Around the Capertree

Barack Obama Wants You Weak, Afraid and Dependent

2011-06-17T18:33:00.001-04:00

During the 1988 presidential campaign, then Vice President George H.W. Bush once explained to former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, “Competence makes the trains run on time, but ideology tells us where they’re going.” Today, we’re seeing how wrong-headed governance can drive the American Dream over a cliff. Indeed, it seems that when candidate Obama spouted “Hope and Change” in 2008, he really meant, “Today you may have hope, but I’m going to change all that!”

Oh sure, we should give the president credit for ordering Osama Bin Laden killed (as Mr. Obama so frequently reminds us) but truly, didn’t he simply do the same thing to the terrorist leader that he’s been doing to our economy for the past two and a half years? After massive spending that’s saddled us with trillion dollar annual deficits as far as the eye can see, Mr. Obama is essentially firing bullets between eyes of our nation’s future. I ask, couldn’t we have found a less expensive way to drive unemployment up from 7.8 percent in 2008 to the 9.1% rate at which it now stands?

But is President Obama really incompetent? Or perhaps, unfortunately, he has been a bit too good at doing exactly what he intended. Yes, like most Democrats — and specially those acquainted with the Chicago Way — Mr. Obama readily throws opens the public purse to pay off his friends, just as he also unabashedly wields the power of government punish rivals. But Mr. Obama also gives us corrupt Chicago-style patronage with a purpose. If there exists a healthy, burgeoning economy and a vibrant private sector, the roadblocks to prosperity become few and far between, meaning the role of government becomes diminished in our lives. But for someone who is ideologically driven to see the power and authority of the state magnified; for one whose sense of ego and purpose is intrinsically tied to having dominion over his fellow citizens, self-sufficiency is an appalling proposition.

When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, it devastated the poor people who most rely on government direction and support for their very survival. In the wake of that natural disaster, and with federal, state and city governments incapable of response, there was no aid for the hapless men, women and children who had been crippled and left stranded by a malignant dependency.

Witness Barack Obama’s vision for America.

Three Questions for Barack Obama

2011-06-04T13:28:00.012-04:00

If given the opportunity to interview the man who was elected to the presidency in 2008, I would very much like to ask him the three following questions:

Do you believe that the free enterprise system has been and continues to be the engine for this nation’s economic growth and the primary source of prosperity for America’s citizen?
Do you believe that an individual has the first and best claim to use of the wealth and property he or she honestly acquires—either through hard work, wise investment or good fortune — and that the wealth-producing productivity of private citizens should be commended and encouraged so that they will be free from dependence upon others for their well being?
Do you believe that all individuals should be treated equally before the law, and that there should be neither advantage nor disadvantage administered by the state on account of race, creed, sex or religion, and that every person has an inalienable right to hold and peacefully express their beliefs on any and all subjects without fear of reprisal from the law or its agents?

As for myself, I would answer each question with a resounding and unqualified “yes!” I suspect that Mr. Obama would also answer affirmatively, but then he would spend quite awhile explaining why none of these ideas are acceptable in practice.

In any case, actions speak louder than words and certainly none of Mr. Obama’s policies or pronouncements implies much commitment to the beliefs I’ve outlined in my three questions.

And what I find most troubling is that not only are these my beliefs, history has also shown these concepts to be fundamental to the American ideals. Therefore my question for others would be: "How could I possibly support the presidency of any man who holds to a counter and alien ideology?"

No, I Will Not Be Silenced

2011-01-12T22:10:00.005-05:00

I don’t know to what extent a lot of average folks are paying attention to the Tucson shooting side-show—that effort by liberal pundits, activists and politicians to cast conservatives and Tea Party types as indirectly responsible for the horrific murder of six people (including a federal judge and a nine-year old girl) as well as the terrible wounding of a Democrat congresswoman and 13 others.

Yes, of course, a single madman was responsible, but you’d never know that if “Progressives” had their way.

Basically, this is their game plan: Having lost the public debate about the direction the country should take (as evidenced by the utter repudiation of loser-centric liberal policies in the recent elections) the Loony Left desperately wants to avoid a similar outcome in 2012 by making sure only one side has a voice going forward — theirs. Baselessly claiming that conservative talk radio, Fox News and Tea Party activism is to blame for causing a crazy man to do something violently crazy is the Left’s grotesquely exploitative plan.

Think I’m wrong or perhaps overstating the situation? Look at this way: The objection the Left raises is to people rebelling against status-quo, liberal policies like ObamaCare. It’s obvious that quelling dissent helps keep the disastrous legislation (and executive orders) of the past two years in place. Make no mistake; while they’ll swear they simply want to keep discourse civil, they really just want anyone who disagrees with Lord Obama to keep their mouths shut. You know the drill: “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

I pray that conservatives and libertarians won’t be cowed by this rank intimidation. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Barack Obama is an arrogant, pseudo-intellectual, empty suit pursuing idiotic polices in service to a hopelessly foolish political philosophy. He, his minions, allies and supporting self-interested interest groups must be opposed with all the vigor and to the fullest extent that the law allows. I sincerely feel to do anything less would be a disservice to my conscience and my country.

Lock and load! (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

War Damn Eagle, Anyway!

2010-12-03T22:26:00.012-05:00

On Saturday, my beloved Auburn Tigers will play for the SEC Championship. And if they win, presumably they will play for the National Championship on Jan. 8. As our chant goes, “It’s great to be an Auburn Tiger!” Unfortunately, owing to the Cam Newton Affair, it’s not as great as it could be.

To be fair however, it’s extremely unlikely Auburn would be in any kind of championship without Cam at quarterback. Instead, it’s more likely the Tigers would have finished the season around 4th in the SEC West -- down there about where the Alabama Crimson Tide ended up.

Indeed, all ethical considerations aside, Cam Newton is a most remarkable athlete. Ah, but those ethical considerations … how, pray tell, do we get past that?

And there are sooooo many people in high dudgeon because Cam Newton hasn’t been burned at the stake and the Auburn football program hasn’t been terminated by the NCAA. “A travesty of justice!” they cry. How dare the NCAA not avenge the bruised egos of Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas or LSU fans!?! Truly, if you get down to it, most of the outrage is nothing more than envy and sour grapes. Because if you accept the entirety of the allegations—that Cam Newton’s dad unsuccessfully attempted to pimp his son’s services out to the highest bidder — this year’s 12-0 Auburn team got not the slightest competitive advantage in a single game. Take away every point provided by any impropriety, and Auburn still would have beaten Alabama 28-27.

Oh, but is the Rev. Cecil Newton, Cam’s father, a sleaze? It does seems so. As he allegedly tried to sell his son to Mississippi State for about $180,000, this alleged man of God certainly "sinned" by trying to share in the millions of dollars being raked in by his son’s prospective school, the NCAA and the television networks. Horrors!!! After all, his kid is an “amateur,” which means Cam works for FREE and everyone ELSE makes the big bucks. Cecil apparently had a problem with that, which makes Cecil a scumbag.

But now the NCAA’ s position – and yes it does seem a bit odd given precedents – is that Cam shouldn’t be punished for his father’s sins. True, NCAA sanctions have always been about punishing people who had nothing do with whatever transgression was discovered. Recruiting violation in 2005? Put the class of 2009 on probation … even if the coach has moved on to the NFL and the athlete in question is earning $20 million a year.

Still, we’re supposed to be outraged because fairness suddenly became an NCAA consideration?

Most of us, when thinking about these things objectively, have a real problem with children being held accountable for the sins of their parents (to say nothing of the dozens of Auburn players who aren’t at all related to Cecil Newton). Movies have been made about sons who must redeem their family name. For instance, Worf had this problem in Star Trek New Generation and I daresay, the Klingon had our sympathy despite being a fictional character. Yet, Cam Newton, a real human being, ought to be pilloried and maligned? Go ahead, you decide how you feel.

But maybe you doubt that Cam Newton knew what his father was up to. Surprise! Surprise! Me too! My guess is that Cam knew his dad was shopping him around. But let’s imagine you’re hard-hearted enough to get past feeling sorry for Cam. (With a dad like that, are you surprised that there are allegations of cheating at the University of Florida?) For a moment, stifle your self-righteous indignation and put yourself in Cam’s shoes.

Your dad, a minister, is doing something unethical and you’re going to oppose him? Would you? Really?

Stanley Milgram did an experiment that became a book called, “Obedience to Authority.” He found that most people are willing to torture — even put lives at risk—if instructed to do so by someone in authority. And with the Milgram example, authority basically began and ended with a lab coat and a clip board!

But we’re supposed to fault Cam Newton for not denouncing and disassociating from his own father (who is also a minister) for being a transgressor of NCAA rules? Please!

Would I prefer that Cam Newton have the moral character of Tim Tebow? Of course. Then again, I’d prefer that everyone be like the former Heisman winner from the University Florida. But unless they can point to some unfair advantage, the teams (and their fans) beaten by Auburn should just accept defeat and quit pining for some kind of pyrrhic victory by virtue of NCAA “sanctions.”

You still lost. Get over it.

What's Really at Stake

2010-07-24T23:42:00.011-04:00

Recently George Steinbrenner passed away, and because this year (and this year only) there is no death tax, the Yankee’s owner, shipping magnate and philanthropist was able to bequeath the entirety of considerable fortune to his heirs … as he saw fit. That thought delights me. For as the legendary economist Milton Friedman once wondered, why is it better for a wealthy man to spend lavishly on himself, indulging in every whim, than leave too much money to his children?

I don’t have any children, but I have many friends who are wonderful, loving parents, and certainly I was once a child myself, so I’m still well acquainted with the concept of mothers and fathers “doing” for their offspring. In fact, as far as my circle of friends and family is concerned, anything less than total commitment to their children’s welfare is completely unfathomable. And surely, among life’s pleasures for these people, is giving a gift to a child that will utterly delight the young one.

Now imagine if such a special moment were interrupted by a brutish third party who steps in and announces, “That gift is much too nice. I’m going to insist on something of lesser value for your child.” Unfortunately in this scenario, the entity is so powerful that you have no choice but to surrender a portion of your little one’s joy.

Here then is the question: If it would disturb you to be stopped from giving your child as fancy a toy as you would like, how much worse would it be if this same interloper stopped you from aiding your child with a better education, better health care or — worse still— the life skills and moral character to flourish on their own.

Ultimately, that is the effect of wealth redistribution as favored by the current regime in Washington. And don’t doubt for a moment that Barack Obama and his associates truly want to keep middle-class parents from providing for their children at the best of their ability. Consider leftist opposition to anything other than government/union-run schools, their grab to limit and ration medical care, and an unrelenting assault on the values that made the nation great—namely individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

The magnificent thing about capitalistic, free-market economies and the liberty to make choices is that corresponding societies afford the greatest opportunity for upward mobility (or perhaps more to the point, a much enhanced ability to live a life based on one’s own priorities). For now, the vast majority of Americans (not just the super rich) have access to products, services and entertainments that their grandparents could not have imagined. This includes “doing” for your children, which is another legacy of "free minds and free markets."

But shouldn't we be willing to do with a little less, even for our children, if it means meeting the needs of the poorest among us? I would agree, if I believed that was the goal of left-wing politicians, but it isn’t. Instead, they want power ... and assuming the mantle of charity is merely a means to their ends. Some may want power for personal aggrandizement and some may want to “do good” but make no mistake, they want to rule. To achieve their goal, they seek to corner the market on much of the things that middle class people so readily have at hand. Once you understand this, you’ll understand why Barack Obama is so hostile to economic liberty and free enterprise.

This is the patronage system—Tammany Hall or the “Chicago Way.” If you want good healthcare, to send your children to the best schools, a home in a nice neighborhood … too bad! Your ability to get these things through your own efforts will be put out of your reach, regardless of how hard you’re willing to work or the talent you possess, or yes … even raw luck. (And is luck so bad? Don’t we all, on occasion, fantasize about being lucky?) Instead, you’ll need to show obeisance to the proper authorities, grease a few palms … maybe join the SEIU (the Party).

It is the hope of the statists to make us all dependent on the government for everything. And unless you want to be like the most pathetic of Hurricane Katrina’s victims, (waiting to be rescued because they never learned self-reliance) you will need to learn to adoringly chant something like “Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm! Barack Hussein Obama!”

And we will, because good parents will do anything for their children. Even wear the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama’s War on Responsible Americans

2010-07-10T16:22:00.011-04:00

If you’re someone who works hard to provide well for yourself and your family, tries to instill good values in your children, endeavors to live an honorable life … and hopes to occasionally reap some rewards from all your hard work, I have bad news: You aren’t among Barack Obama’s constituent groups.

And if you know anything about Chicago-style, patronage politics, you know that you’re either with the Machine or you’re food for it.

Seriously, can anyone name a single policy endorsed by the current administration that makes it easier to do any of the things mentioned in that opening paragraph?

Provide for your family? Unemployment hovers around 10% largely because Obama’s profligate spending, eagerness to raise taxes and aggressive moves to regulate every aspect of the economy have so spooked businesses that they are afraid to invest or hire.

Try to instill good values in children? Attempting to bribe one politician with various favors to not run against another one; judicial appointments and a Department of Justice that judges people not by their character but by the color of their skin; government bail outs for bad behavior (personal and institutional) … those are some of examples that Obama is setting for America’s youth.

Endeavors to live an honorable life? Look at the cast of miscreants with whom Barack Obama is associated: Low-life felon Tony Reznik, domestic terrorist William Ayers, “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, the gang from ACORN, SEIU goon squads … if honor was money, they couldn’t come up with a nickel between the lot of 'em! Birds of a feather, I always say.

Hope to occasionally reap some rewards from hard work? Forget about it! The Teleprompter in Chief has plans for your money and it doesn’t include you! Some of your cash is earmarked for people who lead irresponsible lives with no interest in looking out for themselves or their children. (But they vote!) Then he also wants to pay off unions for their support and muscle (the Brown Shirt Brigades of the Obama-Nation). And of course the ruling class itself desires more and more perks and power! Buying votes and controlling everything is expensive. That’s not going to leave a lot of money left over for the people who earned it. Sorry.

Even big banks and corporations are more cherished by Barack Obama and his ilk than the average middle class family. Forget what you've always heard about socialist being for the "little guy." They see no real upside to being for the middle class or small business owners. Not when "too big to fail" policies enable Obama's thug-ocracy to extort more and more concessions against freedom that feed the downward spiral toward mass servitude.

Yeah, face it. If you’re a decent, hardworking American citizen, you fall well below illegal aliens in Barack Obama’s pecking order. And in fact, just because you have the temerity to want to take care of yourself and your family, make your own decisions and build your own future, you dare reject the chains of slavery.

Barack Obama wants to destroy your ability to make a better life for yourself than would be possible by solely relying on government. To that end, his policies are all about lowering your expectations and limiting your options. And as long as you cling to those things (as you might cling to your faith or other freedoms) you are an enemy of the Anointed One.

Independence Day Thoughts

2010-07-02T16:30:00.010-04:00

If engaged in a political debate, how I assess my "opponent" might well include his or her view of citizen “rights.” And frankly, I have a hard time taking too seriously anyone who declares we have a "right" to things like healthcare, or housing, or even food.

Now I’m not saying that as a society — or better yet, as individuals —we shouldn’t be concerned that our fellow human beings have the basic (or even some of the not-so-basic) necessities of life. But one person’s moral imperative to share is another person’s waste of effort (or money). And the simple and unassailable fact is that no one has a right to anything that another person has to provide.

There is a reason why Thomas Jefferson said we are “endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights,” or why we speak of the “Natural Rights of Man.” We make our way in this world with life (a heartbeat), liberty (an ability to choose between options) and a desire for happiness (as we individually define it). You don’t have to ask anyone else for these things. Others (usually the government) can take them away from us — liberals are very keen on curbing that “pursuit of happiness” thing — but absent outside interference, an Inalienable Right is the normal state of affairs from the moment of our birth.

Or think of it this way: If you lived on an unchartered island all by yourself, you would most assuredly have your Inalienable Rights. By contrast, anything else you want on that island, you’re going to have to acquire all by your little lonesome.

But I must admit that there is also a question as to why any rights at all should be respected. After all, why should the government (whether a monarch or the people collectively) be constrained from preventing us from exercising our Natural Rights. What if they have a good reason? I can only (and perhaps lamely) say it is my preference to only render unto Caesar what came from Caesar, and consult with the Provider as to what I do with everything else. But accept that rationale or not, we are left with either very few rights or none at all. And “none at all,” definitely rules out a such occasionally suggested “rights” as paid vacations or bilingual education.

Putting aside the sillier claims, I am especially pleased that our Constitution didn’t stop with protecting the few inalienable rights Jefferson cited in the Declaration of Independence. The law of the land says that government can’t deprive us of property without compensation, it isn’t allowed to keep us from worshiping as we see fit, or forbid us from hanging out with people of our own choosing … to name a few additional protections from tyranny. Yet notice, once again, that those Constitutional Rights are not what someone must give us, but rather are existing abilities and freedoms that shall not be taken from us.

Some people are bothered by the limits on what government may rip away — leading them to say that our governing document is full of “negative liberties.”Of course, what those people see as a negative (government shall not, or Congress shall make no law … etc.), I see as a positive (yes, I may!).

We can debate about what is fair or not fair, what will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, or what Jesus would do. But as for what constitutes a Right — unless you were born with it — you shouldn’t expect anyone to give it you. And if it is your birthright (perhaps your only birthright), you might want to be careful not to let anyone take it away without a fight.

Happy 4th of July!

There's No Other Explanation ...

2009-09-15T23:51:00.007-04:00

For as long as I have considered such things, I have believed as Thomas Jefferson said, “That government governs best that governs least.”

When I was 14 years old, I sent two weeks allowance to Ronald Reagan’s unsuccessful 1976 presidential campaign to wrest the Republican nomination from President Gerald Ford. In high school, during Mrs. Sellers’s weekly current events discussion, (at the height of the farmers' protest movement for 100% price supports) I argued that farmers had no more right to government subsidies than any other business person.

During my college years, I debated with political science professors that we should eliminate about 75% of the federal government. In speech class, I spoke in favor of right-to-work laws (in opposition to unionization) and against the government-sponsored pyramid scheme known as Social Security. Also while in college, one of my greatest Eureka moments came when I read economist Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose, perhaps the best defense of limited government and the free market ever written.

As a newspaper columnist in the mid 1980s I was a consistent libertarian-conservative, espousing a limited government approach to every issue: in favor of legalizing marijuana, pro-gun rights, against mandatory seat-belts, defending private property rights, against minimum wage laws, supporting tax-cuts … and always an ardent supporter of the First Amendment.

My views haven’t changed much. An 8x10 framed color photo of Ronald Reagan hangs on the wall over my desk. I still subscribe to Reason magazine (since about 1984) which carries the slogan, “Free minds and free markets.” I’m a registered Republican and have been for more 25 years. During that time I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates a few times, but only ONE Democrat. (Gladys Chapman, the supervisor of elections in Bay County, FL always spoke slowly in concise, grammatically correct sentences, and as a reporter I appreciated that.)

Before the 2008 presidential election, I took a quiz to see which candidate I should support. Out of all those men and Hillary (about 20 hopefuls there were, I think) Barack Obama was dead last. He and I saw eye to eye 8% of the time. Today, I heard that Obama called Kanye West a “jackass.” As far as I can tell, this is the first position he’s taken since becoming president that I agree with.

Yet apparently none of all that matters … not my political philosophy, my party affiliation, my understanding of economics or the lessons I’ve drawn from history.

No. You see, apparently the real reason I oppose Barack Obama’s agenda for America is because I’m a racist. For all the folks to the far left of sanity, no other reason will do.

Why I'm a Global Warming Skeptic

2009-08-05T10:21:00.006-04:00

There are several reasons I don’t believe in man-made global warming. What follows are the biggest of these (though there are others not mentioned).

First, the warmest year in the U.S. during the past 120 or so years was in 1934. I’ve heard 1998 supposedly came close … but no banana. That means global warming has had 75 years to break the record (with the aid of tons of CO2 emissions) and still can’t do it. Does warming not really mean warming?

Apparently not. Since the aforementioned 1998, world temperatures have leveled off and in fact, since Al Gore’s 2006 Inconvenient Truth propaganda film, have declined about three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit. That may not sound like much, but it’s more than half the entire temperature rise since modern climate record-keeping began around 1880. Oh, you didn’t know that — that all the horrible global warming which is supposedly killing polar bears and threatening to sink Florida beneath the waves, amounts to one single degree Celsius from 1880 to 1998? Hype is an amazing thing when done well. And this why the preferred term has become “climate change.” (When I was a kid, “climate change” was what we referred to as “weather” or “seasons.”)

I’m also put off by the cultic behavior of the strongest adherents of man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Try this, whenever you here the term “global warming” or “climate change” from an AGW alarmist, mentally substitute the word, “sin.” I thought about substituting “Earth” with “God” but Gaia is a wimpy little deity who’s constantly threatened by her creation. Essentially her only line of defense is to die and take the human race with her. Nevertheless, the AGW faithful gives the Taliban a run for the money in the intolerance department.

And a final big reason I’m skeptical of AGW is that I don’t trust the people pushing the theory. I think governmental funding and fear of being politically incorrect has utterly corrupted much of the science that purportedly proves AGW. (The United Nations? Really? People are actually taking the U.N seriously … about ANYTHING!?!) I believe the big companies that are “going green” are looking for ways to make a fast-buck, and liberal politicians are using this “crisis” as an excuse to bring huge portions of the economy, as well as how individuals live their lives, under government control. I don’t like people who use fear to stampede folks into making a rash decision.

Today politics is all about fear. George W. had the terrorists of course, (who actually DID kill about 3,000 people in New York). Two wars and the Patriot Act later though, I have to admit there may have been excess in the response. But today we have Barack Obama who sees “weapons of mass destruction” every where he looks — in the banking industry, with car manufacturing, in healthcare and threatening the environment.

I adored Ronald Reagan as president. He never played on people’s fears. Talk about “yes, we can” … now that was Reagan! Return the nation to economic prosperity? Yes we can! Defeat the evil empire of communist oppression? Yes we can! Be proud of ourselves again as a people? Yes we can! He did it all, and he did it by pushing an agenda of individual freedom and personal responsibility at home, and strength and determination abroad. By contrast, when Obama says, “Yes we can” he means we can turn our back on the economic system that has made America the wonder of the world; we can strip away the liberties that our Founding Fathers tried to protect with the Constitution; and we can forego Reagan’s shining city on the hill for an intermittently wind-powered hovel in government-run housing. Yes, we CAN be miserable!

Obama and his like-minded, left-wing cohorts in Congress will have “misery for all” as the new closing line for the pledge of allegiance. And I’m absolutely convinced AGW alarmism is a major front for making Obama's dream a reality.

Coming soon: But if I Did Believe In Man-Made Global Warming, Here’s What I Would Do

And now for something completely different ...

2008-07-21T22:42:00.008-04:00

I'm tired of writing about Backtrack Oblahblah, but nothing else really comes to mind, so I've dug up some of my poetry.

My Fish is Swimming Upside Down

My fish is swimming upside down
And bumping into stuff.
He is my fav'rite goldfish
But this has gone on long enough!

I think maybe he's just tired
From swimming ev'ry day.
I let him sleep with me last night,
And hoped he'd be okay.

I think my fish went right to sleep
Though it's pretty hard to know.
Fishies never close their eyes
So when they sleep it doesn't show.

When I got up this morning
I put him in his tank.
When mommy changed my covers,
She said my pillow stank.

Now my fish is mostly floating
As he bobs from side to side.
Still he's quite a friendly goldfish
And he gives a snail a ride.

Daddy's looking at my goldfish.
He's got a funny frown.
Now he pats me on the shoulder
And he says, "Come here, sit down."

He sets me up upon his knee,
And he says it's okay to cry.
He says, "For everything their comes,
A time to say goodbye."

He tells me lots of other things
That I don't understand.
But it doesn't really matter,
Cause my my daddy held my hand.

Still at first I didn't like it
But dad knew what to do.
So when it's time to go to Heaven,
I hope someone will flush me too.
-- Capertree

Is It Truly That Hard to Stop Smoking?

2008-07-09T14:37:00.004-04:00

I’d been puffing away for the past 13 or so years — probably up to a pack and half per day. About 12 days ago, I decided to quit. No great revelation led to my decision nor was I persuaded to give up cigarettes by friends, family, or some random public service message. I was nearly out of cigarettes and had a dentist appointment the next day. Since I was getting my teeth cleaned, I figured I could help keep them that way if I stopped smoking.

I’ve had one lapse. The evening that I officially stopped, I had three cigarettes left. About four days later — about two-thirds of the way through ten hours of boring newsletter editing — I gave in and smoked one of those three remaining cigarettes. Then I destroyed the other two.

The addiction part has been less difficult for me to get over than the habit. There was some irritability during the first few days and some unusual restlessness, but with the exception of that one instance, I haven’t been exactly climbing the walls in desperation. What has been most stressful is missing the ritual of lighting up. I find myself looking for my ash tray when I sit my favorite chair. Or when I’m writing, I keep wanting a cigarette because that was how I worked. (Even though frequently a cigarette could end up becoming just one long ash if I was really into what ever I was doing.) I also miss having a cigarette after a meal or when I conclude some project or activity. That desire is becoming less pronounced with each passing day, and now I can’t imagine buying any more cigarettes.

To be honest — given the great pain and suffering I was led to believe would descend upon me — I’m most surprised at how easily I’ve stopped.

(My dad smoked heavily for about 50 years then he decided to quit cold turkey. His method was keeping a pack in his shirt pocket, but whenever he felt the urge, he would “put off” smoking for a little while. Thus, he kept putting it off until he didn’t want a cigarette anymore.)

I think a big problem is that there’s not very many people with a vested interest in saying it’s not that hard to quit. Makers of smoking cessation products (i.e. nicotine patches, gum, etc.) need you to believe it will be difficult to stop so you’ll buy whatever they’re selling. Tobacco companies can strategically appear to support smoking cessation programs, but by hyping how hard it is to quit, they may actually be discouraging their customers from trying. Government agencies and other do-gooder types aren’t ever going to be happy unless they can convince all of us we’re hopeless incompetents who really shouldn’t be trusted to tie our own shoe laces. Their constant message is “life is hard and scary, and you need professional (or government) help to make it through."

As for the people who stop smoking? What’s the incentive in saying it’s easy? People congratulate you for quitting. Friends and family are supportive. If you’re rude to someone, you can blame it on nicotine withdrawal. You can eat more … because everyone knows quitting cigarettes leads to weight gain.

Most importantly, if you fail at quitting … well, you know, “it’s very, very hard to quit.”

I’m thinking though, it we really wanted people to quit smoking we’d stop saying how hard it is. Rather than fawning all over the person who decides to stop, we should note that only a weak and pathetic loser would give in to such an illogical temptation.

I know it sounds a bit cruel. But really, if you lead people to expect failure, you end up getting it a lot more often than you should.

Still, if anyone wants to congratulate me, go ahead. I really won’t mind.

The Plus One Factor

2008-06-16T00:09:00.001-04:00

I am tired of writing about (against) Barack Obama. So today, I’ve decided to post my “mathematical formula” proving the existence of God.

This is probably ridiculous since I only passed Algebra I in high school (on my second attempt) because I made the teacher laugh. But if you can follow along my thought process, you may find this interesting. And if you can point out where my theory is obviously BS, please let me know.

Otherwise, enjoy your impending headache.

The Theory

The number line is infinite — both as positive and negative integers.

We could express this opposite "ends" of the number line like this:
-∞ and ∞

All other numbers (x) fall in between these opposing expressions which could be expressed like this:
-∞ < x< ∞

More importantly, (and I don’t know how to express this) the relative value of x compared with -∞ is infinitely "greater than." And in this the equation, the relative value of x compared to ∞ is infinitely "less than."

Therefore the relative value of x is both -∞ AND ∞. The two simultaneous values cancel each other out, leaving a relative value of zero. (The same could be said for both ends of the spectrum in relation to each other.)

Though we're considering the number line in this equation, the equation holds for any thing in the universe which could in any way be measured (by weight, volume, mass, length … etc.). Regardless of how large something is, you could imagine it being larger. At the same time, no matter how small something is, you could imagine it being smaller. (Simply think half the size, or twice as big.) This puts anything that one can measure in the same predicament as x on the number line — that is relatively "infinitely larger than" or "relatively infinitely smaller than" and thus having an overall relative value of zero.

So everything in the universe has a relative value of zero next to a value that is, itself also zero. It follows logically then that nothing in the universe exists!

However, it's clear to me (at least) that in what we take for the physical world, something does exist.

Thus, there must be some value outside the universe that gives all things reality, that --- by its presence in our net zero universe --- brings all things into existence. I call this the +1 Factor.

God.

Stop Climate Change: Let’s Stay with Spring!

2008-06-01T13:54:00.008-04:00

The effects of global warming are undeniable. Just three months ago, I could walk a mile or so to the nearby CVS Pharmacy for a carton of cigarettes and barely break into a sweat. Normally I drink diet cola exclusively, but after the trek today I came home soaked with perspiration, gasping for air and actually craving water. Bleeggh!

I guess it’s my own fault. I was one of those Floridians who mastered the difficult task of casting a ballot to help give George W. Bush his 517-vote margin of victory here in 2000. Gosh, if only the Democrats on the Florida State Supreme Court had been successful in achieving a count they liked, it wouldn’t be getting warm in June.

Yeah, I know 1998 was more of a scorcher, but that doesn’t count because Bill Clinton was president. And most of that heat was generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal anyway (which, as everybody knows, was a Republican-orchestrated circus). And yes, 1998 was tied by 1934 but hello? … FDR.

Still it remains a fact that the temperature has skyrocketed an astronomical one degree Fahrenheit globally during the past 120 years or so. A few dips and rises along the way, sure, but overall it’s still about a whole degree hotter (or almost back up to where it was 74 years ago). And when you eliminate the sun as a potential source of heat for the Earth, maybe 0.05 of that one degree is attributable to non water vapor greenhouse gases — some of which are produced by people. It’s outrageous that after two terms in office, George Bush has done nothing to get us back to the really cool Nixon-Carter years. Deny that, dammit!

Of course, global warming is only part of the problem … especially since we’re currently in Year 10 of a suspected global cooling cycle. (We may want to hold off on publicizing this until a Democrat becomes president.) Rest assured it will be much, much hotter again, probably in about 20 years (or about the time the GOP finds its way back from the wilderness). Today the preferred term for impending doom is “climate change.”

And climate change is going to continue unabated unless we Americans renounce our sinful ways. No more air conditioners, no more cars, no more light bulbs that produce light. Unless we change, you can count on fall, winter, spring and summer giving us rain, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts (thaws and freezes and big gusty breezes!). It’s all going to take place somewhere — like it’s never happened before.

So act now to stop the seasons, vote Obama08!

Note: I didn’t bother sourcing my facts because I’m lazy, not because they aren’t true. Just take my word that I’ve done some research and reached a consensus. Plus, I used a computer to write this. End of debate.

I Won't be Going for this 'Strain'

2008-05-24T12:16:00.005-04:00

I first became impressed with Michael Crichton as a novelist after reading Andromeda Strain sometime in the early 1980s. I remember that I bought the paperback at a used book store in Auburn while I was in college. I didn't have cable so I read a lot more back then.

In short, the sci-fi novel is about an alien microbe that comes to Earth as a highly deadly and rapidly spreading virus. What I liked about Andromeda Strain, as well as subsequent Crichton books that I've read (The Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, State of Fear), is the level of scientific knowledge woven into this author's stories. In addition to a getting a good tale, I learn things.

A few years later when I finally got cable, I saw the movie adaptation of Andromeda Strain. (Sometimes I'll watch a movie version even after reading the book, but never the other way around.) I guess it was filmed sometime around the mid 1970s ... I could look it up, but don't feel like it. I thought the movie was pretty good, though not great. The nitty-gritty of the "science stuff" just doesn't translate very well to film. But there was something about the movie that I found very refreshing: there were no hot babes or hunky guys.

If I remember correctly, there was a core group of about five scientists and only one of whom was a woman. She was overweight, wore horn-rimmed black glasses and was probably in her early 60s. The guys were all average looking, down to David Wayne (the only actor whose name I know). Wayne was probably in his 60s as well, and I doubt he was ever considered a classic leading man. They were what "real people" look like.

I been catching promos lately for a re-make of the movie to be aired on A&E sometime soon --- maybe this weekend. Sure enough, it seems the new version will be going for the GQ meets Cover Girl look when it comes to casting a majority of their roles.

Last night I watched a horror film where the main character was an alcoholic sheriff. Think of a boozehound sheriff and you might think of Robert Mitchum or Dean Martin in a couple of westerns with John Wayne. (There were two John Wayne movies that were essentially the same film, just different actors and a different title --- neither of which I remember.) Maybe Mitchum and Martin cleaned up pretty well, but they were far from glamorous in those films. They looked liked you'd expect alcoholic sheriffs to look.

Not true of the "hot young chick" in the film I saw last night and I found the casting to be ridiculous --- way more unbelievable than a 900 year-old Aliens-ripoff monster killing everyone in a conveniently isolated tiny Southwestern town.

I won't be watching the latest version of the Andromeda Strain, though I'm sure the special effects will be much better. I feel I owe some loyalty to the fat old lady scientist in the first film ... as well as the legions of not-so-attractive folks who do most of the work in the real world, leaving entertainment fluff to the beautiful people.

What's that song about?

2008-05-04T00:27:00.000-04:00

One of my favorite musical artists is Enya. She is an astonishing talent: a lovely vocalist and amazing muscian (she composes and plays all the instruments on her albums).

She sings in English, Gaelic and sometimes Latin.

When I hear one of her songs in a language I don't understand, I usually imagine I have a sense of what she is singing about ... with mixed success. There was one, entitled Smaoinim that I pretty well pegged as being about someone dying. Another one, called Ebudae, I thought was a song about going into battle, but instead it was about washing clothes. Eh, win some, you lose some.

Muzak is like hearing a song in a foreign language, except the words have been replaced by notes played on a musical instrument.

Now, have you ever noticed how many truly good people aren't affiliated with any religious faith? Some of them are atheists.

It is my belief that such people "hear" the music but not the words. They're listening to heavenly Muzak. And I think the tune they're hearing is beautiful enough to affect their whole outlook on life.

But they're missing the words. To a certain extent we all do ... so we make up some to fill in the gaps. So while it's nice to have so many music lovers, I do think we often have too many people just humming or possibly thinking about fighting when they should be more concerned with the wash. (If you've read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm consistently guilty of this.)

To get the words right, you really need to get in touch with the Composer. Of course, before you do that, you have to acknowledge that there is one.

Evil's Purpose

2008-05-02T14:07:00.001-04:00

Humans are the only creatures on earth capable of imagining a Perfect Existence — our primary desire.

From an individual’s perspective, a perfect existence would be one where he has authority to establish Order by controlling all things (with obedience to nothing) and in turn having every wish (of his own choosing) gratified.

There are two components in the quest for absolute gratification: Liberty and Order. The vast majority of people grudgingly go along that Perfect Existence is not possible in the physical world. Because we are not alone, most of us understand we must compromise some aspects of the Liberty and Order components. Liberty becomes the province of Self, whereas Order is that which is imposed. Because we are simultaneously ourselves and the imposed upon, we seek a comfortable balance between freedom and security. This is the Great Compromise, and also, I believe, the practical essence of the "Golden Rule."

Rational people, accepting that Perfect Existence is beyond human capabilities, therefore seek the Perfect Balance between Liberty and Order. Establishing the parameters of such a balance is itself, establishing Order, yet this Order ideally preserves a significant amount of Liberty.

Depending on their circumstances, experiences, and instruction, individuals have different assessments of where the balance between Order and Liberty should be struck. To the extent that we feel secure or are confident in our abilities to resist chaos, the more we lean toward the Liberty side. The weaker or more threatened that we feel, the more attractive imposed Order becomes.

The lure of Perfect Existence, however, remains at the core of our being. It is a temptation to go to political extremes in search of Liberty or Order, so that one can achieve the other extreme as well. We can see examples of the latter in the form of robber barons who oppose regulation or laws in order to become “king of the jungle” and ultimately “buy happiness.” The other is the despot who runs the strictest police state, but he indulges in every whim. For both parties, the greater their success, the more they come to resemble one another.

Perfect Existence is attainable, but only through complete subjugation of self to God. In surrendering to God, union of our spirits takes place. Being one with God, we have ultimate liberty, and have achieved eternal, immutable perfect order. This is the Holy incarnation of the Primary Desire. Unfortunately it is the false version that most often motivates us.

There are two evils. The First is the desire to establish order for self aggrandizement. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14 (King James Version). It is the pursuit of the Primary Desire ... but without God.

The Second Evil is subjugation of self to Order that is not God. Not knowing God, and out of hopelessness and despair, we might place our faith in anything other than ourselves; viewing ourselves as essentially worthless. We have seen the effects of extreme subjugation demonstrated by people who commit atrocities only because they were instructed to do so. Or it may be seen in given one’s self over to the rule of drugs.

In this world, there is a sublime dynamic at work in that the First Evil is at war with the Second. Tyrants fall because inevitably abject subjugation becomes too much for the individual to bear — self interest drives rebellion.

Conversely, even the most seemingly utopian society will crumble, as some individuals come to desire more for themselves than others. And this should not be regarded as a loss. Perfect Existence, apart from God is The Great Lie. The failure to build our own Garden of Eden, as well as the fall of the most brutal dictators, brings us back to reality.

For temporal world, the twin evils of Selfishness and Subjugation to unholy authority drive us back to the Great Compromise.

And for the eternal world, the competition of evils is the mechanism drives us to seek God’s Kingdom.

It would be in your best interest …

2008-04-14T23:38:00.000-04:00

Have you ever received an unsolicited suggestion as to what choice you should make? Doesn’t it sort of tick you off — even if you know they’re probably right?

Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.

Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”

Any two-word responses come to mind?

We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.

But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”

Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.

Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.

Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.

In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.

He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.

Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.

Bringing in the Sheaves

2008-04-13T13:23:00.000-04:00

Last night, Night of the Hunter appeared again on TCM. I watched it through the first hour before switching channels. I’ve seen it many times and own the DVD, so it wasn’t like I was missing out on a golden opportunity to see the film to its conclusion.

Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.

After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.

The 1955 movie is often categorized as film noir and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.

I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”

I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.

There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.

At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.

Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.

And more …

Pay Me Instead

2008-03-20T11:10:00.000-04:00

Let me make one thing clear: I think anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is pure hogwash.

On the other hand, any effort that cuts our dependence on foreign oil would be a very, very good thing indeed. Imagine a world where the sand that covers Saudi Arabia is worth more than the thick black liquid beneath. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?

This leads me to the issue of carbon credits and so-called "cap and trade" — a bad idea whose time may have come. You may be somewhat familiar with this if you’ve heard how our climate-alarmist-in-chief Al Gore or AGW sycophant Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pay for carbon credits to off-set the fact that they can’t bring themselves to live with the kind of energy restrictions they demand of everyone else. From what I understand, it’s currently a self-imposed duty that funds the planting of trees somewhere.

Some well-meaning but misguided people (the most dangerous folks in the world) as well as some plain old socialists (who changed colors from red to green), would like governments to make these cap-and-trade schemes mandatory. Governments or people would see a limit on how much they should use. If you use more than your allotted share, you pay a tax. With the plans I’ve heard about, this would mostly result in rich nations sending money to Third World nations where it would undoubtedly line the pockets of thuggish dictators and their kleptocracies.

But instead of planting trees in Brazil (under the voluntary plan) or filling the Swiss bank account of who ever is in charge of plunder and murder in some African country (that would be a UN plan backed by international law), we (in the U.S.) could transfer the payments to individuals in our own country.

Schwarzenegger, who takes a private jet from Los Angeles to Sacramento to fulfill his duties as the Governator, could send his payments to me. My “carbon footprint” certainly can’t be very big. I live in a tiny apartment (the whole thing is probably smaller than one of Al Gore’s walk-in closets) and work from home. When I do drive (on average less than 600 miles a month) my car gets a very fuel-efficient 33 mpg.

Afraid I’d just use my additional income to move into a bigger home and take fabulous trips? What if we put the money into tax-free retirement accounts? After all, the Ponzi scheme that is our Social Security System is bound to break down — probably sooner rather than later. It’s not like the ivory-tower liberals who love the idea of a carbon tax are going to be eating dog food in their old age, but they could help those of us who most likely do have Alpo in our future.

I Hate Daylight Savings Time

2008-03-10T12:32:00.000-04:00

The clocks moved forward an hour this weekend. As someone who doesn’t even get sleepy until 2:00 a.m. (that’s 3:00 a.m. now) the idea of getting up an hour earlier just so I have a better chance of hearing the birds chirp is about as appealing as a dental root planing.

Oh yeah, we also get an extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon. Big whoop. It won’t be long until it is 95 degrees outside and humid. Sure as heck wouldn’t want to miss out on any of that!

What I don’t understand is why we call something “Standard Time” if we only get to enjoy it about four months out of the year? I mean, if we have to do something a certain way about two-thirds of the time (as god-awful as it is) isn’t that pretty much “standard.”

I realize there are way too many annoying people (read: morning people) wedded to DST to have any hope of getting rid of it, but maybe we could at least change the names so they make sense. I propose changing Savings Time to "Standard" (I’d prefer something profane, but I know that wouldn’t fly.) Then we could change Standard to "Blessed."

After all, we do get to have Blessed Time over the major holidays … giving us another reason why the Christmas season is the most wonderful time of the year.

Pride vs. Appreciation

2008-02-24T16:58:00.001-05:00

It’s been a few days now since Michelle Obama told an adoring audience that her husband’s likely Democratic presidential nomination has finally given her a reason to be proud of her country.

There were many howls of surprised outrage from America’s conservatives — not that many of them genuine (shocked ... simply shocked and dismayed!). Face it, it’s not a big secret that the Left detests pretty much everything that has made the United States what it is: free markets, individualism, faith in God (or at least faith in something better than government bureaucracy) … etc. For people of this ilk, calling America the “Great Satan” would be libelous to Lucifer … if they actually believed in the Devil.

No, the protestations were aimed at getting the attention of the politically non-aligned Oba-maniacs who mistakenly believe the rigidly ultra-liberal, half-term Illinois senator is some kind of post-partisan messiah — ready to lead us all to the land of milk and honey. Obama is such a gifted snake-oil salesman that rather than attacking him directly, his ideological opponents are attempting to tar him with guilt by association instead. They eagerly point out that his wife isn’t proud of America, or that his church named Louis Farrakhan “Man of the Year.” (As I just did.)

But what about this “pride in one’s country” comment itself?

And if I ask myself if I’m proud of my country, I find the answer is complicated.

On one level, the easy answer is “yes.” I’m proud that America is first to respond to natural disasters wherever they occur around the globe. I’m proud that the only flag implanted on the moon is the Stars & Stripes. I’m proud that our nation rescued the world from the Axis powers. I’m proud that our comparatively limited government — for all of its frustrating short-comings — is a still the best on Earth. Honestly, this list is endless. I guess I’m most proud of the fact that we sincerely try to live up to our ideals.

But this pride is rather like how I feel when Auburn wins a big football game. And the similarity makes this concept of pride seem a bit shallow. So I wonder what “pride” actually means.

I think a better word is “appreciation.” And there’s a lot that must be taken into consideration when you fully appreciate something. What makes a proud moment possible?

A lot of it is individual effort — to the point of self sacrifice (like storming the beaches at Normandy or when the space shuttle Challenger exploded). Less spectacularly, Thomas Edison’s "90% perspiration, 10% inspiration" formula for success seems to sum things up pretty well.

Well, just so long as she's proud ...

I also appreciate that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will usually do okay in this country. I appreciate the freedom to think “unapproved” thoughts that leads to innovation. I especially appreciate that I don’t have to agree with other people just for the sake of agreeing.

In a nutshell, what I most appreciate about America is that it provides me with the opportunity to earn pride in myself.

And what troubles me most about an Obama presidency is that what he most wants to "change" is the very thing I appreciate most about this nation.

And I’m not ready to give that up just to make his wife proud.

"Oh My God! Look Out!"

2008-02-18T10:02:00.001-05:00

The other day, I had a conversation with a client/business associate/friend (I have complicated professional arrangements) in which he expressed concern over the effects of a potentially worsening economy on our businesses.

My attitude was, and remains, fatalistic. But in an effort to be a bit more reassuring than “que sera, sera,” I pointed out that this is a campaign season and political candidates are naturally going to hype any bad economic news to their potential advantage. I also noted that the official requirement of recession is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking economy. We haven't even had one yet.

Mistaking my apathy for optimism, he hoped I was right but remained worried.

Though I didn’t bother going there in our discussion, I could have pointed out that the news media is never satisfied unless they have impending doom of one sort or another in the headlines. There would be a lot unemployed reporters in Heaven.

Actually, we are all fatalistic, and we have a word for people who aren’t. We call them “crazy” or perhaps use a fancy phrase like “obsessive-compulsive.” You know, like people who wash their hands constantly because of germs, or folks who won’t throw anything away because they may one day need it. Even those poor souls know they can’t deal with everything in the world that could turn out badly, so they focus on one specific potential problem to exert control upon. That way in an uncertain world, they head off at least one possible difficulty.

Have you ever stopped to think about everything that could go wrong in a typical day? Let’s assume you don’t die in your sleep due to a house fire, brain aneurism or meteor strike. What if your alarm clock fails to go off and you’re late to work? Maybe not the worst thing in the world, but such an occurrence could lead (directly or indirectly) to unemployment and financial ruin. It’s the old “for want of a nail … the war was lost,” scenario.

If the alarm does go off, you could slip getting out of the tub after your morning shower, hit your head on the lavatory and drown in the commode. You might be in a car accident in which your gas tank explodes and if you survive you might be horribly disfigured for the rest of your life.

Not related to any specific timeline, your spouse might fall in love with another person, leaving you emotionally devastated. Deadly cancer could strike friends, loved ones, or yourself. The tiniest scratch might open your body to invasion by flesh-eating bacteria.

The fact is, you don’t have to think hard to come up with something terrible that might possibly happen to you or someone you care about at every single moment of every single of day for the rest of your life.

Most of us don’t even think about it, not that it would do us any good if we did. We play the odds that the alarm will go off, that we can take a shower without incident or that we’ll make it to the neighborhood grocery store unharmed.

And that's just the direct threats. A worsening economy may or may not actually affect any particular individual. The worst recession during my lifetime was in the early 80s. The unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent. That means nearly nine out of 10 people still had jobs. As far as an actual “death toll,” there probably was one, but it was likely considerably less than the number of people killed in highway accidents over a Memorial Day weekend.

There is a lot of anxiety in this world. It’s because, as we travel down the highway of life, we all seem to have someone sitting next to us constantly screaming, “Oh my god! Look out!” Even if these shriekers don’t cause you to wreck, it’s all very nerve-wracking.

I believe in defensive driving. I keep my eye on the moron at the intersection who’s yakking on his cell phone, or the old lady with her turn signals blinking for miles on end (apparently preparing to make a left turn in the middle of the Howard Frankland Bridge). I see the person coming up behind me at 70 mph in a 40 mile an hour zone (and dutifully speed up to keep him from passing). But those are all threats that I can see.

What I’m not going to do is worry about the drunk driver who may or may not be coming over the hill, or the 10 year-old who may or may not have decided to take the family car out for a joyride. That’s what safety belts and airbags are for.

Do I have the necessary “safety equipment” to deal with loss of income that might result from a bad economy? Nope. But lacking the means, wit or ambition to acquire such protection, I choose not to worry about it.

Like 99.9 percent of the time (or more), chances are I’ll be okay.

Which is worse? An ox in the ditch or the Tribulation?

2008-01-02T14:09:00.001-05:00

Over the holidays, I watched several “apocalyptic” movies on the Trinity Broadcast Network. There was the second one from the Left Behind series, two films from another storyline dealing with rule of the Ant-Christ, and what appeared be the first movie in yet another series.

It’s always hit and miss with TBN as to when they air anything, and I don’t click my remote control up that way very often, so there’s no telling when or if I’ll ever see the parts I’m missing.

I spent much of the movies wondering if some of the actors were just earning a payday, or if they were actually committed Christians making a statement. I know Left Behind’s Kirk Cameron (formerly of Growing Pains) is an outspoken Christian, but other stars included Brad Johnson (Always), Margo Kidder (Superman), Mr. T (The A-Team), Corbin Bernsen (L.A. Law), Howie Mandel (Deal or No Deal)and Gary Bussey (The Buddy Holly Story). Actually, I thought the best of the three series was one which had no “big name” stars at all.

“End of days” movies seem to be very popular — at least with a big chunk of the church-going public. I can see why. (I watched them myself, after all.) I like knowing who the good guys are, and I enjoy hearing my point of view expressed in a film even if it does come from a fictional script.

But I also think maybe there’s some strange pleasure in imagining ourselves in the place of Christians during the Tribulation. All the gray areas we deal with in our lives would suddenly be black and white. I mean, it’s relatively easy to refuse the mark of the Beast if you’ve witnessed the miracle of the Rapture and all the prophecies of The Revelation are unfolding before your eyes. There wouldn’t be any question or confusion anymore about what’s important. You know you’ve only got seven years to hang in there for God (or fewer if the Anti-Christ gets hold of you) and you’re done. Sainthood will be assured.

It’s not that easy when you’re dealing with house payments, work, friends and family and all the other things that distract us from living the way God wants us to. In a way, we all have ADD, and it’s remarkably easy to forget God is even there. Even when we remember, we may have a hard time figuring out what God’s plan is. We can’t all be missionaries … some of us will have to grow food if nothing else.

I think Jesus acknowledged that the temporal world does intrude on strictly focusing on God’s playbook.

And He answered them saying, “Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?”
Luke 14:5

That was after Jesus was getting some flack or healing people on the Sabbath, so I take it to mean, sometimes we have to take care of business. Of course, this doesn’t help with the problem of figuring out when it's okay to be concerned with the problems in this world..

Maybe we can take some comfort in some verses a little further down.

“When you are invited to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited … go and sit down in the lowest place , so that when he who invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you.”
Luke 14: 8 -- 10

Perhaps we can’t really expect to know where we are in the “honored” department. The important thing is to be invited to the party, humbly take a seat and wait and see how we did.

Thoughts on Heroism

2007-12-21T00:29:00.000-05:00

The other day, I saw an news segment about a nice, former football player (I don’t remember his name and I’m not going to look it up) who is walking long distances to raise money for NYC firefighters who have health problems associated with their rescue work on 9/11. Not surprisingly pulverized concrete does nasty stuff to lungs.

The nice fellow made the comment, “I’m not a hero.” I think he also said something like the real heroes were the police officers and firefighters who risked their lives to save citizens.

People who do good deeds are often called “heroes” but the man on the news was right. He’s not a hero --- at least by my definition of the word.

I don’t mean to denigrate his good works. His efforts are immensely admirable. To emulate his act of care and compassion would be a good thing for all of us. But it doesn’t rise to level of hero.

To be a hero requires taking a significant risk, with potentially catastrophic consequences, in order serve a noble sentiment. While I would allow the odds to come out in favor of a potential hero, I’d arbitrarily set them at there being a one in four chance (at best) of being much worse off from doing something heroic. Fictional “super heroes” would never be real heroes in my mind. There’s not much risk involved when bullets bounce off your chest and “you’re more powerful than a locomotive.”

Heroes are also unexpected. In other words, you can’t be a hero if it’s in your job description. That’s why I would disagree that firefighters are themselves heroes. They are, instead, members of a heroic profession — as are soldiers, police officers, missionaries in dangerous countries, or even teachers in many inner city schools. (That’s not an all inclusive list.) They also deserve our thanks and admiration.

Professional athletes are sometimes called heroes — ridiculous. Not only are they just doing their jobs (often because they lack the discipline, intelligence or skills to hold any other kind of work) they are also exceedingly well paid to be idolized by the masses. I suspect true heroes would do what they do even if no one but themselves knew about it.

A few years back, during the Bosnia War, an American pilot was shot down but managed to evade capture until he made his way back to safety. (I’m not looking up his name either.) Some people called him a hero. I’d say he was resourceful, and like the firefighters, in a heroic profession, but serving one’s survival instinct isn’t heroism.

When I think of heroes, I often think of a specific person. His name was Arland D. Williams Jr. January 13, will be the 26th anniversary of his death, the day that Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the ice-crusted Potomac. The Washington Post wrote this:
“He was about 50 years old, one of half a dozen survivors clinging to twisted wreckage bobbing in the icy Potomac when the first helicopter arrived. To the copter's two-man Park Police crew he seemed the most alert. Life vests were dropped, then a flotation ball. The man passed them to the others. On two occasions, the crew recalled last night, he handed away a life line from the hovering machine that could have dragged him to safety. The helicopter crew - who rescued five people, the only persons who survived from the jetliner - lifted a woman to the riverbank, then dragged three more persons across the ice to safety. Then the life line saved a woman who was trying to swim away from the sinking wreckage, and the helicopter pilot, Donald W. Usher, returned to the scene, but the man was gone.”

That was a hero.

Team Allegiance

2007-11-18T11:10:00.000-05:00

Auburn (7-4) plays Alabama (6-5) this week. Winning this year's game will go a long way toward salvaging disappointing football seasons. I know I will feel a thousand percent better about the losses if the Tigers notch the victory against the Crimson Tide.

About a week ago, Auburn did lose their second biggest rivalry game to Georgia, by a score of 45-20. It was twice in a row that my alma mater has been embarrassed by the Bulldogs. But that's football ... and there's always next year.

Last night, I was watching a movie called Facing the Giants. It was purely a Christian message movie, enscounced in the tale of an underdog high school football team determining to play and live for God's glory. It was highly predictable in it's unlikely outcome, poorly acted, smaltzy, and obviously low-budget. (You could tell it was low budget because the southern accents weren't fake.)

I loved it.

Georgia's heach coach, Mark Richt, had what amounted to a bit more than a cameo role in the film playing himself. Prior to the big game where "our" team --- the Eagles --- meets the Giants, Richt tells the Eagles coach, "You won the big one when you accepted Christ."

You don't generally expect big-time college coaches to make such an unequivocal statement of faith.

The loss to Georgia was put in a whole new perspective. It turns out that Mark Richt is a coach for my team after all.

You Can’t Teach an Old Dog to Bark at the Moon

2007-11-05T23:21:00.000-05:00

I knew a fellow who said he looked forward to getting old and yelling at kids to get off his lawn. As I get older (or “old” as compared to a couple of my friends) I find there’s not quite as much to look forward to as when I was in my teens or early 20s. That leaves becoming an unapologetic curmudgeon pretty near the top of my "things to do list."

(Already, I sometimes find myself yelling at some television talking head, asking "Who are you and why are you on my TV?!?")

In my twilight years — if I have the energy (doubtful) and the money (even more doubtful) — I would like to take my cantankerousness and enroll in the most politically correct, leftist university in the country. I think I’d major in “Women’s Studies” or something like that — any of those ridiculous social “sciences” courses that exist only to provide paychecks for frustrated Stalinists who missed out on Amerikan Politiburo jobs when the Soviet Empire collapsed.

Recently the University of Delaware backed off of an attempt to “re-educate” its freshmen, thanks in large part to the wonderful Foundation of Individual Rights in Education (http://www.thefire.org/). Seems the university’s thought police felt classroom indoctrination wasn’t sufficient for turning all the students into the bleating sheep described in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, so they were going to force the freshmen to attend dorm meetings for proper instruction on such topics as politics, race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. Don’t be misled, this re-education was no more a forum for open-minded discussion any more than was Pol Pot’s.

Here’s some of the crap these poor kids would have been forced to endure:
"Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, 'I'm not a member of any race except the human race?’ What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn't want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people."

Of course, the University of Delaware isn’t alone in advocating student brain-washing (though they don’t call it that). In a Nov. 12 article in the Weekly Standard, David Horowitz tells us how the American Association of University Professors are trying to legitimize student indoctrination. Horowitz reports the AAUP as saying, “It is not indoctrination for professors to expect students to comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that is accepted as true within a relevant discipline.”

What ever happened to “the scientific method” of rigorously and continuously testing hypotheses?

The AAUP stance is probably much like the argument the Catholic Church made in prosecuting Galileo for heresy. After all, it’s clear that Galileo failed to “comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that (was) accepted as true” by the Church.

Two things strike me about all this. First, why is it that a public school teacher can’t wear a tiny crucifix in class without the ACLU screaming bloody murder, but leftist loons are free to proselytize all they want … to the point of literally persecuting students who don’t want to drink the Kool-Aid?

And the second point: This is the standard modus operandi of weird religious cults who target young people — especially those on their own for the first time.

And that’s why I hope to go back to a PC college in the winter of my life. I doubt those bullies would get very far trying to “re-educate” this cranky old man.

What do I know?

2007-10-02T11:41:00.000-04:00

I often find myself wishing that major issues of the day could be presented like a jury trial where both sides have the best possible representation. Let everyone present their evidence and have witnesses face cross examination. Then maybe I could be a lot more positive about some of the views I hold, or maybe I’d occasionally change my mind altogether.

As it is now, I realize I rely a lot on environmental conditioning, biases, philosophy and imperfect sources to help me reach conclusions. But unless I’m going to make researching issues a full-time job, any other approach is impractical.

Plus, in a one-person-one-vote democracy, the thoughtful expert’s ballot counts no more than that of the delusional or ignorant yahoo. Why bother to be well-informed?

I have competing interests at work here. I love being right, but I don’t want to put the time and energy into making sure I always am. Along with discerning a few facts from all the non sequiturs and nonsense, the best I can do is examine those non scientific factors that influence me. For instance, environmental conditioning as in what makes a white male from Alabama feel so differently about so many issues than a white male who was raised in Boston?

Then there are the biases. For instance, I think the vast majority of people who comprise MoveOn.org are morons. (Maybe I’ll start referring to them as MorOn.org, heh, heh). Put Rosie O'Donnell on one side of an issue, and I'll reflexively take the other side. I feel I have valid reasons for this, but as the saying goes, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” (And when some of those people talk, you can just see the flashing digital 12:00 in their eyes.)

My philosophical views were beginning to gel in my mid-teens. By 11th grade in a class discussion of current events, I was questioning why there should be price supports for farmers and not storekeepers? (I said --- and still say --- there should be no price supports for either.) But for the past 30 years, most of my effort has gone into defending and asserting my libertarian-free market philosophy. I’ve made my choice and I’m staying loyal to my “team.”

Then there is the issue of sources. The media IS biased, but the response as been to combat that with more media sources that are biased in the other direction. I really can’t trust anyone to give me the “truth.” It’s probably not even anyone’s fault. Reporters, documentary makers, bloggers, talk show hosts … they are like me --- operating with the same baggage. Hopefully they have a few more facts but how can I be sure? Besides, knowing some of the facts can be worse than knowing none.

All of this is why I like the adversarial approach. You have expert versus expert and trial court witnesses can’t spin their answers without being challenged by the other side’s attorney. If you’re sitting on the jury, there is no media filter telling you what you just heard or what you should think is important. There is no Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh. Even “mom and dad” are out of the picture. It’s all just facts and testimony to be evaluated under tight scrutiny.

That would let me reach some conclusions without a reasonable doubt.

I understand you feel strongly, and I want you to know I don't care

2007-09-27T13:15:00.000-04:00

I have never had any patience with politically correct terms. For the life of me, I can’t understand why “people of color” is a preferred designation but saying “colored people” will get you sentenced to six months of sensitivity training. And I will die and go to hell before I seriously refer to a short person as “vertically challenged.”

By the way, I also refuse to call American Indians “native Americans.” A person is a native by virtue of where he or she is born and continues to live. I’m as native to this country as any Cherokee or Apache out there.

But “oppressed” minorities and other officially recognized victim groups don’t have a monopoly on this silliness. (Believe me, I have a whole different rant lined up for “victims.”) We can add small business owners to the list of hyper-sensitive goofballs.

In a couple of jobs I’ve had, I’ve been told that small business owners object to the word “small.” C’mon people, get a grip. It’s merely a comparative term — a simple and useful designation to differentiate the business owner with five employees from the fellow with a staff of 100. I promise; no one is making a subtle inference about your penis size.

(I once worked for a company that had its franchise owners categorized by market as micro, small, midsized and large. I wonder how the poor micros ever got a date.)

I’m a professional copywriter. I need to be concise and clear in written communications for my clients. If I write “physically handicapped” my reader has a general idea of what I mean. If I write, “differently enabled” however, the average person will be left scratching his head, possible muttering, “What the f …?”

Writing to a specific audience is also critical to what I do for a living. I have to know what sets that group apart from any others, and let my target audience know my message is specifically for them. The last thing I need to do is blur the lines by invoking some idiotic new euphemism for a term that’s not derogatory in the first place. No way should I write, “As the owner of a midsized company that’s not as large as some businesses that have been traditionally regarded as such, you probably …”.

One of the best things about being a conservative-libertarian is that no one expects us to go along with all the stupid crap that others (mostly liberals) take seriously. But if my attitude still bothers you, don’t think of me as rude; think of me as “alternatively sensitived.”

The Multicultural Trap

2007-08-25T14:19:00.000-04:00

There is saying — probably dating back to the early part of the 20th Century — that goes something like this: Heaven would be French cuisine, German engineering and English law. Hell would be French engineering, German law and English cuisine.

I doubt I told it exactly right, but I think that old joke will still help make my point. Different cultures do some things much better than others; each with relative strengths and weaknesses. Ridiculously, multiculturalism demands that we accept all aspects of all cultures as equal.

Fortunately most of us know enough to pass on the spotted dick and opt instead for a nice French pastry. (Admission: I have no idea what “spotted dick” is, but how can any food that sounds like a late-stage venereal disease possibly taste good?) We might be politically correct enough to pay lip service to the merits of strange, illogical, or even disgusting practices from alien cultures, but given the freedom of choice, we’ll go with what we find more appealing.

On the other hand, if we keep an open mind, we may try something that’s completely novel. Then, making an assessment on how well a culturally different approach meets the objective, we might adopt it as our own for the future. By maintaining key values and setting certain standards we become cultural eclectics, and that is a very good thing. The infusion of new ideas leads to widespread progress and personal growth

It’s the values and standards though, that multiculturalists disdain. They recognize that if a certain culture's approach consistently comes in second, third … or even dead last when compared to some other society’s way of doing things, that culture would — and should — be deemed inferior. And since it’s usually a distinct race, ethnic group or religion that is most closely associated with any particular culture, multiculturalists fear that the members of that classification of humans will also be judged inferior by association. It’s a legitimate concern, but it does the individuals within an inferior culture no favor to have their second-rate choices propped up by politically correct platitudes. All people should be encouraged to grow by becoming more eclectic.

There is also a trap for people who are made to feel comfortable with their inferior culture when an aspect comes into conflict with one of the few standards that are almost universally required by the larger majority. I propose that Michael Vick’s condemnation for his grotesque dog-fighting exploits is an example of this trap in action.

The “rap or hip-hop’” culture is routinely celebrated and promoted by the popular media despite being virtually without objective merit. (Really, what are the chances that a child who is submerged in the hip-hop lifestyle will grow up to be doctor, lawyer, teacher, scientist or engineer?) Members of this community become effectively crippled from operating outside a very constricted and dysfunctional world. And so Michael Vick, despite his great athletic talent, was brought down.

Our society never did Vick the favor of saying, “Your culture sucks and if you don’t break away from it, it will destroy your chances for the kind of future you could enjoy.” No instead, he was fed a steady diet of Snoop Dogg and Ludacris ... et al as role models because they celebrate the very culture he came from. Any young person might think, “If just rapping about a lifestyle can make a person rich and famous, then living that lifestyle must be even more fulfilling.”

Michael Vick grew up in an inferior culture which the multiculturalists kept telling him was just as good as anyone else’s. I can understand why he must feel blind-sided. He could have been a great individual, but instead he was encouraged and pressured to subjugate his individual potential to a group identity. Now Michael Vick the individual is paying a price, while the culture that produced him remains sacrosanct.

Motivation Matters

2007-08-20T13:27:00.000-04:00

Recently inspired by a friend’s blog, I took a little personality test based on Myers-Briggs. It turns out that I’m an INFJ. My profile — according to one write-up — includes this statement:
“Accurately suspicious about others' motives, INFJs are not easily led. These are the people that you can rarely fool any of the time.”

As this is rather flattering, I’ll accept the comment as true (perhaps thereby disproving its validity?). But whether or not I’m more attuned to motivations than most people, I do consider them to be very important.

There was an episode of South Park in which Kenny was brain-dead and in the hospital. Kyle and Stan wanted to keep their friend hooked up to life support. Eric (Cartman) wanted life support turned off so he could inherit Kenny’s video game. Meanwhile Kenny was needed in Heaven to help fight off an army of demons. (Hey, this IS South Park after all.)

In Stan’s “I think I’ve learned something today” moment, he realizes Eric wanted to do the right thing for the wrong reason, while he and Kyle wanted to the wrong thing for the right reason.

LOOKING PRESIDENTIAL

Is Eric Cartman the candidate for you?

From a practical standpoint, I suppose it's usually better to do the right thing for the wrong reason. But the disconnection between motivation and outcome demonstrated in the South Park episode points to an inherent flaw in representative democracy.

If you’re forced to vote for Eric (bad motivation, good outcome) or Kyle (good motivation, bad outcome) who do you choose? As an elected representative, Kyle may get it “wrong” on a single issue, but his heart is in the right place. Cartman is only out for Cartman. God only knows (and He's busy fighting the Devil Army) what Cartman would do when another problem needs to be resolved!

On the other hand, how important is this particular issue? And maybe your motivations are every bit as pure as Kyle’s. (F’rinstance, you happen to KNOW Kenny is needed in Heaven.) In the critical situation, do you vote for good-guy Kyle and risk destruction of the entire Spiritual Plane?

Politicians today are occasionally driven by ideology themselves, but more often, they are beholding to groups that are completely wedded to a specific agenda — most no better than Cartman’s. That means we might get what we want on one particular issue … say withdrawal from Iraq. But the representatives who’ll withdraw won’t stop there, and soon we’ve been transformed into “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” (Feel free to substitute your own example — leftist or rightwing — I just like the Bart Simpson phrase “cheese-eating surrender monkey.”)

I don’t think there's an easy answer, but I’m pretty sure that unless Heaven is about to fall, it’s a good idea to skeptically appraise the motivations of the people who most stridently support a particular candidate ... or oppose the other one.

Who really, really wants Rudy or Fred and who really, really wants Hillary or Barack? Go beyond today. Do you think you’ll want the same thing those folks want tomorrow?

Freddy Kruger, where are you?

2007-08-01T23:18:00.000-04:00

I love horror movies. I liked Aliens and all the Night/Dawn/Day of the Living Dead movies. I even have an affinity for the outrageous cult flicks like The Devil's Rejects or The Hills Have Eyes.

I appreciate a good disemboweling, torsos in the freezer, or the ubiquitous man-eating monster in the closet. I'm also quite the critic of cinematic (fake) blood. (It's usually too bright, and too watery.)

But I can only last about 15 minutes with the dramas on Lifetime. Incest, child abuse, spouse beating ... I can't take it.

Maybe it has something to do with it being a "channel for women." There's no doubt in my mind that females are tougher than males. (That's why God put them in charge of child birth. Men wouldn't be able to handle it.)

SPACE

Scary stuff.

I was flipping channels this evening and stopped ever so briefly on a Lifetime movie. I was soon "treated" to seeing a psycho mom spraying oven cleaner on a kid's back and then scrubbing with a scouring pad.

That was it ... I quickly had my channel clicker in high gear. Comparatively speaking, Saw III is good family entertainment.

Suddenly Paris and Lindsey don't seem so bad

2007-07-30T23:52:00.000-04:00

Imagine being young, good-looking, adored by tens of thousands of people (if not hundreds of thousands) and fabulously wealthy.

Who hasn't fantasized about such a thing?

Some of us might put our fame and fortune to good use --- maybe take up a philanthropic cause. Others might go a less admirable route by buying mansions, fancy cars, throwing lavish parties ... carpe diem all the way. And perhaps a few of us might succumb to self-indulgent vices like drug or alcohol abuse and end up destroying our own lives.

And each of those outcomes to having, well, everything, would seem to be in the realm of possibilities for almost anyone.

What is unfathomable to me, however, is that anyone with a world of options before him, would choose to promote ... dog fighting.

I don't care for Michael Vick. I think he is an outstanding athlete but only a mediocre quarterback. And I've long had questions about his character. I was also put-off by the inevitable hype that accompanied his every game appearance. (It was like sportscasters thought they were being paid a nickel each time they mentioned his name and yet were determined to earn seven figure incomes.) So when the allegations against him first arose, I was quick to assume the worst.

But damn ... running a sideline business where dogs fight each other almost to death? And then finding the the most cruelly inventive ways to ultimately dispatch the loser? Why on earth would anyone do that?

It's so incredibly incomprehensible to me, I almost think Vick might be innocent.

Almost.

Words Off a Blue Tongue

2007-07-26T00:11:00.000-04:00

I went to the dentist today — fourth visit in the past two months. That’s what happens when you wait four years between check ups.

Before going, I brushed my teeth (for the second time in two hours) and swished Listerine around in my mouth long enough to give my tongue a nice blue tint ("It burnses us, it burnses!"). My thinking was, “If I were going to be poking around in some stranger’s mouth, I would appreciate any effort on his part to make his breath “minty fresh.”

Thus I can claim to be motivated by the Golden Rule.

The problem with the Golden Rule though, is how do you treat someone who doesn’t share your attitudes about a particular situation. The easiest analogical question might be, do you spank a masochistic lover even though you find hitting anathema to the act of making love?

While you’re working that out, It hink Jesus meant something kind of different with the whole “do unto others” thing. I doubt he was actually talking about specific acts of intended kindness. As my example demonstrates, that can be a tricky proposition.

Also motivations might not be pure, even when we do something nice that is also appreciated. For instance, it’s true I didn’t want to subject my dentist and her assistant to any lingering cigarette odor on my breath. But ego was involved as well. I would be embarrassed to be thought of as “the guy with stinky breath.” That’s basically a self-centered consideration.
The Golden Rule is a proactive hedge against self-centeredness or in the extreme, narcissism. Rather than trying to guess what will make another person “happy” (whether you think it’s your Christian duty or whether you're looking to be someone’s Man-of-the-Year) at the core is an admonition to understand that another person’s life — their hopes, dreams, and aspirations — is every bit as important to them as yours is to you.

That’s really a hard thing for me to remember, and even harder to incorporate in how I deal with other people. Most days, I’d rather just smack somebody, and stop at feeling proud of myself for doing it.

For One Thin Dime

2007-07-22T13:27:00.000-04:00

I owe my sister a dime.

In truth, I owe her a lot more than that, but there’s really no adequate monetary compensation for betraying a loved one. Given the circumstances, the 10-cent piece I pulled out of my pocket the other day is about the only thing that comes close to being appropriate.

This particular dime was in change from the four dollars I paid for a pack of cigarettes at a seedy U Save convenience store. It’s a wonder I even noticed it before dropping it in my coin jar at home. But I did hold it apart, and examination led me to remember 1970. I was eight years old.

Pleasant Hill Baptist Church has having an Easter egg hunt for the children. We all contributed dyed eggs which the menfolk hid in the little wooded area behind the cementary. Before we began our search, we were told there was a prize egg --- an uniquely marked yellow one --- and who ever found that particular egg would get a very special reward.

There were probably about 20 -- 25 kids there, and I wasn't a child who ever had much luck when it came to winning prizes. Plus. I never seemed to be as good as other kids at any kind of contest. I couldn't imagine coming away with anything more than a few less eggs than I originally brought. I just hoped not to embarrass myself with an empty basket.

Fortunately there were so many eggs --- spread out, but in relatively plain sight --- that soon after we got the start signal, I had gathered three or four. If worse came to worse, that would have been good enough for me. I kept looking though, and found a few more. Then my little sister found me.

She had spied an egg in a space between the ground and a boulder, but her five-year old arm was to too short to reach it. She asked me for help, so I pulled it out for her. It was the prize yellow egg.

I was overwhelmed by greed and a chance to finally be the child who won. I kept it for myself.

She protested, obviously, but really not that much --- probably so stunned that her big brother could flagrantly cheat her that she didn't make much of a fuss. But the look on her face as I turned away remains an ugly brand on my soul.

Nevertheless, when the hunt concluded I presented the special egg to collect my grand prize.

Sometimes we are most blessed by God when He lets us be disappointed. Had I been given a Hot Wheels race set, a G.I Joe action figure or a non-gender-specific $5 bill, I might have taken the wrong lesson from thievery. Instead, (with no fanfare) I has handed one of those little plastic eggs and told to open it. I found it stuffed with a bit of green plastic grass that lines Easter baskets, and under that I found one shiny new ... dime.

Even back in 1970, a dime wasn't much money. Still, I respectfully thanked the elderly lady who give me my prize and I said nothing more. Eight-year olds can recognize justice too.

Growing up, my sister and I fought a lot --- mostly out of boredom, I believe. We lived in a rural area, far from playmates, and a good fuss was one way to break the monotony. Sometimes she "started it" and sometimes I did, though in explaining it to our parents, it was always the other one's fault. Looking back though, if I added up every "bad" thing she ever did to me, it would amount to less than ten cent's worth of transgression.

Well anyway, I've found the dime I've set aside to acknowlege my long-ago betrayal at Easter. By the way, it isn't stamped 1970. It’s several decades older than that --- a piece of silver.

Hurry Up With That Virgin!

2007-07-21T14:16:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'm skeptical about global warming.

Best I can tell from what I've read, people are responsible for producing about 2.5 percent (.025) of the so-called greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere.

Also best I can tell, the earth's temperature (how the heck do you even measure such a thing?) has risen 0.6 degrees Celsius since about 1880. That would be about less than 1 degree Fahrenheit--- if I remember my conversions correctly, and I don't feel like looking it up.

Also it appears that most of that warming took place prior to 1950 --- long before George W. Bush became president. (That doesn't account for Dick Cheney who is the devil and everyone knows Satan is really, really old.)

That means people (and Dick Cheney) are responsible for the earth heating up by a sizzling 0.025 degrees Fahrenheit in 127 years.

The global warming folks must be used to much more finely attuned thermostats than me, because they sure get very worked up about the whole thing. So much so that they propose wrecking our economy, changing our whole way of life and "getting right with nature."

Get "right with nature?" Fine, I don't like making old Indians cry, and "waste not want not" as the saying goes. But it's that sacrificing the economy and turning our backs on technological and industrial development that bothers me. (I like air conditioning, and iPods and living beyond the age of 40.) Besides, there's a darn good chance global warming (and cooling) is normal. (Remember the Ice Age? Oh wait, forgot, Cheney=devil.)

It reminds me of island natives, as stereotyped in old movies, sacrificing a virgin to a volcano to keep it from erupting. And if any rational person tries to stop them, they want to kill him too. Environmentalism is a take-no-prisoners kind of religion.

Think about it. The vast majority of Bible-thumping, Christian fundamentalists reacted a lot less strongly to a picture of the Madonna made out of elephant dung or a crucifix dunked in urine than the way the Earth First folks respond to anyone not towing the global warming line. The Christians simply don't want their tax dollars spent on sacrilegious displays. The Earth Firsters push for real censorship (here's an interesting article, Up against the Global Warming Zealots) and we have Robert Kennedy Jr. wanting the skeptics convicted of treason.

Since we’re talking about “theories,” I have one of my own. I think the real thinkers behind the global warming movement know there are reasons to be skeptical. It’s about seizing power. Just like the wise old witch doctor who knows the volcano rumbles every few years without going off, they know that the Earth isn’t really going to be destroyed if we don’t give up our sinful (Western) ways.

It’s all a big Voodoo show to keep the natives scared and in the thrall of charlatans. Throw in the girl, the volcano goes quiet, and the medicine man gets to stay topknot on the totem pole.

But if the villagers don’t hurry up and sacrifice the virgin before the volcano goes quiet, then the witch doctor is up the creek without a paddle and folks are likely to find a new medicine man.

The shamen pushing global warming know they have a limited amount of time to remake the world to their liking before we realize it’s all a big hoax. And that’s why they are so adamant we do something NOW!

Stoic? Now That's Science Fiction!

2007-07-18T01:05:00.000-04:00

If you can’t suspend disbelief, you can’t watch science fiction. So I was okay with a 35-foot gator being cloned from a 100-million year old fossil. Afterall, there’s something about turning into rock that makes DNA amazingly resilient. (Imagine all the crimes in closed-case files that could be solved if the FBI hired a few Medusas!)

And sure, regular bullets striking lizard skin can explode like little firecrackers.

And prehistoric species all had an insatiable hunger for human flesh --- especially swim suit models in T-back bikinis. Though apparently they’re not very filling. Maybe it has something to do with the low nutritional value of breast implants. I guess it makes sense that an oversized reptile would soon run down to the nearest resort and eat three times it weight in tourists.

And in a country where you can’t water your lawn on the wrong day without getting a citation, it’s no trouble at all to conduct outrageous experiments that put civilization at risk.

All those are acceptable fictions. But when a father finds the partially devoured corpse of his son, you expect a little more reaction than a single exclamation of, “Ohmygod!”

It wasn’t even a gut-wrenching “ohmygod.” It was more of an “I left my fork in the bowl of chili I’m trying to warm in the microwave” kind of utterance.

At that point, the Sci Fi Channel’s original motion picture, Supergator!, lost me.

Science fiction and fantasy are appealing because it’s the realm of the strange and unfamiliar. I’ve never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express so I know next to nothing about cloning, the dietary habits of dinosaurs, or government oversight of mad scientists. But I do know that people tend to react strongly --- even, perhaps, emotionally --- when other people die in a horrible manner, especially when the victim is a close family member. (Even sensitivity-challenged men typically don't hit on the pretty girl 15 minutes later. Or if they do, she probably isn’t finding them very attractive.)

On the other hand, I could certainly do with fewer histrionics. Remember Meryl Streep’s “Think of the children!” when the nation was gripped in mortal fear by Alar on a few apples?” (What the heck was Alar, anyway?)

A peeved Brad Johnson, star of Supergator! hasn't locked his keys in his car. No, his son has just been eaten by a dinosaur.

Mourning is practically a profession in a nation of aspiring victims. A person may be the worst kind of cold-hearted SOB (e.g. hitting on a girl half his age before the indigestible gristle of his loins is even cold), but any American nowadays would still manage to squeeze out a few tears for the news cameras. It’s considered one’s duty as a responsible citizen. There always need to be new government agencies to deal with every “crisis.” If you don’t scare people half to death they might not realize there’s even a problem --- like that one-degree rise in global temperature during the past 100 years that may or not be part of a normal cycle.

Of course if the producers of Supergator! did try to inject more realism into their film, our cad of a hero would never have won the day, the monster would have gone on killing, and the movie would have lasted until 2009 when the Democrats take complete control of the government and set up an ineffective bureaucracy that ultimately declares Supergator an endangered species.

On second thought, who want's reality? Damn fine movie, that Supergator!

Blog, Thy Name is Wilson

2007-07-16T21:08:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, I left my steady “8 – 5” job to work at home as a freelance writer. Probably the thing I miss most is talking to co-workers during the day. I have observations on a lot of things, and I’m not particularly reticent in keeping my opinions to myself. It’s a testament to her human kindness, that my former cube-mate didn’t try to strangle me with an Ethernet cable in a last ditch effort to make me shut up about any of an enormous assortment of topics.

So now I have this blog thing, which is effectively not much better than talking to myself or my cat, and much more complicated. Yet because it’s being posted on the Internet, I can enjoy the illusion of a engaging in conversation. And the fantasy made me feel better.

But I’m remembering Wilson.

Wilson, in case you’ve forgotten (or didn’t see the movie) was Tom Hank's “companion” on the desert island in Castaway. Most significantly, Wilson was also volleyball with a face drawn on it. And though Wilson couldn’t talk back, Tom Hanks talked to Wilson all the time. They became best of friends, until that tragic moment when Wilson fell off the raft and was lost at sea. Maybe you think Terms of Endearment was a tear jerker, but Debra Winger had nothing on that half-inflated ball of rubber.

Is it crazy to talk to yourself, a cat or an inanimate object? Probably no --- strictly speaking --- but typically we still try to steer clear of those people, especially if they are standing on a street corner and are talking really, really loudly.

Yet here are bloggers, frequently typing furious rants to essentially no one but themselves, and they (I) get a pass in the sanity department because our “Wilsons” are high tech.

Maybe I should get a mynah bird.