Bobby Tillman

Today, the friends and family of 18 year old Bobby Tillman are grieving over his senseless and tragic death. I too share in the grief and can't imagine what his mother must be enduring. The AJC reports that Bobby Tillman, who had just graduated from high school, coached youth basketball and planned a career in sports management. He reminds me a great deal of my brother and his photographs and physical similarities suggest we could have most certainly shared kinship. Fair skin, small frame, gray eyes. This young man was simply engaging in an activity common among those his age. He was not at a club, he went to a house party and there in the drive-way of the home, he lost his life to a bunch of hoodlums who don't deserve to share oxygen with the rest of us.
What possessed these punks to beat another human being? What justification is there for such brutality? Why did none of the nearly 60 onlookers intervene? What kind of parents must the other boys have for their children to be so disconnected from the value of life?

I am deeply troubled by this incident. I like to think that most people would act with integrity and stare evil in the eyes with courage and the vow to defeat it. Those boys are evil and yet it seems no one intervened. In PSYCH 310, we learned about a similar case, the case of Kitty Genovese which resulted in much research and reporting of The Bystander Effect. Of three dozen witnesses to her murder, no one intervened. In psychology, this occurs due to a transference of responsibility--the idea that someone else will intervene, someone else will act with courage and integrity. What if Malcolm, Frederick Douglas, Thomas Jefferson, and others waited or depended upon someone else to do what was necessary to defeat evil?

In the words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Sunday morning, evil triumphed and a mother is burying her son.

Taking Offense...

I find it really ironic, no actually, I find it a marvelous demonstration of hypocrisy for those who proclaim love of the Constitution and decry excessive government involvement to take such grave offense to the construction of an Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque near Ground Zero. Mike Luckovich, editorial cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, has provided wonderful perspective on this issue in both his 8/18 illustration and his 8/13 one. This pseudo hysteria is both sad and alarming. It demonstrates the lack of integrity and rational thinking that is now pervasive within American culture. Of course a minority group within the opponents of the structure continues to say this is not about the center’s legal right to be there, but rather is about the offense of it. Yet, we all know their goal is to have their offense reign supreme and result in construction plans being canceled. In the US, we enjoy significant freedoms because we perpetually pay a tremendous personal price of respecting the freedom of others even when we find their exercise of said right an egregious offense.

In his 8/19/10 Forbes editorial, Warren Meyer writes a wonderfully objective article about the issue. I concur with him and admire his integrity. This is less about offense and more about those offended respecting both their freedom and the freedom of those by whom they allege to be offended. I am deeply offended by the sagging pants that adorn the male youth of today. I am even more offended by poor grammar, particularly by the incorrect use of reflexive pronouns, an error President Obama has committed. Yet, I would not protest outside of the White House that he should no longer be allowed to speak or that he be levied a fine. Nor would I petition state legislatures to bring forth legislation making such an offense a misdemeanor. First, it is an assault on the very freedom that I am exercising by declaring my offense. Second, it is an enormous waste of time and energy when we certainly have bigger fish to fry. The irony in it all is that the very people who want the offense to their sensibilities addressed are some of the very people who say blacks are too easily offended by matters of race. Pot is that you? It is I, Kettle!

Apple Fanboys

Apple Fanboys are the most annoying group of droids (pun intended) since Jonestown. They take any and every criticism of Apple and their dear leader, Kim Jong-il—eh em, Steve Jobs. Apple fanboys are rabid in their response to any and all criticisms of Apple products. It is utterly impossible for one of them to accept any fault in the business practices, much less the products marketed and designed by Apple (I won’t even get into the suicides at the manufacturing factory where the products are made).

First, Apple designs some great products that are visually appealing and enable the creatively inclined to bring wonders to life much more easily than a MS operating system ever has. With that said, everyone makes mistakes, just as Toyota. I have an IPhone 3G and it works well. I experience dropped calls in two areas on the same street each and every time I drive through there, but I know this is an issue with AT&T. I do not own an IPhone 4, but I’ve followed the issues with the antenna design. From the anecdotal responses by fanboys to these stories, one would believe these incidents are only isolated to four or five people even though Apple acknowledges otherwise.

I do not begrudge those who have chosen to purchase the IPhone 4 in spite of the apparent flaws with the antennae. It is a great product otherwise. I find it really sad and disappointing that Apple and its fanboys are unwilling to accept criticism and instead act like ungrateful adolescents. The truth is, it was insulting to tell customers they are holding the phone wrong; it was juvenile to later acknowledge problems only to point the finger at other smartphone makers; it is absolutely inane for fanboys to support Apple’s tacit stance of return the product for “more deserving” consumers—as one fanboy so eloquently commented on Forbes. This is an issue of operating a business with integrity which involves apologies when something—albeit beyond the control of the company—goes wrong. Apple has essentially said some people are too stupid and gullible to own or use its products. The company is right; its fanboys are too gullible to be critical and walk away if necessary from a product while perhaps not inferior by market standards, is inferior by the standards the company itself has set.

If I visit my favorite five star restaurant and during this visit receive sea bass that is less than perfection and even worse, over-cooked, I would be appalled if the owner responds to my concern with “I ate the fish wrong.” Further, such a response would make me wonder if the five star reputation is well earned. For fanboys to defend such uncouth behavior is disconcerting to say the least. It is setting the stage for Apple to become the next Microsoft—heaping inferior products onto the market simply because idiot consumers don’t know they hold the power in a capitalist economy.

Apple demonstrates American arrogance and hypocrisy--unwilling to be criticized because of prior triumphs in excellence and unfortunately taking on the persona of those whom they previously criticized and defeated for acts of tyranny. When Toyota was the center of media attention for alleged sticking accelerators, the company president was contrite and pledged to resolve the issue the issue following an investigation. It is apparently a cultural thing, and this is one culture that has no shame.

A smartphone that doesn’t work well as a phone isn’t very smart.

A Moment of Silence

This entire Shirley Sherrod snafu demonstrates live and in living color how true my grandfather’s words were: “The less you say, the less you have to take back.” Now this is applicable to all parties involved, but is most applicable to President Obama. If I could only get this man to close his mouth. I so tire of seeing his or Press Secretary Gibbs daily press conferences. I don’t need to see you to know that you are doing your job. Whatever happened to no comment? President Obama could certainly learn from his predecessor in answering only what he deems necessary and nothing else. By responding to any and everyone’s criticisms, he is rendering himself not only unlikeable, but also impotent.

For the three of you who may be unfamiliar with this situation, an edited You Tube video (that’s right, everyone knows how credible You Tube is) suggested that former USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, discriminated against a white farmer. Ms. Sherrod defended herself against the video and claims of pundit, Bill O’Reilly and it was later revealed, along with the rest of the video, that she was sharing an experience that taught her the value of integrity. Within the video going “viral” and the truth of the matter, Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign, allegedly at the request of the White House.

The irony in all of this is that Bill O’Reilly, who was the first person to publicly scold Ms. Sherrod and call for her termination, has remained relatively unscathed though he is just as culpable in this hoopla as is the president. Nevertheless, I find error in the fact that President Obama has even dignified any of this insanity with a response. Why he insists upon responding to attacks and fake outrage is beyond me. The nation remains as polarized as it was in 1996. Attempting to appease both sides only adds rocket fuel laced with hydrogen to the fire. Mr. President, please for the sake of all of us who simply want to keep it moving, be quiet.

King James The Abolitionist

Much has been said about Lebron James' decision to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat. The media would like to make more of the way in which his decision was broadcast a much larger issue than it really is. Even the NBA commissioner David Stern has called Lebron James' "The Decision", "ill conceived."

I for one (of millions) find Jesse Jackson unnerving, opportunistic, and a supercilious, obnoxious, idiot; but am inclined, much to my surprise, to agree with him on Dan Gilbert's response to Lebron James' departure. This is, in fact, no different than Katie Couric leaving the Today Show or Meredith Viera leaving the View. However, in culture, in the understood relationship of athlete and team owner, it is very different. Lebron has usurped control from Dan Gilbert and David Stern. He has stepped forward as a man and stood for his freedom and Dan Gilbert responded like a slave master or perhaps a jilted lover. Hell hath no fury and the hunt knows no better hunter than a slave owner scorned.

Upon reading the initial response of David Stern, I was at first hopeful because he iterated that Mr. James had fulfilled his contractual obligations. As I continued to read, Stern also demonstrated slave master mentality or at the very least hypocrisy in saying that Mr. James' broadcast of "The Decision" was ill conceived. So in essence, he is saying that this man, making a manly decision and making some of the money, to donate to the Boys & Girls Club no less, that would have otherwise been retained by ESPN and the NBA solely, was ill conceived. What hypocrisy! Each year, David Stern, and the NBA broadcasts their decisions of whom to draft to what team. How is this any different? Other than it being the slave, eh em, player taking control of the situation and assuming the role of the NBA, there is none.

I applaud Mr. James, that is right, Mr. James for such a business minded and philanthropic move. It was courageous and very respectable. Other players are more content to be pawns and mockeries than to step forward as men. Mr. James decided he would no longer be just Lebron or the so-called "self-proclaimed king." He demonstrated that he has truly earned that name and commanded respect obviously not truly bestowed upon him by Dan Gilbert (a man who has made his fortune through sub-prime lending as owner of Quicken Loans). Get over yourself Dan Gilbert, there are still plenty of other slaves on your plantation and many more who would jump at the opportunity to be one of your slaves. Mr. James chooses greener pastures and perhaps he'll be allowed in the house this time.

Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070

Goldman Sachs is the target of Congressional hearings for its alleged role in the financial meltdown of 2008, the TEA Party demanding reduced spending and smaller government--and Arizona has stolen the thunder from all with its new immigration legislation--SB 1070. Just as this bill was being signed into law, I was watching an episode of 30 Days in which a Minuteman spent 30 days living with an illegal immigrant family of seven.

In the episode, the minuteman, a Cuban immigrant himself, visited the Mexican hometown of the family--in all its abject poverty. It truly was a sad situation. Yet there are millions of other sad and sadder situations throughout the world. My daughter, who is extremely compassionate, expressed her deepest sympathy and support of the family taking the trek to and living within the borders of the US illegally. She asked me what I thought about it. I explained to her that while I am certainly sympathetic to the plight of that family and others in situations like that, I do not condone their presence here illegally. I explained that there are legal means of immigrating here. Moreover, there are thousands of people in line who have gone through the proper channels. She still insisted that what they had done was okay. I love and admire her for such independence of thought.

I provided my daughter with this analogy. What that family has done is essentially walked into the home of someone else as a stowaway so to speak. I asked my daughter if it would be okay for us to go into the basement of a home in Buckhead and live there in secrecy below the family that owns or has rightful claim to that home because we found this home to be better than ours. If we were to do that, I explained, the family owning that home could and in all likelihood would have us arrested and removed. As they should. There are homes and neighborhoods all across metro Atlanta that I would love to call mine. Some that might offer much better schools and opportunities than my current place of residence. Nonetheless, I am choosing the legal means of living there. If illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, what of all those who are going through the legal process of citizenship? What are we really encouraging here? Are drug dealers excused of their crimes simply because they are looking for a better life for their family?

If they are given citizenship after illegally coming and residing here, I'm on my way to Buckhead to claim my house and I'll request amnesty. Sure, it may be a private property, but let's go all out.

The Problem Without the Public Option

To understand why so many were fervently against the removal of the now notorious public option, hindsight is the best teacher. The worst part of the new health care legislation is its mandate to purchase insurance or face financial penalty. Insurance mandates in and of themselves are nothing new. States mandate at a minimum liability insurance on vehicles because the use of vehicles carries inherent risk. Homeowners’ insurance is also mandated, again because of the inherent risk—not necessarily for the owner/occupants, but for the mortgage holders and in some ways communities. From a public health perspective, which should really be the primary perspective in controlling and reducing health care costs, risk protection strategies and mandates are necessary and long overdue in the US.
When someone without insurance exhibits risky behavior through poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, reckless motorcycle use, or heck let’s face it just living within our crime ridden nation, and they visit the emergency room instead of seeking care from a primary or urgent care facility, the public pays dearly. The government already pays the tab on 42% of health care costs, anticipated to reach 50% within a year without reform. So something had to be done. In the US we practice curative care or care after the fact of disease or chronic condition onset. Other nations with healthy universal coverage systems devote more resources to preventive care and spend a smaller percentage of their national budgets on health care. Because we invest very little and have no comprehensive or organized system to incentivize preventive care, we pay the cost in much more expensive curative care.
The public option as part of the current legislation would have worked to curb costs in the long run more effectively than the legislation that passed because it would have modeled successful systems in other nations which provide public universal coverage with options to purchase additional private insurance for perks like private rooms (in the US we don’t like being told to share, we believe that passive sharing through checkbooks is enough). With the public option, the insurance mandates would not have been the burden that they are likely to become. However, the insurance industry flexed some muscle and in this capitalist economy cried “unfair”. Well, life isn’t fair, but opportunity should be equal. Capitalism in the US requires entities to compete among both public and private. The Germans manage a successful universal system with a much older population and are much happier than with it, spending quite a bit less than we do. Of course the propaganda machines rarely if ever mention Germany or Japan; only Canada and the UK are mentioned usually with only anecdotal references.
To understand this, one must examine cultural differences, a lengthy examination no doubt, but the nuts and bolts of it are that the US is a staunchly individualistic society that prides itself on individual achievements over collective ones intra-nationally. Collective achievements are only lauded internationally. Is the reform an expensive endeavor? Yes. The debt was already on pace to be catastrophic and would have cut into defense and capital projects budgets without reform sooner than it will now. The insurance mandate without the public option is a bad idea, but with our pay per procedure (capitalist) medical system, we will be paying through our you know whats anyway. Rationing already occurs in the fact that those with less money and little to no insurance do not receive the same level of care as those with good insurance and/or money. Moreover, the public option along with mandates or incentives to reduce or eliminate the practice of pay per procedure, would effectively reduce costs in the long run.

Health Care Reform 2010

It has taken me some time to compose a coherent response to the passage of the Health Care Reform Bill, not because I oppose it, because I’m befuddled at and ashamed of the behavior of its detractors. The similarities between the current response and the responses of a significant number of citizens and legislators from the period of Reconstruction through and even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are disconcerting if not frightening. Before some of you decry “race card”, please continue to read. It was Rush Limbaugh who first publicly coined the bill as the “new Civil Rights Bill” and “reparations” and thanks to his and his comrades’ spewing of such propaganda, the public is responding accordingly. Dr. King, Presidents Kennedy, and Johnson were accused of communism and socialism just as President Obama, Senators Pelosi, and Reid are today. This is not coincidental for it foments the creation of the most powerful barrier to thinking and change: fear.
Today, there is certainly an element of race involved as minorities, particularly those of African descent are often associated with poverty and consequently welfare. Because this bill is an entitlement policy, deemed by those on the right as wealth redistribution (a nice way of saying the government is playing Robin Hood—robbing the rich to give to the poor. This does not mention how the impoverished are often robbed of opportunities and disenfranchised by policies designed to assist the wealthy in maintaining most of their wealth through tax shelters and off shore accounts, but I digress). I am not saying that the wealthy are exclusively greedy and undeserving, nor am I saying the poor are exclusively downtrodden and deserving. I am only stating the obvious which is that separate and unequal still exists and it is a matter of class and not simply race. However, separate and unequal is a fundamental component within capitalism. It must be. There can be no pursuit and attainment of wealth and the upper echelons of society without there being lower and middle classes. If all was equal, there would be nothing for which to strive. Again, I digress.
Since when did it become appropriate to spit at legislators or anyone for that matter because you disagree with their politics? Scream xenophobic epithets at them? Accuse them of treason? The law has been followed even with the strong arm tactics employed. Many want to make an issue of the division 219 to 212. This is still a majority, albeit a slim one, similar in fact to the slim majority that elected Bush in 2000. Democrats were incensed, particularly following a Supreme Court ruling which solidified the Electoral College’s decision. Nonetheless, the law was followed and the judicial branch, as it is designed to do, ruled on the legality of the decision. Such is the case here. The law has been followed. The bill has been passed by a slim margin. President Bush was elected by a slim margin. The best thing the country can do is get over both decisions and make the best of them.
I do not agree with everything in the bill, particularly mandatory purchase of insurance without a public option (which is the “backroom deal” everyone should be angry about—a topic for a later blog). There are always going to be obstacles to progression. After reconstruction, many states passed Jim Crow Laws to obstruct the 14th and 15th Amendments effectively nullifying the 13th Amendment all the while proclaiming the supremacy of states’ rights. Citizens spat on and protested the Little Rock Nine—black school children who were simply following federal law desegregating schools. The people angry about the Health Care Reform Bill are acting the same. It is truly a shame. This is exactly the level of anarchy the republicans seem to have desired for if it were not, they would have actively participated in the design and composition of the bill instead of the hatemongering they exhibited. LBJ and Senator Dirksen (ironically from IL) had to strong arm Congress to pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 with a vote of 290 to 130. Does this mean that since 130 (44.8%) voted against the bill, that it should be repealed? Some of the pundits today would have you believe so. This is not a popularity contest. Lincoln made an unpopular move to sign the Emancipation Proclamation; Kennedy, Johnson, and Dirksen made similar moves and usurped states’ rights and even some private rights to provide equality for all citizens.

NCLB Striving to be Average

No Child Left Behind is really a misnomer. The federal initiative is perhaps more appropriately termed, Every Child Average, Set the Bar Lower, or Teach to the Test and Forget Substantive Learning—the latter was probably too long and not catchy enough.

I’m not too far removed from grade school education; I graduated from high school in the late 90s. When I was in elementary, there were two required tests: The California Achievement Test (yes, I know, who would want to live up to CA’s less than lofty standards?) and the Stanford Achievement Test. Today, we have state developed/approved and state specific tests. PBS provides great descriptions of how these state tests are different from achievement tests. At the rudimentary level—which let’s face it, is the most important—achievement tests measure content knowledge; criterion referencing tests (i.e. NCLB state tests) measure students against state set benchmarks or acceptable ranges. In other words, achievement tests measure how well or poorly students are learning or mastering concepts; criterion referencing tests simply make sure that children are at least average or on par with state minimum standards. Understanding these fundamental differences provides insight as to how and why instructors have abandoned teaching concepts which are applicable across a broad range of subjects and life for teaching test taking 101.

I am neither staunchly for nor against standardized tests. What I am against are benchmark tests which are means of testing only for the sake of testing. I am averse to multiple choice and true/false tests as they are lazy means of measurement, but I understand the need for them especially in an effort to glean insight. These tests should not be used as the primary means of making determinations of admission or advancement, nonetheless. Further, studies have demonstrated that gifted children have difficulty with multiple choice tests because of their ability to make connections to broader concepts and inability to diminish concepts to the smaller framework/parameters allowed in multiple choice.

I recall one of my best and hardest working teachers deplored the use of multiple choice—Mrs. Barksdale. For our weekly vocabulary tests, we were required to write the meaning of each word or if given the meaning, provide the word—no multiple choice. Her goal was mastery, the enhancement of vocabulary and ultimately our knowledge. This should be our collective strife, mastery of concepts, not a race of whom can be the best of the worst.

Backwards Georgia

To be clear, I am not a native Georgian. This is certainly evident by my regular use of sentences with subject verb agreement, my use of the helping verb “have” with its appropriate main verb to make the perfect tense, and my lack of Appalachian twang. Until last night, I thought Georgians' lack of command of the English language was due to some genetic predisposition or the mountain air.

I have children in grade school who are required by the State of Georgia to complete the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) annually. Allegedly, this grade specific test is used to assess students’ grasp of standardized curricula and the quality of Georgia education. Well Georgia, you deserve a D-. From October through April, each teacher in Georgia, instead of teaching fundamental concepts (which I thought was the purpose of educational institutions), teach methods of getting passing scores on the CRCT because school funding and teacher assignment may be significantly based upon the results. So each week, my children receive worksheets designed with questions which are likely to be on the CRCT. Imagine my sheer disappointment and outright anger when one of my children’s worksheet packets had five egregious errors. These were not printing errors, rather grammatical errors. Might one please explain to me how an instructional device is fundamentally flawed in its purpose and execution—comprised of errors pertaining to the very concepts and topics of instruction? Here are the egregious errors:

EX 1

That is the funniest movie I ever ______.

A. saw

B. seed

C. seen

In the above example there is no option which provides for completing the sentence with the verb having the appropriate tense. The sentence should be changed to read, “That was the funniest movie I ever_____” or the choice C should be changed to have seen.

There is another question which appears to be either an algebraic equation or a simple addition problem. However, there are no instructions even though each of the prior and subsequent problems have specific directions.

EX 2

87 + 42=

F. 129 – 42

G. 42+87

H. 42-87

I. 87+129

I’m guessing the purpose of this question is to demonstrate that number arrangement in addition is of no consequence to the sum?? This is a guess, nonetheless, something I should have to do before I even begin to work the problem.

Finally, each of the three fraction questions was structured with subject verb disagreement. I’ll provide you with one example.

EX 3

What fraction of the balloons are shaded?

Even as I type this, MS Word recognizes the error. Perhaps the authors and editors of the worksheet use typewriters. This is a really simple concept. Fraction is the singular subject and therefore takes a singular verb which in this case should have been is. The phrase, “of the balloons” is the prepositional phrase and it does not change the number of the subject or the verb.

I shared this with my mother who replied, “Wow, so do they teach the same way they speak in Georgia?”

Apparently so.

Holyfield's Holy Beating for god

First, please someone riddle for me exactly why it is that people feel so compelled to tithe? Now, on to the story. Allegedly, Evander Holyfield attacked his wife last week for not producing proof of tithes for him. Just when I thought it couldn't get funnier...Mrs. Holyfield says that he demonstrated sorrow when he saw what he had done to her face. Wow, ungodliness for god! Of course this is nothing new, the hypocrisy that is.

It never ceases to amaze me how far people will go in the name of god. To avoid ridicule perhaps, Holyfield wanted to ensure that payments to the church were made regularly. It is sad, that he deemed a financial payment to a church was more important than respecting his wife. Unfortunately, so many share such thoughts. There are many people in dire straits who will continue to tithe while their homes enter foreclosure, utilities are disconnected, and car insurance coverage lapses. Again, will someone please explain that to me? Better still, I'm glad I do not understand it.

While people continue to tithe thoughtlessly with the apparent hopes that their tithing will result in blessings, homelessness rises in the very communities with churches on every corner, drug use is rampant, and of course crime has become the norm. Yet, the sheep continue to tithe. Blacks are especially prone to tithing mindlessly and yet have the worst outcomes of any demographic for every measure. Research has demonstrated that the cheerfullest of givers are the uneducated hoping for blessings in return. Thus, the church is used as some kind of holy lottery (no wonder religious organizations so vehemently oppose legalized gambling). The Holyfield incident clearly highlights the obvious paradox of organized religion. Regardless of good deeds and faith, there is a price for admission. Why do few question this? If Xians believe as they claim that Jehovah is the creator and ruler of all, then what need would he have for money? Further, how do they know the dollar is his currency of choice? Wouldn't he prefer the euro?

Please don't misunderstand. I am not discouraging tithing in the form of time and devotion to improving communities in which churches exist, for that is what I believe tithing is. It is a travesty and in fact grand larceny to rob communities of much needed resources without contributing anything positive. The state of the black community and the black family clearly demonstrate this to be an active practice among black churches in particular and in general. Holyfield beats his wife for not producing proof of their monetary tithes. Had he been truly tithing with her then his faith would be in tact and there would be no reason for proof. So now the real question--is the church an accessory in this beating?

Tebow, CBS, and Choice

Now, I make no bones and certainly no apologies about being staunchly pro-life without exception. Therefore, it is with little irony that I weigh in on the Tebow Super Bowl advertisement controversy. First, as usual, the always complaining and nagging feminist groups are making much ado about nothing. These groups which claim to be "pro-choice" are revealing their true colors. They are barking, petitioning, and whining, "no fair" because CBS has accepted an advertisement from the Xian conservative group Focus on the Family. The feminists would like to deny this group their First Amendment Rights in favor of a right to privacy and a freedom of choice they say without even having seen the commercial. Further, these groups say that CBS is violating its policy of not airing commercials from advocacy groups during the Super Bowl, and I must admit until CBS recently changed this policy they had grounds of merit, that is if that were their real reason for opposing it. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that.

I do believe, as NPR suggested, that CBS isn't so much supporting one ideology or another as much as they are supporting revenue. It is no secret that the cost of airing a 30 second spot has been lowered this year as the country's economic troubles continue. Even more important, however, is that television networks have made no secret of their favor for money over integrity or even morality. Now this is where the feminist groups NOW, NARAL, and any of the other ones should be able to relate to the CBS decision. They are in fact getting a great dose of their very own hypocritical medicine. These same groups attacked Palin for being the very kind of woman they allege represents the pinnacle of achievement in women's rights and in this case these same groups oppose an ad which demonstrates a woman exercising choice over her reproductive rights. Nonetheless, these hypocrites don't want the exercise of reproductive rights to include reproduction. Now isn't that ironic?

Despite the "medical advice" given to Palin and Tebow, these women chose to respect their unborn children and give them life, apparently much to the dismay of NOW, NARAL, and other feminists. Feminists, please get over yourselves. This ad demonstrates exactly what you claim to advocate which is choice. Because the choice happens to be life and how precious it truly is, you have a problem with that? Now that is hypocrisy. CBS is only demonstrating the same double standards that are fundamental to your ideology. I implore you to create your version of a pro-choice commercial. Perhaps one of you will come forward in the commercial and confess to choosing to abort a baby. I mean since it is only a choice regarding only your body and your reproductive rights, of what do you have to be ashamed?

Terrorizing Our Way Out of the Recession

If you think terror or the war on it isn't about the almighty dollar, then you have another thing coming. Psychologists have long studied fear and determined it to be a powerful motivator. People try harder fearing failure, stay in unhappy marriages fearing loneliness, fear challenging superiors for losing opportunities for advancement, fear rabid animals for preservation of life...and so on and so forth. Some fear is primal, part of evolution, necessary for survival and in those cases fear can be good and necessary for survival. However, in many more instances, fear is not a good thing for in psychology it does not fall upon the list of motivators, rather the list of barriers. Fear discourages. Fear deters. Fear ultimately prohibits, functioning according to its nature as a barrier.

During a recent trip, while waiting in a very long line awaiting the ever so delightful transportation security administration screening, I noticed an advertisement in the bottom of one of the screening bins--yes an advertisement. Now isn't that something? These bins are supposed to be used to assist in the screening process. Specifically, these bins are supposed to enable screeners to determine whether a passenger has contraband within his or her carry on luggage. Why are they now also being used to advertise products and services?

Please don't think the bins are the first or the last airline travel related items to receive a "boost" from terrorism. Airport restaurants and other vendors certainly received a boost from the asinine "no liquids beyond security checkpoints" rule. Every time a true or would be terrorist does anything, there is a knee jerk reaction to prohibit that thing from air travel in an effort to give the allusion of safety. More often than not, these efforts and allusions men money for some entity, rest assured. If you recall, a year or so ago, most people were averse to full body scanners for fear of privacy. Then comes along the would be "fruit of kaboom" underwear bomber (have to give credit to Rush for that phrase). Recent polls indicate the majority of Americans now favor those same full body scanners. Surprise surprise. As usual, people fell for everything hook, line and sinker. During some international flights, passengers had to raise their hands above their heads and were prohibited from going to the restroom just prior to landing. Now to the average and below average minds, this seemed appropriate--even the right thing to do for our "safety". Really? Why then, do we pay billions of dollars for intelligence? Is that not for our safety? Why should my comfort and rights be compromised and outright denied because intelligence failed? Why are we doing the same things over and over that continue to fail?

Each full body scanner costs $170k and several will be coming to an airport near you. So will the failing intelligence budget be reduced by that same amount multiplied by the number of scanners purchased and installed in airports? Well, ration would assume it should be if this in fact is designed to work.

What is really sad is that the same people who favor this and any new invasion of privacy and denial of rights with regard to air travel, are the same people who would protest the denial of any amendment guaranteed rights related to any other area of life. The point I wish to make is that we continue to exist as drones and are hoodwinked daily into frivolous government spending. Yet, some would have you believe that insurance reform, welfare, or educational investment are what really erode federal and state finances and corrupt government. Really? Oh well, if Tom Brokaw still reported the evening news, this would be a feature on The Fleecing of America.

Gilbert Arenas--the dumbest gun slinger in the west

Just when you thought it was safe to say you are a fan of the NBA some idiotic player finds some way to shame you once again. By now you are aware, and Tiger Woods is certainly happy, that Gilbert Arenas allegedly stored and brandished a weapon or weapons in his team's locker room. As if that isn't the most asinine situation you've heard in a minute, his excuse surely is.

Now all of this came to light when Mr. Arenas allegedly brandished one or more of his weapons threatening a teammate in an incident related to a gambling debt, a debt which Arenas denies exists. Nevertheless, the primary issue still remains---he brought to and stored weapons at his place of employment. His excuse, he didn't want the weapons in his home because of his children. Nice. Dilbert, eh em, I mean Gilbert did you ever think of a safe deposit box? A weapons exchange program? Selling them? There are several alternatives more appealing and certainly more appropriate than storing weapons at work. He should lose his job and should have been escorted from the premises in handcuffs. At any other place of business this would have been the case even if the weapons were only stored in the trunk of a vehicle on company property. Unless he moonlights as a police officer, bouncer, security guard, FBI agent, CIA agent, or member of the armed forces, I see no reason for him bringing a weapon to work. His stupidity is especially egregious considering the level of security that is standard for NBA players at work.

Commissioner Stern has suspended Gilbert Arenas indefinitely. He should be terminated, though the history of punishment of the NBA makes that look unlikely. I would ask Gilbert, "How stupid can you be?", but I am afraid he may answer.

Facebooking & Tweeting--the End of Intelligence & Couth

Obviously I blog so I'm no stranger or dissenter to electronic communication. I firmly believe that it has made business and documentation more efficient and more important, given virtually everyone an opportunity to participate in news and entertainment. However, when it comes to interpersonal communication and establishing and maintaining relationships, electronic communication devices, particularly facebook, twitter, and text messaging are the Armageddon of Nostradamus prophecy.

I'll admit, I was quick to embrace email for it provided a quick communication method for keeping in touch with colleagues, friends, and instructors. Further, it aided the tree hugger in me in saving paper. During my undergraduate years, instructors began accepting electronic versions of assignments in lieu of hard copies occasionally. By the time I enrolled in graduate school, each assignment was to be submitted electronically. Awesome! However, electronic communication has gone too far. When you receive important messages via text message such as, "I'm married" or "grandpa just died" something is seriously awry. People quickly became drones, addicted to text messaging and incapable of real interpersonal communication. These drones were even texting before full qwerty keyboards became standard fixtures on mobile phones. I've now accepted text messaging, but only now that I have a "smart phone". Prior to that depressing numerical keys several times to simply say "on my way" was just a demonstration in stupidity.

Just when I thought people couldn't get any more moronic along comes facebook and twitter. What is it about these alleged social networks that encourages idiocy? People have been fired for being on "sick leave" and posting vacation pictures during that time, had their homes burglarized after announcing extended vacations, and been victims of assault. I mean seriously drones, this is border line retarded. Actually I think it's beyond retarded. The facebook drones no longer interact or even live. I've been to happy hours with acquaintances and friends who peck away at their phones about how much fun they are having hanging out with the girls. Really? You must be kidding me if you think that having a phone glued to your hand with the facebook application running constantly is engaging in any means. It is downright rude. I limit my interaction with those drones. People with hundreds and even thousands of facebook friends demonstrate the shallowness and insignificance of the uber social network. Many of these people spend their days posting away instead of living. "Good morning FBF. I wiped my ass FBF. I'm breathing FBF. Goodnight FBF. It is utter insanity. They clearly have no lives.

I joined under pressure of friends and relatives to "stay connected" and the initial intoxication of catching up seemed worthwhile until you witnessed how little facebook members actually lived and how much they facebooked instead. I've not joined twitter but have visited friends' pages and it is even worse. It encourages all of the already intellectually limited to post short "tweets" instead of composing actual sentences--as if we needed another excuse not to learn the rules of grammar. Each of the tweeters and facebook addicts seems to get dumber with every post sliding deeper into the depths of retardation losing every ounce of refinement and manners. They post aimlessly day in and day out sending data through fiber optic cables and wireless networks all the while missing the real human connections that bind, uplift, and inspire us. What's next? The holy church of twitter? Facebook united methodist episicopalian baptist holy roman catholic synagogue? Religious organizations and leaders have already logged in and will be tweeting and facebooking during, before, and after regularly scheduled sermons. I guess you don't go to heaven unless you're god's facebook friend or follower on twitter. It's invasive, it is uncouth, and it is beating genetics at creating more retards.