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

Having your environmental emergency and eating it, too

Earlier this week, I was on the bus traveling home from a basketball game, and I was freezing. It was a (relatively) short drive from Bullhead City to Lake Havasu City. Both cities have pretty much the same climate. It's the desert here. It can cool down a little, but not too bad. Anyway, I am sitting there thinking to myself that it just feels colder than normal. I mentioned that to somebody and they said something about global warming. Okay, so I have heard this before: global warming accounts for hotter summers and colder winters.

Now, I understand that we can point at some scientific theory to justify this claim (I have Google, too), but I'm starting to think that the global warming alarm is the greatest conspiracy known to man. Here's why:

Scenario 1.
Person A: "Man, its sure feels hotter than normal today."
Al Gore: "uh-huh... global warming"

Scenario 2.
Person A: "Boy it's colder than I ever remember it being."
Al Gore: "well... it's global warming."

So just so I understand... if it gets too hot: it's global warming. Too cold: yep, global warming. Is it just me? Does that not seem convenient - I mean - odd?

Just to make sure I wasn't the crazy one here, I ran this by my 5-year-old. His response: "ha-ha-ha, Dad. You're silly." The kid gets it.

If you read my last post, you will catch the common point about scientists, journalists, and politicians consistently manipulating statistics and theory to represent something as irrefutable fact. Now I don't know enough about climatology and global warming to really state a good argument either way. But I am a logical thinker, and I am pretty good at detecting BS in the form of theory and statistics... and when it comes to the global warming alarm, my BS detector is going off.

By the way, Lake Havasu's low temps in the first half of December have been 6 degrees colder than average.

The irony

Everybody remember the constant messages we were being fed by the media and the Hollywood crowd a few years ago, like say, early 2007?
1. Bush is brazzen, evil, and dumb.
2. The sky is falling! -- er, I mean, "Global Warming!!"

So... now what?

1. Now that the Global Warming alarm is being shown to be misrepresented at best, and at worst, fradulent...
(and)
2. We haven't exactly upgraded within the office of the presidency...

Can we call those (the media and Hollywood crowd) who were so willingly duped into this man-as-agent-of-doom theory,

Brazzen, evil, and dumb?

Journalism "Spin of the Week"

As a journalism teacher, I like to try and catch when reporters are spinning things to dupe us into thinking what they want us to think. With msnbc, it's like stealing candy from a baby... but I couldn't resist on this one.

Even though this article is mostly about the concern over the black community potentially having a harder time overcoming this down job market, there is some strong implication that racism is the cause for this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34068710/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads//

Now, there is no doubt that every race is being affected by the recession. Of course, some are more affected than others. In a complex system, such as the job market, it is impossible to achieve equal distribution of goods (jobs, in this case).

Realistically speaking, of course racism is the culprit in some cases, and that is sad that some people would use race as a factor in hiring an individual. However, this article is telling us that black people, due to racism (and not other potential factors), are suffering worse in this economy.

So I did a little number crunching. Here is what I came up with using the exact same statistics. In fact, I just pulled the numbers they used and looked at it from another angle:

Since this recession started, if you are black, you are 43% more likely to be unemployed than before.

However, if you are white, there is a 52% greater chance you are unemployed.

Or, if I want to stretch it even farther, the white community has been more adversely affected by the recession than the black community by almost 10%.

But you won't get any of that from msnbc...

"Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?"

Well I am back from the land of the sick. I’ve been out for a little while. I was hit with some illness that never was diagnosed. I never have been sick like that. Finally, after about 5 days, I went in to Urgent Care. They tested me for H1N1 – I had no idea something could go that far up my nose (anyone who has been tested for this knows what I am talking about), then they tested me for strep throat, then for mono (“great, how am I going to explain this to my wife”), and then – for good measure – H1N1 again.

Unfortunately the world doesn’t stop when we are sick, so it has taken me the last couple weeks to catch myself up at work, but I’m back in the saddle again, as they say.

The other day, my wife and I were watching an old TV mini-series from the early 1980’s. Some of you may have seen it; it is a show called “V” and it is a sci-fi thriller about “V”isitors coming to Earth from outer space because their planet is tapped of its life-sustaining resources. (It was replayed on ScyFy channel because ABC recently launched a re-hash TV series which I haven’t had a chance to view yet.) The visitors come to Earth hoping that we will help them with their needs of resupplying their planet with these resources. At first they come as “friends” with a plan to put in action (working together, we help create the materials they need to replenish their resources), then they start to impose an agenda on humans (controlling us through fear and public persuasion to the point that humans won’t act of their own will), then they begin to take over the whole system. Soon any humans who are not part of their movement are outcast and ultimately forced into hiding, and ultimately the visitors enforce their real plans (enslaving and harvesting humans).

The thing that really got me with this show is how it reminded me of what is happening in our country right now... except for the human harvesting (as far as I know). In the course of this mini-series, my wife and I must have looked at each other half a dozen times with that look – the look of… “ohh, that sounds all-too familiar”. The irony of this is that the show is really a political allegory to Nazi Germany during its rise to power. I swear that if an American with no context of the history of Nazi Germany were to watch this mini-series, they would think it is a political play off of our current administration. At first, the humans saw opportunity. They were so charmed by these visitors, they didn’t stop to consider any of the right questions. Then, before they knew it, the opportunity to do anything was no longer there and their lives were no longer under their control.

Main Protagonist, Mike Donovan: (Asking a question similar to one I ask myself often) How'd someone like that get to be your leader anyway?
Friendly Alien, Martin: Charisma. Circumstances, promises... Not enough of us spoke out to question him until it was too late. It happens on your planet, doesn't it?

By the end, I wished I had taken notes to point out all the similarities between what the aliens imposed (with the help of blinded Earthlings) and what is going on in our government today (with the help of blinded Americans). I guess you’re just going to have to watch it. Now I am waiting on Netflix to send me the follow-up, "V: The Final Battle" and I should have a solution to our countries problems.

Fox News not real journalism??

This is the new play from the White House - and I've got to wonder if it is in response to all the investigative journalism Fox News has been using to expose Obama Administration-friendly organizations (ACORN). Take the chance to read this article about the White House's effort to marginalize Fox's objectivity:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/

One of these days, I would love to hear a specific complaint that holds water. Something that I can read and say, 'yeah, Fox got that wrong.' You know, of course they have gotten some things wrong - every news organization does. But if the White House has a legitimate complaint, they should show us what Fox has been reporting, and then show us how they are wrong?

Why don't they do this? Is it because repeating what Fox News reports is detrimental to the administration's public perception and they want to avoid re-running negative press?

Or is it simply because it is part of the liberal game-plan that any time someone blows a whistle on their agenda, they immediate dump mud on the person/organization and try to portray them as "biased, right-wing zealots (and therefore aren't truly relevant and we shouldn't listen to them)."

Even if the White House is spot-on with this... even if Fox News is really, really biased and non-objective - why are they the only news organization in the cross hairs? CNN and MSNBC (to name only 2 of the many) are highly biased and that has been shown (in specific cases) over and over again.

All in all, this makes me smile. As I read the article, I kept thinking to myself: "Fox ratings will only go up with this kind of press." And it has according to the article; apparently Fox News' ratings have gone up 20% this year. That's huge. The funny thing is, I'm not a huge Fox News person. I just find their stories more interesting, more relevant, and more representative of how I view the world.

The Obama Administration is walking a dangerous line by calling to the carpet a news organization with such a huge platform and influence on the public... not to mention ballsy reporters who will dig deep and expose corruption.

Never thought I'd say this, but...

I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.

A club football team in Paris known as PFG - or Pro Foot Gay, because they are a team comprised of gay football players - is threatening litigation on a Muslim team after the Muslim team decided they would not compete with the PFG team because they "don't agree with their philosophy."

So the press is throwing around terms like "homophobic" and "intolerant". Well, yeah. My question is: when exactly did it become wrong to be intolerant of people's choices? If someone commits murder, are we not intolerant of their behavior?

Wait, I know the argument you want to give me. Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. Well, there are very relevant arguments against that overly-stated mantra; none that an immoral, god-less society will really consider, though. So for the sake of argument, let's say nobody gets hurt any more or less in a gay relationship than in a straight one. Philosophically speaking, I am against homosexuality. And I am not in the monority. Obviously, I have my reasons. Our society has gotten to the point that I am expected to keep my philosophy entirely to myself in order to avoid being "homophobic" or "intolerant". Why should we care? Really? Why should we be so concerned about being labelled "intolerant".

A couple weeks ago, we went to McDonalds. As I was getting the kids out of the car, there was a man in the parking lot yelling across to his friend in very colorful and persistent offensive language... and he knew we were there with our three little ones. As I stepped away from the car to kindly ask him to stop, my wonderful wife beat me to the punch and not-so-kindly told him to stop. Obviously, we don't want our kids to hear such coarse and offensive language. My wife showed intolerance towards his language. Those words can not hurt my children in any measurable way. The words can not break their arms or scratch their knees. In fact, it is likely that our kids would forget the language after getting their chicken nuggets. However, as members of this obsessively non-judgemental society, are we to close our eyes and ears and ignore all forms of deviant behavior, or do we have the right to draw the line and stand up when the line is crossed?

When my wife tells the guy that he should choose different words when he is in public, is she showing judgement towards that man? Or is she showing judgement towards his behavior? I know my wife, and I know that she could say what she said to him, and 5 minutes later have a pleasant conversation with him and invite him over for dinner that night.

So I learned something from my wife that day. And I learned something from the Muslims this week, as well. We all have a line in the sand were we become "intolerant" of certain bahavior, regardless of others' opinions and responses. Where exactly your line is drawn depends on many factors. Ironically, an ever-increasing number of people have moved their "intolerance line" so far that the only thing they are intolerant of is when they perceive other people being intolerant.

But as for me, I'm siding with the Muslims on this one.

ACORN

Hopefully you've heard this story already. Though if you haven't, I wouldn't be surprised. Last Friday, reports emerged on the internet about an organization called ACORN (them of the alleged practices of voter fraud, cheating, etc) being exposed as an unscrupulous organization willing to lie, cheat, and promote fraud to achieve their purposes.

In short, a man and a woman - dressed as a pimp and a prostitute - walk into an ACORN office and inquire about getting a loan for a house in which the woman plans on running her prostitution business. Her business is, of course, illegal. A government agency helping her in her efforts to run this illegal business is corruption. However, here is the catch: the man and woman set it up to record the conversation. After the incriminating interviews took place, the videos were sent to Fox News.

There are just so many things wrong with this organization:

1. If you get a chance to watch these videos, you will notice that the man sets up these workers brilliantly. The workers attempt to be somewhat vague in their statements, saying things like, "You don't have to tell the government what you do. Just make up a business name and say you perform 'services'". Then the man says, "But what we are doing is illegal! We will get in trouble for breaking the law." The workers follow up his statement by repeating that even though it is illegal, they don't have to report the nature of the business to the government and can therefore skirt the legality of it.


2. The man told the workers that he is bringing in underage El Salvadoreans to work as hookers, and the workers didn't even bat an eye.

3. These workers are women! Women having no problem with this man pimping the girl. No problems with the girl offering her services in their neighborhood. And NO PROBLEM with them bringing in young girls (probably against their will) to work in the brothel.

4. This man (as of Monday morning) has submitted 3 different videos in 3 different ACORN offices, each with the same result... corruption, greed, and fraud!


On top of all this, Foxnews.com and CNN.com both broke this story on Friday. Foxnews pulled no punches and gave us the obvious and sad story. On the other hand, CNN pretended to play the high road and avoided accusing ACORN of doing anything wrong. CNN's dancing around the issue was comical with statements such as "the video appears to be edited in places" and "both women appear enthusiastic to help". Here is the CNN story as it appeared on Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?iref=newssearch

As the story progressed and ACORN fired the workers involved (implying/confirming that the allegations are true), Fox News continued to give us the news. CNN.com however, pulled the story altogether. I guess corruption in nation-wide government agencies isn't new-worthy at CNN, though Kanye West is worth 2 stories (see CNN.com front page).

The bias in our media infuriates me. I'm not saying Fox News isn't biased, but I AM saying the CNN and most of the liberal media is biased and shameless!

Quick Hits

A shotgun approach to some of my more recent thoughts...

- I never thought I would see the day that I wished I had SPAM blockers to protect me from White House emails.

- Anyone who wants to know how hot it is here in Havasu right now should bake some cookies, and when they reach in to take the finished product out, just hold your head down there as close as you can for about a minute. THAT's how it feels to walk outside in the afternoon here. Oh... I forgot a step -- send the finished baked goods to me.

- Speaking of cookies... was watching a cooking show the other day and my wife wanted me to make the Stir-Fry being spotlighted. Now, I'm not boasting, but when I sat down to eat this meal, I was entirely disappointed that it was nowhere as good as my own Stir-Fry. I'm not braggin', I'm just sayin' mine was better is all...

- Speaking of my wife... I am now officially married to a hot 30 year old mom! (only about half of you will get why that is so cool)

- Speaking of things that are cool... the Dodgers sure seem to be cooling off. I am starting to worry a little about the boys in blue. Their relief pitching is getting worse as the season continues. Broxton especially seems to be losing his stuff. Heading into September with a weak bullpen makes me nervous.

- Speaking of September... Fall means it's time for college football, but more specifically, USC football. Here's my preseason take on the Trojans. I know their defense is supposed to be weak compared to last year - but then again, last year they had one of the best defenses ever. So, yeah, there is going to be a drop-off. I still think the defense will be very good and the offense, I think, will be just as good as always. I don't buy the some ol' story line that there are going to be considerable quaterback problems for them. Seriously: Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, John David Booty, Mark Sanchez, (insert here a top recruit with excellent wide receivers, offensive line, running backs, and coaching). I think things will be fine offensively.

- Speaking of offensive... are there really sane Americans who support this Hugo Chavez character? Shutting down any anti-Chavez media outlets. Did you see the picture of his thugs, er, supporters beating down a reporter?
So there is a long list of American leftists who support Chavez, including, of course some of the nutters in Hollywood. The IRONY!! The people who were constantly in front of the camera utilizing their American right to disparage President Bush are supporting a leader in another country who would silence those very actions. I guess the answer to my question, is that, no, there aren't any sane Americans supporting Chavez. Just some "useful idiots" as Vladimir Lenin might have called them.

- Speaking of tyrannical leaders, I finally finished the 5th Harry Potter book (the start of the school year really slowed my pace). So far, this has been my favorite (book and movie) - in case anyone was keeping score. By the way, the tyrannical leader I am speaking of is of course Lord Voldermort.

- And speaking of movies... I need to take my wife out on our anniversary this weeked and I think it would be prudent to watch something romantic (unlike last year when we saw Dark Knight). Any suggestions??


Until next time...

My nerd initiation

This will be short and sweet...

A meaningful idea occured to me the other day and I thought to myself, "this would be a really good thing to blog on." So I sat down first to get some work done on the computer, then to post a blog. As I started sorting through my thoughts on how to present this, I kept drifting to the Harry Potter book I am reading that I really like and really want to finish. So let the hazing begin. It's 9:30, the kids are asleep, my wife is watching So You Think You Can Dance, and all I want to do is read about a boy-wizard. I hope I haven't lost all credibility.

p.s. I'll post again soon... I am almost done with the book.

American's 'acted stupidly' by electing Obama

Stop me if you've heard this one...
A white police officer arrests a black man. The black man calls it racial profiling. The white officer says it was for his own safety. Who really knows other than the two people who were there?

Apparently, President Obama thinks this is an important enough issue to deal with. Mr. President says that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly (to make this arrest)." Then, he states the media is obsessing over the issue. Well... yeah - you thought it was important enough to pass judgement on. Next comes this gem: "There's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." (And really, anyone with a shred of logic or common sense - you don't even need both - can refute this statement.) How often do we hear presidents passing judgement on individual law enforcement officers AND playing the race card at the same time? Hate to say you started this media frenzy President, but - "you started it!"

Yes, we can and will argue over the rights and wrongs of both Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, but my question is: does it raise anyone else's eyebrows when the President of the United States looks at race first as he did here, admitting to not having the facts, but still making those statements, and therefore puts himself in a completely non-objective position? For you or I, losing our objectivity over an issue is usually forgivable. When it's the man running the country, it bumps Health Care Plan issues. I read a quote that sums it up well: "Automatically, the words are more significant when it comes out of the president's mouth" - Whit Ayres, Fox News.

Now Obama wants to set up a meeting with the officer, the professor, and himself to have a beer at the white House. How cool! (I think that is the response Obama is looking for when he makes those kinds of statments... please wake me when everyone else gets sick of it, too.) For reference on this statement, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32132522#32133926
(6:15 into clip)

"Have a beer (at the white House)." Come again? What exactly is the president going to do at this meeting? Talk the professor out of suing the police department and Officer Crowley? Seriously, would this meeting have any other purpose than an attempt to improve Obama's declining approval ratings? They will say that this is with the purpose of discussing and improving race relations in America, but would anyone with half a mind fall for that?

It really has come down to this point for me. I simply can not watch President Obama speak, or VP Biden for that matter, without my double-talk radar blowing up. He continually makes ambiguous statements that are INTENDED to either mislead us, allow him to sit on the fence ("I should have callibrated those words differently"), or protect him when he is wrong ("This economic stimulus package will create or save X number of jobs" [paraphrased]). It drives me absolutely crazy to try to interpret what he is saying because nothing is straight-forward. In the end, I just don't take anything he says at face value. That's okay (though unfortunate) when you are talking about your next door neighbor. It's downright scary when you're talking about the leader of the free world.

I really, really want President Obama to succeed, but with each passing week, I become increasingly unable to see how he will with the way he operates his administration. In short, we have elected a man who will lead us deeper into the abyss, tell us we really aren't headed that way, and then blame others for what he did. Let me correct that sentence. Those things have already happened...

Healthy Care

Most (if not all) of you know that we had a scare last week with our baby. For a couple days, we had an increasingly fussy infant on our hands, followed by a very lethargic day of him mostly sleeping. As Saturday afternoon became Saturday evening, his symptoms increased to the point where we realized that he HAD to see a doctor. In the emergency room, the staff appropriately informed us that if he was going to need extended care, he would have to be taken to Las Vegas, as Lake Havasu City does not have the facilities to care for an infant (a different discussion for a different day). Later, they informed us that he would be flying to the child care facility in Vegas, as it required immediate attention.
As with any good mother, my wife's attention was completely on comforting and caring for the little guy. As the father, my mind starts processing through the many other issues we are now facing...
-what to do with the other kids
-did my wife eat dinner?
-how to politely, but firmly, tell the doctor that my baby is not flying to Vegas without his mother
-how to efficiently get myself to Vegas (cause I would be driving) with the things we need for our stay
...and not the least of my concerns...
-how much of this is my insurance going to pay?

In short, at that point (as far as insurance claims go) we were facing:
-the trip to the Havasu ER
-an ambulance ride to the airport in Havasu
-medical flight from Havasu to Vegas
-ambulance from Vegas airport to Sunrise Children's Hospital
-urgent care surgery
-recovery in the hospital.

This all leads me to the topic of this post... health care. First off, let me say that I am categorically against state-run programs. I don't see the logic behind paying more of my money to the government for them to decide how to spend it. I know it sounds great to have "free" health care, but all that really means is that the people who are paying most of the taxes in this country will be paying more, and the pool of individuals who are actually getting truly free health care (already receiving health care through the government and not paying their portion of the bills, i.e. taxes) will just increase in size. Let me also say that I have been on state health care. In fact, my wife and kids are on a modified state care program now (we pay our premium directly to the state). I understand the benefit of welfare medical insurance. This is difficult for me, considering my ideals; while we are not a poor family, we certainly can't afford to pay the $492 a month it would cost to cover my family.

Now on one hand, I can say that my family and I haven't historically required a great deal of medical attention. When you consider the the amount of money being spent each month by myself and my employers towards insurance over the years, I have got to think that the insurance companies are making a killing off of my family. On the other hand, this little trip to the emergency room combined with the air ambulance, etc., surely cost the insurance companies a lot of that money they have made off of me over the years (not sure the cost of all this stuff, but of what I can find, the transportation alone probably cost around $30,000).

So, what is the deal with this? I can't be doling out close to $500 per month on health insurance. Still, the insurance companies need to charge enough to pay our claims. And, yes, it is a business for them, too; they need to make some money off of us. I appreciate that President Obama is trying to reform health insurance, as it clearly needs reforming. I just obviously have concerns over how he plans to reform health care.

The way I see it, one of three things needs to happen:
- Either we need to just accept - as citizens - that it is going to cost A LOT of money to insure ourselves (and I recognize Americans have been doing for some time now), which will (continue to) result in millions of under- and uninsured Americans... which will effectively mean that taxpayers will be picking up the tab anyway as these uninsured can't pay their hospital bills.
- Or government needs to step in and make a pay schedule that will be (what they believe to be) fair to everyone so all can receive "free" health care.
- Or... the cost of health care needs to drop into a range that allows insurance companies to lower their rates, thus making it possible for people to be able to afford health care. This would also mean that insurance companies need to pay the claims as they are billed, so there isn't this circular problem of over-billing to compensate for underpayment, and underpayment to compensate for over-billing.

I recognize that I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to me that when considering all things, the third option would be best for our country. The hard part is figuring out how to make that happen (maybe someone who reads this will know and leave a comment, cause I certainly don't know). I imagine at the very least it would require people in the medical fields and the insurance companies (and the ambulance-chasing lawyers) to function within a moral and ethical fair zone in regards to money. Again, I just don't know how that is going to be enforced, but I take consolation in the idea that there are representatives for us right now working on this trying to do the right thing and give us strong, positive health care reform... and I hope (I am trying very hard not to being cynical here) they make the right long-term decisions that are best for all Americans.

What I can say is that my little boy is doing better and I appreciate all the love, prayers, and concern over him.

My not-quite-a-movie-review movie review

I love movies - all kinds. Well, most kinds. I've never liked musicals (I could never figure out how a group of people could spontaneously stop what they are doing and do a dance in flawless unison). But, for the most part, I really enjoy all kinds of movies. I enjoy movies about sports, like Hoosiers. Funny movies, like Young Frankenstein. Fantasy, like Lord of the Rings. And I like funny movies about sports with fantastic elements, like Field of Dreams. I love deep, thought-provoking movies which cause me to reflect, like The Dark Knight. And still, I often love to sit and watch a silly, turn-off-your-brain-and-laugh slapstick, a la Dumb and Dumber.

What I love most in movies, however, is when people are taken to their limits, causing them to rise above what they previously thought they could do or achieve, and they "overcome"... the Rocky concept. However, as much as I love sports (and Rocky), underdogs winning in a competition takes second to the sub-genre of man fighting for his rights of freedom and/or life. Of course there are so many movies based off of this concept, and like any other sub-genre, some are good and some are bad - some are simple and some are complex. Here's a short list: Independence Day, Braveheart, The Matrix, Gladiator, The Great Escape, and of course, The Terminator franchise.

For a long time I have based all action movies on the T-2 (Terminator 2, for the unenlightened) scale of satisfaction. It's funny ("You were gonna kill that guy." "Of course. I'm a terminator"), it has great action, an iconic hero, a bad, bad, bad, kick-some-serious-butt female lead -- remember Sarah Conner repeatedly pumping and firing that shotgun at the liquid metal terminator with her one good arm to protect her son. But above all, T-2 is (save the snickering) deeply philosophical for a blockbuster action movie. Without getting too into the plot (cause if you don't know the plot of T-2, you should immediately go to your local movie rental store and check it out - and then get back to this post), one of the main points of the movie is that our future is up to us. Fate or bad luck or poor choices may influence what happens to us, but ultimately we are in charge of our own course. We are in control, and if we want something badly enough, we need to act. Do what it takes to make it happen rather than sitting passively by as the world acts on us.

A couple days ago I went to see the new Terminator movie. I know a lot of people were disappointed with it - I wasn't. I loved it! I loved the action, the storyline, the acting, the climax, everything. I even loved the new philosophical bit we got from this movie.

The main character and leader of the human resistance against the machines is John Connor. His words to the destitute, desperate people: "Above all, stay alive. You have no idea how important you are."

Back in our world, we are living in difficult times. Life is hard. Sometimes it is hard to know what's right, and it is often hard to do what's right. It can drag you down. It's easy to step onto the slope that takes us into a zone of indifference to the world around us.  My wife and I were just talking about this the other day. We are frustrated about some of the things going on in our country and world. And now, more than ever, we feel like we have no control, no voice to express our disapproval...  

Then we realized... now, more than ever, we must express our voices and opinions and we must act.  We must do what we feel is right and stand up against the things that are wrong, against the Terminators (of freedom).  Sounds cheesy, I know, but I couldn't resist. 

John Connor's words to his people brought optimism and encouraged his followers to always maintain some control over their lives so they could act and do what's right.

Some of us may feel that, like the human resistance in Terminator, The Matrix, and Star Wars, that we are being taken beyond our limits of what is acceptable and what is expected as a human being and an American.  For you I say, "Stay alive. You have no idea how important you are."  We will rise above - perhaps higher than we previously thought we could - and we will overcome the challenges facing us.

... and cheaters never prosper (unless you are a professional athlete)

So, should I amend my last post or what? I have been asked by a number of people how I feel about Manny Ramirez and his streroid use. I don't really know how to feel; I haven't taken a whole lot of time to think about it because I am so sick of this stuff happening in baseball. I can't even stand to read about it - it just bugs me.

A week ago the Dodgers where on top of the baseball world - and realistically speaking, they should still be pretty competitive (I know they have lost 4 of 5 since losing Manny, but they were due to cool off and lose a few games, anyway) - but what kills me is that this euphoric sense of "this is our year" when the Dodgers were playing so well was forged by cheating.

Now looking ahead - the games will continue, Manny will hire an excellent spin doctor, er, PR Agent (hint to Manny: try calling A-Rod's agent, he did an excellent job of making it so we didn't care about his cheating), and we will forgive. Actually, we will look forward to Manny coming back and finishing the season. Manny will only make $14 million dollars this year (how will he make it), the Dodgers will make the playoffs and possibly win the World Series.

Ultimately, nothing will change. The Dodgers are still going to do what the Dodgers are going to do. Manny will still be rich. Too many athletes will continue to cheat. We will continue to watch, listen to, and attend the games, paying the salaries that afford them this lifestyle and encourage them to skirt the rules.

Again... should I amend my last post, or what?