chris's clever blog title

Los Angeles Transportation: Fact and Fiction

2009-03-17T11:30:00.000-06:00

For anyone in California out there or who has a familiarity with commuter life in L.A., I wanted to draw your attention to Freakonomics' latest series on facts and fiction about commuting in L.A.

Most people think of L.A. as the smoggiest, over-freewayed, crappiest-public-transportation-having quagmire in the world. Maybe so, but maybe not. Here's the last installment in the series (that also provides links to the previous articles) to let you know how things really are.

Enjoy.

Lessons from the Future of Evangelical America

2009-03-10T10:51:00.003-06:00

The Christian Science Monitor put out an article (thanks, Drudge, for calling it to my attention) regarding the potential demise of mainstream Evangelical Christianity in America.

The author predicts that "millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline.... The grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close."

It's a bit bleak but brings out some interesting premises that I'd like to put out there:

1. Too much attention to causes can drive the focus away from the faith. The author cites attention to gay marriage and pro life and other cultural/moral issues as a significant cause for a generation to be able to articulate their religions on viewpoints such as these but still be unable to succinctly explain their faith.

I personally struggle with the line between proper expression of the cultural application of moral viewpoints with a need to merely exemplify correct principles and allow for a measure of agency in those around me, particularly as doctrinal tenets become a question of public policy.

2. A certain measure of orthodoxy is required for a religion to have any kind of roots. Joseph Smith's comments that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things will never generate faith sufficient unto salvation comes to mind.

I'm always grateful that I grew up in a faith that holds its youth to high standards while never slacking on the teaching of scripture and basic doctrine. I never felt that, for example, being encouraged to wear white shirts on Sundays and not drink Coke overpowered instruction on faith, the Atonement, and scripture.

Inspire Me, Mr. President

2009-02-16T16:48:00.002-07:00

[As usual, this article can be found here at timetokeepscore.com]

This article from the WSJ raised a different critique of how the President is handling the stimulus, and it begs the question: where are the politics of hope?

The President's ability, unique among all other political leaders in the nation, to be a lone voice of policy and to so capture the public attention gives the office an enormous power to frame the issues and the debate. The article points to how the President's rhetoric in pushing for Congressional support of the stimulus paints the current economic crisis as the worst since the Great Depression.

The basic formula for President Obama's pleas is, "If we don't pass this stimulus right now, the next Great Depression will come."

I'm not a fan, especially since the average consumer's ability to spend hasn't changed too much, and his or her desire to do so is based largely on their outlook for the future. Barack ran a masterful campaign full of positive imagery and inspiring messages.

Although they were a bit lofty and dangerously vague and misleading for my taste, I can't deny the man's ability to move a room, though he does tend to fare better in a room already prone to love him. I'd love to see him change his tone from "If we don't pass this stimulus now, the Greater Depression will come," to:

"We can get out of this. We will get out of this. Hang in there. Have faith in America's innovation, its ability to push beyond temporary difficulties. Though for many of us these times have brought and will continue to bring hardship that seems impossible to bear. The rest of us need to pick up the slack and find ways to support those in need. In the meantime, we feel that this stimulus package is the best shot we have to help right the economic ship while leaving behind a footprint of valuable programs [aside: I personally argue with that notion, but that's at least what he's trying to argue] to benefit an America struggling and an America prosperous."

Anyway, I call on the President to see through his campaign of inspiration. I didn't vote for you, Barack, but I'm waiting to be inspired.

[Read the article for some of the key facts around which the President may be slightly guilty of hyperbole, and the economic reasons why this is counterproductive though there may be a political upside. Okay, really guilty of hyperbole. Also, I caught an article last week but can't find it that discussed how, in one of many instances where Dubya just couldn't win, he attempted early in his presidency to paint how much trouble our economy was in post-9/11 and was accused of fear-mongering, and while afterward when he responded with unrelenting optimism he was accused of ignoring the 'horrible truth,' but I can't find it. Anyone catch that article and can post a link to it?]

Bipartisanship Under Obama

2009-01-27T09:39:00.004-07:00

(As always, this post can also be found at www.timetokeepscore.com. You're invited to post your comments there as well as you'll probably get a bit more feedback and interplay there.)

I've been vexed of late as to whether GOP leadership will merely slide into the role that the Dems held under Bush, whether they will sell out their conservative heritage and just be "softly" liberal, or whether they will push conservative solutions that are viable alternatives to some of Obama's more frighteningly liberal agenda.

Mickey Edwards, a player in the Reagan administration and co-founded the Heritage Foundation (conservative think-tank), wrote a very interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times this week in which he stated:

If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.

I maintain that "doing nothing" is exactly what the Dems did as a minority and then a majority during the problems of the Bush era. If the GOP wants to be a relevant player, it needs to eschew that tendency. And President Obama, with all his talk of unity and inclusion, needs to publicly and quickly take Dem leaders to the woodshed for any inkling of taunting, exclusion, and pettiness.

Republicans would be wise to distance themselves from platforms that are,

anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.

Further,

They [must cease] to worship small government and [turn] their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

The fact is, President Obama has as much potential to support conservative solutions as he does liberal ones. He's a family man, he's religious, he's a self-made man, he has stated that he opposes same-sex marriages (though he's been a bit confusing on that one), and the liberal voting base of the poor, the minorities, etc. will be just as likely to embrace conservative solutions as they are liberal ones, as long as they are solutions.

I believe that those solutions exist. What I'm frustrated with is GOP leadership's lack of ability to push those forward.

Rise Up, O Legislative Branch

2009-01-22T16:11:00.002-07:00

So Ms. Pelosi is excited to finally be able to get to work now that the "10 pound anvil" of Bush's presidency was removed from her head via Marine One.

Well good for her. I'm relieved too, the poor thing. She's been saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, nothing but battles to win, and a friendly majority in both houses with which to win them and potential to expand that majority for the past two Congressional terms. What a tough environment in which "arguably the second most powerful person in Washington" can effectively shape the course of what should be the most influential policy-making governmental branch out of the three. Please.

A significant-yet-oft overlooked danger to good governance is the tyranny of the executive over the legislative. Presidential power (and by extension that of the executive generally) has quietly expanded steadily, most notably since the New Deal. And yet, in Congress there is opportunity for strong leadership to check that executive**, even when the parties are friendly to each other.

When Congress merely waits for a friendly President to aggressively push an agenda, the legislature becomes a mere extension of the administrative state, a means to an end, and fails to truly be the representative branch of government that it ought to be. Even from within the same party, the two branches are designed to have fundamentally different agendas, and the pursuit of those agendas and the resulting conflict should theoretically provide for some of the best policy allowed for under the Constitution.

I submit that President Bush's 'failed policies' should be attributed no less to an acquiescent friendly Congress during the earlier years of his presidency and a spineless, whiny, complaining Congress during the later years. I shudder to think of what kinds of trouble a majority of yes men (and yes women) will get us into during the first two years of Obama's presidency.

**Democrats held a majority in Congress during much of the Republican-dominated presidencies of the 70s and 80s, with House Speakers Carl Albert and Tip O'Neill serving opposite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Republican Newt Gingrich was a powerful opponent of Bill Clinton during the 90s. In the Senate, Senator LBJ was notably a very strong driver of policy which made him a logical second to JFK.

Please check out what my fellow participants at www.timetokeepscore.com may have to say about this and other issues.

God Bless OUr President

2009-01-20T20:51:00.002-07:00

He needs it. Look at the toll a presidency can take on a man.

Dubya, 2000

Dubya, 2008

Slick Willy, 1992

Slick Willy, 2000

Bush Senior, 1988

Bush Senior, 1992

Ronnie, 1980

Ronnie, 1988 (granted, he started out pretty old and has the benefit of quite a bit of hair dye, but still...)

Mr. Lincoln, circa 1860

Mr. Lincoln, 1864 (tough to tell with the black and white, but he aged significantly during his four years)

Post-Racist America?

2009-01-20T14:35:00.002-07:00

It recently came to my attention that I may have a reader or two out there. Thank you. :) I've been quiet of late mostly because of finals and travel, but also because I've been invited to contribute to another blog, www.timetokeepscore.com.

So, I'll post to both blogs concurrently until I figure out how else to handle these things.

Here's my most recent post from Time to Keep Score:

I'd like to ask the question, what is the true current state of racial affairs in America today? The question isn't a particularly easy one as metrics are difficult to come by, but I was intrigued by both a recent L.A. Times article (from the left) and your usual brand of right-wing-radio crackpot suggesting that the State of Race Relations in the Union is much stronger than is commonly believed.

It took moving to Texas as a kid to gain some level of understanding of how "the rest of the country" operates racially. Growing up in a fairly diverse yet economically strong area in Southern California, my racial viewpoint was shaped by a school experience with no strong racial majority and few socio-economic divisions. Even witnessing some of what the South has to offer to the racial outlook of the country, I've always had a skepticism towards the state of racial relations.

President Obama's election certainly has shown to the world that an individual who is not a WASP can be elected to one of the highest seats of power in the world. I've heard of polling data (sorry for no citation, I'll work on that) suggesting that 95% of Republicans would have gladly voted for a black person to be President if that person happened to have been a Republican also.

So are we living in a Post-Racist America? Are the problems related to race largely perpetuated and exaggerated by those with an agenda for doing so? (I'm talking to you, Jesse and Al.) I honestly can't say, but I suspect that, for the most part, White America on the racial side and Prosperous America on the economic side are more than happy to leave the door open for Minority or Poor America to enter in. And I hope they do.

Education and Barriers to Entry

2008-12-15T10:06:00.006-07:00

NOTE: This post also appears here at Time To Keep Score, a blog to which I'm grateful to have been invited to contribute. There's a good group of writers over there. It's a good read and I recommend it highly. Now to the post...

As I'm neck deep in finals and my eyes are growing dark and hollow in a Gollum-like manner as I've confined myself to the indoors to study, this topic is particularly near and dear to my heart. As I interact more and more with attorneys, it's become clearer and clearer that law school serves two essential purposes to the profession it supposedly prepares students for: 1) give law firms some sort of cheap and easy way of rating applicants by looking at alma mater and GPA therein, and 2) big, fat, yet-sometimes-porous barrier to entry (I saw porous because I don't think I've heard any breaking news lately about the dearth of attorneys).

Almost every attorney I speak with either can't remember much of what they learned, and certainly can't remember the last time they used something they learned, yet we all must go through it. I've heard similar complaints of the medical profession and others, though I get the impression that it's a bit different for you MBA students and the like who pursue advanced education while working.

Certainly, 3 years and countless thousands of dollars is something of a barrier, but I think the largest barrier to entry in any profession is our country's overall education system. Add to those three years the 4 (or 5 for those like me who took their time) years of undergraduate study and to those the years of secondary education that did very little to prepare or motivate me towards my career choice, and we have a system that, in the name of general education (read "liberal arts"), does little to help young people funnel their way into fulfilling and meaningful careers and mostly just prolongs that moment, that very real and frightening moment, when you have to decide what you're going to do with your life.

If you're lucky, you get to have that moment. For many young people, that moment passes them by as they end up working ten years at a job they took after high school, "just to make some money before they figured out what else to do," with a very low ceiling and very few options. Can't we figure out a way to move the process along some?

I'll be 30 when I enter, as I said, the lowest rung of my professional ladder. Couldn't I have been working in a law office during high school summers, reviewing documents, learning the basics of Internet research and the nitty gritty of filing court papers? Couldn't I have bypassed all of that liberal arts education during my undergraduate years that was really just there to hold me over until law school?

Just a thought. And really, it has nothing to do with how sick of my finals I am. I promise.

Good Clip Explaining a Mormon's Experience

2008-12-04T11:49:00.002-07:00

Thanks to my friends at timetokeepscore.blogspot.com for bringing this to my attention.

The following video is of a Harvard undergrad from Blackfoot, ID, who was given the opportunity to share her perspectives as a Latter-Day Saint as part of a larger panel discussion series on religion at Harvard.

It's very well done and she's asked some tough questions. She's not speaking officially for the Church in any way, but I feel that she does a very nice job of representing the Church's viewpoints and that her personal take can be useful for anyone who's curious. Enjoy and let me know if you have any questions.

Day of Faith: Personal Quests for a Purpose - 3. Rachel Esplin from Harvard Hillel on Vimeo.

Next Time You Have 7 Digits of Disposable Income...

2008-12-01T15:25:00.004-07:00

You might want to consider this purchase available at www.neimanmarcus.com.

Thanks to Jason Sobel of ESPN.com I now know that next time I have 7 digits to spend on something just for me, to say nothing of a yard big enough in which to build it, I can have Jack Nicklaus personally design a 3-hole practice course in my backyard. After designing it and supervising its construction, the Bear himself will even play a quick round with me.

Some of us can only dream the dream, I guess.

For those of us with a bit less to spend this Christmas, here's a nifty gift coming it at under 30 bucks. Apparently, it's real.

What happens to leftover campaign donations?

2008-11-25T15:16:00.003-07:00

I caught an article today in the Wall Street Journal (always sounds pretentious to start off any form of communication that way, doesn't it?) talking about President-Elect Obama's incoming donations for his inauguration ceremony. I think the whole notion is a bit ridiculous, but I certainly don't mean to single out the incoming administration as all incoming presidents have used their inauguration as a fund raising opportunity.

But anyway, my question is what exactly do they do with leftover campaign donations? Do they manage to spend every single cent of what's donated, planning down to the closing of the polls? Somehow I doubt it, and it's more likely that it's retained by the party or by the campaign, though I did hear that some of Obama's campaign staffers were to receive some somewhat lavish gifts when it was all over.

I guess that's okay, but given how much cash he ended up with and given how much he was able to point to all of the low-dollar donations from "average people," wouldn't it be somewhat patriotic of him and his campaign to hook up some of those folks who donated less than $500 with some of the leftover laptops and other swag from the campaign, to say nothing of at least a partial refund? Just a thought.

Seriously, though, if any of you know the law about surplus campaign funds I'd be curious to know. I've done some research on campaign finance reform but haven't ever seen that come up.

Interesting Situation on Campus

2008-11-18T18:22:00.004-07:00

I know I'm not going to get a lot of pity from folks a bit more to the left, but there's an interesting situation on my campus that I find troubling. Of all the student organizations here at the law school, there are four that I would classify as right-leaning: the College Republicans and the Federalist Society on the political side, and the Christian Lawyers and J. Reuben Clark Law Society (Mormon Lawyers) on the at least facially apolitical or moral side.

The school's student organization governing body technically requires that any student organization have a faculty sponsor. Here's the interesting situation: not a single faculty member is willing to support any of those four organizations. Anecdotally, what few faculty members I know to have a rightward lean are unwilling to publicly present themselves as such for fear of peer ostracizing.

That about blew me away.

To a certain point, I'm willing to just cope with the fact that leftish viewpoints will largely dominate the personal persuasions of faculty members at most universities. It only allows faculty members who make objectivity and political neutrality in the name of open ideas that much more worthy of respect. But as more and more academic institutions and private enterprises make diversity a mission and a cause to be won, I'm not sure that this fits the bill. And when a university's career development center offers internship credit for volunteering as a pollwatcher for a specific party (I'll let you all guess which one) with no mention of the other, I'm concerned.

Isn't a university obligated to provide a friendly environment for people of any political persuasion? How far do we need to go to ensure that this happens?

It's OUR Job...

2008-11-14T10:40:00.006-07:00

I came across this bit of numbers from Pew, and thought I'd pass this on. According to a recent study, 57% of Americans either mostly or completely agree that it's the government's job to care for the needy.

I want to clarify one thing. It's NOT the government's job to care for the needy. That implies that it's "someone else's" job. It's all of our jobs to care for the needy. All of us.

This is about as preachy as I'm willing to get, but I despise the notion that conservatives somehow have it in for the poor, the less fortunate, minorities in difficult situations, etc. when that's not usually the case. What is the case is that there is a strong mistrust of the government's ability to create and administer effective programs for the kind of relief that's needed that will most promote permanent extraction from a bad situation.

That being said, we cannot nor should not allow the existence of such problems to provide an excuse for not doing our part, nor should we assume that the government bears that responsibility alone. It's our job.

Thougts on Mormons and Prop 8

2008-11-10T08:15:00.002-07:00

There has been a bit of press lately covering both protests to the passing of California's Prop. 8 and the LDS Church's (Mormons') reaction thereto. I've followed the back and forth from afar as it's been several years since I've lived in California. But, I have sought out and appreciated the opportunity for good dialogue with friends who opposed Proposition 8, while at the same time saddened to hear of my niece's experiences being spat on and cursed at for supporting it.

There's not much that I can offer on the subject that hasn't already been both against (Stay classy, Roseanne) the Mormons' participating in Prop 8 and in defense thereof, but I would like to put out a few thoughts for those who are interested.

First off, although I'm bummed that the Mormons have become almost the sole face of Pro-Prop 8 California when the church itself paid out no institutional money in support of the proposition, when the anti-Prop 8 campaign was in total better-funded than the pro-Prop 8 campaign, when at best I figure there are 200,000* voters in California who are actively-practicing Mormons of voting age, I forced myself not to be surprised by that despite my initial bewilderment once I thought about how involved that extreme minority of voters became.

I can only hope that Mormons in California behaved themselves civilly and with class, if for no other reason than to do as little as possible to justify allegations of bigotry and intolerance that are being cast. I hope that pro-Prop 8 folks did and continue to follow the official direction given by the church with respect to the appropriate mode of support for that proposition.

What I do hope, most of all, is that we Mormons welcome the inevitable protests to Proposition 8 and other similar amendments nationwide as long as they are kept cordial and civil towards religious practice. The Mormon Church said this on the subject:

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

But I hope that we Mormons welcome the opportunity for dialogue and understanding that healthy protest can foster. Being overly defensive or overly zealous typically does little other than reinforce viewpoints either in your favor or against you, and without good dialogue and perspective we will never reach an understanding of how best to handle this issue that has potential to be so terribly divisive. No matter how future elections shape the policies of the varying states or, as I feel is inevitable, the nation, there will be a large body of people who will feel robbed of something special and sacred, and we will be forced to reconcile those feelings to continue to exist as neighbors in a spirit of social compassion and of patriotism. Both parties are under obligation to work together in a way that allows us to agree to disagree in some measure of harmony. Otherwise, we undermine what we view as the righteousness of our own position.

*My estimated number is based on the just under 800,000 Mormons in California. Figure only about half are actively-practicing, half of that half are under 18, and that's where I get to 200,000. It's a dirty method, but I don't know of nor could I find any information as to Mormon voter registry or turnout, though my suspicion is that it's not tremendously different than any other group of potential voters. Also, I know at least anecdotally of several Mormons who did not vote for Proposition 8 and I imagine that they are not terribly unique.

Daylight Savings Time is a Crock

2008-11-07T16:23:00.012-07:00

Once again, Freakonomics is there to tell us how it really is. Thanks to Freakonomics blogger Stephen J. Dubner for finding this article providing good science in support of the notion that Daylight Savings Time is, in fact, a crock and a waste.

It's an interesting premise, but sadly a bit of a boring read unless you're really in to quantitative analysis where the bulk of the writing is just explaining the methodology behind the research; it's important for good science, but painful to read. In a nutshell, these Ph.D. types reminded us all that, contrary to popular belief, Daylight Savings Time isn't about agriculture at all, but it's supposedly about keeping energy costs down by playing with the energy demand.

They did a study of Indiana who until recently left it up to the individual counties to decide whether they would practice DST. What's more, the poor hoosiers have the time zone divide going right down the middle of their state. Anyway, because they recently passed a law that all counties had to practice DST, they have a pretty good natural laboratory to compare average energy consumption.

Our main finding is that—contrary to the policy’s intent—DST results is an overall increase
in residential electricity demand. Estimates of the overall increase in consumption are
approximately 1 percent and highly statistically significant. We also find that the effect is not
constant throughout the DST period: there is some evidence for an increase in electricity demand at the spring transition into DST, but the real increases come in the fall when DST appears to increase consumption between 2 and 4 percent.

On a personal level, I've never liked the time change because I find the abrupt transition to standard time in the fall a bit jarring. It always happens just as the weather's starting to get cooler and the general look of the season a bit more bleak. The sun sits lower in the sky anyway, there are significantly fewer leaves on the trees, it's cold and flu season, etc. My personal favorite is when I arrive at work before the sun's up and don't leave until the sun's down. As a child of summer and something of a sun-worshiper, it's just too much of a change. I'm pretty sure I suffer from seasonal depression anyway and this isn't helping.

But wait: I discovered yet another reason not to love the time change: the Daughter pays more attention to the sun than the clock. So, while "fall back" used to be a refreshing time to get an extra hour of sleep before Sunday's obligations began, this year--the Daughter's first--it became an opportunity to have an extra hour to get ready in the morning as she was up by a little after 6:00 instead of her previous a little after 7:00. Yeesh.

So for those of you who may be struggling to find something to get riled up about now that the elections have come and gone, let's get riled up about this: Down with DST! It has all the components of a great cause: it's easy to put on a bumper sticker, a t-shirt, or a sign to be held up at a rally. You can even apply vague rhetoric to it that sounds profound: "Keep Us Out of the Dark!" "EnLIGHTen America!" What more do you need?

A Day Late and a Dollar Short: Post-Election Thoughts

2008-11-06T17:38:00.005-07:00

Everyone else has already said things that are far more profound than what I can add to the aftermath of a very interesting election, but in the interests of getting my own thoughts in order, I should probably weigh in.

But first, you have to love The Onion for giving us the right kind of insight. I thought this was funny:

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Here are some initial thoughts. Overwhelmingly, I'm glad it's over. I'm sick of having a president who no one respects. Though I can't deny that it's easy to find fault with how he's handled things, I also can't deny that he had the deck stacked against him since 2004. After he defeated Senator Kerry, he implored people on both ends of the spectrum to work with him to keep America moving. I'm fairly certain that he knew that he won by the skin of his teeth even in the midst of a declining approval rating. I'm also fairly certain that he would not have wanted to win if he knew that his victory would only ossify the resolve of the Democrats against him while at the same time set in motion a pattern of steady abandonment by his own party. Before we talk about what a debacle his second term has been, let's look honestly at how much support he's been given.

I'm prepared for the arguments of whether he deserved any support. I'll only say that when a president that we've elected hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment, spending all our time griping about why he's not the best president instead of figuring out how to get things done with him doesn't help and isn't his fault. Thank you, Nancy and Harry. I'll remind everyone that Republicans hated Bill Clinton. Hated him. Up until he perjured himself into lame-duck land and subsequently faced potential impeachment, he wouldn't have been able to get anything done and make himself the savior of the 90s that he's remembered as without bipartisan support. Once he backed off of the dumb ideas of his first two years, he was able to get stuff done.

That being said, as much as I am about 180 degrees off of President-elect Obama's politics, I'm pleased to live in an America that has no qualms about electing an African-American president. I sincerely hope that no nut out there tries anything stupid and that President Obama takes care for his security. It's the small fraction of nut jobs out there that make it scary for all of us.

I think it's appropriate that he is of mixed heritage. It's sort of symbolic of a society with mixed backgrounds, varied values, struggling to find an equilibrium that works for most of us. I like it. I'm interested as to how this will affect the general tone of race relations and discussions thereof. My understanding is that something like 61% of white America voted for Obama and that of the remaining 39%, 38% of them would have been happy to vote for an African-American were he merely a Republican. Obviously, that's a big stride for our country.

Here is my prediction: President Obama will preach patience as he struggles to get every one of his ideas for change. The tail end of his campaign saw a lot of attempts by his people to bring the expectations down a bit in attempt to bring his supporters back down to Earth. Given how emotional support for him has been, I'm not sure what that will mean for how he's viewed. I'm not sure that his grassroots support is ready to acknowledge that some of what he's proposed could take years. We'll just have to see if they're willing to bear with him. No doubt he'll be able to vilify Republicans along the way for hamstringing his efforts, and no doubt the media will be happy to oblige him in that effort.

I'm very curious as to how the transition in Iraq will happen. I suspect that even generals friendly to Obama will suggest that the withdrawl from Iraq proceed about on the course upon which it is currently set--gradual and dependant upon Iraq meeting certain milestones. Taking that into account, how accountable will a President Obama be held for his desire and promise to withdraw troops from Iraq immediately? It's interesting that this particular platform was quiet in the waning months of the campaign.

I'm interested how a President Obama will claim credit for the economy's eventual rebound. Apparently Wall Street has no large degree of confidence in what an Obama presidency will mean as we've seen the worst post-election slide since the 80s during the last two days. I believe the economy will rebound because I believe in the forces that are at play in our system. But I very much doubt that it will have anything to do with the bailout that's already happened (I know I feel bailed out. Don't you?) nor with any other efforts the government will make. Nonetheless, it will happen during Obama's tenure and so he'll gladly take credit for it. I'm very curious as to how that will all pan out.

I'm interested as to what shape the Republican party will take in the next little while. Republican big-wigs are talking about a need to drastically reshape the party's direction, image, and core. I heard some commentary (on ESPN of all places) that I'd tend to agree with: they don't need to reshape anything. They just need to come up with a better face than Senator McCain. I respect Senator McCain and I think he would have made an adequate though largely-unremarkable president, but he's certainly not transcendent. Democrats had similar woes when Senator Kerry lost, and I don't think that they've really reshaped who they are so much as they found a very compelling candidate at a time when the country has been starving for a compelling leader.

This is getting too long, so more will come later. I lost most of you about three paragraphs ago. :)

Print Media Bias, or at Least Endorsement

2008-11-03T09:59:00.005-07:00

I recently posted some opinions and links on media bias in elections. My buddy Mike made a good point in a comment that it's a little vague to make a claim about "media" without defining it a bit better.

Point taken. So, here's a good post on the New York Times blog, "Freakonomics," that at least gives some good numbers on how the print media, if not biased, clearly has a tradition of endorsement.

MAIN STATS

Percentage of Daily Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 67.8%

Percentage of College Newspapers Endorsing Obama: 98.4%

Just a thought. Take what you read with a grain of salt (blogs like mine included). Best of luck getting in and out of a polling place in under 90 minutes tomorrow.

Flu Shots are a Crock

2008-10-30T18:02:00.004-06:00

The Wife and I have had quite a bit of difficulty with the field of pediatric medicine these days. We both have the image of our childhood pediatricians in our head as we are somewhat disappointed in McClinics and how they completely destroy any feeling of relationship and partnership with our baby's physician.

In general, the people we've interacted with at the local pediatrics clinic have been nice in an impersonal kind of way. But the Wife got something of a dirty look from a nurse the other day when she dared question her as to just how useful a flu shot can be when there are thousands and thousands of permutations of flu bug that can infect you.

Now in general we're pro-immunizations for babies. It sucks to watch a small baby get poked with 4+ shots in one sitting, though the nurses we've had administer the Baby her shots have been tremendously talented at making it as quick of an experience as possible with our help. Laying that aside, I'm not sure I'm sold on scientists who've attempted to link autism and learning disabilities to a higher concentration of immunizations at a young age. I'm not convinced that there's a causal link there and I haven't seen any study show more than correlation.

But I have to say, for now I'm convinced that flu shots are a crock. We were waffling about it last month when we gave the Baby a set of boosters and they asked us if we wanted to give her a flu shot, and our doctor pointed out how miserable it would be to have a sick baby. Well, not only did the Baby run a temperature for two or three days as a side effect of the vaccination, but she got sick last weekend. Just as she was getting better from being sick, she was due for her booster and then promptly burned a fever after getting it. I'm so glad we got that one extra vaccination.

Does anyone out there know of any legit studies on this? Any strong feelings one way or another? I'd be interested to hear them.

80s Moment: Footloose

2008-10-25T17:11:00.002-06:00

I've had quite a few politically-oriented rants of late, so here's a blast from the past. I know that we've all had a moment where we were feeling so oppressed, so frustrated by being brought down by the man, that we just had to pull into a warehouse, put a tape into our VW bug with the volume turned way up, and dance until it's all better. For those of you who have yet to experience the joy and the wonder, or if it's just been a while, I give you Kevin Bacon in "Footloose." Enjoy:

Enlightened Thoughts from a Mormon Democrat: Preach On, Brother Card!

2008-10-23T14:43:00.003-06:00

For those of you who are confused at my title, I understand. A Mormon Democrat is seen largely as a contradiction in terms, but there are more than you’d think. I happen not to be one of them, but some of my friends are. There’s even one in the Senate—the always lovable Brother Harry Reid of Nevada.

Orson Scott Card, a Democrat, writer, and Mormon recently wrote a fantastic bit of commentary about the current state of journalism in America and its overwhelmingly “forgiving” attitude of liberal politicians. Here’s the link. I tried for the life of me to excerpt it and I couldn't in good conscience leave anything out, so if you'd like to read it here, here goes:

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

For Those of You Who Doubt the Power of Media on Perception

2008-10-22T17:52:00.005-06:00

Today I came across yet another study quantifying the man-crush the media has on Barack Obama. (Thanks to the L.A. Times for bringing it to my attention. It's an admirable self-indictment as it's as liberal an institution as any of the major cities' newspapers.)

The study was done by the Pew Research Center. They're legit. Rupert Murdoch doesn't own them or anything. The article found that news media coverage of Obama has been about a third positive, a third negative, and a third neutral or mixed. McCain's received coverage that has been about half negative, 20% positive, and the rest neutral or mixed.

The media's crush on Obama is well-documented and has been the substance of some of SNL's best routines of the current campaign. Though I'm typically among the first in line to indict the media generally for having a leftist slant, the article reminds us that McCain's current pattern of coverage is parallel to Gore's in 2000.

It's a good study, and it puts out there an interesting question to which it makes no pretense at having the answer: is the particular media coverage a cause or an effect of public opinion? Theoretically, it could go either way. I'm curious as to your thoughts out there.

I did want to post this, though, because it again could be seen of evidence of the power of the way events are portrayed over our perceptions of it. I've referenced that phenomenon more in relationship to how the recession's been incorrectly labeled in the name of fear, but certainly those who didn't decide months ago whom they would vote for would do well to take a step back from the hype one way or the other and find a means that they're comfortable with to get information on the candidates.

Though I'm more of a party man is cache to admit, I've gotten a lot of information from Project Vote Smart and The League of Women Voters. They do a pretty good job of just providing information, which I like.

P.S. Are you kidding me?

Political Bumper Stickers: Always Make You Think

2008-10-20T18:20:00.000-06:00

It's an election year, folks. That means that in addition to forgetting about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay attention to which small town the candidates decided to pretend to care about today, in addition to highly-scripted-and-negotiated-beforehand-debates-crafted-to-appear spontaneous, in addition to pretending that these folks can actually influence the economy, and in addition to some of the best material those zany folks at SNL can provide, it's bumper sticker time! I'm not the first blogger to weigh in on this wonderful phenomenon, but here's my two cents.

I know what you're going to say. Nuts who are willing to deface the back of a perfectly good car that may have cost as much as $4000 need not wait until election season to do so. Maybe I just notice them a bit more during election season. I think the nuts might take it up a notch for those leap years, and this year is no different.

On the surface, it seems that the nuts are actually trying to persuade their readers to see the folly of their ways. I think that, in honest moments, the nuts will be ready to admit that they're not going to persuade anybody, but rather they're there for a laugh, or at most, to annoy those who disagree with them. Though most of my exposure is to zany left-wing ignorance via bumper sticker, I've seen my share of zany right-wing ignorance as well.

There are a few rules for living in Denver. 1) You're not hard core politically aware unless you drive a Suburu that's at least 7 years old. 2) You're not doing your part to raise awareness unless you tattoo the back of the thing with bumper stickers designed to annoy the Right. If you're using said medium to annoy the Left, you're more likely from the suburbs.

The Wife and I are not yet in compliance with the above regulations as we choose only to use our car to market (with no compensation, of course) body boarding products from Southern California that no one here will recognize or ski resorts we've frequented.

I found an interesting article on some of the results of said annoyance. If you look collectively at the tone of the bumper sticker messages, there's definitely an underlying feeling of bitterness that the opposing viewpoint dare coexist within our great democracy. According to some folks at Colorado State, while aggressive driving is the result of 2/3 of all auto accidents, drivers with politically charged bumper stickers are significantly more likely to be the causers of those accidents. Interesting, huh?

If I may again put on my glasses, bow tie, and leather-elbowed tweed blazer for a minute, I suspect that bumper stickers are the modern incarnation of America's tradition of pamphleting. Before the days of modern media, if you wanted to get your political viewpoint across, you'd make a pamphlet. It was occassionally brilliant political discourse with authors among the best and brightest of our country's Founding. But more often than not, it was a zealot arguing often under the guise of religious moral right (as in good, not right-wing per se) who penned these little gems. They'd be paid for by political parties, political machines, and even churches, and people couldn't get enough of them.

Other modern incarnations of the pamphlet include ever-so-persuasive-for-their-clarity television and radio commercials paid for by political action committees, talk radio, and my all-time favorite: the email forward that you send to people who already agree with you.

On the election generally, I was sick of this election about 10 months ago when I entertained myself on a drive from St. Louis to Denver by following the Iowa caucuses. There was little else I could follow on the way across Kansas. That was January after visiting the In-Laws for the holidays. Keep in mind that our taxes are paying the salaries and benefits for our good friends in our respective capitols to run for reelection this year instead of actually doing their jobs. It's getting to the point where I'd just rather it end.

Good Perspective on the Economy

2008-10-14T14:00:00.004-06:00

The following is an excerpt from a recent article by professor, writer, etc. Gregg Easterbrook. I enjoyed it because it is a cry for perspective on the current financial situation, and I happen to wish that there was more of a cry for perspective from the media. I made the claim recently that this sort of down is just a part of modern economics and got called to the carpet for it by an old friend. Here's some additional reasoning for my position:

Gasoline Plentiful, Perspective Scarce: "Financial chaos is sweeping the world," a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn't notice any chaos in my part of the world -- every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let's stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.

What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the "end of Wall Street." The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences -- no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon's excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, "An Empire of Wealth.") Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis -- yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. Here, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don't work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn't. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there's a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything's a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people's eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans "lost" $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities "lost" $8 trillion in value. "Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth" read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven't "lost" anything. Nor have most investors "lost" money, let alone $8.4 trillion -- crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics. People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don't panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week's media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)'s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling -- the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We've also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, "Never confuse the stock market with the economy." Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) -- to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It's embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Richard Drew

"It's a crisis! A calamity! The end of civilization! Say, is the limo with my champagne here yet?"

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don't panic, just hold your stocks. And if you'd invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That's after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn't a great investment -- until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone's dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved -- the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes -- $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways -- the more the economy will soften over the long term. It's long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. TMQ's former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on "Newshour" last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist -- for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we're lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn't have that ability.

Senator ___________ for President?

2008-10-13T08:43:00.001-06:00

In part of my ongoing "political science moments" series, I caught an interesting article on Drudge that made me think of something interesting about this campaign. First off, look at the last 52 years of presidential face-offs, and see what pattern there is:

2004 - Pres. Bush def. Sen. Kerry
2000 - Gov. Bush def. V.P./Sen. Gore
1996 - Pres. Clinton def. Sen. Dole
1992 - Gov. Clinton def. Pres. Bush
1988 - V.P. Bush def. Gov. Dukakis
1984 - Pres. Reagan def. Sen. Mondale
1980 - Gov. Reagan def. Pres. Carter
1976 - Gov. Carter def. Pres. Ford*
1972 - Pres. Nixon def. Sen. McGovern
1968 - Former V.P. Nixon def. Standing V.P. Humphrey**
1964 - Pres. Johnson*** def. Sen. Goldwater
1960 - Sen. Kennedy def. V.P./Gov. Nixon
1958 - Pres. Eisenhower v. Gov. Stevenson

Of the 13 elections mentioned, the last time a non-executive defeated an executive (President, V.P., or Governor) was when, thanks in no small part to Nixon's cold versus Kennedy's dynamic personality (and willingness to wear makeup) on the first televised presidential debate, Senator John F. Kennedy defeated former Governor-then-Vice-President Richard Nixon.

In 6 elections where an executive went up against a Senator, 5 were won by the executive. The numbers jump to 8 and 7 respectively when you take into account that Vice President Humphrey only served a short time and was previously a Senator and that President Ford was never elected to an executive office and only served a short time as president.

You have to go back to 1928 when former Cabinet member Herbert Hoover defeated former Governor of New York Alfred Smith to find another instance of a non-executive (though telling that he'd served in the executive branch for some time) defeating an executive. Before that, candidates' backgrounds were a bit more diverse and it becomes more difficult to discern patterns.

The theory is that Senators aren't as well-equipped to run a good campaign as are executives, that they're not as experienced at running the size of staff required to organize on a national level, that they're more likely to be career politicians than to bring other experience to the table, and that they've not had to cater to independents like executives have had to. JFK's success doesn't even necessarily refute the theory since you could argue that he was uniquely equipped to overcome these challenges as he came from a political machine family. And he was just a good guy--a social liberal but a Cold War Hawk. All things being equal, it's a pretty good predictor of who will win any given election.

So, if you're a poli sci geek like yours truly, you should be fascinated by this election for the simple reason that it's so rare for two Senators to face off. Even though Sen. McCain has no executive experience, he's no stranger to presidential elections, so maybe that will be to his benefit.

The above-mentioned article refers to something of a behind-the-scenes evidence of experience v. lack thereof. It's a reporter's description of the Obama campaign compared to the McCain campaign. Apparently, Obama's campaign staff is having a bit less success at staying on top of the logistics of a complex national campaign than is McCain's. If conditions are how the reporter describes, it's interesting that the press seems to have as much of a crush on Obama as it has.

I'm eager to see how it all turns out.

*President Ford was a Representative before being appointed as V.P. to replace Sprio Agnew after his resignation. He then succeeded Pres. Nixon after Watergate, never having been elected to either position.
**Vice President Hubert Humphrey was originally a Senator before succeeding Lyndon Johnson as V.P. after President Kennedy was assassinated.
***President Johnson was a Congressman before serving as President Kennedy's V.P. and succeeding him as president.

A Couple of Good Reads for Dads

2008-10-10T16:59:00.000-06:00

Both to a credit and to a fault, we have no shortage of reading and discussion material on raising a family. It's funny. I'm fairly certain that the Mom and the Dad essentially brainwashed me into being a pretty decent kid. I can only remember one instance of being grounded in the conventional sense, I have no memory of being yelled at, I can think of no instance of being physically disciplined (though the Mom tells a story of me taking a Marks-A-Lot to her freshly-applied wallpaper and giving me a swat), nor can I think of any instance where my parents were in disagreement. And I paid attention.

And yet, I rarely got into significant trouble, didn't use drugs or anything like it as a teenager, got good grades, kept busy, and got into college. When I talk with the Mom about how it is that she and the Dad pulled this off, she typically shrugs and says things like, "Your dad and I always were just on the same page." In short, she gives me little to work with.

At a time when the traditional family faces many challenges to the point that the "traditional family" is almost quixotic (though worth aspiring to), as a society we also have never had more access to opinions and ideas by experts or otherwise. Searching for "parenting" books at Amazon.com yields 97,607 results.

I've been frustrated by two things: 1) they're all ridiculously contradictory to the point of being little more than hotbeds of parental insecurity and fodder for arguments with other parents, and 2) they're often marketed more for mothers than fathers.

As to the first problem, that just comes with the territory. With my limited experience I've come to the conclusion that you just have to take what you can from what you read or hear and mix it in to whatever recipe you're comfortable with. There's a certain amount of trial and error for which I'm sure we'll have to beg forgiveness someday of our firstborns.

As to the second problem, I've made it my crusade to find good books on fathering. If anyone out there has a recommendation, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, here are mine, each with an accompanying short description and review:

Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know, by Meg Meeker

I just finished this one and really liked it. Dr. Meeker is a practicing pediatrician and pediatric therapist specializing in working with young women. As such, she has some anecdotes that are enough to make this big lug a bit dusty. It's pretty empowering and is adamant that, if done well, a father can make a huge difference in a young woman's development. As a man who's terrified of the number he'll do on his daughter, it was reassuring. It is, however, not for the uber-liberal who doesn't believe that things like rules or guidelines are good for children.

Mack Daddy: Mastering Fatherhood Without Losing Your Style, Your Cool, or Your Mind, by Larry Bleidner

This was written by just an average schlub. After rolling my eyes at the title, I picked it up before the Daughter was born out of frustration at being able to find much else on the subject and was pleasantly surprised by it. It's tone is very conversational, even occasionally (though rarely) a bit crass. (When crass, it's almost like when/if a college professor drops a cuss word--you can tell they're doing it for cred but it's totally unnecessary and even a bit awkward.) It has no analysis or anything, but very much de-mystifies having a baby and does it with good humor that, for me, helped the whole thing sound very doable.

Be Prepared: A Practical Handbook for New Dads, by Gary Greenberg and Jeannie Hayden

This is the Boy Scout Handbook of new dad books. It's illustrated, it's very how-to, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's helpful. Best bit of information I got out of that thing was how to swaddle a baby, though it wasn't long before the Wife figured out how to do it better. There's a pattern forming there....

My Belated Two Cents on the Financial Crisis

2008-10-09T11:12:00.002-06:00

I thought this was funny and worth sharing. Thanks to my buddy from the Mo-Row and neighbor Dave for passing it along.

Oddly enough, I don't have a ton to say about the crisis, so sorry if this is anti-climactic. Though who'm I kidding? It's not like anyone out there was particularly dying to hear my opinion. Besides, my buddy Bitner and his new clan of commentators have had ample to say about the crisis that trumps anything I could add.

I will say this. I'm concerned that the bailout is now being called bigger than the New Deal, when I'm at least mostly convinced that the New Deal had little to do with bringing us out of the Great Depression; World War II did that.

Naively or not, I tend to believe that these things happen and they happen every 10-15 years or so, regardless of what the politicians do. I don't believe that tax policy can affect much more than the margins of the economy. We get a bit of a confusing message, though, because when the economy goes well, whoever initiated the last big tax policy/spending plan claims victory. When it goes south, whoever opposed the plan pulls an "I told you so."

That being said, the best thing we can all do is hang in there. Resist the temptation to look at your portfolio every day to watch it wither and die, and if you've smartly saved a few extra bucks and manage a budget, if anything dump a bit more into it now. It'll bounce back. It always does. Investing in something now will make you part of the solution and you'll become a beneficiary of the relatively low prices out there now.

Idiomatic Pet Peeve

2008-09-30T14:32:00.005-06:00

I have a pet peeve. Well, it's more likely that I have many. But I have one in particular that's on my brain right now. Choose which is correct:

"I could care less."

OR

"I couldn't care less."

Though I can't remember the last time I've heard someone say the latter, it happens to be the correct usage. Let's break this down: If you say that you could care less, you are saying that you care. In other words, you are saying that you could care quite a bit less than you care right now. That's not what people mean when they say that. What they mean to say is, "I care so little that I could NOT care any less than I do right now. In other words, I couldn't care less."

If anyone doubts, I did look it up here. Thanks for listening. Yes, I know I'm anal-retentive when it comes to these things, but that's okay.

Used Car Ads and One Guy I Want to Punch in the Hereafter

2008-09-23T16:31:00.008-06:00

So, I think that it's safe to say that there are a handful of people whom we're all eager to punch in the face when we all meet up in the hereafter. High on my list is whoever the guy is who first decided that all used car ads have to be obnoxious, belie all intelligence, and slightly resemble South American TV all around. This is the guy who decided that balloons, cameras with no filters, random farm animals, cowboy hats, cheesy graphics, clowns, and the sacrilegious butchering/parodying of beloved oldies and classic rock was the appropriate way to generate interest in checking out a used car lot this weekend? It genuinely raises my blood pressure.

I give you a man who made such ads great, Southern California's Cal Worthington:

What blows my mind is the stark contrast between used car advertising and new car advertising. As an example...

New car ads are, with few exceptions, clever, well-produced, often exciting, and at worst just not any more annoying than any other commercial. Smart dealerships just buy the rights to tack their dealer's name and location on a screen at the end of the manufacturer's commercial.

TV watchers of the world, unite! Change the channel and let's hope that the collective antipathy will change this horrific trend for future generations. But who am I kidding? As long as there are morons in the world, there will be plenty of marketing folk to pander to them and sell them stuff.

Of Strange Brew and the Two Party System

2008-09-22T18:34:00.011-06:00

I got some good response from my last post sort of defending party politics. I'd like to respond to a response to a response. :) If you have no interest in intellectualizing over party politics, this may not be the post for you. You've been warned.

(Original post and comments here)

By his comments and general tone, my buddy Mike seems concerned about the adversarial nature of the two-party system. I agree that's always a concern. I took a good class in my undergrad called "Principles of the Founding." The class's objective was to understand the cultural roots of American government by understanding common threads and priorities basically from the Pilgrims through the modern era. The ironic thing was that it was taught by a Canadian-born, naturalized American. I can't tell you how odd it was to hear about theories as to the core of American culture as told by a guy who sounded, essentially, like a hockey nut in a bar at best and Bob or Doug McKenzie from Strange Brew at worst. (Sans the beer, of course. It was BYU, after all.)

My buddy moved from a more bold suggestion that we move to a multi-party format in order to foment a more conversational, collaborative tone, to merely pleading for that attitude generally. I would submit that the latter is more crucial, but at the same time, more difficult, given our political/cultural heritage.

One thing that I'd never realized until I took this class was how completely the rhetoric of right v. wrong, black v. white, us v. them is embedded into our culture. We looked at some sources that gave us a more realistic vision of the pilgrims, for example, who didn't truly come to America seeking a land of tolerance. Rather they came looking for a land of opportunity for them to put forth their vision of an ideal society. They became annoying in Britain for their desire to convert the British into a more ideal society and got kicked out for it. Hence, in America, you have wonderful conventions such as the stocks, scarlet letters, and witch hunts.

When we Americans make up our mind that we're right, we don't typically look for compromise, for better or for worse. We've always had an interesting religio-political scene wherein the sermons of the pulpit intertwine so curiously with the speeches from the polls. The rhetoric of the French and Indian War, of the War of Independence, and of the Civil War was preached in chapels as much as it was in town halls, and with the arguments of fire and brimstone. The great whore of Babylon and the Apocalypse was used in reference to the French, the British, and the Union/Confederacy in succession.

Looking at some other sources, it becomes clear that one of the reasons why we won our independence was because Britain was so fully unprepared for the depth of our resolve. They couldn't figure out why we were so upset and weren't a bit more willing to come to the table and ride it out. (In an interesting contrast, Professor Canada's short version of the story of Canadian independence was that a bunch of guys got together in a tavern late at night, had a few beers, signed some papers, and boom! There's Canada.)

Now we live in a world where religion is a bit more removed from the political scene, though not as much as we'd think. (Think Jeremiah Wright, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.) But even those issues which we don't argue from the pulpit, especially as we become more secularized as a society, we argue with the zeal of religion. We argue with them as though people are evil for thinking differently. It's just how we're wired.

I said it before, we need to remember that we're arguing about things at the margins. In large part, we've settled most of the main issues that other countries struggle with: What are we going to be about? What is to be our identity? What are our values? We argue more about the expressions of those values than on those values alone, except we never learned how to NOT argue in terms other than us v. them, right v. wrong, etc. So it seems like we're arguing about issues that are the end of the world. I'm not going to belittle how important subjects like abortion, gay marriage, or the second amendment are to people. They're important to me.

What I will point out, again, to keep things in perspective and to, hopefully, encourage a more conversational, collaborative atmosphere, is that we realize that although we argue about these things as though they're life and death sometimes, we're arguing about them from within the context of issues that have been settled. We're arguing about them all in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, issues which we've already decided. Maybe that'll be the sign of our nation's maturity when we can accept that common expression of the American Dream and recognize that we're often talking about what's best for the country, which is different than what's right for it.

The Election and Independents

2008-09-18T11:05:00.003-06:00

Defending the Party System

I haven’t taken the opportunity to rant about the elections or the candidates, and although we’re still about six weeks out (I’m pretty sure this election has been going on for at least 5 years), My buddy Bitner’s recent election post and some good commentary I heard on the radio got me thinking.

I’ve got a good friend who fancies himself something of an independent. He maintains that he thinks it’s more important to vote for the person he thinks is best qualified for the job, regardless of party lines. This is a pretty common mentality and is all well and good for some people, and I’m sure that there are a good many who are sincere.

But I personally think that a lot of people like to claim that level of independence for two reasons: 1) They’re really conservatives but it seems like everyone around them is a liberal; claiming to be a liberal would make them throw up in their mouths, but they don’t want to be written off as ignorant (common liberal-to-conservative attack) or otherwise stigmatized by their liberal friends. 2) On some level they’ve convinced themselves that the party system is evil. These are the folks who don’t like being pigeonholed or made to feel like they’re being pigeonholed. In the end, if they even decide to vote, they’ll probably do so with one party or the other the vast majority of the time. They just won’t register with the party and thereby avoid the accompanying phone calls and letters soliciting donations. Good for them.

The bottom line is this, and allow me to dust off my political science degree to explain: the party system isn’t as big of an evil as it’s sometimes hip to act like it is. Specifics of the way our legislative and executive election process are designed contribute to a two-party only system. As such, each party represents a myriad of interests, none of which apply to every member thereof. Although this can provide some frustration as no one elected official seems to harmonize exactly with your interests at any one time, I suggest that it should be embraced for the convenience that it is.

For example, the relative strengths and weaknesses of Obama’s or McCain’s character is fun to talk about and can do a lot to inspire or deflate the enthusiasm of lukewarm voters. But it’s largely irrelevant to the policies they will be able to enact, for two reasons: 1) Who runs Congress is a vastly underrated question when it comes to domestic policy. Ask Slick Willy how easy it was for him to get things done under Newt’s regime. And 2) Once Mr. Personality motivates the right amount of voters to get him or her elected, Mr. Personality becomes, quite simply, Mr. President and, with few exceptions, acts like most other presidents of their party would under the same set of circumstances.

So don’t hate on parties. I’ve had a couple of buddies and family members say that this election boils down to which candidate will do the least amount of damage for the next 4 years. Cynical, yes, but that’s probably a pretty good summation. In the end, I think you’ll answer that question by picking the one who belongs to the party that, generally, has a coalition of values, special interests, and platforms that most align themselves with your viewpoint. Isn’t that about the best you can ask for in a president?

Miscellaneous Golf Thoughts and the Ryder Cup

2008-09-17T11:29:00.007-06:00

I was chatting with my buddy Bitner earlier this morning and we were getting to talking about the Ryder Cup before we were both rudely interrupted with actual responsibilities to attend to, it being the middle of a work day and all. I hadn't hit on golf yet, so I thought I'd take a moment to give my thoughts on the Ryder Cup and on golf generally. For some good preview reads on the tournament, check out ESPN Rick Reilly's article (here) and Jeff Bradley's comparison of the two teams' approaches to the tourney (here).

Patriotic-type events are always fun. It's probably the biggest reason we like the Olympics, even when we have no interest in gymnastics any other time of year. (Thank goodness for reality TV's ability to provide subjectively-judged inane competitions--otherwise what would we do?) American athletes generally with American golfers as no exception typically are among the top in the world. Nonetheless, in the Ryder Cup, the American team is winless since 1999 in this biennial event against the European team. (As a note, if you believe in karma, the 1999 American team provided a pretty poor display of sportsmanship after that victory.)

U.S. Ryder Cup Team courtesy ESPN.com

The big story is that Tiger's not going to be participating, though his record in the Ryder Cup is surprisingly dismal. It's definitely not what you'd think from THE Tiger Woods. So, with the American team as quite an underdog, the consensus is that even if Tiger were there, the European team trumps the Americans in chemistry year after year after year, and that translates to a far superior performance in this team-oriented tournament.

Bradley's article spends a good time dealing with that, and he points out that while the Europeans grow up playing team-oriented golf, the Americans grow up as favored sons trained in a more individual mindset. On the Euro tour, it's apparently not uncommon for all the players to end up at the same hotels, eating at the same restaurants, and drinking at the same bars, it's more common on the American tour for players to charter private jets and travel with their own family entourage of family, nannies, etc. and stay at any number of hotels.

I think that's just sad.

Not that I'm expressing any pity for the uber-wealthy PGA tour golfers, but I think it's a shame that the professional golf experience is so disconnected from the average-joe golf experience. I think that in pickup basketball or beer league softball, there is some relationship between what the professionals enjoy about their sport and the amateurs enjoy about their sport, regardless of the disparity in talent and compensation.

Now, one of the things I enjoy most about golf is that it's the ultimate competition of self against self. Few of us are good enough to provide real competition against each other, and while golf is easily the greatest sport around for reconciling divergent skill levels to provide genuine competition via the handicap system, most of us concede that the occasional friendly bet is about all the competition we really can handle. For the most part, you play against yourself. You play against your last round or your best round, or even your last best shot.

That being said, the reason that most of us stick with golf despite how poorly we play is the camaraderie. Most of our rounds look a lot more like this...

3 European Team Players courtesy ESPN.com

...than like this:

2 American Team players courtesy ESPN.com

In the end, the poor American team performance is embarrassingly bad any way you look at it. It'd be bad enough if they just lost. It's worse that they lose and have that loss explained by a selfish, spoiled, "I'll-find-a-way-to-put-an-I-in-team" mentality that reflects the worst of American stereotypes. Some American players lately have even complained that, since it's not a paid event, they feel like "slaves" for a week. Never mind that they're wined and dined for the whole week, get the opportunity to be ambassadors for and representatives of our country, and play some of the most competitive golf available. That sure sounds like slavery!

I hope that this year's different. There are some good young players on the American team this go-around. The tournament's at a great course, the weather's supposed to be good, and the whole setup should favor the American strength of driving distance and putting. Best of luck, boys! Try not to embarrass us too badly.

Barack and his Teleprompter

2008-09-16T19:01:00.003-06:00

Whatever your political persuasion or feelings about Senator Obama, you've got to find this short article funny:

CNN Political Tracker: Obama's teleprompter hits the campaign trail

It says:

(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama's teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.

The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn't use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

Just had to laugh and thought I'd share.

Saddening News

2008-09-12T14:13:00.008-06:00

I came across this article (AP article printed in Utah's Deseret News) that made me kind of sad, and opened the door for a bit of reflection:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700257923,00.html

It's a short story, but to save the click the upshot is that the front doors of the Mormon temple in Minnesota were burned by an arsonist. Fortunately, the building itself was not seriously damaged, but the sacred nature of the building makes it horrifying to imagine what would have happened had it burned down.

(photo from http://www.lds.org/temples/main/photo/0,11505,2020-1-105-0,00.html)

It made me think of a sad memory. For those of you who aren't Mormon, during high school I attended class every school day from 6:00-6:45 at my church. It's a program called Seminary where we spend one year each on the books of scripture the Mormon church considers canon (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants). Outside of Utah and Idaho, it's held at the church building in one of the classrooms, and we usually would roll out of bed, throw on something presentable, cover our bedhead with some form of hat, maybe brush our teeth, and attend this class where dedicated teachers tried desperately (with more success than they probably appreciated) to teach us the gospel of Christ and the scriptures. On Fridays we'd have donuts or something similar. Good times.

One morning, we arrived to find our little classroom in shambles. The carpet was incinerated, there was smoke and soot stains on all of the walls, the room's lone window was broken, and in almost the direct center of the room was a small crater with the telltale broken glass of a liquor bottle around it that had been converted into a Molotov cocktail.

It was obviously quite a solemn experience to see the room in such a state. As I look back on it in light of the news in Minnesota, a few things strike me. I'm fairly certain that although the requisite Police report was filed in conjunction with the insurance claim, there was no report to any media. I don't imagine that it got much attention publicly, and the very private way in which we merely took our books from the closet of the damaged room into another room in the building without even an afterthought is apropos of how the Church handles theses situations generally--understated, low-key, very little response at all. I'm actually curious as to how the AP even caught wind of the story of the temple in Minnesota.

Part of what disturbed me a bit, and you'll forgive yet another rant, is that although the fire was characterized as arson, the police don't suspect that it was a hate crime. I wonder what it was characterized as, then. I hope I'm not being over-sensitive, but I can't help but think that the reason it's not being called a hate crime is because it is perfectly acceptable to treat the Mormon faith publicly in a way that it would completely unacceptable to treat most other religions.

The mainstream media commonly misrepresents the Mormon faith, commonly taking as authoritative the opinions and declarations of non-members, former members, or pure rumor as representative of the Church. If the media were to approach any other cultural, social, or ethnic group similarly I'm sure there would be at least some feedback if not outrage.

On some level, I appreciate that the Church takes the posture that it does. I'm not sure I want my Church to have a special interest group or a lobbying firm or a foundation dedicated to making a stink every time there is a misunderstanding or an error based on stereotype or what have you. But at the same time, you have to admit that there's a bit of injustice in that.

When it's all said and done, I don't think we quirky Mormons have that much to complain about. The Mormon faith has probably never been seen in a better light than it is right now. Mormons typically do well in business, don't face barriers to entry in the work force, have a good support system in place, and by no means suffer a lot of the indignities and prejudice that other cultural, social, or ethnic minorities face. We do face a lot of bigotry from within mainstream Christianity, but apart from being blown off or having our faith discounted out of hand by those whom we can easily write off as those who "know not what they do," we have it pretty lucky.

But still, it hurts to have one of your most sacred structures, a symbol of your faith and worship of God, be desecrated. I don't care what the police don't investigate. That temple is located in the middle of a middle class residential neighborhood. Whoever tried to set it on fire did it knowing what the structure stands for and for whom. And that's just sad.

More On My Fried Hard Drive

2008-09-10T19:58:00.004-06:00

This is a follow-up to my receiving the wrath of the computer gods (http://cdubgee.blogspot.com/2008/08/punished-by-computer-gods.html).

I got a second opinion, and it's not looking good. My hard drive needs major surgery and it's not covered by my insurance. I was hoping that my second opinion would be sort of like going to a surgeon in India who used to practice in the U.S. but got his license revoked for some kind of nasty malpractice (drunk in surgery, something like that--sort of like the drunken has-been surgeon who initially helped Jason Bourne in the novel) but has great hands while sober so could fix my computer for cents on the dollar.

No such luck. Drive Savers gave me a quote that could range from $500 to $1500 for data recovery (real surgeons), and Best Buy's Geek Squad (drunk surgeon in India) gave me the same quote. The drive has a heartbeat, but it's slipped into a coma. I suppose that the bright side is that what data there still is won't deteriorate or anything over time, so as soon as I can drop a grand to recover my journals, past school work, etc., I should be able to get it.

Can I just gripe a bit about Apple's customer service? I can remember when Anna's 1st generation iPod was giving us fits after a year and a half of use. Apple was already well into the 3rd generation iPod, so when we called to get some help, their advice was that we buy a new iPod because ours was really old. I think the little customer service rep even said that there wasn't anyone around who'd worked there long enough to have ever worked on 1st generation iPods. Ouch.

With my recent hard drive mess, I wrote a letter to Apple expressing my discontent. I made no demands (I'm not naive enough to think I'd get anything out of it), conceded that I shot myself in the foot by not backing up my data, and merely wanted to tell them that I was disappointed in their product. They got back to me quickly, but their form letter basically said, "Don't blame me if you didn't back up your data! S&$! happens and you should know that!" It's amazing how far customer service can get with a mere apology, and it's amazing how rarely they give one.

Sports Weekend Wrap and Other Thoughts

2008-09-08T18:54:00.003-06:00

May I just say that it's a welcome thing to say hello to the football season? ESPN's Mike Greenburg made the comment that he's pretty certain football season exists when it does to ease the grief of a departing summer. This California boy is struggling to adapt even after 10 years of having actual seasons, and fall appears to have made an early arrival in Colorado. Certainly, I can agree with Greenie's point as I couldn't be happier for football season.

BYU's Cougars overcame an obstacle by logging their first big-game road win in a long time, but it ended with something of an anticlimax. Even after out-performing the Huskies in basically every relevant category, UW's guts and grit (hello, sports cliches!) gave BYU everything it could handle. UW's Jake Locker ended up driving the length of the field to score the potentially game-tying touchdown, and was so happy to do so that he got up from scoring and threw the ball high in the air as he sought out his teammates to celebrate. This was good enough to earn him a 15 yard penalty for unsportsmanlike celebration, which contributed to BYU's defense blocking the PAT and winning the game.

Did BYU deserve to win? Probably. Did the referees call the penalty according to the rules? Yes. The rules explicitly prohibit throwing the ball in the air the way Locker did and the zebras called it accordingly. Should the game have ended that way? Probably not. Look, as a BYU fan, I'm happy enough for the win, but I hate to see it tainted like that. It's sad that the rule exists in such a way as to rob the referees from being able to make a judgment call. Some rules unfairly force the referees to make such a judgment, but in this instance I wish they'd had more discretion. The kid was so stoked to have made a tremendous play. He didn't taunt. He wasn't staring down BYU's defense. He celebrated with his teammates. He seems like a class act. He's a team leader and his actions led to his team losing.

I'll grant that there was still one more play and his PAT unit let them down equally. I'll also point out that I dislike blaming officiating for anything. My limited high school football experience provided coaching that taught us that officiating is part of the game, and if you lose because of a close call you shouldn't have put yourself in a position that one call could make a difference, so suck it up. When it's all said and done, go Cougs, but sorry it had to end that way.

In other football news, I'm having a sports ethical quandary. I'm finding myself smugly satisfied that Tom Brady's out for the season with a knee injury. I recognize how truly evil that is of me. So evil that it must be pronounced "ee-ville; like the froo-its of the de-ville." I just can't help it. I've always hated Tom Brady. I was a Bledsoe supporter. I thought it was royally unfair that Bledsoe lost his job to injury just as he finally had the talent around him to hide his flaws. I hate the Patriots. They are the Yankees. They are a class unto themselves. They contribute to everything I've always hated about Boston sports. I'm using the word hate. And I admit that it's fully rooted in the jealousy that every man feels for good-looking pro athletes. He's too much of a pretty boy and gets too much hype for me to be my hero. Sports heroes need to be chippy, scrappy types, and he's just too good. There. I said it. I'm happy he's hurt. My buddy Bitner says I'm now more evil than anyone who's ever rooted for Barry Bonds, Randy Moss, or TO. That hurts, but I think I can live with it.

To change sports, yes, I shamelessly root for Manny Ramirez now. I hated him when he was part of the rising evil empire that is the Boston Red Sox, I thought it was ridiculous that he shoved a middle-aged traveling secretary to the ground for not being able to respond to an unreasonable request, but now that he's sporting my Dodger blue and going the opposite field against one of the best arms in the National League (not saying much, I know), I'll root for him.

On a note completely unrelated to sports, I'm having the worst time trying to get motivated this semester. During the summer I had the opportunity to work at a great law firm, and now that I've tasted the workplace, school has lost its luster. I just can't get into it. It's shameful how little I feel that my classes are preparing me for legal work when I learn so much more through the work I do at the firm. I'll save my rant for how professional school is just a barrier to entry for another day, but I'm feeling it now. At least there's football to look forward to this weekend.

Prediction for BYU v. UCLA on Saturday: Cougs win 35-26

Google Chrome: Get It

2008-09-03T08:31:00.003-06:00

This is a shameless plug, but I just downloaded the BETA version of Google Chrome, Google's new web browser. I haven't worked out all the quirks yet, and you know what? That's okay. There aren't many. As to its superiority over Internet Explorer and Mozilla, I can only say that it's a lot cleaner-looking, and every web page has downloaded MUCH faster than they have on the other browsers while on the same internet connection. Here's a URL to download the BETA:

http://www.google.com/chrome

You know, a few years ago when Microsoft seemed poised to take over the world, it was a scary thing. These days, now that Google is in the same spot, I feel slightly less afraid. A company that is the poster child for taking care of its employees and making life simpler and easier generally has earned my trust, at least for now. More Google products. Less Microsoft all around.

Can't wait for the Mac version. If Mac and Google want to accelerate their steady takeover of technology, they really ought to join forces. And I say that while still fully angry with Mac right now for the hard drive debacle of a few weeks ago. Yikes.

Rule of Being a Student: After-Class Etiquette

2008-09-02T15:45:00.003-06:00

Can we put out a rule right now that, after class, questions to the professor must be kept to a maximum of 30 seconds? I love when students who don't have a subsequent class monopolize the teacher's times with discussions, anecdotes, pontificating, and general ego-massaging that are the very point of professors holding regular office ours at the expense of the 4 or 5 students who have quick administrative questions that don't merit a whole visit to the professor's office.

I suppose a certain degree of the responsibility lies with the professor to moderate conversations and extend the invitation to come to office hours, but come on, fellow-students! Be aware of those around you and of the schedules they keep.

Random note: were I still at BYU this would merit a "shocked and appalled" letter to the editor of the ever-controversial Daily Universe. I take great pride in the three inane entries to that beloved publication I logged in the course of my career. Keep the dumb rants coming, Cougs!

Goodbye DNC!!

2008-09-01T11:52:00.004-06:00

I have to take a moment to express my happiness that the DNC has left Denver. Leaning the other way politically, it's already tough enough to deal with the litany of bumper stickers spouting left-wing paraphernalia from the back of the many 10+ year-old Suburu Outbacks you'll find here without having to co-exist with a convention celebrating the most extreme version of left-wing politics.

Though I had to put that obligatory dig in, my beef with the DNC probably had as much to do with my dislike for big events that aren't nearly as entertaining as they might be made out to be. For example, while everyone else seemed to enjoy the Winter Olympics' arrival in Utah, I fled the state since half of my apartment complex's available parking was appropriated by the ever-popular women's' ice hockey venue nearby. So, although I seem to be in the minority here, I was more than happy to stay as far away from downtown as possible during last week's festivities.

I find conventions to be a curious thing. Even though the biggest non-story of the primaries almost (but not really) happened with the near roll call vote to appease Hillaryland out there, the conventions never serve the purpose that they traditionally had--to elect the party's candidate. Instead, you get a few days of ego-stroking, glad-handing, and general schmoozing as people who are already way too excited about politics work themselves into a frenzy of extremely way too excitedness. I guess I could see some value in a trickle-down effect of some sort where these extremely way too excited folk get sufficiently pumped up to motivate some of the more apathetic of our populace, but I'm not sure that actually happens.

We'll see how the RNC pans out. I think that if they had any guts they'd bag the whole thing and tell everyone who bought a ticket to Minnesota to head down to New Orleans to start cleaning up. Apart from being a much more noble way of spending time and money, can you argue with the political capital they'd gain from that kind of service-minded, "let's forget all this crap and just get to work" mentality that would show? Nominating a woman was probably about as extreme as the Republicans are willing to get this year, though.

Speaking of which, I have to say that was a gutsy move. I'm impressed. Palin seems like a strong-minded individual and a good check against Obama. I'm not sure what her presence will actually be worth in the long run, but if McCain represents the establishment with his long tenure in the Senate and Obama is running as the fresh-faced voice of change, then Palin's as good a counterpart as any. I'm eager to learn a bit more about her.

WARNING: NERDISH REFERENCE FORTHCOMING

At a glance, Palin slightly resembles Mary McDowell (Dances with Wolves's Stands with a Fist) who plays the inexperienced-cabinet-member-who's-forced-to-assume-the-presidency-after-disaster-strikes in TV's Battlestar Galactica. Scary analogy, there, for those of you who know the show (Good first season that went downhill shortly thereafter, by the way, sort of a-la Friday Night Lights). Let's hope that her career doesn't go the same way, not because she wouldn't do a good enough job, but because that would mean something terrible happened.

Personal Wealth and Spiritual Health

2008-08-25T20:09:00.001-06:00

One of my sisters-in-law recently posed an interesting question that made me think. After considering Christ's rather austere life, one might ask whether a minimalist life in terms of material wants and needs is elemental to one's discipleship. On the other hand, maybe the consequences of living a good life following Christ's teachings will inevitably lead to some form of material gain that can put one in a better position to serve others and follow Christ.

Offhand, I'd say that, as with most lifestyle choices that aren't specifically commanded one way or the other, there are pros and cons. They can bring us closer to God or push us away from him. All of us are born with a conscience that comes from God and/or have the proper gifts of the Holy Spirit to help us discern whether the choices we make regarding our expenditures and material possessions really are drawing us closer to Heavenly Father or leading us away from him.

I recently read a passage near the end of The Book of Mormon with my family. Mormon, a prophet, talks about a couple of concepts about discerning whether things are good or evil that can apply here. On the one hand, he says that a bitter fountain can't bring forth good water and that a good fountain can't bring forth bitter water. This would seem to indicate that there are certain things that are just inherently good or inherently bad.

On the other hand, he talks about a different kind of thing by saying that if the thing persuades us to do good and to follow Christ it is of God. If it persuades us to do evil then it's not of God. That would seem to indicate that it's the effect that things have on us that make the thing good or bad, as opposed to an analysis of the thing's character. I would think that if a thing were inherently evil then we would have been commanded against it for our own protection. The Savior warned us that it is difficult for a rich man to enter into the gates of heaven, but didn't say that it was downright wrong. There is a commandment to seek first the kingdom of God and a warning that one cannot serve God and Mammon, but that's different than a "Thou shalt not..." statement.

All that has been commanded that I know of regarding finances and lifestyle are tithing, generous offerings, wise investments, no misuse of church resources for those investments, savings, and food storage.

Going back to my first thought, there are probably those of us for whom wealth could become a great evil. It could cause us to become prideful, to serve Mammon, to contribute to inequalities that lead to the destruction of the people of God all throughout the The Book of Mormon, to fill our lives with activities that distract us from the most important things, and to distance ourselves from the Spirit. Those same resources could enable us to give generously to others, to serve those who are less fortunate, to serve missions for the Church, to provide assistance and support to our families and children, and in so doing draw us closer to the Spirit.

If we're being honest with ourselves and seeking the Spirit, I think we'll know into what category we fall. I'd be very curious to see what you folks out there think. Let's hear your thoughts.

Punished by the Computer gods

2008-08-22T16:42:00.004-06:00

Most of us, unfortunately, know the feeling. You turn your beloved computer on. Provider of Knowledge. Source of Fun. Means of Communication. Facilitator of Business. Teacher. Mother. Secret Lover. But, most of all, your friend. Your computer.

You turn it on, and something's not right. It's not well. You can tell. Maybe it emits a strange noise. Maybe something clicks. Maybe the smooth hum of the fan is a bit rough. What's wrong? Then, if anything appears at all on the screen, it's something with exclamation points or questions marks. Something artificial (i.e. Windows' "Safe Mode"). That sinking feeling starts to form deep in your gut.

You think that maybe resetting it will help. Does that seem overly simplistic a solution? Perhaps. It's the first thing any good technical support person suggests, after all, and you've been close to this scenario before when you tried to download that piece of demo software. But you and your computer have always been able to pull through. Even that time you had to use your recovery disks and re-load your operating system, you made it. Post-op was a bit rough, but after some hard work in rehab, things were okay. Maybe if we just reset it again, things will be okay?

You can hear your heart beating in your ears as uou try to reset the machine again and again, but each time less and less of the usual startup routine actually happens. The lump in your gut grows in size as you begin to think of all that's on there, wondering if it can be saved. Journal entries, notes and assignments from school, financial records, correspondence, and oh, the music! Such music! Favorites, emails, business information, contacts, passwords!

Like the guy who frantically tries to give the appearance of knowledge by looking under the hood of his car, you realize that you've reached the end of your expertise as with each reset the computer becomes less responsive, and a spark of hope begins to smolder in the deep recesses of your impending depression. Tech support!

You bought a warranty! You bought from a company that allows you to bring your machine in and talk to a live person any time you need it! You don't have to wait on hold and talk to another continent for help! What joy! What hope!

Quickly, you strap your computer to the gurney and speed to the store, sirens blazing. They hook your computer up to an IV, but within seconds, you can see it in the technician's face. Things don't look good. It's not responding to conventional treatment. He calls in a second opinion. The kid with his piercings and tatoos can maybe save you. But no. He shakes his head. There's one more thing they can try, but you can tell it's without enthusiasm or much hope.

Without a word, you can hear the long, drawn-out beep of the computer EKG. They disconnect their diagnostic devices and effectively pull the blanket over your computer's face and shut its eyes.

It's gone. You've lost a friend. You've lost everything that friend represented. And oddly enough, the knowledge that it was your own arrogance and irresponsibility at not backing everything up like you KNEW you should strangly is little consolation.

Be not deceived, my friends. A Mac by any other name is still a computer. It can still break. It can still fry. There need be no explanation. I'd always treated it with the best of care. But the premium I paid to buy a Mac over a PC, to say nothing of the extra money I paid to actually get a decent warranty (Mac's standard warranty isn't all that amazing) now means nothing.

Sure, they replaced the hard drive. But unfortunately, the new hard drive they gave me and installed for me doesn't have my journal on it, doesn't have my notes on it, doesn't have my correspondence on it, and oh, the music!

I'm told that even now there is still hope to recover the data. It's costly. Between that and the cost of a backup drive that I'm sure to buy in the next few weeks, it will cost about the same as the above-mentioned premium did. I'm not so embittered that I can't appreciate the irony. But, if I were, I'm not sure anyone could hold it against me.

In retrospect, I brought this on myself. Not long after school started, a friend of mine's computer crashed. A SONY. A lovely machine. "You should've gone Mac!" I gloated. "Those things don't happen! It's worth the money!" I told him at his time of greatest vulnerability.

For a long time I looked with scorn upon smug Mac users. And then I caved. They're so cool-looking and everyone says they're great. I’d sung the praises of Macs for a year, but no more. I’d committed myself to going PC-free for the rest of my life, but no more. I’d idealistically looked forward to being part of changing a PC-only profession (law) to a more universal one, but no more.

I'm a little wiser now, and a little more cynical. I add my voice to the chorus of those who've lost everything their computer stands for, and will be preaching the gospel of backing up from now on. Don't be a victim.

Just for fun...

2008-08-20T18:53:00.003-06:00

As a baseball fan, sometimes it's a matter of pride to also be a Dodger fan. This piece of nostalgia just about made me throw up in my mouth. But, it was all in good fun. Enjoy!

Media Fascination with New York

2008-08-18T11:24:00.001-06:00

So what is with the pop culture fascination with destroying New York, anyway? New York is easily America's favorite city to see destroyed in disaster movies, and you'd think that in a post-9/11 world this would be particularly distasteful. Yet, the destruction goes on.

New York is destroyed at least in the following: "Independence Day," "Escape from New York," "I Am Legend," "The Day After Tomorrow," "Cloverfield," "Planet of the Apes," "A.I.," "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," "Godzilla" (1998), "King Kong" (any year), "War of the Worlds," (Tom Cruise version and original Orson Welles broadcast).

What's more, New York is among the favorite settings for chick flicks. Granted, one of the top rules of chick flicks is that the heroine must have a dream job working for a) an advertising firm, b) a design firm, or c) in print media of some form, though print media about a) or b) is the ideal chick flick dream job. And since that's the case, New York becomes a logical target. (Think "Hitch," "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days," or "The Devil Wears Prada.")

I find this particularly surprising having grown up in Southern California and been exposed all my life to how important the film industry is there. People forget how many jobs that Hollywood provides and how reliant media outlets there are on celebrity information and news. Could it be, that L.A. may have a bit of envy for New York and a strange fascination with their speedy, in-your-face, stressed out ways that are so at odds with Southern California's mellow roots? I'm not sure.

And I suppose it's not such a bad thing. New York's a fun place to visit, and I suppose it would be a fun place to live for a short time. But still, there are a lot of great cities in the U.S. to say nothing of the world. Plus, I can't imagine how much it costs to film in New York compared to nearly any other city, so if anyone has a take as to why we like to see New York blown up and/or glamorized in the media, I'd love to hear it.

You Know It's Time for the Season to Start When...

2008-08-14T09:00:00.006-06:00

You know it's time for football season to start already when this is the kind of story being reported:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-usc14-2008aug14,0,2415417.story

Headlined, "Trojans have a little problem," here's an excerpt:

Each day, it seems, another player shows up at USC football practice with a pained expression and an uncomfortable gait, feet spread wide, stepping gingerly across the turf.

They are victims of an ailment that has swept through the team during training camp, something that coaches refer to as "a skin irritation."

The players call it "jock itch."While dislocated kneecaps and high ankle sprains draw more attention, Coach Pete Carroll said he has never seen anything like the minor outbreak that caused key players to miss practice Wednesday.

As much as 25% of the team has been affected by the apparent run of tinea cruris, kicker David Buehler estimated. The condition seems to have spread by way of new compression shorts, or tights, worn under their football pants.

Tailback Joe McKnight and receiver Travon Patterson were sufficiently afflicted to spend Wednesday's practice on the sideline.

"It burns," Patterson said.

Yes it does, Travon. Yes, it does.

Now can we get started with the season already!?

Wacky Japanese Innovation

2008-08-12T14:25:00.003-06:00

Well, folks, at long last it's arrived. Guys, put this little gift on your idea list for next Valentine's Day. It's finally here: the solar-powered bra with hydration pouches! No, really.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/boobs-not-bulbs-974.html

With thanks to ESPN's Tuesday Morning Quarterback.

Gas is Cheaper Now Than in the Sixties?

2008-08-12T08:53:00.003-06:00

That's right, gas is actually cheaper now than it was in the sixties. Comparatively speaking. Check out this article from the L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goklany11-2008aug11,0,3798951.story

After you adjust for inflation, when you look at the price of gas relative to the amount of otherwise disposable income you have, the cost of gas actually took more out of your wallet back then than it does now. And let's not forget that we pay significantly more per gallon of bottled water than we do for gasoline. If we pay $1.25 for a 16 oz. bottle of water (which is likely just filtered water like the kind you can get out of the tap), that's roughly $10.25 per gallon that comes in one of the least environmentally-friendly packages you can ask for. Food for thought.

As my family looks at the possibility of getting a second car (something a bit safer for the ill-plowed winter streets of Denver), we're definitely worried about the increased cost of gas. Anyone have any suggestions? In the meantime, we're grateful for our Costco membership and all it lets us save on gas.

Title IX and other issues

2008-08-11T16:18:00.003-06:00

My buddy Bitner posted an intersting food for thought about Title IX's impact on the academic athletic environment. I thought he handled it pretty tastefully. It's hard to be a guy and comment on such issues without coming off as a misogynist, but he handled it well. The upshot of his question was whether the aims of Title IX have been met in a way that does justice to all parties. Here's his post:

http://bitnersthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/08/gender-equality.html

I initially was going to comment, but it mutated into an essay that I put out now for your feedback.

It's always a tough call to determine at what point the cure has become more damaging than the disease. I think you'll find a lot of similar rhetoric with discussions of Affirmative Action generally.

As I read Bitner's thoughts I do sympathize with low-revenue sports who've lost their status with some universities due to Title IX. I can't for the life of me, however, figure out how you'd be able to sustain the needed level of women's athletics to provide the types of opportunities that Title IX shoots for without making cuts somewhere.

An interesting analysis might be whether the proliferation of women's athletics that Title IX enabled has in any way diluted the talent level within women's athletics generally. I'm not even sure how you'd quantify that, but maybe the increased availability of scholarships and the like has in some way had that effect much like expansion has diluted the NBA and MLB.

If that where the case, then maybe there could be justification for scaling back Title IX's administration. In defense of academic athletics generally, the theoretical justification has traditionally been that the development of the human body is an aim of a true university no less than the development of "academic" pursuits. Whenever universities feel that any program is no longer perfoming at a level consistent with their institutional aims, they don't hesitate to scale back funding and resources for those programs or eliminate them entirely, no matter what level of dismay that creates amongst that program's supporters.

You hate to reduce it to a purely economic analysis, and I think most people would argue that certain public policy goals can properly fly in the face of economic reasoning when those aims are important enough for society to pay for. Liberals in particular rely on this rhetoric all the time even while conservatives argue the opposite.

I, too, am curious about what your thoughts and Bitner's readers come up with.

Simpsons in the News

2008-08-11T10:15:00.003-06:00

I found this funny story about Homer's blessed visage finding its way onto a 1 Euro coin in Spain:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL872708020080808

May I just put out there that the Simpsons rule? I really hate to limit my love for the Simpsons to such a blatantly fan-boy reduction, but they really are just wonderful. I've loved the Simpsons since I started to get their jokes around the third or fourth season and have never looked back.

I love the satire, the social commentary, and the stupid body jokes. More than anything, though, you have to respect and admire the fact that as dumb as Homer is and as many mistakes as he makes, every conflict ends with he and Marge talking over their problems together before going to sleep. Without the cheesy piano chords we all remember from Full House, Family Matters, and that whole TGIF genre, Homer and Marge always talk it out and end up more in love for their conflicts. Homer always patches it up with his kids, too. He'll typically visit them in their bedroom and work it out together so the kids can get a good night's sleep.

Now, his advice may not always be good, but it's from the heart. Here are two examples:

When Bart was getting frustrated with his guitar:

Homer: Bart, if something is hard to do, it's not worth doing. Now you just stick your guitar in the closet next to your karate suit and your short wave radio, and let's go watch some TV.

Bart: What's on?

Homer: It doesn't matter.

When Lisa was particularly upset:

Homer: You just take your rage and crumple it up into a bitter little ball to be released at an appropriate moment. Like that time when Daddy hit the referee.

Heard through the grapevine about this fellow-blogger's love for the Simpsons and lessons learned about, of all things, eating healthy. Enjoy!

http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2008/07/cutting-calories-and-saving-doh-25.html

Olympic Thoughts

2008-08-07T10:35:00.004-06:00

My buddy Bitner recently posted a very strong commentary on sports v. athletic events. (Check it out at http://bitnersthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/08/sport-or-athletic-event.html) The short version is that if it's a competition whose winner is determined by judges, it's not a sport. If it's a competition determined by goals scored or the best time, then it's a sport. Pretty good breakdown, though NASCAR and to a lesser extent horse racing will always be up for debate.

To take the conversation on Olympic events in a slightly different direction, I'm pretty sure that I'm the only person in America who can't stand Olympic television coverage. I hate that we're so saturated with coverage of gymnastics in the summer and figure skating in the winter. I'm obviously in the minority since if the ratings weren't there, the networks wouldn't cover them. Then again, I'm not so crazy about reality TV in general and American Idol in particular, so I'm obviously in the minority on a lot of things TV.

For all of the reasons Bitner mentioned about how politically charged, subjective, and just generally unsatisfying the process of winning and losing is in those types of events, I don't enjoy watching them. Now, I'm not saying that we should cut to live coverage of the entire marathon event. But you can't tell me that watching someone hurl themselves over a 20 foot standard using a flimsy fiberglass pole isn't cool to see. Or that there's something oddly fascinating about Olympic-level table tennis. And who ever gets to see fencing?

I mentioned it with the pole vault, but I think that Track and Field generally is sorely underrated viewing. The very motto of the Olympics, "Citius, Altius, Fortius," is arguably best manifested in the Track and Field events and embodies some of the traits that Americans most look to in their heroes, particularly their athletic ones. We're all about "faster, higher, stronger," in America. It's what helped us cover our eyes from the steroid era in sports for so long.

That there is room in the Games for gymnastics, figure skating, diving, or what have you is not what the point I'm trying to make. There is. They are athletes performing at the highest level and why not let them? Besides, what would our lives be like if we hadn't all experienced the gut-busting unintentional comedy of hearing Michael Hamm talk for the first time in the 2004 games and sound exactly like Kerri Strug?

I just can't figure out why we're not equally interested in athletes (pure athletes, mind you, since the traditional name for Track and Field is "Athleticism) competing in other events, especially when those events are so cool.

For drama, you can't beat a 4 x 400m relay. For freakish all-around athleticism you can't beat the decathlon. And for strength, you can't beat the hammer throw (I mean come on, the guy spins around while swinging a 15 lb. bowling ball attached to a steel chain over his head and hucks it as far as he can!). What's more, though, you have the history of the games wrapped up in these events. I for one would like to see more of them, and if that means that I don't get to see quite as many gymnasts or divers, so be it.

IN-N-OUT and Cafe Rio

2008-07-31T09:37:00.006-06:00

Much to the dismay of my digestive system (lots of beans+lots of lettuce=not good times; bad times), while in Utah this weekend I had three helpings of Cafe Rio. It was a staple of my undergrad years at BYU and becomes almost a daily occurence whenver we visit Utah. It's pretty boring of us, but we shamelessly go there as often as possible. It's pretty faux-Mexican (they say "inspired"), which should probably offend me based on the time I spent in Mexico. We forgive them, but The Wife and I are fairly certain that they put an addictive substance in the food there.

Our family's basic menu consists of a salad or a burrito, though they also have tacos and enchiladas which I hear are good. The salads are massive, sitting in a homemade flour tortilla the size of a charger, and have rice, beans, meat, lettuce, tortilla strips, guacamole, salsa, cheese, and cilantro. The burritos are best "enchilada style," where they drown them in sauce and cheese and then bake them for a few moments. They're expanding, thankfully, but have yet to make it to Colorado. In Provo, it's not uncommon for the line to order food to be out the door. As I usually do, I scoffed at something that universally popular, but the workers there soon knew my name and my order.

I lump it in with IN-N-OUT, as I must consume one meal from IN-N-OUT per calendar day I am in California at any given time. Now, if my visit consists of a Sunday (no eating out on Sundays), then that just means that I need to make up for it with a two-fer on another day. Yes, I've done this.

IN-N-OUT is fast food perfection. This will not be argued or contested in any way. Most Californians rave over it and with good reason. Their schtick is that they were the first drive thru burger place out of the era of car hops. They've kept their prices reasonable and comparable to traditional fast food joints while not having a single refrigerator on the premises. They get all of their ingredients freshly delivered each day. So, they slice their own potatoes for fries, slice their own vegetables for the burgers, and everything tastes it.

I'll keep this appropriately modest--it's still just a burger and it's not gourmet by any means, but for something that you buy at a fast food place it tastes like something you'd whip up in your backyard. If you can have that, why would you ever choose a Big Mac or a Whopper? My buddies and I in high school were there at least once a week (Double-Double meal with grilled onions, Dr. Pepper, maybe with a cheeseburger to chase it--after all, we were growing boyos). Good memories.

More than the food, however, I will put in one other plug. They're also a very well-run business. They refuse to grow faster than they can support the infrastructure needed to keep their identity of fresh food and good service. They used to be a Southern California only place, but have since grown up north to Northern California, out to Arizona, Nevada, and most recently to Southern Utah. They're probably following the exodus of middle-class Californians. What I've always liked about them, though, is that they pay their lowest-level employees a comparable wage to competitors' managers. They can be a bit more picky, then, with who they hire. The result is a pretty good experience.

(WARNING: Author about to get on his high horse) Now, we consumers have more power than we think. We all gripe about bad service at places that we continue to patronize. Both of the above-mentioned establishments do a good job of using fresh food and treating their employees pretty well. Both have great service. If we want other things we like to adopt a similar model, all we can do is put the power in our wallets and dictate what we want by what we spend.

What if Soccer ruled?

2008-07-30T15:32:00.008-06:00

In these, the dog days of summer, one cannot help but be sick of Brett Favre stories. As a sports fan, this is easily the worst time of year. Football's still a ways off (though there's that early training camp excitement starting to make my spine tingle), the MLB All-Star break came and went with as little fanfare as usual, the NBA's long gone, and not even the impending Olympics can fully save us. I'm fairly addicted to mainstream sports media, and even the inane chatter that they normally produce to my delight is no relief since most of the best personalities take vacations and give way to the folks who usually are relegated to the coveted "Sundays from midnight to 6:00 a.m." spot. It's terrible.

One random blip of excitement amidst the dreariness came with Euro 2008. Mostly--I think-- because ESPN's parent company now co-owns a soccer team, but this typically obscure-in-America sporting event got some buzz and some pub. I've thought about this before, and it made me wonder what our sports scene would be like if there were no Big 3 sports in America (Football, Baseball, and Basketball)? How would that affect the United States' current laughable status on the international soccer scene?

There are some who'd tell you that we're only a few years away from a real breakthrough in the United States' level of soccer play. There are some who'd tell you that we only need wait for the thousands and thousands of children and teenagers who grew up loving soccer to grow up and take their place among the world's elite. Then, maybe then, the United States will become a contender.

Well, as much as I can appreciate the sheer athleticism and skill of soccer players (especially since I'm no good at it) and can admire their fitness level, I'm just not seeing it. For one thing, Lacrosse is making some real headway into becoming the next "sport that nobody pays attention but would love it if they'd get off of football's high horse and just watch it for a while," and as such is eating a bit into that same niche of young soccer players.

But the main problem is just that there's no room. Unless they could cram a full-blown soccer season into the space between the end of the NBA and the start of the NFL, there's just no room in our attention spans, no market space, and so little incentive for the best athletes in the United States (the ones with the level of talent to go pro and make a TON of money) to play soccer over any of the Big 3 sports.

But what if they did? What if, in an alternate universe, there was no NFL, no MLB, and no NBA? What if we had the opportunity to stick it to the rest of the world who mocks our status on the stage of the world's most popular sport? What would our starting 11 look like if the best athletes of the Big 3 (probably MLB excluded because, as 2-time All Star, career .300 batting average star John Kruk said, "I'm not an athlete. I'm a professional baseball player.") played soccer their whole lives? Let's take a look at that roster (I'll list more than 11, but there's enough depth for several rosters):

Goal keeper: I'm thinking any elite NBA small forward to power forward (or even center) could do nicely. How 'bout Kevin Garnett? 6'-11", insanely long wingspan and great quickness for a dude that big. The rebounding skills and ability to guard small should translate nicely to keeper.

Fullbacks: Quick linebackers, running backs, and maybe small forwards would dominate, or maybe even NFL fullbacks. Think Urlacher, Merriman (Remember those sick contorted-body picks last year? Imagine him getting corner kicks out of the way), maybe Artest, LDT, and Ray Lewis in some combination.

Midfielders: Some mix of NBA point guards and defensive backs would be ideal. Imagine Deron Williams, CP3, Asante Samuel, and Rodney Harrison.

Forwards: NBA two guards and wide receivers for height, speed, and quickness. Think Kobe, Dwayne Wade, Terrel Owens, and Chad Johnson. Average height is about 6' 3" with that.

I look at a breakdown like that, and I think two things. One, it would be fun to think about. But mostly, I just can't wait for football season. Did I just write that much about soccer? Yikes. Thank heaven for football training camp. Came not a moment too soon.

Rules for Riding an Elevator

2008-07-30T15:09:00.004-06:00

Apart from basic rules regarding the expulsion of unpleasant bodily gas in any enclosed space, we all know that riding in an elevator requires that we abide by certain rules. Let's go through the rules, shall we?

Rule 1: No conversing in the elevator when strangers are present.

Rule 1(a): In workplace and hotel elevators, exchanges may be limited to an uncomfortable "Good morning," but no reply is to be expected. No chit chat, please. Certainly, no eye contact (see below).

Rule 1(b): All conversations in progress must be halted immediately upon entering the elevator if other occupants are present. The last sentence may be completed in a hurried, hushed tone, but no response is permitted. No exceptions.

Rule 1(c): Even if you are and your conversation partner are alone in the elevator for a time, the moment a stranger enters the elevator, the last sentence may be completed in a hushed town, but awkward silence must follow.

Rule 1(d): Dirty, or at the very least puzzled, looks may be given to violators of the above rule.

Rule 2: No occupant of the elevator is to make eye contact with any other occupant at any time for any reason.

Rule 3: All occupants must face in the general direction of the front of the elevator at all times.

Rule 4: Absent any reading material, each occupant is to pick a random "spot" (keeping in mind Rule 3) upon which to affix a vacant gaze. Some suggestions include the button of the desired floor, any signage on the elevator, etc.

Rule 4(a): Only one "spot" per occupant, please.

Rule 4(b): The changing of "spots" mid-ride is not recommended. Fellow occupants will become confused.

Rule 4(c): Occupants may not select other occupants as their "spot."

Rule 5: Comments regarding the existence of these rules (i.e. observations such as, "Whoa, everyone got quiet all of a sudden! That was awkward!") may only be made with a good wingman present to provide backup and never in the workplace.

Rule 5(a): Even if the comment leads to a humorous exchange between riders, the conversation must be immediately forgotten, giving way to awkward silence.

Now, if you feel comfortable enough with yourself and want to watch some people squirm without being too obnoxious, next time you get into an elevator stand towards the front but face the rear.

Thinking about elevators, when the DNC circus comes to town I'm fairly certain that nearly every employee where I currently work will be telecommuting solely due to the hardship that will be riding the elevator. Elevators to our offices also service a large reception area at the top of the building which, I'm told, has events planned nearly every hour of every day (no doubt serving eco-friendly, organic, color-coordinated hors d'oeuvres).

Estimated wait time to get on an elevator from the Lobby: 20-40 minutes.

I caved...

2008-07-30T11:46:00.006-06:00

...and here I am. I have a blog. Me. I can think of at least 2 people who are making fun of me for doing this, but they can get over it (Yes, I'm talking about you, Gus and Brad). I talk to them enough that this isn't so much for them anyway. I'm not a Facebook-er, and though I have a MySpace page I rarely use it (got it for my recent 10 year high school reunion).

Last year I probably would have made fun of myself. I don't lose a lot of sleep over it, but I'm not much of a fan of how, with every step, our communication becomes more and more impersonal and detached. As if email, instant messaging, and text messaging aren't enough to keep us from actually talking to each other, now we can blog or update our Facebook page and let people passively keep in touch with us. If they want. Or not. Or whatever.

Yes, I know that is a bit of a Grandpa Simpson point of view, so please don't think I'm that cynical. (NOTE: I even resisted cell phones since I didn't have a "real" job when they became prolific but gave in to their convenience eventually.) For what it's worth, I do think it's nice to have an easy mechanism for keeping in touch with friends. My family's blog is probably the better source for that kind of information. The Wife does a great job of keeping it updated, especially with pictures of The Daughter, who provides us with a pretty steady stream of cute pictures for me to brag about. (Aside: since The Daugher looks quite a bit like me, how egotistical is it for me to think she's cute? Discuss.) Our blog has links to some of our friends' blogs, and with few exceptions they're mostly scrapbook-type pages that do well to keep up to date with each other's lives and kids. Since the scrapbooking gene is apparently activated with the assumption of marriage vows in young women, and since blogging is way easier than actually scrapbooking and allows you to share your stuff pretty easily, more power to all the scrapbook bloggers out there.

I'm thinking that this blog instead will be something of a dorky release for me. I'll probably hit up sports, some politics, religion, office stuff, movies, food, personality quirks, profitless promotion of pop culture that I enjoy, and other such subjects both trivial and less so. To a fault I'll admit, I have an opinion about most anything (though not necessarily an educated one). But, since I don't spend any time in bars and since The Wife has lovingly and patiently endured my diatribes so well, I figure I'll give her a break and subject you all to them. The upshot is that it will end up being a better snapshot of who I am than my journal, and I'll have something of a creative outlet.

Hope you enjoy. Comments and suggestions for posts welcome.

Follow-up: Here's a link to a good article from the L.A. Times about the potential drag on the workday that email can create. I've personally not been busy enough at either of my post-grad jobs that I've experienced any of this, but I had co-workers who dealt with the inability to keep up on a daily basis.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-et-email31-2008jul31,0,3104453.story?page=1