I'm a soccer fan by virtue of having played the game throughout my childhood. Since then, I've barely touched a soccer ball (although I have a deflated one in the trunk of my car for some reason). But I've gotten swept up in this year's World Cup fever. And I've even been watching parts of the games, which is mystifying to me, since I have no patience for watching sports that don't involve Georgia Tech. Over the past week I've made mental notes on the game and I wanted to share them with the wider world.
POSITIVE THOUGHTS
* The tournament structure: Compare the straightforward round-robin first round of the World Cup with the sprawling NBA tournament going on at the same time. The NBA (and MLB) play a best-of-7 series which just sucks the life out of the sport. They say it's to determine who's "really" the best. That if the tournament were played like the NCAA's (single elimination) it would be "unfair". Screw that. It's "unfun" now. American tournaments could learn from the NCAA. But 7-game series make a lot of money for the networks. So compromise with the round-robin strategy. Each game is immensely meaningful, plus each game showcases a different matchup. Excitement and no repetition. Amazing!
* The tournament schedule: Every day there is a different game on. I never have to miss Ivory Coast-Netherlands because ABC chose to show Croatia-Japan. In part, this is possible because the entire world shuts down during the World Cup, so viewers are available all day. But in practice, this means that spectators get the entire experience. Imagine if the NCAA tournament did this. Instead, we would have 4 games playing at once in the first round, then a 5-day break with no action.
POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
The guy I played tennis against last week, from South America, declared that the World Cup is perfect and refused to listen to my suggestions for improvement. I suspect that most people will agree with him. But here it goes anyway...
* Soccer needs a backfield rule: To speed up the game and force more offense (which Newsweek declares is "the most attractive game"), soccer should introduce a rule like what basketball has - once over midfield, teams cannot pass back over to their own side. That forces an offensive game in basketball and it would do the same in soccer.
* Implement a shot clock: Again, basketball has it right. Created in 1954 and praised by some as having saved the sport itself, the shot clock revolutionized basketball, raising scoring 20-30%. I know that for many soccer enthusiasts, what is important is the "beauty" of the game. But pressing teams to innovate on the fly and lose the delay tactics that are so common could energize the sport. Added shots translate to added goals. And added goals lower the likelihood of ties. At the very least, they lower the likelihood of 0-0 ties.
That's all. Hopefully no soccer hooligans will show up at my doorstep. Enjoy the tournament - US vs Ghana in 3 days determines whether the US will advance to the next round!
Monday, June 19, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
New American Brethren
There are two primary reasons that people migrate between countries. Every immigrant has both motivations, although the degree to which each one influences varies. Reason #1) The person wants to leave their origin country. Reason #2) The person wants to enter their destination country.
Sounds simple, and maybe a little insultingly so. However, if you want to have a comprehensive discussion on immigration in this country (beyond, "We have laws and everyone needs to obey those laws" or "why don't they just learn English?"), we need to explore how these two motivations work in real life.
In 2006, we don't seem to have much of a problem with Poles or Russians or Germans clamoring to get in. The main issue in 2006 is Mexicans (and if you live in South Florida, Cubans). Why do they want to leave their homes? Well, the easy answer is that their home sucks. Jobs may not be available, goods may not be available, cops might be corrupt. But why not stay in Mexico and go work in Cancún? Or Cabo San Lucas? Or hop in a boat and go to Cuba? Instead, they come into the USA and make their way to Tucson or Los Angeles or Atlanta. Why?
The simple answer is that it's attractive here. There are jobs and the streets are (relatively) safe. You may not be able to survive on minimum wage, but if you're willing to live in a 2 bedroom house with 15 of your close friends and relatives, you can do it. In fact, that sort of lifestyle might be considered luxurious. In fact, just being able to turn on the kitchen sink and drink the water without getting tapeworm is something short of miraculous. So it's easy to understand why they would want to be come here, too. But why have we made it so attractive for them?
I mean, sure, we demand clean water, too. But what we also demand is dollar menus at McDonalds. And we demand that our bed is made at the Motel 6. And, oh yeah, we demand that the Motel 6 charge no more than $39.99 a night. And while those are not excuses for taking advantage of underpriced human labor, and while those don't force businesses to hire new immigrants and illegal immigrants, there's certainly pressure put on these companies to hire people that won't charge much and won't make a fuss about working conditions.
The Truth is, if you ran a grocery store and you needed someone to sweep up the storeroom, who would you prefer to hire? If you only spoke English, would you rather hire someone who only spoke Spanish if they were willing to work for the same price? Even if they were willing to work for a dollar less? If we had more English-speaking US citizens willing to do these jobs, there would be no demand for Mexicans. And if there were no job available, the torrent of people crossing the border might turn into a trickle.
Enforcement won't work. We can see that with our nebulous "War on Drugs". Interrupting the transportation of drugs does nothing to stem the demand pressures. Eventually the law-enforcement dam springs a leak and drugs come through. The only way to solve the influx of drugs and of poor immigrants is to lower demand. And don't think that cracking down on employers will do the trick. The demand is there because of a lack of potential employees. Fining companies won't correct that.
Here's my modest proposal: Every family should have at least three children. (Currently, the US average is 2.09) The oldest will inherit the family estate. The second will seek out work in the world and start out with a blank slate. And the third will be destined to remain poor, working for minimum wage or less in menial, but necessary, jobs.
Of course, if you think you have a better way to drum up a workforce, please post your ideas. Mexicans aren't coming here against our wishes. They're coming here in response to an invitation. It's not sent through Evite, and it doesn't have calligraphy on the front. But the large number of jobs open to them is as good as one of those.
It occurs to me that one long-term solution is to raise the standard of living in Mexico enough that its people won't go risking their lives in the desert to get a job polishing the insides of a toilet. But that still won't answer the question of who will do those things. Maybe the answer is to dump all of the restrictive immigration policies and open our doors wide open. If they can find a job, great! If they can't - time to move on. In that sense, an amnesty program might be on the right track, except it would be a one-time event.
Or maybe the answer is to get rid of low-paying jobs entirely. At the grocery store and at Home Depot, you can check yourself out - no more cashier or bagger! If we automated jobs - think of a robotic janitor - there would be no need to look for a low-wage employee. And if we dump industries like farming altogether, nobody will look here for jobs picking oranges or harvesting sugar. They'll go to China or even Mexico. And we can turn that land into shopping malls and Infiniti dealerships and buy all our produce from overseas.
I'm not being snarky. I'm looking for solutions to the root causes of illegal immigration. You won't fix it by putting the new Sons of the Confederacy at the Mexican border. And you won't fix it by putting the screws the each family that hires a Mexican nanny. If you really want to prevent unskilled workers from crossing the border, make it so US companies don't need unskilled workers in the first place. Or just let it be, and look for ways to help your new American brethren become citizens.
Sounds simple, and maybe a little insultingly so. However, if you want to have a comprehensive discussion on immigration in this country (beyond, "We have laws and everyone needs to obey those laws" or "why don't they just learn English?"), we need to explore how these two motivations work in real life.
In 2006, we don't seem to have much of a problem with Poles or Russians or Germans clamoring to get in. The main issue in 2006 is Mexicans (and if you live in South Florida, Cubans). Why do they want to leave their homes? Well, the easy answer is that their home sucks. Jobs may not be available, goods may not be available, cops might be corrupt. But why not stay in Mexico and go work in Cancún? Or Cabo San Lucas? Or hop in a boat and go to Cuba? Instead, they come into the USA and make their way to Tucson or Los Angeles or Atlanta. Why?
The simple answer is that it's attractive here. There are jobs and the streets are (relatively) safe. You may not be able to survive on minimum wage, but if you're willing to live in a 2 bedroom house with 15 of your close friends and relatives, you can do it. In fact, that sort of lifestyle might be considered luxurious. In fact, just being able to turn on the kitchen sink and drink the water without getting tapeworm is something short of miraculous. So it's easy to understand why they would want to be come here, too. But why have we made it so attractive for them?
I mean, sure, we demand clean water, too. But what we also demand is dollar menus at McDonalds. And we demand that our bed is made at the Motel 6. And, oh yeah, we demand that the Motel 6 charge no more than $39.99 a night. And while those are not excuses for taking advantage of underpriced human labor, and while those don't force businesses to hire new immigrants and illegal immigrants, there's certainly pressure put on these companies to hire people that won't charge much and won't make a fuss about working conditions.
The Truth is, if you ran a grocery store and you needed someone to sweep up the storeroom, who would you prefer to hire? If you only spoke English, would you rather hire someone who only spoke Spanish if they were willing to work for the same price? Even if they were willing to work for a dollar less? If we had more English-speaking US citizens willing to do these jobs, there would be no demand for Mexicans. And if there were no job available, the torrent of people crossing the border might turn into a trickle.
Enforcement won't work. We can see that with our nebulous "War on Drugs". Interrupting the transportation of drugs does nothing to stem the demand pressures. Eventually the law-enforcement dam springs a leak and drugs come through. The only way to solve the influx of drugs and of poor immigrants is to lower demand. And don't think that cracking down on employers will do the trick. The demand is there because of a lack of potential employees. Fining companies won't correct that.
Here's my modest proposal: Every family should have at least three children. (Currently, the US average is 2.09) The oldest will inherit the family estate. The second will seek out work in the world and start out with a blank slate. And the third will be destined to remain poor, working for minimum wage or less in menial, but necessary, jobs.
Of course, if you think you have a better way to drum up a workforce, please post your ideas. Mexicans aren't coming here against our wishes. They're coming here in response to an invitation. It's not sent through Evite, and it doesn't have calligraphy on the front. But the large number of jobs open to them is as good as one of those.
It occurs to me that one long-term solution is to raise the standard of living in Mexico enough that its people won't go risking their lives in the desert to get a job polishing the insides of a toilet. But that still won't answer the question of who will do those things. Maybe the answer is to dump all of the restrictive immigration policies and open our doors wide open. If they can find a job, great! If they can't - time to move on. In that sense, an amnesty program might be on the right track, except it would be a one-time event.
Or maybe the answer is to get rid of low-paying jobs entirely. At the grocery store and at Home Depot, you can check yourself out - no more cashier or bagger! If we automated jobs - think of a robotic janitor - there would be no need to look for a low-wage employee. And if we dump industries like farming altogether, nobody will look here for jobs picking oranges or harvesting sugar. They'll go to China or even Mexico. And we can turn that land into shopping malls and Infiniti dealerships and buy all our produce from overseas.
I'm not being snarky. I'm looking for solutions to the root causes of illegal immigration. You won't fix it by putting the new Sons of the Confederacy at the Mexican border. And you won't fix it by putting the screws the each family that hires a Mexican nanny. If you really want to prevent unskilled workers from crossing the border, make it so US companies don't need unskilled workers in the first place. Or just let it be, and look for ways to help your new American brethren become citizens.
Monday, May 08, 2006
The GOP Immigration Disaster of '06
For the past 25 years, the Republican party has been spectacular at rewriting the national agenda so that it could maintain its unnatural coalition between the fiscal conservatives and the bible-thumpers. (Except for a slight blip in 1992) At first it was easy. Ronald Reagan had Communists to rail against. And if there were ever an issue to unite the bankers and the good old boys together, it was those godless Commies who hated capitalism. But as the years went by, it was harder to keep reality out of the party line. It fractured in 1992 with the giant sucking sound of NAFTA and didn't recover until Bill Clinton got a BJ in the Oval Office.
Now the Republican leadership [sic] is struggling mightily to keep the nation focused on terrorism and gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, issues like global warming and corruption and the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina and, oh yes, Immigration keep popping up to the fore.
Nobody seems to know what to make of the immigration issue yet, because it's a complex issue that doesn't like to be painted in black and white. Dems aren't sure how to handle it and are privately thankful the issue is arising during a Republican presidency so they don't have to. Republicans, on the other hand, are going to pay a very large price because immigration will drive a wedge between the capitalists and the theocratists.
Of course, observers are starting to realize that the issue isn't really immigration, but bigotry. The most vicious illegal immigration opponents fall into two camps - those who have recently emigrated legally and resent the people who did not have to jump through the INS hoops - and those who have absolutely no clue how the immigration procedures work. (This is not to say that everyone else is educated on the subject)
Look, I have to admit I speak only one language - English. I specifically did not take Spanish in my South Florida high school as an ineffectual passive-aggressive protest against the Cubanization of Miami. I'm not a huge fan of the areas of town where homes hold 12-15 Mexican immigrants. On the other hand, I'm not hypocritical enough to forget that my great-grandparents lived 12-15 to an apartment in New York 100 years ago when they emigrated to this country. And I know they didn't speak English when they arrived, although they eventually learned it. Of course, they had their Yiddish newspapers and shop signs in their neighborhoods too. And since many of them traveled in steerage class, chances are they didn't apply for legal residency until they landed at Ellis Island. So I have some empathy for the Mexicans (and yes, the Cubans) coming to America looking for a better life.
The Truth is, I'm ambivalent about illegal immigration. Its effects on wage rates, on prices, on schools, on social services, and on property values are complex. However, I'm not ambivalent about the motives of the anti-immigration movement these days. It's nothing but raw, naked racism. You can hear it in the voices of the people who call the radio stations. You can read it in the letters they write to the newspapers. You can sense it from the shock and outrage over a Spanish version of "The Star Spangled Banner", despite the fact that the anthem has previously been translated into German, Latin, Yiddish, French, and of course Spanish. The US State department actually offers multiple Spanish language versions of the national anthem. (President Bush's remark that "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. only proves that he has no mastery of the English language himself.)
The immigration issue deserves a lot more attention than one posting can give it. But it is becoming clear that "Hispanic" is the new "Black" in this country. The Republican Congress is trying to hitch its horse to a new "Southern Strategy" in a desperate new attempt to get racists to elect fiscal conservatives. If the strife in Congress is an indicator, the Dems might have a few good years ahead. On the other hand, if they manage to smooth over their differences, it could be Springtime for Conservatives.
Now the Republican leadership [sic] is struggling mightily to keep the nation focused on terrorism and gay marriage. Unfortunately for them, issues like global warming and corruption and the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina and, oh yes, Immigration keep popping up to the fore.
Nobody seems to know what to make of the immigration issue yet, because it's a complex issue that doesn't like to be painted in black and white. Dems aren't sure how to handle it and are privately thankful the issue is arising during a Republican presidency so they don't have to. Republicans, on the other hand, are going to pay a very large price because immigration will drive a wedge between the capitalists and the theocratists.
Of course, observers are starting to realize that the issue isn't really immigration, but bigotry. The most vicious illegal immigration opponents fall into two camps - those who have recently emigrated legally and resent the people who did not have to jump through the INS hoops - and those who have absolutely no clue how the immigration procedures work. (This is not to say that everyone else is educated on the subject)
Look, I have to admit I speak only one language - English. I specifically did not take Spanish in my South Florida high school as an ineffectual passive-aggressive protest against the Cubanization of Miami. I'm not a huge fan of the areas of town where homes hold 12-15 Mexican immigrants. On the other hand, I'm not hypocritical enough to forget that my great-grandparents lived 12-15 to an apartment in New York 100 years ago when they emigrated to this country. And I know they didn't speak English when they arrived, although they eventually learned it. Of course, they had their Yiddish newspapers and shop signs in their neighborhoods too. And since many of them traveled in steerage class, chances are they didn't apply for legal residency until they landed at Ellis Island. So I have some empathy for the Mexicans (and yes, the Cubans) coming to America looking for a better life.
The Truth is, I'm ambivalent about illegal immigration. Its effects on wage rates, on prices, on schools, on social services, and on property values are complex. However, I'm not ambivalent about the motives of the anti-immigration movement these days. It's nothing but raw, naked racism. You can hear it in the voices of the people who call the radio stations. You can read it in the letters they write to the newspapers. You can sense it from the shock and outrage over a Spanish version of "The Star Spangled Banner", despite the fact that the anthem has previously been translated into German, Latin, Yiddish, French, and of course Spanish. The US State department actually offers multiple Spanish language versions of the national anthem. (President Bush's remark that "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. only proves that he has no mastery of the English language himself.)
The immigration issue deserves a lot more attention than one posting can give it. But it is becoming clear that "Hispanic" is the new "Black" in this country. The Republican Congress is trying to hitch its horse to a new "Southern Strategy" in a desperate new attempt to get racists to elect fiscal conservatives. If the strife in Congress is an indicator, the Dems might have a few good years ahead. On the other hand, if they manage to smooth over their differences, it could be Springtime for Conservatives.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Georgians Are Stupid
say Georgia Republicans.
This has been the Republican party's tactic for wooing voters around the nation, and I'm sorry to say it works very well in the State of Georgia. Once-educated readers who once rolled their eyes at terms like "Ministry of Truth" and "joycamp" now believe wholeheartedly in laws named "Clear Skies Initiative" or "No Child Left Behind" or "Fair Tax". And seeing how these simple, yet effective, diversions enrich them and their cronies, modern Republicans are emboldened to milk the public for everything they can get.
Which brings us to an unfortunate op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal Constitution (Free Login) by state Representative Mark Burkhalter (R-North Fulton). What's unfortunate about the guest column is not that he is not identified as a partisan Republican lawmaker, at least online. It is not that the AJC printed no "Equal Time" column or at least tried to balance out spin with facts. Burkhalter didn't control these things. Those are just byproducts of a shoddy newspaper.
No, what is most unfortunate is that Burkhalter takes an idea that might actually have merit, and tries to sell it on a gullible Georgia by using misdirection, false innuendo, and a few outright lies. The column in question breaks down Burkhalter's objections to Georgia's ad valorem property tax. Unlike many states, Georgia taxes not only owners of real estate, but owners of vehicles, including cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes, on an annual basis. Every year, when you pay $25 for registration in your state, I pay a hundred or a few hundred dollars (depending on the value of my car) in ad valorem tax. It's a tough pill to swallow every year because it's not a hidden tax that nickels and dimes you throughout the year. It hits you once a year on your birthday.
That being said, it's not cheap to maintain roads. And an ad valorem tax is far more progressive than a gas tax or a road toll. It affects the people who are most able to pay the most. And it's not like the income tax, which doesn't take into account your expenses. The ad valorem tax only really charges people who are buying expensive new luxury cars. Why new? Because as the car becomes a used car, its value drops precipitously, and the ad valorem tax follows suit.
But it's costing Burkhalter money. And it's costing his donors money. So he's pushing hard to get rid of it. But all getting rid of it is likely to do is raise gas taxes to replace the revenue. So he and his rich friends save money on their Infinitis while the 1972 Pontiac driver sees his gasoline bill rise to compensate. Burkhalter's words are telling: "Government shouldn't punish citizens because they choose to own a car or truck." So much for the Republican party being the party of personal responsibility. Taxes aren't punishment. They're our dues for living in the United States. They are the user fees charged to make sure the $60,000 vehicle in your 4-car garage has pothole-free roads to travel on. And more importantly, that your fresh vegetables make it from the illegal immigrant picker in Florida to your local Whole Foods in time for your wife to cook them for dinner. And don't dismiss this as an anti-money rant. I've purchased new cars and paid the resulting tax bill. I've taken responsibility for my actions. After all, I could have chosen to get old, used cars. But since I acknowledge that my actions have consequences, I pay the tax gladly.
Burkhalter also feels drivers already pay enough. They have to pay for "state and federal taxes on gasoline; excise tax on gasoline; sales tax on vehicle purchases; tire disposal fees; mandatory smog inspections; and fees for driver's licenses." Earth to Mark! These fees all help mitigate the costs involved with owning a vehicle made from toxic materials that spews other toxic materials into the air. Perhaps we can get rid of the tire disposal fee in lieu of using the Burkhalter's backyard as a tire dump? It keeps coming back to the lack of personal responsibility Republicans have and their ardent desire to get the populace to pay for their lifestyle choices.
Burkhalter finishes his grand argument with a straw man. "Government doesn't dare tax other personal items such as jewelry, furniture, computers or tools. There is no reason to tax something as essential as our vehicles." When my kids develop asthma because of your jewelry, we'll talk. When thousands of computers are causing the state to pay millions of dollars to ease congestion on the road, we'll talk. When the wood from your furniture is being purchased from terrorist and dictatorial states that threaten our national security, we'll talk.
Representative Burkhalter, treat Georgians like adults. Who knows? One day they may even act like them.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Onward Christian Militants
I don't know why so many of my posts seem to center around wanna-be American theocrats. Maybe it's because they've been so prominent lately. Maybe it's because in the death throes of the Bush disaster, er, presidency, they are preparing a fresh assault on religious freedom. Or maybe it's because they are stubbornly failing to recognize that the American public's patience with them is starting to grow thin. Really, there's only so much trashing you can do of basic American freedoms before the average American wakes up and yells "Sit the hell down - I can't see my football game!"
So anyway, it's April, which means two things. 1) It's been a month since my last post. How low have I fallen that my once-daily blog has become a monthly? 2) It's time for the annual running of the religiots who think the Easter Bunny is the only thing holding civilized society together.
I've recently moved from Norcross, GA to Dekalb County, GA. This means a few things for me. My commute is a lot shorter. The supermarkets sell more Kosher food. Cynthia McKinney is my Representative. And I get a local weekly newspaper called the Dunwoody Crier. And this week, the bottom half of the front page was plastered with a South Park-ian bunny who looks scared for his life below the headline, "'Spring bunny' almost trumps Easter at Perimeter Mall" "by Cathy Cobbs". Wow. Thank goodness for Cathy Cobbs. Otherwise we might not have known that Easter was ever in such danger. As the managing editor of The Crier, I'm sure she knows this is Big News. OK - I'm being facetious. Nothing happens in Dunwoody. Really. It's got to be tough to fill your paper with enough copy so you can sell ads when there's nothing to write. Still, it doesn't excuse irresponsible rabble-rousing.
The story starts out with a reference to the ubiquitous, mysterious "some" people. Cobbs wrote, "In what some believe is another attempt to remove a religious connotation from holidays...". Translation: "In what I want you to believe.." Cobbs interviewed 2 people, the sole complainant Sherry Pettitt and the suckup marketing manager of the mall, Lisa Shepherd. It was Sherry Pettitt who got the whole ball rolling in fact. She was so upset to see how badly Christians were being persecuted in front of Dillards that she sent emails to a dozen news publications.
Originally, according to the mall, they were not celebrating Easter at all. The bunny was there to help celebrate spring. As someone who eats lunch in the Perimeter Mall food court, I can attest that springtime at the mall is distinct from other times. People who were staying indoors during the cold weather start flooding the food court and departments stores once the mercury stays in the 70's and 80's. Too bad they didn't know that the rabbit is now the property of militant Christians and must only be used to celebrate Easter. (All rabbits are hereby named "Easter Bunny") And failure to celebrate Easter is nothing less than a vicious attack on Christians. God help you if you try to be inclusive. A 1996 survey found that 13% of the residents of Dunwoody and neighboring Sandy Springs were Jewish. Add that to the people who are Muslim, atheist, or adhere to another religion, and you have a sizeable population that doesn't identify with Easter.
So what do Sherry Pettitt and her cabal of religious extremists say to Perimeter Mall's statement that "many backgrounds, cultures and religions do not celebrate the Easter holidah and Perimeter Mall wants our springtime children's character to be familiar and appealing to all shoppers"? She says, "I am sick of it!"
I'm just dying to bump into this woman at Publix or Target.
So anyway, it's April, which means two things. 1) It's been a month since my last post. How low have I fallen that my once-daily blog has become a monthly? 2) It's time for the annual running of the religiots who think the Easter Bunny is the only thing holding civilized society together.
I've recently moved from Norcross, GA to Dekalb County, GA. This means a few things for me. My commute is a lot shorter. The supermarkets sell more Kosher food. Cynthia McKinney is my Representative. And I get a local weekly newspaper called the Dunwoody Crier. And this week, the bottom half of the front page was plastered with a South Park-ian bunny who looks scared for his life below the headline, "'Spring bunny' almost trumps Easter at Perimeter Mall" "by Cathy Cobbs". Wow. Thank goodness for Cathy Cobbs. Otherwise we might not have known that Easter was ever in such danger. As the managing editor of The Crier, I'm sure she knows this is Big News. OK - I'm being facetious. Nothing happens in Dunwoody. Really. It's got to be tough to fill your paper with enough copy so you can sell ads when there's nothing to write. Still, it doesn't excuse irresponsible rabble-rousing.
The story starts out with a reference to the ubiquitous, mysterious "some" people. Cobbs wrote, "In what some believe is another attempt to remove a religious connotation from holidays...". Translation: "In what I want you to believe.." Cobbs interviewed 2 people, the sole complainant Sherry Pettitt and the suckup marketing manager of the mall, Lisa Shepherd. It was Sherry Pettitt who got the whole ball rolling in fact. She was so upset to see how badly Christians were being persecuted in front of Dillards that she sent emails to a dozen news publications.
Originally, according to the mall, they were not celebrating Easter at all. The bunny was there to help celebrate spring. As someone who eats lunch in the Perimeter Mall food court, I can attest that springtime at the mall is distinct from other times. People who were staying indoors during the cold weather start flooding the food court and departments stores once the mercury stays in the 70's and 80's. Too bad they didn't know that the rabbit is now the property of militant Christians and must only be used to celebrate Easter. (All rabbits are hereby named "Easter Bunny") And failure to celebrate Easter is nothing less than a vicious attack on Christians. God help you if you try to be inclusive. A 1996 survey found that 13% of the residents of Dunwoody and neighboring Sandy Springs were Jewish. Add that to the people who are Muslim, atheist, or adhere to another religion, and you have a sizeable population that doesn't identify with Easter.
So what do Sherry Pettitt and her cabal of religious extremists say to Perimeter Mall's statement that "many backgrounds, cultures and religions do not celebrate the Easter holidah and Perimeter Mall wants our springtime children's character to be familiar and appealing to all shoppers"? She says, "I am sick of it!"
I'm just dying to bump into this woman at Publix or Target.
Monday, March 13, 2006
March Mediocrity
That's right - it's time for the second annual counter-cultural NIT bracket! Or, as I dubbed it last year, the "Pride Cup". Or lack thereof. My Yellow Jackets were an embarrassment to the ACC, to everyone who watched them go to the National Championship game in 2004, and to everyone who watched a game of theirs this year. They won't be playing again until this fall. However, the ACC seems to be slumping this year, and the NIT is very ACC heavy, with Maryland, Clemson, FSU, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Miami. And when you conside the SEC teams (Vandy, USC) and the other big name schools participating (St Joes, Penn St, Rutgers, MICHIGAN, Notre Dame, Temple, Louisville, Cincy, Stanford), playing pool with the NIT is betting on the teams you've watched all year.
SO - this is an open invitation to all of you to join the NIT Pride Cup in its second year of glory. It is mostly for pride - after all, who'd going to bet $15 on an NIT bracket? Cost of entry is $1.50 per bracket. You can download a copy of the bracket HERE. Just fill it out and email it back to me. Or just email me your picks. (Not your pics, however. I don't care how cutesy-wootsy your dog is.)
Scoring rules are simple: I'm copying ESPN's other bracket rules. 1 point for a correct pick in the opening round. 2 points for the First round, 4 for the Second round, 8 for the Quarterfinals, 12 for the Semis, and 16 if you somehow pick the NIT champion. To make things interesting, you get an extra half-point if you correctly pick an upset. (There are no upsets in the semis or finals). Tiebreaker will be the total number of correct games picked.
So send in your picks and your $1.50 via PayPal to TheTruthBlog at Comcast.net no later than 5:00 PM tomorrow (March 14). First Place wins 60% of the net (after PayPal steals its share), Second place takes 25%, Third place takes 15%. Good luck!
P.S. Happy Purim! Hag Sameach
SO - this is an open invitation to all of you to join the NIT Pride Cup in its second year of glory. It is mostly for pride - after all, who'd going to bet $15 on an NIT bracket? Cost of entry is $1.50 per bracket. You can download a copy of the bracket HERE. Just fill it out and email it back to me. Or just email me your picks. (Not your pics, however. I don't care how cutesy-wootsy your dog is.)
Scoring rules are simple: I'm copying ESPN's other bracket rules. 1 point for a correct pick in the opening round. 2 points for the First round, 4 for the Second round, 8 for the Quarterfinals, 12 for the Semis, and 16 if you somehow pick the NIT champion. To make things interesting, you get an extra half-point if you correctly pick an upset. (There are no upsets in the semis or finals). Tiebreaker will be the total number of correct games picked.
So send in your picks and your $1.50 via PayPal to TheTruthBlog at Comcast.net no later than 5:00 PM tomorrow (March 14). First Place wins 60% of the net (after PayPal steals its share), Second place takes 25%, Third place takes 15%. Good luck!
P.S. Happy Purim! Hag Sameach
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Belief in Belief
In the US Religion Wars (aka The Campaign to Distract Americans from Iraq), somebody, somewhere is attacking Christianity at any given moment. If a bunny is called the Garden Bunny, Christianity is being attacked. If someone sees a piece of a boob for a second & a half, Christianity is being attacked. If every American does not smile and profess ecstatic joy for Jesus's birth every December, Christianity is under attack. And not only Christianity, but Belief itself is in danger of crumbling.
Which begs the question (at least for me), why do we care? I understand a lot of people have formed attachments to Christianity. But as far as belief itself, when did that become so important? And worse, why is belief so important for belief's sake? In Judaism, it is forbidden to eat pork. According to the laws of kashrut, Jews just can't do it. Even if you're a Jew who thinks pork is tasty, it's still against the rules. It would certainly help if you believed that God would punish you if you ate the pork. But it's not required. All that's required is that the pork doesn't enter your mouth (or any other orifice, for that matter).
In Christianity, belief plays a more important role. According to the book of John, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Of course, that belief was really meant to get people to accept him as a god. He didn't mean that believing in just anything was good.
So why is belief itself celebrated? I once dated a Catholic girl whose father was very religious. He apparently approved of me because I was religiously active, albeit in a faith other than his own. Although I was certainly pleased and relieved at the time, I wonder why belief itself was more important than what I believed in. And why would it be wrong to derive your belief in God through reason and science and logic? Why would it be so bad to prove the existence of God through physical evidence?
I read an article in Slate by Judith Shulevitz critiquing a book on religion by Daniel Dennett. Dennett invented a concept called "belief in belief". According to him (via Shulevitz), "people who believe in belief believe that civilization needs myths to live by, so we mustn't examine religious ones too closely." In other words, it is not God that holds our world together, it is our collective belief that does so. ("Myth" in this usage, refers to traditional supernatural stories, not necessarily a fictional tale.)
For those of us whom the words "glorify God" never quite seem to make it to the top of our daily task list, this might seem like a laughable claim. Why would life fall apart if, say, there were incontrovertible evidence that Jesus had been a used chariot salesman who liked to partake in the local marijuana-oil? You would still love your family. You would still go to work so you could feed and house and clothe yourself and your family. You would still enjoy watching 4 Law and Order episodes a night on TNT and USA. After all, if God exists, surely He is not so childish and petty as to get mad about simple human failings.
Dennett says that belief in belief is a "compromise formation" for those who attend church regularly but don't really internalize the strictures. I say these people make up the vast majority of American population. Last year, a major poll found that 45% of Americans attend religious services weekly, and nearly 66% pray daily. But when Dr. Phil asked America questions, 41% said they had cheated on someone and 68% said they had been cheated on!. Just today, the Catholic church in Ireland revealed that 102 priests are under suspicion of sexually or physically abusing children. Clearly there are people out there who are going through the motions of religion in public but don't follow the rules when they're in private.
To me, their belief in belief is strong enough that they have a strong desire to retain religion, even as they ignore it. And while I feel that proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster make an excellent point about belief, they're preaching to two different choirs. On one hand, they're targeting people who already have their belief system set in stone, thank you very much. On the other hand, they're targeting people who have already discovered they don't need one.
Of course Janet Jackson's tit isn't going to destroy Christianity. But it may help reveal the lack of real commitment many Christians (and members of other religions) have to their chosen faith. And that may help damage the pervasive idea that belief in religion is what keeps the world functioning. And that, of course, may convince the millions of people who pay lip-service to their religion to spend their time doing other things. And that is what could destroy Christianity. What is the solution? Well, it's only a problem if you believe your actual religion is going to fall apart, but the wisdom of Yoda comes to mind. "Do or do not. There is no try."
Update: See Lindsay Beyerstein's take on Dennett's book.
Which begs the question (at least for me), why do we care? I understand a lot of people have formed attachments to Christianity. But as far as belief itself, when did that become so important? And worse, why is belief so important for belief's sake? In Judaism, it is forbidden to eat pork. According to the laws of kashrut, Jews just can't do it. Even if you're a Jew who thinks pork is tasty, it's still against the rules. It would certainly help if you believed that God would punish you if you ate the pork. But it's not required. All that's required is that the pork doesn't enter your mouth (or any other orifice, for that matter).
In Christianity, belief plays a more important role. According to the book of John, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Of course, that belief was really meant to get people to accept him as a god. He didn't mean that believing in just anything was good.
So why is belief itself celebrated? I once dated a Catholic girl whose father was very religious. He apparently approved of me because I was religiously active, albeit in a faith other than his own. Although I was certainly pleased and relieved at the time, I wonder why belief itself was more important than what I believed in. And why would it be wrong to derive your belief in God through reason and science and logic? Why would it be so bad to prove the existence of God through physical evidence?
I read an article in Slate by Judith Shulevitz critiquing a book on religion by Daniel Dennett. Dennett invented a concept called "belief in belief". According to him (via Shulevitz), "people who believe in belief believe that civilization needs myths to live by, so we mustn't examine religious ones too closely." In other words, it is not God that holds our world together, it is our collective belief that does so. ("Myth" in this usage, refers to traditional supernatural stories, not necessarily a fictional tale.)
For those of us whom the words "glorify God" never quite seem to make it to the top of our daily task list, this might seem like a laughable claim. Why would life fall apart if, say, there were incontrovertible evidence that Jesus had been a used chariot salesman who liked to partake in the local marijuana-oil? You would still love your family. You would still go to work so you could feed and house and clothe yourself and your family. You would still enjoy watching 4 Law and Order episodes a night on TNT and USA. After all, if God exists, surely He is not so childish and petty as to get mad about simple human failings.
Dennett says that belief in belief is a "compromise formation" for those who attend church regularly but don't really internalize the strictures. I say these people make up the vast majority of American population. Last year, a major poll found that 45% of Americans attend religious services weekly, and nearly 66% pray daily. But when Dr. Phil asked America questions, 41% said they had cheated on someone and 68% said they had been cheated on!. Just today, the Catholic church in Ireland revealed that 102 priests are under suspicion of sexually or physically abusing children. Clearly there are people out there who are going through the motions of religion in public but don't follow the rules when they're in private.
To me, their belief in belief is strong enough that they have a strong desire to retain religion, even as they ignore it. And while I feel that proponents of the Flying Spaghetti Monster make an excellent point about belief, they're preaching to two different choirs. On one hand, they're targeting people who already have their belief system set in stone, thank you very much. On the other hand, they're targeting people who have already discovered they don't need one.
Of course Janet Jackson's tit isn't going to destroy Christianity. But it may help reveal the lack of real commitment many Christians (and members of other religions) have to their chosen faith. And that may help damage the pervasive idea that belief in religion is what keeps the world functioning. And that, of course, may convince the millions of people who pay lip-service to their religion to spend their time doing other things. And that is what could destroy Christianity. What is the solution? Well, it's only a problem if you believe your actual religion is going to fall apart, but the wisdom of Yoda comes to mind. "Do or do not. There is no try."
Update: See Lindsay Beyerstein's take on Dennett's book.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Duh
According to the Washington Examiner, "President Bush now says his 2004 victory over Democratic Sen. John Kerry ... was inadvertently aided by al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden." Duh. Well, half-duh. I think it's pretty clear that a Bin Laden tape endorsing Kerry in October of 2004 caused Americans to vote for Bush. But to call it inadvertent?
Americans like to think their villains are stupid and 100% corrupt. In 2001, when the wounds of 9/11 were still raw, Bill Maher was chased out of town for suggesting that contrary to what President Bush claimed, the terrorists who piloted planes into our buildings were not cowards. In our culture, liars are people who never tell the truth and evildoers are people who never do good things.
But in the real world, Osama bin Laden is not stupid. And he understands politics. In the late 90's bin Laden declared war against the West. That was to be war between the Christian countries and the Islamic countries. And while almost nobody understood the real reason behind 9/11 (other than "they just want to kill as many of us as they can"), I think it's safe to assume he had one. In fact, he told us his reason - we just don't want to listen to him when he tells the truth. Which of course is because we assume that since he's evil, he never tells the truth.
Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted - a conflict between the West and Islam. And furthermore, the United States is isolated in the world, having alienated its allies. The Bushies claim that we're winning, because we've killed many high-ranking Al Qaida members. But in any war, you expect casualties (except Americans. We expect to incur none.). And bin Laden's cronies have paid the price. But his goal may still come true. And if it does, he will have won.
So back to the election. If Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted, of course bin Laden wanted Bush to be reelected. He didn't want Kerry to start making nice with Islamic Arabs. He didn't want Kerry to reestablish relations with the Europeans so they could provide a common front. And what would be the best way to get his man Bush back in office? Endorse the other guy. It's a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. It doesn't work on everyone, since it can be easily recognized. But police often use it successfully on people who are scared and frightened.
Osama bin Laden got George Bush elected, alright. But it wasn't inadvertent. It was just the 21st century version of the October Surprise.
Americans like to think their villains are stupid and 100% corrupt. In 2001, when the wounds of 9/11 were still raw, Bill Maher was chased out of town for suggesting that contrary to what President Bush claimed, the terrorists who piloted planes into our buildings were not cowards. In our culture, liars are people who never tell the truth and evildoers are people who never do good things.
But in the real world, Osama bin Laden is not stupid. And he understands politics. In the late 90's bin Laden declared war against the West. That was to be war between the Christian countries and the Islamic countries. And while almost nobody understood the real reason behind 9/11 (other than "they just want to kill as many of us as they can"), I think it's safe to assume he had one. In fact, he told us his reason - we just don't want to listen to him when he tells the truth. Which of course is because we assume that since he's evil, he never tells the truth.
Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted - a conflict between the West and Islam. And furthermore, the United States is isolated in the world, having alienated its allies. The Bushies claim that we're winning, because we've killed many high-ranking Al Qaida members. But in any war, you expect casualties (except Americans. We expect to incur none.). And bin Laden's cronies have paid the price. But his goal may still come true. And if it does, he will have won.
So back to the election. If Bush has given bin Laden everything he wanted, of course bin Laden wanted Bush to be reelected. He didn't want Kerry to start making nice with Islamic Arabs. He didn't want Kerry to reestablish relations with the Europeans so they could provide a common front. And what would be the best way to get his man Bush back in office? Endorse the other guy. It's a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. It doesn't work on everyone, since it can be easily recognized. But police often use it successfully on people who are scared and frightened.
Osama bin Laden got George Bush elected, alright. But it wasn't inadvertent. It was just the 21st century version of the October Surprise.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Short Term Memory
I just moved to a new house this past weekend. It's a lot closer to work, which was the major attraction for my wife and me. In fact, commute time was one of the prime impetuses for moving in the first place.
So in order to take advantage of this (and because I am now house-rich and cash-poor), I went home for lunch yesterday. And as I was sitting in my recliner eating leftovers and watching TV, I heard a report on CNN that said the gas prices had dropped 6 whole cents over the past week. They then added the commentary that we shouldn't expect to enjoy these "great low prices" for too long, since oil is poised to go up.
Yesterday, according to atlantagasprices.com, the average gas price in Atlanta was $2.08 and the average gas price in the US was $2.22. Now, granted, this is a whole lot lower than in the aftermath of Katrina, when gas prices soared to $3.10. But that was only 5 months ago. Until April of 2005, US gas prices were nowhere near $2.22 a gallon. Three years ago, they were in the $1.50's.
I understand the newscasters are adjusting to the new reality, and their greater point is that gas prices will only go up, an opinion I wholeheartedly agree with. However, to even suggest that we're experiencing low prices means that:
A) The newscasters really can't remember anything earlier than last September
B) The newscasters don't want you to think about the fact that you're now paying almost double for gas what you paid only a few years ago and throughout the 90's
C) Someone from the White House hypnotized the production staff of CNN to help get Americans to fell good about paying over $2 per gallon for gasoline*
D) All of the above
Incidentally, it's this same short-term memory that causes Americans to forget that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks, that Palestinians are not innocent bystanders in some Israeli tyranny, that oil shortages can cause real pain ala 1979 (although we're starting to remember that one). I know the media doesn't want to be seen as negative, especially since the Republican mouthpiece Fox accuses all other media as being anti-Bush. But Americans do quite well remembering good things and even deluding themselves into remembering bad things as good (1950's - otherwise know as Republican "good old days"). If the news is going to be complicit in asking us to forget, we're closer to 1984 than many people realize.
So in order to take advantage of this (and because I am now house-rich and cash-poor), I went home for lunch yesterday. And as I was sitting in my recliner eating leftovers and watching TV, I heard a report on CNN that said the gas prices had dropped 6 whole cents over the past week. They then added the commentary that we shouldn't expect to enjoy these "great low prices" for too long, since oil is poised to go up.
Yesterday, according to atlantagasprices.com, the average gas price in Atlanta was $2.08 and the average gas price in the US was $2.22. Now, granted, this is a whole lot lower than in the aftermath of Katrina, when gas prices soared to $3.10. But that was only 5 months ago. Until April of 2005, US gas prices were nowhere near $2.22 a gallon. Three years ago, they were in the $1.50's.
I understand the newscasters are adjusting to the new reality, and their greater point is that gas prices will only go up, an opinion I wholeheartedly agree with. However, to even suggest that we're experiencing low prices means that:
A) The newscasters really can't remember anything earlier than last September
B) The newscasters don't want you to think about the fact that you're now paying almost double for gas what you paid only a few years ago and throughout the 90's
C) Someone from the White House hypnotized the production staff of CNN to help get Americans to fell good about paying over $2 per gallon for gasoline
D) All of the above
Incidentally, it's this same short-term memory that causes Americans to forget that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks, that Palestinians are not innocent bystanders in some Israeli tyranny, that oil shortages can cause real pain ala 1979 (although we're starting to remember that one). I know the media doesn't want to be seen as negative, especially since the Republican mouthpiece Fox accuses all other media as being anti-Bush. But Americans do quite well remembering good things and even deluding themselves into remembering bad things as good (1950's - otherwise know as Republican "good old days"). If the news is going to be complicit in asking us to forget, we're closer to 1984 than many people realize.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
The Human Animal
Every so often, mostly when I'm feeling very comfortable with myself and my supposed role on the planet, I notice something that disturbs me a little. I work in a large office building, and people here are paid a lot of money to scurry around, moving paper from one stack to another, surfing the web trying to look busy, and generally enabling global commerce in the way that corporations do. It's all very important, and it's easy to lose yourself in the idea that you are a cog in a very large machine, single-mindedly focused on a task. Or the idea that you are a very important, modern cog, doing things that your ancestors 50, 100, 1000 years ago couldn't possibly be capable of. And then you leave your cubicle with its tchotchkes and its photos of your wife/husband/dog and you go to the bathroom.
The bathroom. A room dedicated to fulfilling your biological needs (without making too much of a mess). There's no higher purpose to a bathroom. Sure, some women might use it to touch up their makeup at a restaurant or club, and some men might like to use it as a respite from everyday life, bringing with them the sports page or crossword puzzle. But it's hard to argue that if humans didn't need to expel biological waste from their bodies every few hours, these rooms would exist at all.
How much of our other rooms are dedicated to our subservience to our bodies and not to our minds? Certainly our kitchens and dining rooms. If we weren't required to eat, if we didn't get hungry, we wouldn't devote that much of our homes (much less our time) to eating. And of course our bedrooms. We spend more time there dead to the world than anywhere else in the house. So what would be left? Living rooms, family rooms, dens, playrooms... A very small portion of most of our homes.
So how different are we really from our cave-dwelling ancestors? We have more comfortable caves, but to assume we're physically superior is probably delusional. If we still have to sleep and eat and defecate, if we still get sick and old, could our minds be that much improved? For that matter, how much are we different from other animals that sleep and eat and defecate, get sick and get old? Chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, water buffalo... It's a disturbing concept, at least to me. We're just a few creature comforts removed from cavemen. And it's not like most of us have any clue how to procure these things beyond running to Ikea in our Lexus SUV's. If the electricity we out tomorrow and stayed out for good, if gasoline and natural gas went away (which they would without electricity to produce and distribute), how long would it be before our civilization reverted 150 years or more? I say more, because with our current population of 6.5 billion people, a 4-fold increase over the population in 1900, we couldn't possibly feed everyone with 19th century technology.
That's beyond the point, of course. Doomsday scenarios are fun to read about or watch, in a scary sort of way. There's a whole genre of apocalyptic fiction, from The Matrix to Planet of the Apes to Waterworld. But I prefer to focus on the future. If we want to believe we're better than humans past, what have we done to be better? To remove our need to use the bathroom, to sleep, to die? Some people argue that these are things that make us human. But the Truth is, these are things that make us animal. Humanity, as most of us understand it, is in our brains. Any cockroach can defecate. Only humans are smart enough to do it in the bathroom and flush afterwards.
Although personally, I find it incredible that we still do so.
The bathroom. A room dedicated to fulfilling your biological needs (without making too much of a mess). There's no higher purpose to a bathroom. Sure, some women might use it to touch up their makeup at a restaurant or club, and some men might like to use it as a respite from everyday life, bringing with them the sports page or crossword puzzle. But it's hard to argue that if humans didn't need to expel biological waste from their bodies every few hours, these rooms would exist at all.
How much of our other rooms are dedicated to our subservience to our bodies and not to our minds? Certainly our kitchens and dining rooms. If we weren't required to eat, if we didn't get hungry, we wouldn't devote that much of our homes (much less our time) to eating. And of course our bedrooms. We spend more time there dead to the world than anywhere else in the house. So what would be left? Living rooms, family rooms, dens, playrooms... A very small portion of most of our homes.
So how different are we really from our cave-dwelling ancestors? We have more comfortable caves, but to assume we're physically superior is probably delusional. If we still have to sleep and eat and defecate, if we still get sick and old, could our minds be that much improved? For that matter, how much are we different from other animals that sleep and eat and defecate, get sick and get old? Chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, water buffalo... It's a disturbing concept, at least to me. We're just a few creature comforts removed from cavemen. And it's not like most of us have any clue how to procure these things beyond running to Ikea in our Lexus SUV's. If the electricity we out tomorrow and stayed out for good, if gasoline and natural gas went away (which they would without electricity to produce and distribute), how long would it be before our civilization reverted 150 years or more? I say more, because with our current population of 6.5 billion people, a 4-fold increase over the population in 1900, we couldn't possibly feed everyone with 19th century technology.
That's beyond the point, of course. Doomsday scenarios are fun to read about or watch, in a scary sort of way. There's a whole genre of apocalyptic fiction, from The Matrix to Planet of the Apes to Waterworld. But I prefer to focus on the future. If we want to believe we're better than humans past, what have we done to be better? To remove our need to use the bathroom, to sleep, to die? Some people argue that these are things that make us human. But the Truth is, these are things that make us animal. Humanity, as most of us understand it, is in our brains. Any cockroach can defecate. Only humans are smart enough to do it in the bathroom and flush afterwards.
Although personally, I find it incredible that we still do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)