If you want to know why Congress has such low approval from the American public, you must read this Chicago Tribune column from the Tribune's Washington Bureau chief, Michael Tackett. The column covers Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander's efforts to pass a bill that would require the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on the status of plans to redeploy troops out of Iraq.
Notice that the bill requires the Bush administration only to report on the status of plans to get troops out of Iraq. It doesn't require the administration to get troops out or even to come up with a plan to get troops out, which means the bill is worthless.
Alexander has been working since January to get this bill passed. Suppose he can get enough support to get the bill passed and Bush signs it into law. The bill wouldn't take effect until January 2008 at the earliest. The Bush administration can say it needs 90 days to draw up plans to get troops out of Iraq. April 2008 comes, and the administration can say they're still working on the plan. They can do this every 90 days until Bush leaves office.
Alexander disagrees with my argument that his bill is pointless. He considers it "a clear shift of direction in Iraq". He also thinks his bill helps the administration "shift gears and make sure we are on a path to an honorable conclusion to the war". I have no idea how reporting on the status of plans to move troops out of Iraq shifts the direction in Iraq war policy or puts America on a path to end the war.
What's sad is that Tackett supports Alexander's proposal, calling it "one effort to get some actual accountability". Tackett also gushes over Alexander in the column, saying "Alexander, a Republican, spends time on matters that get beyond the tiresome partisan fights of the day. Things that really matter". Tackett is the Chicago Tribune's Washington Bureau chief. The Tribune is a big-time newspaper. One would think Tackett could see that Alexander's proposal doesn't really matter. It doesn't stop Bush from continuing to do whatever he wants in Iraq.
Alexander and the rest of the members of Congress don't understand why their approval is so low. They think it's because of partisan bickering that keeps Congress from coming together to solve problems. They are totally mistaken. Their approval rating is low because they're not doing what the American people voted them into office to do. The people voted for them to end the Iraq War and Congress spends months coming up with bills requiring the Bush administration to provide progress reports. The people don't want war with Iran and Congress passes amendments labeling Iran's military a terrorist organization. If Congress wants to raise its approval rating, it should do what the people want: get out of Iraq and avoid war with Iran.
November 4, 2007
October 24, 2007
Protests Aren't Going to End the Iraq War
I was reading an article at Counterpunch explaining why the anti-war movement is so weak. The author, Todd Chretien, was upset that so few people are protesting and placed blame on the leadership of anti-war groups. But Chretien is missing the point. Protests are not an effective way to stop wars. Even if 10 million people marched on Washington demanding an end to the Iraq War, the war would continue. There are two reasons why protests aren't going to stop the Iraq War.
Reason 1: Bush Doesn't Care About Protesters
George W. Bush does not care what the American people think. In the 2006 congressional elections, voters gave the Democrats control of Congress to stop the war. Bush responded by sending more troops to Iraq.
Bush does what he wants. If a majority of people approve of what he's doing, he says he's doing the will of the American people. If a majority of people disapprove, he says he's a strong leader who's not governed by polls. If you think Bush is going to leave Iraq because lots of people show up to anti-war demonstrations, you haven't paid much attention to the Bush presidency.
Reason 2: People Don't Fear Peaceful Protests
Matt Taibbi said it better than I can. Mainstream America does not fear peaceful protests. The media either dismisses or ignores them, and political leaders ignore them, knowing the protesters will go home after demonstrating. To get people's attention, protesters have to do more violent things like riot, break store windows, take over public buildings, and block roads. But when you do things like that, you give the police an excuse to crack down and arrest people. It's a no-win situation for protesters. Protest peacefully and people ignore you. Protest more violently and people hate you, which allows the war to go on.
How to Stop the War
There are two ways to end the Iraq war. First, the president can pull the troops out of Iraq. Second, Congress can cut off funding for the war. Because Bush will not withdraw, option 1 is not an option until January 2009. If you want the war to end before 2009, there is only one option. Congress must cut off funding.
What can the anti-war movement do to get Congress to cut off funding? Put pressure on them. Organize letter writing campaigns. March on each congressional member's local office and demand an end to the war. March on the Capitol on a weekday when Congress is working. These activities are going to do more to end the war than marching on Washington on a Saturday when no one who can do anything to end the war is there. Hell, just writing a letter every day to your representative and senators would do more than a Saturday march on Washington.
Reason 1: Bush Doesn't Care About Protesters
George W. Bush does not care what the American people think. In the 2006 congressional elections, voters gave the Democrats control of Congress to stop the war. Bush responded by sending more troops to Iraq.
Bush does what he wants. If a majority of people approve of what he's doing, he says he's doing the will of the American people. If a majority of people disapprove, he says he's a strong leader who's not governed by polls. If you think Bush is going to leave Iraq because lots of people show up to anti-war demonstrations, you haven't paid much attention to the Bush presidency.
Reason 2: People Don't Fear Peaceful Protests
Matt Taibbi said it better than I can. Mainstream America does not fear peaceful protests. The media either dismisses or ignores them, and political leaders ignore them, knowing the protesters will go home after demonstrating. To get people's attention, protesters have to do more violent things like riot, break store windows, take over public buildings, and block roads. But when you do things like that, you give the police an excuse to crack down and arrest people. It's a no-win situation for protesters. Protest peacefully and people ignore you. Protest more violently and people hate you, which allows the war to go on.
How to Stop the War
There are two ways to end the Iraq war. First, the president can pull the troops out of Iraq. Second, Congress can cut off funding for the war. Because Bush will not withdraw, option 1 is not an option until January 2009. If you want the war to end before 2009, there is only one option. Congress must cut off funding.
What can the anti-war movement do to get Congress to cut off funding? Put pressure on them. Organize letter writing campaigns. March on each congressional member's local office and demand an end to the war. March on the Capitol on a weekday when Congress is working. These activities are going to do more to end the war than marching on Washington on a Saturday when no one who can do anything to end the war is there. Hell, just writing a letter every day to your representative and senators would do more than a Saturday march on Washington.
September 27, 2007
Israel Is Perfect. End of Story.
Israel is perfect. They have done nothing wrong in the past 60 years. The United States should always support Israel unconditionally. Supporting Israel provides lots of benefits to the United States with no problems. If anything, the United States should give Israel more aid and support than it already does.
The preceding paragraph summarizes the American mainstream opinion of Israel. If you disagree with anything I wrote in the previous paragraph, keep your mouth shut. If you don't, you'll be labeled a bigot who hates Jewish people. If you think I'm crazy, look at three events that took place this week.
First, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmaninejad spoke at Columbia University. His visit was met with angry protests and a verbal blast from Columbia's president, who called him "a petty and cruel dictator". What did Amaninejad do to warrant such an angry response? He supposedly said Israel should be wiped off the map and supposedly denies the Holocaust happened. But just because the mainstream media says something, doesn't make it true. There's the possiblity that Ahmaninejad's words were twisted to make him look bad. Even if he is as bad as the media makes him out to be, doesn't the Constitution defend free speech? I haven't read the Constitution recently, but I don't remember free speech applying only to people who are pro-Israel.
Second, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, talked at the City Club in Cleveland and at Case Western Reserve University. Once again, there was an angry response. The woman who invited Mearsheimer and Walt to speak received angry emails and phone calls for inviting them. Why such an angry response? Because the authors believe Israel has too much influence on American foreign policy. Heresy.
Third, on the September 21 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, Michael Scheuer said "I don't think it's worth an American life or an American dollar." in reference to Israel. Maher reacted as if Scheuer came out in support of torturing and molesting children. If you don't believe Americans should die for Israel, you're a bigot and a nut job.
There are people who think Jews control the world. It sounds crazy, but the reaction of people in New York, Cleveland, and Los Angeles this week gave a lot of ammunition to people who do think that way.
The preceding paragraph summarizes the American mainstream opinion of Israel. If you disagree with anything I wrote in the previous paragraph, keep your mouth shut. If you don't, you'll be labeled a bigot who hates Jewish people. If you think I'm crazy, look at three events that took place this week.
First, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmaninejad spoke at Columbia University. His visit was met with angry protests and a verbal blast from Columbia's president, who called him "a petty and cruel dictator". What did Amaninejad do to warrant such an angry response? He supposedly said Israel should be wiped off the map and supposedly denies the Holocaust happened. But just because the mainstream media says something, doesn't make it true. There's the possiblity that Ahmaninejad's words were twisted to make him look bad. Even if he is as bad as the media makes him out to be, doesn't the Constitution defend free speech? I haven't read the Constitution recently, but I don't remember free speech applying only to people who are pro-Israel.
Second, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, talked at the City Club in Cleveland and at Case Western Reserve University. Once again, there was an angry response. The woman who invited Mearsheimer and Walt to speak received angry emails and phone calls for inviting them. Why such an angry response? Because the authors believe Israel has too much influence on American foreign policy. Heresy.
Third, on the September 21 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, Michael Scheuer said "I don't think it's worth an American life or an American dollar." in reference to Israel. Maher reacted as if Scheuer came out in support of torturing and molesting children. If you don't believe Americans should die for Israel, you're a bigot and a nut job.
There are people who think Jews control the world. It sounds crazy, but the reaction of people in New York, Cleveland, and Los Angeles this week gave a lot of ammunition to people who do think that way.
August 28, 2007
How Does an Inside Job Provide Comfort?
I watched the History Channel's 9/11 conspiracies special. A recurring theme throughout the special was that the 9/11 Truth Movement believes in conspiracy theories as a psychological defense. 9/11 was a huge event, and conspiracy believers need a huge story to believe in. 19 Arabs highjacking four airplanes isn't a big enough story for the conspiracy believers. They believe 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the American government and use this belief as a coping device, similar to a grieving person believing a deceased loved one is in heaven.
This theme begs one question. How does believing 9/11 was an inside job provide more comfort than believing in the official story? If you believe the official story (19 Arabs highjacked four planes and crashed three of them into buildings, outfoxing the US military), you can at least believe the government can protect you and reduce the likelihood of another terrorist attack. You can believe 9/11 was a wakeup call to the government, and now the government has its act together. By doing things like improving domestic security, improving intelligence gathering, attacking terrorist strongholds, cutting off funding for terrorists, and improving conditions in the Arab world, the government can reduce the number of terrorists, resulting in a safer world.
If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you believe the US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens. You're not going to trust the government to protect you since they were willing to kill 3000 people. Who's going to protect you from the government? A worst-case scenario the Bush Administration likes to bring up is a terrorist group getting their hands on biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The US government has large stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The government also has lots more money and manpower than any terrorist organization. Believing 9/11 was an inside job is a lot more terrifying than believing the official story. If I wanted to feel better, I would cling to the official 9/11 story and ignore any evidence of government involvement.
This theme begs one question. How does believing 9/11 was an inside job provide more comfort than believing in the official story? If you believe the official story (19 Arabs highjacked four planes and crashed three of them into buildings, outfoxing the US military), you can at least believe the government can protect you and reduce the likelihood of another terrorist attack. You can believe 9/11 was a wakeup call to the government, and now the government has its act together. By doing things like improving domestic security, improving intelligence gathering, attacking terrorist strongholds, cutting off funding for terrorists, and improving conditions in the Arab world, the government can reduce the number of terrorists, resulting in a safer world.
If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you believe the US government murdered 3000 of its own citizens. You're not going to trust the government to protect you since they were willing to kill 3000 people. Who's going to protect you from the government? A worst-case scenario the Bush Administration likes to bring up is a terrorist group getting their hands on biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The US government has large stockpiles of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. The government also has lots more money and manpower than any terrorist organization. Believing 9/11 was an inside job is a lot more terrifying than believing the official story. If I wanted to feel better, I would cling to the official 9/11 story and ignore any evidence of government involvement.
July 2, 2007
Unity08
Unity08 is a group that believes the Democratic and Republican parties represent only their bases, ignoring the majority of people in the middle. The two parties engage in partisan fighting instead of coming together to solve problems. Their solution is to have an online convention in June 2008 where delegates would nominate a presidential candidate and decide what issues to focus on. The presidential ticket would include one Democrat and one Republican or have an independent presidential candidate that includes people from both parties. They want a bipartisan ticket with moderate centrist candidates.
An online political convention sounds interesting, a hell of a lot more interesting than the Democratic or Republican conventions. But Unity08 has several glaring problems.
People Don't Care About the Vice-Presidential Candidate
The 1988 Election proved this. People loved Lloyd Bentsen and hated Dan Quayle, but they voted for George Bush. Unless an independent wins the Unity08 nomination, you're going to have a general election with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat (the more likely scenario given the people Unity08 think would be great candidates) or 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. Either of these scenarios isn't much of an improvement over an election with 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Partisan Fighting Will Continue
Unity08 is not fielding candidates for Congress so Democrats and Republicans will continue to engage in partisan fighting. If the Democratic and Republican parties are the problem, how does having a presidential ticket with one member from each of the problem parties solve the problem?
Partisan Fighting Isn't the Problem
Leaders ignoring the people is the problem. Most people want the USA to pull out of Iraq. Democrats were elected to stop the Iraq war, but voted to keep funding the war. Most people want the government to secure the border with Mexico and stop illegal immigration, but Congress creates immigration bills that do neither.
Partisan fighting isn't necessarily a bad thing because it can prevent bad laws from being passed. The worst bills of the Bush Administration had strong bipartisan support.
Senator Joe Lieberman wants Congress to stop partisan gridlock and come together to use surveillance cameras around the country and monitor phone conversations and emails. If this is what's going to happen when Democrats and Republicans come together, please disband Unity08 and give me gridlock.
No Issues
Because Unity08 is waiting until their convention to craft their platform, they have taken no stands on any political issues. This policy makes it difficult for people to be passionate about Unity08 and to donate money to it. Why get excited or donate money to them now? You don't know where they stand on "crucial issues". You're supposed to trust Unity08 to have your best interests at heart, go to their convention, and hope their stands on the most important issues match yours.
An online political convention sounds interesting, a hell of a lot more interesting than the Democratic or Republican conventions. But Unity08 has several glaring problems.
People Don't Care About the Vice-Presidential Candidate
The 1988 Election proved this. People loved Lloyd Bentsen and hated Dan Quayle, but they voted for George Bush. Unless an independent wins the Unity08 nomination, you're going to have a general election with 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat (the more likely scenario given the people Unity08 think would be great candidates) or 2 Democrats and 1 Republican. Either of these scenarios isn't much of an improvement over an election with 1 Republican and 1 Democrat.
Partisan Fighting Will Continue
Unity08 is not fielding candidates for Congress so Democrats and Republicans will continue to engage in partisan fighting. If the Democratic and Republican parties are the problem, how does having a presidential ticket with one member from each of the problem parties solve the problem?
Partisan Fighting Isn't the Problem
Leaders ignoring the people is the problem. Most people want the USA to pull out of Iraq. Democrats were elected to stop the Iraq war, but voted to keep funding the war. Most people want the government to secure the border with Mexico and stop illegal immigration, but Congress creates immigration bills that do neither.
Partisan fighting isn't necessarily a bad thing because it can prevent bad laws from being passed. The worst bills of the Bush Administration had strong bipartisan support.
- No Child Left Behind Act (Passed 384-45 in the House, 87-10 in the Senate)
- Patriot Act (Passed 357-66 in the House, 98-1 in the Senate)
- Iraq War (Passed 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate)
Senator Joe Lieberman wants Congress to stop partisan gridlock and come together to use surveillance cameras around the country and monitor phone conversations and emails. If this is what's going to happen when Democrats and Republicans come together, please disband Unity08 and give me gridlock.
No Issues
Because Unity08 is waiting until their convention to craft their platform, they have taken no stands on any political issues. This policy makes it difficult for people to be passionate about Unity08 and to donate money to it. Why get excited or donate money to them now? You don't know where they stand on "crucial issues". You're supposed to trust Unity08 to have your best interests at heart, go to their convention, and hope their stands on the most important issues match yours.
July 1, 2007
Why Don't People Care About the Afghanistan War?
Most Americans are angry about the war in Iraq, and rightly so. The Bush Administration launched the war for false reasons. The war has gone on for a long time with no end in sight. Many people have died.
But you can say the same thing about the Afghanistan War. The Bush Administration claims invading Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks, but they were planning on invading before 9/11. The Afghanistan War started over a year before the Iraq War, closing in on 6 years. No end is in sight for the Afghanistan War, and many people have died.
Where is the outrage over Afghanistan? Everybody talks about getting out of Iraq. Why doesn't anybody talk about getting out of Afghanistan? Iraq is in the news almost every day. Why is Afghanistan rarely in the news. The USA has been there for almost 6 years, almost as long as World War 2 (1939-1945). How much longer do the troops have to stay there?
But you can say the same thing about the Afghanistan War. The Bush Administration claims invading Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attacks, but they were planning on invading before 9/11. The Afghanistan War started over a year before the Iraq War, closing in on 6 years. No end is in sight for the Afghanistan War, and many people have died.
Where is the outrage over Afghanistan? Everybody talks about getting out of Iraq. Why doesn't anybody talk about getting out of Afghanistan? Iraq is in the news almost every day. Why is Afghanistan rarely in the news. The USA has been there for almost 6 years, almost as long as World War 2 (1939-1945). How much longer do the troops have to stay there?
June 26, 2007
Running Against Kucinich as an Anti-War Candidate
According to a Plain Dealer op-ed piece, Rosemary Palmer is going to run against Dennis Kucinich for his seat in Congress in the 2008 Democratic primary. Palmer's son died fighting in Iraq so one would think she was running to support her son against Kucinich's anti-war position, but she is running as an anti-war candidate. Why run as an anti-war candidate against one of the most anti-war members of Congress? The article lists three reasons, but none of them make sense.
Reason 1: Kucinich's Presidential Run
I've written previously about people in Cleveland being upset about Kucinich's presidential run so I won't write about it again. The article doesn't state why Palmer is upset about Kucinich's decision to run for President, but I can think of only reason why from an anti-war point of view. Instead of running for President, he should be working in Congress to end the war. Sounds reasonable, right?
The problem is there are only two ways to end the Iraq war: the President can withdraw troops or Congress can cut off funding for the war. The Democratic Congress has shown they are not going to cut off funding because they are afraid of being accused of hurting the troops. Because Congress won't cut off funding for the war, becoming President is the only way Kucinich can end the war.
Reason 2: Kucinich Wants to Immediately Withdraw from Iraq
Apparently the problem with Kucinich's anti-war stance is he wants to end the war too quickly. Why bring the troops home now when we can wait 6-12 months to do so? Forcing another 500-1000 families to suffer the pain Palmer has suffered because an immediate withdrawal is "unrealistic" sounds insane.
Reason 3: Kucinich Doesn't Get Along with Congressional Party Leaders
Kucinich doesn't cooperate with high-ranking congressional Democrats, keeping him from being assigned to important committees. A more flexible Representative could get better committee assignments. This argument could be valid for many things (assuming Palmer could gain enough seniority and the Democrats still held the House when she gained the seniority), but not for ending the war. How is cooperating with Democratic congressional leaders going to end the war?
The Democratic leaders have shown they are not going to cut off funding for the war, and they have no interest in doing so. Rahm Emmanuel is more interested in cutting off funding for Dick Cheney's office than in cutting off war funding. The Democratic leaders want the war to continue so they can use it as an issue in the 2008 election. They would prefer soldiers losing their lives to losing an election. Cooperation isn't going to bring the troops home.
Conclusion
I'm glad Rosemary Palmer is running for Congress. We need competitive primary and general elections to keep our representatives alert. But Palmer needs to better explain how she would end the Iraq war faster than Dennis Kucinich. Criticizing immediate withdrawal isn't going to cut it with anti-war voters.
Reason 1: Kucinich's Presidential Run
I've written previously about people in Cleveland being upset about Kucinich's presidential run so I won't write about it again. The article doesn't state why Palmer is upset about Kucinich's decision to run for President, but I can think of only reason why from an anti-war point of view. Instead of running for President, he should be working in Congress to end the war. Sounds reasonable, right?
The problem is there are only two ways to end the Iraq war: the President can withdraw troops or Congress can cut off funding for the war. The Democratic Congress has shown they are not going to cut off funding because they are afraid of being accused of hurting the troops. Because Congress won't cut off funding for the war, becoming President is the only way Kucinich can end the war.
Reason 2: Kucinich Wants to Immediately Withdraw from Iraq
Apparently the problem with Kucinich's anti-war stance is he wants to end the war too quickly. Why bring the troops home now when we can wait 6-12 months to do so? Forcing another 500-1000 families to suffer the pain Palmer has suffered because an immediate withdrawal is "unrealistic" sounds insane.
Reason 3: Kucinich Doesn't Get Along with Congressional Party Leaders
Kucinich doesn't cooperate with high-ranking congressional Democrats, keeping him from being assigned to important committees. A more flexible Representative could get better committee assignments. This argument could be valid for many things (assuming Palmer could gain enough seniority and the Democrats still held the House when she gained the seniority), but not for ending the war. How is cooperating with Democratic congressional leaders going to end the war?
The Democratic leaders have shown they are not going to cut off funding for the war, and they have no interest in doing so. Rahm Emmanuel is more interested in cutting off funding for Dick Cheney's office than in cutting off war funding. The Democratic leaders want the war to continue so they can use it as an issue in the 2008 election. They would prefer soldiers losing their lives to losing an election. Cooperation isn't going to bring the troops home.
Conclusion
I'm glad Rosemary Palmer is running for Congress. We need competitive primary and general elections to keep our representatives alert. But Palmer needs to better explain how she would end the Iraq war faster than Dennis Kucinich. Criticizing immediate withdrawal isn't going to cut it with anti-war voters.
June 15, 2007
Lack of Respect
The NBA Finals are over, and as a Cavaliers fan, I found them to be disappointing. But what's more disappointing is the lack of respect the Cavaliers got nationally for their playoff run, which is something 28 other teams would have traded their seasons for.
Round 1: Cavaliers sweep Wizards. The national media was upset that this matchup even occurred. They were rooting for the Cavaliers to play the Heat in the first round and for them to lose to the Heat. The Wizards were without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler, but the Cavaliers swept them. The national media expected four blowout wins and ripped the Cavaliers for only winning by 15, 7, 6, and 7 points in the four games.
Round 2: Cavaliers beat Nets 4-2. There's not much to say here. To the national media, this was the second part of Cleveland's easy playoff road. I can't help it that the Raptors lost to the Nets. I didn't see anybody criticizing the Jazz's easy road when they got to play the Warriors instead of the Mavericks.
Conference Finals: Cavaliers beat Pistons 4-2. The ESPN NBA experts predicted the Pistons to win. When the Cavaliers won, instead of praising them, they talked about what the Pistons did wrong. Before the series, the Pistons were supposedly a dominant team. Greg Anthony even said they were better than last year's Pistons team that won 64 games. When the Cavaliers beat them, the Pistons transformed into a team with a lot of problems. The fact that Cleveland beat them meant that something was wrong with the Pistons.
Finals: Spurs sweep Cavaliers. The national media held two simultaneous views. First, the Spurs are a great team, a dynasty approaching that of the Bulls in the 1990's and the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980's. Second, the Cavaliers are terrible, the worst Finals team. Every Western Conference playoff team except the Lakers would have beaten the Cavaliers.
For these two views to both be true, the Spurs would have to blow out the Cavaliers all four games, the way the national media expected the Cavaliers to play against the Wizards. A dynasty should blow out a terrible team, right? But the Spurs didn't, winning by 9, 11, 3, and 4 (technically Game 4 was a 1 point game, but the Spurs gave the Cavaliers a wide open 3 point attempt at the end) points.
Either the Spurs aren't as great as the national media says (for letting a terrible team hang around) or the Cavaliers aren't as bad as they say (for hanging around with a great team). I take the second option.
National media, instead of ripping the Cavaliers and LeBron James for their poor performance against the Spurs, I have two other targets for your criticism. First, the Dallas Mavericks, your regular season darling. They won 67 games and had the league MVP, who you should expect more from than a second team All-NBA player like LeBron. But they lost in the first round to the #8 seed Warriors in 6 games, and were lucky to get a 6th game. Second, the Miami Heat, defending NBA champions. I know Dwayne Wade was injured, but a player who supposedly is better than LeBron shouldn't get swept in the first round of the playoffs. But why criticize your favorites, when you can rip LeBron?
Round 1: Cavaliers sweep Wizards. The national media was upset that this matchup even occurred. They were rooting for the Cavaliers to play the Heat in the first round and for them to lose to the Heat. The Wizards were without Gilbert Arenas and Caron Butler, but the Cavaliers swept them. The national media expected four blowout wins and ripped the Cavaliers for only winning by 15, 7, 6, and 7 points in the four games.
Round 2: Cavaliers beat Nets 4-2. There's not much to say here. To the national media, this was the second part of Cleveland's easy playoff road. I can't help it that the Raptors lost to the Nets. I didn't see anybody criticizing the Jazz's easy road when they got to play the Warriors instead of the Mavericks.
Conference Finals: Cavaliers beat Pistons 4-2. The ESPN NBA experts predicted the Pistons to win. When the Cavaliers won, instead of praising them, they talked about what the Pistons did wrong. Before the series, the Pistons were supposedly a dominant team. Greg Anthony even said they were better than last year's Pistons team that won 64 games. When the Cavaliers beat them, the Pistons transformed into a team with a lot of problems. The fact that Cleveland beat them meant that something was wrong with the Pistons.
Finals: Spurs sweep Cavaliers. The national media held two simultaneous views. First, the Spurs are a great team, a dynasty approaching that of the Bulls in the 1990's and the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980's. Second, the Cavaliers are terrible, the worst Finals team. Every Western Conference playoff team except the Lakers would have beaten the Cavaliers.
For these two views to both be true, the Spurs would have to blow out the Cavaliers all four games, the way the national media expected the Cavaliers to play against the Wizards. A dynasty should blow out a terrible team, right? But the Spurs didn't, winning by 9, 11, 3, and 4 (technically Game 4 was a 1 point game, but the Spurs gave the Cavaliers a wide open 3 point attempt at the end) points.
Either the Spurs aren't as great as the national media says (for letting a terrible team hang around) or the Cavaliers aren't as bad as they say (for hanging around with a great team). I take the second option.
National media, instead of ripping the Cavaliers and LeBron James for their poor performance against the Spurs, I have two other targets for your criticism. First, the Dallas Mavericks, your regular season darling. They won 67 games and had the league MVP, who you should expect more from than a second team All-NBA player like LeBron. But they lost in the first round to the #8 seed Warriors in 6 games, and were lucky to get a 6th game. Second, the Miami Heat, defending NBA champions. I know Dwayne Wade was injured, but a player who supposedly is better than LeBron shouldn't get swept in the first round of the playoffs. But why criticize your favorites, when you can rip LeBron?
May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
The United States observes Memorial Day today. On Memorial Day we remember the people who died in America's wars, from the Revolutionary War to the current war in Iraq. What is the best way to honor and remember who paid the ultimate price?
The best way to honor those who died in war would be to avoid fighting unnecessary wars. By avoiding unnecessary wars, fewer people die in battle so we have fewer people to honor on future Memorial Days. As someone who did not die in battle, I can't speak for those who did, but I can't imagine any person who died in a war wanting anyone else to suffer what they suffered.
Unfortunately our country has done a poor job of avoiding unnecessary war in the past 50 years. On patriotic holidays like Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, political leaders like to remind us that the military fights to defend our country and keep us free. Which wars of the past 50 years have met that criteria: defending America and keeping its citizens free?
The war that has the best chance of meeting that criteria was the invasion of Afghanistan in Autumn 2001: America was attacked on September 11 and had to defend itself. But if you look deeper, invading Afghanistan had little to do with defending America and protecting freedom. At best, invading Afghanistan was an act of revenge. People were angry after the September 11 attacks, and wanted to get back at the attackers. Since the attackers died in the attacks (if you believe the official account), there was no way to get back at them. Invading Afghanistan was the next best thing.
At worst, the invasion of Afghanistan had more sinister motives. The Bush Administration planned to invade Afghanistan before September 11 so the invasion was not a response to the September 11 attacks. There is a lot of evidence Afghanistan was invaded so an oil pipeline could be built there. Fighting for an oil pipeline doesn't sound as good as fighting to protect our freedom.
On this Memorial Day our political leaders would best honor our fallen soldiers by bringing home our soldiers from Iraq and not invading Iran. It would do a lot more for the fallen soldiers than going to a parade or laying a wreath at a cemetery.
The best way to honor those who died in war would be to avoid fighting unnecessary wars. By avoiding unnecessary wars, fewer people die in battle so we have fewer people to honor on future Memorial Days. As someone who did not die in battle, I can't speak for those who did, but I can't imagine any person who died in a war wanting anyone else to suffer what they suffered.
Unfortunately our country has done a poor job of avoiding unnecessary war in the past 50 years. On patriotic holidays like Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day, political leaders like to remind us that the military fights to defend our country and keep us free. Which wars of the past 50 years have met that criteria: defending America and keeping its citizens free?
The war that has the best chance of meeting that criteria was the invasion of Afghanistan in Autumn 2001: America was attacked on September 11 and had to defend itself. But if you look deeper, invading Afghanistan had little to do with defending America and protecting freedom. At best, invading Afghanistan was an act of revenge. People were angry after the September 11 attacks, and wanted to get back at the attackers. Since the attackers died in the attacks (if you believe the official account), there was no way to get back at them. Invading Afghanistan was the next best thing.
At worst, the invasion of Afghanistan had more sinister motives. The Bush Administration planned to invade Afghanistan before September 11 so the invasion was not a response to the September 11 attacks. There is a lot of evidence Afghanistan was invaded so an oil pipeline could be built there. Fighting for an oil pipeline doesn't sound as good as fighting to protect our freedom.
On this Memorial Day our political leaders would best honor our fallen soldiers by bringing home our soldiers from Iraq and not invading Iran. It would do a lot more for the fallen soldiers than going to a parade or laying a wreath at a cemetery.
April 30, 2007
I Wonder Why This Woman Is Single?
I came across this interesting Craigslist personal ad in the Strictly Platonic section. Personal ads stay up for only 45 days so I will quote parts of it for posterity. The following sentence is the perfect summary of the ad and raises several questions:
If your days are so full that you don't have time to check email, why are you looking for new friends? Why are you posting an online personal ad where email is the only means of communication?
You would think a woman who doesn't want to write back and forth endlessly would include lots of information about herself so potential suitors would know whether or not they should respond to her ad. She supplied three pieces of information about herself: she's 37, has liberal political views, and dislikes the Bush Administration. I don't need any more information. I've found my soulmate.
What is this woman looking for in a man?
She's not asking for much, especially for an ad in the Strictly Platonic section. I know how important it is for my friends to be attractive, athletic, and marriage-minded. Apparently this woman missed the Women Seeking Men section, which would be more appropriate if you're looking for marriage instead of friendship. By the way, what the hell does goal-oriented mean anyway? It sounds like a BS corporate slang term, and I find corporate slang to be a big turnoff.
I have some bad news for this woman. Any man who fits all your criteria could find someone younger and hotter than you, somebody young enough to have his children without going to a fertility clinic.
Now let's look at the end of the ad.
I have to send a photo, but I'm supposed to believe her when she says she's attractive. I have to tell her about myself, but she doesn't have to tell me anything other than she's liberal and dislikes George W. Bush. I'm not sure how I would learn more about her since she dislikes email chat. She's also too busy to check her email. I can't believe she hasn't found anyone who wants to spend the rest of his life with her.
What's sad is that this ad is a typical ad from a single woman in the Cleveland area age 25-45 , which happens to be the age range of people interested in a 36 year old man.
My days are great and full and I don't take time out each day to check email and write back and forth endlessly with people I've never met.
If your days are so full that you don't have time to check email, why are you looking for new friends? Why are you posting an online personal ad where email is the only means of communication?
You would think a woman who doesn't want to write back and forth endlessly would include lots of information about herself so potential suitors would know whether or not they should respond to her ad. She supplied three pieces of information about herself: she's 37, has liberal political views, and dislikes the Bush Administration. I don't need any more information. I've found my soulmate.
What is this woman looking for in a man?
Female--37 seeks reasonable, loving, responsible male age 34 - 44...I am one version of the real deal looking for the real deal in a single male friend and partner:
For the purpose of this post "real deal" is defined as-- single, marriage-minded, goal-oriented, intelligent, athletic, healthy, fit, attractive, non-smoker, light social drinker, well-educated, non-addict (alcohol,cigarette, or other)...You are comfortable in torn jeans doing house projects or yard work and you also have ties to die for the occassion calls for it.
She's not asking for much, especially for an ad in the Strictly Platonic section. I know how important it is for my friends to be attractive, athletic, and marriage-minded. Apparently this woman missed the Women Seeking Men section, which would be more appropriate if you're looking for marriage instead of friendship. By the way, what the hell does goal-oriented mean anyway? It sounds like a BS corporate slang term, and I find corporate slang to be a big turnoff.
I have some bad news for this woman. Any man who fits all your criteria could find someone younger and hotter than you, somebody young enough to have his children without going to a fertility clinic.
Now let's look at the end of the ad.
If you'd like to know more about me and your, marriage-minded, please tell me about yourself and send a photo.
I have to send a photo, but I'm supposed to believe her when she says she's attractive. I have to tell her about myself, but she doesn't have to tell me anything other than she's liberal and dislikes George W. Bush. I'm not sure how I would learn more about her since she dislikes email chat. She's also too busy to check her email. I can't believe she hasn't found anyone who wants to spend the rest of his life with her.
What's sad is that this ad is a typical ad from a single woman in the Cleveland area age 25-45 , which happens to be the age range of people interested in a 36 year old man.
March 22, 2007
LeBron Over Dirk for MVP
Conventional wisdom among the so-called NBA experts has Dirk Nowitzki as the leading MVP candidate, with Steve Nash the closest competitor. LeBron James is apparently not in their class because he supposedly had a subpar first half of the season and because the Cavaliers' record is not as good as the Mavericks or Suns. Conventional wisdom is wrong.
Head To Head
If you watched the two games between the Cavaliers and Mavericks this season, I don't see how you can think Nowitzki is better than LeBron. In the first meeting in Dallas, LeBron shut down Nowitzki in the last five minutes of a close game. Critics says LeBron is a terrible defender. How can the leading MVP candidate not do anything against a terrible defender in the last five minutes of the game?
Contrast LeBron's defense on Nowitzki with the Mavericks' defense on LeBron. The Mavericks were double-teaming and helping on LeBron the whole game, daring anyone other than LeBron to score, and he still scored 39 points. But the haters would prefer to focus on LeBron missing two free throws and two three-point attempts at the end of the game. Why pay attention to the first 47 minutes of the game?
I attended the second meeting, and the Cavaliers coaching staff screwed up by not putting LeBron on Nowitzki until the two minute mark of the fourth quarter, after Nowitzki had hit several baskets to put the Mavericks up by double digits. I also noticed Nowitzki scoring several times when his defender left to help guard another Mavericks player. I don't remember LeBron's man leaving him to help out on other Cavaliers players.
But It's About Winning
If you look at the NBA standings, you will see that the Dallas Mavericks have a better record than the Cleveland Cavaliers. The experts say that makes Dirk Nowitzki more valuable than LeBron James.
What it tells me is that Dirk Nowitzki has better teammates than LeBron James. How does having better teammates make a player more valuable?
What I find interesting is the experts rip the rest of the Cavalier team. Whenever the Cavaliers play on TNT, Charles Barkley always mentions the fact that the Cavaliers need a point guard and an outside shooter. Other experts will also talk about how terrible the Cavalier point guards are. They will tell you about how awful Larry Hughes and Zydrunas Ilgauskas have played this year. They will tell you about Drew Gooden's inconsistency and Anderson Varejao's lack of polish on the offensive end.
What record can you expect for a team with one star and a terrible supporting cast? It seems like a .500 record is the best you can hope for? Dwyane Wade had the Miami Heat a couple of games below .500 when Shaq was hurt. Carmelo Anthony's Denver Nuggets have hovered around .500 for most of the season. Allen Iverson led the 76ers to 38 wins last year. Kobe Bryant led the Lakers to 45 wins last year, but he at least had Lamar Odom to help out. With LeBron's terrible supporting cast, a 34-34 record after 68 games should be a best-case scenario.
But the Cavaliers' record is 41-27, 14 games over .500, which is the 7th best record in the NBA. How can they have such a good record with a collection of stiffs? It must be LeBron. But the experts expect LeBron to lead a collection of stiffs to 55-60 wins. LeBron is supposed to win as many games as Nowitzki, Steve Nash, and Tim Duncan. But Nowitzki has players like Josh Howard, Jason Terry, and Jerry Stackhouse to help him. Steve Nash has Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, both All-Stars. Tim Duncan has Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. LeBron has no such help, but he can't be MVP unless he can win as many games as teams with multiple All-Star players.
But LeBron Stunk in the First Half of the Season
The experts say you have to play well the whole season to be MVP. LeBron's terrible first half disqualifies him from MVP consideration. Let's look at LeBron's numbers in November, December, and January, his crappy months.
November: 27.5 points, 6.8 rebounds, 6.7 assists per game
December: 27.1 points, 6.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists per game
January: 26.9 points, 7 rebounds, 5.8 assists per game
He really shit the bed during the first three months of the season, didn't he? 27 points, 6 rebounds, 6 assists a game. What an embarrassment. My brother should demand a refund for his season tickets. But it's about wins and losses, not numbers, right? Let's look at the Cavaliers' record for LeBron's three month slump.
November: 9-6
December: 8-6
January: 9-7
Three consecutive winning months with no supporting cast. Where is the terrible first half?
But the Cavaliers are 3-0 Without LeBron
LeBron James has missed three games due to injury this year, and the Cavaliers have won them all. LeBron can't be MVP because his team wins without him. But let's look at the three wins.
Win #1: a road win over the 76ers (26-42)
Win #2: a home win over the Warriors (32-37, 8-27 on the road)
Win #3: a home win over the Kings (29-39, 11-24 on the road)
Three wins over teams with a combined record of 87-118, two of them at home over teams with a combined record of 19-51 on the road. LeBron sure is holding this Cavalier team back.
I guess Nowitzki and Nash are more deserving MVP candidates. Why give the MVP to the best player, the player who means the most to his team, and the player who is leading a collection of stiffs to a second straight 50 win season when you can give it to an inferior player who happens to have better teammates?
Head To Head
If you watched the two games between the Cavaliers and Mavericks this season, I don't see how you can think Nowitzki is better than LeBron. In the first meeting in Dallas, LeBron shut down Nowitzki in the last five minutes of a close game. Critics says LeBron is a terrible defender. How can the leading MVP candidate not do anything against a terrible defender in the last five minutes of the game?
Contrast LeBron's defense on Nowitzki with the Mavericks' defense on LeBron. The Mavericks were double-teaming and helping on LeBron the whole game, daring anyone other than LeBron to score, and he still scored 39 points. But the haters would prefer to focus on LeBron missing two free throws and two three-point attempts at the end of the game. Why pay attention to the first 47 minutes of the game?
I attended the second meeting, and the Cavaliers coaching staff screwed up by not putting LeBron on Nowitzki until the two minute mark of the fourth quarter, after Nowitzki had hit several baskets to put the Mavericks up by double digits. I also noticed Nowitzki scoring several times when his defender left to help guard another Mavericks player. I don't remember LeBron's man leaving him to help out on other Cavaliers players.
But It's About Winning
If you look at the NBA standings, you will see that the Dallas Mavericks have a better record than the Cleveland Cavaliers. The experts say that makes Dirk Nowitzki more valuable than LeBron James.
What it tells me is that Dirk Nowitzki has better teammates than LeBron James. How does having better teammates make a player more valuable?
What I find interesting is the experts rip the rest of the Cavalier team. Whenever the Cavaliers play on TNT, Charles Barkley always mentions the fact that the Cavaliers need a point guard and an outside shooter. Other experts will also talk about how terrible the Cavalier point guards are. They will tell you about how awful Larry Hughes and Zydrunas Ilgauskas have played this year. They will tell you about Drew Gooden's inconsistency and Anderson Varejao's lack of polish on the offensive end.
What record can you expect for a team with one star and a terrible supporting cast? It seems like a .500 record is the best you can hope for? Dwyane Wade had the Miami Heat a couple of games below .500 when Shaq was hurt. Carmelo Anthony's Denver Nuggets have hovered around .500 for most of the season. Allen Iverson led the 76ers to 38 wins last year. Kobe Bryant led the Lakers to 45 wins last year, but he at least had Lamar Odom to help out. With LeBron's terrible supporting cast, a 34-34 record after 68 games should be a best-case scenario.
But the Cavaliers' record is 41-27, 14 games over .500, which is the 7th best record in the NBA. How can they have such a good record with a collection of stiffs? It must be LeBron. But the experts expect LeBron to lead a collection of stiffs to 55-60 wins. LeBron is supposed to win as many games as Nowitzki, Steve Nash, and Tim Duncan. But Nowitzki has players like Josh Howard, Jason Terry, and Jerry Stackhouse to help him. Steve Nash has Shawn Marion and Amare Stoudemire, both All-Stars. Tim Duncan has Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili. LeBron has no such help, but he can't be MVP unless he can win as many games as teams with multiple All-Star players.
But LeBron Stunk in the First Half of the Season
The experts say you have to play well the whole season to be MVP. LeBron's terrible first half disqualifies him from MVP consideration. Let's look at LeBron's numbers in November, December, and January, his crappy months.
November: 27.5 points, 6.8 rebounds, 6.7 assists per game
December: 27.1 points, 6.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists per game
January: 26.9 points, 7 rebounds, 5.8 assists per game
He really shit the bed during the first three months of the season, didn't he? 27 points, 6 rebounds, 6 assists a game. What an embarrassment. My brother should demand a refund for his season tickets. But it's about wins and losses, not numbers, right? Let's look at the Cavaliers' record for LeBron's three month slump.
November: 9-6
December: 8-6
January: 9-7
Three consecutive winning months with no supporting cast. Where is the terrible first half?
But the Cavaliers are 3-0 Without LeBron
LeBron James has missed three games due to injury this year, and the Cavaliers have won them all. LeBron can't be MVP because his team wins without him. But let's look at the three wins.
Win #1: a road win over the 76ers (26-42)
Win #2: a home win over the Warriors (32-37, 8-27 on the road)
Win #3: a home win over the Kings (29-39, 11-24 on the road)
Three wins over teams with a combined record of 87-118, two of them at home over teams with a combined record of 19-51 on the road. LeBron sure is holding this Cavalier team back.
I guess Nowitzki and Nash are more deserving MVP candidates. Why give the MVP to the best player, the player who means the most to his team, and the player who is leading a collection of stiffs to a second straight 50 win season when you can give it to an inferior player who happens to have better teammates?
March 9, 2007
Energy Prices Should Start Declining
Daylight Savings Time has been moved up to the second Sunday in March. Congress took the courageous step of extending Daylight Savings Time in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to save energy. You might have thought that driving cars, heating homes, and air conditioning homes used the most energy, but Congress found the true cause of America's high energy use: light bulbs.
Apparently Americans don't use energy during daylight hours. But when the sun goes down, we turn on the lights, and that causes gas prices to skyrocket. I'm glad to see Congress found the true cause of our energy problems and extended the number of daylight hours.
But I wish Congress had taken the bold step of eliminating Standard Time, giving us year-round Daylight Savings Time. If they had done that, gas would fall to $1 a gallon, and we wouldn't have to be hearing any talk about global warming. Environmental groups would disband because they wouldn't have any environmental problems to fix. The only people who would be hurt would be energy companies and their stockholders, but I'm sure Congress could provide a safety net to ease their pain.
Enjoy the low gas prices and utility bills until November when we go back to Standard Time.
Apparently Americans don't use energy during daylight hours. But when the sun goes down, we turn on the lights, and that causes gas prices to skyrocket. I'm glad to see Congress found the true cause of our energy problems and extended the number of daylight hours.
But I wish Congress had taken the bold step of eliminating Standard Time, giving us year-round Daylight Savings Time. If they had done that, gas would fall to $1 a gallon, and we wouldn't have to be hearing any talk about global warming. Environmental groups would disband because they wouldn't have any environmental problems to fix. The only people who would be hurt would be energy companies and their stockholders, but I'm sure Congress could provide a safety net to ease their pain.
Enjoy the low gas prices and utility bills until November when we go back to Standard Time.
February 15, 2007
Steroids Aren't a Substitute for Strength Training
When baseball players are accused of using steroids, fellow players and trainers defend them by saying they work hard in the weight room. As if working hard in the weight room is undeniable proof against steroid use. These people are clueless about steroids.
Steroids complement weight training. They are not a substitute for weight training. Taking steroids and not exercising isn't going to transform someone from scrawny to muscle bound. You still have to work hard in the weight room to build muscle. Steroids provide more bang for the hard work.
Steroids complement weight training. They are not a substitute for weight training. Taking steroids and not exercising isn't going to transform someone from scrawny to muscle bound. You still have to work hard in the weight room to build muscle. Steroids provide more bang for the hard work.
January 18, 2007
Cancer Death Statistics Overblown
Last night one of the biggest stories in the mainstream media was the discovery that the number of Americans who died from cancer decreased in 2003 and 2004. As it normally does, the media overhyped the news and made it seem more significant than it actually is. They described these statistics as a major breakthrough for medicine, making it seem like we are winning the war against cancer. But if you look at the numbers, it is not a major breakthrough.
In 2003 the number of cancer deaths declined by 369, and in 2004 the number of deaths declined by 3,014, with 553,888 deaths. A reduction in cancer deaths is a good thing, but the reduction in 2003 and 2004 is not large enough to describe as a triumph of modern medicine. If cancer deaths were dropping by 5-10% a year, that would be a sign that the medical community is making progress in fighting cancer. But the numbers in 2003 and 2004 are nowhere near that. If the cancer death reduction from 2003 to 2004 continues each year, it would take over 180 years to bring the death rate to 0. I don't think the American Cancer Society and the V Foundation are going to have to close their doors any time soon.
In 2003 the number of cancer deaths declined by 369, and in 2004 the number of deaths declined by 3,014, with 553,888 deaths. A reduction in cancer deaths is a good thing, but the reduction in 2003 and 2004 is not large enough to describe as a triumph of modern medicine. If cancer deaths were dropping by 5-10% a year, that would be a sign that the medical community is making progress in fighting cancer. But the numbers in 2003 and 2004 are nowhere near that. If the cancer death reduction from 2003 to 2004 continues each year, it would take over 180 years to bring the death rate to 0. I don't think the American Cancer Society and the V Foundation are going to have to close their doors any time soon.
January 15, 2007
MLK Day
Today is Martin Luther King Day in the USA. Race relations have come a long way in the past 40 years, but there is still work to do. The major barrier to achieving true equality is that there are many white people in America who think that white people are superior to black people.
When I say many white people think white people are superior to black people, I don't mean it in a Ku Klux Klan/Nazi way. Most white people do not think black people are subhuman. Most white people don't hate black people. I think most white people subconsciously feel they are just a little bit better than black people.
If you want evidence that many white people think they are superior to black people, take a look at the affirmative action debate. People who are against affirmative action claim that it is unfair. They think people should be judged solely on merit when being considered for jobs and admission to elite universities.
Judging people solely on merit is a noble goal. It was Martin Luther King's dream, but it does not exist in corporate America. Being the most qualified candidate for a job does not mean you're going to get the job. You could get passed over for many reasons. Another candidate might have performed better in the interview. One of the other candidates might be a good friend of the hiring manager. The hiring manager might have been pressured to hire the CEO's close relative.
White affirmative action opponents have no problem with less qualified applicants getting chosen for jobs and admission into college. Hiring the CEO's nephew is fine. A university admitting a student because her father went to the school and donated a lot of money is OK. But if a less qualified applicant get chosen because he's black, they get upset. Why?
The answer is that white affirmative action opponents believe black people are inferior to white people. Slightly inferior, but inferior still the same. Getting passed over for a job by the CEO's nephew is OK because the CEO is a superior person. Getting passed over for college admission by the child of a rich alumnus is fine because rich people are superior. But getting passed over for a black person is considered an injustice. If these people thought blacks and whites were equal, they wouldn't be upset about getting passed over for a black person. They get upset because they got passed over for an inferior person.
When I say many white people think white people are superior to black people, I don't mean it in a Ku Klux Klan/Nazi way. Most white people do not think black people are subhuman. Most white people don't hate black people. I think most white people subconsciously feel they are just a little bit better than black people.
If you want evidence that many white people think they are superior to black people, take a look at the affirmative action debate. People who are against affirmative action claim that it is unfair. They think people should be judged solely on merit when being considered for jobs and admission to elite universities.
Judging people solely on merit is a noble goal. It was Martin Luther King's dream, but it does not exist in corporate America. Being the most qualified candidate for a job does not mean you're going to get the job. You could get passed over for many reasons. Another candidate might have performed better in the interview. One of the other candidates might be a good friend of the hiring manager. The hiring manager might have been pressured to hire the CEO's close relative.
White affirmative action opponents have no problem with less qualified applicants getting chosen for jobs and admission into college. Hiring the CEO's nephew is fine. A university admitting a student because her father went to the school and donated a lot of money is OK. But if a less qualified applicant get chosen because he's black, they get upset. Why?
The answer is that white affirmative action opponents believe black people are inferior to white people. Slightly inferior, but inferior still the same. Getting passed over for a job by the CEO's nephew is OK because the CEO is a superior person. Getting passed over for college admission by the child of a rich alumnus is fine because rich people are superior. But getting passed over for a black person is considered an injustice. If these people thought blacks and whites were equal, they wouldn't be upset about getting passed over for a black person. They get upset because they got passed over for an inferior person.
January 11, 2007
Why Do People Trust Bush to Fight the War on Terror?
I don't see how anyone could listen to the President's speech last night and trust him in the War on Terror. Look at the following excerpt from the speech:
Assuming al Qaeda is in Anbar, shouldn't Bush send more than 4000 additional troops there? If he was serious about winning the War on Terror, he would send enough troops to wipe out al Qaeda in Anbar.
And why is Bush trusting Iraqi and tribal forces to fight al Qaeda? He constantly tells us how important the War on Terror and the Iraq War are. He tells us that our civilization is in danger unless we defeat the terrorists. Why would Bush use Iraqi and tribal forces instead of relying strictly on American forces for something so important?
What is especially disturbing is that neither the media nor Democratic politicians question the way Bush fights the War on Terror. He showed in his speech last night that he is not serious about fighting terrorists, yet no one calls him out on it. People still view him favorably on national security and have no problem with him taking away our civil liberties. What is it going to take for these people to see how badly Bush is waging the War on Teror?
Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.
Assuming al Qaeda is in Anbar, shouldn't Bush send more than 4000 additional troops there? If he was serious about winning the War on Terror, he would send enough troops to wipe out al Qaeda in Anbar.
And why is Bush trusting Iraqi and tribal forces to fight al Qaeda? He constantly tells us how important the War on Terror and the Iraq War are. He tells us that our civilization is in danger unless we defeat the terrorists. Why would Bush use Iraqi and tribal forces instead of relying strictly on American forces for something so important?
What is especially disturbing is that neither the media nor Democratic politicians question the way Bush fights the War on Terror. He showed in his speech last night that he is not serious about fighting terrorists, yet no one calls him out on it. People still view him favorably on national security and have no problem with him taking away our civil liberties. What is it going to take for these people to see how badly Bush is waging the War on Teror?
January 8, 2007
Match.com 6 Month Guarantee
I have seen some Match.com television ads touting their 6 month guarantee. Sign up for a 6 month subscription. If you don't find someone during the 6 months, they will give you 6 more months for free. The terms for the most part are reasonable. You have to make an honest effort to meet someone by contacting at least 5 people per month. But I'm not sure why they need to protect themselves so much. I can't see people paying over $100 for a subscription and not do anything so they can get another 6 months. Although the terms are mostly reasonable, I see two problems with the guarantee.
The first problem is that Match.com reserves the right to cancel the guarantee at any time. If you signed up today, there is nothing stopping them from canceling the guarantee in June. It doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
The second problem is that getting another 6 months of membership doesn't help much. Your best chance of finding someone is when you sign up because every person's profile is new to you. If you read through the profiles, contact the people you like, and make no connections, you're in trouble. You're going to be limited to people who recently signed up, which is a much smaller pool than the pool you started with. Your free 6 months isn't as valuable as the 6 months you paid for.
If you can't find someone special in 6 months with Match.com, what good are another 6 months? A real guarantee would be a refund if you don't find someone in 6 months. Then Match.com would be as interested as their subscribers in the subscribers finding true love.
The first problem is that Match.com reserves the right to cancel the guarantee at any time. If you signed up today, there is nothing stopping them from canceling the guarantee in June. It doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
The second problem is that getting another 6 months of membership doesn't help much. Your best chance of finding someone is when you sign up because every person's profile is new to you. If you read through the profiles, contact the people you like, and make no connections, you're in trouble. You're going to be limited to people who recently signed up, which is a much smaller pool than the pool you started with. Your free 6 months isn't as valuable as the 6 months you paid for.
If you can't find someone special in 6 months with Match.com, what good are another 6 months? A real guarantee would be a refund if you don't find someone in 6 months. Then Match.com would be as interested as their subscribers in the subscribers finding true love.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)