He's Back

It's great to be back in the good ol' USA.

There's much I could write about, but after spending literally the whole weekend in airports and on airplanes and getting very little sleep, I don't have the energy.

What I can say is a trip like that can really impact one's perspective.

They say they want me back. I said schedule it for February, when the weather's horrible back in Indiana. We will see.

Must rest.

Up and Away

Here I thought I'd sworn off politics for awhile, and then that previous post appears almost without my conscious knowledge. Surreal. Good ideas there, I think, but I've got to stop deluding myself into thinking anybody else cares.

Now it seems like a pretty good deal to escape the cold, rainy, and maybe snowy weather here for two weeks in Jamaica. I just feel a bit of stress because of a lack of information.

I don't know what the client's "guest house" is. It could be a princely place or a dump, and I won't know until I get there.

They are providing me with a driver while I'm there. I don't know if it's a personal chauffer or somebody off the street who shows up when he feels like it in a Yugo.

They promised to "take care of me" over the weekend. I don't know what that means exactly, or whether I really want to be taken care of.

Some might find all this exciting. I suppose I do too, in a way, but I'd rather know a lot more about what to expect before climbing on the plane.

When I get home, it's laundry and repack and sleep before driving right back to the airport for a trip to Nevada the next day. The thought exhausts me.

I'm going out on a limb and predicting this is the last post you'll see from me for at least 2, and possibly 3 weeks. Hope you can survive without my semi-regular tidbits of reason and wisdom.

Out.

Rethinking Conventional Wisdom

I recall being told back in high school that the evil racists in the south had implemented laws like poll taxes and literacy tests to deny black people the right to vote.

I'm now wondering, were they trying to deny the vote based on race, or was there some other objective?

First, let's eliminate the poll tax idea. Whether racist or not, citizens should never be charged any amount of money to participate in electing their representatives.

But what about literacy?

How can a democracy survive if a plurality of its voters -

Have no idea what is in the Consititution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence?

Have no idea who the candidates are, their qualifications or lack thereof, and what policies they would support in office?

Vote for a Presidential Candidate based solely on a bit of propaganda they saw on TV, and/or is simply the more physically attractive?

Suppose we passed a simple law: You can register to vote at your local BMV branch. To get your voting card, you must meet the following criteria -

Prove you are over 18 and a citizen of the United States
You have no felony convictions
You pass a 10-minute exam, proving you understand the fundamentals of your country's government. It takes an 80% to pass. If you fail, you may return and take it again in 6 months.
In English only.

Here's a great idea - when you're registered to vote, the voter registration authorization is indicated on your drivers license. One picture ID takes care of it all. It also indicates in what precinct you are registered. If you don't have a drivers license, then you can be issued a free voter registration id card with your picture.

Then at the polls, you will just be required to show your ID and sign in before voting.

This solves all the problems of voter fraud and guarantees that all voters at least have a clue about their representative government.

I know, Democrats will call this racist. But I say they're the racists, because in the very process of calling this very common-sense approach racist, they are proving a condescending attitude toward racial minorities that assumes they are incapable of passing a simple test. I say it's racist to denigrate any racial minority so egregiously.

The cynic in me says that the real reason Democrats would oppose this simple plan has nothing to do with race. I think reason is, for decades, they have been cheating at the polls. Stories abound of vanloads of people driving from precinct to precinct on election day, handed a new identity for each polling place of someone the party activists already know is dead or has moved away, but was never purged from the voter rolls.

Many stories as well exist about Democrat activists seeking out and registering illegal aliens, then giving them rides to the polls to cast their illegal votes. Same goes for convicted felons.

Do Republicans cheat in their own ways? Probably. The most credible story I've heard on that side is about Republican operatives taking vans to nursing homes and loading up Alzheimer's patients to take to the polls, where the operatives "assist" them in pulling the straight Republican lever.

Both parties are often accused of buying votes. "Go in and vote for (Insert Candidate Name Here), and I'll give you 20 bucks." Last time around, a Democrat activist got caught handing out crack in return for votes. I wonder how they know for sure that the person they just bribed actually voted they way they wanted - it seems that some might vote for the other candidate just for grins. There's no way I know of to confirm any specific vote cast in the booth, as far as I know.

I'm suggesting that this simple solution eliminates all that voter fraud, and keeps the most profoundly ignorant out of the voting booth.

What's wrong with that?

Bad Language

Personally, I have almost never listened to Don Imus. The tiny bit of exposure I've had to the guy formed a general perception of a rather rude and arrogant wierd sort of cowboy type.

But I think the reaction to his racist/sexist comment about the ladies basketball team was way over the top. Even though the comment was stupid, I don't know the context in which he said it. Whatever he said, he shouldn't have said it, but he shouldn't have been fired for it.

If Imus should be fired and banished from the air for that single, admittedly offensive phrase, then lots of others should also immediately be taken off the air. Why pick and choose who can be offended and who cannot? If we will not tolerate offensive speech for one group, then we should not tolerate offensive speech for any group.

Given the standard applied to Imus, here are others that should be fired and taken off the air immediately:

1. Bill Maher, for publicly wishing somebody would assasinate Dick Cheney.
2. All the Air America talkers for calling Bush a Fascist, Clarence Thomas Uncle Tom, Condoleeza Rice Aunt Jemima, and on and on.
3. All the reporters and columnists at the AP, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, and so on, for the same types of statements in #2.

While we're on the topic of offensive language, then let's extend it to language that offends me. Anyone who says any of the following within my hearing should lose their job and publicly excoriated:

1. Atheists calling Christians weak-minded, ignorant, bigoted and stupid.
2. Blacks calling white people "Crackers".
3. Anybody else using various racial and ethnic slurs like "wop", "polack", "chink", "nigger", "kraut", "raghead", "wetback". In a joke, referring to their own race, whatever. Fired immediately and publicly humiliated, regardless of where or to whom they made the slur.
4. Anybody who ever again calls somebody a "neocon". I'm so sick of that word, that really doesn't mean anything except "evil republican".
5. All obscenities, profanities and vulgarities. Such language is used only for shock value by those without the vocabulary to express themselves effectively.

Should we make the police arrest people for what they say, when somebody might be offended by it? Don't say anything that anybody might find offensive, even if you didn't know it would be offensive to anybody, or you could be fired, arrested, and find yourself excoriated on 24-hour cable news channels.

Does no one else see the insanity here?

Escape to Jamaica

It looks like that's exactly what I am about to do.

The information I have seems to indicate that there will be little or no chance for me to get online during my two weeks in Jamaica. And I don't yet know whether I'll be able to make or receive telephone calls.

That means I have to work extra hard today and tomorrow to wrap up whatever I can with other stuff going on and let other people who may want to reach me know that they can't for the next two weeks. I'm a bit worried about that in a couple of cases.

Go ahead and make fun, but I enjoyed the Celtic Women concert last night in Indy. It's a very polished and professional show and the singers are talented and very well matched for style and blend. The most striking positive for me was the awesome vocal arrangements they performed. Their a capella arrangement of Over the Rainbow was stunningly written and ably delivered. It would be fun to get a copy of that arrangement somehow and teach a quartet of talented singers how to sing it.

First time in a long time I kind of miss teaching.

The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close

In case you don't know already, the school board unanimously chose not to extend Barry Huckeby's teaching contract into next year. It's the only action they've taken in this case that makes any sense.

Unfortunately, we still have to wait for his trial to find out the real facts of the story.

A brief recap for those who may not know, Barry was hired to be the high school basketball coach at Columbus North. He was also a math teacher and assistant athletic director.

Only a couple of months into the job, Barry was in charge of counting and depositing the proceeds from a football playoff game. Unnamed school officials determined that approximately $3,000 of the gate receipts from that game were missing. In the process, Barry confessed to taking some money from the gate receipts, but reportedly only admitted to taking around $50 to buy supplies for the office printer.

He was placed on paid leave while the investigation took place, and finally his case was brought to the school board, which decided to strip him of his coaching and assistant athletic director duties but allowed him to stay on for the rest of the year as a math teacher.

His supporters claim that some of those unnamed school officials acted on a vendetta against Barry, and that the claim of missing $3,000 was falsely created to that end. Others believe that, for reasons only he knows, he did steal approximately that amount, and made up the story about the printer supplies as a cover.

Unfortunately, no details of the investigation have been made public. We don't know what the police investigators know. All those details are being carefully protected from public disclosure, presumably keeping it safely under wraps until the trial. I have a number of questions that I hope will be answered when the trial gets underway -

How do they know $3,000 is missing? The logical explanation can be one or both of these: Nobody gets in free to playoff games, and they have a headcount at the gate to match against receipts. Doing the math showed that they were $3,000 short. Secondly, the ticket sellers at the gate counted the money before handing it off to Barry, and the total sum they gave him was $3,000 more than what he deposited. The first by itself doesn't necessarily mean Barry stole the money; the second almost certainly does.

What high school athletic department anywhere is stupid enough to put one individual in charge of processing the gate receipts? Making it an absolute requirement that a minimum of two people handle the money at every step through the bank deposit is just common sense. Not just to protect against theft, but also to protect the individual involved from any accusation of theft or mishandling of the funds.

If the evidence was strong enough to convince the school board to remove Barry from his coaching and assistant athletic director positions, why was it not strong enough to remove him from teaching? It seems on its face to represent a double standard: A thief can't be allowed to coach the basketball team, but is OK to teach math? Where's the logic in that?

To accept Barry's story of grabbing a few bucks to buy office supplies, you have to believe that he didn't know any better. Stories say that he's been a teacher and coach for something like 11 years. It stretches all credibility to accept that, given all those years around high school athletic programs, he was ignorant about basic practices in handling of gate receipts and requisitioning office supplies.

As an outside observer who has never met Barry, the information that has been released about his case leads me to the logical conclusion that he is more likely guilty than not guilty. The exact amount is certainly questionable, and unless the ticket sellers have solid evidence of their total gate receipts, it may never be known. But it seems unlikely that 500 people were mis-counted or allowed into the event for free.

The losers in this case are the Columbus North varsity basketball team. They had to survive this turmoil and go through a difficult season with an interim coach. The program has been damaged heavily by this incident, and likely will take years to recover.

Too bad.

Church Music

Now that I've ventured into the music topic, it's time to explore the music with which I have the most experience - sacred, or church music.

My family enjoyed singing, and I grew up singing. I started singing in church at a very young age - maybe as early as 4 or 5. In the next 45 years, I've spent more sunday mornings in the choir loft or as the Cantor than in the pew.

I've had the interesting experience of a lot of time in both Protestant and Catholic music programs. I enjoyed the protestant traditions of strong, 4-part congregational singing out of the hymnals. Protestants can sing, and generally sing pretty well. My favorite hymn-singing practice in the Protestant churches is to switch between parts in each verse. Melody, alto, tenor, bass. It's fun.

The Catholics, in contrast, don't sing. Most Catholic masses feature a small choir or guitar group of variable skill singing to the congregation, who at best mumble quietly through the songs. Catholics don't provide hynmals with 4-part harmonies, but simple songbooks with only the melody line printed. Sometimes the books don't even provide the melody line, but just the lyrics.

But the Catholic church has the best sacred music library in the world. The Latin Masses written by history's greatest composers are some of the best music anywhere. I miss the brief times that I've been able to participate in presenting some of those wonderful choral works.

Unfortunately, these days it's hard to find good music in churches. Good organists, or even pianists for that matter, are few and far between. The great old traditional choral music has been replaced by guitars and "contemporary" unison choruses of very simple songs. It's sort of like musical kindergarten.

Most disappointing for me is the trend away from the whole congregation participating in the music, to now the guitar "praise bands" that use the church service or mass as their own performance platforms. I absolutely despise the churches I've visited that project the words to the simple songs on a screen behind the "praise band". As an individual in the pew who has never heard the songs before, I can't sing along, let alone harmonize. Nor do I want to, because the amplifiers are cranked up to a level where you can't hear yourself think and the song is of poor quality anyway.

I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of musical snob. I enjoy a well-composed contemporary song and a good guitar. Some of the modern sacred music is pleasant, if not very sophisticated.

My complaint is more that music is meant to be shared by all in a common worship experience, not performed by a small group of musicians for their own gratification and egos. I've come to the point where I prefer to sing from my church's balcony. The ideal I attempt to find in my singing is to enhance the experience of the Mass for everyone, where they don't even know or think much about who is up there in the balcony providing the music.

After all, we're not there to praise the musicians.

I wish more church musicians could get that.

Musical Illiteracy

What an interesting social experiment in Washington DC.

Would you have stopped to listen?

Would you have recognized the music or the musician?

Would you have recognized the quality of the performance?

Would you have thrown some cash in the violin case?

The actual results of the experiment are disheartening.

Good Friday Sermon

A couple thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher wandered the countryside, preaching about basic philosophies like faith, hope, and love.

He became a sort of celebrity among the ancient Judeans, drawing huge crowds with his simple, common-sense sermons and miraculous healings of the sick and disabled. He hung out with the outcasts of society and disdained the priestly elite. Those outcasts were inspired by his message to change their lives for the better, while the elite leaders of his faith sought to silence him.

So when he entered Jerusalem for the Jewish Passover, the priestly elite arrested him in the middle of the night and held a kangaroo court in which they convicted him of religious blasphemy and political sedition.

But Judea was part of the Roman Empire, and the priests didn't have authority to execute their judgement on this poor preacher. So they took him to the Roman governor, who interrogated the pitiful preacher and decided that he represented no threat to the Empire, and decided to let him go.

But a riotous crowd was gathered by the priests to demand the preacher's execution, so the governor relented, not wanting to foment a riot among the Jews of Jerusalem over one of their own that had somehow offended their priestly elite.

So the preacher was severely beaten, then nailed to a wooden cross for a slow and excruciating death.

The Christian faith was born when this itinerant preacher got up and walked out of his tomb three days after he died on that cross. He was seen, heard, and touched by hundreds of people who attested to that resurrection. And thousands were so affected by the experience that they willingly went to their own horrible deaths only because they refused to renounce their faith in what they had witnessed directly and felt compelled to spread the message to the rest of the world.

Today, Christians are once again vilified and branded as evil by non-Christians. Christians are accused of being "weak-minded" and are considered more dangerous than today's radical Muslim terrorists, even though no actual examples exist of Christian churches conspiring to do anything more dangerous than trying to influence politicians to stop abortion and homosexual marriage.

I wonder why there remains as much hatred today for that 2,000 year old preacher from the other side of the world as there was back when that hatred led to his crucifixion? What so upsets people that they will persecute followers of the preacher who asked us only to love and care for one another? Why does a message of love and redemption strike such fear into people that they would seek to persecute those who wish to convey that message?

Such hatred does not cause me, as a Christian, to hate in return. It only makes me sad. Such hatred must come from some horrible life experience or a misguided brainwashing that has prevented these people from learning the true nature and message of that poor Judean preacher, Jesus Christ.

Brain Programming

Conflict is less upsetting to me lately, although it is still true that I generally prefer to avoid it. In the business setting, it doesn't upset me at all when I know I'm right. That is, if the issue is about something and not about me. What upsets me the most is when I'm personally accused unfairly, especially when the guilty party is either looking on silently or actually making the accusation.

When the issue is not personal, it's fascinating to note that people solve problems in different ways. So many times I've seen people make decisions based on the way their brains are wired. Some make decisions based on feeling and intuition, and others based on available facts and research.

In the business world, intuitive decision-makers are only right when they get lucky. Rational decision-makers are right because they did their homework.

I experienced the contrast directly this week, dealing with managers from two different clients. The first was an excellent manager. She is always pleasant and positive, but at the same times knows how to ask the right questions. She listens carefully to the answers and asks more questions until she understands the problem and possible solutions, then is decisive about her chosen solution. She then assigns the task to a member of her staff most competent to carry out the task, and follows up to make sure it is completed on time and according to her instruction. Finally, she enthusiastically praises the staff member for a job well done.

In contrast, there is a second manager with a very different approach. Whenever she's around, her staff cowers, afraid they will be upbraided for some unknown failure. She knows there is a problem, and is visibly angry, although her staff has noticed that she never seems to have any emotion other than anger. Rather than seeking to understand the problem, she probes deeply to try to find the guilty party. When the guilty party is self-identified, given up by a co-worker, or just chosen as the most likely candidate, a public lynching takes place. Then this manager proceeds to order a staff member to correct the problem. She doesn't identify the solution or give any guidance to that staff member, but simply demands the issue be fixed by that person immediately. The frightened and demoralized staff member then goes off and tries his best to fix the problem, knowing that he doesn't really know how and will be upbraided again tomorrow for failing to fix it properly.

What I wonder about is who hired the second manager, and does that person have any idea what they have done to their organization by doing so?

Confusing Messages

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.