9/10

In 2001, I was a sophomore in junior college.  One of the best parts about my two years in junior college was that two of my best friends were my roommates -- Brad my freshman year and Brian my sophomore year.  One of the perks about having a life-long friend as your college roommate is that he is morally obligated to get you a birthday present.  While I have no recollection of what Brad got me as a gift in 2000 (probably booze), I will never forget the gift I received from Brian.

Brian's grandmother (my great-aunt) and grandfather were Denver Bronco season ticket holders for as long as I can remember.  I remember, when I was in elementary school, going with my dad, Brian, and Brian's dad to a Bronco game at Mile High Stadium.  I have no memory of the game itself, just that the four of us went.  Traveling to the big city of Denver was a rare occasion in my youth, and attending a Bronco game was even rarer. 

So, imagine my surprise when Brian told me that he, along with my great aunt and another cousin, would be taking me to the Denver Broncos' season opener for that season.  Not only that, but this game would be the first game played in the new Mile High at Invesco Field.  And, to top it all off, this game would be the first Monday Night game of the NFL season.  What a great present.

My memories of that night include:

• The atmosphere at the stadium was electric.  People were excited to get inside and see the new field.  At the gate, we received a commemorative ticket lanyard and bought a commemorative Game Day program (both of which I still have, boxed up somewhere in my garage).  On the way through the stadium corridor we saw one of the Bronco cheerleaders talking to fans and signing autographs.  So, of course we ran over and got our tickets signed.  

• The stadium was beautiful and the seats were amazing.  We were on the north 40 yard line on the visitor's side of the field, about 15 rows up.  Outstanding seats. (Incidentally, years later my wife would get us tickets to the game through her work which were in the first row, and while being that close is pretty cool, it's actually not the best place to watch the game.  You really need to be a bit higher to see the action on the field well.)  

• I remember that the Broncos were playing the NY Giants.  I couldn't tell you what the final score was (I'm pretty sure the Giants won), and the only part of the game I still remember was the play when Eddie McCaffrey broke his leg.  As I remember, it was a brutal hit and when Eddie didn't immediately pop up after the tackle and the stadium crew didn't replay the play on any of the screens in the stadium, I knew something bad had happened.  I didn't actually see the play happen until a few years later when I looked it up on YouTube.

Not a ton of memories, but I know I had a great time. It was a night game, and Brian and I had class early the next day, so we didn't have the option of staying the night in Denver.  Since our drive home was so late at night, the four of us spent the more than 3-hour drive home talking.  I have no idea how the topic was brought up, but one of us asked my great aunt about Pearl Harbor (I imagine we were talking about movies and since the movie "Pearl Harbor" was released earlier in 2001, we asked her about it).  I don't remember what she told us about it, just that we spoke about the topic for a little while. 

I doubt that I'd have remembered half of this information as well as I do, but the next day, September 11, was (and always will be) my birthday.  Brian and I followed our usual morning routine, with Brian awaking before me and showering, and once he was out of the shower, I showered.  Brian would always turn on the television and watch the news as he got dressed and I can distinctly remember him telling me to come watch the television.  This is what we saw:



As I sat down onto the bed and we watched the coverage about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center building, we witnessed the second plane fly into the second building live. 

My memory of the rest of my birthday that day is fuzzy.  I believe Brian and I went to a high school volleyball game to watch our sisters play and then had dinner with my parents at a Mexican restaurant.  I'm pretty sure my parents gave me a television for us to use in our dorm room as a present.  But other than those two facts, what would normally have been a happy occasion for me, instead became anything but happy.

So, each year, on September 10th, I fall asleep replaying that 24 hours over in my head, wondering why, of all the topics we could had talked about that night, we happened to talk about one attack on America just hours before another attack would occur.  I know the two are unrelated, but my mind still wanders back to that night's events.  Tomorrow morning, as America morns the horrible tragedy of that day, I will be celebrating the passing of another year of my life.

Kids

In the past couple of weeks, two of our best friends and their spouses had babies.  The wife's best friend M and her husband M gave birth to little J.H.  And my cousin B and his wife K had an early surprise when their son E.C. (also my initials.  Coincidence?  I think not.), was born a few weeks earlier then expected.  Both parents are now home with their new sons, and everyone seems to be healthy, happy, and doing great.  One of the hardest parts about being in another state is not being able to share in the joy of new babies in person.  Pictures and phone calls are great, but it would be so much more fun to be there with them.  And, while they never say it out loud, with the arrival of new babies in the family and friends circle, I'm sure many people are wondering why the wife and I are babyless (that's a word, right?).

In my circle of friends and family my age, I was one of the earliest to get married.  And six great years later, I'm one of the last holdouts in the baby making category.  So, why have we waited so long, and why are we planning on waiting even longer before we have kids?  (I'll give my Mom a chance to pick herself off the floor after a panic-induced heart attack after the last part of that last sentence.)  Four main reasons come to mind.

1)  Financially speaking, we are not in a great place to have kids right now (and probably won't be for a couple of years).

Of the six years we've been married, we've only had one year where we were probably financially stable enough to consider having kids.  When we first got married, I still had one year of school remaining, and the wife was just starting her job.  We lived in a 1-bedroom apartment and drove less then reliable cars.  Kids didn't make much financial sense.  Year two I was starting a new job and we'd just bought a house.  Kids still didn't make sense at the time.  During year three we were a two income family with a house and two cars, so, financially speaking, we could have had kids and been fine.  But we didn't (mostly because of the reasons explained below).  Year four, with no kids, we decided that we were in a good place to be able to leave for law school, which bumped us back into the "it's not the wisest time to have kids financially speaking" category for three years.  After law school, we'll (probably) be moving back to Colorado and reentering the job market, so it may be a few years before we're back to a financially stable situation.


2)  We've never really had a long enough period of time of calm in our lives for the subject of having kids to make sense (or, life's stresses have always gotten in the way).


Year one was filled with learning how to be married, my finishing school, and the wife's new job stresses, so throwing the a kid into the mix would have been a big overload.  Year two was filled with my being in survival mode as a first-year teacher (and the wife was overcome with the stress of being married to a first-year teacher.  I think she got the tougher burden to carry that year.) and buying and fixing a house.

At the beginning of year three, we were in a less stressful phase of our lives, which lead to us getting a cat and a dog (usually the gateway drug for baby making).  But, eventually the wife's job stagnated, so we spent a year preparing for law school, and goal number one of that preparation was staying baby free.  The following couple of years were filled with the stresses of moving, law school, my new job, my being unemployed, my finding a great new job, etc.  All of which would have been much more difficult with a child.

3)  Married life without a kid is a ton of fun (or, less responsibility is a ton of fun).

One of my favorite comedians, John Heffron, has a bit about how he was at a point in his life where he had to choose between having a kid and buying a jet ski.  And he chose the jet ski.  At this point in my life, if I had to choose between having a kid and golf, baseball cards, nights at the ball park, weekly poker games, going out to eat as often as possible, spur of the moment trips/vacations, shopping sprees, hours on the couch watching tv and movies, blogging, etc., I'm going to pick the latter choices every time.  Would it be possible to do those things with a child in our lives?  Sure.  But it is so much easier to do them, and to do them more often, without the child.

4)  We're still relatively young and the so called "biological clock" hasn't really begun ticking.

Because we got married as youngsters, we were given a larger window in which we could have kids.  We live in a time where it's not imperative to have kids at an early age.  It's both scientifically possible and socially acceptable to have kids at an older age then ever before.  My parents were both in their thirties when they had my brother.  So the wife and I are in no hurry to have kids, biologically speaking.

With each passing year, the choice of having a kid becomes less and less appealing for many reasons, especially those listed above.  Will we have kids in the future?  More then likely.  But right now (and for the next couple of years), it just doesn't make sense for us. 

"Stop criticizing President Obama for playing golf."

So says David Kopel over at the Volokh Conspiracy.  David points out that another President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, spent a lot of time out on the course during his presidency.  It has been estimated that President Eisenhower golfed upwards of two times a week.  He concludes that,

 "President Eisenhower demonstrated beyond any doubt that there is no inherent contradiction between being a good President and being an avid golfer. Indeed, golf helps clear the mind, and hardly any sport is better at fostering humility in participants.  So unless President Obama’s critics are willing to state that President Eisenhower golfed too much, they should stop carping about President Obama’s golfing."

I completely agree with David's analysis.  I have absolutely zero problem with any President decompressing on the course once or twice a week.  I may never agree with President Obama's ideology or politics, but I will never begrudge him playing a round of golf, or shooting hoops with his staff, or even lighting up a cigarette.  Life (and the presidency) is hard.  Might as well find a few avenues to work off some stem or decompress.  And that goes for the low hanging fruit of political pundits in mocking a Presidential vacation, whether it's a trip to a Texas ranch or a week in Martha's Vineyard.

So the guy likes to golf.  Big whoop.  I can think of worse ways for a sitting President to spend his time (chasing intern tail springs to mind). 

Which brings me to my weekly question from my wife.

This week, My Wife Asks...what would you do if you had no money constraints?

This hypothetical exercise reminds me of how my junior college golf teammates and I would pass the time on our long bus trips.  We spent one 6+ hour bus trip dreaming up scenarios of how we would spend vast amounts of money (fortresses, fantastic vehicles, dream houses, etc.).  I was really fun hearing different people's ideas of pure fun.  It was also great to add features to another person's fantasy, as well as debating the merits of some ideas (example:  what is the best way to fortify your dream home from intruders?).

So, what would I do if money with no concern for the cost?  I would buy a great luxury RV, pack up the wife and dog, and travel the US playing every golf course we stumbled upon until the money ran out.

This idea would combine my love for golf with my enjoyment of visiting new towns across this great land of ours.  In my mind, there is no greater way to spend a road trip.

The beauty of the roadtrip golf tour in an RV is multifaceted.  First, my wife hates flying.  And if I'm going to get her onboard with this plan, my best bet is by land. 

Second, I love road trips.  I have since I was a kid.  I love the slowness of road trips, and yet I hate the slowness of the hurry up and wait attitude of air travel.  I love the little things that a road trip brings.  We would stop at every diner, drive-in, and dive we stumble upon for our meals.  On the road we can take detours, shop antique shops, visit popular destinations, see historic and notable sites, and just take it easy.

Third, an RV road trip would make over nights so much easier because finding a pet friendly hotel is a pain in the neck.  An RV also would give my wife and the dog more room to be comfortable while we travel mile after mile.  We would also save a bundle sleeping in our RV, because even though money would not be an issue, I still love a bit of frugality. 

Fourth, and foremost, there are so many great golf courses that I've never (and may never) played because they are out of the way and/or are not within our current budget.  Take for instance The Prairie Club in Valentine, NE.  This beautiful links style course was recently ranked the number one course in Nebraska, and I may never get to play it because Valentine is in the middle of nowhere.   There is basically no reason to go to Valentine, except to visit this course.  And there are hundreds of courses like it.  My mind is racing just thinking about the possibilities.

So, there you have it.  The day after we hit the big payday, we're hitting the road.

Ground Zero Mosque -- Part Deux

In the comments of my previous Ground Zero Mosque post, my bro-in-law mentioned that maybe, for the first time ever, I agree with President Obama on an issue.  Well, I like to think that the President, for the first time, agrees with me.  Because I've been right all along, and the President is just now realizing it.

Well, I'm going to have another first, I'm going to recommend, and agree with, a Jon Stewart monologue.

I've never really cared much for Stewart.  I've never found him or Colbert to be funny.  If I stumble upon one of their clips while scrolling through the blogosphere, I'll rarely ever watch the entire clip.  And my laughing at one of their bits is even rarer.  But Jon Stewart's monologue about the whole mosque uproar was fairly on point in my opinion.

I've attached the video at the end of this post, and I highly recommend watching all nine minutes, but if you are like me and don't like his schtick, then here are the interesting (to me) points that he makes.

First, he plays a portion of Laura Ingraham on Fox News from last December in which she says, "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it.  Bloomberg is for it.  You got rabbis in New York saying they don't have a problem with it.  (...)  I like what you're trying to do and Ms. (unintelligible) we appreciate it." 

Now, I'm going to assume that this clip is what they purport it to be and it has not been edited down so much as to be out of context.  And I haven't listened to Laura's show with any regularity for many years, so I don't know if she's maintained her support for the project or if she's decided to change her position.  Jon doesn't offer up any more clips of Laura speaking against the mosque, so I don't know her current thoughts on the mosque project, but since Laura is a figurehead within the conservative movement, it's interesting to see how much has changed (in the conservative movement, in general) in six months.  Interesting, if not informative.

Jon then shows a smattering of clips from cable news talking heads from the right talking about the insensitivity of the mosque's location (a position I completely understand, but do not support).  He tells some of his (unfunny to me) jokes, makes a few (again, unfunny) puns, and gets some giggles from the audience.  He continues the clips/jokes/commentary portion of the monologue for a few minutes.  Jon then singles out one particular guy on a FoxNews morning show, paying special attention to the man's homemade cue cards and conspiracy theories.  You won't miss much if you skip over this part.  Nothing ground breaking or particularly funny.

Then, at the seven minute mark his argument starts getting more effective.  If you can't stomach Stewart and don't like what he says, I would contend the last two and a half minutes of the video is REQUIRED viewing.

Jon says, "This whole thing has gotten crazy.  In our panic, we've lost sight of something very important.  If only someone could step up and cut through all this political posturing and fear mongering and remind us what America is all about."

(NOTE: the first time I watched this video, I assumed that Jon was going to take another swipe at the people with which he disagrees.  I must say that I was pleasantly surprised with the clip he actually showed.  I guess I shouldn't always assume the worst of people and should give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.)

After making the above statement, Jon shows a clip of a speech by Charlton Heston in 1999.  Please do yourself a favor and listen to Charlton's wise words.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Charlton Heston:  Tragedy has been and will always be with us.  Somewhere right now evil people are planning evil things.  All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it.  But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us.  

Powerful words from a great man.

Jon goes on to point out that Mr. Heston's speech was given soon after another very tragic event in our Nation's history, the shooting at Columbine High School.  He also points out that that speech was given at an NRA convention that the left had demanded not take place in Denver because it was too near the site of that tragedy.  Jon even makes the observation that he was probably one of those people calling for the convention be moved.

He ends the segment with more of Heston's speech.

Charlton Heston:  America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction.  When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding the NRA explain the inexplicable.  Why us?  Because this story needs a villain.  That is not our role in American society and we will not be forced to play it.  If you disagree, that's your right.  I respect that, but we will not relinquish it, or be silenced about it, or be told, do not come here, you are not welcome in your own land.  

I'd like to give credit to Jon Stewart and his staff for digging out the Heston speech and giving it the respect that it deserves.  That speech and those words are just as appropriate and meaningful now as they were when they were first spoken.  And so is the sentiment those words were intended to evoke.  It feels like I'm in a bizzaro-world, where people like Jon Stewart are using clips of Charlton Heston speaking at an NRA convention to support their argument and people like Rush Limbaugh are playing personality politics and throwing around conspiracy theories.  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

It is my hope that my friends in the conservative movement will set aside their (rightful and deserved) anger and will think about the principles that make their movement so strong and important to America.  Such principles as rugged individualism, property rights, a prudent government, the imperfectability of man and government, the opposition of involuntary collectivism, the restraint of government, and the reconciliation of permanence and change.  These are the principles of a strong and vibrant conservative movement.  Not impulse and emotion and populism.  And impulse, emotion, and populism are the traits I see in many of the people most opposed to the Ground Zero mosque.  And it saddens me.

Ground Zero Mosque

So the latest Facebook meme floating into my news feed goes something like this:

"If you think putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and having the inauguration on the anniversary of 9/11 is immoral and inhuman. If you think it shows a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that perished there and if you think that politicians are doing a grave injustice to those fallen heroes, thei...r families and all the people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL"

Assuming we ignore the countless grammatical errors (and every one I've seen so far has these errors), I have a few problems with this particular sentiment.

First, if 600 feet is too close to ground zero for these people's taste, then how about moving the mosque 1000 feet away, will that work?  If not 1000 feet, will 2000 feet work?  How about a mile?  How far away from Ground Zero would be acceptable?  Is it acceptable to even have a mosque in the same town?  State?  Continent?  Hemisphere?  Where shall we draw the line for acceptable locations for places of worship for the people of Islam?  Well, according to this NYTimes article, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and California are all still too close to Ground Zero for some people to allow a mosque. 

Same for the "inauguration" date.  If September 11th won't do, how about September 10th (when the acts of 9/11 were, I'm assuming, being finalized).  Does a September 10th inauguration still show a lack of respect?  How about September 12th?  September 21st?  I'm assuming they shouldn't do it in August out of respect for the people who died in the US Embassy bombing.  And October is out due to the USS Cole bombing.

So my question is when and where can Muslims build and open a mosque?

Finally, the above meme uses the collective "all" when talking about victims of the attack, fallen heroes, their families, and New York, which is a rhetorical device that I find unpersuasive.  Whenever someone uses the collective all/we/us/them, their opinions lose weight in my mind.  There is no way that the memories of "all" that perished there could be disrespected by the mosque, as there were hundreds who died there who were Muslim.  There is no way that "all" of New York could be victim of this "grave injustice", as there are presumably New Yorkers who will attend this mosque regularly.  As a firm believer and proponent of "rugged individualism", I much prefer specifics and tend to reject generalities (when it comes to labeling people).

And it's not just my friends on Facebook who are (in my opinion) in the wrong on this issue.  Today, on my drive home for lunch, the Jim Rome Show went to commercial so I decided to tune into the Rush Limbaugh show for the first time in a couple of months.  Here is a transcript of the part of the show that I heard:

We got people on our side saying, "We gotta be very, very careful here, we don't want to overstep on this, could really hurt us in November."  Who's saying this?  The Democrat ruling class people and the media are saying it, and typically people on our side in the ruling class in the Beltway, "Oh, yeah, they're right, we don't want to make them mad."  The left, you know, they like to hold Joe McCarthy out as some kind of unbalanced commie hunter.  Look at Pelosi.  Look at her massive ego, her massive power grabbing, the way she runs the House, her statements about investigating those she disagrees with.  She is McCarthy, she is Watergate, and all the rest of it combined.  The only voices who will object to Pelosi are ours, conservative voices.  They're not going to find anybody in the Republican Party hierarchy upset with this. No, it's just Pelosi being Pelosi they'll say. It's just usual inside-the-Beltway stuff.  That's just Pelosi being Pelosi, that's just Reid being Reid, oh, that's no big deal, that's just the Democrats being who they are.  

You let some Republican, say a speaker of the House, start talking about investigating people who are funding certain leftist causes and you see what happens.  This is a tipping point.  Is Pelosi gonna investigate Harry Reid?  Harry Reid's opposed to the mosque.  Now, granted, he's been given special dispensation on this.  But is Pelosi gonna investigate Reid?  And it looks like dissent isn't patriotic anymore, is it?  It looks like what Hillary said about dissent and opposing the administration, that was the new patriotism back during the first and second terms of George W. Bush.  But, now, no, no, no, no.  Even Chris Christie's getting on this bandwagon, (paraphrasing) "We don't want to overplay our hand here, this could go a little bit wrong.  We gotta be very, very, very, very careful.  Others are warning us not to shout about this, don't go out and say what you really want to say."  I'm sorry.  These are not the people who tell me what to say and what not to say.  They have never been, and they're not going to start being now.  

Notice that the Muslims' right to freedom of religion trumps our freedom of speech.  We're being told to shut up 'cause it might hurt Republicans in November.  We're being told to tiptoe, be very, very, very, very careful here. Well, they can cower all they want in retirement.  I'm going to continue to do and say what I think is right, because, folks, there are millions of Democrats, and there are millions of independents and others who are on the correct side of this mosque business, and buying into the Democrat template, that this is about politics, this stuff, is dead wrong.  This is not politics as usual.

I find myself doing this more and more, but I disagree with Rush here.  He's all over the place in this monologue.  He's hitting all the hot-button buzz words:  Pelosi, Reid, Democrat ruling class, Beltway, etc.  I listened to this 5 minute block of his show and I was happy when I got home so I could shut it off.  As I didn't listen to the rest of the show, I'm hoping he took some time to logically explain why he opposes the mosque.  But one aspect of his monologue really grabbed my attention:

Notice that the Muslims' right to freedom of religion trumps our freedom of speech.

And this is where he completely lost me.  To me, this is not a "freedom of religion" issue.  To me, this is not a "freedom of speech" issue.  Both of those freedoms are alive and well.  This is, to me, an issue over property rights.  Should an owner of a property be able to develop that property as they see fit (within the guidelines and requirements set forth by their local municipality)?  I say yes, regardless of how this new development upsets some people's sensibilities.  And this goes for mosques, casinos, porn stores, strip clubs, liquor stores, Planet Hollywoods, lingerie stores, Starbucks, WalMarts, Scientology centers, and any other building that bothers people.  I say let them all be built.  Get that portion of New York back in business.  Let the market place decide.  

And I'm quite disappointed in Rush for not recognizing the property rights angle.  For example, a year ago Rush talked about the city of Chicago turning away a WalMart, and had this to say, "Where there are new jobs to be created in the private sector, Democrats somewhere are standing in the way of it, all because of an irrational hatred of a retailer called Wal-Mart and all because Wal-Mart is not unionized."

Rush wants the government to stay out of the way when it comes to Walmart or any other group of people/company opening up shop, so why is he unhappy when the government for once does the right thing and stays out of the way?  So it would be ok for a JC Penny to open its doors to the public, but not an Islamic Mosque?  All of the 9/11 hijackers were men, so would there be the same reaction if a Big & Tall Men's store was being proposed?  Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  Should there be a boycott every falafel cart in the city?

To me, the fact that these people are going to build a place of worship on land that they have purchased, and are following all the necessary legal and zoning regulations, trumps any questions of sensibility.  And it troubles me that I'm apparently in the minority opinion on this subject in conservative circles.  It troubles me that some people's gut reaction and emotion over a tragic incident in the past is clouding their judgment and principles.  It troubles me that the movement I grew up with, the one that supported property rights and rugged individualism, now has a religious litmus test on who can and cannot develop their property and for what purposes.  I guess I should just be happy that I'm of the correct religious background of the majority and I should just go about my business until I become the minority.

Happy Blog-aversary

Well, technically, my 1st Blog-aversary isn't until the 18th, but being married to my wife for 6 years has corrupted me to the point that I can't wait until the actual day to open my presents.

Last year, around this time, I was chatting with Friar Tuck on Facebook and he suggested I start a blog.  I told him that I'd started a blog a few years back, but, as with most of my childhood pets (frogs, lizards, turtles, etc.), I grew bored with it after a few weeks and my parents were forced to take care of it.  Unfortunately, my parents didn't know the first thing about how to care for a blog, so they took it to a nice farm out in the country where it still lives to this day, right Mom?

Friar Tuck suggested that I give it another try.  So, I reestablished "87 Murphy Squirrels" on August 19, 2009, with the following words:

It's finally time for me to get off the sidelines and finally put my opinions where people can read them, critique them, and challenge them. It is my plan to make a blog entry at least once a day.

I have enjoyed being able to use Facebook & Twitter status updates to express myself, but have always felt limited by space.

I also apply a heavy filter to my Twitter and Facebook writings due to the audience. I do not feel like alienating my friends and family by forcing my views/opinions/thoughts onto them via their news feed. I would rather have people show up on their own, when they want, and if they want.

So..............here goes nothing.

A year later, I feel I have accomplished everything I set out to accomplish with my blog.  Over the past year I have written 160 blog posts (a bit shy of my idea to post daily, but not too bad).  My blog has allowed me to express my thoughts and feelings about politics, movies, music, and golf.  It has allowed me to brag about myself, my wife, and my dog.  It has been an outlet for my frustrations, sadness, and anger.

I tend to have obscure hobbies and interests (i.e. baseball cards, golf club building, eclectic music, among others), and writing in my blog allows me to explore those topics in my own way (and hopefully educate others about the things that I enjoy).

Also, over the past two years, my wife and I have been living far away from our family and friends, so my blog (as well as Twitter and Facebook) allows anyone of those friends or family members to know what has been happening in our lives.  It's a nice lifeline as we float along in this scary world.

Towards the later months of this past year my blog started running out of steam.  I'd grown sick and tired of politics (and sick and tired of how angry my political posts had become).  I'd said nearly everything I've ever wanted to say about golf in general.  My movie and television reviews and recommendations had become cliche and trite.  And while I'd found a new hobby in card collecting, those posts were slowly morphing into "look at these pictures" posts (which are not much fun for anyone other than me).  In short, my blog was getting stale and boring.  I had lost the passion and fervour that my posting once contained.

So, imagine my surprise when I found a "Happy Blog-aversary" card on the counter from my wife (and don't worry, there is still plenty of time for everyone else to send me and my blog something to celebrate our day.  Not much time.  But, technically speaking, there is still time.  But not much.  So hurry.)  I opened the card and found this note written inside.

As much as I love reading your blog, I grow a bit tired of posts about golf, politics, and Luke Hochevar baseball cards. As such, I am giving you this gift of inspiration. Each week I will ask you a question for you to answer on your blog. This answer can be one word or one thousand words, but you must answer my question, and you must do so weekly.  If your readers have questions they would like answered, please have them post the questions in the comments of your blog and I will work them in as the weeks go by. Hopefully, you will get at least a weekly blog post out of this deal and I will get to know more about you at the same time.  I'll even help you with the name of this feature, "My Wife Asks..."    

--- Your Wife

I am so very excited by this present.  For me, the hardest aspect of maintaining a blog is finding topics that interest me enough to spend time writing about.  And I can't believe I missed the most interesting topic there is for all of this time -- ME!  And, since this is my party, I'll open one more present.  This one is my Wife's first question.

My Wife Asks... what is your all-time favorite song?

There are thousands of songs that I love.  I have favorite country songs, favorite rock songs, favorite DMB songs, favorite oldies, favorite hymns, favorite instrumentals, favorite rap songs, favorite classical pieces, and favorite heavy metal songs.  But if I were forced to pick an All-Time Favorite I would have to pick



"Right Now" by Van Halen. 

I love Van Halen and I love everything about this song.  In my mind, every aspect of this song is perfect.  Musically speaking, this song is awesome.  This piano solo should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  Add to it the world's greatest guitarist, a fantastic drummer, and an under-appreciated bass guitarist, how could you go wrong?  But as good as this song is instrumentally, the lyrics are what nudge it to the number one spot.  Give the song another listen, and read these lyrics as Sammy sings them.

Don't wanna wait 'til tomorrow
Why put it off another day?
One by one, little problems
Build up, and stand in our way. Oh

One step ahead, one step behind it
Now ya gotta run to get even
Make future plans I'll dream about yesterday, hey!
Come on turn, turn this thing around

(Right now) Hey! It's your tomorrow
(Right now) Come on, it's everything
(Right now) Catch your magic moment
Do it right here and now
It means everything

Miss a beat, you lose a rhythm
An nothin' falls into place. No!
Only missed by a fraction
Slipped a little off your pace. Oh!

The more things you get, the more you want
Just trade in one for another
Workin' so hard to make it easy
Whoa, got to turn. Come on, turn this thing around

(Right now) Hey, it's your tomorrow
(Right now) Come on, it's everything
(Right now) catch that magic moment
Do it right here and now
It means everything

Pure genius.

If I was stuck on a deserted island and could only listen to one song the rest of my life, this would be that song.  I have listened to this song hundreds, maybe even thousands, of times, and it always feels fresh to me.  There are songs that I greatly enjoy the first couple dozen times I hear them, but soon they soon tire.  Before long, I'll hear the first few bars of the song and hit skip on my iPod (or change the station in my car).  But not this song.  This song, I listen to the entire song, every time. 

When I was in high school, I would listen to this song, and only this song, when I was in my car on game day.  Before football games, I would drive to Loaf 'N Jug to buy a Gatorade just so I could listen to this song multiple times (I wouldn't have been able to finish the piano solo at the beginning of the song if I'd have driven straight to the gym from my house) and I wouldn't leave my car until the song ended.  I am pretty sure that my playing this song over and over at a very high volume blew out a couple of speakers in The Celebrity.  To this day, just like Pavlov's dog, my adrenaline starts pumping while listening to this song.

For the past 12+ years, "Right Now" has been my favorite song, and I don't know how any song will be able to overtake it.

Things that have made me happy today.

• The wife is officially done with her second year of law school!!!

• I walked into the kitchen to find my dog's head buried deep into the trash can that I had mistakenly left out.  The look on his face after being caught red-handed was priceless.  We stood looking at each other, both dumbfounded at what the other is seeing, for a beat.  Then I said, "What are you doing?"  He responded by sending himself straight to timeout down in the basement.  It was flipping hilarious.

•  Found a great deal on KC strip steaks at the local grocery store.  And they were delicious.

• Got a call back for one of the jobs for which I've applied.  Alas, it's only part-time, so I'm not certain I'll take it.  Yet I was still pleased to get a nibble on one of the lines I've cast. 

• I'm up $15,000 in play money on online poker.

• Watching this video:

 

See more funny videos and Music Videos at Today's Big Thing.

Things that have pissed me off today.

I'm usually a fairly positive guy, but there were many things that pissed me off today.

1)  Video of a SWAT raid in Missouri. As REASON's Radley Balko points out,

SWAT team breaks into home, fires seven rounds at family's pit bull and corgi (?!) as a seven-year-old looks on.

They found a "small amount" of marijuana, enough for a misdemeanor charge. The parents were then charged with child endangerment.

So smoking pot = "child endangerment." Storming a home with guns, then firing bullets into the family pets as a child looks on = necessary police procedures to ensure everyone's safety.  Just so we're clear.

2)  The reason I found out about this story is because I was able to read most of today's tweets on Twitter.  The reason I was able to read most Twitter tweets today is because today was the first day of my new job search.  I had to make up a resume and have sent out about two dozen applications.  That pisses me off.

3)  As I was listening to sports talk-radio, one of the hosts announced their poll question of the day:  "Should Cinco de Mayo be a national holiday?"  Are you freaking kidding me?  Seriously?  There are people want to make a national holiday out of a date that gets limited (at most) celebration in Mexico?!?!  I imagine that these same people who would make it a U.S. national holiday are the same ones who mistakenly believe that May 5th is the Mexican Independence Day.  Those idiots piss me off.

4)  While I'm in that same ballpark, another thing that pissed me off today was that ‘Los Suns’ Join Protest of Arizona’s New Law.  From the NYT,

The Phoenix Suns delivered a powerful statement Wednesday night with a relatively subtle gesture: a three-letter addition to their uniforms.

Their jerseys said “Los Suns” — a Spanish-English combination intended to acknowledge the Cinco de Mayo holiday and, more broadly, to express opposition to Arizona’s new law dealing with illegal immigrants. 

You have got to be kidding me.  I'm sure that the people who see this act of solidarity by the Suns would be completely horrified if the owners of the Washington Wizards had pulled out their old "Washington Bullets" jerseys to show solidarity after D.C.'s handgun ban was struck down in the Heler case.  Bringing politics into sports pisses me off.  Can't I have one escape from politics?

5)  My iPod pissed me off when it re-synced my entire library just as I was trying to get out the door to walk the dog with The Wife.  I about threw it across the room, I was so pissed.

Honorable Mentions:

• Only 4 people showed up for Tuesday night Volleyball, so we had to borrow players from other teams.  Freaking weak.
• Our culture is so intrigued by "sex scandals" that even B-level celebrities like David Boreanaz get press for cheating on their wives. 
• My best Facebook update/tweet of the week got very little reaction, which pissed me off because I thought I was such a genius for thinking of it: 
  
  
  

  I'm waiting for Alan Jackson to come out and say what everyone is thinking about the flooding in Nashville:  President Obama hates country music.

Hopefully the rest of this week is better.  I feel that after identifying the items that are causing me to be in a pissy mood, I can get on with the rest of my life.

______________________________________________________

SONG:  "Sante Fe" by Drive-By Truckers --- I just got this album by DBT and I love it.  This band is what would have happened had Tom Petty been the lead singer of Lynyrd Skynyrd.  Great stuff.

MOVIE:  Young @ Heart --- this is probably the most powerful documentary I have ever watched.  Touching, inspiring, and entertaining.  Whether you rent, buy, or steal it, you must watch this movie.

Here is the trailer to give you a taste of the Young @ Heart group:


TELEVISION:  FRINGE: Season 1 -- The Wife and I have started watching this show on Netflix and it is very interesting and entertaining.  I knew I would want to watch this show one episode right after the other.  I knew I'd never be able to stick with it watching with a week between each episode, but back to back viewings are quite entertaining.  This show is a Sci-Fi version of Bones and/or House, which is a good thing.

The older I get...

the more I wish I'd have been able to see George Carlin live.  This little bit of wisdom from the late, great genius seems fitting for Future Enviromentalist Indoctrination Earth Day.

(And, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that you can expect some salty language in this piece.)

"An island unto himself, surrounded by water but dying of thirst."

This is the analogy that Pete Landry used in his "The Masters - A Tale of Contrasts" post to describe Tiger Woods, and it is by far the best description of Tiger's personality.  Mr. Landry is the author of the great golf blog "Golf Grooves" and he attended this year's Masters tournament.  While at the Masters, he encountered two of the main people of Tiger's entourage, his caddy and his mother.

As I meander behind the 14th green, looking up toward the clubhouse, I notice Steve Williams walking in my direction. In his trademark Valvoline blue tee-shirt, Tiger's caddie is checking on the course and taking notes in preparation for the final round of the Masters. We are, for a short moment, alone and in close proximity to each other.

When Williams is only a few feet away, I say "good luck to you and Tiger today Steve"...

With that, he brushes by me. He is obviously avoiding eye contact; close enough to shake my hand, but choosing instead to totally ignore me. Like a man raised in a barn, he did not acknowledge me or my words. A simple nod would have sufficed. Had it been someone else, I might have been insulted or surprised, but this is Steve Williams after all. What else would you expect? In my life, I've met heads of State, shared meals with Hall of Fame athletes, and had conversations with some of the top business people of our time. So, a snub from the guy who carries Tiger's golf clubs is certainly not a traumatic experience. I simply shrugged it off and chuckled at the ignorance of the man.

Hours later, on that same 14th hole, I would be standing against the ropes nearly half way down the fairway, at a spot where you can see the players hit their approach shot and also clearly see the green. We had all just cheered a great iron shot by Fred Couples and were waiting for Woods and Choi to arrive, when I noticed Tiger's mother walking behind us. She was surrounded by her usual entourage and clearly looking for a spot from where she could see Tiger play the hole. I signalled to her bodyguard that she was welcome to stand on the rope in front of me. She is a tiny woman and wouldn't block my view, but I knew she wouldn't possibly be able to see Tiger from behind the crowd. At our invitation, she slipped in front of my father and I.

Anyone who watched the Masters on Sunday will recall that Tiger had a rare brain cramp on that 14th green, three-putting from close range. When she saw that, Tiger's mother yelled "Oh! He is pissed off!" The moment was surreal.

My father and I looked at each other in shock and amusement. You just wouldn't expect that kind of language from a tiny older lady... Then, as if she had been entitled, she left without taking a second to thank us for making room for her up front. In fact, just like Steve Williams had done, she basically ignored me and the people around her.

All this to say that life has a way of repaying people for how they treat others. These are not major trespasses, but the way these people act shows a basic lack of upbringing and social grace. As the saying goes, money does not buy class.

Despite the fact that I am not a fan of Steve Williams, I was courteous enough to wish him luck when I came across him. Having been raised to respect people and to yield to a lady whenever appropriate, I was only happy to make room for Tiger's mother. Both Williams and Mrs Woods repaid me with ignorance and bad manners. Surrounded by the likes of these people, is there any wonder that Tiger Woods is such a miserable man who feels a sense of entitlement and that the rules of decency do not apply to him?

Mr. Landry then compares his encounter with the Tiger clan to how Phil Mickleson treated the fans as he worked his way to winning this year's Green Jacket.

Faced with a potentially devastating miss that could have cost him the lead, Mickleson was gracious with fans, politely asking for the gallery to make room, thanking everyone and acknowledging his fans when he successfully hit the shot. In similar fashion, his caddie "Bones" was polite, saying please and thank you repeatedly. How difficult is that? For most civilized people, it is second nature to be courteous.

While he has played inspired golf during this tough stretch of life, with his wife and mother both battling cancer, Phil Mickleson has taken the title of "Fan Favorite" on the PGA Tour.  It's a case of the underdog working his way into the hearts and minds of the average golf fan by pairing his great skill with a likable and pleasant attitude toward the fans.  For all the thanks and smiles that Phil gives to the galleries, they repay him double.  For being truly thankful for their support through his difficulties off the course, the fans double their support for him on the course. 

Tiger was always the cut-throat competitor, and while he was always cold toward the crowds that followed him around the courses, the fans greatly respected him because of his awe-inspiring skills on the course.  But that was before his private life became tabloid fodder.  Now, Tiger and the people closest to him, are going to need fans if he wants to cement his legacy as the greatest golfer to ever live (rather than just being the most successful golfer of all time), and they'll have an easier time if they are using honey rather than vinegar.
______________________________________________________

SONG:  "On the Run" by Gangstagrass  (the theme song to the tv show "Justified")

TELEVISION:  "Justified" on FX (and Hulu).  Timothy Olyphant plays a U.S. Marshall who returns to his childhood hometown and is attempting to clean up the town with a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.  It is an old western set in modern times.  Great, great show.

LOOKING FORWARD TO:  Dinner and a show this weekend with The Wife to celebrate the end of her 4th (out of 6) semester of law school.  We are going to eat dinner at the Upstream Brewery and then are going to the Orpheum Theater to watch the off-Broadway production of "Legally Blonde: The Musical".  It should be a great night out with my pal.

The Taxman Cometh

As you tuck yourself into bed this Tax Day Eve and lay there staring at the ceiling already thinking ahead toward next year's Tax Day, worry not.  According to the Washington Examiner's Grace-Marie Turner, ObamaCare will make every day feel like April 15th.

New taxes on investments, taxes on medical supplies, taxes on drugs and health insurance, and taxes on you if you are just breathing… the list of taxes Americans will face just got a lot longer thanks to ObamaCare.

The health overhaul plan just enacted represents the largest tax hike in U.S. history - $569 billion over 10 years through a dizzying array of taxes and fees that promise to frustrate taxpayers at every turn.  ObamaCare will make every day feel like April 15^th.

And despite President Obama’s campaign promise that no one making $250,000 or less would see a tax increase, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation confirms that these tax hikes will hit millions of middle- and working-class families who are struggling to make ends meet.

She goes on to explain how these different taxes to which we will soon become accustomed will affect our day to day lives.

And if, after all of these new taxes are put into place, you feel like you're still not quite contributing enough dough to Uncle Sam, worry not, for there is also talk of bringing a Value Added Tax (VAT) to the U.S. economy.  As Veronique de Rugy explains at REASON Magazine,

Widely used in Europe, the Value-Added Tax (VAT) has always seemed a non-starter in the United States. That may be changing given apparently insurmountable structural deficits and fear that the financial collapse of Greece could happen here if revenue isn't increased. These days, the VAT is being taken seriously even by pro-market conservatives and libertarians. A VAT is a consumption tax which is levied at each stage of production based on the value added to the product at that stage. 

So, along with the many, many, MANY other taxes we pay every day, we might also get to look forward to paying taxes on all of the products we consume.  They are going to get us coming and going.  Sheesh, it's like these people want to take from each according to their abilities and distribute it to each according to their needs. 

So, this April 15th, I hope that the Taxman is kind to you and yours, and remember:

Let me tell you
How it will be.
There's one for you,
Nineteen for me,

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Should five percent
Appear too small,
Be thankful I don't
Take it all.

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

If you drive a car,
I'll tax the street.
If you drive to city,
I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold,
I'll tax the heat.
If you take a walk,
I'll tax your feet.

Taxman!

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

Don't ask me what I want it for,
(Uh-uh, Mr. Wilson.)
If you don't want to pay some more.
(Uh-uh, Mr. Heath.)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman.

And my advice to
Those who die.
(Taxman!)
Declare the pennies
On your eyes.
(Taxman!)

'Cause I'm the taxman.
Yeah, I'm the taxman,
And you're working for no one but me.
(Taxman!) 

I'm on a Highway to Lipitor*

Sometimes I wonder if the internet is healthy for me.  Sure, I've learned much more information from online sources than I ever learned in school, but then I encounter such items as the ones following, and I'm certain my blood pressure doubles, which can't be healthy.

(*And yes, I know that Lipitor is for cholesterol and not blood pressure per se.  But I couldn't find any recognizable name brand blood pressure medicines that would work for my title.)

First, I watched this video today.



This must be some footage from an Iranian protest, right?  Or maybe it's file footage of Socialist Soviet abuse of it's citizenry?  Well, if not those, then it must be video of protesters or rioters from some foreign, third-world nation?

Actually, according to the Washington Post:

The FBI is investigating an incident last month in which three Prince George's County police officers in riot gear used their batons to beat an unarmed University of Maryland student after a basketball game -- an event captured on video and aired nationwide on Tuesday. 

(...)

The FBI probe is the third investigation by authorities into the beating and the criminal charges filed against John J. McKenna, 21, and Benjamin C. Donat, 19. Charging documents filed against the two students are contradicted by the video. Prosecutors have dropped assault charges against both.  

Are you freaking kidding me?  SERIOUSLY?  Assault charges were brought against the students?  Why, did they break one of the officer's batons with one of their skulls?  Did one student's face break one of the officer's hand?  Did one of the officers throw out his back while slamming his riot shield into the obviously dangerous and threatening student who happened to be skipping by?  And, yes, prior to being turned into a modern day Rodney King, that student was skipping down the sidewalk.  Oh, the horror.  Thank God the police were there the squelch the madness.

I've watched that video a handful of times, and I just couldn't help but imagine what an uproar there would be had a group of the students cornered one of those cops and put an equally punishing beating onto him.  It would be a national scandal of epic proportions. 

Un-freaking-believable.

So, my blood has been boiling all day.  And then I read this article from the Boston Review in which Colin Dayan discusses "breed bans, euthanasia, and preemptive justice" with regard to dogs.

I've always been a philosophically opposed to breed bans for dogs and Mr. Dayan makes some great points in his article.

The seizures, detentions, and exterminations of pit bulls—sanctioned by laws in many states—expose the statutory logic for making preemptive justice constitutionally permissible: canine profiling supplies the terms for inclusion and ostracism, and even the suspension of due process rights. No criminal conviction of the owner is required for state seizure and destruction of property. In other words, the Constitution’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving anyone of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” can be suspended for the public good without evidence, without trial, by classification alone.

In legal rationales, realities are created. Old inequalities and radical discrimination are repackaged in unexpected forms. In breed-specific legislation, the taint and incapacity of the disenfranchised live on. At a time when our government is labeling certain persons as threats—alleged terrorists, enemy aliens, illegal immigrants, ordinary people who want to get on airplanes—we need to ask how the seizure and destruction of dogs deemed contraband becomes a medium for the intimidation and debasement of humans in turn. Who should suffer deprivation without redress so that we can live in reasonable—safe and secure—consensus? And who gets to decide?

Those are some mighty fine questions. 


And how did it get this way (at least, according to Mr. Dayan)?

Pit bulls were once known as “America’s Breed”: RCA’s “Nipper” (pictured head cocked while listening to “his master’s voice”); Buster Brown’s “Tige”; “Pete the Pup,” part of the Little Rascals gang in the Our Gang comedies; and the pit bull pictured on the celebrated World War I poster proclaiming: “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.” Sergeant Stubby, the most decorated dog in military history, fought for eighteen months in the trenches, saved several soldiers’ lives, and captured a German spy. Now the pit bull is the most demonized breed, the poster dog for dogfighting, the herald of criminality and drug-dealing, the mauler of children.

In 1987 Rolling Stone, Sports Illustrated, and Time Magazine all ran articles featuring pit bulls. Rolling Stone’s “A Boy and his Dog in Hell” reported on pit bulls used in street fights by gangs in North Philadelphia. Valued as proof of their owner’s mettle, the dogs were subjected to unimaginable torture and death if they lost. The cover of Sports Illustrated showed a snarling pit bull with the headline “Beware of This Dog” and branded these dogs with the locking-jaw myth and “a will to kill.” It was bested by Time’s “Time Bombs on Legs,” which compared the pit bull to “the vicious hound of the Baskervilles.” According to the Time article, the pit bull “has seized small children like rag dolls and mauled them to death in a frenzy of bloodletting.”

Since then the pit bull has been the media’s choice for horror stories about dogs labeled “four-legged guns” or “lethal weapons.” Citing pit bulls’ “vicious propensity,” hundreds of towns large and small throughout the United States have adopted the first ever breed-specific dog bans. Regulations vary from one city to the next, but once a ban has been enacted, any dog considered a threat to public welfare can be summarily seized and put down. This despite the fact that other breeds of dogs also bite, but we hardly ever read about them. “Dogs that bite people,” as Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, “are vicious because they have owners who want a vicious dog.” That is, what predisposes a dog to bite is not its nature, but its environment. The most loyal dogs are the most abused. Ever ready to please, these dogs become victimized by those they love most. They are either the tools of human-initiated aggression or, as Karen Delise writes in The Pit Bull Placebo, the targets of “every type of positive or negative emotional and physical circumstance humans are capable of imposing on dogs.

 [Emphasis mine]


Which is one of my biggest pet peeves, so to speak, about breed-specific legislation, the fact that these laws rarely take into account the bigger problem than a dog's genes:  shitty owners.  Many of these dogs are raised to be vicious.  It just turns out that the pit bull is the dog of choice for these horrible people who train, torment, and torture the dogs into fighting machines. 

Mr. Dayan also walks through the legal history and case law with regard to dogs.  Are dogs property?  If so, what legal protections are they afforded?  Is a dog's breed the index for his disposition?  Or can we look past its looks and instead focus on its actions?  He notes that, "Nowadays, dangerous-dog hearings decide if dogs live or die. Vicious-dog law, or what some simply call “dog-bite law,” usually precludes any legal challenge—especially if the offending animal happens to be identified as dangerous simply because of the breed."

(NOTE: while I am in agreement with much of the author's thesis throughout the piece, I must take issue with his decision to close the piece with an analogy that includes the word "Nazi" as it is way too much slippery slope/straw man argumentation for my taste.  That final paragraph nearly destroys strength within the rest of the article, and for some people it may undercut it entirely.)

So, what's the point?  I guess I don't like it when police brutalize the citizens they are entrusted to "serve and protect".  I also don't like it when legislative bodies enact laws breed-specific dog laws that make judgments about "big schweeties" based upon their genes and not their behavior.  And now you know where I sit on these two extremely specific issues.

Pulitzer Prizes

The 2010 Pulitzer Prize winners were recently announced and one of the most gripping, riveting, and heart wrenching stories that I've ever read won this year's prize for Best Feature Writing.
I remember reading Gene Weingarten's piece last year about parents who unintentionally kill their children by forgetting them in their car.  And after rereading it today, I could not imagine that any of the other entries could have stood a chance at winning this award. 

Reading the accounts of parents who have accidentally killed their children, such as Miles Harrison, whose heartbreaking picture of him clutching his child's toy accompanies the story, it is difficult to imagine a sorrow deeper than theirs.  Their stories are fairly graphic, yet are told as a warning that this can happen to anyone: parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, friend, etc. 

"Death by hyperthermia" is the official designation. When it happens to young children, the facts are often the same: An otherwise loving and attentive parent one day gets busy, or distracted, or upset, or confused by a change in his or her daily routine, and just... forgets a child is in the car. It happens that way somewhere in the United States 15 to 25 times a year, parceled out through the spring, summer and early fall. The season is almost upon us. 

Two decades ago, this was relatively rare. But in the early 1990s, car-safety experts declared that passenger-side front airbags could kill children, and they recommended that child seats be moved to the back of the car; then, for even more safety for the very young, that the baby seats be pivoted to face the rear. If few foresaw the tragic consequence of the lessened visibility of the child . . . well, who can blame them? What kind of person forgets a baby?

The wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers. It happens to the chronically absent-minded and to the fanatically organized, to the college-educated and to the marginally literate. In the last 10 years, it has happened to a dentist. A postal clerk. A social worker. A police officer. An accountant. A soldier. A paralegal. An electrician. A Protestant clergyman. A rabbinical student. A nurse. A construction worker. An assistant principal. It happened to a mental health counselor, a college professor and a pizza chef. It happened to a pediatrician. It happened to a rocket scientist.

Last year it happened three times in one day, the worst day so far in the worst year so far in a phenomenon that gives no sign of abating.

The facts in each case differ a little, but always there is the terrible moment when the parent realizes what he or she has done, often through a phone call from a spouse or caregiver. This is followed by a frantic sprint to the car. What awaits there is the worst thing in the world.

Mr. Weingarten presents some of the legal questions such events pose:  to prosecute or not to prosecute.  Is this a crime?  If so, can it be a felony if there is no intent?  And, if it's not a felony, isn't the parent's internal punishment going to be greater than any that a misdemeanor might carry?  If a case goes to trial, is a jury going to convict? 


I'm certain that Mr. Weingarten began this piece intending to focus on the law and order aspect of such a rare event.  But the strenght of his writing, and what probably lead to his ultimately receiving the award, was how he treated these parents.  Another writer may not have been so kind.  Mr. Weingarten expertly allows some of these parents to explain how they are able to cope with the mental and psychological tole such a loss takes on them, their spouses, and their marriages.  Some parents put up a fight.  Others take flight.  Some parents avoid, others embrace.

I began this story wondering, "how could someone forget their child in a car?"  I ended this piece wondering, "would I have the strength that these parents have displayed and be able to face the rest of my life?"  Because he was able to get readers like me to move away from being judgmental of others and instead become introspective of themselves, Mr. Weingarten is $10,000 and a Pulitzer Prize richer.  

Regulators (and a new Warning)

While eating our Easter lunch at Taco Bell today, the Wife, the In-Laws, and I were discussing one of the public initiatives within ObamaCare that will have an immediate effect on our lives (considering that the health care/insurance stuff doesn't fully kick in until 2014, well after our next presidential election and into the 2016 election race):  chain restaurants will have to provide nutrition information on their menus.

Some highlights from the discussion:

• Most of us seemed to be in agreement that it was a ridiculous requirement.  
• I noted that many stores had already been proudly displaying these facts in full view of their paying customers (Subway was the first that came to mind).  
• The Bro-in-Law noted that most people already know that quick/cheap/convenient food (usually) = high in calories
• And then the Wife noted that most people will probably become desensitized to the information overload.

And she's exactly right (as usual).

Think about all of the "Cover Your Ass" legalese that we encounter everyday and (for the most part) completely ignore.  I have a pile of small-engine yard and garden equipment user manuals in my garage filled with warnings that I've never read.  There are thousands of "small print" explanations and warnings that I've glossed over in my lifetime.  Warning signs on cigarettes, slippery floor signs, caution signs, speed limit signs, prescription labels, and the list goes on and on.  All of these are supposedly for "my own good," yet I ignore them (or at least pay them no heed).

One of the main selling points for me about small/limited government is that it puts an emphasis on personal responsibility and common sense.  With this bombardment of warnings and cations comes a sense of "well, my government (or this company) is looking out for me, so why should I worry?"

Today, Glenn Reynolds wrote in the Washington Examiner about "The Knowledge Problem" inherent in government regulations.

Economist Friedrich Hayek explained in 1945 why centrally controlled "command economies" were doomed to waste, inefficiency, and collapse: Insufficient knowledge. He won a Nobel Prize. But it turns out he was righter than he knew.

In his "The Use of Knowledge In Society," Hayek explained that information about supply and demand, scarcity and abundance, wants and needs exists in no single place in any economy. The economy is simply too large and complicated for such information to be gathered together.

Any economic planner who attempts to do so will wind up hopelessly uninformed and behind the times, reacting to economic changes in a clumsy, too-late fashion and then being forced to react again to fix the problems that the previous mistakes created, leading to new problems, and so on.

Market mechanisms, like pricing, do a better job than planners because they incorporate what everyone knows indirectly through signals like price, without central planning.
Thus, no matter how deceptively simple and appealing command economy programs are, they are sure to trip up their operators, because the operators can't possibly be smart enough to make them work.

Hayek's insight into economics and regulation is often called "The Knowledge Problem," and it is a very powerful notion. But recent events suggest that it's not just the economy that regulators don't understand well enough -- it's also their own regulations.  

(...)

The United States Code -- containing federal statutory law -- is more than 50,000 pages long and comprises 40 volumes. The Code of Federal Regulations, which indexes administrative rules, is 161,117 pages long and composes 226 volumes.

No one on Earth understands them all, and the potential interaction among all the different rules would choke a supercomputer. This means, of course, that when Congress changes the law, it not only can't be aware of all the real-world complications it's producing, it can't even understand the legal and regulatory implications of what it's doing.

There's good news and bad news in that. The bad news is obvious: We're governed not just by people who do screw up constantly, but by people who can't help but screw up constantly. So long as the government is this large and overweening, no amount of effort at securing smarter people or "better" rules will do any good: Incompetence is built into the system.

The good news is less obvious, but just as important: While we rightly fear a too-powerful government, this regulatory knowledge problem will ensure plenty of public stumbles and embarrassments, helping to remind people that those who seek to rule us really don't know what they're doing.

Mr. Reynolds hope is that these public stumbles will increase the public's skepticism toward Big Government (and I hope that too, but like the saying goes:  hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first).  Instead, as I've pointed out before, there are now three things you can take to the bank:  death, taxes, and the growth of government.

Each regulatory failure rarely leads to a paring back of previously enacted regulations, but instead, new "fixes" are trotted out and piled on to previous regulations.  And these new regulations usually compound previous "fixes" ad nauseum. 

My solution?  I propose every ballot come with the following warning:   

Voting for this candidate and/or referendum will, in all likelihood, lead to a reduction of your money and liberties and freedoms.  

Because one more warning can only help, right?

UPDATE:  The following picture was featured in a recent Hit & Run blog post at Reason.com about "the Nanny State."  The picture displays two points about over-regulation and nanny statism:

1. When annoying noises are outlawed, only outlaws will make annoying noises.  It is quite annoying to me that these types of regulations are on the books, so the only logical conclusion is that there out to be a law against these types of laws, right?  
2. This sign also helps prove the point about becoming desensitized by information overload.  I did not make it halfway through the statute before my eyes glazed over with boredom and annoyance.  (Also, the fact that this sign has not been defaced makes me wonder about its legitimacy.)

_____________________________________________________

SONG:  "Wonderful" by Everclear

LOOKING FORWARD TO:  Opening Day for the 2010 MLB season tomorrow.  (Sure, the Yankees and Red Sox played tonight, but no one cares about those team, right?  So, the season starts tomorrow).  And it looks like my man Luke Hochevar is going to be the #2 starter for the KC Royals for a while.

Jaime Escalante -- America's Master Math Teacher

News came today that Jaime Escalante, the math teacher whose story was the basis for the 1988 movie Stand and Deliver, passed away at the age of  79. 

In a July 2002 story for Reason Magazine, Jerry Jesness takes the reader through the "the famous rise -- and shameful fall -- of Jaime Escalante, America's master math teacher." 

In the article, Mr. Jesness takes us through Mr. Escalante's background.  We learn that unlike in the movie, Jaime's successes were slow coming.  It was three years into the program before more than 10 students passed the A.P. calculus test, rather than the single year that the movie portrayed.  And I have no problem with the Hollywood version of the story's time line being accelerated, as they only had an hour and a half to get the story told.  But, as Mr. Jesness points out:

The Stand and Deliver message, that the touch of a master could bring unmotivated students from arithmetic to calculus in a single year, was preached in schools throughout the nation. While the film did a great service to education by showing what students from disadvantaged backgrounds can achieve in demanding classes, the Hollywood fiction had at least one negative side effect. By showing students moving from fractions to calculus in a single year, it gave the false impression that students can neglect their studies for several years and then be redeemed by a few months of hard work.

This Hollywood message had a pernicious effect on teacher training. The lessons of Escalante's patience and hard work in building his program, especially his attention to the classes that fed into calculus, were largely ignored in the faculty workshops and college education classes that routinely showed Stand and Deliver to their students. To the pedagogues, how Escalante succeeded mattered less than the mere fact that he succeeded. They were happy to cheer Escalante the icon; they were less interested in learning from Escalante the teacher. They were like physicians getting excited about a colleague who can cure cancer without wanting to know how to replicate the cure.

I can remember this movie being referenced a couple of times during my years in the teacher education program at my college.  While we never viewed it in class, I do remember it being recommended to me by someone in the program.  I remember being inspired by the movie.  The movie fed into my desire to change lives.  Yet, with all of the emotion and inspirational feelings this movie brought to me, it did nothing to inspire me to find out why and how Mr. Escalante was able to bring such success to students who society had basically written off as never being able to accomplish such a feat.  A movie of this magnitude should have caused me to seek out Mr. Escalante's blueprint for success.  But it didn't, and I didn't. 

A movie as moving as Stand and Deliver did nothing to make me a better future teacher (which I'm sure was not the motivation of the filmmakers in making the movie).  Yet, after watching The Legend of Bagger Vance I remember I was inspired to go out and pound golf balls on the driving range.  After countless viewings of Friday Night Lights in high school, I was inspired to work harder in football practice so that I might be able to make the big catch in the big game.  After Space Jam I was out on the basketball court working on my jump shot in the event that I was ever pulled into a cartoon universe to help Bugs and Daffy defeat some evil villains.  And sure, I never did make the big catch in the big game nor did I ever join up with Bugs Bunny & Co. to shoot hoops.  (I'm still holding out hope that Will Smith will help me fight off the demons that are keeping me from winning a match against Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen).  But, at least these movies challenged me to improve myself.  Unfortunately, Stand and Deliver did not have that effect on my life, which is a shame.

Another failure of the movie (again, not completely the filmmaker's fault) was that it left the viewer with the impression that everyone in the story lived happily ever after.  Unfortunately for Mr. Escalante and the students he never got to help, his tenure as the maverick math teacher for that East L.A. school was cut short 10 years after the group of students featured in the movie passed their A.P. tests.

Escalante's open admission policy, a major reason for his success, also paved the way for his departure. Calculus grew so popular at Garfield that classes grew beyond the 35-student limit set by the union contract. Some had more than 50 students. Escalante would have preferred to keep the classes below the limit had he been able to do so without either denying calculus to willing students or using teachers who were not up to his high standards. Neither was possible, and the teachers union complained about Garfield's class sizes. Rather than compromise, Escalante moved on.

Other problems had been brewing as well. After Stand and Deliver was released, Escalante became an overnight celebrity. Teachers and other interested observers asked to sit in on his classes, and he received visits from political leaders and celebrities, including President George H.W. Bush and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. This attention aroused feelings of jealousy. In his last few years at Garfield, Escalante even received threats and hate mail. In 1990 he lost the math department chairmanship, the position that had enabled him to direct the pipeline.

  [Emphasis mine]

The culture that is the modern public education system is one that discourages innovation and extra effort.  Rather than embrace Mr. Escalante's successes, his peers (and the union) grew jealous and saw his work as an assault against the status quo.  There were no incentives in place for others to follow in his footsteps.  And incentives matter. 

One of the driving forces behind my decision to leave the teaching profession was the lack of incentives for me to try hard.  While I never encountered explicit challenges to the way I ran my classroom, there were plenty of implicit demands that I maintain within the confines of the teaching bureaucracy bubble.  Mr. Lesness touched on some of these forces in his closing paragraphs about Jaime Escalante's legacy. 

Lyndon Johnson said it takes a master carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can kick one down. In retrospect, it's fortunate that Escalante's program survived as long as it did. Had Garfield's counselors refused to let a handful of basic math students take algebra back in 1974, or had the janitor who objected to Escalante's early-bird ways been more influential, America's greatest math teacher might just now be retiring from Unisys.
Gradillas has an explanation for the decline of A.P. calculus at Garfield: Escalante and Villavicencio were not allowed to run the program they had created on their own terms. In his phrase, the teachers no longer "owned" their program. He's speaking metaphorically, but there's something to be said for taking him literally.

In the real world, those who provide a service can usually find a way to get it to those who want it, even if their current employer disapproves. If someone feels that he can build a better mousetrap than his employer wants to make, he can find a way to make it, market it, and perhaps put his former boss out of business. Public school teachers lack that option.

There are very few ways to compete for education dollars without being part of the government school system. If that system is inflexible, sooner or later even excellent programs will run into obstacles. (...)

One-size-fits-all standardized tests are driving curricula, and top-down reforms are mandating lockstep procedures for classroom instructors. These steps might help make dismal teachers into mediocre ones, but what will they do to brilliant mavericks like Escalante?

Now, I would never suggest that I was 1/10 of the innovator in the classroom that Jaime Escalante was, but because the current system lacks (lacked) the incentives for me to try, I will may never know what could have been.
______________________________________________

SONG:  "Hands of God" by the Dave Matthews Band

LOOKING FORWARD TO:  the eventful summer that is to come.  I'll be playing volleyball on the "Chuck Bo-Buck and the Banana Fanna Five" team with my coworkers (and, yes, I suggested the name, and, yes, I am proud about that fact).  I'll also be playing as much golf and will be attending as many Omaha and Kansas City Royals baseball games as my wife will allow. 

AMERICAN IDOL 2010 BET:  Since I don't know if my cousin JB dvr'd tonight's show, I cannot yet harass him on Facebook or by text message about the fact that his pick, Didi, was kicked off the show tonight.  So, I shall gloat here.  One down, four to go!!!

The Future is Now

I've always heard that if you want to hear God laugh, tell him your plans for the future.  And I know I've given God some good chuckles over the past 10 years.  Ten years ago, I would have never predicted I'd be spending three years in Omaha supporting my wife through law school.

As I get older and wiser, I give less and less credence to people who claim to predict what the future may hold (i.e. global warming climate change, health care, economic bubbles and recoveries).  A perfect example of how horribly wrong a prediction about the future can be was presented today at The Volokh Conspiracy by David Post.  He linked to and posted portions of on man's description (published in Newsweek in 1995) of why the internet will fail.  Here are the two portions of that piece that David posted:

“Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.  Baloney.

Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.

Then there are those pushing computers into schools. We’re told that multimedia will make schoolwork easy and fun. Students will happily learn from animated characters while taught by expertly tailored software.Who needs teachers when you’ve got computer-aided education? Bah. These expensive toys are difficult to use in classrooms and require extensive teacher training. Sure, kids love videogames–but think of your own experience: can you recall even one educational filmstrip of decades past?”

 Wow, he inadvertently predicted exactly what the internet would be used for, with a few missing pieces that even Nostradamus himself couldn't have predicted.  David Post ends his entry with a quote from Kierkegaard that I had previously never heard:

The problem is life must be lived forwards, but can only be understood backwards.

Say hello to my first tattoo.  Now comes the tough part: deciding which font to use and whether it would look better on my stomach or on my calf.  Decisions, decisions.

__________________________________________________________
SONG:  "Halfway Gone" by Lifehouse from their new album "Smoke & Mirrors". 

LOOKING FORWARD TO: reading "The Android's Dream" by John Scalzi, who is a sci-fi author and writes the blog Whatever (which I've conveniently added to my blogroll to the right).  The Wife found that it was in her school's library, so I'm excited to start it this weekend (since I can't golf yet.  BOOOOOO!!!)

THINKING BACK ON:  how few books I've read since college.  Weak.

GOAL:  Finish at least five books by 2011 (and write a review for the blog).