The people in charge are really feeling their oats. It's hard to miss them when channel-surfing, crowing in front of the cameras about how they will use their new power to change things.
But I'm confused. I keep trying to understand what they believe in, but keep getting mixed messages. Maybe somebody with insider knowledge can explain these apparent contradictions to me:
They say they believe in free speech. Except that speech they find offensive. Burning American flags and publicly wishing for the assasination of the President and Vice President are not offensive. But a cross or monument containing the Ten Commandments are offensive, and must be removed from public sight post-haste.
They care about all forms of life. Some of them would like to force us all to become vegetarians so we don't kill any more cows and chickens and pigs. They despise the death penalty for our most hardened criminals. But they vigorously defend the "right" of a woman to kill her own baby anytime up until it emerges from her womb. And they want to help the sick and elderly die early so they are less of a burden on the rest of us.
They despise war and are pacifists. Those who threaten us from abroad must be negotiated. If we give them what they want and try to make them like us, there will never be a need for war. But they love United Nations Peacekeeping missions, where soldiers in blue helmets go to third world countries for show while mostly unarmed and trying to avoid being shot.
They support legalization of so-called "recreational" drugs from marijuana to cocaine. At the same time, they pass laws against smoking and certain foods that contain trans-fats. So do I understand this correctly? I can shoot up with my drug of choice even if it kills me, but I can't smoke tobacco (but a joint would be OK), and I can't eat a cheeseburger and fries?
They claim that the evil rich don't pay their fare share in taxes, even though the rich actually pay more of the national tax burden than everyone else combined. But the evil rich somehow don't include these elites who inherited their wealth or acquired it through political activities. Hollywood celebrities are also exempted from the evil rich category. It seems that the evil rich who are paying the freight on everything the government spends should be punished. But if they're punished, where will the government go next to get their money? Because the rich won't have it anymore after the government takes it from them, and the poor don't pay any taxes.
Finally, somewhat related to the last item, these people fancy themselves as the modern verions of Robin Hood. They claim to want to take vast amounts of money from the wealthy to "help" the poor with everything from housing to food to welfare. Yet somehow most of the money they collect doesn't go to the poor. Instead, it goes to political pet projects and the bloated bureaucracies managed by the friends of the elites, where most of it is spent on salaries for bureaucrats who sit around thinking up new rules for the programs and documenting them in voluminous books nobody reads or understands.
I'm very curious. Why again do Americans vote these people into power?
I just can't figure it out.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Adventures in the Southwest
It's pretty nice staying at the client's resort here in the Albuquerque area. Great time of year to visit the area, too. The only problem is I'm working 12-hour days and can't enjoy it beyond the morning and evening drives.
It's probably not the place to live, though. The locals tell me the area's got pretty serious crime issues. It seems most of them have had their homes or their neighbors' homes broken into, which isn't something I'd want to face.
The really bizarre thing about this area is I've had two strange women try to flirt with me this week. Albuquerque women must be really wierd. Or blind.
Every day, despite working 12 hours, I keep falling further behind. All of a sudden I seem to be popular. Previous clients are calling to ask for me again for new projects, and I think my summer will be fully booked within a week or so. Plus I keep getting pressure to "please, can you just squeeze in a couple days for ...?" I'm buried and in danger of sinking deeper if I'm not careful.
This client wants me to look into a later flight, which I have. I could go home later for about double the original airfare, which of course means I wouldn't get home until around 3AM Saturday. Topping that off, I set an appointment for Saturday at 10. I think I'll try to talk these guys out of the flight change. I like to sleep sometimes, and have to drive to Chicago on Sunday anyway.
It's good to be busy and in demand. It's not so good to be stressed and overworked. Everything in life is a trade-off.
It's probably not the place to live, though. The locals tell me the area's got pretty serious crime issues. It seems most of them have had their homes or their neighbors' homes broken into, which isn't something I'd want to face.
The really bizarre thing about this area is I've had two strange women try to flirt with me this week. Albuquerque women must be really wierd. Or blind.
Every day, despite working 12 hours, I keep falling further behind. All of a sudden I seem to be popular. Previous clients are calling to ask for me again for new projects, and I think my summer will be fully booked within a week or so. Plus I keep getting pressure to "please, can you just squeeze in a couple days for ...?" I'm buried and in danger of sinking deeper if I'm not careful.
This client wants me to look into a later flight, which I have. I could go home later for about double the original airfare, which of course means I wouldn't get home until around 3AM Saturday. Topping that off, I set an appointment for Saturday at 10. I think I'll try to talk these guys out of the flight change. I like to sleep sometimes, and have to drive to Chicago on Sunday anyway.
It's good to be busy and in demand. It's not so good to be stressed and overworked. Everything in life is a trade-off.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Evangelical Conservatives?
Was scanning radio stations over the weekend, which was mostly spent in the car. NPR was interviewing some guy that was supposed to represent an organization called the National Organization of Evangelicals. They were talking politics, and the evangelical guy shocked me.
Shocked because of his positions, which sounded just like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Glossing over the sticky abortion issue, he proceeded to declare that Evangelical Christians are on board with Al on the Global Warming thing, with Hillary on Universal Healthcare, and with Edwards on the "Two Americas" theme.
The guy covered a wide ranging set of Democrat themes, from the "mistake" in Iraq to torture to mercury poisoning to environmental and economic rape by evil big oil to businesses who refuse to pay a living wage or provide health insurance to their employees. And of course, any poor person from south of the border should be welcomed without restriction.
So either he's some sort of renegade, or the folks you would think are the most reliable conservatives have gone over the cliff.
Whenever somebody keeps going on and on about those themes, I just want to ask them a few questions -
If we do what you want and run away from Iraq, what exactly do you think will happen next? To the Iraqis, the Israelis, Us?
Where's everybody that's supposedly being poisoned by mercury? Do you know anywhere in the US that mercury levels are even close to harmful levels? Do you know how the whole mercury story came about? (Bill Clinton left it as a political land mine for Bush when he left office, signing an executive order in his last days requiring impossible and arbitrary mercury standards that Bush would have no choice but to rescind. There's more to the story, if you have enough curiosity to do a bit of research)
Al Gore and his Global Warming alarmists said our coastlines would be under water years ago. Actual serious scientists dispute both the degree and the level of human contribution. Politicians are drooling at the "Carbon Credits" idea as a great new taxation source. Guess how much their solutions will actually impact greenhouse emissions. Are you a sheep?
Ever take economics? Heard of Supply and Demand? What depresses wages? Evil employers who refuse to pay their employees, or politicians who purposely fail to do their jobs enforcing existing immigration laws so millions of poor people stream across happy to take jobs for $5 an hour or less that used to pay two or three times that?
What prisoners are being tortured? What's your definition of torture? What exact forms of torture can you say for certain are currently authorized and utilized?
Health insurance for everybody! Who could be against that? I'm just a bit curious about something, though. The only way you can guarantee universal coverage is to have the government take over. How do you feel about a government bureaucrat making all the decisions about your healthcare, from what medications you can have to what surgeries you can have and when? Do you know anything that the government does efficiently or well? And you want to trust your life to bureaucrats? What are you thinking?
Things are no longer about conservative or liberal. They're now about common sense versus ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance and stupidity have won.
Shocked because of his positions, which sounded just like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Glossing over the sticky abortion issue, he proceeded to declare that Evangelical Christians are on board with Al on the Global Warming thing, with Hillary on Universal Healthcare, and with Edwards on the "Two Americas" theme.
The guy covered a wide ranging set of Democrat themes, from the "mistake" in Iraq to torture to mercury poisoning to environmental and economic rape by evil big oil to businesses who refuse to pay a living wage or provide health insurance to their employees. And of course, any poor person from south of the border should be welcomed without restriction.
So either he's some sort of renegade, or the folks you would think are the most reliable conservatives have gone over the cliff.
Whenever somebody keeps going on and on about those themes, I just want to ask them a few questions -
If we do what you want and run away from Iraq, what exactly do you think will happen next? To the Iraqis, the Israelis, Us?
Where's everybody that's supposedly being poisoned by mercury? Do you know anywhere in the US that mercury levels are even close to harmful levels? Do you know how the whole mercury story came about? (Bill Clinton left it as a political land mine for Bush when he left office, signing an executive order in his last days requiring impossible and arbitrary mercury standards that Bush would have no choice but to rescind. There's more to the story, if you have enough curiosity to do a bit of research)
Al Gore and his Global Warming alarmists said our coastlines would be under water years ago. Actual serious scientists dispute both the degree and the level of human contribution. Politicians are drooling at the "Carbon Credits" idea as a great new taxation source. Guess how much their solutions will actually impact greenhouse emissions. Are you a sheep?
Ever take economics? Heard of Supply and Demand? What depresses wages? Evil employers who refuse to pay their employees, or politicians who purposely fail to do their jobs enforcing existing immigration laws so millions of poor people stream across happy to take jobs for $5 an hour or less that used to pay two or three times that?
What prisoners are being tortured? What's your definition of torture? What exact forms of torture can you say for certain are currently authorized and utilized?
Health insurance for everybody! Who could be against that? I'm just a bit curious about something, though. The only way you can guarantee universal coverage is to have the government take over. How do you feel about a government bureaucrat making all the decisions about your healthcare, from what medications you can have to what surgeries you can have and when? Do you know anything that the government does efficiently or well? And you want to trust your life to bureaucrats? What are you thinking?
Things are no longer about conservative or liberal. They're now about common sense versus ignorance and stupidity.
Ignorance and stupidity have won.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Almost Free
Just a few minutes and I'll be locking the office for a long weekend.
It's my first break since the Christmas holiday, and it feels very overdue.
One stop before the day is over, to present a proposal and hopefully gain some business locally. It's always good when I can work in my own office instead of some random city in North America.
The temperature actually got to 70 today, making this an even better time to take a break.
Off to New Mexico and the old grind Sunday.
It's my first break since the Christmas holiday, and it feels very overdue.
One stop before the day is over, to present a proposal and hopefully gain some business locally. It's always good when I can work in my own office instead of some random city in North America.
The temperature actually got to 70 today, making this an even better time to take a break.
Off to New Mexico and the old grind Sunday.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Missing the Point
I've heard and read various discussions on Education, and find it interesting to hear all the theories about what's wrong and how to fix it, since nobody has really found the point.
Just a few examples of pontifications on why our schools are messed up -
Too much emphasis on sports, especially boy's football and basketball
Too much extraneous politically correct stuff getting in the way of the basics
Bad teachers
Bad parents
Not enough money
God is banned
Distracted and disruptive students
There may be some basic truth to many of the theories presented above, but I think they all miss the larger point.
With the exception of the worse inner-city schools, most American schools turn out a few students who go on to excel in the best colleges in the world. To me, that seems to indicate they at least got something out of their education.
So what separates those high achievers from their non-achieving classmates?
You could say racism, but that wouldn't be correct. It doesn't explain why, for example, students from predominantly black inner-city schools tend to do much worse than their middle-class counterparts from the suburbs and countryside. It also doesn't explain why Asian students seem to do extremely well regardless of where they attended primary and secondary schools.
There does seem to be an economic variable, where it seems someone from a poor family is much less likely to excel in their education than someone from a middle or upper-class family. But even though it does show a trend, I don't think the problem is purely socio-economic.
I think it is simple individual motivation.
What kid who has no particular goals or dreams for himself will bother doing his Math homework? If someone feels abandoned or without personal value because nobody has expressed interest or caring for them as an individual, why would she care what grade she receives in Social Studies? If the kids one "hangs out with" treat anyone who studies and gets decent grades with derision, what's the likelihood he will want to make an effort in class?
The problem with education is that government schools cannot and should not be parents. And only parents can teach children to dream, to be disciplined, to set and achieve long-term goals, and to excel.
Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the dregs and dropouts of society reproduce offspring they teach to continue the family tradition. Unless someone, somewhere, can get hold of these children when they are very young and help them develop a curiosity about the world and big dreams for themselves, nothing will change. And expecting government institutions to do that is neither practical nor appropriate.
Not that it's hopeless. I have some ideas, some borrowed, others my own, that I think could really make a difference. Almost none of them have been proposed by anyone I've ever encountered. Maybe someday I could whisper them into the ear of someone with enough influence to drive them forward.
But not now. Now it's more important to be a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, and blame each other for the problems as they continue to deteriorate.
Too bad.
Just a few examples of pontifications on why our schools are messed up -
Too much emphasis on sports, especially boy's football and basketball
Too much extraneous politically correct stuff getting in the way of the basics
Bad teachers
Bad parents
Not enough money
God is banned
Distracted and disruptive students
There may be some basic truth to many of the theories presented above, but I think they all miss the larger point.
With the exception of the worse inner-city schools, most American schools turn out a few students who go on to excel in the best colleges in the world. To me, that seems to indicate they at least got something out of their education.
So what separates those high achievers from their non-achieving classmates?
You could say racism, but that wouldn't be correct. It doesn't explain why, for example, students from predominantly black inner-city schools tend to do much worse than their middle-class counterparts from the suburbs and countryside. It also doesn't explain why Asian students seem to do extremely well regardless of where they attended primary and secondary schools.
There does seem to be an economic variable, where it seems someone from a poor family is much less likely to excel in their education than someone from a middle or upper-class family. But even though it does show a trend, I don't think the problem is purely socio-economic.
I think it is simple individual motivation.
What kid who has no particular goals or dreams for himself will bother doing his Math homework? If someone feels abandoned or without personal value because nobody has expressed interest or caring for them as an individual, why would she care what grade she receives in Social Studies? If the kids one "hangs out with" treat anyone who studies and gets decent grades with derision, what's the likelihood he will want to make an effort in class?
The problem with education is that government schools cannot and should not be parents. And only parents can teach children to dream, to be disciplined, to set and achieve long-term goals, and to excel.
Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the dregs and dropouts of society reproduce offspring they teach to continue the family tradition. Unless someone, somewhere, can get hold of these children when they are very young and help them develop a curiosity about the world and big dreams for themselves, nothing will change. And expecting government institutions to do that is neither practical nor appropriate.
Not that it's hopeless. I have some ideas, some borrowed, others my own, that I think could really make a difference. Almost none of them have been proposed by anyone I've ever encountered. Maybe someday I could whisper them into the ear of someone with enough influence to drive them forward.
But not now. Now it's more important to be a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, and blame each other for the problems as they continue to deteriorate.
Too bad.
Monday, March 19, 2007
March MadFun
Saw some good basketball over the weekend. As I've always said, College Basketball always beats the NBA hands-down in terms of entertaining basketball.
It was cool to see Butler take down Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16. It's always great to get a smaller school in the mix, especially one from Indiana. I was thinking that Maryland fans must have been upset with the color commentator calling the game for CBS, because he sounded like a Butler fan. Why not? Everybody should be Butler fans, because here's a small school with a bunch of small guys who don't look like they belong on the same court with the big boys, yet they play hard, disciplined basketball and can shoot like, well, Indiana farmboys. Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow find a way to steal their next game from Florida?
Bad news for the Big Ten, though. Indiana was clearly outclassed by UCLA in talent, but showed pure guts in getting a tie with under a minute left. Then they couldn't get the ball inbounds. Game Over.
It really seemed for awhile that Purdue was going to pull off the upset against Florida, but just seemed to fold at the end of the game. It's amazing how far Purdue has come after their last two dismal seasons.
Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan State all were unceremoniously dumped, although Michigan State played a tough game.
Only Ohio State remains alive, and needed overtime to accomplish that.
Who will be the Final Four? Your guess is as good as mine. That's why this tournament is so much fun.
This is supposed to be Spring Break. But I'm working, as usual. Except Thursday and Friday, when I do expect to be off.
It was cool to see Butler take down Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16. It's always great to get a smaller school in the mix, especially one from Indiana. I was thinking that Maryland fans must have been upset with the color commentator calling the game for CBS, because he sounded like a Butler fan. Why not? Everybody should be Butler fans, because here's a small school with a bunch of small guys who don't look like they belong on the same court with the big boys, yet they play hard, disciplined basketball and can shoot like, well, Indiana farmboys. Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow find a way to steal their next game from Florida?
Bad news for the Big Ten, though. Indiana was clearly outclassed by UCLA in talent, but showed pure guts in getting a tie with under a minute left. Then they couldn't get the ball inbounds. Game Over.
It really seemed for awhile that Purdue was going to pull off the upset against Florida, but just seemed to fold at the end of the game. It's amazing how far Purdue has come after their last two dismal seasons.
Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan State all were unceremoniously dumped, although Michigan State played a tough game.
Only Ohio State remains alive, and needed overtime to accomplish that.
Who will be the Final Four? Your guess is as good as mine. That's why this tournament is so much fun.
This is supposed to be Spring Break. But I'm working, as usual. Except Thursday and Friday, when I do expect to be off.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Age of Feelings
I seem to be a member of a small and shrinking group of people that believe reason should be the basis of decisions in life and politics. It seems that there may be a majority of people these days who draw their conclusions about a variety of issues from how they feel about each issue instead of trying to understand pesky little elements like facts and root causes.
Name any issue bandied about in the public square today. One side embraces a point of view with religious fervor because they think they're being compassionate, while the other takes a position based on available fact and historical experience. The religious (and I'm not talking about Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Hindus) become highly offended when one of the tenets of their faith is challenged.
Here's a quick rundown of the big issues of today.
War: You could say it's the war in Iraq, but I think that's morphed into war in general. The acolytes of the new religion say that war is universally bad. In the words of Seymour Indiana's great musician-philosopher John Mellencamp, no war is morally justifiable. So in their world, if we just pull all the soldiers out of Iraq and stop harassing the people there, peace will reign. All that is needed is communication and understanding.
When I read the history books, every single case I've seen where one side stopped fighting and laid down their arms for peace has a name: Surrender.
Gay Marriage: The priesthood of the new religion says that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an intrinsic part of a person, like hair or eye or skin color. Therefore, if two people of the same gender want to marry each other, anybody who says "no" is just a mean bigoted homophobe on par with the old KKK.
Actually, marriage is a holy sacrament that the government has come to recognize as a positive foundation for forming stable families that produce solid citizens. Nobody ever raided any ceremony where two people of the same gender chose to make marriage-like promises to each other, and there's no law against same. If the gay marriage issue is really about obtaining marital benefits from employers and the government, then why limit those rights to gays? Any and every possible alternative definition of a family should then also be given equal rights to marital benefits. If you allow gays, why not grant the same benefits to any other arrangements, whether the people involved are having sex with each other or not? If the government is going to recognize gay unions and say there is no moral standard allowed, then why continue to discriminate against polygamy?
A side note, despite studies that support the opposite conclusion, most people seem to have been brainwashed into believing that gay is something one "is", rather than something one "does". The real story is that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a genetic feature.
Global Warming: The planet is burning! We must stop all carbon emissions immediately! The oceans are rising, the glaciers and icecaps are receding, and wildlife is dying! All because selfish Americans drive SUV's and like to heat and air condition their homes to a comfortable temperature.
Beware politicians (Al Gore) masquerading as climate scientists. Guess what his solution is - levying big taxes on people who exceed their allotted "Carbon Footprint". So what's this really all about? Saving the planet or empowering government? Given a few "inconvenient truths" that for every glacier and ice cap that's shrinking, there's one somewhere else that's growing; that no coastal areas I know of have gone underwater that Mr. Gore said should have done so years ago; and that the global warming priesthood has excommunicated all scientists who question their science (calling them "global warming deniers"); I don't think we need to trade our cars in for bicycles just yet.
I could do more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some real work done.
Have a great weekend!
Name any issue bandied about in the public square today. One side embraces a point of view with religious fervor because they think they're being compassionate, while the other takes a position based on available fact and historical experience. The religious (and I'm not talking about Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Hindus) become highly offended when one of the tenets of their faith is challenged.
Here's a quick rundown of the big issues of today.
War: You could say it's the war in Iraq, but I think that's morphed into war in general. The acolytes of the new religion say that war is universally bad. In the words of Seymour Indiana's great musician-philosopher John Mellencamp, no war is morally justifiable. So in their world, if we just pull all the soldiers out of Iraq and stop harassing the people there, peace will reign. All that is needed is communication and understanding.
When I read the history books, every single case I've seen where one side stopped fighting and laid down their arms for peace has a name: Surrender.
Gay Marriage: The priesthood of the new religion says that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an intrinsic part of a person, like hair or eye or skin color. Therefore, if two people of the same gender want to marry each other, anybody who says "no" is just a mean bigoted homophobe on par with the old KKK.
Actually, marriage is a holy sacrament that the government has come to recognize as a positive foundation for forming stable families that produce solid citizens. Nobody ever raided any ceremony where two people of the same gender chose to make marriage-like promises to each other, and there's no law against same. If the gay marriage issue is really about obtaining marital benefits from employers and the government, then why limit those rights to gays? Any and every possible alternative definition of a family should then also be given equal rights to marital benefits. If you allow gays, why not grant the same benefits to any other arrangements, whether the people involved are having sex with each other or not? If the government is going to recognize gay unions and say there is no moral standard allowed, then why continue to discriminate against polygamy?
A side note, despite studies that support the opposite conclusion, most people seem to have been brainwashed into believing that gay is something one "is", rather than something one "does". The real story is that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a genetic feature.
Global Warming: The planet is burning! We must stop all carbon emissions immediately! The oceans are rising, the glaciers and icecaps are receding, and wildlife is dying! All because selfish Americans drive SUV's and like to heat and air condition their homes to a comfortable temperature.
Beware politicians (Al Gore) masquerading as climate scientists. Guess what his solution is - levying big taxes on people who exceed their allotted "Carbon Footprint". So what's this really all about? Saving the planet or empowering government? Given a few "inconvenient truths" that for every glacier and ice cap that's shrinking, there's one somewhere else that's growing; that no coastal areas I know of have gone underwater that Mr. Gore said should have done so years ago; and that the global warming priesthood has excommunicated all scientists who question their science (calling them "global warming deniers"); I don't think we need to trade our cars in for bicycles just yet.
I could do more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some real work done.
Have a great weekend!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Hump Day Musings
Taxes are done. The rest of the mountain is being moved one shovelfull at a time. The good news is I've shut off any further booking between now and late May. There's comfort in knowing I'll be staying busy for awhile. Now if I could just get the comfort that I'll stay busy for the next 10 years, I've got it made.
Talked with an old co-worker today, who filled me in on the current state of corporate politics. It's nice to be reminded how blessed I am to be immune from the machinations of real-life caricatures from Dilbert land.
The silliness of state and national governments still keeps me on a tightrope between guffaws and sobs, but I'm ignoring it more all the time. I know that when too many people like me tune out it just helps the kooks gain even more power, but how much silliness can a citizen take? The silliness either means most of our country is stupid or that they aren't paying attention. I'm hoping it's the latter.
Posting only because of a lull in the storm that has been today. After juggling several things all day long, suddenly I'm now waiting for others to do their part before I can continue. Just the nature of this business, I suppose.
Got a big check in the mail but I don't know what it's for. Too bad it's probably a mistake. Otherwise, I think I'd take it out and plop it down on a new car.
Talked with an old co-worker today, who filled me in on the current state of corporate politics. It's nice to be reminded how blessed I am to be immune from the machinations of real-life caricatures from Dilbert land.
The silliness of state and national governments still keeps me on a tightrope between guffaws and sobs, but I'm ignoring it more all the time. I know that when too many people like me tune out it just helps the kooks gain even more power, but how much silliness can a citizen take? The silliness either means most of our country is stupid or that they aren't paying attention. I'm hoping it's the latter.
Posting only because of a lull in the storm that has been today. After juggling several things all day long, suddenly I'm now waiting for others to do their part before I can continue. Just the nature of this business, I suppose.
Got a big check in the mail but I don't know what it's for. Too bad it's probably a mistake. Otherwise, I think I'd take it out and plop it down on a new car.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Good Weather and No Travel Just What Doc Ordered
It's not a week off, because I'm still way behind, but it's shaping up to be a decent week. No travel and the weather's great. What more could I ask for?
Looks like I'll have a back-to-back next month again. Tim thought it sounded great, since it's in Jamaica, but I'm a bit concerned whether I'll be in an area that's safe. My luck I'll get put up in a shack somewhere, have no beach access, and have to watch out for muggers on the way to and from the client every day. I guess Tim thinks that's how an old guy would think.
Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe it will be fun. We'll see.
The air's beginning to smell like spring, and we can finally air out the house. It's probably the old stale inside air that made us all sick last month.
Maybe I can find a way toward a personal attitude change. Things I used to think were fun now just seem tiring. That's how my energy level is (or isn't) these days.
Looks like I'll have a back-to-back next month again. Tim thought it sounded great, since it's in Jamaica, but I'm a bit concerned whether I'll be in an area that's safe. My luck I'll get put up in a shack somewhere, have no beach access, and have to watch out for muggers on the way to and from the client every day. I guess Tim thinks that's how an old guy would think.
Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe it will be fun. We'll see.
The air's beginning to smell like spring, and we can finally air out the house. It's probably the old stale inside air that made us all sick last month.
Maybe I can find a way toward a personal attitude change. Things I used to think were fun now just seem tiring. That's how my energy level is (or isn't) these days.
Friday, March 09, 2007
When the Story isn't the Story
The disturbing trend of a monolithic news media acting more like the Soviet's Pravda than a free press was fully evident with the conviction of Scooter Libby this week.
How many people actually know the true story behind unfortunate Scooter's indictment and conviction?
How about you? Do you think that Scooter was:
1. Found guilty of knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, who proved that George Bush lied in a speech where he said that Saddam's Iraq tried to purchase mass quantities of yellow-cake uranium from Niger?
2. Was a pawn in the whole affair, taking the fall for Carl Rove and Vice President Cheney, who were really behind the "leak" but pushed Libby under the bus to save themselves?
3. Was the victim of an overzealous special prosecutor determined to make a name for himself, who caught Scooter making an inaccurate statement about when he first learned of the CIA agent's involvement, and prosecuted him simply for lying to investigators and the grand jury?
If you get your news from the three networks or CNN, you are probably somewhere between number 1 and 2.
Just in case you want some basic facts on the case that you never heard from news reporting, let me try to be concise.
1. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the White House asked the CIA for an analysis of whether British intelligence reports that Iraq was working on a trade relationship with Niger for the purpose of acquiring Yellow-Cake Uranium were accurate.
2. A woman named Valerie Plame worked as some sort of analyst in the CIA, and recommended her husband, a guy named Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and talk with government officials there to see if he could substantiate the story.
3. Joe Wilson was a former low-level State Department employee that served as an assistant to an Ambassador to a country I don't recall. He is a Democratic political operative who hates Bush and his administration, and worked for the Kerry campaign for President.
4. Wilson went to Niger, where he actually found out that Iraqi government representatives had met with Niger officials to discuss establishing a trade relationship. Niger's only unique export of value is Uranium.
5. Wilson came back and gave a verbal report to someone at the CIA, which never went to the White House. Then he wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times, claiming that he was sent by Vice President Cheney to investigate the uranium intelligence, and found no evidence, therefore Bush lied.
6. That became a big story, amplified by an incurious media, who for the most part didn't try to find out who Wilson really was, who sent him to Niger, or where the uranium story came from. Instead, they focused heavily on supporting Wilson's claim that Bush lied.
7. Robert Novak wrote a column about the event, where he exposed the fact that Wilson made the trip to Niger on his wife's recommendation. He and other journalists more interested in the true story than the hyped one began to find out little things, such as the fact that most of Wilson's op-ed was inaccurate and untrue.
8. The media erupted in a firestorm when Wilson himself, disgruntled about his integrity being challenged by Novak, came up with the idea that releasing his wife's name to refute his story was a crime because she was a covert CIA operative.
9. Bush finally gave into extreme media and Democrat pressure, and appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate whether or not a crime may have been committed by someone in his administration.
10. The investigation dragged on for years. Eventually, there was only one person indicted in the affair, Scooter Libby, who was an aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative. He was indicted because he told investigators that he thought Tim Russert of NBC News was the person that first told him about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question.
11. Libby was tried and convicted of lying, because Tim Russert testified that he never even discussed the case with Libby.
So here's why the story isn't the story. It turns out that the original source who identified Valerie Plame was a guy named Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who has no love for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald knew about that almost from the beginning, but didn't allow it to become public until after Libby was indicted. Libby had no role in releasing Plame's name to the press.
As for the idea that the white house orchestrated some sort of illegal "leak" about Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, it actually was never illegal. Because Plame had not been a covert operative in many years, during which she has been working behind a desk at the CIA as an analyst. Fitzgerald claims her role was "classified", but whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant.
Even if people in the white house knowingly leaked her identity to discredit her husband, there's no crime. Even posed as an ethical question, why shouldn't any administration be able to tell reporters the truth about the story to offset the lies and deceptions put out publicly by Wilson? Are they not allowed to at least try to get the truth to the public, even if the majority of the press don't want that truth to get out?
Did Libby lie on purpose or have a faulty memory? I don't really think it matters. Is it obstruction of justice if someone lies, but the lies have no bearing on the facts of the case?
No, Libby isn't a white house scapegoat. He's simply a trophy for Fitzgerald's wall, celebrated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I feel sorry for Libby, and hope he gets a light sentence or even a pardon. Because what he did, even if he consciously lied, doesn't deserve a bunch of prison time. What I think is the bigger problem is the news media, who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this case that they are incapable of unbiased, fair, and factual reporting.
How many people actually know the true story behind unfortunate Scooter's indictment and conviction?
How about you? Do you think that Scooter was:
1. Found guilty of knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, who proved that George Bush lied in a speech where he said that Saddam's Iraq tried to purchase mass quantities of yellow-cake uranium from Niger?
2. Was a pawn in the whole affair, taking the fall for Carl Rove and Vice President Cheney, who were really behind the "leak" but pushed Libby under the bus to save themselves?
3. Was the victim of an overzealous special prosecutor determined to make a name for himself, who caught Scooter making an inaccurate statement about when he first learned of the CIA agent's involvement, and prosecuted him simply for lying to investigators and the grand jury?
If you get your news from the three networks or CNN, you are probably somewhere between number 1 and 2.
Just in case you want some basic facts on the case that you never heard from news reporting, let me try to be concise.
1. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the White House asked the CIA for an analysis of whether British intelligence reports that Iraq was working on a trade relationship with Niger for the purpose of acquiring Yellow-Cake Uranium were accurate.
2. A woman named Valerie Plame worked as some sort of analyst in the CIA, and recommended her husband, a guy named Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and talk with government officials there to see if he could substantiate the story.
3. Joe Wilson was a former low-level State Department employee that served as an assistant to an Ambassador to a country I don't recall. He is a Democratic political operative who hates Bush and his administration, and worked for the Kerry campaign for President.
4. Wilson went to Niger, where he actually found out that Iraqi government representatives had met with Niger officials to discuss establishing a trade relationship. Niger's only unique export of value is Uranium.
5. Wilson came back and gave a verbal report to someone at the CIA, which never went to the White House. Then he wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times, claiming that he was sent by Vice President Cheney to investigate the uranium intelligence, and found no evidence, therefore Bush lied.
6. That became a big story, amplified by an incurious media, who for the most part didn't try to find out who Wilson really was, who sent him to Niger, or where the uranium story came from. Instead, they focused heavily on supporting Wilson's claim that Bush lied.
7. Robert Novak wrote a column about the event, where he exposed the fact that Wilson made the trip to Niger on his wife's recommendation. He and other journalists more interested in the true story than the hyped one began to find out little things, such as the fact that most of Wilson's op-ed was inaccurate and untrue.
8. The media erupted in a firestorm when Wilson himself, disgruntled about his integrity being challenged by Novak, came up with the idea that releasing his wife's name to refute his story was a crime because she was a covert CIA operative.
9. Bush finally gave into extreme media and Democrat pressure, and appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate whether or not a crime may have been committed by someone in his administration.
10. The investigation dragged on for years. Eventually, there was only one person indicted in the affair, Scooter Libby, who was an aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative. He was indicted because he told investigators that he thought Tim Russert of NBC News was the person that first told him about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question.
11. Libby was tried and convicted of lying, because Tim Russert testified that he never even discussed the case with Libby.
So here's why the story isn't the story. It turns out that the original source who identified Valerie Plame was a guy named Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who has no love for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald knew about that almost from the beginning, but didn't allow it to become public until after Libby was indicted. Libby had no role in releasing Plame's name to the press.
As for the idea that the white house orchestrated some sort of illegal "leak" about Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, it actually was never illegal. Because Plame had not been a covert operative in many years, during which she has been working behind a desk at the CIA as an analyst. Fitzgerald claims her role was "classified", but whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant.
Even if people in the white house knowingly leaked her identity to discredit her husband, there's no crime. Even posed as an ethical question, why shouldn't any administration be able to tell reporters the truth about the story to offset the lies and deceptions put out publicly by Wilson? Are they not allowed to at least try to get the truth to the public, even if the majority of the press don't want that truth to get out?
Did Libby lie on purpose or have a faulty memory? I don't really think it matters. Is it obstruction of justice if someone lies, but the lies have no bearing on the facts of the case?
No, Libby isn't a white house scapegoat. He's simply a trophy for Fitzgerald's wall, celebrated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I feel sorry for Libby, and hope he gets a light sentence or even a pardon. Because what he did, even if he consciously lied, doesn't deserve a bunch of prison time. What I think is the bigger problem is the news media, who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this case that they are incapable of unbiased, fair, and factual reporting.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
How to tell it's time for a new car
When you come out of the restroom in the interstate rest area to find a state police officer checking out your vehicle to see if it's abandoned.
The irony is that I've been working like a maniac - the fact I just finished working for the day at 10:30PM in evidence - and still don't feel like I can really afford to go buy a new car.
Just a little tidbit of information related to the new car idea: I got all my stuff together for tax preparation, and found that if not for all the money that went to Healthcare and College expenses last year, I could have bought a pretty decent new car for cash!
Gotta stop thinking about that.
After 2 straight 15 hour workdays, I think I'll cut off tomorrow's workday at 8. I don't care about all the work that's still waiting for me, I need a break!
Yes, there are still about 5 things I'm way behind on, but I'm burned out. I want to just disappear for about two weeks, somewhere warm where nobody can find me.
Gotta stop thinking about that.
Maybe I could apply for the WalMart Greeter job. Seems like a very low-stress job. What do you think it pays? Not quite six figures, is it?
Oh well.
This weekend I hope we have decent weather, because at the very least I better wash old Jed. If I don't get the jalopy washed pretty soon, some cop might decide it's junk and have it towed away.
Oh yeah, and the client I'm working with this week is the same one I worked with last year when Jed broke down. Twice. They asked me if I was still driving the same car, you know, the one that kept breaking down last year. I was kind of embarrassed to tell them, "Yes".
Gotta either laugh or cry.
The irony is that I've been working like a maniac - the fact I just finished working for the day at 10:30PM in evidence - and still don't feel like I can really afford to go buy a new car.
Just a little tidbit of information related to the new car idea: I got all my stuff together for tax preparation, and found that if not for all the money that went to Healthcare and College expenses last year, I could have bought a pretty decent new car for cash!
Gotta stop thinking about that.
After 2 straight 15 hour workdays, I think I'll cut off tomorrow's workday at 8. I don't care about all the work that's still waiting for me, I need a break!
Yes, there are still about 5 things I'm way behind on, but I'm burned out. I want to just disappear for about two weeks, somewhere warm where nobody can find me.
Gotta stop thinking about that.
Maybe I could apply for the WalMart Greeter job. Seems like a very low-stress job. What do you think it pays? Not quite six figures, is it?
Oh well.
This weekend I hope we have decent weather, because at the very least I better wash old Jed. If I don't get the jalopy washed pretty soon, some cop might decide it's junk and have it towed away.
Oh yeah, and the client I'm working with this week is the same one I worked with last year when Jed broke down. Twice. They asked me if I was still driving the same car, you know, the one that kept breaking down last year. I was kind of embarrassed to tell them, "Yes".
Gotta either laugh or cry.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Ready or Not
Time to go back on the road for almost two weeks solid. I hoped to be completely recovered, but not quite. I'm better, but not all the way back yet. Doesn't matter, I have to get on the airplane today. I'll be home for one overnight this Sunday, then have to go right back out again.
Since I had a CASA hearing yesterday afternoon, I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went home and took a nap. Although it just put me even further behind, I enjoyed it immensely.
Here goes ...
Since I had a CASA hearing yesterday afternoon, I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went home and took a nap. Although it just put me even further behind, I enjoyed it immensely.
Here goes ...
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Logic Pretzels
The change in the public political debates since last year's election put Democrats in power is becoming rather fascinating. Sure, the Iraq fight (not the one actually happening in Iraq, but the one in Washington) still gets lots of play. But I'm noticing that there are lots of new left-wing ideas beginning to pop up, because of course, domestic socialism is what that party's really about.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.
What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?
My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.
How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?
I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.
The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.
Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.
You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Could be Worse. But Not Much.
This week has been about the worst on record.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.
So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.
Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.
My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.
But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.
My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.
I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.
Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...
So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.
At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.
Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.
So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.
Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
I'd be a Pacers Fan, if only
I want to follow the Pacers. It would be fun to have a pro basketball team in Indy that was as much fun to watch as the Colts.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
But not this team.
I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.
Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.
We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.
Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.
Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.
We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.
We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.
Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.
Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.
Friday, February 16, 2007
I'm Angry
I'm angry with Congress. Especially Democrats, but also Republicans who screwed up their chance to do something positive.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".
When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."
When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".
When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".
But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".
It's treason.
On Retirement
My half-century milestone is visible ahead, which has me contemplating the idea of retirement.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.
That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.
Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.
In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.
So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.
Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.
Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.
I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Personality Trait
I've become more convinced than ever that political orientation is a personality trait.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.
Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.
Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.
It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.
Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.
Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.
Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.
Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.
But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.
As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
The Sky is Blue
The simple analogy for my experience these crazy days is a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".
The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".
I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".
This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.
I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"
This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.
We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Troubling Times
Simple logic. Critical Thinking. Informed Opinion.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.
If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?
Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?
Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?
Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?
Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?
Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?
Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?
If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)