Many Inspections Means USA Today For Lunch.
While I do devour the newspaper, I enjoyed a Hardee's 'Thickburger'. They really are terrific fast food. Busy times in the field means the 'Across the USA' section, which offered two positive stories that should have gotten wider coverage.
From Palmer, Alaska, "Phillip Mielke, 44, a minister who fatally shot two burglars at his church in Big Lake, was acquitted on all counts. He had been charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide."
I like a preacher who packs heat, and I like even more a sensible jury.
From Washington D.C., "The police chief supports Mayor Anthony Williams' push for stronger penalties against juvenile offenders. Metropolitan Police Chief Charles Ramsey said many crimes committed by those under the age of 18 are not child's play. The city's culture of violence will change only when people understand the consequences of their actions, he said. "
I like a rational mayor in a crime-addled city. I like even more a rational police chief supporting a rational mayor in a crime-addled city. Go figure- two high-ranking public officials talking about cause and effect. It warms the heart and clears the bleary eyes.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Well? Which Way Is It?
I've never been a fan of the phrase, "it's all relative," but I can see the distinction in the following case.
In the US, collectivist Democrats (is that redundant?), Republicans (is that, too?), and other economic authoritarians are fond of farm subsidies, often on the grounds of boosting the poor and oppressed who happen to be farmers.
However, outside the US, these same subsidies were denounced in the 22nd Socialist Congress, as reported in today's USA Today. Delegates "called for an end to agricultural subsidies in the United States, the European Union and Japan, saying they were strangling economic growth in developing nations."
I guess there is just no pleasing meddling busybodies. They do give socialists here a good reason to fear their international comrades: the poor here are viewed as the rich everywhere else, and will be treated with the same regard as the Bolsheviks treated owners of mom & pop stores in 1917.
I've never been a fan of the phrase, "it's all relative," but I can see the distinction in the following case.
In the US, collectivist Democrats (is that redundant?), Republicans (is that, too?), and other economic authoritarians are fond of farm subsidies, often on the grounds of boosting the poor and oppressed who happen to be farmers.
However, outside the US, these same subsidies were denounced in the 22nd Socialist Congress, as reported in today's USA Today. Delegates "called for an end to agricultural subsidies in the United States, the European Union and Japan, saying they were strangling economic growth in developing nations."
I guess there is just no pleasing meddling busybodies. They do give socialists here a good reason to fear their international comrades: the poor here are viewed as the rich everywhere else, and will be treated with the same regard as the Bolsheviks treated owners of mom & pop stores in 1917.
Need More Hours!
Life has been so full lately. I was telling Ame how I had a minute to reflect on my 13 months in Indiana, and the full immersion. I have so many exciting things going on, I am finding it extremely difficult to keep up.
I am the manager of an active campaign that can use every waking minute I have to offer. I have a refinancing deal needing my attention. My trip with Ame to visit Alex in Spain needs final details solidified. And I haven't called Mom in a while. We want to buy a house next year and I may run for office myself, all of which will require a lot of planning and work. This blogging isn't priority #1, but it sure helps to clear my head for transitioning between tasks.
Tonight was hockey, which means I'll be awake for a good while. It wasn't my best game, but I'll chalk that up to wearing a face cage for the first time ever. It really was harder to see the game. I'd always been told that at first it is, but really downplayed it. No goals, no assists, but good aggressive penalty killing and a +1. I'll take it.
Life has been so full lately. I was telling Ame how I had a minute to reflect on my 13 months in Indiana, and the full immersion. I have so many exciting things going on, I am finding it extremely difficult to keep up.
I am the manager of an active campaign that can use every waking minute I have to offer. I have a refinancing deal needing my attention. My trip with Ame to visit Alex in Spain needs final details solidified. And I haven't called Mom in a while. We want to buy a house next year and I may run for office myself, all of which will require a lot of planning and work. This blogging isn't priority #1, but it sure helps to clear my head for transitioning between tasks.
Tonight was hockey, which means I'll be awake for a good while. It wasn't my best game, but I'll chalk that up to wearing a face cage for the first time ever. It really was harder to see the game. I'd always been told that at first it is, but really downplayed it. No goals, no assists, but good aggressive penalty killing and a +1. I'll take it.
Details
I have had a few requests for details on the questions raised by the LP of Marion County regarding the Abduallah paperwork. Follow this link for the LPIN press release. This link will give the Indy Star's brief report.
It interests me that the Star report does not even mention either of Abduallah's Libertarian opponents: Brad Klopfenstein (even though he was at the press conference) and Republican Phil Schoffstall. Could it be that they don't care to work against their endorsement of Abduallah?
It interests me to see if this story will ever be picked up in earnest. RTV6 and Channel 13 each ran segments running 60 seconds or less yesterday on their early evening news, but not on their late news.
I have had a few requests for details on the questions raised by the LP of Marion County regarding the Abduallah paperwork. Follow this link for the LPIN press release. This link will give the Indy Star's brief report.
It interests me that the Star report does not even mention either of Abduallah's Libertarian opponents: Brad Klopfenstein (even though he was at the press conference) and Republican Phil Schoffstall. Could it be that they don't care to work against their endorsement of Abduallah?
It interests me to see if this story will ever be picked up in earnest. RTV6 and Channel 13 each ran segments running 60 seconds or less yesterday on their early evening news, but not on their late news.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Making Waves
Brad was doing his homework- checking to make sure everything looked right with the pre-election paperwork he filed, and that of his opponents- when he discovered something a bit odd: Democrat Patrice Abduallah's form listed a donor that happens to be a public entity.
What are the possible scenarios? 1. He received money from a public entity; 2. He made a significant error on his form.
If 1. is true, then either something is amiss with either that public entity, the candidate, or both. If 2. is true, there is something amiss with the candidate's effort.
So, the LP went to the press this morning to lay out its findings. That's about all we are going to do about it- put the info out there and see if it has merit.
I'm betting it's a mistake of some kind. Still, a significant mistake made on a campaign finance form strikes me as a telling sign. After all, the City-County Council has control over the power to tax and to spend. One need not be a CPA to be a Councilperson, however, a basic ability to tend to important details should matter to the voters of Indianapolis.
Let's see if the voters of District 15 notice and if they change their 80% Democratic voting habits.
Brad was doing his homework- checking to make sure everything looked right with the pre-election paperwork he filed, and that of his opponents- when he discovered something a bit odd: Democrat Patrice Abduallah's form listed a donor that happens to be a public entity.
What are the possible scenarios? 1. He received money from a public entity; 2. He made a significant error on his form.
If 1. is true, then either something is amiss with either that public entity, the candidate, or both. If 2. is true, there is something amiss with the candidate's effort.
So, the LP went to the press this morning to lay out its findings. That's about all we are going to do about it- put the info out there and see if it has merit.
I'm betting it's a mistake of some kind. Still, a significant mistake made on a campaign finance form strikes me as a telling sign. After all, the City-County Council has control over the power to tax and to spend. One need not be a CPA to be a Councilperson, however, a basic ability to tend to important details should matter to the voters of Indianapolis.
Let's see if the voters of District 15 notice and if they change their 80% Democratic voting habits.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Status Check
It amazes me how capitalism is the whipping boy for the world's woes, when it is merely a system of interactions, not a motive.
Capitalism is that system by which individuals own property and control the use of it. In my three-word definition of both capitalism and libertarianism, it comes out like this: you own yourself.
Many people ascribe greed, avarice, and a host of other negatives to capitalism, when it is so clear that these motives are just as common- if not moreso- in countries that are less capitalist than the United States. For a fuller definition of capitalism and libertarianism, I use this: "you are free to do what you like with your life so long as you do not initiate force or fraud on another human being".
After failing to see anything of interest in the political coverage of this morning's Star, I turned to the New York Times best seller's list. There at the top of the Hardcover Non-Fiction List is Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?"
I won't make the crack about Moore's book being in the Non-Fiction list that is so common. What I will point out is that Moore attacks capitalism, yet Moore is a capitalist.
Observe that his book is not atop the "Hardcover Most Given Away to Libraries List". Nor is it on the "Hardcover Produced by a Non-Profit Organization". Nor is it atop the "Hardcover Produced by a Collective List".
Interestingly, even though Moore himself claims the book is a collaborative work, with a team of fact-checkers poring over every assertion, Moore takes sole credit for the work on the front cover. His books are sold as property to anyone who can afford to buy them. They are not subsidized by the government. They are not sold at a reduced price to those with a lower income. Readers do not flock to Canada to buy Moore's books at a discount (Amazon.com saves you the trouble).
Of course, that is all as it should be. Michael Moore owns himself, and is free to do what he likes with his life so long as he does not initiate force or fraud against anyone. As far as I can tell, he lives out my philosophy to a 'tee'. It does make me wonder why he rails so against the very way he lives his own life, though...
Flipping through Mother Jones is always an excruciating experience for me. The mag has so much potential in being a self-proclaimed hellraiser, but they are so interested in curbing the corporate power they see across the globe that they turn a blind eye the monstrous government power here in the US.
Corporate power does leave me leary, but not in fear, as it does Ma Jones. (A Google search for 'Mother Jones' turns up their link with the description, "A bimonthly magazine of investigative journalism that exposes the evils of the corporate world".) After all, corporations are a device of ownership. Corporations are staffed by people who want to earn money, but rely on voluntary interaction. People in corporations who want to earn money have to offer me something worth my trading my money, or they don't get it.
Can you imagine Wal-Mart rounding up people who haven't bought anything there and forcing them to go to the store and buy things?
Government power is different. Governments are a device of management. Governments are staffed by people who want to manage human interaction, but rely not on voluntary interaction, but on compulsion. People in governments who want my money do not have to offer me something worth my trading my money. They get some of it by intercepting it from my employer before it gets to me, and the rest via the threat of force.
Ma? Given the difference, why so afraid of corporations? You can picture- imagination unnecessary- the IRS rounding up people who haven't paid Federal Income Taxes.
Interestingly, as Mother Jones pushes the socialist from my old neighborhood, Dennis Kucinich, touting his progressive protectionsim in their new issue (not on the web yet), they are just like Michael Moore in being capitalists by accepting scads of advertising dollars from other capitalists, including a few big multinational corporations, like Toyota and Virgin.
The ads are the most fascinating part of Mother Jones. There are ads from Non-Profits such as the ACLU and Amnesty International, but the vast majority are from capitalists. Aveda makes hair products. Eden Foods makes soy milk. Pax World offers mutual funds from companies that pay CEOs less, workers more, are non-defense contractors, etc. These companies are pure capitalists, operating for their own selfish reasons, from the principles they choose, not from ones imposed upon them.
Of course, that is all as it should be. Mother Jones Publisher Jay Harris owns himself, and is free to do what he likes with his life so long as he does not initiate force or fraud against anyone. As far as I can tell, he also lives out my philosophy to a 'tee'. It does make me wonder why his magazine rails so against the very way he lives his own life, though...
The bitter irony is this: capitalists don't really care what your motives are. If you have a product to sell, whether or a book or a magazine, a hybrid car, hemp products, whatever, capitalists say, "welcome to the marketplace, may the best seller win". Indeed, capitalists are incredibly tolerant people, dealing with the competition of other sellers that threaten their very livelihood, even if they dispise the motives of the producers, allowing the choices of consumers to dictate. Capitalists are willing to live side-by-side. Socialists and other attackers of capitalism, on the other hand, are incredibly intolerant and very eager to eliminate the competition of those they dislike, lobbying vigorously to erect laws that would stamp out the producers and methods they dispise, unwilling to co-exist and so contrary to their stated beliefs in tolerance and co-existence.
The other bitter irony is that Mother Jones and other anti-capitalist mags, suhc as the Nation, have more advertising than their pro-capitalist counterparts, such as Reason or Liberty.
Status? Sanity still does not prevail.
It amazes me how capitalism is the whipping boy for the world's woes, when it is merely a system of interactions, not a motive.
Capitalism is that system by which individuals own property and control the use of it. In my three-word definition of both capitalism and libertarianism, it comes out like this: you own yourself.
Many people ascribe greed, avarice, and a host of other negatives to capitalism, when it is so clear that these motives are just as common- if not moreso- in countries that are less capitalist than the United States. For a fuller definition of capitalism and libertarianism, I use this: "you are free to do what you like with your life so long as you do not initiate force or fraud on another human being".
After failing to see anything of interest in the political coverage of this morning's Star, I turned to the New York Times best seller's list. There at the top of the Hardcover Non-Fiction List is Michael Moore's "Dude, Where's My Country?"
I won't make the crack about Moore's book being in the Non-Fiction list that is so common. What I will point out is that Moore attacks capitalism, yet Moore is a capitalist.
Observe that his book is not atop the "Hardcover Most Given Away to Libraries List". Nor is it on the "Hardcover Produced by a Non-Profit Organization". Nor is it atop the "Hardcover Produced by a Collective List".
Interestingly, even though Moore himself claims the book is a collaborative work, with a team of fact-checkers poring over every assertion, Moore takes sole credit for the work on the front cover. His books are sold as property to anyone who can afford to buy them. They are not subsidized by the government. They are not sold at a reduced price to those with a lower income. Readers do not flock to Canada to buy Moore's books at a discount (Amazon.com saves you the trouble).
Of course, that is all as it should be. Michael Moore owns himself, and is free to do what he likes with his life so long as he does not initiate force or fraud against anyone. As far as I can tell, he lives out my philosophy to a 'tee'. It does make me wonder why he rails so against the very way he lives his own life, though...
Flipping through Mother Jones is always an excruciating experience for me. The mag has so much potential in being a self-proclaimed hellraiser, but they are so interested in curbing the corporate power they see across the globe that they turn a blind eye the monstrous government power here in the US.
Corporate power does leave me leary, but not in fear, as it does Ma Jones. (A Google search for 'Mother Jones' turns up their link with the description, "A bimonthly magazine of investigative journalism that exposes the evils of the corporate world".) After all, corporations are a device of ownership. Corporations are staffed by people who want to earn money, but rely on voluntary interaction. People in corporations who want to earn money have to offer me something worth my trading my money, or they don't get it.
Can you imagine Wal-Mart rounding up people who haven't bought anything there and forcing them to go to the store and buy things?
Government power is different. Governments are a device of management. Governments are staffed by people who want to manage human interaction, but rely not on voluntary interaction, but on compulsion. People in governments who want my money do not have to offer me something worth my trading my money. They get some of it by intercepting it from my employer before it gets to me, and the rest via the threat of force.
Ma? Given the difference, why so afraid of corporations? You can picture- imagination unnecessary- the IRS rounding up people who haven't paid Federal Income Taxes.
Interestingly, as Mother Jones pushes the socialist from my old neighborhood, Dennis Kucinich, touting his progressive protectionsim in their new issue (not on the web yet), they are just like Michael Moore in being capitalists by accepting scads of advertising dollars from other capitalists, including a few big multinational corporations, like Toyota and Virgin.
The ads are the most fascinating part of Mother Jones. There are ads from Non-Profits such as the ACLU and Amnesty International, but the vast majority are from capitalists. Aveda makes hair products. Eden Foods makes soy milk. Pax World offers mutual funds from companies that pay CEOs less, workers more, are non-defense contractors, etc. These companies are pure capitalists, operating for their own selfish reasons, from the principles they choose, not from ones imposed upon them.
Of course, that is all as it should be. Mother Jones Publisher Jay Harris owns himself, and is free to do what he likes with his life so long as he does not initiate force or fraud against anyone. As far as I can tell, he also lives out my philosophy to a 'tee'. It does make me wonder why his magazine rails so against the very way he lives his own life, though...
The bitter irony is this: capitalists don't really care what your motives are. If you have a product to sell, whether or a book or a magazine, a hybrid car, hemp products, whatever, capitalists say, "welcome to the marketplace, may the best seller win". Indeed, capitalists are incredibly tolerant people, dealing with the competition of other sellers that threaten their very livelihood, even if they dispise the motives of the producers, allowing the choices of consumers to dictate. Capitalists are willing to live side-by-side. Socialists and other attackers of capitalism, on the other hand, are incredibly intolerant and very eager to eliminate the competition of those they dislike, lobbying vigorously to erect laws that would stamp out the producers and methods they dispise, unwilling to co-exist and so contrary to their stated beliefs in tolerance and co-existence.
The other bitter irony is that Mother Jones and other anti-capitalist mags, suhc as the Nation, have more advertising than their pro-capitalist counterparts, such as Reason or Liberty.
Status? Sanity still does not prevail.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
We're on the Radar
Almost a year ago, LPIN State Chair Mark Rutherford told me that we would know that the Libertarian Party was making serious progress whent he media found it in their hearts to begin shoving daggers in ours.
We must be making enormous strides.
I'll never forget my delight over the coverage of the 2002 elections, where all three (D, R, & L) candidates were featured in capsules in the Indy Star. Sure the Libertarian candidates weren't being raved, but their vital statistics were posted just like the others. What a difference a year makes.
Every error was reported. If one our candidates was late for a forum, it was reported. When Democrats were late or completely AWOL, it was not reported. If our candidate was simply a line-holder, it was pointed out. Republican line-holders were not identified as such. After years of silently scoffing at our candidates for their sometimes bush league dress code, our attempt at professionalization was mocked with the feckless help of a candidate who underdressed at a function.
The Star hinted that endorsements might be forthcoming for LP candidates, or in their words, "the best people, regardless of party affiliation". The Star did not endorse a single Libertarian. The Party had 21 of a possible 29 city-county council candidates running, earning pre-endorsement recognition. At the same time, the Star's 'Election 2003' print version graffic (not viewable on the Star website, unfortunately) has a logo for the Democrats and Republicans, but not the Libertarians.
NuVo printed a very nice feature on Rev. Greg Dixon, only to follow with a disgusting attack letter (not available on Nuvo's website) in the next issue. Balance, I guess.
&c.
So, my initial response was to see red. Then, who else but Mark Rutherford should remind me that these stabs are good news. They mean that we are on the radar. Besides, it's all George Bush's fault.
I am anxious to get to Election Day. I can't wait to compare the numbers from the last off-year elections to this year's. I'm betting that we will average 5% this time, across the board.
Of course, the sort of press 'help' we're getting could make a guy think we could even get 10%.
Almost a year ago, LPIN State Chair Mark Rutherford told me that we would know that the Libertarian Party was making serious progress whent he media found it in their hearts to begin shoving daggers in ours.
We must be making enormous strides.
I'll never forget my delight over the coverage of the 2002 elections, where all three (D, R, & L) candidates were featured in capsules in the Indy Star. Sure the Libertarian candidates weren't being raved, but their vital statistics were posted just like the others. What a difference a year makes.
Every error was reported. If one our candidates was late for a forum, it was reported. When Democrats were late or completely AWOL, it was not reported. If our candidate was simply a line-holder, it was pointed out. Republican line-holders were not identified as such. After years of silently scoffing at our candidates for their sometimes bush league dress code, our attempt at professionalization was mocked with the feckless help of a candidate who underdressed at a function.
The Star hinted that endorsements might be forthcoming for LP candidates, or in their words, "the best people, regardless of party affiliation". The Star did not endorse a single Libertarian. The Party had 21 of a possible 29 city-county council candidates running, earning pre-endorsement recognition. At the same time, the Star's 'Election 2003' print version graffic (not viewable on the Star website, unfortunately) has a logo for the Democrats and Republicans, but not the Libertarians.
NuVo printed a very nice feature on Rev. Greg Dixon, only to follow with a disgusting attack letter (not available on Nuvo's website) in the next issue. Balance, I guess.
&c.
So, my initial response was to see red. Then, who else but Mark Rutherford should remind me that these stabs are good news. They mean that we are on the radar. Besides, it's all George Bush's fault.
I am anxious to get to Election Day. I can't wait to compare the numbers from the last off-year elections to this year's. I'm betting that we will average 5% this time, across the board.
Of course, the sort of press 'help' we're getting could make a guy think we could even get 10%.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
The New Chairman
I read a series of one-liners designed to attack one candidate and to promote another in Friday's USA Today. Here's the line:
"I think the President's philosophy is that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."
Issued by the Chairman of the committee to re-elect Bush? I would have thought so. If Bush ever issues a statement that clear about his own way of thinking, I would consider voting for the man. However, this 'zinger' was issued by Howard Dean.
Next thing you know, Dean will start saying things like, "Bush thinks each individual owns himself," or "Bush thinks that people should be able to do what they like with their lives so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against another person". Incredible that anyone could think of these as epithets.
I read a series of one-liners designed to attack one candidate and to promote another in Friday's USA Today. Here's the line:
"I think the President's philosophy is that if you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."
Issued by the Chairman of the committee to re-elect Bush? I would have thought so. If Bush ever issues a statement that clear about his own way of thinking, I would consider voting for the man. However, this 'zinger' was issued by Howard Dean.
Next thing you know, Dean will start saying things like, "Bush thinks each individual owns himself," or "Bush thinks that people should be able to do what they like with their lives so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against another person". Incredible that anyone could think of these as epithets.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Excitement in the News.
I am found once again in the ironic position of eagerly awaiting the next printing of the Indy Star. The Editorial Page staff has been dropping some whoppin' hints that they are going to endorse some Libertarian candidates in the City-County Council races. At this moment (12:40 am), the Tuesday online version is not yet up, *grumble*.
Naturally, I really want to see Brad Klopfenstein earn the endorsement, but I am also eager to see Rev. Greg Dixon get the nod, too. Both of them are running far more active and serious campaigns than their opponents, and that should count for something, even if you do not share the Libertarian viewpoint. These are the obvious choices, but I am also hoping that a surprise is lurking out there.
Maybe Webster Smith, who was excellent in a candidate roundtable forum I witnessed, will be chosen. Maybe one of our at-large candidates will be endorsed. In any case, I'll be dashing for the online version of the Star each morning this week in a way I rarely do.
I am found once again in the ironic position of eagerly awaiting the next printing of the Indy Star. The Editorial Page staff has been dropping some whoppin' hints that they are going to endorse some Libertarian candidates in the City-County Council races. At this moment (12:40 am), the Tuesday online version is not yet up, *grumble*.
Naturally, I really want to see Brad Klopfenstein earn the endorsement, but I am also eager to see Rev. Greg Dixon get the nod, too. Both of them are running far more active and serious campaigns than their opponents, and that should count for something, even if you do not share the Libertarian viewpoint. These are the obvious choices, but I am also hoping that a surprise is lurking out there.
Maybe Webster Smith, who was excellent in a candidate roundtable forum I witnessed, will be chosen. Maybe one of our at-large candidates will be endorsed. In any case, I'll be dashing for the online version of the Star each morning this week in a way I rarely do.
Go Yankees!
This is a bit late in the game, but things pretty much followed form: the Yankees, with their tradition of excellence, never panicked and defeated the Red Sox, with their history of finding ways to lose. It was amazing. Ame & I sat down to watch Game Seven of the AL Championship Series with the Sox ahead 5-2. I looked to her and said, "the Yanks have this one. The Sox will let them back in." She rolled her eyes, but sure enough...
The Cubs took a 3-1 lead in the NL Championship Series, prompting a co-worker to buy the champaign. I gently reminded him that these were the Cubs, a team who has never won two Playoff Series' in the same season, and that it wouldn't be too unusual if they found a way to lose. I didn't even tell him that the Marlins are a team that has never lost a Playoff Series in their history. He walked off muttering, but sure enough...
What amazed me about the Cubs' wipeout was a poll that was conducted shortly after it was over. It asked for the cause of Chicago's collapse. Many votes were cast for the fan who interfered, others voted that Manager Dusty Baker left his starting pitchers in too long. What got the least votes was that the Marlins beat the Cubs. What got the least votes was correct. The Marlins overcame HUGE odds, showing real character, coming back when all looked hopeless. I like that.
I'm still pulling for the Yanks, though. I favor a long tradition of excellence to a budding one. My call was Yanks in five at the start, and even though the Marlins are a spirited and likeable bunch, I'm sticking with my prediction. I could be wrong, but hey- either way, a tradition of excellence will march on.
This is a bit late in the game, but things pretty much followed form: the Yankees, with their tradition of excellence, never panicked and defeated the Red Sox, with their history of finding ways to lose. It was amazing. Ame & I sat down to watch Game Seven of the AL Championship Series with the Sox ahead 5-2. I looked to her and said, "the Yanks have this one. The Sox will let them back in." She rolled her eyes, but sure enough...
The Cubs took a 3-1 lead in the NL Championship Series, prompting a co-worker to buy the champaign. I gently reminded him that these were the Cubs, a team who has never won two Playoff Series' in the same season, and that it wouldn't be too unusual if they found a way to lose. I didn't even tell him that the Marlins are a team that has never lost a Playoff Series in their history. He walked off muttering, but sure enough...
What amazed me about the Cubs' wipeout was a poll that was conducted shortly after it was over. It asked for the cause of Chicago's collapse. Many votes were cast for the fan who interfered, others voted that Manager Dusty Baker left his starting pitchers in too long. What got the least votes was that the Marlins beat the Cubs. What got the least votes was correct. The Marlins overcame HUGE odds, showing real character, coming back when all looked hopeless. I like that.
I'm still pulling for the Yanks, though. I favor a long tradition of excellence to a budding one. My call was Yanks in five at the start, and even though the Marlins are a spirited and likeable bunch, I'm sticking with my prediction. I could be wrong, but hey- either way, a tradition of excellence will march on.
A Weekend in Chicago
Ah, a visit to Wrigleyville, where the Cubs fans do knash their teeth and sometimes wail, and where the Cubs merch is sold at a discount- especially that shirt with both the Cubbies' and Marlins' logos on it. Ame & I actually did step foot on the concrete outside Wrigley, and she snapped a cheesy shot of me in front of the Big Red Sign.
We were there to visit her cousin and family, as they have a new baby, Isabelle. She's adorable, and has Ame raring to go for a child of her own. Gulp.
Observations of Chicago, especially the north side:
1. I enjoyed the industrial landscape of Gary, Indiana and Chicago. I hadn't realized how much I missed it in being away from Cleveland. I think I can safely say that it is one of the only things I miss about Cleveland. Trains, factories, steel mills... yum yum.
2. I don't think I have seen as much revolutionary anti-President stuff since Reagan. Stickers were plastered all over every sign, dragging down and making ugly pockets of the residential areas we passed through. Why is it that the fiercest adherents of public property are the most eager to wreck it?
3. More to come.
Ah, a visit to Wrigleyville, where the Cubs fans do knash their teeth and sometimes wail, and where the Cubs merch is sold at a discount- especially that shirt with both the Cubbies' and Marlins' logos on it. Ame & I actually did step foot on the concrete outside Wrigley, and she snapped a cheesy shot of me in front of the Big Red Sign.
We were there to visit her cousin and family, as they have a new baby, Isabelle. She's adorable, and has Ame raring to go for a child of her own. Gulp.
Observations of Chicago, especially the north side:
1. I enjoyed the industrial landscape of Gary, Indiana and Chicago. I hadn't realized how much I missed it in being away from Cleveland. I think I can safely say that it is one of the only things I miss about Cleveland. Trains, factories, steel mills... yum yum.
2. I don't think I have seen as much revolutionary anti-President stuff since Reagan. Stickers were plastered all over every sign, dragging down and making ugly pockets of the residential areas we passed through. Why is it that the fiercest adherents of public property are the most eager to wreck it?
3. More to come.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Looking Forward to Friday's Rush Limbaugh Show
Yes, I know that Rush won't be on. That's ten percent of why I'm looking forward to tuning in. The ninety percent that matters is who will be on: Walter Williams!
Williams is not the smoothest delivery ever to grace the airwaves. He is, however, extremely skilled at explaining economic principles in plain language, using common examples. He uses these examples to guide his politics, as I think anybody intelligent person should do.
Yes, I know that Rush won't be on. That's ten percent of why I'm looking forward to tuning in. The ninety percent that matters is who will be on: Walter Williams!
Williams is not the smoothest delivery ever to grace the airwaves. He is, however, extremely skilled at explaining economic principles in plain language, using common examples. He uses these examples to guide his politics, as I think anybody intelligent person should do.
The War on Success
That's another way of saying, "I was rooting for a Cubs-Red Sox World Series," or, "I was rooting for the lovable losers". Alas, the Cubs are toast, and I have no doubts that the Yanks will dispatch the Sox tomorrow night.
Thomas Sowell's latest column is entitled, "The War on Success," but he doesn't talk about baseball at all. He talks about the attack on wealth in the U.S. I'd like to think that my comments on the baseball playoffs supplement his article nicely.
That's another way of saying, "I was rooting for a Cubs-Red Sox World Series," or, "I was rooting for the lovable losers". Alas, the Cubs are toast, and I have no doubts that the Yanks will dispatch the Sox tomorrow night.
Thomas Sowell's latest column is entitled, "The War on Success," but he doesn't talk about baseball at all. He talks about the attack on wealth in the U.S. I'd like to think that my comments on the baseball playoffs supplement his article nicely.
Klop Campaign Chugs Onward, Upward
Uphill, more like. It's tough enough to run as a Republican in a district that tends to vote about 80% Democrat, but like trying to turn a lump of coal into a diamond for a Libertarian to run and win in such a district. And yet, Brad Klopfenstein chugs on.
Tonight, members of the campaign team gathered to sift through the list of registered voters in order to find citizens who might be inclined to vote for Brad over the slated Democrat. We stuffed brochures and fridge magnets into envelopes for tomorrow's mail. Over the next few weeks, Brad and the team will continue to knock on doors throughout the district, and to visit neighborhood associations and churches.
Brad has been on hand to monitor the pathetic, money-wasting, time-wasting ballot dispute between Democrats and Republicans, in order to protect the status of Libertarians on the ballot. (Click this link for his letter to the Indy Star some three weeks ago.) Out of his constant attendance, he has gained greater respect with the local news media, earning quotes in Star articles and a positive feature on a recent Fox 59 broadcast. (Click this link to the LPIN website, and then click the link to the broadcast.)
He is doing so much right, and deserves to get so much more in return, but we will probably have to take solace in achieving secondary objectives after the election. He wants to win all of the precincts in his home district, and stands a good chance of doing so. He wants to gather more votes than the Republican candidate, and almost certainly will. He wants to win some of the precincts outside his home district, and should take a handful. He wants to win converts to the LPIN, and certainly will do this too. This is the ground work Democrats have done over the past 20 or so years, and it has served them well, converting a Republican city into a Democratic one.
For me, the most frustrating thing is knowing that Brad's main opponent, Democrat Patrice Abduallah, is doing next to nothing. He's mailing it in, in his own way, sitting back patiently, trying to give us no ammunition, banking on the voting trends of the district to take care of business for him. It's frustrating to be able to predict that he is probably using a winning strategy.
It's frustrating to know that so many citizens will be happier to vote for a Democrat who sees fit not to campaign hard before considering a vote for a Libertarian who does, but those are the results of Democrats earning the votes over years. But the lesson is that the work must be done in order to put Libertarian candidates in the same position 20 or so years from today.
Uphill, more like. It's tough enough to run as a Republican in a district that tends to vote about 80% Democrat, but like trying to turn a lump of coal into a diamond for a Libertarian to run and win in such a district. And yet, Brad Klopfenstein chugs on.
Tonight, members of the campaign team gathered to sift through the list of registered voters in order to find citizens who might be inclined to vote for Brad over the slated Democrat. We stuffed brochures and fridge magnets into envelopes for tomorrow's mail. Over the next few weeks, Brad and the team will continue to knock on doors throughout the district, and to visit neighborhood associations and churches.
Brad has been on hand to monitor the pathetic, money-wasting, time-wasting ballot dispute between Democrats and Republicans, in order to protect the status of Libertarians on the ballot. (Click this link for his letter to the Indy Star some three weeks ago.) Out of his constant attendance, he has gained greater respect with the local news media, earning quotes in Star articles and a positive feature on a recent Fox 59 broadcast. (Click this link to the LPIN website, and then click the link to the broadcast.)
He is doing so much right, and deserves to get so much more in return, but we will probably have to take solace in achieving secondary objectives after the election. He wants to win all of the precincts in his home district, and stands a good chance of doing so. He wants to gather more votes than the Republican candidate, and almost certainly will. He wants to win some of the precincts outside his home district, and should take a handful. He wants to win converts to the LPIN, and certainly will do this too. This is the ground work Democrats have done over the past 20 or so years, and it has served them well, converting a Republican city into a Democratic one.
For me, the most frustrating thing is knowing that Brad's main opponent, Democrat Patrice Abduallah, is doing next to nothing. He's mailing it in, in his own way, sitting back patiently, trying to give us no ammunition, banking on the voting trends of the district to take care of business for him. It's frustrating to be able to predict that he is probably using a winning strategy.
It's frustrating to know that so many citizens will be happier to vote for a Democrat who sees fit not to campaign hard before considering a vote for a Libertarian who does, but those are the results of Democrats earning the votes over years. But the lesson is that the work must be done in order to put Libertarian candidates in the same position 20 or so years from today.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Small Joy in Mudville
The Cubs imploded. So, where's the surprise?
This franchise's very calling card is defeat, and Cub fans identify with it in an almost sick way, which is why I find no irony in a Cub fan interfering with a ball that would have in all likelihood been the second out of the eighth inning. How perfectly fitting.
Now the Cubs and their fans, who were five outs from their first trip to the World Series since 1945, will have to agonize until the end of a deciding Game Seven, and then probably longer. It reminds me of a cruel joke my cousin and I used to tell about my brother.
Q: How do you set Rich up with a small business?
A: Give him a big one and wait nine months.
That, in a nutshell, is the story of Chicago Cub baseball.
But don't mistake me for one who is gloating over this misfortune. The only joy I can take from this is that the Marlin players were looking positively forlorn up until this point in the game, and with a tiny break going their way, the Marlins were energized and capitalized completely, scoring eight runs to leave all wearing blue at Wrigley in a state of shock.
Come to think of it, the resiliance of the Marlins should be the story here, but the mindless support of the perennial underdog is getting in the way.
Anyway, it was George Bush's fault. He was in the stands and interfered with Moises Alou. Damn that rascal George W. Bush!
The Cubs imploded. So, where's the surprise?
This franchise's very calling card is defeat, and Cub fans identify with it in an almost sick way, which is why I find no irony in a Cub fan interfering with a ball that would have in all likelihood been the second out of the eighth inning. How perfectly fitting.
Now the Cubs and their fans, who were five outs from their first trip to the World Series since 1945, will have to agonize until the end of a deciding Game Seven, and then probably longer. It reminds me of a cruel joke my cousin and I used to tell about my brother.
Q: How do you set Rich up with a small business?
A: Give him a big one and wait nine months.
That, in a nutshell, is the story of Chicago Cub baseball.
But don't mistake me for one who is gloating over this misfortune. The only joy I can take from this is that the Marlin players were looking positively forlorn up until this point in the game, and with a tiny break going their way, the Marlins were energized and capitalized completely, scoring eight runs to leave all wearing blue at Wrigley in a state of shock.
Come to think of it, the resiliance of the Marlins should be the story here, but the mindless support of the perennial underdog is getting in the way.
Anyway, it was George Bush's fault. He was in the stands and interfered with Moises Alou. Damn that rascal George W. Bush!
Monday, October 13, 2003
Keeping an Open Mind
Tim Steyskal, my pal back at WCSB in the late 1980s, had a saying about an open minds: "An open mind is often little more than an open pit ready for backfilling".
That said, I've been intrigued by the consistency and uniformity of the left in its' unwavering attack on George W. Bush. I am so intrigued, that I have decided to adopt this for myself.
For instance- in last week's hockey game, I scored a goal and had three assists. I really should have scored another goal, but my shot missed the net, because I hurried my shot.
Oh- wait! It was George Bush's fault. He's responsible. I would have scored two goals if not for George W. Bush.
That's easy! Now I understand a third of why they do it!
Tim Steyskal, my pal back at WCSB in the late 1980s, had a saying about an open minds: "An open mind is often little more than an open pit ready for backfilling".
That said, I've been intrigued by the consistency and uniformity of the left in its' unwavering attack on George W. Bush. I am so intrigued, that I have decided to adopt this for myself.
For instance- in last week's hockey game, I scored a goal and had three assists. I really should have scored another goal, but my shot missed the net, because I hurried my shot.
Oh- wait! It was George Bush's fault. He's responsible. I would have scored two goals if not for George W. Bush.
That's easy! Now I understand a third of why they do it!
Rush and Drugs -- the Conservative Dilemma
Rush Limbaugh admitted an addiction to painkillers. If Rush were a libertarian, he would have been saying for years that you own yourself, ergo, the use of painkillers is a personal issue, not a societal one. Alas...
The following was recently penned by Steve Dasbach of the Libertarian Writers Bureau:
Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has confirmed the rumors – he’s addicted to prescription pain medication. It’s obvious that he has broken our nation’s drug laws. Which poses an interesting dilemma for his fellow conservatives.
According to Rush and other conservative drug warriors, “drug users ought to be convicted and sent up” as Rush himself put it. Sent up, as in sent to prison.
So here’s the conservative dilemma. Should Rush, a self-admitted “drug user” be “convicted and sent up?”
If they say yes, they’re advocating silencing the most powerful and influential conservative voice in America -- imprisoning a man they admire and respect. If they say no, they’re contradicting everything they’ve claimed for years about the need to fight the War on Drugs with stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, for drug users.
Do conservatives think that society will be better off if their friend and idol Rush serves a long stretch behind bars as “punishment” for his drug use? Or that a long prison term will somehow “rehabilitate” him? If not, then why would they advocate such treatment for the sons and daughters and friends of ordinary Americans?
Conservatives argue that stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, are necessary to deter drug use. But such penalties failed to deter Rush, a strong willed individual who preaches self-reliance, responsibility, and the importance of the rule of law for three hours every day. If draconian drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences didn’t deter him, how likely are they to deter lesser mortals?
One presumes that conservatives embrace the ideals expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance, including “justice for all”. That means the same laws are supposed to apply to everyone, whether it’s a wealthy celebrity like Rush or a faceless inner-city man mired in poverty. In fact, Rush himself has advocated jail time for athletes and Hollywood celebrities who use drugs.
So if conservatives still believe that drug users should be sent to prison, doesn’t that mean that Rush should be imprisoned too?
Some conservatives seem to be having problems coming to grips with this dilemma. When the bombastic Ann Coulter was repeatedly asked if she thought Rush should be sent to prison, the best she could come up with a lame comment that if her mother committed murder, she wouldn’t want her sent to prison. Sorry, but that really isn’t an answer.
Another prominent conservative focused on the fact that Rush got hooked on legal drugs, conveniently ignoring the fact that he bought them illegally, and that the drug laws conservatives support make no such distinctions. As far as the law is concerned, Rush is no different than the person who buys marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.
So how will conservatives resolve this dilemma? Some will probably decide to sacrifice Rush on the altar of principle. Others will demonstrate by their actions that they are simply hypocrites. They’ll support Rush in his time of need while continuing to advocate prison for other drug users.
But perhaps, just perhaps, Rush’s addiction will be the catalyst that prompts fair-minded conservatives to reevaluate their unquestioning support for the War on Drugs. Perhaps they’ll decide that if it makes sense to let Rush decide for himself how to deal with his drug problem, perhaps it makes sense to let other drug users make their own decisions as well.
This isn’t an abstract issue for me. As the father of four nearly grown children, I’ve had to face the challenges posed by tobacco, alcohol, and drug availability that all parents must confront. Of all the fears associated with confronting these issues, my greatest fear has always been the one Rush’s friends are confronting now – the possibility that someone I care for will make a bad choice and have their lives destroyed by the criminal justice system that is supposed to protect us.
Nothing will be gained by sending Rush to prison. Nothing is gained by imprisoning other less-famous drug users either. If Rush’s fellow conservatives resolve their dilemma with compassion, perhaps we can all agree to stop treating drug use as a crime and stop wasting lives. And we can continue to enjoy “Excellence in Broadcasting” for many years to come.
You can subscribe to the National Edition of the Libertarian Writers Bureau. There is also an Indiana version.
Rush Limbaugh admitted an addiction to painkillers. If Rush were a libertarian, he would have been saying for years that you own yourself, ergo, the use of painkillers is a personal issue, not a societal one. Alas...
The following was recently penned by Steve Dasbach of the Libertarian Writers Bureau:
Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has confirmed the rumors – he’s addicted to prescription pain medication. It’s obvious that he has broken our nation’s drug laws. Which poses an interesting dilemma for his fellow conservatives.
According to Rush and other conservative drug warriors, “drug users ought to be convicted and sent up” as Rush himself put it. Sent up, as in sent to prison.
So here’s the conservative dilemma. Should Rush, a self-admitted “drug user” be “convicted and sent up?”
If they say yes, they’re advocating silencing the most powerful and influential conservative voice in America -- imprisoning a man they admire and respect. If they say no, they’re contradicting everything they’ve claimed for years about the need to fight the War on Drugs with stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, for drug users.
Do conservatives think that society will be better off if their friend and idol Rush serves a long stretch behind bars as “punishment” for his drug use? Or that a long prison term will somehow “rehabilitate” him? If not, then why would they advocate such treatment for the sons and daughters and friends of ordinary Americans?
Conservatives argue that stiff criminal penalties, including jail time, are necessary to deter drug use. But such penalties failed to deter Rush, a strong willed individual who preaches self-reliance, responsibility, and the importance of the rule of law for three hours every day. If draconian drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences didn’t deter him, how likely are they to deter lesser mortals?
One presumes that conservatives embrace the ideals expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance, including “justice for all”. That means the same laws are supposed to apply to everyone, whether it’s a wealthy celebrity like Rush or a faceless inner-city man mired in poverty. In fact, Rush himself has advocated jail time for athletes and Hollywood celebrities who use drugs.
So if conservatives still believe that drug users should be sent to prison, doesn’t that mean that Rush should be imprisoned too?
Some conservatives seem to be having problems coming to grips with this dilemma. When the bombastic Ann Coulter was repeatedly asked if she thought Rush should be sent to prison, the best she could come up with a lame comment that if her mother committed murder, she wouldn’t want her sent to prison. Sorry, but that really isn’t an answer.
Another prominent conservative focused on the fact that Rush got hooked on legal drugs, conveniently ignoring the fact that he bought them illegally, and that the drug laws conservatives support make no such distinctions. As far as the law is concerned, Rush is no different than the person who buys marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.
So how will conservatives resolve this dilemma? Some will probably decide to sacrifice Rush on the altar of principle. Others will demonstrate by their actions that they are simply hypocrites. They’ll support Rush in his time of need while continuing to advocate prison for other drug users.
But perhaps, just perhaps, Rush’s addiction will be the catalyst that prompts fair-minded conservatives to reevaluate their unquestioning support for the War on Drugs. Perhaps they’ll decide that if it makes sense to let Rush decide for himself how to deal with his drug problem, perhaps it makes sense to let other drug users make their own decisions as well.
This isn’t an abstract issue for me. As the father of four nearly grown children, I’ve had to face the challenges posed by tobacco, alcohol, and drug availability that all parents must confront. Of all the fears associated with confronting these issues, my greatest fear has always been the one Rush’s friends are confronting now – the possibility that someone I care for will make a bad choice and have their lives destroyed by the criminal justice system that is supposed to protect us.
Nothing will be gained by sending Rush to prison. Nothing is gained by imprisoning other less-famous drug users either. If Rush’s fellow conservatives resolve their dilemma with compassion, perhaps we can all agree to stop treating drug use as a crime and stop wasting lives. And we can continue to enjoy “Excellence in Broadcasting” for many years to come.
You can subscribe to the National Edition of the Libertarian Writers Bureau. There is also an Indiana version.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Lovable Losers 2
I penned the item below, only to have ABC's Nightline do a feature on the subject, rah-rah-ing the Cubs and Red Sox. Bleah. Thanks for nothing. Ben Affleck was interviewed, wherein he embodied the senseless envy of success right on cue. Er, thanks, Ben.
I found that a search for the phrase 'lovable losers' turns up quite a bit of verbiage, most of it dedicated to the Cubs. There is even a website called www.lovablelosers.com. Pathetic.
As I write this, the Marlins are leading the Cubs 2-0 in tonight's game, but trail the series 3-1. I still have great faith that the Cubs and their sad-sack fans will have to wait until late in the 21st Century before they can experience the thrill, since the Yanks are bound to continue to dispatch the Sox, and then in turn, the Cubs.
My quest for continued excellence took two hits this weekend, with one survivor. In college football, Ohio State's string of 19 straight victories was snapped. On the NFL gridiron, the hometown Colts lost less than a week after their inspiring Monday Night defeat of the Super Bowl champ Bucs. On the upside, the Colts lost to the undefeated Carolina Panthers. The Chiefs had a miraculous OT win over the Packers to keep their season perfect.
It's still possible for a perfect Super Bowl as the AFC Chiefs could face either the NFC Panthers or Minnesota Vikings in a final battle of unbeaten teams. That would be a million times more exciting than a Cubs-Red Sox Series... which won't come to pass anyhow.
Go Yankees.
I penned the item below, only to have ABC's Nightline do a feature on the subject, rah-rah-ing the Cubs and Red Sox. Bleah. Thanks for nothing. Ben Affleck was interviewed, wherein he embodied the senseless envy of success right on cue. Er, thanks, Ben.
I found that a search for the phrase 'lovable losers' turns up quite a bit of verbiage, most of it dedicated to the Cubs. There is even a website called www.lovablelosers.com. Pathetic.
As I write this, the Marlins are leading the Cubs 2-0 in tonight's game, but trail the series 3-1. I still have great faith that the Cubs and their sad-sack fans will have to wait until late in the 21st Century before they can experience the thrill, since the Yanks are bound to continue to dispatch the Sox, and then in turn, the Cubs.
My quest for continued excellence took two hits this weekend, with one survivor. In college football, Ohio State's string of 19 straight victories was snapped. On the NFL gridiron, the hometown Colts lost less than a week after their inspiring Monday Night defeat of the Super Bowl champ Bucs. On the upside, the Colts lost to the undefeated Carolina Panthers. The Chiefs had a miraculous OT win over the Packers to keep their season perfect.
It's still possible for a perfect Super Bowl as the AFC Chiefs could face either the NFC Panthers or Minnesota Vikings in a final battle of unbeaten teams. That would be a million times more exciting than a Cubs-Red Sox Series... which won't come to pass anyhow.
Go Yankees.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
No Lovable Losers
I was at Brad's Monday night for viewing of the Colts' miracle defeat of the Super Bowl champ Buccaneers with about 10 people present. As the Colts were getting their butts kicked in the first half of the game, we switched over to the baseball playoff Game Five between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox. Therein, it was discovered that many of the folks there were pulling for the Sox, and dreaming of a Cubs-Red Sox World Series.
Excuse me while I retch in the sink. Unfortunately, this is a common view.
On what grounds does anyone root for the Red Sox or the Cubs? OK, maybe you are from Boston or Chicago, or surrounding areas. If you are a blind homer, fine. They can field any team, and you will root for the uniform. Wow, that's inspiring, rooting for the uniform.
Do you pull for the underdog, just because they are the underdog? If you did, you would vote exclusively Libertarian or Green- until they became the majority, and then you would begin to vote for the Consitutional Law and Socialist candidates until they in turn became a majority. But no, you don't do that. You think about the vote you will cast, making it reflect your values.
Why should rooting for sports teams be any different?
After a decade of pulling for the Indians because they were a constant threat to score eight runs in any game, I now pull for the Yankees. Yes, the dreaded, hated, envied Yankees. The Yankees are the standard of excellence. I enjoy pulling for continued excellence. I appreciate the difficulty in making it year after year. Look at last year's Series winner, the Anaheim Angels. They were virtually eliminated from the Playoffs in July. Look at the Marlins. After they won a Series over the Indians, the team was dispersed, with players scattering to new teams across the league with fat contracts.
The Cubs have been losers for six generation. The Red Sox have been losers for five. Is this what inspires you?
Face it- you hate the Yankees because their owner makes a lot of money, and spends a lot of money on talent. You aren't so much rooting for something as you are rooting against something. I fail to see the joy in that. The interesting thing is that the Red Sox are one of the league's free spenders. What you see here is that there is more to it than spending. There is talent, confidence, teamwork, and a host of other attributes that make a winner. Money may buy talent, but it doesn't buy cohesion, for example.
Root for the Cubs because you love Sammy Sosa's power and enthusiasm. Root for the Sox and Manny Ramirez for his power and occasional enthusiasm. But please be for something.
I was at Brad's Monday night for viewing of the Colts' miracle defeat of the Super Bowl champ Buccaneers with about 10 people present. As the Colts were getting their butts kicked in the first half of the game, we switched over to the baseball playoff Game Five between the Oakland A's and the Boston Red Sox. Therein, it was discovered that many of the folks there were pulling for the Sox, and dreaming of a Cubs-Red Sox World Series.
Excuse me while I retch in the sink. Unfortunately, this is a common view.
On what grounds does anyone root for the Red Sox or the Cubs? OK, maybe you are from Boston or Chicago, or surrounding areas. If you are a blind homer, fine. They can field any team, and you will root for the uniform. Wow, that's inspiring, rooting for the uniform.
Do you pull for the underdog, just because they are the underdog? If you did, you would vote exclusively Libertarian or Green- until they became the majority, and then you would begin to vote for the Consitutional Law and Socialist candidates until they in turn became a majority. But no, you don't do that. You think about the vote you will cast, making it reflect your values.
Why should rooting for sports teams be any different?
After a decade of pulling for the Indians because they were a constant threat to score eight runs in any game, I now pull for the Yankees. Yes, the dreaded, hated, envied Yankees. The Yankees are the standard of excellence. I enjoy pulling for continued excellence. I appreciate the difficulty in making it year after year. Look at last year's Series winner, the Anaheim Angels. They were virtually eliminated from the Playoffs in July. Look at the Marlins. After they won a Series over the Indians, the team was dispersed, with players scattering to new teams across the league with fat contracts.
The Cubs have been losers for six generation. The Red Sox have been losers for five. Is this what inspires you?
Face it- you hate the Yankees because their owner makes a lot of money, and spends a lot of money on talent. You aren't so much rooting for something as you are rooting against something. I fail to see the joy in that. The interesting thing is that the Red Sox are one of the league's free spenders. What you see here is that there is more to it than spending. There is talent, confidence, teamwork, and a host of other attributes that make a winner. Money may buy talent, but it doesn't buy cohesion, for example.
Root for the Cubs because you love Sammy Sosa's power and enthusiasm. Root for the Sox and Manny Ramirez for his power and occasional enthusiasm. But please be for something.
Radio Bummer
I had a full day of inspections planned, meaning that in between site visits, I could take in all the radio coverage of the California election on Tuesday. I was sadly disappointed at the quality of the procedings, although I must admit that the difference of two time zones greatly affected things.
I listened largely to WXNT-AM in indianapolis. My favorite syndicated talker, Neal Boortz, had little to say, as his program ended at 10am Pacific time. At that point, all he or the networks could say was that it looked like the turnout would be unusually high.
Glenn Beck followed Boortz, but his show is tape-delayed, and offered essentially the same in terms of 'news'. Beck annoyingly went on and on about how the most important thing in the election was 'character', not about 'it's the economy stupid' and how he had serious doubts about Arnold. Whether considering Bill Clinton, Gray Davis, or Arnold Schwartzneggar, it's clear that American voters do believe that 'it's the economy, stupid'. Sorry Glenn.
As Beck got under my skin, I alternately tuned to the NPR station. They aired their usual fare of ponderous human interest stories, and offered no word on the recall at any point at which I checked in.
Sean Hannity was the first to offer any definitive indication, describing the day as 'California's independence day' right from the top of the show. However, it struck me that for all of his exuberance, he was not offering numbers. There was no exit poll data, just Hannity's assurance that 'his people on the ground there' let him know that it was looking good for recall and for Arnold.
Then it hit me: I miss the old style of reporting that gives numbers and exit poll results. Thanks to the 2000 Presidential election, so-called news outlets are now gun shy about projecting a winner.
I miss the excitement of numbers pounded out every five minutes. I remember hanging on every premature result in 1992, the first time I paid attention to CNN's election coverage. It was thrilling! Now, we get nudge, nudge, wink, wink reporting, with insinuations offered for fear that the reports might influence or jeopardize the outcome. I'm not convinced of that the reporting does this, anyway. If the outcome is reported as a landslide, those who might have been voting for the loser could even be inspired to show up on the news, to try to make up some ground. In a close race, potential votes for all candidates might be similarly inspired.
So, we get to deal with this timidity, which makes for lame radio. Wither the First Amendment and free speech for news agencies? I don't buy the notion that there is free speech, but if you use it, you lose it. This timidity in journalism jeopardizes more freedoms than potential votes.
I had a full day of inspections planned, meaning that in between site visits, I could take in all the radio coverage of the California election on Tuesday. I was sadly disappointed at the quality of the procedings, although I must admit that the difference of two time zones greatly affected things.
I listened largely to WXNT-AM in indianapolis. My favorite syndicated talker, Neal Boortz, had little to say, as his program ended at 10am Pacific time. At that point, all he or the networks could say was that it looked like the turnout would be unusually high.
Glenn Beck followed Boortz, but his show is tape-delayed, and offered essentially the same in terms of 'news'. Beck annoyingly went on and on about how the most important thing in the election was 'character', not about 'it's the economy stupid' and how he had serious doubts about Arnold. Whether considering Bill Clinton, Gray Davis, or Arnold Schwartzneggar, it's clear that American voters do believe that 'it's the economy, stupid'. Sorry Glenn.
As Beck got under my skin, I alternately tuned to the NPR station. They aired their usual fare of ponderous human interest stories, and offered no word on the recall at any point at which I checked in.
Sean Hannity was the first to offer any definitive indication, describing the day as 'California's independence day' right from the top of the show. However, it struck me that for all of his exuberance, he was not offering numbers. There was no exit poll data, just Hannity's assurance that 'his people on the ground there' let him know that it was looking good for recall and for Arnold.
Then it hit me: I miss the old style of reporting that gives numbers and exit poll results. Thanks to the 2000 Presidential election, so-called news outlets are now gun shy about projecting a winner.
I miss the excitement of numbers pounded out every five minutes. I remember hanging on every premature result in 1992, the first time I paid attention to CNN's election coverage. It was thrilling! Now, we get nudge, nudge, wink, wink reporting, with insinuations offered for fear that the reports might influence or jeopardize the outcome. I'm not convinced of that the reporting does this, anyway. If the outcome is reported as a landslide, those who might have been voting for the loser could even be inspired to show up on the news, to try to make up some ground. In a close race, potential votes for all candidates might be similarly inspired.
So, we get to deal with this timidity, which makes for lame radio. Wither the First Amendment and free speech for news agencies? I don't buy the notion that there is free speech, but if you use it, you lose it. This timidity in journalism jeopardizes more freedoms than potential votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)