Education

Had an interesting conversation last night with my friend, Robbie, regarding the current public educational system. This discussion arose from Ed's usual story time, involving what the "kids nowadays" are doing. We later came to the conclusion that Ed has a worthy position as a teacher, but neither of us would have the patience to do the same. Although when I was young, school was not the most popular place to be, I realized it was a necessary evil that would benefit me greatly in the future. Seems that nowadays a lot of kids are apathetic about the entire education process. This has been proven time and time again through the stories of our teaching friend, Ed. To this I say, change public education from a requirement to a privilege. Before you get all twisted out of shape, let me explain. If you have a kid in class that is not interested in learning, all he/she does is distract the rest of class and hinders everyone else’s education. I say, that if the kid doesn't want to be there, and proves it with apathy and misbehavior, then they should be removed from the classroom. The responsibility falls solely on the student. Then, if the student is no longer in school due to their shenanigans, the onus will fall on the parents or guardians of that child to do something with them. Since most parents do not want to support their child, the parents will have a more active role in the child's development. Either the parents will straighten them in preparation for education, or they will prepare them for the workforce. Until this happens, the public school system will remain just a place to drop of the kids for the day.

U.S. Dependence on Oil

I just finished reading an exciting article on the United States dependence on oil is affecting our national security.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen.html

I highly recommend reading through this article, and posting your opinions. In case you are curious about my stance, it falls very close to the author's opinion. Enjoy.

War Causes Domestic News to Cease

I would like to thank the major networks for the most access to the Iraqi War short of signing up for the military myself. This high level of coverage has allowed me to track our military forces to the smallest detail. Some of the updates include information like the 81st Battalion has moved from its current position and the sandstorm is preventing helicopters from flying. In other words, some times providing ALL the information is not necessarily the best thing. With 'round the clock coverage, there has to be some concessions elsewhere. For example, the Today show has dedicated every morning to war coverage, pushing domestic news to the wayside. This begs the question, if day-to-day news is not important enough to report during a crisis in the Middle East, then what level of importance is domestic news during peacetime?

Imagine the news 6 months ago: News nuggets from all over the U.S pelted the average viewer. The regular news coverage included bits about education, crime, financial, and local government. Now, you are lucky to get the weather, which includes forecasts around Baghdad.

Granted, information about the war is appreciated, and I'm glad that I'm informed rather than left in the dark. However, having this type of coverage causes the U.S. to stop all other functions to focus on the war. "War Porn", as XBL regular Donald Ball calls it, is currently causing domestic news to seem unimportant. What's going to happen when the war is over? Will domestic news suddenly become important again?

Spam is Relative

There is an existing court case that could decide how corporations can treat incoming information however they want. In this article, it describes how a former Intel employee sent a e-mail to 30,000 Intel employees which criticized the company and their actions against him.

This individual, former Intel engineer Ken Hamidi, is claiming that his detrimental message was legal via free speech. Intel is saying that their corporate e-mail is private property, and that Hamidi, and they should be able to control access to it.

If Intel wins this case, corporations will be able to file injunctions against ANY incoming information that they feel is unwanted. If Hamidi wins, corporate e-mail accounts will be free game to any e-mail marketer (read: spammer). Basically, an e-mail can be defined as spam based on who receives it.

The battle lines have set. You get to decide if you want privacy or free speech. I'll do my best to keep tabs on this case.

I Can't Help Myself

I usually lump John Stossel into the pile of sensationalist journalists that enjoy drawing attention to someone's faults, but lack any answers. Every once in a while, Stossel can cover a topic that is truly thought provoking. Last night, John Stossel hosted an hour-long news special about addiction in all forms entitled, Help Me! I Can't Help Myself.

This program provided opposite views on several types of addiction: alcohol, nicotine, food, narcotics, gambling, etc. On the one hand, addiction was treated like a disease. Being a disease, addiction is something that a person has no control over. Once hooked on a substance or behavior, the addictive agent takes control and the individual loses control. On the other hand, they state that all behaviors are decisions. A person "chooses" to become addicted. The bottom line is that if you don't want to be addicted, then don't do the behavior.

I tend to agree with the second argument. Although once hooked to a substance or behavior I truly believe that it becomes difficult to stop, I do not feel that the person has lost complete control. The human mind is a powerful thing, and can be used for the betterment of the individual. If you are caught up in addictive behaviors, you can make a conscious decision to not commit those behaviors again, if you set your mind to it.

The idea that addiction is a disease comes across as a broad range excuse for deviant behaviors to shirk all responsibility of one's actions. This notion becomes the "get out of jail free" card for life. If you think about it, any deviant behavior can be addictive. Either you enjoy the anti-socialism, the adrenaline/chemical high, or the activity itself, but no matter what you are specifically addicted to, you can simply say you are an addict to relieve any self-blame.

A person cannot become addicted to anything without first deciding to try it. Smearing peanut butter on my feet might be highly addictive, but not until I try it the first time. I will not spontaneously get addicted to putting peanut butter on my feet, or any other behavior for that matter. I must make the initial decision to start behaving that way.

If you decide to start a behavior, you have accepted the responsibilities that follow it. You might need help with giving up that behavior later, because habits are hard to break. However, you are not a victim! For one to stop a behavior the first step is deciding to stop.

All Your News From One Source

How would you like all your news from one source? Although the convenience would allow you to get your news from one location, it would always have the same spin, the same slant. Your news will have the media owners interests protected. New opinions that were not popular would get pushed aside. Ultimately, all news and opinion you that you see is decided by one media controlling entity. That sounds an awful lot like a Gestapo, instead of free press.

I bring this up due to a recent vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that loosens the restrictions of owning multiple media outlets. Although this allows for competition, I believe that you will see an increasing trend of media conglomerates absorbing smaller media owners. Therefore, you have fewer and fewer owners of media outlets. These owners would own radio stations, television stations and newspapers. Those who own the media decide what news stories get placed in front of the public, usually in attempts to protect their own interests. For example, Disney owns ABC. If story emerged which places Disney in a less than flattering light, I would seriously doubt that you would hear about it from Peter Jennings.

Since this story has such an effect on how you will get your news, do you not find it peculiar that this FCC vote did not get much media attention?

Reverse Pessimism

You know the old analogy that how you perceive a glass of water determines how you perceive life in general. I believe that most everyone can be placed into 2 definable categories, glass half-full (optimists) and glass half-empty (pessimists). I have taken this concept a step further to construct my own personal philosophy that I believe others subconsciously have adapted. I call it Reverse Pessimism.

Think about it. If you are a devout optimist, you might have tendencies to achieve more due to your positive attitude, but ultimately you would be left unfulfilled. Since the optimist has expected or predicted perfection or at least a positive result, the outcome of their situation will either place them below their expectation or, at best, exactly what they forecasted.

If you take a pessimist, their negative outlook will lead them toward failure since they are convincing themselves that a setback is inevitable. However, the conclusion of their situation will leave them in a better state than before the situation occurred. Their attitude may improve due to the results of their situation. Unlike the optimist the positive energy is not internally manufactured, it is inherited from the results, which takes less work to accomplish.

From these two schools of thought, optimism and pessimism, I have created a new philosophy based on the beneficial characteristics of both. Reverse Pessimism, as I call it, leaves the individual fulfilled without spending valuable energy to maintain their own positive outlook on life. Taking on a new situation, a reverse pessimist will prepare for the worst, instead of expecting the worst. The results of this situation will leave the reverse pessimist better than before since the outcome will be better than anticipated.

In conclusion, one cannot devote fully to either optimism or pessimism without experiencing negative effects. Reverse pessimism is a way to overachieve without creating a facade of counterfeit positive energy.

Does the Media Think We Are All Stupid?

Recently, Matthew Lovett of Oaklyn, New Jersey was arrested for carjacking and illegal possession of firearms. What was Matt going to do with the shotguns and 2,000 rounds of ammunition? They were going to get even with all of their classmates who ridiculed him over the years.....

Now understand that Matthew was a troubled child and that will never come into question. His younger brother had a facial deformity that brought on tons of mockery from other kids. Matthew would stand up for his brother, which is honorable. His mother was killed nine years ago, and a close family member was killed in a car accident within this year. Matthew kept to himself and had few friends. So who did the media attempt to blame with this troubled kid was caught just prior to a violent lash out? If you guessed video games, then give yourself 1,000 points. Matthew had difficulties in life and needed help, but he was not a brainless tool of a the video game industry.

For the media to ignore years of ridicule and sum up this kid's turmoil into a violent brainwashing from a video game is an insult to this kid, and anyone that reads about this story. Heaven forbid that this kid came up with violent ideas on his own. He must not have been smart enough to think about that himself, he needed a video game to do his thinking for him. What did we blame violent acts on before video games were around?

If we do not blame the video game industry, then whom should we blame for this despicable plan? I hate the notion in this country that whenever something like this happens that someone/something needs to be blamed for it. However, if we are playing the blame game, look no further than Ron Lovett, the boy's father. Ron knew what his son was going through, but ignored the warning signs, which included but were not limited to his son's seclusion. Throw into the mix that Daddy liked to collect high volumes of firearms, and did not keep these weapons secure, and you have an instant nominee for worst parent ever.

Here's a quote from University of Miami professor Eugene Provenzo Jr., who has testified before Congress about the effects of media violence on kids:

Kids learn from ultra-violent movies and video games and television that when you shoot somebody, it doesn't hurt. We're giving kids false impressions about what violence is all about.

This guy needs a swift kick to the groin. Movies and video games are not responsible for how their material is interpreted. That distinction goes to the individual, and if the person is too young to know the difference, it falls on the shoulders of the parent or guardian. These people make me sick!

Kobe Bryant Is Guilty...

...of adultery. There is no question about it. Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife, and even admitted it at a news conference of all places. Cheating on your wife is a deplorable act that should not be forgiven. Kobe's wife will probably tell him that she forgives him for this horrendous act. But, no matter how many times Mrs. Bryant says that she forgives him, in the back of her mind she will always question Kobe's fidelity. In that case, I will tend to agree with Mrs. Bryant and treat Kobe as a cheater. If he's willing to cheat at his marriage, what will prevent him from cheating in other aspects of his life?

I would keep a close eye on Kobe for the rest of his career. He might be bending, or even breaking some rules along his way.

Just think how I will treat him if he's found guilty of rape.

Leap of Faith

As an engineer, I have quite an analytical mind. For me, if something happens in the world, then there is a direct reason for it. I have strong ties to correlations. On the flip side, I have a tendency to treat new teachings as a fundamental principle, until I can prove it otherwise. I know this is a naive tendency, but I think that this comes from my upbringing. As a young tyke, I was raised not to question authority. Whether I was taught by a parent, teacher, or coach, whatever the authority figure said was the law. Respect your elders, I was told. When you are a child, that pretty much means everyone taller than you. Obviously over the years, I learned that some sources of information were less reliable than others. I had a long transition from accepting everything as truth to proving the truth.

The toughest of these transitions was in my religious beliefs.

I grew up in the Methodist church, and I would not trade that experience in for the world. By attending church as a child, I learned valuable lessons about community, fellowship, and respect. Anything that my Sunday school teacher or my minister said, I believed whole-heartedly. Over time, I felt that I could question authority, and did not have to accept all teachings as truth. Although I understood the valuable lessons that I learned at church, I had difficulty accepting everything that the church was telling me to believe. During my college days, I stopped attending church except for Christmas and Easter services with my family.

Some might say that I am no longer a Christian because I do not attend church. However, my ideals do not contradict Christian ideals by much. I live a good life, but I do not subscribe fully to the Christian beliefs. Technically, I might not be a Christian, but that does not mean I am damned to an eternity in Hell. I have reaped the rewards of a childhood in the church, but I feel that I have outgrown their beliefs as an adult. I have not chosen to lead a sinful life, merely a life that does not focus on a church. I would be wasting my time and the church's time if I attended now since I cannot fully commit to their beliefs.

What happens if I become a parent? I would hate to force a belief system on my child, but I would also want my child to have the positive experiences I had growing up in the church. What would happen to me in the meantime? Would I be considered a hypocrite for taking my child to church, while I didn't believe what they were teaching?

I do have the best of both worlds though. I have attended church, and understand the positives and the negatives. I know I make both religious and agnostic people angry by riding the fence on this issue, but I believe that if you lead a good life you do not have to fully accept or reject religion in the process. I also believe that each person's life experiences are a journey, and not necessarily a destination. Going to church or being religious might be the right choice for many people, but its not the right choice for everyone.

Sex and Money

A co-worker posed a question recently which was jovial at first, but later required a second thought. He wondered why prostitution was illegal while pornographic movies were legal. When you boil it down, you still have a sex act performed in exchange for money. Imagine this example: A woman who accepts money from a man in exchange for sex would be guilty of prostitution, while a woman that accepts money from a filmmaker to perform a sex act is simply acting? It does not make sense. Given those parameters, it would seem as if there is a double standard. According to this hypocrisy, it would seem that a person can legally obtain the services of a prostitute, as long as the act is being filmed.

The Governator

Unless you have not been near a news source today, you already know that Arnold Schwarzenegger has been elected governor of California. There are so many problems with this, and its difficult for me to itemize them all. First off, when did we get to have a "do-over" if we didn't like how things were going in the economy? I understand having impeachments in response to wrong doing, but making now former Governor Gray Davis step down because the California economy is not gaining any momentum seems like the rules are getting made up as we go along. They sure are impatient out west.

Next, I have to question how one gains experience in controlling one of the world's largest budgets by being a movie star? Oh yeah, I forgot that he married into the Kennedy family, but that still does not make you a politician. It simply means that you thought Maria Shriver was hot. It kind of makes you wonder who else from the movie, Predator, will be a governor. (Jesse Ventura played the tobacco chewing, sexual Tyrannosaurus Blain in that movie)

Its not that I am against Ah-nald or his policies (does he have any?), I just don't think that being popular means you are ready for public service. Based on this idea that popularity wins elections, would the other Arnold (Gary Coleman) have been elected from name recognition if the Terminator was not running? ***(Too bad little Arnold finished 8th)***

On the other hand, I'm sure that when Ronald Reagan was elected Governor of California back in 1966, that the same arguments kept creeping up on him. In my second Back to the Future reference in as many posts, remember how Doc Brown freaked out when Marty McFly told him that Reagan was president in the future? That's about where I stand right now. Until Arnold shows that he's a legitimate candidate, I will continue to think of him as an action hero, not as a politician.

HFCS is a four letter word

I would not consider myself a health nut, but I do like to stay somewhat healthy. I exercise by playing basketball and roller hockey. I try to consume fruits and vegetables everyday, and limit the amount of fatty foods and sweets. I do not count calories and obsess about fat grams, but I do try to keep my diet balanced. With America getting fatter by the minute, it seems that we have to work a little harder to stay trim. Most news programs have focused on our increasing waistlines, more specifically on childhood obesity. In a society where children's attention focuses around the television, the Internet, and video games, we should not be surprised when their weight increases.

Recently, I have found the horrors of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), and its effect on our increasing weight problems. HFCS, for those of you who are unfamiliar, is an alternative to sugar. If you check the labels on the food in your pantry, chances are that you will find a LOT of HFCS. Food makers love HFCS because its sweeter and cheaper than sugar, plus it mixes well with all types of foods. Big deal, right? Companies find alternatives all the time, but in this case, it might have affected everyone.

All right class. Open up your Nutritional textbooks to page 248 and follow along.....
Sugar is primarily glucose, which our body burns as a source of quick energy, is stored in muscles and our liver for later use, and releases insulin. Insulin is a natural hormone that helps to metabolize our foods by pushing carbohydrates into our muscles to be used as energy. Insulin becomes important to regulate our body fats, and to tell our brain when we are full. Fructose on the other hand does not trigger the release of insulin. See the problem, here?

To be fair, the Corn Refiners Association has a report that details that HFCS is NOT the reason for the increasing national obesity rates, but I will do my best to limit my HFCS intake just to be sure. I find it ironic that childhood obesity has become a problem about the same time as manufacturers switched from sugar to HFCS (the late 1970's). I would recommend doing your own research on HFCS and come to your own conclusions, before you blindly consume mass quantities of HFCS and pack on unwanted pounds.

That's So Cute

Looks like the American Academy of Pediatrics has noticed that kids today are a little plumper than they used to be, and are trying to do something about it. According to this CNN article, the AAP are trying to push schools to provide healthy alternatives to soft drinks and fast foods. Unless these pediatricians have another revenue source for the financially strapped schools, I do not see the schools flocking to the health foods in droves like they envision. As I have stated before, schools get financed by soft drink contracts. The iron grip that schools have on this revenue stream won't be budged with the lofty hopes of some doctors suggesting alternative diets. Although I admire their attempts to attack the youth obesity problem plaguing America, it will take a little more than wishful thinking to derail this gravy train.

Left Turn Ahead

After watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, I could not help but notice that my political compass must have veered a little to the west since my conservative upbringing in small town North Carolina. From what I remember of my youth, a documentary that questions the Constitution would have meant they were either weirdos or commies. Now it seems that I take a little more time to listen, think and realize that the notion that guns are bad is not as freakish as I would have originally thought. Thanks to Moore's documentary, I have changed my previously apathetic approach to gun control to an outright anti-gun stance. I recommend watching this documentary, if for no other reason than to look at the US in a different light. You might come away wondering why other nations with as many people and firearms have a paltry number of gun related deaths each year, while the US has astronomic numbers in comparison. There are several theories presented on why the US dominates in gun related fatalities. Moore's theory that we are a nation built on fear seems more likely with every image that I see in the news. Violence monopolizes the news every night, which scares us into believing there is a lot of violence. Not only are we scared about the amount of violence but that its committed by our neighbors. No wonder there are so many gun owners.

I have never owned a gun, nor do I desire to own a gun. I know that I have the right to own a firearm, but I choose not to. If I need to protect my home/family, then I will find alternative measures to do so. Not one that would endanger those around me as much as it would protect them like a firearm would.

Which Ideology Do We Follow?

Not exactly sure what spurred the following idea, but I have noticed such a disparity in the ideologies that are taught versus the ideologies that are actually practiced. What the heck am I talking about? Think back to preschool or kindergarten. Kids were taught to share, take turns, and to give everyone a chance. Everyone was treated as an equal, no matter what. No true grades were given out to distinguish the overachiever from the underachiever, except the occasional "needs improvement". As an adult looking back on this concept, I cannot help but compare this to communism. That is not necessarily a bad thing since communism looks good on paper, but loses in its applications. Fast forward to your adult life and you will quickly realize that follow an opposite system. We live by meritocracy more than anything else. A "what have you done for me lately" society. I find it intriguing that such a drastic paradigm shift occurs so slowly over time that you barely notice.

If only we could live by kindergarten values again. Good effort is rewarded as much as success. Nap times every afternoon. Ample opportunities to learn new concepts. Of course, you would have grown up "smelly kids" and "paste eaters" too, but life would be a little more enjoyable none the less.

Knee Jerk Reactions

In the wake of Janet Jackson's titillating exposure during the halftime of Super Bowl XXXVIIII, the obscenity police are getting all up in a tizzy. Although television has been doused in smut for several years, apparently seeing Janet's (Miss Jackson if you're nasty) bare breast has pushed someone over the edge. Complaints have made their way to Congress, which has Representative Doug Ose from California pushing for a law to ban bad words in any form. This probably has more to do with U2's lead singer, Bono reacting to winning a Golden Globe award in 2003 for his song in Gangs of New York by saying its "f*#%ing brilliant" on NBC during their live broadcast. The Federal Communications Commission let NBC skate on this issue, ultimately stating that since the f-word was used as an adjective that it was alright. I think that is f*#%ing insane. If you are going to ban a word from public use, then ban it in all forms. If you are going to allow profanity, then allow profanity in all forms. You can't pick and choose what you want to hear, and what you don't want. What makes me the angriest though is that the FCC doesn't want to enforce their own stipulations, which in my opinion has more to do with financial issues than morality issues, but that is just me. They had a case against NBC, and countless other mass media outlet corporations for that matter, and did not enforce their own rules. Not until the constituents started complaining to their congressmen did this become an issue. This proves that its not the individual acts which are the problem, since we have seen and heard all sorts of obscenities in the past, but the timing of it all. Now that popular performers Janet Jackson and Bono have pushed the envelope and obscenities become en vogue does it get attention and enforcement.

Accepting Resumes for Running Back Position

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the National Football League violated antitrust laws in preventing Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett from entering the NFL early, thus making him eligible for the NFL draft one year early. The NFL had a rule in place by governing officials AND the players union which prevents players entering the draft until 3 years removed from high school. Based on "right to work" laws in several states, the judge believed that Clarett should not be prevented from pursuing his career as an NFL running back.

I do not see the 3 year removed from high school rule as age discrimination or an attack on civil rights like many people are saying it is. This is a simple case of a job requirement. Back when I was looking for a job, on countless occasions I would find a job listing which required more years of work experience than I had. Those were the qualifications for the position. I did not feel that my civil rights were attacked because I was not given the job. I was not qualified, and in this situation, neither is Clarett. Imagine what this job search would be like if it happened in the real world:

Needed - Running Back. Full Time. Candidate must be able to run 40 yd dash in under 4.5 seconds and understand complex offensive and defensive play schemes. Additional duties include pass/run blocking, route running, pass catching. Graduation from High School before 2001 required. Salary based on draft position. Fax resume to Paul Tagliabue at 800-555-xxxx.

He does not meet a major qualification that was in the classified ad. That does not necessitate a court case. It means you should know what the job requirements are before you apply.

If he does buck the system and gets into the NFL a year early, I will not envy his position. With these legal proceedings, Clarett has painted a bullseye on his chest while on the playing field. Every linebacker is currently licking their chops in anticipation of ripping Clarett a new one. Do yourself a favor, Maurice, and stay in school. You will be healthier, happier, and will remain in one piece.

Get Rid of Billy Packer

With the college basketball season in full swing, I figured it was time for another anti Billy Packer post. Now that the comments on my other Billy Packer posts are growing by leaps and bounds, obviously the demand for an additional Packer tirade is warranted.

My heart goes out to anyone in the southeast region since they (we) have to endure Billy Packer not only for the national games presented by CBS, but also the regional games broadcasted by Raycom/Jefferson Pilot. Allow me to touch on a broader concept that could be the root of Billy Packer's lack of talent and the overall disdain that most college basketball spectators have for him.

If you think about what irritates you most about Billy Packer, it usually falls under the heading of either his bias or his ancient basketball philosophies. I would argue that these are merely symptoms of a larger problem. Billy Packer hates to be wrong about anything due to his self centered, Wake Forest campus-sized ego. To combat the inevitability of saying something incorrect, Billy Packer hedges his bets and eliminates any risk in any statements that he makes. He does this several ways. The first method being that he will not allow facts and evidence overturn his verdict on any matter. Second, he loves to state what has already happened by doing a hybrid "color play by play" instead of color commentary. He will also argue both sides of the same point. An ingenious way of not losing an argument. And finally, he feels that he ultimately decides what actions are good and bad. He sits at courtside like self-appointed royalty condemning actions that contradict his style, and praises the obvious plays as if the players subscribed to his daily newsletters to even fathom the correct play.

I know that my efforts will never remove Billy Packer from the college basketball sidelines due to some grandfather clause, tenure rule, or maybe some compromising pictures he has of some decision maker at CBS Sports. However, I think if we band together and revolt against this curmudgeon that obviously has no place behind a microphone, we can make college basketball a better place.

Trash on Television

I just saw something today on television that has turned me into a prude. I used to think that a little nudity (a la Janet Jackson's Super Bowl striptease) was not going to ruin the world as we know it. Now, I'm not so confident.

While eating lunch at an unnamed sports bar in Raleigh, I saw an episode of Jerry Springer without the sound. I seriously doubt that hearing this program would have helped. What I saw was a combination of the white trash usually seen on Cops, skanks that would work at a truck stop strip club, an intervention, and a talk show. I could not believe my eyes. In this particular episode, entitled "I Have A Confession" (2/20/2004 on the show list), I saw more than I ever cared to see. Each segment would involve some white trash woman coming out on stage and confronting another equal or lesser skank. This confrontation would typically result in both women shedding all of their clothing, starting a verbal exchange, a battle royale, or all three. To make things even more strange, you would inevitably get a comment from the audience, which usually concluded with the audience member taking off their clothes!

The Jerry Springer Show has never been the pillar of virtue, but you used to expect simply a poorly choreographed fight. Now it seems that as long as you take off your clothes, Springer has a successful segment. Therefore, guests and audience members are encouraged to shed their clothes or at least flash the cameras Mardi Gras style. They even have installed a stripper pole on stage for public use. Lucky for the viewer, all intimate parts of the body have been digitized into pixelated form.

I felt like a degenerate for having seen any of this show. Granted, this show did not get the viewership of the Super Bowl, but Janet Jackson's escapade seemed to have been lapped a couple times by Jerry's show in the raunchy department. This show comes on every day, and I have not heard a peep about it in years. Janet Jackson's covered boob is shown presumably on accident and the whole world gets its panties in a wad. Something isn't right here.

Dumb Legislation

Although I do not own a motorcycle nor do I ride on one even on occasion, I still believe that the latest Tennesse bill that loosens motorcycle helmet requirements has to be one of the dumbest decisions ever. In this Tennessean.com article, they explain the details of how the state plans to thin their herd of motorcyclists by changing the helmet requirement to optional. I usually like the idea of allowing the people to choose, but when option B means increased death rates, I have to question it. The article even has pretty bar graphs showing that 2 years after loosening their bans on helmet requirements Louisiana and Kentucky have increased their motorcycle fatalities by 75% and 37% respectively. For those Tennesseeans that believe that this decision is a victory for motorcyclists, I give you a very sarcastic congratulatory applause for your "win". I guess having the wind blowing your hair as you ride your hog is worth cracking your head like an egg.

I Hope I Am Wrong

With George W. Bush's approval rating making all time lows, I assume that he must make certain strides to improve his image by the next election. With the way public opinion is going, Dubya probably will not return to the White House for his second term. Well, not without an occurrence that will bring his approval rating up. In the past, a president would start a war to get that much desired public affection. However, since the United States' involvement in Iraq is the source of tension for many, I doubt that extending the military overseas is the answer. This leaves but one solution for the current president: Finding Osama bin Laden.

I hope that I am wrong on this prediction, but it makes too much sense. Serving Osama's head on a platter to the American citizens would turn Bush into an instant hero, without actually fixing the situation in Iraq. Its not like Bush needs to become (and remain) a super president, he just needs to get re-elected. This can be interpreted as being popular for one Tuesday in November, then back to business as usual. To me it looks like the table is set for the miraculous delivery of bin Laden, so watch for it around October.

Fireworks

I was thinking about the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. Obviously, thoughts of cookouts and fireworks quickly followed. I remembered back to my glorious youth, spending time on Lake Norman. I would swim all day, then gorge myself with hamburgers and hotdogs right from the grill. Finally, we would go to the local fireworks show and/or watch our own fireworks. One could not purchase the good fireworks in North Carolina. Someone would always have to make the journey to South Carolina to complete the fireworks quest. I never put much thought into that until today.

Why is selling fireworks a state issue? Why would the fireworks market be different from state to state? Why could South Carolinians horde all of the fireworks outlets, while North Carolinians had to resort to the black market or smuggling their contraband across state lines? Seems a bit of a contradiction to me to have a holiday that symbolizes fireworks as an expression of patriotism, then makes it illegal to purchase them. Now that is just plain un-American.

A Spoonful of Sugar Helps The Medicine Go Down

I have mentioned addictive behaviors in the past. For some reason, I find addiction interesting. Personally, I have a few of my own addictions such as video games, basketball, and roller hockey. My addictions are usually nondetrimental except for my occasional indulgences of beer and fatty foods. Not exactly heroin though. In this respect, I consider myself lucky that I can control these cravings. Although it is not fair to compare my needs for participating in a friendly sport to needing my next drug score to survive through the afternoon, there is still an underlying common ground: endorphins.

Endorphins, as I understand them, are chemicals that get released from the brain to give a person the sense of pleasure or reduce the feeling of pain. When an enjoyable activity takes place, the brain releases the endorphins into the body to give a euphoric sense. It seems to me that a simple association takes place between the activity and the endorphin release.

Isn't there a medication that regulates endorphins? I'm thinking that you can have a Pavlovian system at work here, where you can reduce endorphins during detrimental activities and increase them during healthier activities. If eating broccoli was associated with a pleasurable feeling or the pleasure associated with smoking was blocked, would we not be able to guide our way towards a healthier lifestyle and deter harmful activities? This seems way too simple, so I must be overlooking something.

Assault Weapons for Sale

A 10 year federal ban on assault weapons, such as AK-47s and UZIs, got lifted today. The law required domestic gun manufacturers to halt production of 19 specific semiautomatic weapons. Guns that fire a single round with each pull of the trigger. It also prohibited production of firearms with more than one feature on a list of "assault weapon" styles and limited magazine capacities to 10 rounds of ammunition. So go out and buy a brand spanking new assault rifle now that those pesky federal regulations are not in your way.

Since an assault rifle does not make much sense for household protection or hunting, I'm a little curious what use these weapons might have. Perhaps they can be used to slaughter large groups of people without much effort. Just an idea.

Do not expect much action to prevent this ban from expiring this week, since most legislators believe this would only be a "feel good piece of legislation" as quoted by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. This stems from the idea that renewing the ban would not get assault weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. This seems to be some faulty logic to me. I guess they are saying that since the bad guys will have the assault weapons anyway, that we should not renew the ban that makes manufacturing these weapons illegal. The firearm manufacturers and National Rifle Association must be the strongest lobbying force this side of the tobacco industry. Although the assault weapons ban is not the strongest piece of legislation, it at least has the right intentions, as opposed to not doing anything, which will allow this ban to lapse, which ultimately makes it easier for anyone (including drug dealers and terrorists) to purchase assault weapons. Are we still winning the war on terror?

Stupid Voters Deserve A Stupid President

Voting season is upon us. With the big showdown between George W. Bush and John Kerry only a week away, most voters have already decided for whom they are voting. So the last minute stumping and campaigning will do little to change these predetermined votes. Based on all the polls and predictions I have seen it looks like Bush has a slim lead.

With this information, my patience with the voting public has completely disappeared. How can you fools keep this guy in office? If we have four more years of Bush, all I have to say to you morons is that you deserve his tyranical war mongering and debt accumulating leadership.

Election Aftermath

Now that Kery has conceded the election, it looks like we have to prepare for what the next 4 years will have in store for our country.

I hope that we do not get any comments from Republicans giving credit to divine intervention for their Presendial victory. Republicans should tread lightly, because the election proved nearly half of the country did not want Bush to be President again.

I'll leave it to you, my loyal readers, to express your opinions and make your predictions. Feel free to use this post as your soapbox.

Stem Cell Progress

I do not expect everyone to be on the same side of the stem cell research issue that has become a hot topic of late, however, I do expect to know both sides. A paralyzed 37 year old woman in South Korea recently was able to walk again thanks to the advancement of stem cell research. (Umbilical cord cells to be exact, but its still in the same ball park) I would expect that technological progress such as this would garner some press in the United States, since it has become quite a political issue. However, I was unable to find the story anywhere. A Google search of the news sites only listed foreign news sources. Granted, the story I referenced is from something called the World Peace Herald based out of Washington, D.C. but that was the sole American news source.

I understand if you do not want stem cells to be used for research, but hiding the truth from the media outlets just looks bad. Thanks to my handy dandy "internets", I can obtain these types of stories instead of having to be filtered through the mutliconglomerate filters of the American media. There's a chance that I caught this story before the Associated Press did, but they are usually on top of these "newsy" type stories. In the meantime, I choose to fantasize about conspiracy theories.

National Polariztion

Since this year's election, the United States is becoming a divided country. We could simplify this into the division of "red states" and "blue states", but I believe that it goes further than this. No matter the ideology a person subscribes to, they will search out positive reinforcement. neoconservatives watch FOX News, Liberals listen to Air America, cat enthusiasts read Cat Fancy, well.....you get the idea.
Although the media reinforces the notion that the country is becoming divided, they ignore idea that differing views have always existed. The only difference is that due to a two party political system, the American population essentially needs to pick a side. You pick a political party. You subscribe to their talking points. Intelligent discourse gets transformed into polarized viewpoints. "If you do not agree with me on this, then you are the enemy". You search out sources that reinforce your view.
I guess what I'm saying here is that I don't want to hate my enemy. I don't really want to have an enemy. Maybe just a devil's advocate. Question my ideas, but don't spit on them. Help me find a solution by building on the current one, not by tearing it down. Idealistic, I know, but some of us will never see things this way.

Women's Advantage

I apologize ahead of time for the low brow commentary.  I have not necessarily maintained a "high brow" level here at COALM, more of a medium brow, but whatever level I have established is about to be lowered.

I have found a scenario where women hold a considerable advantage over men: Bathroom Discression.  In the women's bathrooms, I hear that its all stalls, all the time.  No matter the type of "nature's call", women do not change their locations.  In the men's bathroom, we have both urinals and stalls.  Think of the urinals as the express checkout.  Use of the urinal keeps the men's bathroom visit quick and light hearted.  Conversations might even occur.  I hear that there's an unwritten rule that men can only converse in the bathroom if they are both doing the same action.  However, use of the stall changes the sociological effect dramatically.  A serious and somber tone takes over.  If you are in the stall, there is a certain stigma associated.  Any social interactions that may have existed in the express lane, immediately ceases to exist with the inclusion of a man's use of the stall.  Not that the men's bathroom is the equivalent of a sewing circle.  What I'm saying is that there is a certain etiquette about it, but I'm not sure where we learn this behavior.  I do know that someone that was in the stall has every right to ignore others in the bathroom, as much as non-stall users are allowed to ignore him.  The men's bathroom is a complex social environment.  I hate that the ladies do not not experience these shifts in the social fabric of society.

Tough Subject

With much trepidation, I have decided to float my opinion on the much publicized Teri Schiavo case.  For those of you that are unaware of this story, its a complex euthanasia scenario where a woman in Florida was diagnosed to be in a permanent vegetative state from a liquidfied cortex stemming from a lack of oxygen in the brain suffered 15 years ago.  (You can find the story on ANY news web site)

The stickiness of this issue comes from the fact that Teri's husband, Michael, was named Teri's legal guardian back in 1990.  This usually would not be a big deal, except Michael had a falling out with Teri's parents several years ago.  Since then, Teri's condition has not improved and Michael petitioned the courts to request that Teri's feeding tube be removed on several occasions, each time getting the decision overturned on an appeal.  Teri's parents have been opposed to this since like any good parents, they want to keep their daughter alive.  For over 15 years, this issue had gone around in circles in the Florida legal system.  Every time that Michael successfully got a court decision to remove Teri's feeding tube, Teri's parents or even worse, Governor Jeb Bush stepped in to get the decision overruled.  This issue came to the forefront recently due to a special Congressional session over the weekend, resulting in getting Presidential big brother George W to come in an and force the federal courts to get involved.

I bring up this story, not because of the euthanasia debate of whether Teri should live or die, or even who is responsible for this decision without a clearly laid out living will.  I have a problem with people using the court system until they get the outcome they want.  This story is making a mockery  of the appeals process.  Each side of the issue keeps going to the courts until they get the result they want.  There have been judges that have sided with each side.  When one side gets defeated, we get another judge, more doctors, and more aggrevations.  Although both sides have won in the courts, neither side will or can win at all.  Governor Jeb Bush has been forever tied to this case due to his involvement in overruling any decision to end Teri's life.  Now he has gone running to his President brother to insure that he wins this case, by having George W signing a bill that puts this case before the federal courts.  This required a special Congressional session and a two-thirds approval vote, in my estimation so that another Bush can get his way.

What is worse is that the government has decided that this is an issue that is too important for the family to decide, so they have to step in to decide for them.  This is where I truly have a problem.  I don't care about the debate on whether Teri Schiavo should live or die, because that is not my decision to make.  It is the family's decision, and certainly NOT the government's decision.  However, thanks to powerful politics, the government has taken this case over.

I can't blame Teri's parents for wanting their daughter to live, nor can I blame Teri's husband Michael for wanting her life to end.  Who I blame are politicians that are using Teri as their "pro-life" poster child.  Although one must question the quality of life that they are saving.  According to this article, anyone that sees life in someone in Teri's condition through seeing smiles or laughter is fooling themselves.  These reflex reactions do not prove any cognition.

I still don't understand why keeping Schiavo alive has become such a tent pole issue.  This life is so precious that we have to have special Congressional sessions and Presidential involvement, while scores of soldiers are dying every day?  I just don't get it.

Polarizing America

Did you see the circus on Sunday?  Better known as Justice Sunday, organized by Christian conservative groups in an attempt to overturn 200 year old rules regarding filibustering.  In my opinion, Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn) is unhappy with not being able to bully others to get his own way by getting his favorite judiciary nominees without any obstacles, therefore wants to change the rules.  The filibuster is the lone tool to prevent any nominee from getting approval (and has been in place for over two centuries), but since Frist does not like the idea of someone preventing him from getting his way, we get impromptu rule changing attempts.  Not much different than a spoiled brat.   He needed some quick backing on this issues so why not get the growing Christian conservative portion of America that elected George W. Bush to help?  Quite a clever strategy if you ask me.  If you rally Christians around a cause, then by way of the transitive property, the cause officially becomes holy and anyone opposed to it worships Satan. 

In a nation becoming even more polarized between Red and Blue states, do you really think picking a holy war is a good idea?  I respect those that have religion in their lives, but I abhor those that leverage their religion into government affairs like Billy is doing here.  Separation of church and state is big on my list.  However, most religions provide a very positive social ideology, which on the surface could assist in government relations.  Despite religion's ability to assist, I believe that inclusion into government affairs creates a slippery slope.  Exclusion of nonreligious or those of different religions comes to mind.  Not to mention blanket inclusion of all concepts of the "accepted" religion.  Christianity has a lot of great things going for it, but why would people need to reject all other philosophies in order to accept Christianity?  Demonizing the "other" religions polarizes and creates a congregation of xenophobes.  Not exactly the mentality I want in our great big ol' Melting Pot. 

**This post has been added to Blogcritics.org. 

Internet Red Light District

Recently, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),  decided to create a new Top Level Domain (TLD) for our precious Internet.  You are probably familiar with the typical TLD's such as .com for commercial, .edu for educational and .org for organizations.  ICANN, in their infinite wisdom, has created a .xxx TLD for adult websites to reside.  At first glance, this seems like a perfect solution to all adult websites on the Internet.  If you want to prevent access to porn, then simply block the .xxx domain.  Problem solved, right?  Wrong!  First off, there is the issue of who will be included.  From what I can tell, the inclusion into the .xxx domain is completely voluntary.  This seems like the equivalent opting in to wear a Scarlet Letter.  The average discreet porn customer can plead ignorance when the adult sites are shuffled amongst the rest of the Internet.  It becomes a little dicier when the same customer has to breech the .xxx domain.  Secondly, the adult entertainment industry makes a gazillion dollars a year, but no one will admit to paying for their services.  By putting themselves into the .xxx domain, adult websites would eliminate the discretion of their customers not to mention how easily "blockable" their sites would be.  The most elementary of website blocking technologies would be able to filter out anything from .xxx.  Joining this domain would drastically reduce the number of available customers.  You also have the issue of international jurisdiction.  Who exactly can force an adult web site in Europe or Asia to use this new fangled .xxx domain?  The last time I checked, the Internet is not run by the US.  This bit of information is not preventing American lawmakers from pursuing this route.  Finally, did I mention that owning a .xxx domain name (Ex.  www.lickmytoes.xxx) will cost around 10 times the amount to register your average .com name?  This was one of the most ill-conceived ideas I have heard of in a long time.

There is not a good enough incentive to move from .com to .xxx.  The transition would reduce the number of potential customers due to blocking.  It would ostracize existing customers with a .xxx on all communications.  It would cost more to maintain the new naming scheme.  Plus, the exisiting .com names would probably still exist.  I just cannot figure out how this is going to help anyone.

Bush scheduled for long vacation

According to this story from the Washington Post, President George W. Bush is slated to begin a 5 week vacation.  Not only is W setting the pace as the most vacationing president ever, the days he does work are lighter than most.  He has refused to work nights or weekends, plus he takes 2 hours during the middle of his day to devote to exercise.  I don't oppose staying in shape.  Quite the contrary, I encourage it.  However, if you are the most powerful person in the free world, you may want to off set your fitness goals to fall during some "off peak" time. 

Bush's upcoming stint in Crawford, Texas is completely subjective.  Bush critics say that the vacation is too long and that Bush vacations even more that Ronald Reagan did.  Supporters say that this is a "working vacation" where Bush uses his ranch as a diplomatic tool.  Take a look at the "related stories" on Google News, and you see a world divided on their opinions of Bush's upcoming hiatus. 

Personally, if he's actually working during these 5 weeks, then I applaud him for his work ethic.  But this does not make up for taking so much vacation.  The aforementioned Washington Post story says that Bush will break the ranch happy Reagan's vacation record this month...and Bush still has 3.5 years to go.  I suspect that Bush will sprinkle vacation days throughout the remainder of his term.

Katrina Aftermath

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I have decided to completely reserve any commentary since I have no first hand knowledge of the happenings in New Orleans and surrounding areas.  I have heard news reports like you and the next guy, but I am starting to question all information I get from the news media.  I have found that without concrete information to report that the editorialization of the news is setting in.  I could give you countless examples, but have decided to let you read the national news outlets with your own critical perspective.  Blaming the government for a delayed reponse or arguing the racial implications of the term "refugee" does not seem important to me when thousands of people have died, a major city has been destroyed and relief is questionable at best.

What I have found in my personal research on the subject is this Live Journal blog.  It appears to be authored by someone that is working with the city in some technology facet.  He has writen several entries on the current conditions and happenings in New Orleans.  He has posted several pictures as well.  I recommend reading through his entries to get a better idea what people are dealing with during this disaster and its aftermath.  I have decided that the environment is not improving until this guy says that it has. 

So far, I have found out that the military and police efforts have calmed down the frightening criminal element that existed for several days.  Multiple trucks of portable toilets have been sent in which in the author's words will "improve conditions considerably".  However, the make-shift police force has become dangerous while trying to be helpful. 

You Spin Me Right Round

For the love of everything that is decent, why is the Bush administration starting the ball rolling in their blame assignment for their own failures in response of Hurricane Katrina?  (Yeah, I know I said I would not comment on the political side of this disaster, but I can't keep quiet anymore)  The latest spin coming out of Washington (vis a vis Fox News) is that they are pinning all of the blame on Louisiana governor, Kathleen Blanco (D).  According to some of the latest news stories, the White House is pointing their collective fingers at Blanco, as well as other local governments.  Some reports say that Blanco waited to decide on whether to include the national government in the relief effort.  Then why would she send an important letter like this on August 27th?  Does that seem like waiting to you?  The national response took almost a full week.  So, tell me again who is waiting to act?  They might use the excuse that no one asked them to come, but if someone is choking, you wouldn't ask them for permission to use the Heimlich maneuver, you would just do it.

President Bush has already stated that the levee breach was not anticipated.  Merely semantics in my book.  Flooding in New Orleans was predicted, but not specifically due to the levee breaking.  They anticipated that water would flow over the levees not break through them.  In Bush's mind, I guess that makes him correct.  But that still means that the flood warnings over the years were either poorly funded or completely ignored.  Most of the money that was budgeted for preventing flooding was diverted to Bush's sandbox, otherwise known as Iraq.  Either way, some (or most if not all) of the responsibility for the flooding should be placed on the White House's front step.

You Got Lucky, Babe

Just finished reading a somewhat interesting article in Men's Health magazine regarding luck.  The concept that intrigued me was the idea that individuals could generate luck for themselves.  I have already bought into this notion, without a formalized outline of the process.  I had even posted this article, which touches on the idea of creating (or eliminating) opportunities for one's self.

I consider myself a lucky person.  Other's might even say the same thing about me.  However, I do not believe that I become the recipient of good fortune without improving my chances somewhat.  Consider my career choice in computers.  Originally, I had planned a career in the Human Resources field.  From my college degree to summer internships, I had primed myself to be an HR guy.  After moving to different towns in search of new opportunities, I fell into a menial job unboxing computers.  From there, I was given the chance to learn some in depth computer networking, which led me to where I am today.  Was I lucky?  Yes, but I kept myself open enough to allow luck to hit.  Others, who might consider themselves "unlucky", might not have been willing to give up on their original career path or had the nerve to move to a new town in their search for luck.

Once I won $200 playing slot machines.  That night I had told myself that I was not going to gamble at all.  Peer pressure and boredom led me to the slot machines, ultimately paying out 800 to 1 on a quarter.  First, I created my luck by playing.  Did I win on my first quarter?  No, that would be incredible.  I put at least $10 worth of quarters in that machine.  I was willing to invest, albeit only a paltry sum, into my chances at fortune.  I did take the process a step further to increase my luck.  I surveyed all the slot machines in the casino first.  There were several machines that would allow the images on the slot machine's reels to stop between the images.  Those uncertain outcomes certainly cut into my chances of winning, so I avoided them like the plague.  I found a machine where all the images, (cherries, lemons, bells, etc) stopped directly on the win line.  I got lucky that night, there's no doubt about it.  However, I had increased my chances of being lucky.

Intelligence?

My group at work tested out a MENSA quiz that was found recently.  The type of questions that are supposed to test your intelligence based on knowledge of abbreviations and acronyms.  (24 H in a D is the question, and the answer is 24 Hours in a Day)  I did quite well on the test, but I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that I am a genius, as claimed by the score I obtained.  I simply knew a lot of phrases and had taken a similar test in the past.  Based on my previous experience, I exhausted the weights and measures, the time tables and nursery rhymes.  Once I had gotten into that mind set of what the test was trying to accomplish, the other answers came to me easily.  Did that make me intelligent?  I don't think so.  I simply related to the test.  Or another option was that I already had the answers, just not in the needed format.  For example, thanks to a childhood of Sunday school, I knew how many books are in the Old Testament (39).  But a secular person would not have that information.  Does that make them less intelligent?  I don't think so either.  I know the OSI model quite well, but that does not make me more intelligent than people that are not exposed to computer networking.

Too many times in my life I have interacted with individuals that believed themselves to be intelligent, when in fact they merely had obtained information.  I firmly believe that information possession does not relate to intelligence.  To be labeled as intelligent in my book requires aptitude.  Application of your obtained knowledge means more than simply having the knowledge.

Olympic Karma

I'm guessing that the world as a whole does not hold the United States of America in the highest regard.  Although Americans typically have altruism in mind with respect to worldly concerns, their good intentions get muddled in the message.  It becomes difficult to soften the image of a country that appears interested in only military force and oil.  Some non-Americans might even say that the United States impose their will on other countries due to the fact that the US is the only super power in existence.  Throwing your weight around like this could bring about an imbalance to the world.  I think that the Winter Olympics could bring about some balance.

Consider for a moment the big name American athletes that were supposed to be medal contenders.  Michelle Kwan, Apollo Ohno and Bode Miller were media darlings assured to bring home the gold.  However, each of these athletes have their own dark clouds following them that has prevented success.  This could be a way to balance out the world, or it could be that the media has overhyped something.....again.  With several countries attending the Olympics, and the Americans seemingly coming up short, it feels a lot like a big helping of humble pie.   Yeah, its a stretch to call the US military bullying tactics a reason for Olympic mediocrity, but I was struggling to find something to write about today.

Committed or Stubborn?

So President Bush is now saying that he is confident that Osama Bin Laden will be captured.  Really?  No kidding.  Five years of hunting with nary a sniff of a trail, other than he's probably in a cave in Afghanistan, and now you feel like you are "hot on his trail".  Thanks for playing Elmer Fudd, but I find that a little too general for me to label your hunting expedition a success.  Bush's best hope is for Bin Laden to come out of hiding while rummaging through a dumpster looking for food in front of a curious policeman a la Eric Rudolph.  The "successful" capture of Eric Rudolph was based on dumb luck, not expert hunting techniques.  No evidence has proven that the hunt for Bin Laden will be any different.

Bush has announced his commitment to this cause, stating:

"It's not a matter of if they're captured and brought to justice, it's when they're brought to justice"

I find this a typical Bush stance.  While he claims that he's being loyal to the agenda, the facts of the matter are that this has become "white elephant" hunt (to add to the long list).  While people that criticize the President for being stubborn on fruitless efforts, his supporters are saying that he is committed to the task.  His methods are heavily criticized and praised at the same time.  Obviously, I choose the prior (or is it the latter?).  Anyway, I think he's stubborn and unwilling to admit fault.  However, I assume someone else out there is using this exact same information to hail President Bush has a great man on their blog

Cynic

Some people portray me as a grumpy old man.  Although this perception is (mostly) false, I believe that optimism and blind faith have become more difficult ideologies to follow in the 21st century.  While growing up, I believed most everything that was told to me.  Television news and the morning paper represented the window into the world.  I could not know everything going on in the world on my own, and the news was there to help.  Now, I watch/read the news with the underlying thought of, "who does this story benefit?".  With so many conglomerates controlling everything from cable to magazines to light bulbs, the media has lost the ability to present news in a objective format due to the conflict of interests.  Just look at Rupert Murdoch for an example.

My cynicism crosses over into the sporting world too.  Athletes that were once placed on a pedestal for their accomplishments are now looked at with skeptism.  Instead of lauding the athlete for breaking records or setting new standards, we comfortably ease into accusation mode.  With the new book about Barry Bonds, baseless cynicism seemingly has evidence.  However, we are still dealing with a "he said, she said" scenario.  Unless the accused admits to fault, we are no better off informationaly speaking than when we started.  The masses still want to confict Bonds without true evidence. I'm not saying that Bonds is a victim here, but I don't like how quickly the masses are calling for his head, his ommission from the record books, or the addition of some asterisks.

How did we get such a bad attitude?  Did we get burned one too many times by heroes that turned out to be frauds?  The benefit of the doubt seems to be a distant memory.  The innocence of accepting information at face value has been shattered, but I don't know why.

Best College Basketball Team Ever?

We all seem to think we know a little bit about college basketball, especially this time of year, the Madness that is March..  We print out the brackets, carefully select our winners, throw a couple bucks in the pot and hope that fate will be on our side.  If you are a true veteran of the brackets, you know to pick a #12 to upset a #5 at least once.  You also know not to have all #1 seeds make it to the Final Four.  Chances are you are currently doing "alright" with your current picks.  I'm guessing you have 11 of the 16 teams remaining.

ESPN has taken on the daunting task of applying "bracketology" to 64 of the all-time greatest college basketball teams in tournament history.  The bracket culminates with a 3 hour show on ESPN Classic on March 29th at 8pm.  I feel sorry for the folks that had to decide the 64 teams and the matchups.  But I will focus on what teams were made available, not the bubble teams that did not make it.  (Screw them)  While picking the first couple of rounds seems fairly easy, I tend to stumble a bit in the later rounds.  From the Sweet 16 on to the Finals, picking teams becomes a coin flip decision.  I surprisingly found myself in a philosophical state of mind.  I found it difficult to compare apples and oranges.  There were so many questions that needed to be answered, and no one to give me direction.  Perhaps you can add some other overlooked observations.  Consider these examples:

Great players versus great teams
Take Larry Bird's Indiana State Sycaomores.  Larry was a great player that made everyone around him better.  Could he raise the level of play up to "all-time" status?  Granted, he made it to the 1979 Finals, but could he get his team to match up against 1991 Duke Blue Devils, who were a more well rounded team?

High scoring teams versus ball possession teams
Kentucky teams of the 90's lived and died by the three point shot, usually living lavishly.  They racked up a ton of points, daring you to keep up.  UNLV was not called the Runnin' Rebels for nothing.  Conversely, teams from the 1950's might only score 30 or 40 points a game.  Is that methodical ball control, conservative decision making or poor shooting?

Underachievers versus Overachievers
1974 Maryland is considered by some to be one of the best college teams ever.  Without a championship, this Maryland team rarely gets mentioned thanks to the rule that only the ACC tournament winner moves on to the NCAA tournament.  On the flip side, think about overachievers, like 1985 Villanova (Ed Pinkney's perfect shooting team) or 1988 Kansas (Danny and the Miracles).  Those teams achieved well and above what was expected of them.  Some had a tough time getting into their tournament to begin with.  Would their "all-time" status hinge on their body of work or simply how they did in that year's tournament?  Could they recapture that magic? 

Talent Feast/Famine years
Some years had a wealth of talented teams, while others seem to only have one great team.  Does winning among other great teams (1974, for example) make a team better than winning in convincing fashion against only "good", but not "great" teams (1989 Michigan).  Is greatness limited by the opponents you have beaten?

Rule changes
The inclusion of the three point line in 1986 stands out as the most significant rule change during the time frame the bracket outlines.  Would the 1983 NC State team benefit from an extra point from all the long two point bombs they made?  Would 1998's Kentucky team still get mentioned in the "all-time" list without the three point line?
Think about outlawing of the "dunk" from 1967 to 1976.  Dunks are considered a momentum changer in my eyes.  A dunk at a key moment in a game can demoralize the opponent while motivating teammates and fans.  Dunks can even be used for intimidation.  A shot blocker might think twice if he knows a player is going to attempt to slam it home (and maybe the shot blocker's arm with it) as opposed to knowing that by rule, the player will either be attempting a layup or finger roll instead.

Taking these obstacles into consideration, I have selected my Final Four and eventual champion of the All-Time Greatest College Basketball Tournament:

East: 83 Houston
Midwest:76 Indiana

Southeast: 74 NC State
West: 67 UCLA

Finals:
83 Houston
67 UCLA

Winner:
67 UCLA
Lew Alcindor was the best. He was young, he was hungry (no titles yet). The only players that could match up with him would be Russell, Walton, Akeem and Ewing. Most dominant player in basketball takes the title

Gas Prices Fall

You may have noticed that the gas prices dropped a bit over the Labor Day weekend.  We should all be pleased, right?  Perhaps, but I think a deeper and more critical look is needed. 

In my estimation, gas prices do not fluctuate in response to supply and demand as most other economies do.  Although entry level economics tell us that the market price for a good is found with the equilibrium of supply and demand, it does not seem as if gas prices fall victim to the same economic rules.  Granted, I am the furthest thing from an economist, but its not hard to see gas prices change due to a perceived threat of decreased supply or at the first sign of military conflict in the Middle East.  My point is that gas prices tend to be artificially set instead of allowing the natural economic forces setting the price.

With that, allow me to slip into my conspiracy theorist persona.  Why the sudden and drastic drop of gas prices now?  There was not a sudden surplus of crude oil flowing like a geyser in the desert.  People did not suddenly switch to alternative fuel sources.  The conflicts in the Middle East are unchanged (in respect to the recent gas price dip).  I have two theories...

-Approaching midterm elections
Nothing pacifies the masses like affordable gasoline.  Suddenly everyone has a little more change in their pocket, since that money previously went towards paying for gas.  When voters see a positive that affects them directly like lower gas prices, they tend not to vote out the incumbent.  After the election, the prices return to $3/gallon.  A small price for the oil companies to pay to insure future protection from their elected government officials.

-$2.50/gallon was the target price all along.
The country went into an uproar when prices were climbing above $3/gallon.  People were used to spending closer to $2/gallon.  Even if big oil wanted $2.50/gallon prices, it would be a shock to the average American.  Instead of moderately raising prices to meet that target price, inflate it well above the target, then drop the price where you originally wanted without much effort.  That way it looks like someone has the public's interest at heart.

I Swear

One day is all it took for me to go against my own policy of not posting about a news entry.  Technically, this is someone else's blog entry, but the message is clear:  Elected officials should have the freedom to affirm their duty to withhold the Constitution however they see fit.

Newly elected Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) has chosen to be sworn into office by using the Koran (Qoran?) due to his Muslim beliefs.  Some people are up in arms because he has chosen not to use a Bible.  Why?  What meaning does the Bible have to a Muslim?  As stated on The Huffington Post in reference to the Constitution, a elected member of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".  What that means to me is that as long as the elected official makes an oath to uphold his duties, he's in the clear.  Swearing on the Bible or the Koran is not a requirement, but reinforces the officials dedication to the position by using text that is important to the individual.  I say use whatever book you want.  Use John Grisham's The Firm for all I care.  If the book is important to you, then so be it. 

I have a problem with both the anti-Muslim and the pro-Christianity tint to this story.  While a majority of Americans have beliefs in Judeo-Christian philosophies, the country still has freedom of religion.  Or does that not apply to elected officials?  (No one planned on a Muslim being elected)

Comic Book Best/Worst List

I feel like I am in some sort of summer hiatus.  I have neglected my blog either for being busy, lazy or writer's block.  When bloggers run out of ideas, they tend to post some sort of list, and I am no exception.  Since I feel like I know my audience fairly well, I thought that a comic book themed post might generate some discussion.

1. Best Comic Book Hero - Spider-Man.  My childhood favorite who seemed to have a tough time balancing his life without the added complexity of being bitten by a radioactive spider and the headaches that follow.  His exhaustive list of villains keeps everyone on their toes.  Spidey brings the best (worst?) out of his nemeses.  He always on the verge of hanging up the tights, but always realizes that his powers should be used to fight crime.

2. Most Overrated Comic Book Hero - Superman.  Lacks the humanistic element to allow fans to connect to him.  Yeah, I realize he's an alien, but still, he's impervious to everything except Kryptonite to which I just can't relate.  Too much of a goody-two-shoes.  Need cinematic evidence?

3. Best Comic Book Villain - Magneto.  Has incredible vision for his species.  Instead of accepting being treated as inferior for being a mutant, he believes they are in fact superior and should allow the mutants to evolve and take over as the new species.  His childhood history of a persecuted Jew ultimately sent to Auschwitz concentration camp adds depth and passion to his character.  Quite powerful as the master of magnetism.

4. Worst Comic Book Villain - The Penguin.  A gangster born with a birth defect that has a penchant for birds and umbrellas?  Almost like he was created by randomly selecting items out of the dictionary.

5. Most Underrated Comic Book Hero - Doctor Strange.  I don't really get into the whole mystic arts thing, but I do understand that when things get really messed up, Doctor Strange is usually called.  A lot of heroes nowadays like to dabble into alternative universes, which can be a tricky task.  Typically, they screw it up, and its Doc Strange to the rescue.  Its not like Captain America or Wolverine can set the cosmos back in balance.

6. Best Female Comic Book Hero - Wonder Woman.  She's Superman without the Kryptonite weakness and the annoying boy scout routine.  Her roots are based on Greek mythology which is a soft spot for me.  She deals with the constant adversity in the form of sexism by doing things better than most guys.  Although not the most feminist comment, I think she's hot (thanks Lynda Carter).  Artists continuously draw her as the goddess she was meant to be.  I still don't understand the invisible jet though.

7. Worst Female Comic Book Hero - Kitty Pryde.  Walking through walls rarely becomes a necessary trait in the realm of superheroes.  There are doors and windows everywhere.  Besides, if you really need to get through a wall, wouldn't a muscle bound brute have more to offer besides simple room access?  Most of those guys can just knock the wall down.

8. Best Comic Book Series - Civil War, Watchmen (tie).  I'm a sucker for bringing in raw, gritty realism to the genre.  Give the heroes true dilemmas to sort out, instead of just foiling the masked robbers from taking the money bags marked with dollar signs.

9. Best Comic to Movie Adaptation - Batman Begins.  The only movie that captures the essence of the character.  Most other comic book movies are simply after the aesthetics of the characters, not what makes them tick.  After watching BR, you understand why Batman is a little off his rocker but you also understand his dedication, plus his access to all of his resources.

Intelligence Offload

What do we really know?  The knowledge that I have obtained is merely information that others have figured out that I have either memorized or mimicked.  What I do know is how to use the Internet to my advantage.  I can Google just about anything.  Wikipedia has full page articles on almost anything I can imagine.  We are getting to the point where all the answers are on a web page.  It is just a matter of how to get those answers. 

I have reached a point where I offload information because I can Google it in about the same time as my own recollection, if not faster.  I have no real reason to remember stuff.  This concerns me a bit.  What is my incentive to retain information if the Internet can literally do all my thinking for me?  It would not surprise me if our society gets dumber moving forward because of these actions.  However as long as Google and Wikipedia are available our collective knowledge remains high.  Take that access away are we become blathering idiots. 

Losing Confidence in the American Voter

Election time is upon us.  Usually its a time for excitement, but my excitement is waning because I fear the worst possible scenario:  Four more years of Bush.

When I first heard that Barack Obama was running for president, I was energized.  He represented a more progressive, more contemporary approach than any other candidate we have seen in recent history.  With George W. Bush running the country into the ground over the past few years, I expected a backlash from the American voters eager to embrace a new direction for the country.  Obama seemed like the logical choice to lead that change. 

What happened to my optimism?  The American people seem to be accepting John McCain's vapid, bewildering and meandering campaign about nothing.  He seems to be willing to continue the destruction of this country that George W Bush has started.  Plus, by choosing the wholly unqualified Sarah Palin as a running mate, McCain should have disqualified himself from any serious contention to the Presidency.  However, we are amidst a tight race between Obama and McCain. 

Does an African-American scare you that much?  Or do you rely on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for all of your political information?  Even a staunch Republican should realize that they are being sold a bunch of snake oil in the form of McCain/Palin.  The longer this race is close, the more chance we have of repeating the worst times of my adult life.  So I am preparing myself for *gulp* President McCain.  If you need me, I'll be in Canada.