Ah, February 29th, the most annoying date of the year. And not for the usual reason of "so-and-so is celebrating his 8th birthday today even though he was born in 1976." No, February 29th bugs me for other reasons:
1. It messes up March. Every year, it is usually so easy to know what day of the week a certain date will be in March because it follows the same pattern as February. If February 20th was a Wednesday, then March 20th will be a Wednesday. Except, for this year, where now all the days in March will be thrown off the usual pattern.
2. The weather almanac shows nothing for this date. I am a little obsessed with weather. I believe that if I couldn't be a professor, I might try to be a meteorologist. I love the weather. I usually like to look on my favorite weather website and see what the Almanac predicts for the upcoming days, what the averages are, and what we should expect. Well, February 29th has no almanac info. So I have had no way of knowing whether the weather will be warmer or colder than usual. This bugs me.
3. Our electric bill this month will have one additional day charged to our account. Same for the water bill.
4. For those of us who get paid on the last day of the month, we have to wait one extra day to receive our paycheck. (And of course that paycheck is less per day this year due to the extra day.)
If I were in charge of the world, on my first day in office, I would do away with this silly day. If we need to add 24 hours every 4 years to make sure the earth stays on proper orbit, I propose a better way. Basically, each year is short 6 hours. That's 30 minutes a month. So I propose:
1. Add one minute to everyday of the month for the first 30 days of each month. (Of course February screws this up having only 28 days, so take the extra two minutes and add it to January 31 and March 31.) This would make much less hassle. An extra minute of sleep per day, and extra minute to do all those things we didn't quite get done. I think this would be great. And it wouldn't mess things up like February 29th does. Or,
2. Once a month, add 30 minutes to a Saturday night, like we do during the time change. Could you imagine having an extra 30 minutes to sleep a month? This would be great.
If you think we should have more time to do things, then you should agree with me on this issue. Whether or not these two plans would throw off our days and nights, I am not sure - and it doesn't matter. What I do know is that we need a "change." We need change, and we are the ones to do this. I believe it is time to get rid of February 29th forever. So, in summary, the current February 29th has led to a history of confusion and misguided policy. I am for change (don't worry too much about the specifics of my plan, because I am for change and that is all that matters.) So will you please support me for ruler of the world?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
And the Oscar Goes To... ZZZZZZ
OK, so I have three kids and we don't go to the movies much. But for the last two years, I had seen and accurately predicted the Best Picture Winner (Crash 2005 and The Departed 2006). This year, I had only seen Juno. So I was hoping it would win as we sat down to watch the Oscars.
As for the Oscar presentation… pretty, pretty, pretty dull. The White Witch Ice Queen won Best Supporting Actress; an actress I had never heard of from a movie I had never heard of won Best Actress. Seriously, did anybody see that movie? La Vie en Rose has grossed a whopping $10 million. So apparently, only the voting members of the academy have seen it. Pretty much goes for all the nominated films. Aside from Juno ($130 million), the other Best Picture Nominees have pathetically limped through the Box Office: No Country ($64 million), Michael Clayton ($49 million), Atonement ($49 million), and There Will Be Blood ($35 million). So the competition for most of the awards involved movies no one had seen, Jon Stewart, who is normally very funny, was not so much(apparently the writers haven't quite gotten back on their game yet, or they are ticked that Stewart started his show back without them), and the acceptance speeches were so-so, nothing memorable. The best moment goes to the winners for Best Original Song from the movie Once, which was basically just a movie made to publicize their soundtrack, but I was glad they won - I had actually seen the movie(well, kind of, I remember struggling to keep my eyes open at the end of the movie.) Anyway, maybe I'll see more of the nominees next year.
Here's to better movies in 2008.
As for the Oscar presentation… pretty, pretty, pretty dull. The White Witch Ice Queen won Best Supporting Actress; an actress I had never heard of from a movie I had never heard of won Best Actress. Seriously, did anybody see that movie? La Vie en Rose has grossed a whopping $10 million. So apparently, only the voting members of the academy have seen it. Pretty much goes for all the nominated films. Aside from Juno ($130 million), the other Best Picture Nominees have pathetically limped through the Box Office: No Country ($64 million), Michael Clayton ($49 million), Atonement ($49 million), and There Will Be Blood ($35 million). So the competition for most of the awards involved movies no one had seen, Jon Stewart, who is normally very funny, was not so much(apparently the writers haven't quite gotten back on their game yet, or they are ticked that Stewart started his show back without them), and the acceptance speeches were so-so, nothing memorable. The best moment goes to the winners for Best Original Song from the movie Once, which was basically just a movie made to publicize their soundtrack, but I was glad they won - I had actually seen the movie(well, kind of, I remember struggling to keep my eyes open at the end of the movie.) Anyway, maybe I'll see more of the nominees next year.
Here's to better movies in 2008.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Just Words and the Clinton Machine
Many months ago, I predicted, along with all the other pundits, that Hillary Clinton would coast to the Democratic Nomination. Everybody has been surprised at her struggles thus far. But remember this - Hillary and Bill Clinton are two of the most astute, nasty, go-for-the-jugular politicians ever. For the last few weeks, Clinton has consistently labeled Obama as just a talker. This has caused Obama to defend his promises and lofty speeches, which is definitely his strong point. However, in what I believe was calculated from the start, the Clinton campaign is now accusing Obama of plagiarism. That his "great oratory skills" are not his own, but stolen from others. (Never mind that Thomas Jefferson stole much of the Declaration from John Locke, or that Matthew and Luke apparently read Mark.) It turns out many of his words are not his own. Is this a big deal? Not really, but the Clinton political machine will beat this plagiarism drum until Obama's one strength, his oratory skills, will be so maligned in the public's eye that Clinton will comeback to win. And if this tactic doesn't work, I am sure the Clinton's have many more ways to go about destroying Obama. Their only miscalculation may have been waiting too long. While the Democratic race is certainly exciting to watch, I have not changed my mind…yet… that Clinton will still win the nomination. We'll know more after Wisconsin tonight. How many Republicans will vote in the Democratic primary just to throw off the results? While Obama leads McCain in the polls now, I really think Obama would be a much easier candidate for the Republicans to defeat in November than Clinton would be.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
If Grant Were God
During the past week, we have been reminded just how crazy Texas weather is. We have gone from freezing temperatures to record highs of 82 and now are heading back down to freezing again. Our kids love the warm weather. Over the weekend (with highs close to 80), they pretty much lived outside - in the sandbox, playing on the back porch, etc.
In Texas, we usually go from extreme hot (Spring and Summer) to pretty cold (Fall and Winter). We rarely get to enjoy a true mild fall or spring. I am not sure if Grant was referring to this or if he was commenting on the recent crazy weather, but the other night as he was going to bed, Grant asked: "Why does God make it hot then cold, hot then cold, hot then cold?" Before I could answer he said: "If I were God, I would make it hot, hot, hot, then cold, hot, hot, hot, then cold - so we could play outside longer."
In Texas, we usually go from extreme hot (Spring and Summer) to pretty cold (Fall and Winter). We rarely get to enjoy a true mild fall or spring. I am not sure if Grant was referring to this or if he was commenting on the recent crazy weather, but the other night as he was going to bed, Grant asked: "Why does God make it hot then cold, hot then cold, hot then cold?" Before I could answer he said: "If I were God, I would make it hot, hot, hot, then cold, hot, hot, hot, then cold - so we could play outside longer."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Good Commercial
Here's why I won't support Romney. And I continue to be baffled as to why talk radio supports him so much.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Romitzkimpson
Politics often mirrors sports.
This has been a rough year for Metroplex sports. In basketball, the Dallas Mavericks posted the best record of the season only to be bounced by the Golden State Warriors in the first round. League MVP Dirk Nowitzki had to accept the award in shame the following week. Not to be out done, the Dallas Cowboys added to the local sports catastrophe by losing on a fumbled snap to Seattle in 2007, and then, losing their first game of the playoffs this year to the Giants. Fair or not, Romo now shares the spotlight with Dirk as post-season slackers.
So how does politics mirror this? Enter Fred Thompson. Hailed as the savior of the Republican Party, Thompson entered the race with much fanfare, only to quickly fade into oblivion. I posted before of his initial weak debate performance and his need to "turn it on." He never did. He defended himself by saying he didn't really want to be President, which is a poor defense. Campaigning is grueling, but actually being President is even more so. I want a President who wants to be President.
So Thompson initially fooled me. I thought he would be a great candidate. Entering the race, he claimed first place in the polls. However, I guess this was only a "fairy tale." Once the playoffs began, he Dirked it. Now, Fred joins Dirk and Tony as those who don't quite live up to the hype.
This has been a rough year for Metroplex sports. In basketball, the Dallas Mavericks posted the best record of the season only to be bounced by the Golden State Warriors in the first round. League MVP Dirk Nowitzki had to accept the award in shame the following week. Not to be out done, the Dallas Cowboys added to the local sports catastrophe by losing on a fumbled snap to Seattle in 2007, and then, losing their first game of the playoffs this year to the Giants. Fair or not, Romo now shares the spotlight with Dirk as post-season slackers.
So how does politics mirror this? Enter Fred Thompson. Hailed as the savior of the Republican Party, Thompson entered the race with much fanfare, only to quickly fade into oblivion. I posted before of his initial weak debate performance and his need to "turn it on." He never did. He defended himself by saying he didn't really want to be President, which is a poor defense. Campaigning is grueling, but actually being President is even more so. I want a President who wants to be President.
So Thompson initially fooled me. I thought he would be a great candidate. Entering the race, he claimed first place in the polls. However, I guess this was only a "fairy tale." Once the playoffs began, he Dirked it. Now, Fred joins Dirk and Tony as those who don't quite live up to the hype.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
What I Hate About Politics
Last week, I was reminded of how much I hate politics, even though I can't get enough of it. But I hate politics today because of the lack of concern politicians have for citizens. It's just a game, a conquest for power, that is more concerned with the next dollar collected than with solving real problems.
For 6 1/2 years, President Bush has signed into law every spending bill that came across his desk, caring nothing for the pork. For 6 1/2 years, Bush has expanded government, making it larger and larger, never once concerned about the growing national government.
Last November, Democrats campaigned partly on the need for fiscal responsibility and accountability in government.
Last week, Bush vetoed HR 3043, the Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill citing too much pork. Wow, it took him 6 1/2 years to decide to do this? And of all the bills he decides to take this stand on he singles out this one? Why am I so upset about it? Because this bill authorized the use of $165 million for autism research and treatment as authorized by the Combating Autism Act, which one year ago Bush had called a very important act that needed support. And now, he finds fiscal discipline after 6 1/2 years due to $20 billion worth of pork in the $600 billion bill. I don't fault Bush for being fiscally responsible, but I do fault him for failing to do so for all this time only now to decide to veto. Perhaps if he had vetoed other spending bills, this one wouldn't have been laden with so much pork.
As for the Democrats, who talk so much about the need for accountability and decreasing deficits, here they are adding funding for a prison museum, sailing school, and classes in Portuguese among other things. Bush called the Democratic congress a "teenager with a new credit card," which is an accurate description, but Bush has acted like a willful parent signing off on all these measures for the bulk of his presidency.
Through all of this, who gets penalized? One in 120 children and 1 in 94 boys who are on the autism spectrum. In this game of politics, where the issue is more about who can make who look bad, the American people, specifically those dealing with autism, are the ones who get hurt. Wouldn't it be nice to see government try to solve problems rather than play games? Well, that's why I hate politics.
For 6 1/2 years, President Bush has signed into law every spending bill that came across his desk, caring nothing for the pork. For 6 1/2 years, Bush has expanded government, making it larger and larger, never once concerned about the growing national government.
Last November, Democrats campaigned partly on the need for fiscal responsibility and accountability in government.
Last week, Bush vetoed HR 3043, the Fiscal 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill citing too much pork. Wow, it took him 6 1/2 years to decide to do this? And of all the bills he decides to take this stand on he singles out this one? Why am I so upset about it? Because this bill authorized the use of $165 million for autism research and treatment as authorized by the Combating Autism Act, which one year ago Bush had called a very important act that needed support. And now, he finds fiscal discipline after 6 1/2 years due to $20 billion worth of pork in the $600 billion bill. I don't fault Bush for being fiscally responsible, but I do fault him for failing to do so for all this time only now to decide to veto. Perhaps if he had vetoed other spending bills, this one wouldn't have been laden with so much pork.
As for the Democrats, who talk so much about the need for accountability and decreasing deficits, here they are adding funding for a prison museum, sailing school, and classes in Portuguese among other things. Bush called the Democratic congress a "teenager with a new credit card," which is an accurate description, but Bush has acted like a willful parent signing off on all these measures for the bulk of his presidency.
Through all of this, who gets penalized? One in 120 children and 1 in 94 boys who are on the autism spectrum. In this game of politics, where the issue is more about who can make who look bad, the American people, specifically those dealing with autism, are the ones who get hurt. Wouldn't it be nice to see government try to solve problems rather than play games? Well, that's why I hate politics.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Remembering Charla
Our family lost someone this week who had become part of our every day life. She was our front porch spider, Charla. For months, Charla had resided in the corner of our front porch with a finely kept, intricately designed web, which she always maintained so nicely. Every once in a while, the web would look rather ragged; however, by morning Charla would have it tightly woven again, with the zig-zag pattern prominently displayed. She got her name from Claire, I think, who when referring to her as Charlotte, as in Charlotte's Web, instead called her Charla, a name no doubt she knew from our aunt and real estate agent. (If by some chance aunt Charla reads this, I promise the spider being named Charla was the kids' doing, and something you can even be proud of, because Charla was a magnificent spider.)
Last night, we noticed Charla was missing. Claire said she probably went to her friend's house, Grant thought she was probably sleeping, Jessica and I feared the worst. Before I went to bed, I checked again, still no Charla. The web is failing and it doesn't appear that Charla is still here to fix it again. Then this morning - still no Charla.
Charla reminded us of the beauty of God's Creation. How she worked on her web as an artist, wrapped up her prey, protected her egg sacks, and did it all so gracefully. Jonathan Edwards, a 19th Century American Evangelical, remarked that the ultimate thing shown by the spinning spider is "the exuberant goodness of the Creator, who hath not only provided for all the necessities, but also for the pleasure and recreation of all sorts of creatures, even insects."
So thank you Charla, for reminding us daily of the beauty and intricacy of all of God's creation. And should one day your offspring appear, they will have a welcoming home in the corner of our front porch.
Charla
July -November 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
World Series Time
I love this time of year. Of all the sporting events, the World Series is by far my favorite. This year's match-up should be great as well, with the tradition of the Red Sox v. the Cinderella Rockies. I am pulling for a great series and for a Rockies win. (Now why can't the Rangers ever get here?)
I started thinking about my brilliant baseball career. My career lasted from 1985-1990 with an attempted comeback that fell short in 1992. (Ok, so my career happened before I was 15. I have never been mistaken for a great athlete.) Here are my career highlights:
1985 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 3rd. This was my first year of baseball where there was no tee or no coach pitch. I batted .000 drawing many walks and HBPs. I think I got more walks than strikeouts, but I am not sure. Needless to say, I could only go up from here. I believe I mostly played outfield or DH - my fielding has always been a liability, even when I batted .000.
1986 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 4th. My career year. I batted .500, played better in the field, and was part of a winning team. The highlight of my career came in the quarter finals of the playoffs, where I came up in the last inning with 2 outs, runners on 2nd and 3rd, and the fate of our season in my hands as we trailed 2-1. (Incidentally, whenever the season was over, we had to turn in our jerseys and baseball pants. So in the playoffs, we were supposed to always bring a change of clothes in case our team lost, but I had forgotten mine, which made me worry that I would have to go home in my underwear if we lost.) My coach pulled me over and said, "Just like batting practice." The first pitch I lined up the middle for a base hit, two runners scored, game over. My first base coach hoisted me up and we celebrated the victory. It was a great feeling. Every kid dreams of doing this - it was surreal. I remember afterwards going to Denny's where Pappaw bought us all dessert. Definitely the highlight of my sports career. (Yeah, since 4th grade it has all been downhill for me athletically.)
1987 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 5th. Thus began the dark ages. New team, new coach. The coach was the coach of the team I had the winning hit against the year before. I never liked him all that much - my confidence was gone. I was Roy Hobbs dating Memo. I batted .150. Simply a terrible year. Iris never stood up.
1988 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 6th. Again .150. See 1987 for more details.
1989 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 7th. A rebound year for me. I batted .300 and had the most RBI on my team. New coach, same friends. Still playing the outfield and occasionally 2nd base.
1990 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 8th. A repeat performance as I batted .300 again and led the team in RBI, but I wasn't chosen to be the All-Star representative from my team. It's funny what affects a kid, but not being chosen and not ever having the chance to pitch stuck with me for a long time. This was my last official year of playing baseball. I am not sure why I didn't play in 9th grade, but I didn't.
1992 - Attempted Comeback. I tried out for the AHS baseball team my Sophomore year. I didn't make it - my hitting wasn't consistent (actually it was kind of bad) and I wasn't very fast for a 2nd baseman (in fact, I am pretty slow). So thus ended my playing career.
I have good memories from my baseball days - many of my friends were on my team. Good memories for the most part with the game winning hit as the definite acme of my career. I continue to be a big baseball fan. I learned a lot about myself playing baseball. I experienced the joy of winning, the frustration of losing and not hitting, and the fun of being a kid dreaming about being a baseball player. That is why I love the World Series so much - all the drama and emotion in a simple, yet wonderful game.
I started thinking about my brilliant baseball career. My career lasted from 1985-1990 with an attempted comeback that fell short in 1992. (Ok, so my career happened before I was 15. I have never been mistaken for a great athlete.) Here are my career highlights:
1985 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 3rd. This was my first year of baseball where there was no tee or no coach pitch. I batted .000 drawing many walks and HBPs. I think I got more walks than strikeouts, but I am not sure. Needless to say, I could only go up from here. I believe I mostly played outfield or DH - my fielding has always been a liability, even when I batted .000.
1986 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 4th. My career year. I batted .500, played better in the field, and was part of a winning team. The highlight of my career came in the quarter finals of the playoffs, where I came up in the last inning with 2 outs, runners on 2nd and 3rd, and the fate of our season in my hands as we trailed 2-1. (Incidentally, whenever the season was over, we had to turn in our jerseys and baseball pants. So in the playoffs, we were supposed to always bring a change of clothes in case our team lost, but I had forgotten mine, which made me worry that I would have to go home in my underwear if we lost.) My coach pulled me over and said, "Just like batting practice." The first pitch I lined up the middle for a base hit, two runners scored, game over. My first base coach hoisted me up and we celebrated the victory. It was a great feeling. Every kid dreams of doing this - it was surreal. I remember afterwards going to Denny's where Pappaw bought us all dessert. Definitely the highlight of my sports career. (Yeah, since 4th grade it has all been downhill for me athletically.)
1987 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 5th. Thus began the dark ages. New team, new coach. The coach was the coach of the team I had the winning hit against the year before. I never liked him all that much - my confidence was gone. I was Roy Hobbs dating Memo. I batted .150. Simply a terrible year. Iris never stood up.
1988 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 6th. Again .150. See 1987 for more details.
1989 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 7th. A rebound year for me. I batted .300 and had the most RBI on my team. New coach, same friends. Still playing the outfield and occasionally 2nd base.
1990 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 8th. A repeat performance as I batted .300 again and led the team in RBI, but I wasn't chosen to be the All-Star representative from my team. It's funny what affects a kid, but not being chosen and not ever having the chance to pitch stuck with me for a long time. This was my last official year of playing baseball. I am not sure why I didn't play in 9th grade, but I didn't.
1992 - Attempted Comeback. I tried out for the AHS baseball team my Sophomore year. I didn't make it - my hitting wasn't consistent (actually it was kind of bad) and I wasn't very fast for a 2nd baseman (in fact, I am pretty slow). So thus ended my playing career.
I have good memories from my baseball days - many of my friends were on my team. Good memories for the most part with the game winning hit as the definite acme of my career. I continue to be a big baseball fan. I learned a lot about myself playing baseball. I experienced the joy of winning, the frustration of losing and not hitting, and the fun of being a kid dreaming about being a baseball player. That is why I love the World Series so much - all the drama and emotion in a simple, yet wonderful game.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Arlington's Crime Tax Proposal
On November 6, Arlington residents will decide whether to raise the sales tax .125% to help fight crime in Arlington. This increase to 8.125 cents on the dollar will enable the city to hire more police officers, more bomb squad officers, and code enforcement personnel. In addition, the revenue would go toward youth and senior adult initiatives.
Arlington is a growing city with a bright future. But with growing cities comes an increase in crime. In order for Arlington to remain a vibrant, attractive city, we need to make sure we lower the crime rate in Arlington. An addition of 48 police officers is a step in the right direction, along with more code enforcement officers who will hopefully crack down on property owners' deteriorating structures.
The opponents of the tax increase, the Citizens for Lower Taxes, cite youth initiatives as part of the problem with this tax increase. First of all, the Citizens for Lower Taxes are always opposing progress in Arlington. If they had their way, Arlington would already be an unattractive city with no future of improvement. This is a very narrow-minded group that has little visionary insight. They seem to live in an Arlington of about 40,000 people rather than a city approaching 400,000. Thankfully, this group is a very small group, but it is a group that will turn out to vote, which represents a threat to this crime tax increase passing.
On the objection to money going toward youth initiatives, CLT is simply not making logical sense. This tax increase is going to fight crime. We want our city to be safer and to stay safe - that's the ultimate goal. The youth initiatives, which grant money to at-risk youth to participate in after school programs, sports, and camps, are simply ways to stop crime before it happens. Cops hopefully catch criminals after or during a crime. The youth initiatives will hopefully stop crime before it happens. Our city is safer and the youth have a better future. It's a win-win. And any plan on fighting crime must take into consideration ways to prevent crime. Having worked in inner-city Tampa for two years, I saw firsthand the need for teens to have healthy alternatives after school. Many of the teenagers we worked with after school were not only safe from crime, but were safe from committing crime. A city that addresses only the after-effects of crime without addressing the causes for crime is a city that will never corral the crime problem. Thankfully, our city leaders appear to see this - hopefully those who don't, such as CLT, will be outnumbered at the ballot box.
I'm voting for the crime tax increase. It is worth the extra $0.00125 it will cost me per dollar to have a safe place to live. I hope you vote for it too.
Arlington is a growing city with a bright future. But with growing cities comes an increase in crime. In order for Arlington to remain a vibrant, attractive city, we need to make sure we lower the crime rate in Arlington. An addition of 48 police officers is a step in the right direction, along with more code enforcement officers who will hopefully crack down on property owners' deteriorating structures.
The opponents of the tax increase, the Citizens for Lower Taxes, cite youth initiatives as part of the problem with this tax increase. First of all, the Citizens for Lower Taxes are always opposing progress in Arlington. If they had their way, Arlington would already be an unattractive city with no future of improvement. This is a very narrow-minded group that has little visionary insight. They seem to live in an Arlington of about 40,000 people rather than a city approaching 400,000. Thankfully, this group is a very small group, but it is a group that will turn out to vote, which represents a threat to this crime tax increase passing.
On the objection to money going toward youth initiatives, CLT is simply not making logical sense. This tax increase is going to fight crime. We want our city to be safer and to stay safe - that's the ultimate goal. The youth initiatives, which grant money to at-risk youth to participate in after school programs, sports, and camps, are simply ways to stop crime before it happens. Cops hopefully catch criminals after or during a crime. The youth initiatives will hopefully stop crime before it happens. Our city is safer and the youth have a better future. It's a win-win. And any plan on fighting crime must take into consideration ways to prevent crime. Having worked in inner-city Tampa for two years, I saw firsthand the need for teens to have healthy alternatives after school. Many of the teenagers we worked with after school were not only safe from crime, but were safe from committing crime. A city that addresses only the after-effects of crime without addressing the causes for crime is a city that will never corral the crime problem. Thankfully, our city leaders appear to see this - hopefully those who don't, such as CLT, will be outnumbered at the ballot box.
I'm voting for the crime tax increase. It is worth the extra $0.00125 it will cost me per dollar to have a safe place to live. I hope you vote for it too.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Claire-ism
We are on round three of the dreaded webworm. For the third time this summer, our yard has been overrun with the crawling, leaf-eating menaces. After spraying them today with poison, something I really hate doing, I came inside and told Claire, "We have webworms everywhere." She said, "I know, I saw one as I came in from the garage today." I said, "They are disgusting and I don't like them." She replied, "No daddy, they're cute. You can like them because they are cute."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Republican Presidential Debate
Yesterday, I was stuck running sound for the same presentation three times at my work. In the sound booth ensuring quality vocals on the microphone for three hours, I quickly found other things to do. So I pulled up the internet and watched the Republican debate in Michigan on CNBC.com. There are still nine Republicans running for the nomination, which makes the debate extra boring and worthless. Why do we need to hear from Tancredo, Brownback, and Hunter? Are they adding anything to the campaign? Is there anyone beyond their immediate family supporting them? Anyway, here are my reactions to the debate:
Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter: See aforementioned question of just what exactly they are doing here. I'll give Brownback some credit - he was the best of these three, but that is not saying much. He did sound rather knowledgeable on the issues and I particularly liked his answer to the biggest obstacle facing the US economy - the breakdown of the American family. But other than that, these three should pack it in and allow others to have more time to talk about the issues. I really don't care what Hunter thinks about China, because he is never going to be close to making any sort of presidential decision concerning it. These three have the same amount of chance of winning the presidency in '08 that I do.
Ron Paul: The most unique positions of the candidates. He is more Libertarian than Republican. I am not sure whether his presence helps or hurts the other candidates. In the first few debates, he may have helped, but now he is a distraction. But, at least you know where he stands on issues - he is not afraid to speak his mind. And he nailed Romney on the Iran question. But he has no chance as well, and at this point, is merely an ideological candidate for the Libertarian Party and a few conspiracy nuts.
Huckabee: I don't know what to make of him. He is trying too hard to have down-home witty things to say all the time. I oppose his tax plan, and I really don't know what more he stands for, except that he is socially conservative. People mention him as a possible running mate for Giuliani, but I think he would be Quayled if he ran as VP.
McCain: A few months ago, I declared his candidacy to be dead. But there is still something I like about McCain. I like that he is not beholden to the Religious Right. I like that he was brave enough to try to do something rational about immigration, even though he is taking the heat for it now. I like his military experience and his opposition to torture. I like the guy - but it may be too late for him to make a comeback. However, there is a sign of a pulse there, so we'll see.
Romney: I can't stand him. Too smooth, too mechanical. And, I don't believe he believes half of what he is saying. Unlike McCain, Romney is trying to fashion himself as a Religious Right candidate, even though he has held positions contrary to them in the past. I find him unauthentic. His jab at Thompson was so rehearsed and lame. His "consulting lawyers" answer was completely out of touch. I would not vote for him - and while much has been made of his Mormonism, that is not a factor as to my dislike for him. I hope he fades quickly, because the Democrats would have a field day with him and the Republicans could lose southern states if he is nominated.
Thompson: At this point in the race, he is my personal favorite. While the beginning of the debate was a bit rocky for him, I could barely hear him in the sound booth - I almost thought he was too tall for the microphone - he got better as the debate went on. But he will have to be much more emphatic with his answers if he wants to gain much ground. He is a very tall guy - I never realized until yesterday how much taller he was than everybody else. He has a way to go to catch Rudy, but he showed a genuine, relaxed attitude that contrasts sharply with Romney's fakeness. I also appreciate the fact that, while he is conservative, he is not pandering to Dobson either - in an interview last week he said he doesn't care to meet with Dobson until Dobson apologized to him. I am eager to hear him articulate his issues in the coming days.
Giuliani - still the front-runner, but for how long? Just how much influence will the social conservatives have in '08? Rudy could split the party, which is why I still doubt he could win the nomination. But I like him as a leader and communicator. He is very genuine as well and quick on his feet. But will he be able to win the nomination merely as a fiscal conservative? He would do well in the general election against Hillary. Of all the candidates, I think he would be the strongest, but if the social conservatives bail on him, he may not have much of a chance. Still, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that may be motivation enough for social conservatives to vote for Rudy - just as an opposing vote to Hillary more than anything else.
Of the Republican candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain would be the three most formidable candidates. Any of those three would be a solid nominee for the Republican Party. But this is a watershed moment, because neither of those three will be in the pocket of the Religious Right, even though McCain and Thompson share much in common with them. It should be an interesting few months.
Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter: See aforementioned question of just what exactly they are doing here. I'll give Brownback some credit - he was the best of these three, but that is not saying much. He did sound rather knowledgeable on the issues and I particularly liked his answer to the biggest obstacle facing the US economy - the breakdown of the American family. But other than that, these three should pack it in and allow others to have more time to talk about the issues. I really don't care what Hunter thinks about China, because he is never going to be close to making any sort of presidential decision concerning it. These three have the same amount of chance of winning the presidency in '08 that I do.
Ron Paul: The most unique positions of the candidates. He is more Libertarian than Republican. I am not sure whether his presence helps or hurts the other candidates. In the first few debates, he may have helped, but now he is a distraction. But, at least you know where he stands on issues - he is not afraid to speak his mind. And he nailed Romney on the Iran question. But he has no chance as well, and at this point, is merely an ideological candidate for the Libertarian Party and a few conspiracy nuts.
Huckabee: I don't know what to make of him. He is trying too hard to have down-home witty things to say all the time. I oppose his tax plan, and I really don't know what more he stands for, except that he is socially conservative. People mention him as a possible running mate for Giuliani, but I think he would be Quayled if he ran as VP.
McCain: A few months ago, I declared his candidacy to be dead. But there is still something I like about McCain. I like that he is not beholden to the Religious Right. I like that he was brave enough to try to do something rational about immigration, even though he is taking the heat for it now. I like his military experience and his opposition to torture. I like the guy - but it may be too late for him to make a comeback. However, there is a sign of a pulse there, so we'll see.
Romney: I can't stand him. Too smooth, too mechanical. And, I don't believe he believes half of what he is saying. Unlike McCain, Romney is trying to fashion himself as a Religious Right candidate, even though he has held positions contrary to them in the past. I find him unauthentic. His jab at Thompson was so rehearsed and lame. His "consulting lawyers" answer was completely out of touch. I would not vote for him - and while much has been made of his Mormonism, that is not a factor as to my dislike for him. I hope he fades quickly, because the Democrats would have a field day with him and the Republicans could lose southern states if he is nominated.
Thompson: At this point in the race, he is my personal favorite. While the beginning of the debate was a bit rocky for him, I could barely hear him in the sound booth - I almost thought he was too tall for the microphone - he got better as the debate went on. But he will have to be much more emphatic with his answers if he wants to gain much ground. He is a very tall guy - I never realized until yesterday how much taller he was than everybody else. He has a way to go to catch Rudy, but he showed a genuine, relaxed attitude that contrasts sharply with Romney's fakeness. I also appreciate the fact that, while he is conservative, he is not pandering to Dobson either - in an interview last week he said he doesn't care to meet with Dobson until Dobson apologized to him. I am eager to hear him articulate his issues in the coming days.
Giuliani - still the front-runner, but for how long? Just how much influence will the social conservatives have in '08? Rudy could split the party, which is why I still doubt he could win the nomination. But I like him as a leader and communicator. He is very genuine as well and quick on his feet. But will he be able to win the nomination merely as a fiscal conservative? He would do well in the general election against Hillary. Of all the candidates, I think he would be the strongest, but if the social conservatives bail on him, he may not have much of a chance. Still, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that may be motivation enough for social conservatives to vote for Rudy - just as an opposing vote to Hillary more than anything else.
Of the Republican candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain would be the three most formidable candidates. Any of those three would be a solid nominee for the Republican Party. But this is a watershed moment, because neither of those three will be in the pocket of the Religious Right, even though McCain and Thompson share much in common with them. It should be an interesting few months.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Rich Mullins Concert Part #2
This is part of a concert by Rich Mullins on You Tube. Rich was one of the great theologians of our time and a great song writer.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Petraeus, Iraq, Politics, 9/11
Six years ago. Does it seem that long? I set my watch alarm this morning to go off at the moment the first plane slammed into the World Trade Center six years ago. I was in the middle of a lecture on Texas Government and our formation of our Texas Constitution(riveting stuff), when my alarm went off, startling me and the class. Then, when I explained what the alarm was for, a very somber mood came over the classroom. To think that this morning, we were all going about our lives, in relative normalcy, not stopping to think about 9/11. The beeping of my watch reminded us how quickly our world changed six years ago.
I have read numerous stories of people having 9/11 fatigue. It appears that many people think we have remembered enough. That is tragic. Thankfully, it seems that those students in my class this morning think we should continue to remember 9/11 and those who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attack. But what happened to our unity? To our resolve as a nation to protect us and the world from terrorism?
I believe that Iraq is a front in fighting terrorists. As I have said before, even though a majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq, I have always supported the war and will continue to do so. I have never fought in war, never served in the military, and probably never will. But I thank God for the men and women who have chosen to defend our country and our freedom. I thank God for the 3,700 Americans who have died in the Iraq War. And I am thankful to them for the protection they give us everyday. And I do not wish to see their blood shed in vain. We must succeed in Iraq.
A few months ago, the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, approved General Petraeus to assess the situation in Iraq, the surge, and report back to Congress. Here's the political reality that many don't want to hear: there are people in our country who, for political power reasons, hope we fail in Iraq. At the least, there are people who do not want to see us succeed. Because of that, and because of the fact that the surge has made progress, there are those in the Congress who politically do not want the success of our American troops to be reported. So in the maddening world of American politics, before the four-star general ever took the microphone to give his report, there were congress members attacking the General's character. There were members of Congress, the same ones that sent Gen. Petraeus to Iraq, who say now that no matter what he says, they will not believe him. Here is another political reality in Washington, and why Congress' approval rating lags behind the President's: our Congress is not concerned about fighting Al Qaeda. They are concerned about their own political power. The enemy has become members on the other side of the aisle. The enemy has become a four-star general of the US. The enemy has become Bush and anything he sets out to do.
Are Republicans to blame too? Yes. They have not been honest with the length of time we will be in Iraq. To talk of troop withdrawal next year is naive. It took America 20 years to truly become a stable government after the Revolutionary War. We still have troops in Japan, 60 years after WWII and after Japan is now our friend. It will take Iraq years to become a truly stable government. We will be in Iraq for a long, long time. It is time to be honest about that as well. And it is time to begin to answer the critics' objections to Iraq. A stable, free Iraq is in our country's best interest. A stable, free Iraq will enable the world to fight terrorism effectively.
So today, six years after we were attacked, may we remember. And may we be thankful for those who every day defend our country.
I have read numerous stories of people having 9/11 fatigue. It appears that many people think we have remembered enough. That is tragic. Thankfully, it seems that those students in my class this morning think we should continue to remember 9/11 and those who lost their lives as a result of the terrorist attack. But what happened to our unity? To our resolve as a nation to protect us and the world from terrorism?
I believe that Iraq is a front in fighting terrorists. As I have said before, even though a majority of Americans want us to leave Iraq, I have always supported the war and will continue to do so. I have never fought in war, never served in the military, and probably never will. But I thank God for the men and women who have chosen to defend our country and our freedom. I thank God for the 3,700 Americans who have died in the Iraq War. And I am thankful to them for the protection they give us everyday. And I do not wish to see their blood shed in vain. We must succeed in Iraq.
A few months ago, the Congress, Democrats and Republicans, approved General Petraeus to assess the situation in Iraq, the surge, and report back to Congress. Here's the political reality that many don't want to hear: there are people in our country who, for political power reasons, hope we fail in Iraq. At the least, there are people who do not want to see us succeed. Because of that, and because of the fact that the surge has made progress, there are those in the Congress who politically do not want the success of our American troops to be reported. So in the maddening world of American politics, before the four-star general ever took the microphone to give his report, there were congress members attacking the General's character. There were members of Congress, the same ones that sent Gen. Petraeus to Iraq, who say now that no matter what he says, they will not believe him. Here is another political reality in Washington, and why Congress' approval rating lags behind the President's: our Congress is not concerned about fighting Al Qaeda. They are concerned about their own political power. The enemy has become members on the other side of the aisle. The enemy has become a four-star general of the US. The enemy has become Bush and anything he sets out to do.
Are Republicans to blame too? Yes. They have not been honest with the length of time we will be in Iraq. To talk of troop withdrawal next year is naive. It took America 20 years to truly become a stable government after the Revolutionary War. We still have troops in Japan, 60 years after WWII and after Japan is now our friend. It will take Iraq years to become a truly stable government. We will be in Iraq for a long, long time. It is time to be honest about that as well. And it is time to begin to answer the critics' objections to Iraq. A stable, free Iraq is in our country's best interest. A stable, free Iraq will enable the world to fight terrorism effectively.
So today, six years after we were attacked, may we remember. And may we be thankful for those who every day defend our country.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Grant Has a Blog
Grant got a camera for his birthday, so he wanted to start his own blog. To see his pictures, go to g-mansworld.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)