, then return, hoping the worst of the odor had dissipated. Once I wasn't quick enough or didn't notice what she was doing, and began dry-heaving as I quickly turned my back and headed for the restroom. She either never caught on to my subtle hints or didn't care to catch on.
There was another woman who worked in an adjoining cubicle to the one I was assigned for awhile. She had some sort of fruity body spray product that she would apply at random times throughout the day. The odor conjured up the purple cloud I used to remember from cartoons, which as soon as it comes in contact renders the victim unconscious. Well, for me not unconscious but very nauseous. So, once again, I would get up and leave as soon as the malodorous toxic cloud reached my nostrils, returning after I figured enough time had passed for it to dissipate.
On my trip home this weekend, fortunately this didn't happen close enough to me to cause any ill effects, but it did irritate me. A woman was sitting in the gate area awaiting boarding for the Indy flight. She got out her bag, and right there in front of all the other waiting passengers, proceeded to paint her face. She applied all sorts of products, none of which I really care to understand well enough to describe, apparently in an attempt to transform her face into whatever illusion she desired.
So maybe it's some sort of social requirement for women to wear lots of makeup. But my general philosophy is that pretty women don't need it, and ugly women can't get much help anyway. But even if I grudgingly agree that women feel social pressure to plaster stuff on their faces, shouldn't they do it in private? Why couldn't this woman get up and walk the 50 feet to the nearest ladies room to trowel on all that stuff, rather than subject everyone in the area to her attempt at facial artistry?
After all, if women and their makeup are all about illusion, shouldn't the secrets of that illusion be kept private?
I feel better now with my rant over. I'm also breathing deeply to appreciate the complete lack of obnoxious odors in my private refuge of the office. (Let me check - no, even my armpits are fairly odor-free. I won't take off my shoes, though.) Ahh.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Object Lessons
If anyone needs a first-hand example of why socialism doesn't work, just spend some time with an Indian tribe. The irony isn't lost on me that Americans feel guilty about what our forefathers purportedly did to the natives 150 years ago; you know, stealing their land, killing them off with desease and rifles, sending them to desolate reservations, etc. So what did we do? We let them open casinos.
Another thing we did was give the tribal governments relative autonomy. They get tax breaks and are exempted from many federal and state regulations. For example, you can buy gas on this particular reservation for about 30 cents less than anywhere else.
But in working for a few of these Indian casinos over the years, I've observed a microcosm of what socialism is really like. The tribal members are virtually guaranteed a job, either at the casino or at one of the other business enterprises operated by the tribe. Tribal members are also given special consideration over non-native counterparts when it comes to promotions and job perks. Even if they have no qualifications whatsoever for the job.
The results of these kinds of policies are predictable, and mirror what I observed during my visit to the Soviet Union back in the 70's. Alcoholism and drug abuse are rampant. People who are guaranteed a job generally don't worry too much about showing up for work on time, when they show up at all. Tribal members demand and often receive promotions to management positions for which they have no qualifications. Many of the tribal members end up in a continuous cycle of being hired, going on a drunk and failing to show up for work, getting fired, going to their uncle or father-in-law on the tribal council asking for reinstatement, being reinstated usually to a job in a different department, then repeating the cycle. Until they've been fired by every business and department in the tribal world, when the least powerful department manager will be saddled with a second round and forced to find a non-essential position for the person.
For example, there's a tribal member who has very strong family connections to influential tribal council members. She started work in an entry-level job, and was rapidly promoted all the way to a top managerial position. Once she got there, she went on a drinking binge and was nowhere to be found, missing some very important events for which she had primary responsibility. Once they finally found her, she was fired. About a month later, she was reinstated under instruction from the tribal council, although to a lower-level position in another department. But the manager, at significant risk to his own job, insisted that she would not be reinstated at her previous manager-level salary, but at the prevailing rate for the new position.
There's a popular description of how tribal casinos operate, which is on "Indian time". Projects move at their pace, which means the project I've been working on has been postponed. Postponed not for any reason other than the Indian managers involved became uncomfortable that things were moving too fast. There's no way any project will be allowed to cause anyone to put in extra hours, which includes Friday afternoons, when generally the place is empty - especially on payday. Then there's deer season coming up, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and of course the conclusion is that it's impossible to make staff members work on a project this time of year.
All of this explains why the non-Indians here tell me that this casino is generally known as a last resort for anyone who needs a job. Between the institutionalized discrimination on promotions and wages, tolerance for poor performance by tribal members, and general lack of urgency or motivation, anyone with pride or ambition would find it a torturous place to work.
Don't misunderstand, I have no issues with the tribal people. I find them friendly and pleasant, and am somewhat fascinated with their focus on their heritage and traditions. They had a drum ceremony while I was trying to meet with them for our initial planning meeting, which even though it was disruptive and cost valuable information-gathering time, I kind of enjoyed experiencing.
I don't know when the project will be finished, but most definitely not on the originally planned timeline. It may take a year and cost 2 or 3 times what it should, but I suppose that's the only way to get things done in any socialist society. Of course, I've seen very similar issues in projects for governmental organizations in general, so it's not just the tribes. You should see what it's like to work with a city government; it's different in many ways, but very similar in terms of the unnecessary extra time and cost due to the political structure.
My theory is that socialist-minded people are generally those with very little ambition and a desire for the best lifestyle they can achieve without effort or accountability. Are you attracted by the idea of a job for life, where you only have to show up 30-35 hours per week, can take a day off whenever you feel like it without consequence, and can't be fired no matter what your behavior?
If so, I'm guessing you're a socialist and vote Democrat.
Another thing we did was give the tribal governments relative autonomy. They get tax breaks and are exempted from many federal and state regulations. For example, you can buy gas on this particular reservation for about 30 cents less than anywhere else.
But in working for a few of these Indian casinos over the years, I've observed a microcosm of what socialism is really like. The tribal members are virtually guaranteed a job, either at the casino or at one of the other business enterprises operated by the tribe. Tribal members are also given special consideration over non-native counterparts when it comes to promotions and job perks. Even if they have no qualifications whatsoever for the job.
The results of these kinds of policies are predictable, and mirror what I observed during my visit to the Soviet Union back in the 70's. Alcoholism and drug abuse are rampant. People who are guaranteed a job generally don't worry too much about showing up for work on time, when they show up at all. Tribal members demand and often receive promotions to management positions for which they have no qualifications. Many of the tribal members end up in a continuous cycle of being hired, going on a drunk and failing to show up for work, getting fired, going to their uncle or father-in-law on the tribal council asking for reinstatement, being reinstated usually to a job in a different department, then repeating the cycle. Until they've been fired by every business and department in the tribal world, when the least powerful department manager will be saddled with a second round and forced to find a non-essential position for the person.
For example, there's a tribal member who has very strong family connections to influential tribal council members. She started work in an entry-level job, and was rapidly promoted all the way to a top managerial position. Once she got there, she went on a drinking binge and was nowhere to be found, missing some very important events for which she had primary responsibility. Once they finally found her, she was fired. About a month later, she was reinstated under instruction from the tribal council, although to a lower-level position in another department. But the manager, at significant risk to his own job, insisted that she would not be reinstated at her previous manager-level salary, but at the prevailing rate for the new position.
There's a popular description of how tribal casinos operate, which is on "Indian time". Projects move at their pace, which means the project I've been working on has been postponed. Postponed not for any reason other than the Indian managers involved became uncomfortable that things were moving too fast. There's no way any project will be allowed to cause anyone to put in extra hours, which includes Friday afternoons, when generally the place is empty - especially on payday. Then there's deer season coming up, Thanksgiving and Christmas, and of course the conclusion is that it's impossible to make staff members work on a project this time of year.
All of this explains why the non-Indians here tell me that this casino is generally known as a last resort for anyone who needs a job. Between the institutionalized discrimination on promotions and wages, tolerance for poor performance by tribal members, and general lack of urgency or motivation, anyone with pride or ambition would find it a torturous place to work.
Don't misunderstand, I have no issues with the tribal people. I find them friendly and pleasant, and am somewhat fascinated with their focus on their heritage and traditions. They had a drum ceremony while I was trying to meet with them for our initial planning meeting, which even though it was disruptive and cost valuable information-gathering time, I kind of enjoyed experiencing.
I don't know when the project will be finished, but most definitely not on the originally planned timeline. It may take a year and cost 2 or 3 times what it should, but I suppose that's the only way to get things done in any socialist society. Of course, I've seen very similar issues in projects for governmental organizations in general, so it's not just the tribes. You should see what it's like to work with a city government; it's different in many ways, but very similar in terms of the unnecessary extra time and cost due to the political structure.
My theory is that socialist-minded people are generally those with very little ambition and a desire for the best lifestyle they can achieve without effort or accountability. Are you attracted by the idea of a job for life, where you only have to show up 30-35 hours per week, can take a day off whenever you feel like it without consequence, and can't be fired no matter what your behavior?
If so, I'm guessing you're a socialist and vote Democrat.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
So You Think Travel is Cool
The trip began yesterday morning. I got up at 5:30 and was on the road to the Indy airport by 6. It was a foggy morning, and visibility was a little dicey until the sun came up, but otherwise I had a pretty normal drive to the airport.
I arrived, parked in the Tiger lot, and jaywalked across the road to the terminal because I don't like riding the bus. The check-in went smoothly, where I handed over my bag oblivious to what was in store. Then I got through security without being strip-searched, and settled in with a good book until we boarded the flight to Minneapolis.
Even on boarding there was no hint of the problems to come. I received my upgrade and enjoyed a cold orange juice while the rest of the passengers came on board. We pushed away from the gate, but shortly afterward found ourselves parked on the tarmac.
The message from the pilot boiled down to this: Minneapolis was getting stormy weather, and was slowing down incoming traffic for safety reasons. We would have to wait on the ground in Indy until we got cleared to take off for MSP. That's not a terribly unusual event, and I was unconcerned, so I put the book down and began to nap.
Eventually we took off for MSP, but I really didn't know how long we had waited, because I'd been sleeping. I continued to doze through the flight, waking up when we were about 20 minutes away. I re-immersed myself in the book (which was one of the best I've read in some time, by the way - if you have a chance to read "The Rule of Four", do so!) and didn't check my watch until we landed and began the taxi to the gate.
Oh-oh. We were pulling into the gate at 11:00, and my flight to Hancock was scheduled to depart at 11:10. Knowing that the trek from concourse G to A was about as far a walk as you can possibly do at Minneapolis, I thought there was no way I would make that flight.
Nothing to do but try, though, so I took off at a speed walk (fast for me, anyway), and actually walked up to my gate at A3 by about 11:15. The flight was gone. The gate agent told me I could either wait about 10-15 minutes to get assistance from her when she finished closing out the flight (yes, the one I was supposed to be on), or I could call the 800 number to rebook.
So I tried Northwest's 800 number, figuring with my elite status they would take good care of me. But it wasn't very reassuring when the guy on the phone came back from researching my options to say, in what I interpreted as a rather embarrassed tone, that I would be better off to see an agent there at the counter.
So of course, I go back to my (un)friendly gate agent, now one of about a half-dozen people who missed the same flight. Given that the plane only holds about 20 people, I immediately began to wonder out loud why they couldn't hold it 20 minutes to get the rest of us on who came in on delayed flights. Not a good way to make friends with an already sullen gate agent.
Anyway, we all get the following news from our sullen and increasingly hostile and unfriendly gate agent: There are no seats on any flight to Hancock (MI) before Friday night. I thought I detected a note of triumph in her voice when she made that statement. "Take that, you idiot passengers!"
So I asked, as nicely as I could and trying to disguise the smoke that was most certainly pouring out of my ears, whether there was a flight available that could get us to Marquette (because I already knew that was the nearest airport other than Hancock to where I was going). And thanking God for small favors, a second gate agent appears to help the first, who is much more pleasant and actually smiles at me when she says "Let me check on that!"
So my new best friend is able to quickly find me a seat on the flight to Marquette. She also entered data into her computer about re-routing my luggage. All I needed to do was call Avis to switch my car rental reservation, then see if I could get the return flight changed to Marquette as well to avoid a drop charge on the car. True to form, the other agent heard me ask to change the return flight, and responded "you will have to do that online or through the 800 number. And they will charge you a $100 change fee".
I couldn't help myself: "You mean I'll get charged a change fee for a change that wasn't my fault?". She snorted, "It wasn't our fault either; complain to God."
Unbelievable.
Anyway, I had about 5 hours to kill in the MSP airport before the Marquette flight. It only took one of those hours to finish off the book (let me know if you want to borrow it!), so I took a walk to find a bookstore to buy another. Without reading materials, 5 hours stuck in an airport could be torturous.
The flight to Marquette loaded up after they asked for 3 volunteers to give up their seats. Fortunately, 3 giggling college girls immediately took the airline up on the deal.
As we taxied toward the runway, the pilot came on the air to announce that the weather in the area was pretty rough, and there was a chance we would not be able to land in Marquette. Our alternative airport was Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Oh great, I thought, getting stranded in Wisconsin is worse than being stranded in Minneapolis.
Fortunately, we made it to Marquette. It was after a roundabout flight that took almost twice as long as scheduled, as the pilot flew around the storms. Even so, it was a pretty bumpy ride.
We got to Marquette, and I checked in at Avis to get my rental car keys. A Hyundai Santa Fe. Oh well, it's transportation. Then I waited for the bags. And waited. And waited. Strange how tiny airports are sometimes the slowest to unload luggage.
Once the carousel stopped moving, I headed over to the Northwest ticket counter to report my lost luggage. How did I know that my friend at the gate in MSP wasn't going to be successful at re-routing my bag just by entering it in the computer? Does it maybe have something to do with the fact that the gorillas who handle baggage couldn't use a computer if their life depended on it? Or that entering baggage information on the computer system is only for show, to mislead customers into thinking there actually is some sort of system for tracking luggage? I knew better, but what can you do?
So even though I was tired from an extremely long and frustrating day of absolutely no productivity, I stopped at Wal-Mart in Marquette to buy some essentials. Bathroom stuff, socks, underwear, a pair of slacks and a shirt. I figured the jeans and ratty golf shirt wouldn't go over too well at the client the next morning. At least I got checked into the hotel before midnight. I believe I got in around 9:30. How's that for a trip - 15 and a half hours to travel to an adjoining state!
I just got off the phone with the agent at the Hancock airport. She confirmed for me that my bag had indeed shown up there today, on the first flight from MSP. She is calling a taxi to bring it to me at my hotel. Let's hope it shows up tonight - I'd rather not have to wear the same outfit to work tomorrow.
So, after this long story, would anybody like to sign up for job that requires extensive travel? Anybody?
Thought so.
I arrived, parked in the Tiger lot, and jaywalked across the road to the terminal because I don't like riding the bus. The check-in went smoothly, where I handed over my bag oblivious to what was in store. Then I got through security without being strip-searched, and settled in with a good book until we boarded the flight to Minneapolis.
Even on boarding there was no hint of the problems to come. I received my upgrade and enjoyed a cold orange juice while the rest of the passengers came on board. We pushed away from the gate, but shortly afterward found ourselves parked on the tarmac.
The message from the pilot boiled down to this: Minneapolis was getting stormy weather, and was slowing down incoming traffic for safety reasons. We would have to wait on the ground in Indy until we got cleared to take off for MSP. That's not a terribly unusual event, and I was unconcerned, so I put the book down and began to nap.
Eventually we took off for MSP, but I really didn't know how long we had waited, because I'd been sleeping. I continued to doze through the flight, waking up when we were about 20 minutes away. I re-immersed myself in the book (which was one of the best I've read in some time, by the way - if you have a chance to read "The Rule of Four", do so!) and didn't check my watch until we landed and began the taxi to the gate.
Oh-oh. We were pulling into the gate at 11:00, and my flight to Hancock was scheduled to depart at 11:10. Knowing that the trek from concourse G to A was about as far a walk as you can possibly do at Minneapolis, I thought there was no way I would make that flight.
Nothing to do but try, though, so I took off at a speed walk (fast for me, anyway), and actually walked up to my gate at A3 by about 11:15. The flight was gone. The gate agent told me I could either wait about 10-15 minutes to get assistance from her when she finished closing out the flight (yes, the one I was supposed to be on), or I could call the 800 number to rebook.
So I tried Northwest's 800 number, figuring with my elite status they would take good care of me. But it wasn't very reassuring when the guy on the phone came back from researching my options to say, in what I interpreted as a rather embarrassed tone, that I would be better off to see an agent there at the counter.
So of course, I go back to my (un)friendly gate agent, now one of about a half-dozen people who missed the same flight. Given that the plane only holds about 20 people, I immediately began to wonder out loud why they couldn't hold it 20 minutes to get the rest of us on who came in on delayed flights. Not a good way to make friends with an already sullen gate agent.
Anyway, we all get the following news from our sullen and increasingly hostile and unfriendly gate agent: There are no seats on any flight to Hancock (MI) before Friday night. I thought I detected a note of triumph in her voice when she made that statement. "Take that, you idiot passengers!"
So I asked, as nicely as I could and trying to disguise the smoke that was most certainly pouring out of my ears, whether there was a flight available that could get us to Marquette (because I already knew that was the nearest airport other than Hancock to where I was going). And thanking God for small favors, a second gate agent appears to help the first, who is much more pleasant and actually smiles at me when she says "Let me check on that!"
So my new best friend is able to quickly find me a seat on the flight to Marquette. She also entered data into her computer about re-routing my luggage. All I needed to do was call Avis to switch my car rental reservation, then see if I could get the return flight changed to Marquette as well to avoid a drop charge on the car. True to form, the other agent heard me ask to change the return flight, and responded "you will have to do that online or through the 800 number. And they will charge you a $100 change fee".
I couldn't help myself: "You mean I'll get charged a change fee for a change that wasn't my fault?". She snorted, "It wasn't our fault either; complain to God."
Unbelievable.
Anyway, I had about 5 hours to kill in the MSP airport before the Marquette flight. It only took one of those hours to finish off the book (let me know if you want to borrow it!), so I took a walk to find a bookstore to buy another. Without reading materials, 5 hours stuck in an airport could be torturous.
The flight to Marquette loaded up after they asked for 3 volunteers to give up their seats. Fortunately, 3 giggling college girls immediately took the airline up on the deal.
As we taxied toward the runway, the pilot came on the air to announce that the weather in the area was pretty rough, and there was a chance we would not be able to land in Marquette. Our alternative airport was Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Oh great, I thought, getting stranded in Wisconsin is worse than being stranded in Minneapolis.
Fortunately, we made it to Marquette. It was after a roundabout flight that took almost twice as long as scheduled, as the pilot flew around the storms. Even so, it was a pretty bumpy ride.
We got to Marquette, and I checked in at Avis to get my rental car keys. A Hyundai Santa Fe. Oh well, it's transportation. Then I waited for the bags. And waited. And waited. Strange how tiny airports are sometimes the slowest to unload luggage.
Once the carousel stopped moving, I headed over to the Northwest ticket counter to report my lost luggage. How did I know that my friend at the gate in MSP wasn't going to be successful at re-routing my bag just by entering it in the computer? Does it maybe have something to do with the fact that the gorillas who handle baggage couldn't use a computer if their life depended on it? Or that entering baggage information on the computer system is only for show, to mislead customers into thinking there actually is some sort of system for tracking luggage? I knew better, but what can you do?
So even though I was tired from an extremely long and frustrating day of absolutely no productivity, I stopped at Wal-Mart in Marquette to buy some essentials. Bathroom stuff, socks, underwear, a pair of slacks and a shirt. I figured the jeans and ratty golf shirt wouldn't go over too well at the client the next morning. At least I got checked into the hotel before midnight. I believe I got in around 9:30. How's that for a trip - 15 and a half hours to travel to an adjoining state!
I just got off the phone with the agent at the Hancock airport. She confirmed for me that my bag had indeed shown up there today, on the first flight from MSP. She is calling a taxi to bring it to me at my hotel. Let's hope it shows up tonight - I'd rather not have to wear the same outfit to work tomorrow.
So, after this long story, would anybody like to sign up for job that requires extensive travel? Anybody?
Thought so.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Is Empathy a Strength or Weakness?
Empathetic could be near the top of the list of words that describe me. In my relations with other people, I nearly always find myself working hard to understand their point of view or the basis for their opinions and actions. It's part of understanding the person, sort of like an associated strongly-held belief I have that no problem can be solved without first understanding it fully.
What I wonder, especially in business, is whether my empathy is a strength or weakness of character. There certainly seem to be plenty of very successful people who seem to have very little empathy for others.
I've had some opportunities recently in encounters with other people to exercise my empathy by asking open-ended questions of people who express opinions and beliefs at odds with my own. In most cases, I am able to partially understand their viewpoint but am left wanting to dig deeper. It's not possible in the context of a casual conversation to prompt someone to reveal to me their deepest and possibly most secret painful experiences, which I theorize must be the root of their dark attitudes.
Mostly I seem to find people who view the world 180 degrees from my own perspective have a terrible bitterness as an undercurrent. That's what makes me want to explore in more depth. For example, an atheist will inevitably express a profound hatred for people with an evangelical, or "born-again" Christianity worn proudly on their sleeve. The hatred seems illogical, so I want to ask what terrible evil deed was perpetrated to make this individual so disillusioned with all Christians, just because one or two have had the gall to proselytize?
To the degree we are all formed by our life experiences, I can't help but wonder if the bitterest and angriest people were formed by some awful event or series of events in their young lives that they were never able to move beyond. I'm not angry or hateful toward atheists in general, but instead find myself mourning for them in a sense. Because something very foul must have happened in their lives to give them such a terrible lifelong simmering anger toward people of faith, and whatever it was is denying them the peace and comfort that can be found in a simple and trusting faith.
Too many people are living self-destructive lives, and I've met too many of them. It amazes me how often individuals I know behave in ways that they think are rebelling or getting even with people that have hurt them somehow, yet ultimately they are only harming themselves with those behaviors. Unfortunately, I don't have any magical answers I can give to such embittered people that can help them climb out of the deep, dark hole they have dug for themselves. But I hope that someday maybe I can at least help show someone the path out of that hole.
Maybe that's all God really wants from any of us.
What I wonder, especially in business, is whether my empathy is a strength or weakness of character. There certainly seem to be plenty of very successful people who seem to have very little empathy for others.
I've had some opportunities recently in encounters with other people to exercise my empathy by asking open-ended questions of people who express opinions and beliefs at odds with my own. In most cases, I am able to partially understand their viewpoint but am left wanting to dig deeper. It's not possible in the context of a casual conversation to prompt someone to reveal to me their deepest and possibly most secret painful experiences, which I theorize must be the root of their dark attitudes.
Mostly I seem to find people who view the world 180 degrees from my own perspective have a terrible bitterness as an undercurrent. That's what makes me want to explore in more depth. For example, an atheist will inevitably express a profound hatred for people with an evangelical, or "born-again" Christianity worn proudly on their sleeve. The hatred seems illogical, so I want to ask what terrible evil deed was perpetrated to make this individual so disillusioned with all Christians, just because one or two have had the gall to proselytize?
To the degree we are all formed by our life experiences, I can't help but wonder if the bitterest and angriest people were formed by some awful event or series of events in their young lives that they were never able to move beyond. I'm not angry or hateful toward atheists in general, but instead find myself mourning for them in a sense. Because something very foul must have happened in their lives to give them such a terrible lifelong simmering anger toward people of faith, and whatever it was is denying them the peace and comfort that can be found in a simple and trusting faith.
Too many people are living self-destructive lives, and I've met too many of them. It amazes me how often individuals I know behave in ways that they think are rebelling or getting even with people that have hurt them somehow, yet ultimately they are only harming themselves with those behaviors. Unfortunately, I don't have any magical answers I can give to such embittered people that can help them climb out of the deep, dark hole they have dug for themselves. But I hope that someday maybe I can at least help show someone the path out of that hole.
Maybe that's all God really wants from any of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)