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.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
You Can’t Teach an Old Dog to Bark at the Moon
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.
(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.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
What do I know?
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.
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.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
I understand you feel strongly, and I want you to know I don't care
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.”
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.”
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Multicultural Trap
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.
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Motivation Matters
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.
“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?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Freddy Kruger, where are you?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
