For a good portion of youth, I was a basketball fan. More specifically, I was a diehard Lakers fan. I would watch any Laker game, reveling in blowouts (the better to check out the bench players), and screaming at the television while Chick Hearn, in his rapid-fire style, berated the Lakers players for doing something stupid. I was a member of Lakers' nation.
That changed in a short time span when the team traded Shaq, Kobe had nonconsentual sex with, as it turns out, the sister of some friends of my brothers, and Phil Jackson left. Ever since, I have been an ex-Lakers fan. I still watch NBA games, even Lakers' games, on occasion, but the passion is gone.
With that said, I still follow the NBA, and Bill Simmons is one of my favorite sports writers. Actually, he is my favorite. And Bill Simmons is a NBA fan. He's such a big NBA fan that he wrote a 1200 page book on the NBA, and I read ever word of it. With his help, I feel like I'm slowly being pulled back into the fold as a basketball fan.
So, contrary to the past few years, I've been following the NBA finals much more than ever. It certainly helps to have a team like the Dallas Mavericks pull off one impressive run after another. But more than that, the play of Lebron James has been fascinating to watch.
Lebron James, if you have never seen him, is the single most impressive athlete ever to grace the NBA. He is 6'8" - classic small forward size - 260(ish) lbs, and probably 2% body fat. He is, by most accounts, the fastest player in the NBA, is blessed with lightning quickness, and because of his size, weight and speed, can play any position on the court. Not only is he blessed with tremendous athletic ability, but he has incredible "court vision" - he's able to see, and comprehend where everyone on the basketball court is, and where they will be. As a result, he can pass the ball with amazing skill. He is, as advertised, a basketball player who can score like Jordan, and pass like Magic Johnson. Oh, and he can defend every position on the floor - from a 6'0" point guard to a 7'0" center, and does so with striking aplomb.
No other player in the NBA finals can come close to James' ability. Dwyane Wade, James' teammate, and a great player in his own right, for instance, is a 6'4" guard who plays with absolute abandon and will do whatever it takes to win. But he cannot guard a much taller player, nor can he post up a larger player inside. Dirk Nowitiski, the great Mavericks player, is a freakish 7'0" forward who can shoot with absolutely deadly accuracy doesn't have the quickness to guard players outside. Similarly, all the other players on the court have deficiencies in one area or another. None have the ability of Lebron James.
Yet, with all that talent, Lebron James is fading on the world stage. Last night, he scored 17 points, had 10 assists and 10 rebounds (a triple-double), which was good, but not good enough. In the last quarter, he scored a mere 2 points. The game before, James scored only 8 points. And his numbers for the other three games weren't spectacular either. In the meantime, Nowitiski has been a man possessed, scoring nearly 30 points per game for the series. While some would attribute James' disappearing act on his heart or his manhood, I wonder if it is something else.
Specifically, what if James' athletic ability is hampering him on the world stage. For his entire life, James has played basketball better than everyone else, based purely on his ability. Whatever he wanted to do, he could do, almost as well as anyone else. Almost. And that's the problem - James never specialized, never developed a "move" that he could use when all chips were down, because with the exception of the NBA Finals, he doesn't need a move because his talent is limitless.
That's a problem because our limits lead us down the path of our lives. When I was a child, I wanted to be a physicist like my father, a fighter pilot (I grew up in the shadow of Top Gun - both the movie and the actual place), an astronaut and the President of the United States. As a I grew up, I discovered I didn't especially like math (sorry Mom), and that knocked out physics. My eyesight and reflexes aren't good, and that knocked out being a fighter pilot and an astronaut. So, I followed my talents to where they lead me - into the law.
In the NBA Finals, when the chips are down, and the team needs to score, specialists are needed. That's why the great ones all had moves. Hakeem had his Dream Shake, Jordan started with his drive to the basket, and then moved to the fadeaway, Shaq had his dunk, and Kareem had the absolutely deadly Sky Hook. Because each practiced his moves over and over and over again, when it was time for a score, the ball went to them, and more often than not, they scored. These moves, mind you, weren't developed because these players wanted to have a move, they developed out of their own limitations. Kareem developed the Sky Hook because he was tall and lanky and couldn't score inside. Jordan couldn't take the beating from driving to the basket anymore, so he developed the fadeaway. It was their limitations that created their moves. The fact that James has no limitations, can play any position almost as well as anyone else, means that during crunch time, he can't be counted on. And that's why we see the fade.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Yantram One is a Big Spammer
There are so many things that I generally want to write about, and I enjoy conversations with people via comments. Yesterday, however, I discovered a comment to my post on personal responsibility that was an advertisement plain and simple. So, if you are ever thinking of virtual assistant services, DO NOT use Yantram One, who is nothing but a huge spammer. I hear Yantram One, as part of casual Fridays, has its employees rape and murder puppies.*
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
The (Kinda) Myth of Personal Responsibility
One of the great dilemnas and myths in current American thought is that of personal responsibility. People who have underwater mortgages should have known better, the unemployed should have built up the training and expertise to avoid unemployment, and so on. The latest, and the straw that lead me to write this post was an ESPN story where Maurice Clarett says to blame the players, not Ohio State, for the scandals.
And of course, part of the problem with the personal responsibility argument is that it is somewhat true. Yes, some homeowners purchased homes they knew they couldn't afford. Yes, we all knew that communications (or English, or history, or political science, for that matter) degree wasn't going to lead to a job after college. Dropping out of high school is a bad idea. Selling sports memorabilia to boosters is not the kind of amateurism allowed by the NCAA. All of this is true.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that bigger actors can influence our decision-making. That's because we don't make decisions in a vacuum, but rather, make the best choice possible with the information and wants we have at that very moment. A lot of homeowners, for instance, knew that home values would not continue to rise, but many felt they had no choice - buy now or never get into the market. Little did they know that in 2011, home prices would drop to the 2002 levels. But other people - investment bankers, policy makers, and real estate professionals - knew that this was a possibility, and rather than put the brakes on the real estate market, they made it worse by chopping up the loans, artificially lowering interests rates, and emphasizing home ownership.
The latest with Ohio State and the corruption of the football team, likewise, is utterly predictable. When the actual value of services performed (playing college football) greatly exceeds the price paid for said services (athletic scholarship), someone is going to look for a better deal. And since the price is set artificially low, the better deal will happen on the down low. Yes, the players are responsible, but the conditions set by the NCAA exacerbated the problem.
The other major problem I have with the personal responsibility argument is a total and complete disregard for the repercussions of "bad" behavior. Here's what happened when one man's estranged wife failed to pay her student loans:
Now this is pure insanity. First of all, the woman in question does not live on the property. Second, the failure to pay student loans is a civil issue - the Department of Education (though through a bank) loaned the woman the money, and it can take her to Court to force repayment. Garnishment of wages and other options are perfectly acceptable. But this is not a criminal matter. What if the man in this video, in response to armed men barging in his home, grabbed a firearm (as is his right under the 2nd Amendment). He would have, most likely, been shot, just like happened in Tuscon.
But we ignore all of these things because of the cult of personal responsibility. Until we start looking at the larger picture, we'll continue to go around in circles.
And of course, part of the problem with the personal responsibility argument is that it is somewhat true. Yes, some homeowners purchased homes they knew they couldn't afford. Yes, we all knew that communications (or English, or history, or political science, for that matter) degree wasn't going to lead to a job after college. Dropping out of high school is a bad idea. Selling sports memorabilia to boosters is not the kind of amateurism allowed by the NCAA. All of this is true.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that bigger actors can influence our decision-making. That's because we don't make decisions in a vacuum, but rather, make the best choice possible with the information and wants we have at that very moment. A lot of homeowners, for instance, knew that home values would not continue to rise, but many felt they had no choice - buy now or never get into the market. Little did they know that in 2011, home prices would drop to the 2002 levels. But other people - investment bankers, policy makers, and real estate professionals - knew that this was a possibility, and rather than put the brakes on the real estate market, they made it worse by chopping up the loans, artificially lowering interests rates, and emphasizing home ownership.
The latest with Ohio State and the corruption of the football team, likewise, is utterly predictable. When the actual value of services performed (playing college football) greatly exceeds the price paid for said services (athletic scholarship), someone is going to look for a better deal. And since the price is set artificially low, the better deal will happen on the down low. Yes, the players are responsible, but the conditions set by the NCAA exacerbated the problem.
The other major problem I have with the personal responsibility argument is a total and complete disregard for the repercussions of "bad" behavior. Here's what happened when one man's estranged wife failed to pay her student loans:
Now this is pure insanity. First of all, the woman in question does not live on the property. Second, the failure to pay student loans is a civil issue - the Department of Education (though through a bank) loaned the woman the money, and it can take her to Court to force repayment. Garnishment of wages and other options are perfectly acceptable. But this is not a criminal matter. What if the man in this video, in response to armed men barging in his home, grabbed a firearm (as is his right under the 2nd Amendment). He would have, most likely, been shot, just like happened in Tuscon.
But we ignore all of these things because of the cult of personal responsibility. Until we start looking at the larger picture, we'll continue to go around in circles.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Drinking the Flavor-Aid on Medicare
I have to hand it to the GOP - its control of its members is awe-inspiring. Just an hour ago, 42 Senators voted for the Ryan Budget, which ends Medicare. Oh, and Rand Paul, the newly minted Senator from Kentucky voted against the budget because it wasn't draconian enough. So, 43 of the 47 U.S. Senators from the Republican Party are on record supporting the repeal of Medicare.
That's insane. Just yesterday, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, became a new Congresswoman in a Republican District based on the Medicare issue. Oh, and the margin wasn't even close. Poll after poll shows the American people really, really, really concerned about Medicare. From what I could tell from the protesters outside my office building (where Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have their offices as well), many of the Tea Party protesters had signs that said "Hands Off My Medicare." Now the GOP wants to end Medicare?
And that's the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - Democrats would jump ship in such conditions, whereas Republicans would not. Why the hell would Republicans jump into the frying pan? I think it has to do with the Republican base, who have become more and more powerful over the years.
The more I look back at the Bush Administration, the more I have come to realize that Bush completely defanged the Republican Party establishment. All the Party grown-ups have either left the building, or lost all credibility because of TARP, etc. There's no one left to say, "Guys, this is a phenomenally dumb idea, and we'll get killed for it." Gingrich tried, but in usual Gingrich fashion, did it too late, and too publicly.
Well, enjoy the flavor-aid* fellas, I hope it goes done easily.
*The Jonestown folks drank Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid.
That's insane. Just yesterday, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, became a new Congresswoman in a Republican District based on the Medicare issue. Oh, and the margin wasn't even close. Poll after poll shows the American people really, really, really concerned about Medicare. From what I could tell from the protesters outside my office building (where Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have their offices as well), many of the Tea Party protesters had signs that said "Hands Off My Medicare." Now the GOP wants to end Medicare?
And that's the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - Democrats would jump ship in such conditions, whereas Republicans would not. Why the hell would Republicans jump into the frying pan? I think it has to do with the Republican base, who have become more and more powerful over the years.
The more I look back at the Bush Administration, the more I have come to realize that Bush completely defanged the Republican Party establishment. All the Party grown-ups have either left the building, or lost all credibility because of TARP, etc. There's no one left to say, "Guys, this is a phenomenally dumb idea, and we'll get killed for it." Gingrich tried, but in usual Gingrich fashion, did it too late, and too publicly.
Well, enjoy the flavor-aid* fellas, I hope it goes done easily.
*The Jonestown folks drank Flavor-Aid, not Kool-Aid.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Grading the Contendahs: 2012 GOP Pres Candidates (Part 2)
Well, its been an interesting-ish time in American Presidential politics. Trump flirted with running, and then dropped out after getting schooled by Obama (seriously, there's no other way to put it. Obama released his long-form birth certificate, ripped Trump a new one at the WH Correspondent's Dinner, and then had Osama bin Laden shot in the face), Mitch Daniels is out, and the GOP Presidential hopefuls are looking either dull or crazy. Hell, I almost forgot about Huckabee deciding against a run. So, I'm not particularly concerned about this crop of candidates, but that could change (see 1992).
Which is to say that Obama is beatable, but the GOP has to find the right kind of candidate to beat him. One of my greatest concerns is that Obama, as a centrist (and he really is a centrist), can get outflanked by a populist candidate like Huckabee who would move to his left on some issues - Wall Street reform - and move to Obama's right on other issues like abortion. I've seen it done at a mayoral level when Dick Murphy simultaneously moved to the right and the left of Ron Roberts, handily beating him. But I don't know if anyone has the ability to pull it off.
With that said, here are my reviews of the contenders thus far:
Mitt Romney: The Mittster came in second in the last go around, and if the GOP had the same rules as the Democrats, he would've won the nomination over McCain. He's telegenic, has lots of money to burn, and is willing to work his ass off for it. But, everyone knows Romney, and most voters don't like him. They don't dislike him, but they don't like him. Plus, he's Mormon, and he was the architect for Obamacare. So, even though he's the frontrunner, his support is weak.
Tim Pawlenty: We've seen plenty of Pawlenty (thank you, don't forget to tip your waitress) and quite frankly, he's left no impression. And just like Romney, everyone knows who he is, and they're still not buying what he's selling.
John Huntsman: I have to admit, Huntsman scares me a bit. He was an ambassador for Obama, but he's got that conservative, but not so conservative that he looks crazy on TV thing going for him. I don't know if the GOP primary voters will go for it, but he could be very dangerous in a general election.
Newt Gingrich: Um, wow. Gingrich is a total and complete mess of a person and a candidate. If he were to take the nomination, he would have no chance of beating Obama. None.
Rick Santorum: Another total mess of a candidate. Next.
Sarah Palin, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann: Sex and race aside, they are all the same candidate, speaking to the same crowds. All but Palin are crazy, but have a rabid following in the Tea Party. But, let's face it, against Obama, each one of these candidates will get crushed. The GOP elites know this and are doing their damnedest to kill their campaigns early. Palin will be the easiest to nudge out, but Cain and Bachmann are true believers. But that said, I don't see the primary voters going with either Cain or Bachmann.
The Dark Horses: I don't see any dark horses out there for the GOP right now. Jeb Bush is, well, a Bush; Perry has major problems in his own state, Jindal is too young (and too not-white), etc. The cupboard is relatively bare at this point.
Anyone with thoughts to the contrary?
Which is to say that Obama is beatable, but the GOP has to find the right kind of candidate to beat him. One of my greatest concerns is that Obama, as a centrist (and he really is a centrist), can get outflanked by a populist candidate like Huckabee who would move to his left on some issues - Wall Street reform - and move to Obama's right on other issues like abortion. I've seen it done at a mayoral level when Dick Murphy simultaneously moved to the right and the left of Ron Roberts, handily beating him. But I don't know if anyone has the ability to pull it off.
With that said, here are my reviews of the contenders thus far:
Mitt Romney: The Mittster came in second in the last go around, and if the GOP had the same rules as the Democrats, he would've won the nomination over McCain. He's telegenic, has lots of money to burn, and is willing to work his ass off for it. But, everyone knows Romney, and most voters don't like him. They don't dislike him, but they don't like him. Plus, he's Mormon, and he was the architect for Obamacare. So, even though he's the frontrunner, his support is weak.
Tim Pawlenty: We've seen plenty of Pawlenty (thank you, don't forget to tip your waitress) and quite frankly, he's left no impression. And just like Romney, everyone knows who he is, and they're still not buying what he's selling.
John Huntsman: I have to admit, Huntsman scares me a bit. He was an ambassador for Obama, but he's got that conservative, but not so conservative that he looks crazy on TV thing going for him. I don't know if the GOP primary voters will go for it, but he could be very dangerous in a general election.
Newt Gingrich: Um, wow. Gingrich is a total and complete mess of a person and a candidate. If he were to take the nomination, he would have no chance of beating Obama. None.
Rick Santorum: Another total mess of a candidate. Next.
Sarah Palin, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann: Sex and race aside, they are all the same candidate, speaking to the same crowds. All but Palin are crazy, but have a rabid following in the Tea Party. But, let's face it, against Obama, each one of these candidates will get crushed. The GOP elites know this and are doing their damnedest to kill their campaigns early. Palin will be the easiest to nudge out, but Cain and Bachmann are true believers. But that said, I don't see the primary voters going with either Cain or Bachmann.
The Dark Horses: I don't see any dark horses out there for the GOP right now. Jeb Bush is, well, a Bush; Perry has major problems in his own state, Jindal is too young (and too not-white), etc. The cupboard is relatively bare at this point.
Anyone with thoughts to the contrary?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Pedophile Priests: The Wrong Question
Today, the Catholic Church (actually, the U.S. Bishops) released the results of a study on pedophilia in the priesthood, and came to a weird conclusion. Pedophilia was caused by the '60's man. The '60's. Or rather, the social turmoil of the 1960's created stress, which lead priests to rape children - mostly boys because boys were more available.
Um. . .no. Pedophile priests didn't abuse kids because of the social turmoil of the 1960's, they did it because they were pedophiles. And why did pedophiles join the priesthood? Well, for the same reason why bank robbers rob banks - because that's where the money (or, in this case, access to children) is. Every profession that has access to children - teachers, coaches, children's ministers (in Protestant churches), clowns, daycare workers and priests - has its share of pedophiles because these professions give pedophiles access to children. And most pedophiles would prefer to gather their victims quietly than to kidnap kids off the streets.
In other words, it was inevitable that some priests would be pedophiles. But in most instances, when it is discovered that a daycare worker, for instance, has been molesting children, the daycare worker is reported to the police, removed from contact with kids, and the daycare worker is not left in a position to harm children. Not so with priests - they were left in positions of power over children for, in some cases, decades.
Now, in some respects, the study is correct. The social turmoil of the 1960's and 1970's may have had an effect. As fewer and fewer young men joined the priesthood, the Church tried to protect itself by keeping as many priests as it could, abusers included. Why else would bishops continually send pedophile priests back into situations where they could abuse children rather than send them off to a monastery? Ultimately, the shortage of priests was the problem, not social turmoil.
It is noted that the number of cases of sexual abuse by priests has dropped in the past thirty years, and that's a good thing. That may be the case that the bishops now view abuse cases differently and are more proactive, or that parents are less likely to leave their kids alone with anyone, including a priest. But ultimately, that won't solve the problem of shortage of priests, which caused this problem, not the 1960's.
Um. . .no. Pedophile priests didn't abuse kids because of the social turmoil of the 1960's, they did it because they were pedophiles. And why did pedophiles join the priesthood? Well, for the same reason why bank robbers rob banks - because that's where the money (or, in this case, access to children) is. Every profession that has access to children - teachers, coaches, children's ministers (in Protestant churches), clowns, daycare workers and priests - has its share of pedophiles because these professions give pedophiles access to children. And most pedophiles would prefer to gather their victims quietly than to kidnap kids off the streets.
In other words, it was inevitable that some priests would be pedophiles. But in most instances, when it is discovered that a daycare worker, for instance, has been molesting children, the daycare worker is reported to the police, removed from contact with kids, and the daycare worker is not left in a position to harm children. Not so with priests - they were left in positions of power over children for, in some cases, decades.
Now, in some respects, the study is correct. The social turmoil of the 1960's and 1970's may have had an effect. As fewer and fewer young men joined the priesthood, the Church tried to protect itself by keeping as many priests as it could, abusers included. Why else would bishops continually send pedophile priests back into situations where they could abuse children rather than send them off to a monastery? Ultimately, the shortage of priests was the problem, not social turmoil.
It is noted that the number of cases of sexual abuse by priests has dropped in the past thirty years, and that's a good thing. That may be the case that the bishops now view abuse cases differently and are more proactive, or that parents are less likely to leave their kids alone with anyone, including a priest. But ultimately, that won't solve the problem of shortage of priests, which caused this problem, not the 1960's.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Back from Vacation Blogging. . .
Wow, its been almost a month since my last blog post. I almost can't believe it. On the other hand, that's the joy of vacation - you get out of your head for awhile. For the record, I went to Miami and St. Petersburg, helped catch a 400+lb. Goliath Grouper (my contributions were minimal, but existent), and generally had a good time. I even did stuff, which I had no intention of doing. So, this has been the first chance, and inclination to blog at all. So without further ado. . .
Birthers, Birthers: Hmm. . .do they really exist after Obama produced his long-form birth certificate? Birtherism always struck me as being a proxy for the obvious - that Obama is a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name. It is a direct attack on his legitimacy as President. Obvious racism is generally despised, so to hide the racism, people would couch their language as doubting Obama's place of birth. Still, it should be no surprise that the long form birth certificate confirmed what we knew. I knew the whole thing was much ado about nothing when it was discovered that there were two birth announcements in Hawaiian papers published shortly after Obama's birth. Of course, producing a long-form birth certificate won't make Obama any whiter, or give him a less Muslim-sounding name, but it does expose birthers as kooks and racists.
Popping a Cap in Osama bin Laden's Ass: Or rather, a double tap to the head. In college, I had the privilege of meeting a SEAL Team 6 member (totally legit too - the guy's picture was in "Black Belt" Magazine). We were in "The Matchmaker" together and while we rehearsed, the guy told all of us 18-22 year old kids how to take a human being apart like a cheap watch. My best description in two words: AWWWWEEESOMMEE!!!!!* Anyway, offing Osama was a huge, huge coup for the President, and shows that there's some hope we can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan sometime soon. Oh, and was the killing legal? Probably, and we'll never know for sure.
Weird Things in Iran: President Ahmadinejad's staff, including his Chief of Staff, have been charged with sorcery. . .yes, like Harry Potter. Now, granted, sorcery would help explain how Ahmadinejad was elected by such a large margin in the last election (bud-dum), but the arrests also indicate a fracture between the President and Supreme Leader, and that's very interesting. There's no question, Khamenei put his ass on the line for Ahmadinejad during the presidential election, and in face of obvious voter fraud. And if the conservative elites fight amongst themselves. . .well, interesting things will happen.
Pakistani and American Relations: Of anything out there that scares me, the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations does the most. Its looking pretty clear that Pakistan, or some elements of its military and/or intelligence network were helping Al Qaeda. There's no way, Osama bin Laden could've lived within the same town as Pakistan's chief military academy for six years without someone figuring it out. And to now prevent access to bin Laden's wives. . .wow. Of course, the problem with Pakistan is that it has nukes, and so pressing the issue is problematic, at best. And by problematic, I mean, "potentially starting a war between the U.S., Pakistan, India and China, all of whom have nukes." Let's tread very, very carefully, please.
On a personal note:
David L. Holmes, one of my religion professors at William & Mary is retiring. While Prof. Holmes certainly would not appreciate some of the language used on this blog (for instance, I just wrote "blog" instead of "online journal"), I loved the classes I took with him. In part, Professor Holmes looked like a college professor should look - glasses, balding hair, jacket with suede patches, and sounded like Garrison Keeler, but more than his looks or how he sounded, Professor Holmes had the caring and the humanity that meant the world to me.
I know that the human mind leads us to remember the good times, and forget the bad, but I remember thinking while in his classes that this is what a college class should be. In the antique and wonderful halls of the Wren Building, smelling of old wood, the sun shining through the windows, hearing Professor Holmes lead a discussion on Ordinary People, or teaching us about the Reformation was a pure joy. I worked hard in his classes, not just because the curriculum was difficult, but also because I wanted to impress him. While I strongly disagree with his taste in whiskey - gleaned from my friend Ben, who was his boarder during my Senior year (rye, ick) - I will remember him, and the lessons he taught me, always.**
*Yes, I am aware that AWWWWEEESOMMEE is one, poorly spelled, word.
**Well, most of his lessons. I have a feeling Professor Holmes would read this blog and gasp at the poor grammar. I probably need to reread Shrunk & White, but slowly, as it is a rich as pecan pie.
Birthers, Birthers: Hmm. . .do they really exist after Obama produced his long-form birth certificate? Birtherism always struck me as being a proxy for the obvious - that Obama is a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name. It is a direct attack on his legitimacy as President. Obvious racism is generally despised, so to hide the racism, people would couch their language as doubting Obama's place of birth. Still, it should be no surprise that the long form birth certificate confirmed what we knew. I knew the whole thing was much ado about nothing when it was discovered that there were two birth announcements in Hawaiian papers published shortly after Obama's birth. Of course, producing a long-form birth certificate won't make Obama any whiter, or give him a less Muslim-sounding name, but it does expose birthers as kooks and racists.
Popping a Cap in Osama bin Laden's Ass: Or rather, a double tap to the head. In college, I had the privilege of meeting a SEAL Team 6 member (totally legit too - the guy's picture was in "Black Belt" Magazine). We were in "The Matchmaker" together and while we rehearsed, the guy told all of us 18-22 year old kids how to take a human being apart like a cheap watch. My best description in two words: AWWWWEEESOMMEE!!!!!* Anyway, offing Osama was a huge, huge coup for the President, and shows that there's some hope we can get out of Iraq and Afghanistan sometime soon. Oh, and was the killing legal? Probably, and we'll never know for sure.
Weird Things in Iran: President Ahmadinejad's staff, including his Chief of Staff, have been charged with sorcery. . .yes, like Harry Potter. Now, granted, sorcery would help explain how Ahmadinejad was elected by such a large margin in the last election (bud-dum), but the arrests also indicate a fracture between the President and Supreme Leader, and that's very interesting. There's no question, Khamenei put his ass on the line for Ahmadinejad during the presidential election, and in face of obvious voter fraud. And if the conservative elites fight amongst themselves. . .well, interesting things will happen.
Pakistani and American Relations: Of anything out there that scares me, the deterioration of US-Pakistani relations does the most. Its looking pretty clear that Pakistan, or some elements of its military and/or intelligence network were helping Al Qaeda. There's no way, Osama bin Laden could've lived within the same town as Pakistan's chief military academy for six years without someone figuring it out. And to now prevent access to bin Laden's wives. . .wow. Of course, the problem with Pakistan is that it has nukes, and so pressing the issue is problematic, at best. And by problematic, I mean, "potentially starting a war between the U.S., Pakistan, India and China, all of whom have nukes." Let's tread very, very carefully, please.
On a personal note:
David L. Holmes, one of my religion professors at William & Mary is retiring. While Prof. Holmes certainly would not appreciate some of the language used on this blog (for instance, I just wrote "blog" instead of "online journal"), I loved the classes I took with him. In part, Professor Holmes looked like a college professor should look - glasses, balding hair, jacket with suede patches, and sounded like Garrison Keeler, but more than his looks or how he sounded, Professor Holmes had the caring and the humanity that meant the world to me.
I know that the human mind leads us to remember the good times, and forget the bad, but I remember thinking while in his classes that this is what a college class should be. In the antique and wonderful halls of the Wren Building, smelling of old wood, the sun shining through the windows, hearing Professor Holmes lead a discussion on Ordinary People, or teaching us about the Reformation was a pure joy. I worked hard in his classes, not just because the curriculum was difficult, but also because I wanted to impress him. While I strongly disagree with his taste in whiskey - gleaned from my friend Ben, who was his boarder during my Senior year (rye, ick) - I will remember him, and the lessons he taught me, always.**
*Yes, I am aware that AWWWWEEESOMMEE is one, poorly spelled, word.
**Well, most of his lessons. I have a feeling Professor Holmes would read this blog and gasp at the poor grammar. I probably need to reread Shrunk & White, but slowly, as it is a rich as pecan pie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)