Teaching Tidbits #1

Share

For the past several weeks, I have attended an evening class as sort of an invited subject matter expert. After last week's meeting, the instructor asked me for feedback. I said a few things and then noted that the advice was pretty good and asked him to send it to me, which he finally did last night. I present it here for your benefit.

1. Keep it to three major points.
Some of the greatest teachers used things in triplicate, and my teachers in High School stressed that in our compositions. Pick three major themes with maybe three points of evidence per theme to underscore the point and keep it powerful and brief.

2. Organization is key.
Arrange the points based on their relative strength. Start with the medium strength point, follow it with the weakest, and close with the strongest. That way, you leave them with your strongest argument, which appears even stronger when it follows on the heel of your weakest point.

3. Design your weakest point to make people think.
Your weakest theme should include either an 'ah-ha' or a 'ha-ha' moment.

4. Keep your take home message in mind.

5. Use open-ended questions.

6. Command the class.
You are the captain of the class. Command your troops. take charge. Keep on track. Ask questions that engage them and make them think, even if they don't say anything.

I love this clip. Start at 3:45 on the ticker to hear the five seconds that relate to this point.

Adult or a Dult?

Share

We're far enough into the semester that it's time again to remind the instructors about their duties. Some of the adjuncts misapprehend their responsibilities as teachers and leave a lot of things to me that don't need to be done if they did their job. As usual, I have to sort through the biohazard and remove the paper towels and wrappers that are not really biohazards and remove paper from the sharps containers. Although these containers are clearly marked, apparently nobody takes the time to read.

Some people look like adults. Some people act like adults. Some people are children in adult bodies. Are you an adult or a dolt?

I watch students and teachers read signs and then still do the wrong things. I know plenty of people who are of age who have not matured. Although the legislature has declared the age of 18 to be 'adult', very few people that age in this day and age can be construed to be adults.

Arranged Marriages

Share

Last night, I was talking with my best friend about how most of the people with whom I have the greatest interaction and rapport at the moment are people I have actually never met. He pointed out the dangers inherant in strictly URL relationships, and my mind was drawn back to a couple of whom I am aware that married recently. They never met until after he proposed to her, and I worry and wonder because I am not sure about the math used in online dating sites.

For a brief time, I was a member of several online dating sites. I remember from the questionairres, that many of the questions did not allow for accurate reflection of the truth about me. I also remember that there was mention of some Chemistry.com members who were informed they were unmatchable. Some of the math formulas used to put people together may put people together who are poor matches and keep people apart who might otherwise do well if they actually made a go of it.

You can say anything you want online. I refer you to the part of the film Must Love Dogs where the female character creates a series of completely bogus ads. For all you know, I am really a Mongolian Yak herder unless we have ever met, and it is a little dangerous that some people online trust their URL friends enough to take their advice, share personal information, and let IRL relationships languish.

I appreciate the interest of others in my well-being. From family members to the state health program to complete strangers, I am constantly beset by people who think I'd be happier if I were married. I think they assume that single people cannot fathom what married life is like. For my own part, I think it's better to be single than in a bad relationship, and I am not very open to the prospect of blind dates, being set up with a friend of a friend, or allowing Dr. Neil Clark Warren to tell me with whom I might make a good match. People close to me know that even if you are a good match on paper, we might not work out.

Online dating and blind dates are a new type of arranged marriage. Where once you let your parents or the king put you together with someone for some political, financial, or social benefit, now we allow Neil Clark Warren, friends, family, and sometimes other complete strangers to set us on the road to happiness. How are these any more likely to result in happy and healthy marriages, no matter how many of them start because of online interactions?

You probably know couples who met online. Some of them are a good fit. Some of them are less good. If it works for you, great, but for my own part, I prefer to actually meet and interact with the people I know. After all, can you ever be sure of anyone?


**no offense to Neil Clark Warren. I appreciate his efforts. I question his methods.**

A Little Too Close...

Share

One of the most poignant images from CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters for me is the chapter where Screwtape instructs Wormwood how to direct the man's love and scrutiny. In general, the point is to develop in the patient a charitable attitude towards complete strangers while driving home at annoying habits of people he loves and regularly sees. We often see that people who meet grow close and then find fault with one another, sometimes resultant in schisms of such magnitude you cannot tell they ever knew one another. For Wormwood's man, he develops compassion for the Nazis and gains greater annoyance at the antics of a relative. Thus, his compassion is rendered largely imaginary while his annoyance looms very real.

Many of my friends see great things in me. We have not seen one another, in some cases, for almost a decade. Ask people who spend a lot of time with me, and they will probably have something to say about my shortcomings. I know my weaknesses. After all, I'm the only person who spends 24/7 in my company, but some certain things can be made mountains where they are molehills depending on the nature of a relationship between two individuals.

Last week on Facebook, I posted a status about knowing who people really are. I happen to belong to that school of philosophy that believes that man is inherantly good. Sure, he does some blatantly wrong things, but that is learned behavior. I have never seen an evil baby. I believe that if you take away all that is good about man, rather than being left with a bad man, you are left with nothing at all. When I see men do stupid things, I am sad, because I know of what they are capable and what opportunities these behaviors cost them. You can be anything or anyone you choose to be. Even with limited options, every one of us lives in a choose your own adventure, and we are always able to choose our attitude, whatever our circumstances.

Men are wondrous creatures. I echo the bard who wrote "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel..." In great men as in great works of art, it is often possible and easiest to see their flaws only when you look closely at them with the intent to find error. When you constantly face something or someone, the frailties of men loom ever larger and the beauty of the overall picture is lost in the brush strokes of choice and chance. For this reason, perhaps, it is easiest for us to find fault with those closest to us, whom we ostensibly love, and love those who are strangers to us because their faults are hard to see when they are far away from our eyes and further still from our minds. No matter how they receive it, make a concerted effort to find the good in those you love, with whom you are closest, for if you look for the good in mankind and expect to find it, you will.

Advice That Validates Me

Share

Every time they talk about cutting our pay or benefits, I get a slieu of emails linked together from faculty and staff about how it will affect them. Most of them earn more than I do, and sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who doesn't have any kind of financial hardship. Among the vociferous, there are many single parents, and so I can understand those additional burdens. Apparently, however, some of the people who should be the best off think they have things the worst. The Wall Street Journal contribtor Brett Arends offered advice for those 'struggling' on a household income of $250,000 which is far above my wage.

Many of the tips in this article actually validate the choices by which I have decided to live. While a close friend keeps arguing for the opportunity to 'rebrand' me with a new wardrobe and vehicle, that's not really being true to myself. Sure, it might get me in the door when it came to opportunities to date, work, or have fun, but ask the students and they will tell you that most of the really good teachers are the ones who look like they pay attention to their jobs- and to little else. I present a few by way of discussion.

1. Unrealistic Expectations
I don't date girls with unrealistic expectations. I don't try to get jobs for which I clearly do not qualify. I am honest on my resume and in social settings, because I know that everyone says they want to be accepted for who they are. By this fashion, WYSIWYG, and I don't have to wear masks in different settings. Many of the young folks who live near me come from wealthy families and expect a certain standard of living out of the box. Even if they date and marry a guy who intends to be a lawyer or doctor, he will be my age before he even gets a job in his profession. Young people today expect to have an iPOD, and iPHONE, wireless internet, their own car, etc. That is not realistic for me at my wage, despite the huge relative sum I manage to save monthly.

2. Mortages
You may know I've been looking for a house for over a year now. My realtor is probably disappointed that I'm not looking for a bigger or more expensive house, because they want a bigger comission cheque. I am looking for a house that satisfies my needs, provides for future expansion of my family, and costs a price I can really afford. Tempted though I may be to go after a home that's nice but 'just a little bit more', I have managed expectations and let other people buy homes. It does me no good if I cannot afford my home and would be a huge embarassment to do so when the market is near its trough. I told a realtor once that I was looking for a home because I could own one for the same price as rent and that the price generated a monthly rent I could afford even if I ended up at the corner McDonalds selling fries.

3. Transportation
Ask my parents what they think of my recent installation of a replacement Long Block into my 1995 Saturn, and they'll probably roll their eyes. They think that my car holds me back, which it might, especially if I were a mortgage broker, stock trader, or some other kind of salesman, but it primarily serves as a mode of transportation to get to work. In that case, the fact that I own my own car should be a good thing, since girls are equally turned off to date guys who ride the bus... A girl I knew well once thought it was really cool when I bought an exact clone of my car; it turned out to be very smart. So, I know some girls value that too. I wrote earlier this week about people who don't really own cars and rent them in order to purchase a status, but this author says, as I share his belief, that such people are A) insecure and B)have no sense. I know I'm awesome, and driving a BMW won't change who I really am. Besides, I agree with his plan: buy used, pay cash, and drive it until it dies. Now, there are HUGE costs just before a car dies, and not everyone is inclined to or able to replace an engine, so I would change that to "drive it until the cost to keep it running outweighs the cost to replace it".

4. DIY More Frequently
A friend of mine reported that he paid $50 to have his oil changed this week in SC. I can buy the oil and filter at Walmart for under $15 and do it myself. Do things for yourself that you can easily do. There is no guarantee that a 'professional' will do a better job if he's a trainee, and then you saw how well you did because you were intimately associated with the process. Not to say you should do everything yourself (I hate anything to do with electricity for example), but you can certainly mow your own lawn, walk your own dog, and wash your own car, all for less than you may pay someone else.

5. Shop Value
There is nothing shameful about shopping at places like WalMart. I remember once when I was younger seeing Joe Albertson bagging groceries in one of his own stores. Sarah palin made headlines during the campaign when she stopped in to buy emergency diapers. Go where you get the best value. Some people value service with the sale. You pay for that. Is it value added? Not to say everything at WalMart is a good deal. I buy a specific type of running shoes that they do not carry, but I wait until they are on sale. You can too.

Finally, he makes this brazen remark with which I whole-heartedly agree.
It is not about how much you earn, it's about how much you get to keep.

I have told people for over a year that it's about how much is left over after you meet your obligations.

I will probably continue to live like this, especially when I am single. It provides a life that suits and satisfies me.

You are No Priority to Reid

Share

Harry Reid has 'run out of time' to consider middle class tax cuts. It was so important that he spend two days on the floor of the Senate fighting for rights for illegal aliens in the Dream Act rider to the Defense spending bill that he can't appear tonight for a debate with Sharron Angle or work on tax cuts.

His priorities are clear. He serves front groups for special ethnic interests in the hopes that enough of them will vote for him because he knows darn well that Nevadans aren't excited to do so.

You are no priority to him. Send him back to Searchlight, postage due.

Housing Market v. eBAY

Share

I received a notification this morning from my realtor that a home on which I placed an offer is ready to move forward. When we made the offer Monday night, there were no offers on the property. Now, there are enough that the bank has asked all bidders to give their highest and best offer. This smells unethical to me.

In defense of the realtors, they are probably not behind this. Mine is good enough to admit that I may already have the best offer, because the other one might be hugely lowball. He says the bank may have left instructions for the listing agent. While this does not free the listing agent from complicit behavior in what I believe to be pure fraud and deceipt, if he's right, at least the seller's agent isn't the brainchild.

I made my offers based on expectations set by the seller. My offers were all fairly based on the asking price, and all of them were above list (which just makes my skin crawl). I made the offers based on my ability to afford the home and the relative degree to which I value what they contain and would be comfortable living there. In every case I met their asking price. If the bank wants more money, they should list the houses at a higher price. This is not eBAY, and I am not going to put in a higher bid to get the house. It's just a house.

Offer and Counteroffer mean different things to me than to banks apparently. I offer a price less than what they ask and they counter with one with which they are comfortable. Now, instead of a counteroffer, to know where the bank stands, they ask me to stab in the dark and offer more. I should perhaps offer less... For all I know, I would be bidding against myself, which as we all know who use eBAY is against their terms and unethical.

Every REO comes with uncertainties. One reason I am not enamored with this house is that there was a plumbing leak which has not been rectified and which they may be reticent to rectify. Oh, and they had the gall to ask me to check YES/NO that I would pay the difference anyway if the appraisal came in lower. I will NOT buy a home for more than it appraises. Chase learned that already. The banks never lived in the homes, and they have no idea in what condition they really are, and yet they act as if every home were immaculate and demands the highest possible price based on comparables, when they have never actually seen any of the homes in comparison.

If this happens again, I will not dance. I gave you my best offer at the beginning, and if you were serious about selling me a house, you would give me a counteroffer like previous banks have on previous homes. Houses, like all other commodities, are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Update 11:34 AM
A second house has also asked for 'highest and best.' Sigh. If you want to do that, just list the houses on eBAY.

Barack and Breast Cancer

Share

Tipped off by a friend's Twitter account, I found an article about drugs by Roche LLC of Germany and the FDA. We already know one way in which Obamacare will do the opposite of what it promised, and this with breast cancer victims, some of which I personally know. I actually worked intimately with some individuals in clinical R&D who were working on it, specifically with Her2neu markers among other things.

Obamacare involves cost rationing. In other words, if they deem it too expensive of a treatment, they will not let you get it. If nobody gets it, companies like Roche will not manufacture it. If it does not get manufactured, it will never get cheaper, and you will be denied quality care from drugs that will actually help you.

Most Medicaire costs fall to the state in which you live. In some states, Medicaire costs are as high as 50% of state budgets. With most states in financial trouble, tax increases on the horizon and insurance rate hikes to either cope with corporate or union wages, care will almost surely be rationed. This article says that the FDA is no longer concerned with safety or side effects but demonstrates that the decision to approve the drug revolves around its COST.

Health care is for the sick. The whole need no physician. Yet, if you're sick, you will cost them money, and they don't want that. They want your money. Under Obamacare, you can't get it even if you can personally afford it. You have no choice. They already made it, and you will die.

Anyone who has breast cancer who votes to return the Democrats to power helps sign their own death certificate. Now you know.

Do You OWN it?

Share

As I stood in the line at the DMV this week, I struck up a conversation with the man in front of me. He saw my car and instead of criticizing me for driving a 15 year old sedan asked me "How long have you owned the car?" I have had the title to my 1995 Saturn since 2003, and it does feel really good to actually own the vehicle.

There are lots of people out there with nicer things than I have. You can see huge boats out on the lake, palatial mansions on the hill, fancy cars in the parking lot at work. On the way to the DMV, a high school girl in a new VW Beetle stared at me as she drove by with a look of condescension. She doesn't own it, but she thinks it makes her better.

Most people own very little. The things they have own them. They make regular and expensive installment payments on RVs, ATVs, and SUVs. Some of them have unsecured debt as well, in the form of clothes, shoes, and brickabrack around their homes. I told a cousin this past week that "Eventually girls realize that the guys who appear to have lots of money already spent it." They own stuff, but it's not really stuff often that's worth owning. They converted their money into things of far less comparable residual worth. All it tells me is that they once had money.

I feel a great sense of freedom owning my car outright. There is nothing like holding the title to something in your hand. It might not look pretty on the outside, but now it drives just like it did in 2003 when I first took possession of it, and I have saved lots of money on regular payments, insurance, and dates on which I did not have to go because I drive this particular car.

Just because someone drives a crappy car doesn't mean they are like Warren Buffett. Not all rich men drive ancient station wagons, but the Rich Men Next Door don't drive Bentleys and Beemers. They drive late model Hondas and Toyotas. A poor-looking guy might be poor. He might also be Sam Walton.

Misleading Ads (Like Usual)

Share

I have received in the last two weeks about six different mailings opposing Michael Roberson for the NV State Senate. Usually I just use these circulars as a quick way to know who the worst candidates are, since the ones who sling the most mud are the ones who are dirtiest. Sometimes, the charges are valid and severe enough that I change my mind. This time, they made me mad enough to call out this campaign.

According to the mailing, Roberson 'wants to slash essential law enforcement dollars, forcing thousands of police officers to be fired.' Wow, that sounds bad. The truth however is worse.

Roberson wants to cut the bureaucracy, I suspect, which includes police, fire, and education. I include those because other circulars accuse Republican candidates of being opposed to firemen, police officers and teachers. Now, anyone who actually buys that argument needs to think again. Even if some of those people are cut, it would hardly be 'thousands', because if we cut that many, there might not be any police at all left over. No politician wants the state to be left defenseless. That is not in their interest. Yet, the Obama administration regularly mandates reduction in active duty military personnel, which is a recorded fact. Nobody gets upset about reductions in the infantry. This is a red herring argument.

I have previously addressed the situation in letters to the State governor. Half of our state budget goes to wages and benefits for state employees, and I told him that we have too many people on the payroll then. There are police officers, teachers, and firemen with whom we could dispense who are not good value for the money. Someone who is paid $100,000 but doesn't actually earn it could be 'fired' and replaced with someone to whom we pay half who actually does his job. No services are reduced, and yet we save money on wages. I am not in favor of cutting people just for their wage, but if they are not giving the same value, then why not pave the way for people who appreciate the opportunity and give their 100%?

Roberson probably doesn't want to do whatever he has proposed (there are no actual quotes in the mailings) because it will cut these services. These services will probably take few cuts if at all, and the cuts they take will be the people with whom the bureaucrats decide they can most easily dispense. That's how they have explained it to me every year when they put my name on the layoff list. I can be terminated because I'm not vested, but they will dispense with other people first.

In another circular, they quote a policeman (who is a fake because the uniform is not authentic and he is not identified by name) who 'doesn't want to lose his job.' As a public servant, he does what best serves the public. A public servant who is unwilling to sacrifice his job is not actually a servant of the public. Besides, in that ideal world liberals always say they will create, we won't need poicemen. We'll all get along. In my letters to the governor about personnel, I said what I said and confessed that I said it knowing that I stood to lose my job. Naturally, I hope to keep my job, but if that's what's best, then I will go work somewhere else.

Educate your own vote. Anyone who votes based on what they are mailed without asking does the bidding of someone else. Anyone who votes based on what they see on the news does the bidding of someone else. Make your own choices. That is your right, as long as you can keep it.

Reid: Create NET Job Growth

Share

For the past several months, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) has been heavily advertising how important it is and how much he has done to secure alternative energy jobs for Nevada. When the Shaw Solar Power Plant goes online tomorrow, now that all the panels are installed, it will need very few employees to actually operate it. I expect hundreds if not thousands of people to lose their jobs. Yet, Harry will count it as jobs created if those people start working at another power plant under construction.

Most of Reid's efforts to create jobs created TEMPORARY jobs. He toots his horn about how he 'saved City Center', which is now filing bankruptcy, when the jobs he saved are gone now that there is no construction and little visitation by would-be patrons at the stores and restaurants. While he may have been instrumental in the Shaw Solar plant, many of those people, including some people I know well, will soon be unemployed, and THEY KNOW IT. With the new infusion of money for AFSCME, the school district intends to hire 50 new people (note that it says people and not teachers per se), but when the one year of funding runs out, they will probably lay most of those off.

While he supposedly does all this great stuff, Nevada still leads the nation in unemployment. If Harry were so effective, wouldn't we start to climb up from the bottom? Yet, he claims that he is not responsible for our economic malaise. Even if that's true, he has not demonstrated clairevoyance sufficient to reverse its course.

Somehow, he found a few people around the state to thank him for saving their jobs. Meanwhile, the people at the college with whom I work are upset that our wages have been cut through furloughs, all COLA and Merit bonuses are suspended until further notice, our medical coverage has declined while the cost increased, and our retirement contribution rose from 10.5% to 12%. I have received dozens of emails from people complaining about this. Reid is not the solution to the problem. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Until our unemployment number drops, I'm not impressed, and neither should you be.

Update 17 September: My friend who worked for them reported that he was laid off last night along with a few hundred other people, and we hadn't collected or stored a single milliwatt of electricity from the plant. What's more, I have heard that NV isn't allowed to use any solar energy it generates. Hmm...

Harry Holds Soldiers Hostage

Share

Harry Reid announced yesterday that he will hold up a defense appropriations bill in order to attach the Dream Act Amendment. While our soldiers are in harm's way, he will DENY them bullets, bodyarmor, and billeting in order to buy votes from illegal aliens.

As far as I can tell, Reid gives his current constituents the finger every time he turns around. He is more interested in garnering favor from a putative pool of political support than from those he currently has. It is a GROSS misapplication of his power to deny the troops the funding they need for a war for which he voted unless Republicans pay the ransom and give him what he wants.

Democrats regularly pull this kind of shenanigan. My father has told me of repeated bandaid funding measures to keep the Dept of Defense afloat while Congress dicks around. Meanwhile, men fight and bleed and die, just like they did under General George Washington and perish for want of food and footware. Washington and Adams were almost constantly livid with the War Department of 1776-1787 because it daunted the freemen who volunteered and were rarely compensated only to suffer continued privations.

If this is the kind of person you want, a man who holds our own soldiers hostage to satiate his will, then vote for Reid. Once again, he has shown that whatever utility he had in my youth has gone the way of the Dodo and that he is out of touch and out of line.

Address the Hard Things

Share

In October 2008, I filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office for my first book. It was a great moment in many ways. My best friend told me that he admired my courage to make public my thoughts, ideas, and opinions in a way that I could never take back. When I did that, and when it finally goes to print next year, I did something most people will never do. I left my ideas in permanent ink.

Samuel Adams would probably consider that foolish of me. We know less about what he thought and felt because he burned most of his paperwork in order to keep it out of the hands of the British government, which had branded him a traitor and set a death mark on him. By the same token, I think he would have been proud that I take a stand.

Not very many people are willing to address the hard things. It pricks the hearts of the wicked and makes the righteous squirm to talk of moral discrepancies. It upsets almost everyone when you discuss religion and politics if the people with whom you converse happen to disagree. A fair number of people have unfriended me on Facebook because of the ideas I publish, and I have had arguments with siblings, parents, and dear friends because we disagree at times.

Monday, a friend of mine told me an interesting anecdote. His wife thinks that they should not fight because she knows no other couples who do. I have long believed that couples who never fight either never talk or are liars. My friend said that if his wife is correct, then they are the only people who never talk, and they are not really that unique. In order to have a relationship, people have to relate, and you cannot relate if you cannot communicate. Sometimes, when you communicate, you will disagree. That's ok.

Address the hard things. I have held a series of Courageous Conversations since I moved to Vegas that have resulted in terminations of relationships with people for whom I really cared. I did it because "to sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men", and I would consider myself a poor friend to not to what is right for my friends.

I will not claim to always be right or have all the answers, but I will never back down from things that ought to be said and done. I really don't like it sometimes, because I know that if I do, I risk upsetting the waters and alienating myself. However, when I stand before God, I can honestly tell him I did the best I could to do what I should, and he rarely if ever intervenes to stop me.

We remember heroes because they were fighters. They got their hands dirty. They took on tough things against sometimes incredible odds. Chamberlain's 20th Maine led a bayonet charge with 250 men against 4000 rebels under General Hood. Balian kept Saladin from taking Jerusalem for almost a month. Leonidas's 1400 men held off Xerxes army of at least 70,000 for three days at Thermopylae. Gideon led 300 Israelites to victory against Midian. Jonas Parker threw his hat on the ground at Lexington, returned fire, and died pierced by a bayonet for his defiance. We know these names because they did things that were hard.

I will probably continue to address the hard things. I have nothing to lose thereby of which I lament being rid, and if you're not willing to stand with me, at least appreciate me for fighting in a cause for which you're not even willing to suit up.

Kohls: Brilliant Strategy

Share

I like Kohls for many reasons. They have friendly and attractive employees, quality merchandise, and frequent sales. All of those things combine together into their plan, but the sales are the most brilliant part of their strategy.

As much as I mock the fact that Kohls has a 'lowest prices of the season' sale almost every week, even if it annoys me, I pay attention to it. I find myself constantly and regularly scouring their advertisements for things that I need. Last time I went there, with sales, discounts, etc., I bought a new razor/beard trimmer for $5.88 after tax which was regularly $25. That's an exception to the rule that happened because I only buy things I actually need, but it's part of their overall strategy where they will risk patrons like me in favor of those they actually hope to attract.

People who shop at Kohls generally react the same as shoppers everywhere tend to act. When it's on sale, their relative amount of available capital increases, and so they feel like they have more spending power. In essence, they say, "It's on sale, so I had better buy it while it's cheaper." Most of these kinds of customers end up buying things in advance of their need (which is ok, and smart in many cases), but they also buy things on impulse while they're there because they have coupons, additional discounts, or the convenience of spatial proximity to other things they want or need that may or may not be on sale or on sale for a good price.

I shop at Kohls. I have a list of things I need to buy, including some things I need at some unknown future date that are not yet worn out (like jogging shoes and jeans). When they go on sale and I can capitalize on the bonuses, I will drop by since it's only a little out of my way, and scoop things up for a similarly exquisite song of a price, albeit probably not 20% of original list price like my last purchase. This way, I don't buy things 'just because they're on sale' when they are not a good value or when in those rare cases they raise the price in advance of a sale to drive in business to a product that was priced at the sale price regularly only a few months before (I have no evidence that Kohls follows this latter practice).

A man I once knew gave me this advice: "The kind of woman with whom you mesh well is one who likes the finer things in life but waits until they are on sale." Women used to be responsible for disposition of household goods, which meant they were in charge of the purse. They were supposed to make the money the man earned go as far as possible to meet all the needs and as many of the wants of the people in the household as possible. What I actually seek is someone with the same values and sense of value as I have.

Kohls would do well to have semi less frequent sales. However, I am addicted almost to their advertisements, and so they have managed to keep themselves on the front of my mind. It's a brilliant strategy. Fortunately, I have a brilliant countermeasure of my own...

Cell Phones in Church?

Share

Ten years ago when I returned from Europe, I looked forward to a return to a land populated by people who didn't feel it necessary to always have their cell phones. Now, the rising generation seems unable to go without them and unable to do anything that is not funneled directly through them. I have previously had a problem with students in class who were there in body only, because they were texting, emailing, or streaming video with people distal to them in space and in time.

You must be present to win they tell you. Well, that's not what I see at church, and maybe that's why people have church but not religion and dogma instead of faith. My sister tells me that even at church in Utah, the pew directly in front of her last Sunday was full of people busily typing at their IPhones in lieu of paying attention to the meeting. Yesterday, I discovered that two youths had played "Resident Evil" in church instead of paying attention. Months ago, my sister and I went to an early morning seminary course where some of the students thought it was ok to not have their scriptures with them. How do you learn about books you can't read? If you're not present at church, you cannot benefit from it. Furthermore, attendance at some of these meetings is required for certain privileges in the Faith. If you are not paying attention, did you attend the meeting?

The students take these things for granted. Many of them do not pay for the subscription service, and others got iPod Touches so they could access free WiFi. People 'find' these things, which means they didn't pay for them, and I am reminded of Thomas Paine who said "That which obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly." Cell phones are now accepted as a 'necessity' rather than a luxury. When I tell people I consider dispensing with mine, they wonder how I can survive and how I will communicate. Well, I guess you'll just have to talk to me in person.

The youth only play games on them because the applications are free. Heaven forbid the devil starts giving away everything he does as freeware or subscription free access. When they can do it just because it's free, how many of our youth will do it for that reason alone? That's how they used to get kids hooked to drugs- the first few times it was free, and then once they addicted you they forced you to pay to get your fix. When I told them I preferred to have the actual book in front of me than look up an excerpt via an application, they said I live 'back in the stone age'. Sure, you can use boolian operators to find search strings, but if you know the book well, you don't need those and can often navigate more quickly than a search engine can arrive at the precise quote you need. Plus, heaven forbid you have to use multiple e-versions of books concurrently...

I try to respect the purpose of the meetings I attend. I leave my cell phone at home during church and turn it off in class so the students can see. When I am there, I am there. People can wait three hours to talk to me. Shoot, it used to take two weeks to exchange letters back and forth in Austria, and I survived. I do not think that cell phones have any place during church. You will not see Jeffrey R Holland checking text messages during a fireside even though he has a blackberry. Maybe some people who are on call need them, but the teenagers and young adults, to be quite frank, are not that important, and it's very likely that anything they have going on can wait a few hours for discussion.

Not that we need a policy forbidding them. Let them govern themselves. I will continue to leave mine at home and turned off.

Dawn Quarter Marathon

Share

People who know me know that I try to run a 10K three times per week. The light has dimmed enough that light levels necessitate that I wear all white or bright colors and my reflective material on my wrists to make sure that I am visible in the pre-dawn light. Although it's a quiet neighborhood void of through traffic with plenty of yield and stop signs, lots of drivers pass through the neighborhood at high rates of speed and without yielding properly.

Since my accident nearly a month ago, I have been much more circumspect at corners. When I come to a yield sign, I slow much more than the people behind me like, and I pay attention to whether or not I actually stop at those corners that require that. I'm not in as big of a hurry, but then again, nobody should be late to his own funeral.

When I started this exercise program a year ago, my father advised me to learn to go the distance. I have been at it long enough that I run a 10K in about 46-48 minutes on average. It's not a tough course per se, but in our neighborhood, enough people have seen me do this long enough that they no longer expect me of casing the neighborhood and actually say hello if they see me when they go out to put out the trash.

I love to run in the morning. I catch the sunrise frequently, and the air is usually clear. I have been and probably always will be a morning person. It's when I'm most productive. I read my scriptures, exercise, shave, do laundry, and pay bills usually, all before even those coworkers who rise next earliest have even rolled out of bed. Sure, maybe I have to wear warm clothing in the winter or bright colors to avoid being hit by a car, and I have had a few close calls, but it sets up the day in a good way.

Some days, it's hard to get out of bed, but I know that if I don't I will wish I had. Also, before I run 1/8 mile, I usually feel really good, having shaken off the fatigue that persists as long as you lay on the mattress, and invigorated for what may come along the way.

I know dawn isn't for everyone. My dad is very productive at night, and I see a lot more people out exercising after work than I do in the morning, especially under the age of 50. By the time I get home from work, however, I've been up for 12 hours or so already and spent most of my productive energies, so I dont' have much left. Plus, it was only 76F this morning, but by 5PM it will be over 100F. I'd rather exercise when it's relatively decent outside, but that's apparently just me.

Anybody Out There?

Share

For the better part of three years, I have worked on this blog. Sometimes to be quite frank it feels like and may literally become an extension of my journal. Although I know there are some followers and a few other casual readers, I sit here and wonder if I reach anyone or do any good. Sometimes I feel wasted.

A few months ago, a friend of mine posted to her blog her own frustration that she has yet to influence a single person. I understand why she feels that way. If you look at the results of my endeavors, there are people in this town and from other parts of my history who, to look at them, you might think have never met me and should even though they know me very well. At one point, we had a Courageous Conversation, and they decided they would part ways with me and did so.

Sometimes I just think out loud on here because I don't know where else to do so. I know that my honest admissions have cost me friends and associations. I decided that if they aren't interested in the real me then they may not really want to be my friend. If you want someone who will validate your every choice, get a bobblehead.

It may very well be that when I shuffle off this mortal coil I may be entirely alone. It's not that I never had friends, but more that most people are fickle and use the term 'friend' too loosely.

Get Rid of Reid

Share

Harry Reid says he is not responsible for the problems of this nation. Oh yeah? Then who is? George Bush? Reid has been in Congress for 28 years and in politics since before I was born. If he had any good ideas he would have already applied them.

Politicians have villified Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Business in general. They take credit for all the good things and wash their hands of all the bad things, even if they had nothing to do with the former or everything to do with the latter. One of their heroes, Theodore Roosevelt, accurately said, "The blame will lie upon the men whose names appear upon the roll-calls of Congress on the wrong side of these great questions." Look at the voting records in Congress. They are the ones who pass the laws. They are the ones who are responsible.

Reid likes to blame Angle for things when Angle hasn't even been in elected office for the last two years. Reid assaults Angle for her position on Social Security. In reality, the blame is on those who refuse to remedy those evils long in advance of the day when the bill comes due. Reid assaults Angle saying she will gut Medicaire. With the passage of Obamacare, Reid has already done that. With rates scheduled to be cut 30%, no doctors will take new Medicaire patients, a decision in which Angle had no say. While they pat themselves on the back for it, they cut back its funding, all while promising we'll all be covered but never that we'll actually get treated.

Nevada leads the nation in every negative indicator and trails the nation in every positive one. If you like that, then by all means reelect Harry Reid. If Bush is responsible for problems, then so is Reid because the President cannot sign any bill unless it first passes the Congress. The best way to stop bad treatment is to remove the people who made the decisions from positions that empower them to create malignancies in your life.

Consider how the incumbent has made use of your time and money. If we elect Reid, he will assume he has a mandate, that we accept, not just tolerate, the things he has inflicted upon us. You may not like Angle, but the best way to send a message to the elites in either party is to vote for their opponents when they are grossly negligent of the responsibilities of elected office. You might not like Angle, but Reid openly mocks the things in which many of you believe. Of course, Angle is too extreme, but Reid is never too liberal.

Ask yourself if you're better off today than you were last time Reid was reelected. He has been senate majority leader for two years. that's plenty of time to get things done that will fix our problems, if politicians can actually do that simply by passing laws. It's as if simply by passage of a law, we'll all suddenly prosper magically.

Get rid of Reid. Otherwise, the rest of Theodore Roosevelt's criticism will be true and "upon you and the people of this country will lie the blame if you do not repudiate what these men have done." Remember that Harry Reid helped create the economy and that no amount of money spent on advertising to the contrary can change the facts.

Blatant Plagiarism: Life is Improv

Share

A friend of mine who does this kind of thing and hopes to go professional tipped me off to these rules of improv. After all, life is all improv. There are no scripts, no themes during dramatic moments, and no certainties. There are only opportunities to live. If I ever start my own college, I would be wise to teach an improv class to teach these rules, most of which I have learned but through other experiences. Credit to the original article and it's authors who did a good job simplifying the principles.

TEN PRINCIPLES OF IMPROV

Principle 1: Be prepared (Warm up!)
In my improv class we don’t rehearse scenes, but we do practice. We do train to learn and internalize certain structures and methods the way jazz improvisers learn scales. Before getting into scene work, we activate our minds and bodies by playing games; games that will help ground us physically and emotionally to characters we create in scenes. Sometimes we play 2 or 3 games at once to help sharpen our awareness and listening skills and get us out of our heads. Props to the Boy Scouts on this one.

Principle 2: Willingness
Willingness to do what you ask? A lot. We have to be willing to fail, and fail spectacularly. Since we don’t know what’s coming next, we have to accept that we may get knocked off balance. Therefore we have to be willing to mess up –and mess up big time.

Being willing to fail spectacularly means being willing to take risks. Lack of success is not due to trying and failing; it’s due to not trying, often out of a fear of failure. Being willing to fail means being willing to look foolish. It’s been said that we wouldn’t care so much about what people thought about us if we realized how seldom they do. If we’re not willing to look foolish doing improv then we won’t risk, we won’t commit, and the scenes will lack energy and direction. Being willing to risk reconnects us with the zest and energy of life. When we risk, our senses our heightened, our adrenaline is flowing. It’s a rush.

Finally, we have to be willing to make mistakes. The point is not that there are no consequences. Rather, it’s accepting that if we are truly risking there is no question that we WILL make mistakes. But we also realize that others are there to help dig us out of our mistakes. And ultimately it’s our mistakes that lead us to growth and improvement. We learn to choose better next time.

Principle 3: Stay in the Moment
In improv what is happening NOW is the key to discovery. I was at a Library Futures conference recently and heard someone say, "I’m very interested in the future because that’s where most of my life will happen." That got a big laugh. Well I’m very interested in this moment, because that’s where ALL of my life has happened. And I’m pretty sure that’s where most of the action is. (Coincidentally, it was at the library futures conference that Mary Catherine Bateson suggested that the best way to prepare for the future is to take an improv class...)

Principle 4: Shut up and Listen
Good improvisers are not necessarily more clever, or more quick-witted. They just listen better… Improv is about hearing what others are offering, and building off it. It’s hard to do that when your gums are flappin’.

Principle 5. Action beats inaction
Don’t talk about doing it, do it. Be specific. In Improv there is a "bias for action". I’ve also seen the term "bias for action" listed as a common trait of effective leaders. Why? Because active choices move things forward. The more specific the choice the better. Specific choices are committed choices. Specific choices move things forward and allow others to respond to and build off of your offers.

Principle 6. Be honest
In improv we are taught to express whatever is coming up in us at that moment. To do that we have to learn not to censor or judge our own thoughts, which requires some major rewiring of the brain… The only value we bring to the scene is our honest response to what’s happening.

Principle 7: Let go of (your need to) control
The only thing we can control are our own choices. Realizing that we are not in control of anything else is the key to de-stressing and getting into the flow. And the flow is where we are creative. The flow is where we are productive. The flow is where we are connected to others. The flow is where we are happy. [an aside] Interestingly… What happens when we stop focusing energy on things that we can’t control? That energy gets focused on things that we can control, and ironically, we end up exerting more influence.

Principle 8. There are no mistakes
Earlier I said that we have to be willing to make mistakes. But moving beyond that, we learn to not see choices as mistakes. In improv, there are no mistakes or bad ideas, there are only interesting choices. We respect all the choices (aka offers) made by others, and find ways to build off of them, no matter how challenging they may be. There are no mistakes because everything can be built upon. Everything that happens is an opportunity.

Principle 9: Trust
Learning improv we learn to trust ourselves. We trust our impulses and our choices (which we can do because there are no mistakes, and we are not alone.) And we learn to trust in others (to "justify" our "interesting choices", build off them, and weave them into the fabric of the scene.) When learning to trust our ideas, it helps to remember that ideas are infinite. So no matter what strange hole it seems we’ve dug ourselves into in a scene, there are an infinite number of ideas that can help dig us out.

Principle 10. Teamwork (row, row, row)
We’re all in this together. No one person is responsible for the success or failure of a scene. It succeeds, or not, based on our ability to work together. This requires strong individuals making strong choices, who trust each other and themselves. As a group, we learn to focus on solutions. As individuals we learn to focus on getting results (i.e. moving the scene forward) instead of being right, or angling for attention or credit. We rise, or fall, as one.

The Uber Principle: "Yes, and..."
So there are the big 10 principles of improv as seen by an improv newbie. But I’d like to conclude by mentioning one final improv principle. It’s a principle that runs through all the others and infuses improv with it’s spirit. This is the principle of "Yes, and". "Yes, and" means that we accept everything that happens as an offer, as a gift. It is our job to bring our unique perspective to bear, and build off of whatever is given to us. "Yes and" implies acceptance, but not acquiescence. "Yes and" acknowledges the reality of the moment, but also inspires us to create the future.

In the end, "Yes and" is a powerful attitude of affirmation. It is an attitude that affirms ourselves, and therefore gives courage. It is an attitude that affirms others, and therefore inspires trust. And it is an attitude that affirms what is and therefore inspires hope and excitement for the possibilities of what may be as we join together to create our shared future.

Car Repair

Share

For the last two weeks, I've been working to swap an engine/transmission from the 1995 Saturn SL1 in which I was in an accident to the 1995 Saturn SL1 I have driven since 2003. I have learned a lot about cars. I have learned alot about myself. I have been dirty and tired every night. I have also almost always had something to do.

Not that I look forward to working on my car almost every night per se, but I feel accomplished. This weekend, we managed to complete the arduous extrication of all the contaminated parts from Recipient car and the parts we want to use from Donor car. There have been some headaches. Fortunately, my dad has all the tools we needed or was at least able to fabricate something that worked. I will confess that he had some ingenious ideas I wasn't sure would work. My dad is a miracle worker.

The car will be redeemed in blood. I have cut myself three times and burned myself once. My father has cut himself more than that. There has been surprisingly little profanity, but we bled all the liquids from the vehicles, so even they lost everything. I did however learn that transmission fluid acts as a great solvent for grease.

I admit I'm excited. When the car is painted and all the pieces swapped I intend to keep, it will look pretty good. You know, I have a great deal of attachment to this car. He and I have been through a lot together. The only major part that ever failed was the part we always expected would, but far later than people thought. He should run for a great many years to come, and if I had possessed the talent and time and energy necessary, I probably could have done this in a few days. Fortunately, I have a few friends and a talented father who helped make this possible. So, it's been an adventure, and I have enjoyed the journey.

Trust Issues

Share

A friend of mine just postulated why everyone has trust issues. At first, I was tempted to deny this. Then I realized that there are people who have lost my trust in whom I cannot trust again. I have tried very hard not to project mistakes made by others onto people who have never harmed me, but we almost expect people to let us down. Just this morning, a friend, albeit happy about the birth of a grandson, described him as "one more human to break my heart". She expects he will disappoint her. Well, then he probably will.

I have great hope that someday, someone in whom I trust will hold true to their word. I have noticed that sometimes it comes down to what they mean by a word. I've been told by people that they love me who no longer speak to me.

As far as you and I are concerned, you have probably never let me down. I don't have great expectations about people even if I think I know of what they are capable. However, if you tell me you will do something, then I will hold you to it. When you don't, you have lost my trust, not I. You become the one who has the issue with trust because you cannot keep it.

It is not that I cannot trust others. I trust other people sometimes far more than they deserve, but in the end if they cannot keep it, then I will stop giving it to them. I'm not the one with the issue, and I venture to guess neither are you.

Prius and Pollution

Share

So the Huffington Post does a story on the nine worst polluted areas in the world. China’s coal region, the Niger delta for oil spills, London which is highly industrialized, two Russian sites where chemical or nuclear waste were dumped, a river in Indonesia where pollution floats on the surface like the Death Star’s trash compactor, and a mine in Peru round out the most infamous and dangerous suspects. Los Angeles and Phoenix are the only two American areas on the list, and they are there because of urban congestion caused by exorbitant prices that drive most employees to commute. The rest of the sites result from risky industries closely coupled to civilization. America doesn’t do that. Most of our mines, power plants, industry, and oil is located far from the populace, which is part of why we all drive cars, so that the pollution isn’t in our back yards or water basins.

Prius is a status symbol for most of those who drive it. Although they think they’re saving the planet, it doesn’t make a difference whether you drive a Prius or not. China will compensate with a coal power plant, Russia will dump Chemical or Nuclear waste, Nigerian oil will spil, and industries in European centers of manufacture will still churn out nitrates, sulfates, and oxides. It lets you feel good about yourself to drive a Prius, like you’re doing something to save the planet.

If you’re driving it for the energy efficiency, fine, but if that was really what it was about, what’s wrong with a Saturn? It’s all about image, which is why people buy cars that attract attention. I get a kick out of those who buy cars with amazing performance capability at the expense of economy. What is the point? It’s largely illegal in this nation to drive over 80mph, and even my Saturn will hit that (just not on a 6% incline), and so there’s no advantage other than aesthetic to own some kind of performance automobile. Add to that, the electric engine usually only operates at low speed, and how much time do people who drive the Prius spend at low speed? It’s great in town or stop and go traffic, but not any better on the freeway than my Saturn at 37-40mpg.

I know someone who drives a Prius. They’re not as cheap to maintain as people assume. Granted, I’m involved in a major engine overhaul, but I’m not sure a regular Joe could overhaul a Prius. At least my car is one on which I can do basic maintenance myself.

Racist Storm Names? Please

Share

Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee has complained about the anglo-centric conventions for naming storms. She is apparently completely ignorant about cultural and policy-driven reasons for the naming conventions. Although the storm names are chosen at random, the databank from which those names were drawn will not be truly random. It reflects the familiarity and experience of the person(s) who compiled it, and if certain names are foreign to them in space or in time, they would likely be omitted.

Her claim is that the names are racist. I disagree. I would not think of naming a storm with a Ugandan name, not because I hate Ugandans, but because I don't know any and don't have any idea what their names are. Furthermore, who would insert into the randomization matrix names from obscure or forgotten cultures like the Celts, the Incans, the Babylonians, the Goths and the like? What would you think if you saw Hurricane Aethelred or Hurricane Chichen-Itza or Hurricane Meshach? Likely, you would never think of those names because you have never heard them.

We view the world through the prism of our own experience, education, and exposure. I know people from Las Vegas who have NEVER LEFT THIS VALLEY. Granted, it's a 600 square mile area, but there's a much larger world out there. It isn't necessarily that we dislike or denigrate another culture; it's probably because we don't know anything about them. People sometimes name things based on phases of exposure. When I bred beagles, we named one litter of puppies after Norse mythology, another after the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and another after superhero names. It was fresh on our minds, and that's why we chose them. What is the likelihood that, if hurricanes were named by an organization of Sudanese, any of the storms would have names like Andrew, Earl or Katrina? They would choose things that were fresh on or easily recollected by their minds. The fact of the matter is that the storms as well as the agency that monitors them hail from a nation that has Anglo-Saxon cultural elements, which form the basis for a natural and passive bank from which to draw the names, however randomly they may be selected. I can't even write Aethelred or Joerge correctly on this keyboard because nobody in America makes a keyboard readily available to write the letters with which those names are usually spelled. Even a recent article I read yesterday said that China has forced a name change because the character for that name is so rare it cannot be typed.

This critique, on easy investigation, illustrates a woeful ignorance of the naming conventions. At the time the list was created (it is actually recycled) in 1953, it contained only female names. Male names were added in 1979. There are six lists that alternate every six years, and they pretty much remain the same with minor changes through each iteration of the cycle. The names were chosen because they were short, easily pronounced, and familiar to the individuals who communicate them, who communicate by and large in ENGLISH as that's the major international language.

Furthermore, outside the Atlantic, the lists are more 'diverse' already. I live out west, and I've heard polynesian sounding names of storms that slammed Hawai'i or Mexico before. Depending on where you are in the pacific, there are other lists, the majority of which names are not American in origin or sound even remotely Anglo-saxon off the tongue. Congressman Lee is an ignorant woman, who makes this argument largely because she herself is a bigot. In her mind, all names of white people are racist. Nomenclature is cultural.

See the full description at the NOAA Website here.

Furthermore, the list has other biases. It's alphabetical and focused on names. If they, God forbid, have more than 26 storms, they will use greek alphabet letters. Why not numbers or cuneiform or use dead fish to mark the storms? Someone will object no matter what convention we adopt. Everthing we do we do because it's a choice, a preference, and there is no way to make any choice void of preference except to eliminate alternatives. That means the elimination of choice and an end ultimately of freedom. Yet, you will not see Congressman Lee argue against these other biases. She has an agenda.

If Congressman Lee wants different names, perhaps she should resign from Congress and sign up at the NOAA. What global names did she give her children by way of example? She might have started with her own children who are named Erica and Jason respectively. The entire notion that naming of storms is racist is absurd and wasteful of further attention. Congressman Lee- sit down.

Odd Treasury Quote

Share

The US Treasury's website has this quote from Thomas Jefferson on its own website:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Some will argue the point on 'greed'. Do you really think that any society runs without greed? Capitalism, like every other fiscal philosophy, is only as good as the people who practice it. If you want to keep people from greed, you must teach them virtue. Stealing their money and giving it ot the lazy will not help the lazy. It only hurts the industrious. That kind of solution will not teach anyone virtue, but will rather illustrate that virtue has no rewards.

Some people criticize capitalism. Remember that people lump all meanings for any derivation of a theme under one word. Most of the people who clamour for free markets believe Capitalism to be the right way. Most of the people who clamour for more government intervention believe socialism to be the right way. What most of them actually want is to have enough for their needs without fear of financial bereftment. However, if I stand up and talk about 'entrepreneurship', most people's eyes glaze over. Yet, that's actually what they mean.

I discussed in a post earlier this week that Republicans really ought to endorse entrepreneurship. It is the frontier ideal, to go and make a life, to carve it out. Most of those people weren't 'rich', but they were happy. They had enough most of the time. When they had extra, they shared or sold it. They did not love money. Money was a means.

When money moves from a means to an end, that is the problem. Both ends of the political spectrum paint as the end whoever has the money. Liberals focus on money for the poor and say conservatives want the rich to have the money. We acquire it as a means to the things about which we actually care. That's when it becomes impossible to be a Christian and capitalist or Christian and communist.

Christianity, and God, are not concerned with money. Christ himself said, "Render to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's..." while he encouraged his disciples to store up treasures in heaven. Why you seek and how you use the money makes the difference. The treasury, and those who generally control it regardless of power, steal it from some in order to give it to others. It is also however a tenant of Christianity to reap what we sow and enjoy the fruits of our labors. Sometimes, that is money.

The problem here is language. We argue on semantics, diction, and vocabulary when we actually mean the same things with different words. Argh. Language is a poor instrument, and the English Language compounds the problem.

Cars=Freedom

Share

I've been without a car basically for the last three weeks now. Although I've been able to borrow on the rare occasions I really needed one or catch rides to work with people headed in that same general direction, other than that I don't really do much. I live over a mile from the nearest bus stop, my bicycle has problems again, and even yesterday it was 104F in Vegas which means you walk only as far as necessary, so I haven't really done much in the past few weeks besides vegetate or work on my car.

At least for Westies, Cars are freedom. We live in sprawling metropolitan areas and commute sometimes 20 miles to work in areas with inefficient and inconvenient mass transit because there's nothing 'mass' about a valley even with 2 million people when they are spread over 600 square miles. Even with smaller cities, there are vast swaths of nothing between cities, and the cities are not laid out to make things convenient. Without a bike or car, it is basically at least a mile from my home to any place of interest, and with temperatures over 100F and nobody to accompany me, I'm not going shopping, to tennis, the movies or stargazing by myself if I have to go on foot.

Beyond that, Cars give us options. If I choose to take a few hours off early, I can take off and go up in the mountains on a whim or catch a flick or go out today for lunch even though I brought leftovers. I can shop on the way home or on the way to work, run errands for myself, visit a sick friend, take a road trip, grab flowers for a friend or familiar, or just get out. There is no way I'm going to walk a mile to a park, hit a tennis ball against a wall for an hour, and then walk home when it's over 100F outside, which is true until after sundown in the summers here. I'm not going to pop over to the store for a treat, drive to the edge of town to meet friends or watch meteors, or anything like that after work in the evening. I have a ride, but we go straight home. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

Whenever and wherever we want to go, if we have a car, we go. Nothing is convenient to us. Cars give us options. Cars give us choice. Cars, out west, are a very symbol of freedom. They give us the ability to move about at will, to see and do and experience whatever we choose at times, with people and in places that we chose. That's probably why Westies refuse to buy little put-put smart cars and opt for gas-guzzling SUVs. Our terrain is rough. The distances are great. Outside the confines of the city, it's a forboding landscape, full of adventure. Cars enable us to carry supplies and are themselves one of our survival implements.

Years ago, Chevrolet ran a campaign calling their cars the Heartbeat of America. Take away the car, the combustion engine, and the west as presently constituted will die, as well as many of the people in her. Cars enable us to travel in relative comfort. Cars are convenient. Cars are a privilege, and we will fight for them out west as vehemently as we fight for any other symbol of our freedom. They enable us to pursue happiness. They are part of our America.

Golf: Worse Than We Thought

Share

I played golf only once so far in my life- at a family reunion when I was 14 years old. However, I was bad at it, very bad, and I think my uncles regretted impressing on me to accompany them. Since that time, I have agreed with Mark Twain who said that golf is a good walk spoiled. Many people however like it. Perhaps they should rethink it.

Yesterday, a golf shot started a wildfire in California. If I were a reactionary liberal, I would jump to report that this proves that golf 1. causes global warming and 2. is a threat to public health and welfare. They won't say any such thing. That just applies to Big Oil.

The president has spent a lot of time on the golf course. Thank goodness his shots never started fires, or else he might be accused of contributing to the decline of the environment and reckless endangerment. Instead, we have to fund his favorite constituents and redistribute wealth. Nobody will blame the golf course or the golfer for anything because liberal reactionaries like to golf.