The Realm of Possibilities

Lately I was thinking about the things I enjoyed the most about being young. And wondered whether I could recapture any of them before I hit 50. Here are some of them:

• Swimming and goofing off on a diving board. Why not?
  
• Playing basketball. I mean really playing, on an actual team, and being a major contributor to said team, and having a shot at a league championship. Maybe an old fogey team if I got in decent enough shape - tall order.
• Singing in front of a very large, appreciative audience, maybe even televised. Not likely.
• Bike Rides. Easier said than done, but possible.
• In good physical condition such that strange women flirt or double-take. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not at all.
• An evening with friends where I laugh so hard I get a mild bellyache. Don't think so.
• An evening sitting around with friends just singing. Do people even do that anymore?

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

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

Basketball Blahs

This isn't a great year for my favorite sport. Well, basketball was always my favorite sport as a player, whether or not it rivals football as a favorite spectator sport.

The two teams I have mostly followed through the years are Indiana (College=Hoosiers, NBA=Pacers). And these days both team are testing my loyalties.

The Pacers keep getting worse. They just lost to the worst team in the NBA (Atlanta), and they have been painful to watch recently. There's no cohesion with this team, and they don't play with any urgency. They stand around a lot on offense, waiting for somebody else to make a play.

Are they missing Artest? Sure, they miss his points and defense, but the bigger miss is Reggie. Reggie was their leader, helping bring a spark and intensity that rubbed off on his teammates. There is nobody on the team that has stepped into that role. Jermaine O'Neal acts like he's trying, but comes off as more of a whiner than a leader.

Apparently a trade of Artest isn't in the cards. Since Artest now says he wants to stay, I'd suggest Walsh and Bird sit him down and lay down the conditions for his return - keep his nose clean, don't talk to the press, be a team player, or you'll be suspended without pay the rest of the year then released. I can't say whether or not this would help turn the Pacers' season around, but at this point it couldn't hurt. Oh, and I'd also recommend they trade or sign a veteran free agent that can bring leadership to the squad - he wouldn't necessarily have to be a starter or major contributor on the floor.

Then there are the Hoosiers. Yes, they are better this year, but somehow I'm still uninspired by them. The two guys they brought in from Auburn are good, and Killingsworth has some great skills, but they don't feel like Indiana guys. The rest of the team just doesn't give me anything to connect or identify with like past teams; in other words, this team has no personality.

They looked very good against Ohio State and Illinois, but looked terrible last night against Iowa. Seems like a team that can't get a win on the road. They certainly looked intimidated by Steve Alford's smothering Iowa defense last night, and also looked sluggish and careless with the ball.

In the end, while I loved watching the great Indiana teams in the past, I also enjoyed the teams that didn't necessarily win that much, because they always seemed to leave it all on the floor. Not this team. This team is talented, but has no character.

It's going to be a long winter.

There are Four Basic Categories

Through my own observation and experience, I think I have discovered something about people. There are four identifiable classes of people when it comes to political viewpoints.

There are Secular Liberals, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives and Religious Conservatives.

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

Republicans seem to have an ongoing battle happening between the religious and seculars. My view of the seculars is that they're mostly represented by the capitalists and CEO's, whose main objective is keeping the government from meddling in their business. Religious conservatives are in a battle for the party, with a somewhat more moderate view on the economic issues but firm belief in protecting traditional values and culture.

The best way I can think of to define these categories is through the following examples:

1. There’s a guy on the streetcorner with the sign, “Will work for food”.

· Secular Liberal: Ignores him, thinks “The government needs to do something about that”.

· Religious Liberal: Gives the guy a dollar, thinks “Poor guy, the government should do something to help”

· Secular Conservative: Might yell out he window, “Get a job!”. Or might consider calling the police to arrest him for vagrancy. Thinks the guy’s a fraud anyway.

· Religious Conservative: Most likely to hand him a sandwich or a card with directions to the local soup kitchen where she volunteers a couple times a month.

2. A 12-year-old girl comes to the person for advice, because she just got pregnant and is afraid to tell her parents.

· Secular Liberal: Will encourage the girl to get an abortion, support her in keeping it from her parents, and might even offer to drive her to the clinic.

· Religious Liberal: Is very conflicted, because they feel empathy for the girl’s situation but don’t want to force their religious views on her. This type might just suggest that the girl make whatever decision she feels is best for her.

· Secular Conservative: This type isn’t going to be terribly sensitive to the girl’s feelings, and will probably tell her that if she doesn’t tell her parents immediately that he will. He will strongly encourage her to have the baby and give it up for adoption.

· Religious Conservative: Will be very understanding of the girl’s dilemma, and will support her and maybe even help her with breaking the news to her parents. If the parents are unhelpful, demand she abort the baby, or disown her, this type will make sure she gets into a pregnancy care program that will help her through the entire process.

3. The Iraq War

· Secular Liberal: Is still hung up on their belief that Bush “stole” the 2000 election, and still views everything Bush does as tainted or illegitimate. Tells everyone that “Bush lied” to get into the Iraq war, but actually agitates against the war in hopes it will somehow lead to Bush’s impeachment and a chance to get a Liberal back into the White House.

· Religious Liberal: Is a hand-wringer about all of the Iraqis killed in the war. Doesn’t support the Iraq war because of generally pacifist philosophy, feeling that we should reach out to our enemies to make peace or trust God to protect us.

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

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

4. Oil and Energy

· Secular Liberal: Feels hatred and anger against the evil oil industry that is “raping the planet” to enrich themselves. Hates rich people who drive Hummers and Navigators, guzzling gas and polluting the air. Will go to any lengths to prevent oil drilling in the ANWR, not to protect the wildlife and environment there, but because they feel it’s unfair to allow an oil company to increase their riches by getting a sweetheart drilling deal from the Texas-based Bush administration. The wealthy part of this group buy a hybrid automobile for show, but have the gas-guzzlers in their garage and use more energy to heat and cool their California mansions than the average American can imagine.

· Religious Liberal: Thinks that Americans are wasteful of God’s resources and we should do more in caring for the planet He gave us. Have gullibly bought into the fallacious arguments made by the Secular Liberals (who know better) that the beautiful ANWR reserve will be blighted and wildlife wiped out by the irresponsible oil companies.

· Secular Conservative: Completely support oil exploration and drilling wherever it may be found. Don’t believe there are any environmental concerns that are relevant, but know that the best short-term path to American energy independence is full exploitation of our own untapped domestic supplies.

· Religious Conservatives: Are environmentally sensitive, and support research on alternative fuels. But also understand that responsible oil exploration and drilling are necessary to help keep a strong economy and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

5. Taxes

· Secular Liberal: There are two groups inside this category: the rich SL and the rest of the SL’s. The rich support high taxes and soaking the rich, but most of them don’t care because most of their fortune is already well-hidden from the government in offshore accounts. The non-rich SL feels the rich are given special treatment by the Republican-run government and don’t think that it’s possible to raise taxes on them too much. But the non-rich SL also thinks they pay plenty of tax already.

· Religious Liberal: This group is made up of mostly lower to middle class people who are attracted to the rhetoric from their SL friends. Therefore they support soaking the rich, but would prefer to avoid higher taxes on their own families. On the other hand, if a liberal president or congress came to them and told them their taxes had to go up to help the poor, they would happily support the increase.

· Secular Conservative: This group firmly believes that tax cuts benefit everyone. Cutting taxes and social programs are certain to stimulate the economy, because letting people keep more of their own money directly translates into more consumer spending on products and services. That creates jobs and reduces the need for social services for the poor.

· Religious Conservative: This group supports the “Fair Tax” plan or flat tax plans, and are tired of the political favors and complexity of the existing tax code. The RC views social programs as the responsibility of each citizen, and that the government does a very poor job of actually addressing issues of the poor. This group is much more likely to donate the highest amounts of money to charity and actually participate in community programs that help the poor.

6. Gay Rights

· Secular Liberal: This is the category where most gays live. They have been on a crusade to force American society to not only accept, but embrace the gay lifestyle. And for the most part, they seem to have succeeded through constant political activism and the significant contributions of their primary employers in the entertainment and media industries. SL’s see the legalization of Gay Marriage as the ultimate measure of their success in this crusade, but have yet to think through all the consequences of full marital rights and consequences.

· Religious Liberal: These people belong to “progressive” churches, or organizations within their denominations that are pushing for more understanding and recognition of gays. They ignore teachings of their faith that denounce the gay lifestyle, choosing instead to believe that our society is simply more enlightened and the faith can accommodate new social norms.

· Secular Conservative: This group’s philosophy on gay rights says that gays have the right to do whatever they want with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but they don’t have the right to push their sexuality into the rest of our faces. SC’s say to gays, “Do whatever you like in private, but don’ t expect special rights and privileges just because of your sexual behavior.”

· Religious Conservative: Religious conservatives continue to believe the teachings of their faith, that sex outside the sacrament of marriage is a sin. They feel sorry for gays, who they feel have been misled or entrapped by sexual predators into the lifestyle. They feel anyone who feels they are a homosexual can change their orientation through counseling and communion with God. They are appalled that one of their faith’s most important sacraments is being debased through it’s misuse by the Gay Rights movement.

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

The Secular Liberal: Is or was most likely of all these groups to have been a drug abuser, has socialist and/or communist sympathies, is either perpetually broke and blames rich people for it or is a very wealthy heir/heiress or entertainer that feels guilty about it, is or has been sexually promiscouous, and despises religious people they think want to "judge" them.

The Religious Liberal: Is in search of a better world and believe the government can implement idealistic and sensitive policies to help achieve it, believe in God and profess a strong personal spirituality but shun the staid traditions of organized religion in favor of new liberal-minded movements, want to protect animals and the environment, want workers to be paid a fair wage and think CEO's make obscene amounts of money and get too many tax breaks, are generally pacifists and think all conflicts can be resolved through understanding and diplomacy.

The Secular Conservative: The ultimate capitalist, tends toward a libertarian philosophy of extremely limited government, firmly believes in strong national defense and infrastructure but supports very little governmental social programs, thinks people need to be self-sufficient and accountable, have no use for crazy environmentalists and animal rights activists, and fight for low taxes and minimal government regulation.

The Religious Conservative: Feels that America became great because of its strong foundation of freedom and moral values, supports free trade and capitalism but with boundaries that protect people and the environment from abusive or unfair practices, believe it's the responsibility of the people and not the government to care for the poor, support fair and simple taxes, and hold great fear that they will soon be persecuted by an increasingly secular society that seems to hold them in contempt.

Which category best describes you?

Osama's a Democrat

It's been an extremely busy week, and I haven't had time to pay attention to the news. But I just came across the transcript of bin Laden's latest tape. I was immediately struck by how well informed he seems to be about the anti-war movement here in the US. His message was very well tailored to encourage the anti-war Bush-haters in hopes they can succeed in forcing our government to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan so he can crawl out of his cave and get back in business.

What a great group of friends he has in America, who are now pushing a Bush impeachment over their no-longer secret monitoring of cellphone conversations between people in the US and their al Quaida friends overseas. If his friends succeed, he'll most likely celebrate by blowing many of them up.

Two for Four

My predictions worked for only two of the four playoff games this weekend. New England surprised me by giving up something like 5 turnovers, while Denver showed that they're actually pretty good.

No surprises in the NFC, except the minor surprise at the score of Carolina/Chicago. I didn't expect either team to score more than 14 in that one. But the outcome was as expected.

Unfortunately, the Colts let us all down again. This was supposed to be their year, but Pittsburgh came out in the first quarter and kicked them in the teeth, and they never recovered. But then, to be given the gift of the overturned interception and still have a chance to tie with a makeable field goal at the end and blow it makes me wonder about the psyche of this Colts team. Are they stuck in a self-fulfilling prophecy where deep down they don't believe they can play well enough to make it to the Super Bowl, regardless of how great they played in the season? How does it happen that Edge is a mainstay all year but hardly gets the ball? How do Reggie and Marvin suddenly get shut out of the passing game? How does the offensive line suddenly forget how to pass block? How does the great Peyton Manning allow himself to get rattled by the Pittsburgh defense? How does the most accurate kicker in the league miss the most important kick of the season?

Who knows. I'll keep an eye on the rest of the playoffs and probably watch the Super Bowl, but the excitement is gone. Maybe a post about what makes sports so popular that so many live and die with their favorite teams would be interesting. Sometime when I've got a free hour maybe.

My Friday Post

Now and then I like to do a post mostly for fun. And what can be more fun than sports? (OK, you have a suggestion, but that's not a topic I'm comfortable blogging about.)

How about my own semi-informed analysis of this weekend's NFL playoffs?

We'll start with the NFC, which I think is easy.

Seahawks/Redskins: How could you pick against Seattle this year? Especially given the dismal offensive performance of the Redskins last week in Tampa. I was actually sort of rooting for the Bucs, but their offense may have been even more pitiful than the Redskins. Unless the 'Skins defense is able to strip Alexander or pick off Hasselbeck three or four times, I don't see it happening for them. I think Seattle wins this one.

Bears/Panthers: Everybody's picking Carolina, who did look pretty good last weekend in shutting out the Giants. But Chicago's defense is capable of shutting almost anybody down. So this isn't as easy a pick as it seems. But I have to admit to be leaning toward Carolina, because it looks like it might be a warm weekend in Chicago, which takes the weather advantage away from the Bears. And Grossman has so little experience that I think he may get rattled and therefore intercepted a couple of times, especially if Chicago has to play from behind. I gotta pick Carolina in a close game - it could be a 7-6 victory.

Now the more interesting conference, from which the eventual Super Bowl champion will emerge:

Broncos/Patriots: Everybody's on the Patriots bandwagon, saying they're back and they're healthy. Sure, they finished the season looking pretty strong and blew out a pretty good Jacksonville team last week. But the Broncos aren't bad, with the second seed and home-field advantage. I view this game as a toss-up that could be decided at the very end. But then there's Plummer, who has a history of throwing picks in big games, which if that happens could result in a lopsided Patriots victory. It all hangs on the Pats' ability to stop Denver's running game and force Plummer to throw, playing catch-up from behind. As much as I fear a repeat of the Patriots bouncing the Colts once again on their way to another Super Bowl, I have to honestly predict that I think they'll probably find a way to win in Denver.

Steelers/Colts: There are several things that have made me feel pretty good about the Colts in this game. First, the stories about how close-knit and purposeful the team has become after the tragedy in Coach Dungy's family. Second, a quote from Peyton about how he has never felt more prepared for a game in his career. Third, the fact that the entire Colts roster - every starter - is healthy and ready to go. The Steelers recognize that they have to play their best game to win; Roethisberger said "We will need out A+ game to beat their B- game". And the Colts fans will be loud and effective in the dome. I think the Colts win fairly easily by 2 touchdowns and get ready for an AFC championship game at home against their nemesis Patriots.

Now wasn't that fun?

Celebrities Please Shut Up

They're making me crazy. All those entertainment celebrities who somewhere along the way decided it was en vogue to join the Bush-bashers. I wish they would all just shut up and go back to what they're supposed to be good at - entertaining us.

True, most of the loudest and silliest ones I didn't have much use for in the first place. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, The Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon ... they can all be as stupid as they like, I don't watch their movies or listen to their music anyway. Streisand is a terrific vocalist, but I always believed she was a woman you would never want to hang out with, and she's proved why. Clooney's been overrated as an actor ever since he was a regular on ER (yawn). The Dixie Chicks, well, what do you expect from a group of airheads trying to get by on looks and hoping you don't notice their (lack of) talent. Robbins and Sarandon were kind of funny in Bull Durham, but even though they might possess passable acting skills, their communistic political ranting is probably only taken seriously by Sarandon's drug-addled Rocky Horror fans.

But I've got to put my foot down when it comes to those entertainers I sort of enjoyed until they got stupid. Whatever drove Linda Ronstadt, who's always had a great set of pipes, to offend her Vegas audience and get unceremoniously dumped for ranting about what a great guy Michael Moore is? I don't care if she was praising Moore or Rush Limbaugh; her audience paid for tickets to hear her sing, not to hear her ditsy political ramblings.

How ironic to see Viggo Mortensen, who I don't think is an American anyway, go off on Bush right after his triumphant LOTR trilogy. And this from an actor who portrayed a courageous leader who knew evil had to be defeated regardless of the terrible sacrifice involved. How badly did he damage his movie career by joining the Bush Bash Brigade?

Guys like Martin Sheen are known quantities, who seem to be trying to relive the glory days of VietNam protest. They probably get together in their Hollywood hangouts to toke up and fantasize about taking down Bush, Cheney, and their Military-Industrial Complex like they did in the 60's. Sheen probably thinks in his drug-addled memory that his role in Apocalypse Now was a real event.

Do the pin-up girls from our favorite movies, like Gwyneth Paltrow, Kirsten Dunst, Jennifer Anniston, Kate Hudson, etc... have even the slightest clue how stupid they appear when they publicly go off on their anti-Bush rants? They are so obviously parroting the groupthink of their peers, and their poor attempts to make political statements are just silliness and confirmation of the stereotype of dumb blondes.

Comedians have always been known as lefties politically. But when you have Whoopie out there offending all the Catholics who loved her in Sister Act, or guys like Robin Williams and Chevy Chase using crude, vulgar, and outrageous language (that wasn't remotely funny) to express Bush hatred, how can they fail to understand the damage they do to their future marketability in entertainment?

Finally, I happened to be up late one night to see Letterman. He had Bill O'Reilly on, and I thought it might be an interesting discussion. But it really wasn't, and from my perspective, Dave didn't come off looking very good. He obviously had a predisposed hatred for O'Reilly, but had never seen his show and admitted to knowing nothing about what O'Reilly actually talks about or believes. But he felt free to trash him anyway, saying something along the lines of,
"I think about 60% of what you say is crap". O'Reilly asked him for an example, and he didn't have one.

Just in case there's anyone who sees this who is either an entertainer or an aspiring entertainer - and this applies to pro sports athletes as well: When it comes to politics, just shut up! Now, if you want to support causes for curing disease or helping children, go for it - the public loves that stuff. But unless you want to retire from entertainment and go full-time into politics (like Arnold), just shut up. Because as soon as you open your mouth, you will automatically offend at least 50% of your fans, and look stupid to probably another 25-30%.

So if your objective is to sell more tickets or CD's or whatever, stay away from politics! You can certainly donate money to your favorite candidates, but keep it away from the public eye. You think you're being "courageous"? What's courageous about spouting off what all your friends are telling you without bothering to find your own position?

Peace

Pronunciation: 'pEs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Old French pais, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom peace
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 -- used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
- at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity

First please note: This is not a political post. It is simply an expression of personal reflections on peace.

Peace of mind. Contentment. Acceptance.

Isn't that what most of us ultimately crave for ourselves?

To be at peace for me means many things, including:

• Accepting myself as I am. Sure I'll try to change those things I don't like about myself that can be changed. But I won't keep beating myself up anymore.
• Accepting others as they are. Some people are amazing. Some are jerks. But the vast majority can be a little of both. Just like I can. So I don't sweat it anymore. I won't waste my time with the jerks, and I won't expect much from the rest. And I'm never disappointed.
• Accepting that life has ups and downs. When things are going great, I'll just enjoy the ride while it lasts. When the bad times come, I can endure. What's the worst God can throw at me? Ever read the story of Job? Well, I've never had it that bad, and he came out of it OK.

But peace doesn't mean these things:

• Pacifying. Giving in to a bully just encourages the bully to continue bullying. Peace never means compromising core principles, because that sort of peace is false and temporary.
• Hiding. Conflicts don't go away if we just run away from them. They must be confronted and resolved, even if resolution means great pain. The pain is only temporary.
• Masquerading. Putting on a false face to appease someone to avoid conflict is dishonest, not just with those who see your act, but to yourself. Don't pretend to agree with someone who is spouting evil just to avoid conflict.

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

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

Europe is anti-Christian; Can US be far behind?

What's more disturbing about this article, the message or the fact that over 200,000 people bought these?

Some Swedish Christians are feeling blue about the country's hottest new jeans, which their designer calls "an active statement against Christianity." The jeans, named "Cheap Monday," sell for $50 a pair and feature a skull with a cross turned upside down on its forehead.

More than 200,000 pairs have been sold since 2004, leaving some leaders in the Christian community shaking their heads. The vicar of one Stockholm church calls the jeans "a deliberate provocation," adding, "No one wants to provoke Jews or Muslims, but it's totally OK to provoke Christians."

Nevertheless, the director of the Church of Sweden's culture department says that while the designer wants to create public opinion against the Christian faith, "I don't think it's much to be horrified about."

All the Wrong Reasons

Today I decided to write about a subject that covers so many bad marital decisions I happen to have had either direct or indirect knowledge of over the years. Most stories are quite sad, but it occurred to me that they might be useful as a cautionary tale for anyone who might not be married or are thinking about getting married someday soon.

Story One: The thief.
There was a retired teacher who tragically lost his wife to cancer. As he worked through the grief and loneliness of his loss, an attractive young woman came into his life. She seemed enamored of him and understanding of the grief he was experiencing. She made him feel young again. After a brief courtship, they married.
Unfortunately, only a couple of months after the wedding our retiree returned home from a trip to the store to find his new bride gone, along with all of his household valuables. To his disbelief, he also soon discovered that his bank accounts were emptied and his CD's and other liquid investments had been cashed in.
His retirement savings were decimated by a young woman who preyed on his grief and loneliness. There should be serious prison time for anyone who would do this to someone.

Story Two: The Loyal Wife.
There actually have been several versions of this story that I've witnessed over time. What they all have in common is this: Guy and girl date, maybe in high school or college or both. Guy likes girl OK, but isn't really interested in a permanent relationship. Girl, however, is focused on making guy her husband.
He tries to get away from time to time, believing he has broken off the relationship. But somehow he always seems to find that she is back. Maybe he feels guilt for "stringing her along" all that time. Maybe he just wants to spare her feelings. But in a weak moment, he finds himself agreeing to marry her. In some cases it's a shotgun wedding, where she succeeds in making a baby with him to seal the deal. Or perhaps there's an abortion that makes him feel terribly guilty and obligated to try making things right by marrying her.
Interestingly, this situation doesn't always end badly. But it often does. When the couple remains together, I often wonder whether he continues to resent her or has learned to accept and love her somehow.

Story Three: Blind Sided
Strangely, every case I've encountered with this scenario seems to happen to the man. Not that men don't step out on their wives, and I certainly have known of those circumstances, but only the men seem to be totally and completely blind-sided by the unexpected end to his marriage.
I've actually seen some cases of women running away with young guys they met on the internet. In the situations I've known based on the poor cuckold's stories, she in each case has planned her escape for months or even a year with her spouse clueless that there's anything at all out of the ordinary going on. She plans everything so well that she's taken almost everything he has through the legal system to her new life with the young stud before her grieving and depressed spouse even has time to consult his own lawyer. The saddest part of these stories is when the wayward wife builds a new house for herself and her young plaything, buys him a new sportscar, and hauls her ex back into court demanding more money to replace all she spent. And the courts, morally blind as they are today, even give her custody of the children despite the destructive behavior with her shack-up.

Story Four: The Shotgun
This remains common, although not as common as it was in previous generations because the stigma of illegitimacy and availability of abortion have greatly reduced it's practice. But there are plenty of examples that probably everyone has some contact with. Shotguns are not necessarily doomed, but do seem to have an extremely high divorce rate. The sad fact is that young kids are encouraged by the permissive society, especially through movies and television, to become sexually active at a young age. Because in the movies such behavior is never depicted to have consequences. The biggest victims are the children.

Story Five: The Military
Members of the military too often marry for the wrong reasons. They can acquire better housing and benefits from the military if they are married. And nobody wants to go off to war without a girl back home to care about whether he comes back. Who can face the "Dear John" letter sitting in the Green Zone in Baghdad, so if there's a wife back home it just seems safer.
Soldiers end up making horrible snap decisions to marry women who are crazy, unfaithful, needy, nags, and all sorts of undesirable things just because time is short.

Story Six: The Party Girl (or Guy)
What happens when a party girl marries a stay-at-home guy (or vice-versa)? Nothing good. The guy finds the girl attractive who seems so full of life and fun, who seems to know everybody and has such great social skills. But he's never been much for parties, and finds the nightclub scene a drag. It's no surprise when he finds himself dumped shortly after his wife discovers he's this boring homebody who doesn't want to go clubbing with her every night because he has a challenging job and needs his sleep or just isn't into the scene. So she just resumes her previous single life habits, much to his consternation, and before long she finds a new party animal guy and divorces her boring husband, bragging to her friends about how much money she took from him in the process.

Story Seven: Great Expectations
Here's the biggest mistake made by couples entering into marriage. Great expectations. She expects him to be a high wage earner who still has time to help out with housework, raise the kids, take her to dinner every week, do little projects around the house and in his workshop, court her every night just like he did when they were dating, etc.
He just wants a woman at home to help him recover from the hard day at work and not bother him with her petty housework and child behavior problems. He wants to go out with his buddies now and the without getting read the riot act from the wife. He wants to be able to watch the NFL game on Sunday afternoon without having his wife sulking in the next room because he didn't want to take her to the arts fair.
So many marriages could be saved if only both parties could recognize and plan for how their partnership will work before they walk down the aisle. Both have to recognize they have to share in the household chores, but also share in the fun and games. And they must figure out how to give each some of what they want and like without making the other feel slighted.

Not that I'm some sort of expert or anything.

I Am ...

I've noticed how narrowly people seem to identify themselves lately, with their fill-in-the-blank answer to "I Am ______________".

The blank is filled by people with whatever is most prominent in their life.

"I am a teacher/doctor/engineer/business owner/..." means that the individual is most closely identified and absorbed by their profession.

"I am gay" is very sad, because the only identity this person seems to have is based on their sexual behavior. To me, it's as silly as saying "I am a serial adulterer" (or in today's parlance I understand the word may be "player")

"I am a husband/wife" means that the individual is focused mostly on their relationship with their spouse.

"I am a father/mother" indicates a primary focus on the family and being a good parent.

"I am a Christian/Catholic/Jew/Islamist/Buddist/Spiritual person/..." means that the individual is most closely identified with their chosen religion.

"I am a carpenter/model builder/handyman/..." when not representing the individual's actual profession, indicates a close association with one's hobbies and avocation.

"I am a baseball/basketball/football/soccer/... player" indicates that the individual is focused on their chosen athletic endeavors.

"I am black/asian/hispanic/..." indicates that race is the most important factor in self-identification.

"I am a (insert team name) Fan" indicates an obsession with the individual's favorite sports team.

For me, it seems unfair to require me to pigeonhole myself into any single statement of who I am. I am many things - Christian/Catholic, Husband/Father, businessperson, Child Advocate, consultant, computer software expert, singer, somewhat a history buff, sometime athlete, sports fan, traveler, reader, political observer and sometime commentator, salesperson, accountant, son, brother, neighbor. And I'm sure I left out some things.

For myself, how about this: "I am just a guy trying to live my life, seek God and Truth, and be the best man I can be while hopefully having a little fun along the way".

Merry Christmas a Day Late

The past week was wild. But mostly pretty good. And this Christmas was better than average, I'd have to say, although I really felt the loss in realizing that there will be no Christmas with my mom. Things will never be the same, and I find myself missing the old family traditions.

But it's been very nice to have the boys home. It seems like it's been a long time already, maybe because they're changing so fast.

Chris and I were talking about the fact that this is his 14th Christmas, and I asked him how many of them he actually remembers. He seems to remember most of them. For me, let's just say I've seen so many Christmases by this point that they all sort of blend together. But there are plenty of great memories through all those years.

I think maybe that's the important thing to realize about the Christmas holiday as a parent. From here on my focus will be on making each Christmas memorable in some positive way. That doesn't necessarily require spending a lot of money on gifts, but rather making memories based on shared experiences. Our trip to Conseco Fieldhouse for the IU/Butler basketball game followed by a nice dinner is an example, which I think could even be improved upon next year.

Giving thought for next year's memory-making starts today.

Keeping Things Interesting

For me, at least, this weekend was very interesting.

You had the fantastic news of the amazingly successful election in Iraq alongside lots of stories pushed by the President and his supporters about how things there really aren't as bad as opponents want to paint them. Even though people like me who actually pay attention have known for some time that things have been progressing reasonably well there, the rest of the country that only catches the Nightly News now and then only hears the continuous criticism and Bush-bashing.

So this apparently gets the Dems and their friends at the NY Times down a bit, so here we go - time to call Bush a criminal again. They made public a classified story to the effect that for a brief time after 9/11, Bush authorized wiretaps and surveillance of suspected terrorists and their sympathizers in the US without obtaining a court order.

For me, that's not the real story. The real story that of course nobody in the so-called "mainstream media" will tell is that someone in the very small group of administration and congressional leadership (Republicans and Democrats, mind you) leaked this information to the Times. Which is, ahem, a felony. The leak was so obviously politically motivated that it seems like it wouldn't take too long to find the leaker - just check out the Democrat congresspersons who were briefed on the temporary policy, and you'll probably find your criminal rather quickly.

That Bush did what he did doesn't bother me in the slightest. Applying simple logic and reasoning to the situation, it's very easy to come up with the reasons - he felt it was necessary to protect the country. Also, it's been reported that those surveillance activities actually saved us from attacks that were being planned after 9/11. And whether it was lawful or not, no innocent party was harmed or abused in the process. Finally, a scandal generally requires that the perpetrator is acting for personal or political gain - in this case, everything was done above-board, with full disclosure to the proper judges and congressional leaders, and obviously completely with the safety of Americans at heart. Stupid people in Washington are calling for an investigation - unless you're going to investigate who leaked the story, I say drop it and move on to more important matters.

Anyway, we also saw the Colts lose their first game. It was sad, but predictable. I actually thought they were going to pull out the win until Peyton got called for the intentional grounding and then the Chargers' backup running back caught the defense asleep a couple minutes later. It was sort of disheartening to see the whole team lose focus like that and let the perfect season get away from them.

Then it was interesting that I got to the hotel room last night just in time to see Rex Grossman come in at QB for the Bears and proceed to break the game open against Atlanta. Although he looked good, I don't really think they needed him last night. From watching the Falcons on television last night suffering in the near-zero temperatures at Soldier Field, I figured they just wanted to get the game over with and go someplace warm anyway.

And we got Tim home this weekend. Both a good and bad thing; good because it's nice to see him, and bad because the conflicts have already begun. In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"

Tookie No More

I read through the news on the web and noticed there seems to be quite a stir over the upcoming execution of Tookie Williams and the Terminator's refusal to grant clemency.

Obviously I know nothing about the guy or his crimes, although I glean from the articles about him that they were pretty grisly. But in this case, I'm not as focused on the individual case as the general topic.

There are lots of Hollywood types that have been agitating for clemency in this case. Based on recent history with actors getting political, that might be an argument against all by itself. But the stories raised a bunch of questions in my mind that aren't answered by any of the media coverage.

First question: One article states that Tookie is only the 12th person to be executed in California since 1977. Of the other 11, how many received the benefit of all this celebrity attention? If all did, then we can at least say that these celebrities are consistent in their anti-capital-punishment philosophy. But I don't really think so, because I don't recall anything recently about celebrities banding together to stop an execution.

Second question: Why get all over Arnold's case for letting the execution go forward? Like it or not, capital punishment is the law in California, and Tookie has had the benefit of the full range of appeals. No court has seen fit to overturn the verdict or the sentencing, which in arguably the most liberal state in the union you would have to think it's pretty safe to assume he's very guilty. Arnold would be violating his role as governor if he granted clemency for no reason other than a bunch of celebrities are pressuring him to do so. If Californians want to do away with capital punishment, they should vote for representatives who will do that; but don't trash your governator for doing his job.

Final question: Should a criminal's sentence be commuted, reduced or overturned if he turns his life around? The main reason being given for Tookie's clemency is that he's reformed, writing children's books and talking to kids about staying out of gangs. Some would question whether he's honestly reformed, or is just doing whatever he thinks might spare him from the needle. I remember the woman in Texas, Carla Tucker I think, that claimed to have become a born-again Christian and had a bunch of preachers lobbying the governor there to spare her life. He didn't.

The biggest fear seems to be that the blacks in LA will riot when Tookie's executed. They will certainly demonstrate. Such a sad situation.

Do I support capital punishment? Not to go against my church, but I think only if it's enforced immediately after sentencing. If there's any doubt or mitigating circumstances, the death penalty isn't an option anyway. The current system is ridiculous - how long has Tookie been on death row? 10 years? They should have taken him directly from the courtroom to the execution chamber and been done with it. If we're not willing to make justice swift, then what's the point?

BreakTime

Like someone on the outside looking in, I find it somewhat fascinating that this person behind the computer has chosen to blog while taking a break from what has been an incredibly busy work week.

It's official/unofficial: I'm running for President. Check out my other blog if you're interested in my new political party, platform, and campaign. Sign up there to join my "Dan for President" committee.

The past two weeks are a blur. It's like being on a playground spinner way too long so you no longer can tell which way is up and are so dizzy you feel like throwing up, but you can't get the stupid thing to stop spinning so you can get off. Yeah, that's how it feels.

An update on the assertiveness thing. So far so good, I think. Still learning though.

Having what is shaping up as a terrific month for business. Maybe the best ever. That's a good thing, because I need the cash. Wierd thing about it, right now I feel like I have the best stuff out there for small businesses, to the point where I honestly feel that anybody running a small business would be stupid NOT to talk to me and sign up for at least one or two of my offerings. It must be starting to show through when I talk to new prospects, because my close rate's going up.

Ah, weekend. I only wish I had more work done so I could enjoy it. Plus I've gotta drive back to Chicago on Sunday. Oh well, it just keeps spinning and spinning ....

Bad Things in Bunches

So if it wasn't bad enough to have the furnace go out last week and have to pay to have two of it's most expensive parts replaced to get heat back in the house, I had to endure another trial that almost stranded me in Chicago over the weekend.

Friday morning I checked out of the hotel and went to my vehicle ("Jed") in the hotel parking lot. I hadn't driven it anywhere in two days, as the night before I didn't feel like going out for dinner, and I was working in a building I could walk to by crossing a grassy median.

So my intention that chilly Friday morning was just to start up the car and drive it over to the parking lot of the building that houses my client. I didn't have to, but just thought it was better to move it than leave it in the hotel parking lot, since I had checked out. But I digress.

The engine turned over fine, but refused to start. I spent nearly a half hour trying, and the engine refused to come to life. Part of the reason I spent almost a half hour was that about 15 minutes into my futile attempt, the engine did start ever so briefly, but would not keep running and stalled after only a couple of seconds.

Since it was an icy morning, somewhere in the 'teens, I thought maybe it just needed a little sunshine to warm it up. So I walked over to the office to begin my workday, thinking that I'd return at lunchtime to try to coax Jed back to life.

Walked back to the car at noon, with the outside temperature a balmy 21 degrees, thinking surely it will start now. I was wrong. Tried about 20 minutes this time before giving up, and walked back to the office and looked up the nearest Lincoln/Mercury dealer. They expressed doubts that they could get the repair done the same day, but suggested that if I could get it towed to them before 2PM, they would give it their best shot.

So I called my insurance company's roadside assistance hotline for a tow, and they located a towing company that would commit to showing up within an hour. I met the truck in the parking lot when he arrived, and rode with him and Jed to the dealership.

Once I got Jed checked in and signed the paperwork for the tow truck driver, I settled into the dealer's customer lounge. Somebody had on Court TV, which is just about the last television channel I would have any interest in, and unfortunately I hadn't brought a book along this trip. So it was a long afternoon for me with nothing to do but look at the cars in the showroom and try to ignore the endless analysis from talking heads on Court TV about whatever case they were following.

Finally, sometime after 5PM Chicago time, the service advisor gives me the bad news. Indeed, the fuel pump has failed. Not only that, but it resides inside the gas tank. So this is going to be not only an expensive repair, but there is no hope of getting Jed and driving home that night.

But there was an Enterprise Car Rental outlet there at the dealership, and for the first decent news of the day, I got a great weekend rate. In fact, the cost of the weekend car rental was going to be less than the mileage I would have charged the client, who by the way had decided they needed me back on Monday.

So by the time I got the car rented and pulled out of the lot, it was well past dark and too late to face the long drive home. So I decided to spend the weekend in Goshen.

Now, despite the expense and inconvenience of losing Jed for the weekend, things didn't turn out all that badly. I have Jed back and am busy working again at the client's office, and they have decided to extend me even further. That's a good thing, because the extension should cover the repairs and then some.

But enough adventure for me. Here's hoping that we're done with the big ticket repairs for now.

Introspection

Who said, "Tough times require tough people"?

Did anybody say that, or did I just make it up? Regardless, it seems appropriate to my current circumstances.

I can feel victimized and blame others for how they disappoint me. How they take advantage of me. How they discard my opinions and feelings out of hand. How they disrespect me. How I'm only important to them when I have something they want.

Or I can stand up and fight back.

Why is that so difficult for me? I've been giving that a lot of thought lately, and right now my conclusion is this:

It's extremely difficult for me to stand firm and fight others because I don't want to hurt them. And in the cases I'm facing today, the truth hurts like a pound of kidney stones. (That's my frame of reference as the most painful experience I've had in my life to date)

Some might suggest that they don't seem to care that what they are doing is hurting me, so why should I worry so much about hurting them? I suppose the answer is because I know firsthand how it feels to be mistreated, and don't want to cause anybody else to suffer that from me.

But I'm not really talking about "mistreating" anyone at all, but simply taking a firm stand that I should have done a long time ago. That action is certain to make those I stand firm against angry. But just maybe, if I do it the right way, it will also demand respect. On the other hand, it could also result in absolute isolation and alienation for me.

All I know is I can't continue being a doormat. I've been able to avoid it, ignore it, push it aside in the past, but now there's a giant elephant standing on my figurative mat and I have to use every ounce of strength to push it off, so i can pick myself off the ground and walk ahead.

Here goes ...

Call it ND - The Experience

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.

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.

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.