I'll leave you to guess the significance of the number.
Have I mentioned I'm sort of hooked on "24"? Even though it's gotten totally ridiculous the last few episodes, I still won't miss. Oh well, I guess I'm easily entertained.
Here's the week in review:
Last Saturday I put in 12 hours at the office trying to get everything done before my trip. Didn't get everything done but made progress. Then wondered where my weekend went.
Sunday I got up early to pack and head to the Indy airport. Tried to get Tim out of bed, because he said he wanted to get back to Butler early. But wasn't surprised when he wouldn't get up. Finished packing, drove to airport, flew to Reno, drove from there to Minden. Minden's near Carson City and Lake Tahoe. Got first class for both legs, but have no idea why. Makes the trip 10 times more comfortable though, so I'll take the upgrade anytime. Called home and found out Tim went back to school Sunday night because he slept all day. Hopefully that helped him recover from his illness.
Monday, got up at 5 and worked on the computer and made telephone calls until time to go to work at 8. Stayed in Monday night, partly to catch "24" and partly because I was tired. Went to sleep right after the show ended.
Tuesday, got up at 5 again and worked in the hotel room until 8. Went to work and worked all day. Found it strange that I kept sneezing throughout the day. People I was working with noticed, thought I was allergic to some of the desert plants that were blooming. Stayed in Tuesday night because was even more tired and sinuses were acting up, and made sure to catch Idol because they had Andrea Bocceli.
Wednesday woke up feeling rotten. Checked email and took my time getting ready, and was at least functional for the work day. But by mid-afternoon, was really suffering. Tried to pretend I was fine, but don't know if I pulled off the ruse with the clients. That night went straight back to hotel room after buying a couple bottles of gatorade and some benadryl. Popped the pills and marveled at the altered states they caused before falling asleep. But made sure to at least catch Bocelli's performance at the beginning of Idol first. I still admire his voice, but gotta say he doesn't sing English language songs well enough to be understood.
Thursday I felt a little better after sleeping in until 6. Didn't bother with email that morning, although found out later I should have. Of course. Made it through the day slightly better than Wednesday, said goodbye to the folks at the client. Nice people. Back to the hotel, called local movie theatre thinking about maybe catching a movie that night. Ultimately there was nothing playing that caught my interest and I didn't feel up to it, so I popped a couple benadryl and went to sleep after watching the Bulls embarrass the Heat.
Friday morning, slept in until 6 again, packed, went down to the restaurant for a nice big breakfast. On my way back to the room, a naked woman popped out of one of the rooms just as I was walking past in the hallway. Wierd. I just kept walking and tried to pretend I didn't see her. Even told myself, "You didn't just see that". Can't help wondering why she did that.
Checked out of the hotel, drove back to Reno, where I filled the rental car before returning it and checking in for the flight home. Flew home through O'Hare, watched "Narnia" onboard to pass the time. Right ear was increasingly difficult to keep clear, and descent into O'Hare was painful. For some reason, the descent into Indy was even more painful. Made it home by about 10PM, though, which was a lot better than the 1AM last trip. But I regret the illness a little, because otherwise I probably would have made another trip up to Tahoe, and possibly checked out Virginia City, although it looks like it might be a tourist trap.
It's Saturday afternoon, and I'm back in the office, wasting time with this post when I have several things that have to be done before Monday. Mostly all that's left of my illness is an earache and cough. And I won't be able to sing at church tomorrow. But I think I got off easy compared to poor Chris, who's had a bad time with the chicken pox all week.
That's my week. Think traveling sounds interesting or exotic? Sometimes it can be, but mostly it's more like this.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Saturday, April 22, 2006
2B2B
Too busy to blog.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Way behind. Too much work, too little time. Saturday is trashed. Sunday is travel all day.
Be back in a week, maybe.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Observations
Through observation, I've learned that people are divided into two groups. Group 1 takes responsibility for their lives, while group 2 blames everybody else.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Examples:
Group 1 strives to improve their income or find a job they love by working hard, studying, and persistence. Group 2 is angry with their boss, government, parents, white men, or others for trapping them in their crappy, low-paying jobs.
Group 1 responds to needs of poor in their communities by volunteering and contributing to the most effective charity groups. Group 2 complain about the poor and think the government should take care of them using taxes confiscated from "rich" folks.
Group 1 knows that faith and family are what matter most in life. Group 2 hates the values of Group 1, are cynical toward religion, and feel religious "fundamentalists" are "judging" Group 2's for their sexual promiscuity, serial marriages, homosexuality, and abortion.
Group 1 loves freedom and respects those who protect that freedom. Group 2 would willingly trade freedom for a government dole and hate all things military.
I don't categorize people except by these groups. I've noticed real hatred seems to exist mainly with people from Group 2. Their hatred is generally directed at members of Group 1, and if racial, is mostly directed at white male "oppressors". They hate people of faith, political conservatives, members of the military, wealthy people, fat people, smokers, SUV owners, CEO's.
For me, hatred is not part of my emotional inventory. I don't feel hatred for anyone. Supporting border enforcement in no way means I hate hispanics. Opposing gay marriage, and for that matter believing homosexual behavior is wrong in no way means I hate gays. Supporting equal opportunity while opposing race-based preferences in no way means I hate black people. For people who act in a hateful manner toward me or in my presence, I generally feel sorry for them. I might even pray for them. Because hatred consumes people, prematurely ages them, and is generally a waste of time and emotion.
If you happen to read this and think you might fit at least some of my description of Group 2, might I suggest you give Group 1 a try? I think you will find it liberating.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Globalism
What's the real reason for the Iraq war?
Why is almost everything we buy these days made in China?
Why won't the politicians in Washington do anything about illegal immigration?
Why are gas prices so high?
I could come up with more questions, but those are the hot ones these days. And the answer isn't because Bush sucks, as so many ignoramuses are fond of repeating.
The more correct answer is - globalism. Bush Sr. was a globalist. So was Bill Clinton. And the current president continues the tradition.
The basic goal of the globalist is to make all the countries in the world so economically intertwined that nobody will want to go to war with anybody else again. The U.S. invests heavily in third world countries around the world, not out of altruism, but in an attempt to keep them relatively stable and beholden, and help their regimes hold off the anarchists and radical Islamists that seek to destabilize them.
Are you worried about Red China deciding to attack the U.S.? Not that they absolutely will not, but the economic ties between China and the world's largest consumer market will at least make the communist government think twice about biting the hand that feeds their own growing economy. Ever hear of the National Debt? Guess what foreign country holds a significant portion of our country's debt? You got it - China.
Which brings us to Iraq. Why did we choose Iraq for invasion after we drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Because of Saddam's complicity in 9/11? No. Even though Saddam harbored and financed Al Quaeda, so do Syria and Iran. Because of Saddam's possession of WMD? Partly. And yes, he had WMD and badly wanted nuclear weapons. The issue isn't that we didn't find them because Bush lied, but that we didn't find them most likely because he moved them into Syria, Iran, or both.
The bottom line is that Iraq, Iran, and Syria all represent rogue regimes bent on world destabilization. Iraq and Saddam were merely the most obvious choice. If we removed Saddam in Iraq, it would send a message to his neighbors that they can't get away with their destabilizing agendas. Which are the destruction of Israel and expanding Islamic rule throughout the world.
Endangering the mission in Iraq is the American anti-war left. Their continuous Bush bashing and demonstrations and anti-war rhetoric has been successful only in encouraging the so-called insurgents. But right now it seems we may succeed in Iraq despite their efforts to undermine the war. U.S. casualties are way down, the Iraqi government is on the brink of becoming organized and capable, and there's an excellent chance that Iraq will become a stable ally in the middle east. That is, unless the wackos get enough power in Washington to mess things up.
I would argue that the anti-war left created the current problems in Iran. Iran has been emboldened by the internal strife in America, which has led them to believe that we are so divided over Iraq that we won't have the will to stop Iran from pursuing their own evil agenda. I'm not sure, but they may be right.
Now oil prices. If you watch TV, you would think that fat oil company executives sit around their offices every day thinking, "How can we screw more people today and make even more money?". The reality is that oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The market sets the prices, so when Iran refuses to stop their uranium enrichment along with open threats of their intent to destroy Israel, the market gets nervous and bids up prices.
Then there's the new communist dictator in Venezuela, which has fairly significant oil supplies, but their new dictator is destabilizing the market. Or Russia, where Putin took over oil production and handed it over to the corrupt and inefficient government, slowing output well below levels available previously.
Finally, there are America's own environmentalists, who are so powerful that they have successfully blocked further development of our country's own oil supplies. There is potentially enough oil offshore and in other parts of the country that could have a great impact on supply. But we can't drill for any of it because the powerful environmental lobby has effectively blocked it. (Who said oil companies were so powerful?) Add to this the lack of refinery capacity, also blocked by environmental hurdles, and you have $3 gas.
Illegal immigration? Of all the other globalist policies you want to blame on Bush, I'd say this might be the most legitimate example. Illegal immigrants lower wages for the rest of us, place a big burden on taxpayers by swamping our education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services agencies, and threaten sovereignty. It's not that our laws are inadequate - there are actually plenty of laws on the books related to border enforcement, sanctions against employers who hire illegals, etc. It's just that the government chooses to look the other way, for a variety of their own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the overall welfare of the country they are supposed to protect and serve.
Bush is a globalist. That means he might dream of a united world someday, where there are no borders, no war, and economic opportunity for every person on the planet. You may have heard about his ideas for creating a European Union-style economic trade bloc of the Americas. His goal is to build a single currency and cooperative government structure for all countries from Canada in the north through Central America to the south. Open borders is only one part of that dream.
What I'm getting at is this: If you want to hate Bush, at least know why. You don't really have much of a choice on the globalist agenda; it has been steadily moving forward for the last 20 to 25 years. If you don't like it, here's a news flash: Electing a Democrat president won't change that. Kerry is also a globalist. So is Hillary. And pretty much everybody else who wants to be president in 2008.
I believe we can stop illegal immigration only if enough Americans band together and demand it of our politicians. That doesn't appear to be happening, so get ready for it to get worse instead of better.
We will either have to go to war with Iran (and possibly Syria) in the next few years, or face the alternative which includes nuclear war with Israel and nuclear terrorism here in the U.S. I wonder if we have the will to stop Iran in time, or if we'll have to live through an episode worse then 9/11 before we act?
We can't make gas prices lower, unless we somehow get our own oil fields opened up to exploration and drilling again. Stabilizing the middle east could also help, but that's a long-term solution. But there are too many ignorant citizens and politicians that put their own power ahead of the interests of the country for that to happen.
We can't bring manufacturing back home from China. Because we like buying cheap stuff at Wal Mart. And China won't let us, because they own a big chunk of our country already.
Why is almost everything we buy these days made in China?
Why won't the politicians in Washington do anything about illegal immigration?
Why are gas prices so high?
I could come up with more questions, but those are the hot ones these days. And the answer isn't because Bush sucks, as so many ignoramuses are fond of repeating.
The more correct answer is - globalism. Bush Sr. was a globalist. So was Bill Clinton. And the current president continues the tradition.
The basic goal of the globalist is to make all the countries in the world so economically intertwined that nobody will want to go to war with anybody else again. The U.S. invests heavily in third world countries around the world, not out of altruism, but in an attempt to keep them relatively stable and beholden, and help their regimes hold off the anarchists and radical Islamists that seek to destabilize them.
Are you worried about Red China deciding to attack the U.S.? Not that they absolutely will not, but the economic ties between China and the world's largest consumer market will at least make the communist government think twice about biting the hand that feeds their own growing economy. Ever hear of the National Debt? Guess what foreign country holds a significant portion of our country's debt? You got it - China.
Which brings us to Iraq. Why did we choose Iraq for invasion after we drove the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan? Because of Saddam's complicity in 9/11? No. Even though Saddam harbored and financed Al Quaeda, so do Syria and Iran. Because of Saddam's possession of WMD? Partly. And yes, he had WMD and badly wanted nuclear weapons. The issue isn't that we didn't find them because Bush lied, but that we didn't find them most likely because he moved them into Syria, Iran, or both.
The bottom line is that Iraq, Iran, and Syria all represent rogue regimes bent on world destabilization. Iraq and Saddam were merely the most obvious choice. If we removed Saddam in Iraq, it would send a message to his neighbors that they can't get away with their destabilizing agendas. Which are the destruction of Israel and expanding Islamic rule throughout the world.
Endangering the mission in Iraq is the American anti-war left. Their continuous Bush bashing and demonstrations and anti-war rhetoric has been successful only in encouraging the so-called insurgents. But right now it seems we may succeed in Iraq despite their efforts to undermine the war. U.S. casualties are way down, the Iraqi government is on the brink of becoming organized and capable, and there's an excellent chance that Iraq will become a stable ally in the middle east. That is, unless the wackos get enough power in Washington to mess things up.
I would argue that the anti-war left created the current problems in Iran. Iran has been emboldened by the internal strife in America, which has led them to believe that we are so divided over Iraq that we won't have the will to stop Iran from pursuing their own evil agenda. I'm not sure, but they may be right.
Now oil prices. If you watch TV, you would think that fat oil company executives sit around their offices every day thinking, "How can we screw more people today and make even more money?". The reality is that oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The market sets the prices, so when Iran refuses to stop their uranium enrichment along with open threats of their intent to destroy Israel, the market gets nervous and bids up prices.
Then there's the new communist dictator in Venezuela, which has fairly significant oil supplies, but their new dictator is destabilizing the market. Or Russia, where Putin took over oil production and handed it over to the corrupt and inefficient government, slowing output well below levels available previously.
Finally, there are America's own environmentalists, who are so powerful that they have successfully blocked further development of our country's own oil supplies. There is potentially enough oil offshore and in other parts of the country that could have a great impact on supply. But we can't drill for any of it because the powerful environmental lobby has effectively blocked it. (Who said oil companies were so powerful?) Add to this the lack of refinery capacity, also blocked by environmental hurdles, and you have $3 gas.
Illegal immigration? Of all the other globalist policies you want to blame on Bush, I'd say this might be the most legitimate example. Illegal immigrants lower wages for the rest of us, place a big burden on taxpayers by swamping our education, healthcare, law enforcement, and social services agencies, and threaten sovereignty. It's not that our laws are inadequate - there are actually plenty of laws on the books related to border enforcement, sanctions against employers who hire illegals, etc. It's just that the government chooses to look the other way, for a variety of their own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the overall welfare of the country they are supposed to protect and serve.
Bush is a globalist. That means he might dream of a united world someday, where there are no borders, no war, and economic opportunity for every person on the planet. You may have heard about his ideas for creating a European Union-style economic trade bloc of the Americas. His goal is to build a single currency and cooperative government structure for all countries from Canada in the north through Central America to the south. Open borders is only one part of that dream.
What I'm getting at is this: If you want to hate Bush, at least know why. You don't really have much of a choice on the globalist agenda; it has been steadily moving forward for the last 20 to 25 years. If you don't like it, here's a news flash: Electing a Democrat president won't change that. Kerry is also a globalist. So is Hillary. And pretty much everybody else who wants to be president in 2008.
I believe we can stop illegal immigration only if enough Americans band together and demand it of our politicians. That doesn't appear to be happening, so get ready for it to get worse instead of better.
We will either have to go to war with Iran (and possibly Syria) in the next few years, or face the alternative which includes nuclear war with Israel and nuclear terrorism here in the U.S. I wonder if we have the will to stop Iran in time, or if we'll have to live through an episode worse then 9/11 before we act?
We can't make gas prices lower, unless we somehow get our own oil fields opened up to exploration and drilling again. Stabilizing the middle east could also help, but that's a long-term solution. But there are too many ignorant citizens and politicians that put their own power ahead of the interests of the country for that to happen.
We can't bring manufacturing back home from China. Because we like buying cheap stuff at Wal Mart. And China won't let us, because they own a big chunk of our country already.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Weekend Update
It was a pretty good week. Spent in the Carson Valley, which is the Carson City area (Nevada). Surrounded by mountains, and a short scenic drive up over the mountain to Lake Tahoe. Very nice.
Hotel was OK, but it's got a casino and the cigarette smoke permeates the entire place, even up to my room on the third floor. And the bed is old and saggy, so I have the worst cramps behind my shoulder blades. And you can't get a newspaper anywhere, which feels sort of like withdrawal to have to go a full week without being able to read the paper with breakfast.
Working on the Canadian issue, I had a conversation with someone who said one of the attorneys they talked to just said I should try again. That according to Canadian laws, there's no reason they should have turned me around in the first place. I suggested that I wouldn't do that, given they told me I was subject to arrest if I tried again without the appropriate permits. I'm trying to force them to get me that permit.
Driving around, I found a radio station that was all liberal talk. Decided to give it a chance, you know, find out whether they had anything to say. An hour was all I could stand. There was never a substantive discussion of a single issue. Not one. Unless you consider Bush-bashing an issue. The entire hour - and I am in no way exaggerating - was all about the evil George W. Bush. The host went on and on, then had guests on the show to continue the process.
Here's the theme for the hour:
Bush is stupid
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a torturer of innocent Muslims
Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Bush spies on his political enemies
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned
Bush is a war monger
Bush stole both elections. Therefore he isn't really the President.
Bush caused global warming and is bent on destroying the planet
Bush is incompetent
Bush hates blacks, gays and poor people in general
Bush's policies are all about making his fat cat friends rich
Bush is a fascist dictator
And the one I found most ironic: Bush is divisive, a hater, and suppresses free speech.
So my attempt to understand what liberals would do differently if they were in charge, listening to this radio station didn't provide a single answer. Unless you consider hatred of Bush a political philosophy.
Time to pack up and head to the airport. Home for Easter, hoping the boys show up.
Hotel was OK, but it's got a casino and the cigarette smoke permeates the entire place, even up to my room on the third floor. And the bed is old and saggy, so I have the worst cramps behind my shoulder blades. And you can't get a newspaper anywhere, which feels sort of like withdrawal to have to go a full week without being able to read the paper with breakfast.
Working on the Canadian issue, I had a conversation with someone who said one of the attorneys they talked to just said I should try again. That according to Canadian laws, there's no reason they should have turned me around in the first place. I suggested that I wouldn't do that, given they told me I was subject to arrest if I tried again without the appropriate permits. I'm trying to force them to get me that permit.
Driving around, I found a radio station that was all liberal talk. Decided to give it a chance, you know, find out whether they had anything to say. An hour was all I could stand. There was never a substantive discussion of a single issue. Not one. Unless you consider Bush-bashing an issue. The entire hour - and I am in no way exaggerating - was all about the evil George W. Bush. The host went on and on, then had guests on the show to continue the process.
Here's the theme for the hour:
Bush is stupid
Bush is a criminal
Bush is a torturer of innocent Muslims
Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people
Bush spies on his political enemies
Bush should be impeached and imprisoned
Bush is a war monger
Bush stole both elections. Therefore he isn't really the President.
Bush caused global warming and is bent on destroying the planet
Bush is incompetent
Bush hates blacks, gays and poor people in general
Bush's policies are all about making his fat cat friends rich
Bush is a fascist dictator
And the one I found most ironic: Bush is divisive, a hater, and suppresses free speech.
So my attempt to understand what liberals would do differently if they were in charge, listening to this radio station didn't provide a single answer. Unless you consider hatred of Bush a political philosophy.
Time to pack up and head to the airport. Home for Easter, hoping the boys show up.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Friday Ramblings
So happy for Friday after a bizarre week.
Got a call late last night asking me to take on the Dubois Seven Last Words of Christ on Good Friday. I'm a last minute replacement, and won't be able to rehearse because I'll be in Nevada all week. But it's kind of cool to be asked. As I recall, there's a dramatic ending that's very difficult, and I have to be on my toes to pull it off, or risk booting the whole performance if I don't get it right. Better take it with me to practice this week.
Heard the Senate compromise on their immigration bill fell apart because of the usual partisan maneuvering. That's good, because it was a stupid bill. I'm wondering if the majority of the senate are idiots, if they think most of us are idiots, or most of us really are idiots. It's frustrating to see them posturing and trying to play to varied constituencies by building new expensive bureaucracies and set rules that the illegal immigrants and companies that employ them will ignore.
If we weren't all a bunch of idiots, we should fire every Senator (bye-bye, Lugar and Bayh) and replace them with people who actually look out for us.
Been feeling isolated and ignored lately. I don't know, maybe it's because I've been isolated and ignored lately.
I want a new car.
Lake Tahoe should be beautiful this time of year. I'll be there Sunday, I think.
Got a call late last night asking me to take on the Dubois Seven Last Words of Christ on Good Friday. I'm a last minute replacement, and won't be able to rehearse because I'll be in Nevada all week. But it's kind of cool to be asked. As I recall, there's a dramatic ending that's very difficult, and I have to be on my toes to pull it off, or risk booting the whole performance if I don't get it right. Better take it with me to practice this week.
Heard the Senate compromise on their immigration bill fell apart because of the usual partisan maneuvering. That's good, because it was a stupid bill. I'm wondering if the majority of the senate are idiots, if they think most of us are idiots, or most of us really are idiots. It's frustrating to see them posturing and trying to play to varied constituencies by building new expensive bureaucracies and set rules that the illegal immigrants and companies that employ them will ignore.
If we weren't all a bunch of idiots, we should fire every Senator (bye-bye, Lugar and Bayh) and replace them with people who actually look out for us.
Been feeling isolated and ignored lately. I don't know, maybe it's because I've been isolated and ignored lately.
I want a new car.
Lake Tahoe should be beautiful this time of year. I'll be there Sunday, I think.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Wetback
So I got turned away at the border. I went across and showed the customs agent my letter, which was supposed to guarantee me entry. Instead it got me an unpleasant interrogation by an ugly woman with an attitude in Canadian Immigration.
It ended with, "You can't just come to Canada and work. Don't come back without the proper documents or you will be subject to arrest." So much for our friendly neighbors to the north.
So now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get proper documentation under NAFTA to enter Canada. On the positive side, once I have those papers I should never have to worry again about getting hassled at the border. But it sort of blew up my plans for this week.
Nothing like being stuck in Detroit for two days. I couldn't even go to the Henry Ford museum because I had to be ready to get a possible phone call telling me all was clear to try again. So I sat in the rental car all day Monday and for two or three hours on Tuesday, just hanging out and listening to the radio and waiting for my cellphone to ring.
The possible upside to this bad experience is that once I have the right paperwork, I might be able to get all the Canadian accounts for the software company. Because they laid off all their Canadian consultants and don't have anybody to serve the clients up there anymore. I never expected to be a Canadian specialist, but whatever pays the bills.
It ended with, "You can't just come to Canada and work. Don't come back without the proper documents or you will be subject to arrest." So much for our friendly neighbors to the north.
So now I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get proper documentation under NAFTA to enter Canada. On the positive side, once I have those papers I should never have to worry again about getting hassled at the border. But it sort of blew up my plans for this week.
Nothing like being stuck in Detroit for two days. I couldn't even go to the Henry Ford museum because I had to be ready to get a possible phone call telling me all was clear to try again. So I sat in the rental car all day Monday and for two or three hours on Tuesday, just hanging out and listening to the radio and waiting for my cellphone to ring.
The possible upside to this bad experience is that once I have the right paperwork, I might be able to get all the Canadian accounts for the software company. Because they laid off all their Canadian consultants and don't have anybody to serve the clients up there anymore. I never expected to be a Canadian specialist, but whatever pays the bills.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Yellow Pages Scam
How many business telephone directories do you think are out there calling themselves "Yellow Pages", or some variation thereof?
I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.
For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.
Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.
So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."
Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.
Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.
I don't exactly know the answer, but there are far too many, and most of them are scammers.
For my business, I willingly pay for a small yellow pages ad in our local telephone book. When I started, that seemed like a fairly simple venture, right? Wrong.
Ever since I opened the business, I have been inundated with mail and phone calls from people from "Yellow Pages" or "Yellow Book" or "Yellow Page Directories" or "Yellow Pages Online", ad nauseum. And they all seem to have picked up on the fact that we little business owners can't tell one from the other.
So they call me, and I say, "Didn't I already pay for my Yellow Page ad this year?". They try to change the subject, which I've learned means they're not from the same company that publishes our local phone book. I'm still kicking myself for one that fooled me into buying something, which meant I was suddenly getting invoices from them every month for an ad I didn't even know how to find that produced exactly zero customer calls. It took me 2 months, 3 letters, and about 5 phone calls to finally find the right person who actually said, "Yes, sir, I can cancel this for you."
Then there are the others that keep sending me invoices, even though I never signed up for anything. It's a scam based on the fact that they know we can't tell one yellow page company from another, and they think if they just send out a credible-looking invoice, they can trick us into putting it into our regular payment stack. And end up paying for some yellow page service that may or may not even exist.
Here's my current attitude on the subject: No more Yellow Page ads from me. I'm going to focus my advertising on direct mail, networking, and the internet. Don't call me, don't send me stuff, leave me alone. Your industry has been turned into one big scam, which I refuse to be associated with from now on.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
The New Constitution
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
New Interpretation: Keep your religion to yourself, unless it's something besides Judaism and Christianity. Free exercise of religion means only in the privacy of your home and church (for now). Freedom of speech is to be respected, unless you're a Christian or Jew (especially one who supports Israel), a conservative talk show host, or Fox News. Freedom of peaceful assembly is to be upheld, unless you are protesting abortion.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
New Interpretation: Militas are outmoded and irrelevant and guns kill people, so all firearms may be outlawed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
New Interpretation: Abuse those war-mongering soldiers and disrupt their funerals whenever possible.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
New Interpretation: This amendment now applies to enemies and terrorists overseas, who are being subjected to such unreasonable telephone wiretaps simply because they wish our country harm. Oh, and if the President is a Democrat, it's OK to perform unreasonable searches and seizures against Republicans (see Bill & Hillary Clinton, 1993-2000)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
New Interpretation: Private property may be taken for any use, public or private, with or without just compensation, at the discretion of the local authorities. (See Supreme Court of the United States, 2005)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
New Interpretation: Speedy trials can be construed as anything between 1 week and 20 years, especially when they involve Federal Special Prosecutors and Capital Murder cases.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
New Interpretation: The right is extended to that of defense attorneys hiring consultants to help them choose jury members most likely to return the verdict sought by the defense.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
New Interpretation: "Cruel and Unusual Punishments" has been redefined as imprisoning people more than one to a cell, failing to provide sumptuous meals, and requiring prisoners to work.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
New Interpretation: Except for religious freedom (See Amendment I). And Abortion (the "inalienable right to life ..." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
New Interpretation: HaHaHa, that's a good one! NOT. (See past 100 years of Presidents and Congresses)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Choices
I would submit that all of these choices are available to each of us:
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Life: Short and eventful, or long and unremarkable
Love: Brief and passionate or a long loveless parntnership
Wealth: Great wealth with extreme stress and loneliness, or subsistance living with little stress
Career: Do what you love, Love what you do, or survive a daily grind
Wisdom: Gained from a life of challenge and heartache, or Lost in blissful ignorance
Morality: Try to live a straight and honest life, or enjoy worldly pleasures and worry about consequences later
Faith and Religion: Constant search for God and the Truth, or disregard God as for the weak-minded
Family: Build, belong, and nurture a family or be alienated from your family
Involvement: Seek out ways to help others or focus on your own needs
Politics: Socialist or Capitalist
Friendship: Do anything for true friends or remain a loner
Outlook: Enthusiasm, Hope, and Love or Anger, Hopelessness, and Despair
Want to be happy in life? It's all up to choices you make every day about how to live your life.
Monday, March 27, 2006
The United States of Mexico?
What exactly should we take from the massive demonstrations over the weekend, the largest in LA? Something close to a million latinos marching through the streets of Los Angeles waving Mexican flags to protest the move in Congress to crack down on illegal immigration was supposed to make the rest of legal citizens in the US more sensitive to the plight of illegals?
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
I don't think so.
I've been to LA. I worked with a company in the LA area that was 99% latino, with a majority of those in the country illegally. Did the managers of the company worry about that fact? No. In fact, I received this bit of unsolicited information from a senior manager at the company:
"You watch, we (Mexican immigrants) are taking over. Soon we will run this country."
And it was no joke.
If you think I'm overly harsh or insensitive or even racist, let me give you my answer to all the arguments for maintaining the status quo:
1. "Illegal immigrants are only trying to find a better life for themselves and their families." For many, I'm sure that's true. But does that justify our looking the other way while those immigrants are scammed and robbed and even killed by the "Coyotes" who prey on them? Does it mean we let drug dealers and gangs and terrorists walk across the border with them? And most importantly, it is outrageously unfair to those legal immigrants who fight to meet all of the requirements for entry into the country while illegals are let through with a wink and a nod.
2. "It's impossible to stop them." Thoroughly untrue. Border enforcement is completely possible, and the cost of fences, guards, and technology to secure the border is a drop in the bucket compared to the social services and healcare costs we are bearing right now taking care of illegals and trying to protect ourselves against the gangs and drug runners. We are failing to stop them because too many politicians want it that way: Some Republicans are catering to business owners who hire illegals because they will work for $5.15 and hour or less. Democrats just expect to grant them all citizenship so they can vote for Democrats every election cycle (see the Clinton administration).
3. "We are unfairly singling out Latinos for enforcement, and that's racist." Not true. The first and most obvious refutation is the sheer numbers of illegals from Mexico and Central America. If we were discriminating against them, you couldn't tell it from the sheer numbers. But there are also untold thousands of illegals entering the country from all over the world; they don't have to just sneak across the border, but arrive on tourist or education visas and just disappear. Like the 9/11 terrorists, for example.
4. "They do work nobody else will do." That's a myth perpetuated by the corporate farm owners and big business people. The reality is that it's just an incomplete sentence, which would be more correct if it read, "The do work nobody else will do for $5.15 or less per hour." Whether or not we need low-skilled workers from poor countries to take these sorts of jobs is a separate issue from illegal immigration. If we successfully stop the influx of illegals, then we could put a logical immigration policy in effect that meets the needs of employers legally while protecting citizens' rights to be the first in line for employment.
5. "We can't just deport 30 million people." Maybe not, but that's not really what we're trying to do. There's a lot of discussion remaining on this part of the policy, but the basic idea is this: If local law enforcement is empowered to arrest illegals and turn them over to INS for processing and deportation, that can happen over time. If employers are forced to stop employing illegals, many of their illegal employees will return to their home country on their own when they no longer have a job here. The bottom line is that we will find a way to deal with those already here, but the fact that so many are here does not mean we should give up the goal of gaining control over our country's borders.
The Congress is finally dealing with the issue, which is a positive. However, in today's polarized political climate, I fear we won't get a meaningful program out of Washington. We'll see.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Calm Before the Storm
Bought my airline ticket for next week, meaning I have one more week of relative boredom before kicking into high gear. The month of April is booked. And every week but one involves a plane trip to elsewhere: Mostly Canada and Nevada.
Which reminds me, I have one week to get a letter from somewhere that won't get me held up at the border when I go to Canada. Gives me a kind of funny thought - me, a US wetback crossing into Canada to take work from a Canadian. Makes me laugh.
The interesting thing about this turn of events is that I'm actually looking forward to a jam-packed schedule that takes me far away every week. There's even a possible trip to Botswana out there this summer sometime. Two years ago I was so sick of airports and hotels that I quit my job with the intention of never getting on a plane again, except maybe for vacation.
But lately I've been bored and restless. I find myself somewhat excited to get back on the road. Not to mention my discovery that the old gypsy lifestyle is a lot more lucrative, hour-for-hour, than what I am doing back home in Indiana.
So here's to late flights, overbooked hotels, stupid TSA drones, bad rental cars, middle seats in coach, obnoxious clients, lost luggage, and bad restaurants. After two years in exile, I have returned.
Which reminds me, I have one week to get a letter from somewhere that won't get me held up at the border when I go to Canada. Gives me a kind of funny thought - me, a US wetback crossing into Canada to take work from a Canadian. Makes me laugh.
The interesting thing about this turn of events is that I'm actually looking forward to a jam-packed schedule that takes me far away every week. There's even a possible trip to Botswana out there this summer sometime. Two years ago I was so sick of airports and hotels that I quit my job with the intention of never getting on a plane again, except maybe for vacation.
But lately I've been bored and restless. I find myself somewhat excited to get back on the road. Not to mention my discovery that the old gypsy lifestyle is a lot more lucrative, hour-for-hour, than what I am doing back home in Indiana.
So here's to late flights, overbooked hotels, stupid TSA drones, bad rental cars, middle seats in coach, obnoxious clients, lost luggage, and bad restaurants. After two years in exile, I have returned.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
I Apologize
I am so sorry. I've been blind, but now I see the light. I hereby declare that the days of my disrespect for the tenets of the theology of Political Correctness have ended.
I have much to apologize for, so let's get started:
I'm sorry for:
Supporting the Iraq War. I now understand that war is never justified. Only United Nations led "Peacekeeping" missions are an acceptable use of military force, and even then they should not be allowed to carry weapons. So I now understand that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction from oppressed Muslims, and if we just stop being the bullies of the world they will be our friends.
Respecting and Supporting the President. I'm sorry that I have been so blind as to miss that Bush is the most vile, evil President in the History of this country. Why, he's killing and torturing innocent people all over the world to enrich Halliburton. And he's starving and denying healthcare to millions of Americans. Sorry for not believing all of this simply because I haven't seen any evidence; I must trust the word of the priests of PC from now on. Impeach Bush Now!
Thinking the Gay lifestyle is immoral. How dare I apply Christian principles to judge anyone else's behavior. How outrageous for me to suggest that many in the Gay community are predators who lure young teens and impressionable college students into their "cause" by preying on their vulnerability and search for personal identity. How outrageous were my criticisms of those who have been knowingly spreading AIDS to multiple partners as if it were some sort of initiation.
Being a White Male Christian and Catholic. I am ashamed to be a member of the race and religion that has brutally suppressed so many people on this planet over the centuries. How could I live with myself to be associated with such repressive, judgemental, oppressive, polluting, and insensitive groups. We should all be rounded up and executed or imprisoned.
Being Rich. Until now, I never thought of myself as rich. I have a modest house in the country, drive a 7-year-old SUV, and my wife drives an 11-year-old minivan. But according to those who know, I'm unfairly wealthy. It's so unfair that I work all these hours to earn money when others who don't work only get the 50 percent of my earnings that the government took to redistribute to them. I now understand that I'm not paying my fair share. I deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for my insensitivity and unwillingness to share more of my money with those more deserving of it than me.
Underpaying Taxes. How could I have been so callous as to express frustration with the fact that the government takes nearly half of everything I earn in taxes. I didn't understand that the government is much better qualified to spend my money than I. It's the American Way to freely give up half my earnings to the government so they can give it to others who are more deserving.
Opposing Abortion. I'm a man. How can a man possibly understand the issue of abortion? I should butt out and leave the decisions up to women, who are the only ones qualified to make such decisions. What a horrible person I've been to be outraged and call "barbaric" the current practice of killing a full-term infant right before delivery by sticking a syringe into it's cranium and extracting the brain matter so the dead baby can then be fully delivered and disposed of. I've been so judgemental in believing that it might be immoral to kill an unborn baby just because one got pregnant by accident. So I now understand that it's none of my business, and it's wrong for me to judge any woman for a decision she makes about her own body.
Opposing Illegal Immigration. How racist of me to believe it unfair to legal immigrants that we allow millions of people to sneak into the country from Mexico. How stingy to suggest that the massive influx of illegals is bankrupting our social and healthcare services, making life worse for legal taxpaying citizens. How misguided my belief that all manner of criminals, gang members, drug runners, and maybe even terrorists could be sneaking across the border along with the poor people just looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
So you see, I understand now, and have bowed to the altar of Political Correctness. Anyone care to join me?
I have much to apologize for, so let's get started:
I'm sorry for:
Supporting the Iraq War. I now understand that war is never justified. Only United Nations led "Peacekeeping" missions are an acceptable use of military force, and even then they should not be allowed to carry weapons. So I now understand that 9/11 was a justifiable reaction from oppressed Muslims, and if we just stop being the bullies of the world they will be our friends.
Respecting and Supporting the President. I'm sorry that I have been so blind as to miss that Bush is the most vile, evil President in the History of this country. Why, he's killing and torturing innocent people all over the world to enrich Halliburton. And he's starving and denying healthcare to millions of Americans. Sorry for not believing all of this simply because I haven't seen any evidence; I must trust the word of the priests of PC from now on. Impeach Bush Now!
Thinking the Gay lifestyle is immoral. How dare I apply Christian principles to judge anyone else's behavior. How outrageous for me to suggest that many in the Gay community are predators who lure young teens and impressionable college students into their "cause" by preying on their vulnerability and search for personal identity. How outrageous were my criticisms of those who have been knowingly spreading AIDS to multiple partners as if it were some sort of initiation.
Being a White Male Christian and Catholic. I am ashamed to be a member of the race and religion that has brutally suppressed so many people on this planet over the centuries. How could I live with myself to be associated with such repressive, judgemental, oppressive, polluting, and insensitive groups. We should all be rounded up and executed or imprisoned.
Being Rich. Until now, I never thought of myself as rich. I have a modest house in the country, drive a 7-year-old SUV, and my wife drives an 11-year-old minivan. But according to those who know, I'm unfairly wealthy. It's so unfair that I work all these hours to earn money when others who don't work only get the 50 percent of my earnings that the government took to redistribute to them. I now understand that I'm not paying my fair share. I deserve to be driven into bankruptcy for my insensitivity and unwillingness to share more of my money with those more deserving of it than me.
Underpaying Taxes. How could I have been so callous as to express frustration with the fact that the government takes nearly half of everything I earn in taxes. I didn't understand that the government is much better qualified to spend my money than I. It's the American Way to freely give up half my earnings to the government so they can give it to others who are more deserving.
Opposing Abortion. I'm a man. How can a man possibly understand the issue of abortion? I should butt out and leave the decisions up to women, who are the only ones qualified to make such decisions. What a horrible person I've been to be outraged and call "barbaric" the current practice of killing a full-term infant right before delivery by sticking a syringe into it's cranium and extracting the brain matter so the dead baby can then be fully delivered and disposed of. I've been so judgemental in believing that it might be immoral to kill an unborn baby just because one got pregnant by accident. So I now understand that it's none of my business, and it's wrong for me to judge any woman for a decision she makes about her own body.
Opposing Illegal Immigration. How racist of me to believe it unfair to legal immigrants that we allow millions of people to sneak into the country from Mexico. How stingy to suggest that the massive influx of illegals is bankrupting our social and healthcare services, making life worse for legal taxpaying citizens. How misguided my belief that all manner of criminals, gang members, drug runners, and maybe even terrorists could be sneaking across the border along with the poor people just looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
So you see, I understand now, and have bowed to the altar of Political Correctness. Anyone care to join me?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Math Morons
Why do American students stink in Math?
This might have something to do with it:
The article this came from says that the teachers unions believe the solution to the problem is higher salaries for teachers.
I believe everybody is missing the larger points. While I'd certainly agree that teacher competence in the subject area is critically important, addressing that problem alone will do little to solve the problem.
Even highly competent Math teachers can't produce better results if they are imprisoned in a system that tolerates mediocrity, places "self-esteem" above results, and punishes teachers for setting high standards.
Let's say your local High School has on its faculty the best Math teacher in America. He has advanced degrees in Mathematics, along with the unique ability to make his classes interesting and challenging for his students.
But to really excel, he knows that Math education requires effort and attention from students. Not an extreme effort; merely the expectation that each student complete a daily assignment of between 1 and 2 hours. Without this daily homework practice, students cannot possibly absorb the material as they must to advance in the subject.
Inevitably, students complain to their parents that the teacher is unfairly loading them down with homework. Parents complain to administrators that the Math teacher is unfairly assigning too heavy a homework burden on their children. The parents are even more perturbed that their children are suddenly receiving C's in Math, when they have always been given A's in the past. Local activists petition the School Board to censure the teacher, because minority students are unable to complete assignments and are therefore failing his Math classes. And the High School coaches complain to the administration that their star players are in danger of becoming academically ineligible because they are failing his Math class.
What happens next? The Math Teacher is summoned to the Principal's office, where he is given a choice: He can either lower his standards so that 95% of his students pass the class, or he can be reassigned to teaching in the Learning Disabled program and become the Detention Supervisor and Lunchroom Supervisor. (We'll assume he is tenured, so they can't fire him.)
The result: A disillusioned Math Teacher who may no longer challenge his students to excellence, but must accept mediocrity and pass nearly everyone. He marks the rest of his teaching career by doing his best to teach and inspire students who don't want to be inspired and giving away inflated grades to students who never really learned the subject matter. If he's lucky, he finds a way to be encouraged by the handful of truly motivated and talented students who pay attention in class and absorb what they need from him to succeed in College.
So if you think increasing the numbers of qualified Math and Science teachers in schools will solve the problem, go right ahead. Will that action bring results? Not so much as 1 percentage point.
This might have something to do with it:
As it is now, fewer than a third of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students score at the proficient level in math. And U.S. students score below the international average on tests of math and science knowledge.
Inadequate instruction is at least part of the reason for those scores. An estimated 38% of math teachers in grades 7-12 lack either a major or minor in math.
- USA TodayThe article this came from says that the teachers unions believe the solution to the problem is higher salaries for teachers.
I believe everybody is missing the larger points. While I'd certainly agree that teacher competence in the subject area is critically important, addressing that problem alone will do little to solve the problem.
Even highly competent Math teachers can't produce better results if they are imprisoned in a system that tolerates mediocrity, places "self-esteem" above results, and punishes teachers for setting high standards.
Let's say your local High School has on its faculty the best Math teacher in America. He has advanced degrees in Mathematics, along with the unique ability to make his classes interesting and challenging for his students.
But to really excel, he knows that Math education requires effort and attention from students. Not an extreme effort; merely the expectation that each student complete a daily assignment of between 1 and 2 hours. Without this daily homework practice, students cannot possibly absorb the material as they must to advance in the subject.
Inevitably, students complain to their parents that the teacher is unfairly loading them down with homework. Parents complain to administrators that the Math teacher is unfairly assigning too heavy a homework burden on their children. The parents are even more perturbed that their children are suddenly receiving C's in Math, when they have always been given A's in the past. Local activists petition the School Board to censure the teacher, because minority students are unable to complete assignments and are therefore failing his Math classes. And the High School coaches complain to the administration that their star players are in danger of becoming academically ineligible because they are failing his Math class.
What happens next? The Math Teacher is summoned to the Principal's office, where he is given a choice: He can either lower his standards so that 95% of his students pass the class, or he can be reassigned to teaching in the Learning Disabled program and become the Detention Supervisor and Lunchroom Supervisor. (We'll assume he is tenured, so they can't fire him.)
The result: A disillusioned Math Teacher who may no longer challenge his students to excellence, but must accept mediocrity and pass nearly everyone. He marks the rest of his teaching career by doing his best to teach and inspire students who don't want to be inspired and giving away inflated grades to students who never really learned the subject matter. If he's lucky, he finds a way to be encouraged by the handful of truly motivated and talented students who pay attention in class and absorb what they need from him to succeed in College.
So if you think increasing the numbers of qualified Math and Science teachers in schools will solve the problem, go right ahead. Will that action bring results? Not so much as 1 percentage point.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Diversity Lie
Diversity is a code word. Everyone has to be in favor of diversity, or risk being called nasty names.
If the true meaning of the word is that we all need to respect each other, regardless of our race or religion or economic background, then it's a worthy concept. But if you listen to the thought police who currently define the word, you'll find out that it is just a big lie.
Diversity is one-sided. Today's definition of diversity is absolute support and embrace of gay rights, with hatred and vilification of any people of faith that have the temerity to suggest it's not a healthy lifestyle. Another definition is that we must embrace and respect diverse religions, except of course Christianity and Judaism, which can be vilified freely. Diversity means that immigrants should not be forced to learn English or be folded into the great American "melting pot", but should join their homogeneous communities that don't embrace American language, culture, or values.
And, of course, diversity means opposing the government, especially if it's Republican. It means fomenting communist, anarchist, socialist, and other anti-American political views. It means suppressing any sort of conservative thought in the Universities, to the point of banning conservative student groups or in extreme cases expelling students who simply voice an opinion they deem "anti-diversity".
I saw an article today about a group of University Professors who have joined some other far-left organizations to fight back against David Horowitz's campaign for a "College Student's Bill of Rights". This new group claims to be fighting against Horowitz's repressive ideas that will stifle diversity of thought in the Universities.
That's funny, because Horowitz's campaign is all about diversity of thought. He's not saying that the communist college professors should shut up about their views. He's actually saying that those professors should stop punishing students that don't subscribe to those views. Plus that a half-hour diatribe with the tired old "Bush sucks" and "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric is probably not appropriate in an English or Math class; if you're going to have political discourse, save it for the political science, current affairs, and similar classes in which the topic is actually relevant.
Parents like me who are being hammered with outrageous tuition and fees for college-age kids don't want to hear that their kids are sitting in their English or Math or Science classes getting some communist indoctrination instead of what we're paying for them to study. Fortunately I don't think there's much of that going on with my two collegians.
If you're really sold on the concept of diversity, let me make just one request. Go right ahead and respect people of all races, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and political views as much as you like. But do just that - respect them all! Don't exclude those whose diverse opinions and lifestyles you disdain.
I'll bet that's hard for you, isn't it? Still believe in the lefty definition of diversity?
If the true meaning of the word is that we all need to respect each other, regardless of our race or religion or economic background, then it's a worthy concept. But if you listen to the thought police who currently define the word, you'll find out that it is just a big lie.
Diversity is one-sided. Today's definition of diversity is absolute support and embrace of gay rights, with hatred and vilification of any people of faith that have the temerity to suggest it's not a healthy lifestyle. Another definition is that we must embrace and respect diverse religions, except of course Christianity and Judaism, which can be vilified freely. Diversity means that immigrants should not be forced to learn English or be folded into the great American "melting pot", but should join their homogeneous communities that don't embrace American language, culture, or values.
And, of course, diversity means opposing the government, especially if it's Republican. It means fomenting communist, anarchist, socialist, and other anti-American political views. It means suppressing any sort of conservative thought in the Universities, to the point of banning conservative student groups or in extreme cases expelling students who simply voice an opinion they deem "anti-diversity".
I saw an article today about a group of University Professors who have joined some other far-left organizations to fight back against David Horowitz's campaign for a "College Student's Bill of Rights". This new group claims to be fighting against Horowitz's repressive ideas that will stifle diversity of thought in the Universities.
That's funny, because Horowitz's campaign is all about diversity of thought. He's not saying that the communist college professors should shut up about their views. He's actually saying that those professors should stop punishing students that don't subscribe to those views. Plus that a half-hour diatribe with the tired old "Bush sucks" and "Bush is Hitler" rhetoric is probably not appropriate in an English or Math class; if you're going to have political discourse, save it for the political science, current affairs, and similar classes in which the topic is actually relevant.
Parents like me who are being hammered with outrageous tuition and fees for college-age kids don't want to hear that their kids are sitting in their English or Math or Science classes getting some communist indoctrination instead of what we're paying for them to study. Fortunately I don't think there's much of that going on with my two collegians.
If you're really sold on the concept of diversity, let me make just one request. Go right ahead and respect people of all races, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and political views as much as you like. But do just that - respect them all! Don't exclude those whose diverse opinions and lifestyles you disdain.
I'll bet that's hard for you, isn't it? Still believe in the lefty definition of diversity?
Monday, March 20, 2006
Wired Differently
I've concluded that conflict between people happens for a simple reason: We are all wired differently. Our attitudes, opinions, beliefs, passions, and behavior is driven by who we are, and who we are is determined by a combination of nature and nurture.
There are certain traits and characteristics in each of us that are most definitely hard-wired. I know that my basic personality was there from birth. As were the personalities of my sisters, my brother, my childhood friends, my own children. How else can one explain the varied personalities of all these people, who were essentially born and raised in a relatively homogeneous environment?
I can attest through my own observation to a number of general tendencies:
Women are driven by emotion. Men are more rational (except when it comes to women).
Having an extensive education doesn't guarantee common sense. Just observe the average college professor.
Little education doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid. With the exception of those who coasted through school and never learned to read. There are plenty of relatively uneducated people I've met in my life that have an inspiring amount of wisdom and common sense.
Introverts are born introverts. Extroverts are born extroverts. Introverts can learn to be a little better socially, while extroverts don't believe they have a problem.
Anybody can find God. Anybody can reject God. Everybody has their own reasons.
Talented writers, artists, and musicians generally aren't very good at math. Mathematic geniuses generally have no talent whatsoever.
Great athletes generally aren't very good students. Perhaps it's just a matter of time management. Perhaps they are wired that way.
Me? I have always been the proverbial jack of all trades, which also means master of none.
I was a good student, but not exceptional (too lazy). I was quite good at the humanities, could handle math OK as long as I kept up with the homework, but was awful in science and art.
I was a decent athlete, but not exceptional (too lazy). I'm a pretty good singer, but will never make prime time (too lazy? not sure).
I'm more analytical than creative.
I'm introverted and have no problem with that.
I'm a person of faith.
I'm capable of being the best friend you ever had, but am waiting for you to discover that fact.
I'm not very good at saying "No".
In High School, I belonged to almost all the groups: Eggheads (now called 'geeks', I think), Musicians (now called 'bandies'?), Jocks (still called 'jocks' as far as I know). Well, then again, I sort of belonged to them all but then again belonged to none of them. I stayed away from the drama and choir groups in High School because of the perceived stigma of being a guy in that scene, but when I got to College, I got involved in both, deciding that I wasn't going to let the presence of a few sexual deviants stop me from doing what I found enjoyable.
As if anyone who knows me well doesn't already know all of this ...
IyamwhatIyamandthatsallthatIyam. Popeye
There are certain traits and characteristics in each of us that are most definitely hard-wired. I know that my basic personality was there from birth. As were the personalities of my sisters, my brother, my childhood friends, my own children. How else can one explain the varied personalities of all these people, who were essentially born and raised in a relatively homogeneous environment?
I can attest through my own observation to a number of general tendencies:
Women are driven by emotion. Men are more rational (except when it comes to women).
Having an extensive education doesn't guarantee common sense. Just observe the average college professor.
Little education doesn't necessarily mean one is stupid. With the exception of those who coasted through school and never learned to read. There are plenty of relatively uneducated people I've met in my life that have an inspiring amount of wisdom and common sense.
Introverts are born introverts. Extroverts are born extroverts. Introverts can learn to be a little better socially, while extroverts don't believe they have a problem.
Anybody can find God. Anybody can reject God. Everybody has their own reasons.
Talented writers, artists, and musicians generally aren't very good at math. Mathematic geniuses generally have no talent whatsoever.
Great athletes generally aren't very good students. Perhaps it's just a matter of time management. Perhaps they are wired that way.
Me? I have always been the proverbial jack of all trades, which also means master of none.
I was a good student, but not exceptional (too lazy). I was quite good at the humanities, could handle math OK as long as I kept up with the homework, but was awful in science and art.
I was a decent athlete, but not exceptional (too lazy). I'm a pretty good singer, but will never make prime time (too lazy? not sure).
I'm more analytical than creative.
I'm introverted and have no problem with that.
I'm a person of faith.
I'm capable of being the best friend you ever had, but am waiting for you to discover that fact.
I'm not very good at saying "No".
In High School, I belonged to almost all the groups: Eggheads (now called 'geeks', I think), Musicians (now called 'bandies'?), Jocks (still called 'jocks' as far as I know). Well, then again, I sort of belonged to them all but then again belonged to none of them. I stayed away from the drama and choir groups in High School because of the perceived stigma of being a guy in that scene, but when I got to College, I got involved in both, deciding that I wasn't going to let the presence of a few sexual deviants stop me from doing what I found enjoyable.
As if anyone who knows me well doesn't already know all of this ...
IyamwhatIyamandthatsallthatIyam. Popeye
Friday, March 17, 2006
Defining Extremism
Reading a letter to the editor in this morning's newspaper from the Indiana Director of Planned Parenthood sort of got under my skin.
Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.
The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".
Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.
Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.
Class dismissed.
Her letter was decrying the South Dakota abortion ban, suggesting that those who support that law and might hope for something similar in Indiana are ignorant knucle-draggers. The additional gist of her letter was that to deny women access to "reproductive healthcare" was somehow akin to the worst sort of abuse and repression.
The solution to the abortion problem, according to her, is not to outlaw abortions but to provide sex education and birth control. She railed against those who restrict access to "emergency contraception", which I assume is either the "morning-after pill" or just another euphamism for abortion. And of course, it would be so horrible if women were forced to give birth to "unwanted children".
Reading the letter, I thought that if one didn't know better, it would seem that women just going about their lives minding their own business might suddenly wake up one morning to discover they're pregnant. Like an epidemic of immaculate conceptions, if women can't get abortifacient drugs or easy access to surgical abortion, there would be unwanted pregnancies cropping up everywhere like a rogue viral disease.
Might I suggest a simple sex education curriculum that takes no time at all to present to students everywhere. Here it is in the simplest of terms: If a male and a female have intercourse, it is highly likely to produce offspring. So, boys and girls, if you aren't ready to be parents, it might be a good idea to avoid sexual intercourse. And, by the way, aside from the whole baby-making thing, having sex also includes a relatively high risk for contracting one of many nasty and incurable diseases.
Class dismissed.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Natural Disasters
The spring floods were the worst this year since we moved to the farm. The first spring in the house we got lots of water in the basement, but this time it just won't go away. Every night we're all in the basement, baling and pumping and mopping. By the next morning, it's all flooded again.
It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.
So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.
Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.
It got bad enough that we lost the water heater on Monday. I absolutely had to shower yesterday morning, which must fit the definition of torture. Especially rinsing my hair, which felt like thousands of icicles assaulting my scalp. And my fingers and toes felt frostbitten when I finally stepped out to dry off.
So we finally gave in and called a professional. Someone should show up today, hopefully at least to fix the sump. I was able to get the water heater re-lit last night, and it's so great to have a hot shower when you have been without for a few days. One of those simple things we all take for granted.
Rain in the forecast today. Oh no.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Major Moves
It's quite a catchy name for the deal to lease the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-led consortium for 75 years. The deal seems to have passed narrowly last night on a party-line vote in the State House. The lease deal is a front-loaded payment of 3.8 billion dollars, which is a lot of money for Indiana, even though not all that much by Washington DC standards.
The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.
It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.
The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.
I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.
My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:
1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.
2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.
3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.
One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.
The deal is supposed to fund the I-69 project that finally provides interstate access to the Evansville area. Without the lease deal, the I-69 project was not going to happen for at least another 10 years, and maybe never. And the governor and his supporters are crowing about all the other road projects this deal will fund.
It seems that most of the state doesn't really care one way or another who runs the Toll Road. It crosses the northernmost part of the state, practically within sight of the Michigan border. It's used by plenty of Hoosiers who live in places like Valparaiso, South Bend, Elkhart, my home town of Goshen, and Fort Wayne as a quick route to Chicago or Cleveland.
The people most affected by this deal are those Northern Indiana residents who use the Toll Road routinely, some to get to work every day. They will most likely see their tolls go up, and they will go up dramatically. They can choose to pay the increased tolls or take alternate routes.
I've been on that Toll Road many times in my lifetime, and the major advantage is that it's generally been a fairly clear highway. Traffic on that highway has never been terribly heavy in my experience, and it is a fast means of crossing northern Indiana. Personally, it's not that important to me whether the lease deal happened or not. I am curious to see how the new managers do with the deal, like just how high they will raise tolls, whether the higher tolls will cause already light traffic on the highway to get even lighter, how well or poorly they maintain the road, and what sort of roadside rest stops and food services they offer.
My predictions on the outcome of this deal are these:
1. Tolls will go up rapidly, and within a couple of years we will probably hear about the new managers approaching the State asking them to authorize toll hikes above even those they are allowed by the contract, complaining that their costs somehow turned out to be higher than they expected.
2. We will probably see the I-69 project completed, but we won't hear much about all the other road and bridge improvements the governor promised. That's because if you give any legislature that much cash, they are guaranteed to find plenty of ways to blow it on pet projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure.
3. In about 20 years, there will be some sort of crisis over the unforseen consequences of this deal. The crisis will have something to do with a cash-strapped legislature looking around for new sources of revenue and cursing former governor Daniels for giving the Toll Road away back in '06. Of course, by then they will have forgotten the fact that the Indiana Toll Road under government management never turned a profit.
One thing is becoming apparent. Whether all of the changes Gov. Daniels has pushed through in his brief time in office benefit Indiana in the long run will take the long run to find out. And that's too far in the future to give him much of a shot at re-election to a second term. Between the huge numbers of Hoosiers upset with him over Daylight Savings Time and the controversy of the Toll Road deal, it doesn't seem possible for him to hold the governor's seat against any credible opponent next election.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Story Time
Here's a funny story from my trip to the grocery store yesterday.
After work, I stopped in at the grocery to pick up just a few things before going home. Trying to get in and out quickly, I walked fast until I was forced to fall in behind an older woman who was moving rather slowly.
She looked rather like Miss Gulch. Think this picture without the hat. But less attractive.
Grocery store aisles are generally about 2 people wide, but my slow-moving and oblivious friend was meandering straight down the middle, stopping every few steps to examine some bit of produce. And there was simply no way I could get past her, until finally a detour opened up around one of the produce tables.
I proceeded to grab the oranges and bananas I wanted from the produce aile, then moved further into the store. But almost immediately after moving away from the fresh fruits, she somehow caught up with me and pushed her cart directly into my path. I had to stop in mid-stride, finding myself once again caught in her very own bizarre grocery store traffic jam. Although she showed no sign of even sensing my presence behind her, I couldn't help but wonder if she was secretly reveling in her successful obstruction of my progress.
Patiently, I waited for another opportunity to get around her, by this time thinking (rather uncharitably, I admit), "What a hag". And finally the opportunity presented itself, and I proceeded into the next aisle in search of the rest of my shopping list.
But my encounter with the Wicked Witch of the West wasn't over yet. I arrived at the back of the store and walked past the meat cases toward the cheese and butter, and there she was. She was stopped in front of the beef, talking with someone on her cellphone. Now, the aisle is extra wide in the back, probably enough for 3 people with carts. But she had the whole thing covered. She was standing next to the beef case, with the cart positioned diagonally to her left and across the entire aisle. My first thought was wondering who in the world would voluntarily chat with that woman on the phone?
Between me and Madam Gulch was a young mother with a toddler in her cart, looking somewhat perplexed. I imagined that she was considering whether to intrude on Ms. Gulch's conversation to request passage through the aisle. I couldn't help myself, and briefly let out a laugh. That drew a smile from the young mother and even a glance from Ms. Gulch, who nonetheless seemingly remained oblivious to the plight of the shoppers she was inconveniencing. Two other shoppers approached behind me, and I wondered how long the line would become before Lady Gulch got the hint.
Instead of waiting around to find out, I ducked into another aisle to go around. And felt fortunate when I picked up my last items without a further encounter with Ms. Gulch. That is, until I approached the checkout lanes.
But this time I would not be blocked again. I spotted her several feet away, and so quickened my step and ducked into the self-service checkout. "Hah!" I thought to myself. I had foiled her evil plans.
I scanned and bagged my groceries, headed to the parking lot and home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)