Proud to be an Arizonan

Let me just say for the record how proud I am of my state for dealing with this dishonest administration head-on.

Everybody wants to say that immigration reform is needed. But, like any other politically charged issue, that is all wimpy politicians will say. Most politicians won't venture to say how to go about reform for fear of offending certain populations. So it is safe and appeasing to state that reform is needed. It's also wimpy. And it shows lack of leadership.

Border states have been asking the federal government to do something about out-of-control illegal immigration for years. Hordes of non-taxpayers flowing into this country is bad for the economy. Add to that the money that gets drained from local and national resources through social programs, and you have major issues. Now, complete the equation with the network involved with smuggling millions of dollars of drugs across the border and the situation becomes downright dangerous.

Like I said, everybody knows this is a problem but most politicians don't want to take the next step: acting like the elected leaders they are and doing something about it.

I won't start throwing statistics out about how much money is spent on illegal immigrants every year, mostly because those numbers are inherently impossible to track. And besides, it isn't my point here.

My point is that I wasn't so sure about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer before. Now I am. She is a leader. Her state has a major problem. She asked for help. The help she received was a slap in the face. So she, along with other Arizona politicians, have decided to do what they can to fix the problem without the help of a federal government that doesn't (well, didn't) want to get involved. In reality, this isn't going to fix all problems associated with illegal immigration. But it is something.

And it is totally legal. Did anyone notice how the federal government first took aim at this bill by stating that it could result in racial profiling? That is what we call an attempt to sway opinions your direction. Apparently it didn't work because every poll I have seen (even polls done by liberal-slanted news sources) show Americans heavily in support of Arizona's immigration bill. So they changed their approach. Now the administration, after months of figuring out how to squash this (or, looking for ANYTHING they can possibly point at to claim the bill is illegal or unconstitutional), has decided to to sue AZ on the grounds that state law cannot take precedence over federal law in matters such as illegal immigration.

The irony is that the AZ law doesn't take any precedence that the federal law hasn't established. The AZ law is calling for enforcement of these laws. Well, the federal government knows this as well, which is why their whole selling point is this: Arizona's intentions are not the same as the federal government's. From the introduction to the suit:

The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests... In administering these laws, the federal agencies balance the complex--and often competing--objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy.

So the federal government is worried that Arizona's intentions are to send illegal immigrants home simply because they are illegal, and the state will not consider the "balance" established by the federal government of "concentrating enforcement on the most dangerous aliens, protecting the rights of asylum seekers, and maintaining amity with Mexico." (Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2010, James Taranto)

So Arizona might not be as sensitive as the feds. Well (forgive me for this but) I hope they aren't! Illegal immigration is a MAJOR problem. One that the elected leaders of Arizona have decided that they will do something about because the "balance" that the federal government keeps is not working.

Who knows how this will end up? I think it is pretty clear that Arizona has a legal right to do this. The Obama Administration is grasping at straws here. But his influence is great - and he has shown a few times that enforcing his idealogies is more important than the law. But no matter what happens, I am proud of my state.

LOST in my eyes

Let me start off this post with just a few preliminary items:

1) I am not one for hyperbole, but LOST is the best show in the history of television.

2) If you aren't into LOST, or haven't had a chance to see the last episode, then stop reading now (but I strongly suggest you do yourself a favor and watch this series).

3) I don't claim to have the answers, but I do have some thoughts about how it all ended...

So, from the very beginning of the show, many people have believed that the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 were not, in fact, survivors - but rather, they died and were in a hell-like state without knowing this. It seemed, in the beginning seasons of the show, that the survivors (or at least the main characters) had some pretty significant misdeeds they needed to pay for. However, as things developed, we started to feel more like rather than paying for their sins, they needed to go through a redemptive process and become better people.

Sometime during season 4, I started to figure out that although the island was in fact a place on earth, it was dimensionally slippery. What I mean by that is the island is not completely a part of the physical world as we experience it. The island exists in a dimension that can be reached from the earth (if you know how to get there - or by some circumstantial accident), but the island also belongs to a spiritual dimension. So, the nature of the island is a bit slippery. Later on, we learn that the island is more of a gateway between the physical earth and some spiritual realm, with the island acting as a "cork," keeping the evil of this other realm out.

So, in short, we have flawed people living on an island that is in some in-between spiritual dimension. And if that wasn't hard enough...

What made this show very difficult for people (I think) is the shifting of exactly who the antagonist(s) is/are. Who are the bad guys? It seemed that almost every season the "bad guy" wasn't much of a bad guy anymore, but rather someone who just understood the nature of things better and therefore behaved in a way that scared those who didn't fully understand what was going on. So, good guys became bad guys; bad guys became good guys; bad guys became good, then bad, then good, then bad, and finally good (Ben).

Up until the last couple episodes it was still pretty unclear who the really bad guys were. But I think that is one of the major points of the show. How many people or situations do we know that are 100% good or totally bad in their behavior and motivation? What we knew was that we loved the characters and we wanted them to be happy (redeemed). What the entire show really boiled down was to answer the character questions: Would these survivors become better people? Would they make the right choices? More specifically, the show is about Jack Shepard. Will he make the right choice(s) and make up for his past issues. Will he become the person he is supposed to become?

All along, the island was a creative setting (with it's slippery time, realm, and location) for a long, comprehensive look at human-kind and the power of personal redemption. Ultimately, Jack overcame his tendency to be a skeptic, combining his new-found faith with his leadership qualities and saving his people, the island, and (I guess) all of us (though exactly how the rest of the world was in danger clearly was left to your interpretation).

My theory for what was revealed in the last episode: The flash-sideways sequence was (yet another) spiritual realm where everybody went to after they died (again, Jack's inclination was to not accept this reality). Some died before Jack (like Charlie), and some "much later" (like Kate, Sawyer, and Claire). However, as they all had profound life-changing experiences on this island together, they were connected spiritually and it was arranged (by Hurley and Ben is my guess) that they would be brought together as they "move on" into a new existence (the after-life). The idea is that we move on to the after-life with the people who matter the most to us - this would include people who we had such life-altering experiences with. Obviously this all requires some suspension of disbelief, but I think it is a beautiful ending to a profound show.

As I conclude, let me give the argument for why I love this show so much. LOST is full of allusions: religious (heaven, hell, in-between purgatory-like state), philosophical (names like Locke and Hume), literary (in almost every episode someone is reading a book having to do with a theme of what was happening in the show at that time - for example, as we start realizing that the island is one big housing of electro-magnetic energy, we see references to Stephen Hawkings books), and all with a heavy dose of scientific theory and speculation. By the way, my examples in the parenthesis are just scraping the depth of the allusions... you literally can not keep up with all the references in the show. And if this weren't enough... PUT ALL THESE THINGS ON AN UNCHARTED ISLAND WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO SURVIVE AND I AM SOLD!!! And then they went ahead and EXCEEDED my expectations over and over.

Ok, really, as I end here I want to mention my new favorite thing about LOST. Well, I realize that it has always been one of my favorite aspects of the show, but it was more sub-conscious. I recently realized how in love I am with Michael Giachinno's music. The score for LOST is superb. If you get a chance, listen to just the musical elements of the show, and you can feel the emotion without any images. I am his new biggest fan.

If you get a chance, check out youtube and check out the video "I'll Never Be Lost Again." Another first for me -- I've never gotten emotional over a hip-hop song before.

Stop the Insanity

Words and phrases which are in all caps are taken directly from the Bill Analysis from the California State Assembly Committee on Judiciary regarding the proposed commemoration of the 100th Anniversary of Boy Scouts of America (BSA).

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE CONGRATULATE THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ON THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE GRANTING OF ITS FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS ORGANIZATION STEADFASTLY CONTINUES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS?

Uhh… try lack of religious views. People with religious views are not discriminated by BSA. Atheism is not a religious view. It is, in point of fact, a disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Why do we (and by “we” I mean our society, because I certainly don’t mean any of you specifically) muddle the phrasing of clearly defined terms – such as on this bill analysis written by a state organization?

Actually, this question is rhetorical. I know why.

So, then I must ask the follow-up question: why are “we” such big weenies?

I think “we” are afraid. “We” are afraid of being accused or thought of as intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded, etc. In fact, “we” are so afraid of this, we eschew logic for the sake of being excessively diplomatic.

This insanity must stop. Logic and accuracy of language are vital to our culture.

This committee is literally refusing to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Boy Scouts of America because we have gone so far down the road of political correctness that we can’t see things for what they really are. Instead of being an organization that develops young men into valuable young leaders of tomorrow with ethics and morals, BSA is described as an organization that “INCLUDES FOSTERING OF BIGOTED ATTITUDES TOWARDS OTHERS IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY” and “TEACHES KIDS TO HATE”.

I know a lot of Boy Scouts. I was a Boy Scout. I have been a leader of Boy Scouts. I have never witnessed bigoted or hateful attitudes from the Boy Scouts I have been around. In fact, it would be a difficult challenge to find a group of more honorable, hard-working/achieving, and kind young men in our culture (keep in mind, I also teach 14 year-olds in high school).

“BSA’S HISTORICAL AND ONGOING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS, ATHEISTS, AGONISTS, AND GIRLS”

“ATHEISTS”
Since 1911, BSA has adhered to the Oath that they will, among other things, “do my duty to God.”
Again, atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief that any deities exist. Logic tells me that in order to swear an oath to “do my duty to God”, there needs to be a belief in deity.

“GAYS”
BSA, as per their organizational mission statement, strives to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. According to BSA, one example of immoral behavior – and they aren’t alone on this one – is homosexual lifestyles. Their policy is simple: if you live a homosexual lifestyle, you are not allowed to be a leader in BSA. It conflicts with their view of someone who is trying to “…do my best to do my duty to God…”
Logically, anyone whose lifestyle – not just homosexual lifestyles, mind you – conflicts with BSA’s view of “moral” would likewise be disallowed from leadership within the organization.

“AGONISTS” (and yes, I triple checked – it says agonist)
Could someone please tell me what an agonist is? I thought it was a classification of muscles. Maybe an agonist is someone who agonizes over things. If that’s the case, I know a lot of people who wouldn’t be allowed in Boy Scouts.

“GIRLS”
“GIRLS HAVE ALSO BEEN PROHIBITED FROM PARTICIPATION IN BSA TROOPS”

I’ve got nothing on this one… let’s see… why would Boy Scouts prohibit girls in the organization… hmmm, no girls in Boy Scouts. Maybe I’ll get back to you when I figure this one out.
Again, logic (and not much is necessary) answers this one.

So, I need to ask the question again:
Why are “we” so hell-bent on shunning logic to the point that “we” will shirk a wonderful organization like BSA?
Because “we” are afraid. Perhaps “we” are afraid of what the real answers are. So afraid of accuracy of communication, in fact, that good people and good organizations suffer because of the ignorance that “we” show.

Well, “I” am not afraid. “I” am a boy scout. “I” am someone who stands up for what “I” believe and reject the idiocy and lunacy (and ultimately, the disservice that the craziness of “we” gives people) that has infiltrated our society.

Things are what they are. Sometimes, “we” just have to accept reality. “I” believe it is important to be trustworthy with ourselves and each other. And to be loyal. And kind-hearted… and brave enough to do the right thing, even though “we” will hate us for it.

In fact, I think I know why they don’t like the BSA – it’s not because scouts hate or are intolerant. It’s because the Boy Scouts of America are full of “I”s: kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Playing Catch-Up

It has been 3 1/2 weeks since basketball season ended and I just today got completely caught up at work... and that is only because I have been showing my classes a movie the last 2 days. So now that I am caught up (at work at least... home is a different story) I need to play a little catch-up.

If you are wondering what basketball season has to do with me getting behind on my blogging, let me tell you what the schedule is like... out here in Havasu we are very isolated, yet we are a big enough school to require us to play other big (city) schools - like Phoenix and Yuma. Well, playing in Phoenix or Yuma requires a bit of travel. So on top of the practice schedule (5 days a week for two hours) our game schedule in Lake Havasu is pretty rigorous. If we travel to either Yuma or Phoenix, we leave school at 10am and return home at 1am. Now this isn't on a weekend either. It is usually on Tuesdays. So we have to turn around and be back at school (and still have practice) the next day. During one strecth at the end of the season, we had 7 games in 11 school days. Four of those games we traveled to. And it's not like I can cancel practice during this stretch, cause you have to fix and work on things as you go.

Needless to say, it was brutal. I especially feel bad for the athletes, cause they have to get their homework done or they risk being ineligible (I can just tell my students "to bad. I'll give your essays back tomorrow").

But most of all, it is very difficult on my wife (she is truly wonderful to "put up with" this kind of a schedule). I am not very helpful during these stretches. I appreciate so deeply her sacrifice so I can do something I really love.

So the season ended and I am working my way back to normal (by the way, my team went 15-3).

I have not been real involved the last few months (see above), but here are some reflections I have had:

- First, Avatar is simply one of the best movies I have seen. I was glad to see it do well at the Oscars. If you haven't seen it yet, find a theater and go! You need to.

- One thing I have done a lot of (with all the time on the bus, and the need to have something to slow my mind down) is read. I have read more books in the last 3 months than at any other time in my life. Fom academic to thriller to faith-based to sports to fantasy. Let me just say for the record that Michael Crichton is one of my new favorite writers. Thanks sis for suggesting State of Fear.

- Lost has started its final season. I am somewhere between a casual viewer and what some may call a "Lost-ie" or "total nerd". All along my wife and I have had so much fun figuring things out (if you watch the show, you understand what I am talking about) and I might add that we did a pretty good job of figuring out the nature of the island (the space-time continuum thing) before they revealed it to us. But I think we are at the point where trying to figure things out is futile cause although we know the nature of many things, we just don't know how things are going to end. I do have one final speculation (one I have had since sometime in season 3 and I still think it is true); events on the island have cycled over time with different groups of people and it isn't necessarily a good thing. So this group (led by Jack) are going to take this island to an end-game and break the cycle. I have always thought Jack would be the one to save the group (hence the last name "Shepard"). How that is going to happen? Can't wait to find out.
** haven't seen last night's episode yet

- One last thing that I just HAVE to put in here. Many of you have probably seen this story simply because it is so ridiculous.

Lindsay Lohan cried to her mom after seeing the E*Trade Ad during the Super Bowl broadcast. The ad features a baby boy apologizing to his girlfriend for not calling her the night before because he was on E*Trade.

"And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" the baby girl then suspiciously asks.

Lindsay took this add directly to be mocking her and her struggles with substance abuse. How presumptious and self-centered does Lohan have to be to really believe that?

Lohan's mom says that it must be about Lindsey because when we hear her first name, like Cher and Madonna, Lohan is the one we all think of. Really?? After reading this next quote, I have a pretty good idea what the biggest problem for "Lindsey" is... her support group/advisors/mom/enablers.

Said her mom, "They're little babies doing this, mocking another child who's just trying to survive Hollywood, basically."

So big, bad Hollywood is doing this to your daughter. Here's an idea: if Hollywood is so hard to survive in, get out. Nobody is forcing her to make bad movies.

My take? Cause I am having a hard time believing that a sane person really views things in this way...
either, all the Lohans are totally cracked (very possible)
or
this is the publicity stunt of a desperate actress struggling for relevance.

Reflections from our family holiday traveling...

1. First, I feel like I need to confess. I have been disloyal to what it means to be a man. Opportunity flashed before me and I did not seize the chance.
While traveling through the middle of Nevada, we came to a highway fork in the road. One of the choices was to continue on the highway we were on which would lead us to our destination. The other choice was to take what is known as the "Extraterrestrial Highway." Now, for those of you who have never been through the middle of Nevada, there isn't much to see. It is pretty desolate out there, making it an excellent choice for a top-secret government facility: Area 51. We all know the rumors surrounding Area 51 - most regarding Aliens and there "contact" with humans in America. In this desolate area, there is a rather tall mountain ridge that looks like it could hide something fairly large from the general public. I got the impression that Area 51 would be behind something like that... a few minutes later we drove by the fork in the highway (and a sign similar to this one) and I told my wife that we could just scrap our traveling and go camp near Area 51 and see if anything cool happens. Reasonable, right? Any man would love to go check around Area 51 and see just how interesting things are. Well, I lost that battle... so we continued on our trip.

2. I love road trips. I especially love driving long distances (by the way, the kids were great). Heres why: I learn about the topography of the region I am driving in just by observing it - and this fascinates me. I have heard about the Great Basin before... but it is different to drive through it. I had no idea how beautiful northeastern Oregon is... and for those of you who have never driven through southern Oregon and northern California are missing out. It is beautiful and stimulating. I know it is a pain to take a longer time to get somewhere vs. flying. But when you consider the amount it costs a family of 5 to fly, driving through America the Beautiful is not a bad alternative.

3. Watching my son put aside his fears (of his own accord) for the sake of having fun sledding down a snowy hill all by himself made me more proud than I ever thought it would.

4. At the Holiday Inn Express, they have a decent breakfast and a nice set-up to watch the news while eating. However, it's the news that was disappointing. CNN's morning news show was so boring that I ended up paying closer attention to the 2 old women sitting next to me talking about cheating on their taxes - "If they catch me, they catch me. Let them put me in jail like Martha Stewart."

My last observations come from the peculiar land known as California...

5. Is it just me, or is the responsibility of the state-to-state border checkpoint workers of the California Highway Patrol a ridiculous waste of money. Honestly, what does the job accomplish? Do they really catch anyone smuggling illegal fruits into the state? "Sorry, sir, but we do not want your state's pesticides mixing with our pesticides."
I honestly would be interested to know the objective of this responsibility of CHP and, if it's not too much to ask, the justification for the money spent. Are we paying workers to stand there and wave people through a structure that (by it's only obvious function) serves to slow down travelers?

6. Lastly, does anyone else find it ironic that while driving along the California highways, you will see signs that read: "Report Drunk Drivers - Call 911". Isn't it illegal to talk on the phone while driving in California? So, is the state asking Californians to break their own law? If so, does it give the caller a free pass if they get pulled over?
"I pulled you over because you were talking on your cell phone while driving."
"Yeah, I was. But I was (looking away from the dark road to dial 911 and) reporting a drunk driver."
"Oh, in that case, please proceed on your way."

Total stats...
52 hours in the car -- 3339 miles

The latest

"Toughest Sheriff in America," Joe Arpaio is being investigated for abusing his powers as a sheriff in his efforts to curb repetitive criminal behavior and illegal immigration in Arizona. He has gained attention - and a certain degree of notoriety - for his tough jail policies and for advocating and enforcing strict immigration policies.

The Associated Press, in their journalistic glory, has reported that Arpaio and his deputies racially profile people while performing immigration sweeps (yeah, try and figure out how they came to that conclusion). In addition, they allege (though I am pretty sure he is guilty of this) that Arpaio has targeted areas with a heavy Latino population during some of his sweeps. Mind you, Arizona is a border state with Mexico to the south.

So, should he evenly space out all his sweeps throughout his entire county, in despite of demographics? Look people, if I am looking for apples, I am going to go to the apple orchard.

Now, I am not trying to argue for or against any of Arpaio's policies/actions. It just cracks me up when we read a report "alleging" that someone is acting inappropriately when clearly he is just acting efficiently and therefore - perhaps more importantly - financially sound.

In other news... New Jersey's Senate recently voted against the legalization of gay marraige in The Garden State. That makes the country-wide count 5 states in favor, 30 against -- unless you want to count California twice.

Journalism Overlook of the Week

I read in the news that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is enhancing their security screening procedures from countries labeled as "state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest" - or... Muslim nations.

The first thing I thought when I saw this headline is that the Muslim community must be pretty ticked off at this bit of profiling (there really is no other word for it - "if you come from this country, get in that line over there; if you come from that country, get in this line right here").

HOWEVER, in reading CNN's coverage of this story, you will not read a single word about profiling. In fact, there is no mention of how anyone (you know, the global community, international relations, all that) feels on the matter, just that it is what the TSA deemed to be appropriate measures. So, maybe the Muslim community is not that upset. Maybe all the work President Obama has put in to patch up American/Muslim relatinoships has resulted in the Arab world looking the other way in this situation.

Then again, maybe this is just plain ol' biased reporting in attempting to control what aspects of this situation are read about and discussed.

For, although you won't see this on Obama's advocacy network of news sources, the Muslim world is NOT happy about this. As Alejandro Beutel, Government Liaison, Muslim Public Affairs Council says:

"[This new worldwide security measure is] an unethical, ineffective and counterproductive means of counter terrorism. This undermines our stated commitment to Democratic values and Civil Liberties."
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yvonne-r-davis/a-win-for-the-terrorists_b_410134.html)

Hmm, I wonder what would have happened in the media if President Bush implemented such a policy. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if the ONLY thing that kept Bush from implementing a similar policy was the concern over the public outcry that surely would have occured.

I know this post is a little weak in that calling out CNN's poor, biased, and shoddy reporting is a little like stealing candy from a baby - so I'll come with a little more substance soon as I write about my thoughts while on our 52-hour drive throughout the Western States this Holiday Season.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE