Your Blog Title Goes Here

Who Needs Security? You Do Stupid

2010-11-22T16:19:00.002-05:00

As we approach Thanksgiving, typically one of the heaviest travel days of the year here in the United States, we're again starting to see a lot of public backlash about the lengths to which people are willing to go through in order to prove a point about security. That is to say, to prove that all the security measures we go through are a pain in the rear. Now I agree, I don't enjoy having to show up three hours early for a flight so that I can be sure to process through security in time, but I do understand that it's for my safety.

Most security measures that are in place today are meant for our safety but there are people out there who believe that it's being done because the Transportation Security Agency is full of perverts who enjoy feeling up passengers or viewing (supposedly) almost-nude video of people passing through their system. If you're that bashful (or vain) to believe that the TSA is going to suddenly post photos of you on the internet then I think you really need to come back to reality and realize that you aren't as great looking as you believe yourself to be. Nor are you appealing enough that a TSA agent would be willing to give you a pat down search if he or she really didn't need to.

While I understand that many seasoned travelers are a bit tired of having to go through security measures that often add hours to their business trips, surprisingly it isn't they who are raising the biggest stink; rather it's those clueless souls who show up at airports and expect to be treated like royalty on their yearly trip to Tallahassee to see Grandma. If you don't fly that often, I would think that you aren't dense enough to have missed all the news bulletins and talk about increased airport security measures. If you are then even after you get to the airport there are plenty of notices that warn you of the security measures that you will have to go through. If you're still caught unawares then that's your own fault.

Perhaps you feel that it isn't fair for you to be subjected to pat downs or full body scans and I would agree. It isn't a pleasant thing but it's a momentary break in your travel that is meant to keep you safe. To tell you the truth, it's not that big a deal unless you choose to make it that big a deal. If you've never been anywhere outside of the United States perhaps you don't realize that most of this type of security screening has been going on for years all over Europe and in parts of Asia. Why do terrorists then keep trying to do their evil actions on US flights? Probably because they know that if they raise enough of a stink ahead of time then they could conceivably exempt themselves from having to go through security.

If you don't feel it right to have to go through security meant to weed out potential terrorists then perhaps you should stick to the roads and drive yourself to where you need to go. If you feel that only people of certain.... racial type need to be screened then I would simply remind you that we still live in a country where no race is discriminated against... at least the last time I looked. Given my complexion, I am often pulled aside for extra screening; I don't mind it and I don't care that I get the occasional looks from fellow passengers wondering if I'm a miscreant. All I care is that I have nothing to hide and that the TSA is doing their job to keep us safe. So why not let them do their jobs? They're doing it over their Thanksgiving holiday to keep you safe.

Protecting the Sanctity of Sesame Street?

2010-09-23T19:05:00.003-05:00

So the bloggers of the Internet can sometimes be very quick to judge and in my opinion, very hypocritical. What do I mean? Well you have probably heard by now that 25-year-old singer Katy Perry was set to appear on an upcoming episode of the children's education program "Sesame Street". If you heard that you probably also heard that she wouldn't be making that appearance due to the number of complaints that the show received about early footage of Perry singing her popular song "Hot 'n Cold" alongside perennial "Sesame Street" star Elmo. In the piece, Perry prances and dances alongside the Muppet while seemingly doing nothing more than simply running around cartoon backgrounds. I say 'seemingly' because apparently I'm too stupid to understand the 'offensive' part of her performance.

Look up any article on the situation and you'll undoubtedly find a lot of the popular opinion on the matter being bandied about in the comments section. Now if there's one thing I dislike about the comments section on many internet pages it's that there's seldom any accountability. I could go onto a website and spout rhetoric about why "Star Wars" is and always will be superior to "Star Trek" and I could sign my name William Shatner and no one would know the difference. Of course I'm not William Shatner but such a posting would undoubtedly bring Trekkers out of the internet woodwork to defend their beloved show. So why am I bringing this up? Because apparently the popular opinion against the Katy Perry segment on "Sesame Street" gained a lot of traction when it was first posted on YouTube.

If you read a lot of what people are saying out there I would say that it's quite hypocritical. I say this because we as a society often seem to apply morals to situation that don't even require us to do such a thing. While I would contend that Katy Perry probably isn't the most wholesome or pure person to have ever appeared on television let alone on "Sesame Street" I think her appearance had more to do with the fact that she liked the show as a kid and wanted to make an appearance on it now that she had finally become a star. I don't find anything offensive in her dance with Elmo and I have faith in the powers that be in charge of "Sesame Street" that they'd have enough judgment to know what was acceptable on the show and what wouldn't be.

If we don't believe them to have that much common sense then what else are they 'allowing' our children to see? If everything else the producers and creators of the show is passed through without anyone else in the general public (and internet public) making a comment on it then why is this one particular piece getting so much bad press? Is it because we think Katy Perry isn't a good person or because we like to believe that we are so much more conservative? I call this type of attitude hypocritical because it has often been the more conservative sections of our society who have stepped out to call something offensive and when you dig a little deeper you find that they themselves are guilty of similar actions. So what does that mean? While they find Katy Perry's dance sequence "offensive" I'm sure they have done something similar (if not worse) in their own lives but I guess pointing it out in regards to someone else gives them a feeling of superiority. I find it to be a shame that a show that was a large part of my youth is treated so shoddily these days by conservative members of the public. Kids are innocent in their outlook. They would see the dance for what it is which is a dance; don't try to look beyond that simple fact to find offense.

Even If It's Our Right; Is It Right?

2010-09-08T06:51:00.000-05:00

This Saturday marks the ninth anniversary of the terrible events of 9/11. It's hard to believe that it's been nearly a decade since that day given how much has happened since then and how much continues to happen as a result. However, not everyone is using the day to reflect on the tragic events of nine years prior. Well... not in exactly the way one would expect. Apparently the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida is planning on staging a protest of Islam which isn't unusual in and of itself but it's the fact that they are promoting their event as 'National Burn a Koran Day' that is garnering the most attention and not for all the best reasons.

Now before some of you jump up on your soapboxes and start shouting to me the fact that this is a right given to us by the Constitution, I would simply ask you to sit down and shut up. I'm well aware of the fact that this is a right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. It's that same right that allows me to express my rights in such a free and open manner on the internet for the entire world to see. Therefore, seeing as how I know what that right allows me to do, please allow me to continue what my thoughts on the matter are. While I understand the rationale behind the group wanting to protest Islam and their view of it, doing so by desecrating the writings of another religion isn't the way to go about it.

Sure you can argue that they have no respect for any other religion either. You can argue that it is simply a matter of retaliating for all the mistreatment Muslims have inflicted on the peoples of other religions around the world (but more specifically in the Middle East). You could even call it a culmination of all the frustration and anger that so many are feeling towards the religion behind many of the terrorist organizations in the world. You could say all those things and more, but is it really enough to justify the burning of their holy texts? I'm not a Muslim and I don't have Muslim tendencies or leanings. I'm a patriotic American who loves the country of my birth as much as any other American. However I don't want my country to be associated with the type of religious intolerance that this event seems to convey.

Do groups such as the Dove World Outreach Center really believe that this will have some positive effect on the world but in particular, for Americans? If you read the news you'll find that most terrorist groups out there believe that America's efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were not motivated by the fact that we were after terrorists but rather after exterminating Islam itself. Our government and our leaders staunchly claim that this is not the case but when a group like the Dove World Outreach Center (which frankly doesn't seem to be doing anything towards living up to their name) decides to declare a 'National Burn a Koran Day'. Seeing as how it is a right protected by the Constitution, I can't say that it shouldn't be done, but what I do feel is that it is only going to serve to inspire other groups to do the same thing, and then the ultimate irony is that we will eventually be doing what the terrorists accuse us of wanting to do in the first place, which is not declare war on terrorists but on Islam itself. Is this what the Dove World Outreach Center parishioners want? Do they really want the terrorists to be right?

The Housing Market in DC

2010-08-26T06:04:00.000-05:00

So everyone in the news has been talking about how the latest numbers indicate that new home sales in the country have been on the decline and this is an indicator that the economic recovery of our nation is stalling. I don't know where many of these people come up with their ideas but one thing I can say for certain is that they likely drive around their areas wearing blinders because if they could only open their eyes and see, they'd immediately understand the reason why new home sales are declining and I am pretty certain it's something much simpler than what the media is making it out to be. Drive practically anywhere west on the Dulles Toll Road and you'll end up running into numerous signs that advertise new developments and neighborhoods that have model homes now open. If one ventures into that area they will find endless streets of new homes (townhomes, condos, etc.) vying for space in a fast disappearing landscape.

Why the reason for all the building? Likely because of the false buyers market that was created a few years ago when our government leaders urged everyone to invest in real estate because that was a sure sign of prosperity. Never mind that unlike in years past, homeowners actually had to cough up a lot of money for a downpayment and had to have firmly established credit to get a mortgage to help pay for a home, a few years ago you pretty much needed a face and you could get a mortgage. If you had a job (even if it only paid $10,000 a year) it seemed you could easily get approved to get a loan to buy a home worth millions rather than what you actually could afford. The end result was that people were buying homes left and right and figured that they could make money flipping properties even though they didn't really understand what flipping properties meant.

What this meant to developers and builders was that there was a clear demand for housing so they just went on a building spree and now it's almost as if the market continues to thrive because I've spoken with individuals who work for the counties in Northern Virginia where building was most rampant and they have indicated that building permits are continuously sought because builders still want to build more homes for a market that is saturated to the breaking point. While I understand the desire to continue building is likely helping keep a lot of people employed, don't these people (any of them) realize that they are not helping the market but rather hurting it? If I lived in the Ashburn area and decided to sell my two year old home, I would likely get little to nothing for it (relatively speaking) because there was brand new construction for a comparable price just a few feet away.

People aren't going to buy houses for some time to come and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the new homeowner tax credit is no longer in effect. It has to do with the fact that there are too many homes and not enough buyers. And it's likely that this fact will continue until such a point that the counties and developers realize that there isn't much point in continuing to create new housing if no one is going to buy it. I personally don't think the market will improve much until the building stabilizes (and eventually stops) and prices come down to more realistic levels. I mean while houses beyond Ashburn are certainly nice, I don't think I'd like to spend that much and drive fifty miles one way just to get to work. I don't think a lot of other people would either which is why houses out there aren't selling thus leading 'experts' to believe that the economic recovery is beginning to collapse.

To Build or Not to Build

2010-08-25T06:22:00.000-05:00

It seems like everybody and their brother is looking to get in on the discussion on the proposed mosque in New York. I'm sure if you're reading this far you are most likely familiar with the issue but in case you're not from the States or not very familiar with what's going on, the gist of it is that there has been major issue with the fact that a mosque has been seeking permission to build a community center approximately two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. Now while I understand the emotion and the anger that many people feel towards allowing such a structure to be built so close to the site of the deadliest attack on United States soil in the history of the country, I think the debate is being elevated to greater proportions by people who want to do nothing more than fan the flames.

It's hard to watch the news these days and not see some side of the debate being discussed and rather than listening to only the words of those who agree with my viewpoint, I feel it important to also hear (and attempt to understand) the opposing viewpoints on the issue as well. As I mentioned, I understand the anger that many have over the fact that a mosque is being built in such close proximity to Ground Zero but I am at a loss to understand why there is so much ire. I agree that much of it has to do with the fact that the religion of those who perpetrated the attacks is Muslim and that the majority of those we are in conflict with around the world at this time happens to be Muslim but then is it right to punish the majority for the failings of the minority?

And not only that, but to hear many opponents talk, it seems that the mosque/community center that is to be built will be (in the eyes of most opponents) a site from which evil Muslims will plot the next attack on our country. Now I honestly cannot fathom just how rationale minded individuals can possibly believe that. Do people have that little faith in our intelligence and security services to believe that such an attack could again be planned and executed so close to the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York? Do people have so little faith that security services (not to mention the public in general) won't be keeping eyes on that building and would let police know if someone even litters (let alone attempts violence) there? To hear the experts at Fox News speak makes it seem like Bin Laden will have a seat of honor within site of the new World Trade Center plaza. I honestly can't buy that.

But what about those who argue that it just isn't sensitive of Muslims to want to build a mosque so close to where other followers of their religion attacked our country. They say that two blocks is too close. What about the prayer area within the Pentagon where Islamic prayer services are held every day since 2002? It seems that that location is located within a few hundred feet of where the plane slammed into the building. As far as I know there have been no protests which surprises me since I would have thought opponents (who seem to oppose for the sake of opposing at times) would have latched on to the fact that Islam is the religion of those attacking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but seeing as how that is not the case, the fact that a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is insensitive strikes me as smacking of hypocrisy.

If you say that two blocks is too close then how far is far enough? Would it be safe to say that most people who oppose the site on principle would argue that not a single mosque should be built in New York ever again? Perhaps or perhaps not but it wouldn't surprise me if that didn't become the arguement of many. Opponents say that the timing isn't right or that it's too soon. To be perfectly honest, if you haven't been to Ground Zero in recent days I think you'd be hard pressed to term it hallowed if you didn't know any better. What with all the hot dog vendors, the fast food places and other tourist trappings in and around the area. If we truly believe the area to be hallowed ground or an area to be considered sacred, then it should be treated like the majority of Civil War battlefields in our nation, or the site of many historic battles or tragedies around the world. You'd be hard pressed to term it 'touristy'. I personally believe that there is more of a prejudicial reason so many oppose the project and that people just aren't willing to admit it.

The Genius of George Lucas

2010-08-11T06:32:00.000-05:00

There are very few billion dollar ideas in the world that continue to generate money even after turning thirty. I don't think the track record of sliced bread is going to be broken but one of those ideas that certainly seems to be maintaining its stride is the brainchild of George Lucas; and that brainchild is the "Star Wars" franchise. Given that most people my age grew up with copies of the original films on VHS tapes, it's no wonder that the films (the originals mind you) have had such an impact on so many lives; and it's no wonder therefore that it continues to have an impact. Well, maybe not as much as it once did, but for some of us out there it definitely still draws us in to explore the universe that has grown well beyond the original three films. But what in that makes George Lucas the genius? Simply the fact that he retained the rights to the characters and universe thus ensuring that no matter what is created with even a passing reference to "Star Wars" he will continue to rake in the money.

Don't believe me? Well how about the latest phone fad to hit the wireless market here in the United States; the Droid available exclusively from Verizon Wireless. In it's initial releases, the phones didn't really have anything to do with "Star Wars" other than the fact that the phone's operating system was referred to as 'droid' which is "Star Wars"-speak for robot (short for android). Yet even that was enough to ensure that Lucas made some money on it. If you see the ads, at the very end there would be barely visible text which indicated that 'droid' was a trademark of Lucasfilm (George Lucas's production company) and thus, simply because they used the term, makers of these phones would have to pay Lucas and his company a ton of money.

As if that wasn't enough though, Verizon recently announced that a forthcoming updated version of the droid phone will not only feature a faster system, but will include exclusive "Star Wars" content and will be in the shape of that most famous of "Star Wars" droid characters, R2-D2. Now if that's not a surefire way to increase sales of the already popular phone then I don't know what is. There are those who scoff at these moves by Lucas; they claim that he's simply selling out his original idea for the sake of making money but I would simply push back that this is the only way in which he'd be able to continuously feed the desire that my generation (and now the next generation) have for all things "Star Wars".

When I attended the "Star Wars in Concert" concert recently, I was genuinely surprised at the sheer number of children who were in attendance. Not that I should have been surprised given that the newer films and television shows are definitely aimed towards a younger audience (which I find ironic considering they are supposed to deal with a darker time in the "Star Wars" timeline). There are cartoons and books and games all aimed at a younger audience while for us older fans, there are items like wireless cell phones. So say what you will about Lucas and his desire to make more money, it only works because many of us continue to be suckers for the universe he created. And by this time, even if we've moved past being fans of the universe (or ignore it because we feel that it's aimed too squarely at a younger audience) it's a machine that will still grow for years to come given that the next generation has and will continue to embrace it. And Lucas will continue to see visions of dancing dollar bills.

Same Story, Different Day

2010-08-05T06:43:00.000-05:00

I enjoyed the movie "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray which sees the hero stuck in an endless loop of the same day for much of the movie. It was enjoyable as a movie but as reality, I doubt that it would be as much fun. Yet it seems like we're stuck in that type of continuum and proof of that comes in the form of two announcements that I feel like I had heard about just about a year ago with an air of finality that time. Unfortunately it seems that that was not the case because here we are a year later listening to the same stuff over again. I guess there is truth to the adage of some of the ruts in life being nothing more than the same shit just on a different day.

Take for example the heart-breaking news that Bristol Palin (daughter of Sarah Palin and poster child for abstinence before marriage) and her erstwhile beau, Levi Johnston (Playgirl model and self-professed 'actor') were calling off their second engagement. It seems that Bristol came to the realization that Levi was using her for the noteriety in order to further his career. Just three weeks into their second engagement, Bristol realized that when he said he was going to Los Angeles to film a hunting show, Levi was actually filming a music video in which he apparently mocks the Palin family. Now perhaps this is just my twisted logic, but is it any surprise considering how slanderous he was in his interviews around the time of his nude photo shoot? Should Bristol or anyone related to the family be that stunned at the news? I think not.

A year (or more) ago the pair were in the news for having broken up and having started exchanging insults via magazine interviews. We have yet to reach that stage but I guess those days aren't too far into the future. Sarah Palin (our country's answer to William Shakespeare) has meanwhile stepped forward to 'refudiate' the claims being made by Levi and has been speaking out in support of her daughter's decision. I suppose it speaks volumes about the family values that she and her clan have when they can stand in the public's eye and claim to uphold the very best virtues of this country by having children out of wedlock and breaking off two engagements. I'm just hoping that this non-story doesn't pop up in the headlines again next year.

But as for the other heart-breaking story that came out yesterday, apparently Brett Farve has been circulating rumors that he is going to retire from football; yes... again. It seems that off-season surgery has left his ankle in much worse shape than he had hoped so he began texting his teammates informing them of the fact that he would likely step down from football. Now I'm a fan of Brett Farve and I admire his accomplishments but he's really becoming like the boy who cried wolf but in this case it's retirement. He's done it not once but twice already and I won't believe that his career is over until the days leading up to the 2011 football season. If he hasn't stayed in retirement by then then I'll look forward to hearing him contemplate retiring again next year.

Both of these stories made me realize something. While I do enjoy a bit of repetition in life, there are somethings that really don't need to be repeated. Getting stuck in traffic is definitely one of them but stories like these come a close second. While I appreciate having a window into the lives of Bristol and Levi and Brett, I don't need to be bombarded with it the way the media likes to do. There are times when "too little" of something isn't a bad thing and this would definitely be one of those times.

The Winds of Change

2010-08-04T06:01:00.000-05:00

It often surprises me how quickly the winds of change blow in our political arena. I was reading in the news that the latest polls show that popular opinion is turning against the War in Afghanistan and that more Americans believe that it was a mistake to have gone to war in that country in 2001. What is most galling to me is that the majority of people who are likely against the war now are the same ones who were shouting slogans of support for Bush when he proposed invading the country a scant two months after the attacks of 9/11. At that time support for capturing (or killing) Osama bin Laden were at an all time high and it seemed to be the right thing to do. But after bin Laden managed to escape from Tora Bora due to delays in the chain of command figuring out what they wanted to do, enthusiasm for the war stymied and eventually turned to Iraq.

So here we are a decade later (and two years past the campaigns for President in 2008) and while the withdrawal from Iraq is underway, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is leaving a bitter taste in a lot of mouths; especially of those who were shouting from the rooftops (and tea kettles) in 2008 that "cutting and running" was an unfathomable option to even contemplate. So what's changed? I personally don't see much to have changed on the surface from 2001 to now. That's not to imply that our soldiers who have fought (and died) in Afghanistan have done so in vain but it seems that the general objectives that have been in the public's eyes have remained just that... general. While the pie in the sky hope is to eventually have a stable form of government in power in Afghanistan, I think one of the key difficulties will be the fact that while democracy in Afghanistan is a noble goal, it may not be achievable given the attitudes of those living in the country outside of Kabul.

So until those elements that continue to fight Allied forces are defeated, actually achieving something resembling victory will be difficult to come by and in keeping with their unwritten but strictly adhered to party platform, opponents of the President seem to continuously project a story that anything the President has done has been in error. Surprising considering the decision to escalate the war was something many critics supported before Obama became President. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I feel a bit insulted by that. I mean to me that is insinuating that what we as individuals think doesn't matter but what the party we support says is what we should believe. I mean forget that the whole reason that the War in Afghanistan was started was to attack those who supported the attack on our country on 9/11. Suddenly it's gone from that to being a war that only Obama wants. I'm sorry but I'm not so short minded as to forget that this was a war started during the Bush Administration.

But be that as it may. Maybe it's just a sign of the times. September 11th will have occurred a decade ago next year. That's a long time for most people. For most of us it will be the defining moment in our lives and in the history of the country but for others it seems to be nothing more than a footnote; a platform on which to stand when it is politically beneficial. I'm not saying that people should blindly support Obama's decisions as they often blindly supported Bush over the course of eight years, but at least let's not let the fact that things aren't as wonderful as we'd like them to be be the reason we don't support a course of action. If we felt strong enough to declare that entering into war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do nine years ago then nothing should have changed because the problems that were in existence then are still in existence. And if we feel that now it isn't worth the time, effort and most especially, if it isn't worth the lives being lost, then we need to roll the blame to all those who are responsible and not the most convenient target.

Getting the Message Out There

2010-07-30T06:13:00.000-05:00

So a lot of people have been very critical of the fact that President Obama appeared on the daytime television show "The View" this past Thursday. He has been lambasted and ridiculed for his decision to appear on such a show despite the fact that there are so many crises going on all across the globe. If you read the comments sections of most online news sources, you'll find a ton of comments by opponents stating that Obama has nothing better to do than fan the flames of his celebrity and continue acting as if he is on the campaign trail rather than leading the country. To all these critics I would simply say that there is no one to blame for this decision than ourselves. Perhaps you won't agree with that statement but it's the truth and if you think about it even a little bit, it will probably be the most logical thing he could have done to appear on "The View".

These days the media has become almost as polarized as the political system in our country. You automatically can make the safe assumption that Democrats will never appear on Fox News Channel and conversely, no Republican will appear on any of the other networks out there because they are the 'elite' or 'mainstream' media. As a quick aside, I have yet to hear a plausible explanation about how Fox News isn't elite when you consider the fact that they probably spend just as much (if not more) on the hair and makeup expenses of their reporters than any other network; but I digress. With the issue of media polarization being very obvious (at least to me) it makes sense that if Obama wants to come out and speak to the public on national television, he would do it on a show where at least there is a modicum of political balance.

Don't believe me? What about the conservative firebrand who sits opposite Whoopi Goldberg; the darling of Fox News, Elizabeth Hasselback. Remember when she was creating a stir on national television regarding the fact that the conservative media found that she was the sole voice of reason among all those other liberal cronies on the show? I would be hard pressed to find any other program that has as much of a mix as "The View" in terms of political balance. Obama could have appeared on Oprah but why? He would face accusations of taking an 'easy interview' much the way Sarah Palin was criticized when she agreed to be interviewed (if you could call her interview with Sean Hannity an interview) on Fox News. Conservatives would cry foul over the fact that Obama was meeting with Oprah because she's so very obviously in his favor.

And after that, are there really any other shows out there during daytime television that are actually worth the time it takes to read the show descriptions? I can honestly say that I don't believe there is. Gone are the serious talkshows that used to be on every so often and in come the reality series or trash talk shows. Obama couldn't appear on Judge Judy unless he wanted to sue Rahm Emanuel for using the f-word in front of his daughters so then where else could he turn to but "The View". Sure you can say that he could have very well made an address from the Oval Office if he wanted to appear before the general public but then there's an outcry over what show is being pre-empted.

Don't believe that? What about when Obama wanted to deliver a speech regarding the escalation of the war in Afghanistan; people began screaming bloody murder because the original timeslot requested would have pre-empted "Lost". Can't have that now can we? I guess those of us not affected very directly by the war really don't care about it but we would have cared a great deal had we not been able to see the final few episodes of "Lost" at it's regular time. Now I'm a fan of the show but I understood that the message that was to be delivered was important so it would have been worth it but I guess the majority of us didn't agree. You can make the argument that appearing on a television show like this is beneath the President of the United States, but then again where else will he at least be given a chance to discuss himself that isn't being spun by one part of the polarized media or another? Sesame Street anyone?

Agreeing to Disagree Can Be a Good Thing

2010-07-29T06:00:00.001-05:00

So besides the fact that the infamous site WikiLeaks continues to leak 'sensitive' or potentially 'explosive' information to the public one of the other stories to rock American politics these days is the fact that the House of Representatives voted to approve war funding in Afghanistan, this despite the fact that that over a hundred Democrats voted against the bill. Why is this a good thing? Well while some choose to look at it as Democrats abandoning the efforts of a Democratic President (Obama), I prefer to look at it as a prime of example of how politics should be handled. All too often lately we see politicians not voting their conscience but rather voting along party lines which isn't always the best option. Sure you can make the argument that most of these Democrats likely did it to garner favor with their constituents (after all the November elections in many states are just around the corner). I mean job security isn't necessarily a guaranteed thing, even with long-standing politicians.

So why do I believe that this action by Democrats in the House is a good thing? Well as I said, it proves that politics can be free of mindless support just because the President happens to be from your party. Certainly there are reasons for non-support as well; for example the fact that approval has been given in the House version of the bill to support the development of an alternate engine for the F-35 fighter, something Obama has steadfastly promised to veto should it be included in a bill that comes up for his signature. Perhaps you could argue that the Democrats voted against the bill for that very reason then perhaps it could be said that parties continue to play party politics, but is that always the case?

In the years following 9/11, we often heard the adage that "if you aren't with us then you're against us". That was applied as often to fellow American politicians as it was to terrorists across the globe. Our collective national fervor to avoid being labeled a traitor to our nation was likely what inspired many to support bills they otherwise wouldn't have. I remember hearing discussions among politicians in the early days of the war in which they said that they didn't agree with the war in Iraq but that it was the right thing to do given the evidence that was given at the time. To me that was a clear case of covering your ass. No matter the outcome you were covered to show you were on the 'right side' of the decision. If the war went well then you could say that you supported the war from the outset. However, if the war went bad then you could still say that you didn't support it but that given the evidence that was put forward you were duped...er... convinced.

In the subsequent years, our collective memories have dimmed to a large degree and now our memories of the reasons for the wars are a bit hazy so it's up to politicians (who are always great for a soundbite... even if their facts are wrong) to remind the public why we should or shouldn't support forthcoming legislation. It sometimes feels that the politicians in Congress don't always take into account the will of the people who they represent but rather promote their ideas to the people they represent in a complete reversal of how the system is meant to work. Certainly not everyone has the insight into all issues to necessarily draw any opposing viewpoints so they accept Congressional opinion at face value which was a bad thing when partisan politics ran rampant. But if the vote by House Democrats is a true sign that at the very least the Democrats no longer feel obligated to 'tow the company line' then perhaps change really is coming to Washington.

I Guess Satire is More Difficult Than Joel Stein Expected

2010-07-14T06:26:00.004-05:00

Joel Stein of Time Magazine recently wrote an essay on immigration entitled 'My Own Private India'. In the essay, Stein relates how his hometown of Edison, New Jersey (which for those who don't know is a town in North Jersey that is now synonymous with Indians) has been transformed in recent years, mainly with the influx of Indians who have slowly transformed the area into almost a micro-India. Now that is of course both good and bad. It's good since many Indian immigrants have found a way to have a little piece of home while living in a foreign land. It's bad because sometimes we Indians don't bring the best of our heritage to our newly adopted countries.

I must clarify that I'm born and raised in America. I have lived my life in DC and I have actually been to Edison on numerous occasions so I can relate to some of what Stein references in his essay when he talks about how Edison has transformed into a bustling version of an Indian city in America. What has raised the ire of many readers (myself included) is the fact that Stein apparently attempted to state his observations in a satirical manner and instead, he successfully managed to instead insult the vast majority of Indians who read his article. He subsequently issued an apology and insisted that his article wasn't meant to insult but rather to raise awareness of his readers to the fact that immigration managed to change his hometown. To that I would simply say, "Welcome to America."

America has been and always shall be a nation of immigrants. No people on this continent, save for the native peoples of this land (and by that I mean the varied tribes of Native Americans) no one can ever claim to be a true 'American'. We are all immigrants; whether that be our parents or several generations before even them, everyone living in what we collectively know as America is an immigrant at some point or another in their family's history. That being said, there is no excuse for anyone (including Joel Stein) to view another group of immigrants with the degree of disdain and spite that he showed. As an American of Indian descent, certainly there are times when even I feel that Indian enclaves in our country (like Edison) sometimes don't represent all the best aspects of a particular culture but then again, which enclaves ever do?

I can tell you that almost every single neighborhood in America that has been around for more than a decade undergoes change; it's just the nature of America's continued development. The neighborhood I grew up in certainly has changed from when I lived there but that doesn't mean that I view it like the plague as Stein appears to do with the changes to Edison. If, as Stein seems to imply, after leaving Edison for Manhattan, he returned many years later to find his childhood haunts to have been taken over by Indians then he is as much to blame as any immigrants. If he had that much regard for the area of his youth, he would have continually returned or at least made an effort to remain a part of it rather than returning later and viewing it as a haven for people who aren't just like him.

What is most galling to me in his analysis about Edison is the fact that he seems to ply stereotype upon stereotype and seems to view the fact that Indians have moved into the area as a sign that it is declining or that they are attempting to turn Edison (and eventually all of New Jersey) into India. I suppose by his assumption then that Chinatowns and Little Italy's all over the United States are evidence of those ethnicities taking over as well. Whatever was the point that Stein wanted to make or was attempting to make in a humorous manner ended up stinking of racism and ignorance more than anything. Stein attempted to apologize for his essay but his apology came off even more half-assed than his attempt at humor. It's a shame that a magazine as prestigious as Time would choose to run this essay as a companion piece to editorials on immigration reform.

A Better Burger Can Cure All Blues?

2010-07-12T06:58:00.001-05:00

I love a good burger. I can't deny that there are times when I crave nothing more than a well made burger on a bun. Some people argue that it isn't a burger without cheese, or mayo, or ketchup (catsup) onions and whatever else people feels makes a burger a complete burger. But regardless, I firmly believe that whatever you as an individual feels makes a good burger will always be better than what anyone else may think. And that's what makes burgers one of those dining experiences that can have such a profound impact on many people in so many different ways. Perhaps I'm blowing the importance of burgers out of proportion but I was inspired by a story I read online this past weekend which talked about how people are now ponying up for a 'better burger' and businesses are stepping up to meet a perceived growing demand.

For those who don't partake in beef burgers I can completely understand and sympathize but you have no idea what you're missing. Still, be that as it may, the purpose of my posting isn't to argue the merits of a good beef burger but a burger in general. I think one of the things that has really brought the burger back to prominence is the fact that President Obama and Vice President Biden felt it worthy enough a meal for a public appearance with Russian President Medvedev. Some will undoubtedly make the argument that rather than appearing at a burger joint together, the three could have accomplished the same thing by appearing at the White House Rose Garden, and that may be but I think by showing the American President in such a setting, it probably conveys an image of a person who is like the average American. Who can go and enjoy a simple meal that is filling much in the way some people like their President to be someone they'd enjoy sharing a beer with. I suppose we all have our standards.

According to the article I read, such notoriety has helped increase the popularity of the burger once again. That being said it seems that besides the normal burger joints that many people think of (like McDonald's or Burger King) there are plenty of other places looking to get into the act. Now there are places like Hamburger Hamlet and such which although are a bit fancier, they still focus on serving good quality burgers. I think many of the burgers that they have on their menu are pretty good and they do their best to preserve the burger in the way it was intended to be eaten which is with the hands and with ingredients that you can say with one or two syllables. There are some places though that feel that in order to have a gourmet burger, it should not only have a higher price but also more expensive ingredients as well.

I'm not really in agreement with that belief. Sure you can buy the absolute best beef in the world and that would certainly go a long way towards improving the taste of the beef but that isn't the only criteria. I mean as my brother often remarks, "are you going to eat the main dish or the sides?"; a corollary to that is are you going to eat the burger or the additions. I personally think what I stated at the outset, that a burger that is well and truly good won't require much else on it other than the burger patty. Cooked well and seasoned just right, it will be a wonderful meal in and of itself.

Too Much Freedom of the Press?

2010-07-07T06:13:00.002-05:00

During the whole fracas with General McChrystal a few days ago I couldn't help but wonder why the General felt so comfortable with the press that he felt that he could say whatever he wanted to Rolling Stone and that it wouldn't come out in some way shape or form. Sure you can make the argument that it wasn't the General's fault that comments were reported when he wasn't aware that they would be part of the final news article in the magazine or that he was being quoted on the record rather than off, but still, shouldn't a part of him have been a little cautious, especially in light of the fact that the press is practically everywhere in politics these days?

I mean I remember when the Marines were initially deployed to Somalia back in the early part of Clinton's first term as President, I couldn't help but wonder why the press was being informed of the time and location (the middle of the night to be exact) that the Marines would be arriving; that way the press could cover the arriving troops. Perhaps it was meant to be a morale booster for the troops and the people left back at home who were wondering why the country was deploying soldiers to a nation that didn't have anything that benefited our country. Still, perhaps the rationale was to scare the opposition (since we knew Saddam watched CNN to learn more about our military movements during the first Gulf War) into realizing that our armed forces were ready to take them down.

But doesn't anyone find this a little much these days? I mean I suppose again the rationale behind embedding troops with the forces in Iraq was primarily to garner support since many felt the invasion of Iraq wasn't warranted. I suppose that by having access to our soldiers, the press would be less inclined to talk bad about the war and show it in a more positive light. While I think that was largely the case, I don't think the military (and their leaders more precisely) could be so naive as to think that the press would forever be on their side. After all, support for the war has been on the decline and in Afghanistan it was even more so, so if the press (which is always looking for some angle to sell more newspapers) could find chinks in the armor that the government and military are in lockstep on the strategy for Afghanistan, wouldn't they seek to exploit it?

I guess what I'm feeling is that while I think the press has a Constitutional right to report anything and everything that they can to keep the public informed, sometimes that freedom can backfire and cause more harm than good. I mean there's probably a really good reason why the press would want to report things but still, there's an old saying that "discretion is the better part of valor" and if the press (who sometimes feel that simple embedding is enough to warrant considering themselves 'blooded warriors') then shouldn't they do what they can to ensure that the truth (more than sensationalism) is reported? Break news stories but don't break it with the sole intention of selling more newspapers or magazines.

Everyone's Left and Right of Center

2010-06-28T06:46:00.000-05:00

Politicians in recent years have drawn a line in the sand and over time they have seemingly strayed farther and farther away to their respective left or right side in an effort to... well... I'm not really sure. The more and more I hear about the stances that many politicians take these days leads me to the conclusion that no one really stands for anything other than opposition to what the other side is saying. At one time I remember that Congressional leaders would work together for the common good (i.e., we... the American public) but it seems that as time has gone on and partisan politics has risen, that no one has anyone else's interest in mind other than their own. I personally find that pretty sad and reprehensible.

Take for example the ongoing efforts at discrediting or finding overwhelming fault with President Obama's Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan. Everyone in opposition to Obama (cough cough... Republicans) seem to be on a Hellbent crusade to prove her completely unworthy of the post. They would have the general population believe that Kagan is absolutely the worst choice for a Supreme Court nominee and that they are doing their duty as Congressional leaders in rendering the most informed verdict. Nevermind that when former President Bush nominated John Roberts to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that they took exception and insult when the critics of Roberts wanted to step up and find out more about him. Now it seems they are playing tit-for-tat and are simply looking to block Kagan because they can.

Rather than presenting facts they seem to be more prone to present their understanding of the facts. That wouldn't be so wrong if all politicians (Democrats and Republicans) didn't behave as if they were calling the sky green despite overwhelming fact to the contrary that it is blue. Neither side seems willing to compromise on anything. They are simply trying to prove that they are correct and that the other side is wrong no matter what the point of contention may be. I find it very disappointing. In having read the history of my country and understanding that complete consensus will never accomplish anything good, I'm at a loss to understand how we could have devolved so much to find that we can't even agree to work together on basic issues. Is this our best example of Democracy in action? To criticize what opposition parties are doing? Then is it any wonder that the fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan are floundering so much if the world's oldest democracy is having problems?

I welcome healthy debate and I welcome a true discussion on the facts but what we see on channels like Fox News which is simply fanning the flames of discord, I wonder whether we can ever truly get back to what our democracy in action truly is. Simply insulting the opposite side and refusing to hear what they have to say accomplishes nothing. We must be setting a good example. The Iraqis and Afghani governments are looking to our nation as examples and if they see that Democrats and Republicans can't get along then can we honestly expect them to accept the notion that they can work with those groups that were previously their allies? Why not just continue the violence? We have an obligation to show how democracy can truly work and not how partisan politics works. I think they already have enough of that and so do we.

So Long Sir

2010-06-25T06:09:00.000-05:00

So the question of whether or not President Obama would replace General McChrystal as the man in charge of Allied forces in Afghanistan was answered in pretty short order. Soon after their meeting earlier this week, McChrystal stepped down and General Petreaus, the well-known General who led our troops in Iraq and now controls operations for the entire region will be taking his place. A lot of people have been talking about the entire situation; I mean how can you not. For those of us World War II history buffs out there it's probably not much of a surprise as to what happened. After all, this is sort of like what happened to General Patton during the Second World War. In essence anyways, that's how you can help people understand what's happened.

Indeed, a lot of people have wondered whether the fact that McChrystal was removed from his posting whether that means he's been fired. Well yes and no. I'm sure those who have served in the military will be able to explain it a lot better than myself but then again I can at least put it in layman's terms. You can probably compare it to a regular Joe at the office being asked to leave his position. He's not being fired but he's taking a different role in the office. Now while the actions of McChrystal weren't exactly the best when you consider his position in the grand scheme of things, he didn't really do anything that would justify his being 'fired' in the traditional sense of the term. His comments can't be considered bad enough to justify having him undergo a court martial.

But where do you then draw the line? I don't think many of us can admit to agreeing with every single action our bosses take. We always have an opinion and probably like to think that we can do it better. Rare is the time that we actually come out in a public forum and make our dissatisfaction known to one and all. Sure there are some who certainly do do that but they aren't the vast majority of us and the reason is that we know that it's not really 'politically correct'. Certainly you can't expect someone like General McChrystal or now, General Petreaus to simply accept what their civilian bosses say and then go and do it. That's where the difference comes in. These gentlemen have thousands of soldiers working for them (and the country) and their lives are in their hands.

That being the case, it's not right to expect that they should by any means just accept what they are being told. However, given that they are publicly given a great deal of respect, I would think that they could return the same sentiment in kind. Had the President or any of the others mentioned in the General's Rolling Stone article come out and talked a lot of trash about the General then he had every right to say what he said, but since that wasn't the case, he should have kept his thoughts for a more private setting. I can't imagine the pressures he and now General Petreaus must go through leading so many troops into battle. They obviously care for their soldiers, but the same level of respect needs to go to the chain of command as well.

Political Strong-Arming

2010-06-23T06:38:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows anything about the long-in-coming Tysons Metro project knows that if one thing has been constant in it's construction, it's been delays and questions regarding funding. For years there was debate over whether it would be an above ground or below ground system, whether it would reach Dulles or only about halfway or whether it would even be built to begin with. Now, so many many years later, work is underway, traffic is suffering because of it yet it seems that our political leaders in Richmond feel that it's the perfect time to try some political plotting in an attempt to Shanghai Metro and its Board of Directors.

It seems that recently, Republican Governor Bob McDonnell recently threatened to withhold the matching funds which the state had previously promised the Metro Transit Authority for the project. The argument being put forward by the Governor and his supporters is that Metro has long been known to have problems with regard to their regulation and upkeep. Evidence of this is the recent spate of problems that have plagued Washington's only subway system such as the Red Line accident of a year ago and continued safety problems. Now while I agree that this is a problem, I don't agree that this is the means by which McDonnell can get what he and his supporters want which is two seats on Metro's Board. If he believes that by attempting to hold the transit company hostage in this manner, I'm afraid he's going to be sadly mistaken.

It isn't the first time that Metro has dealt with such cases (i.e., funding being withheld) so why would they deal with it any differently than they have any other time, which is basically to shrug and wish the State well? It's not a very big thing for the state to demand from Metro, after all, perhaps the Metro extension is what's needed to boost ridership again. After all, the Tysons corridor is where a great deal of business is done and if they actually finish the Metro up to Dulles, I think there will be a great deal more business. I mean I think the saddest thing is that Washington is practically the only capital city in the world (the world!!) that doesn't have direct train access from the city to the international airport. Isn't that pathetic? I think so.

Now McDonnell can argue that he wants to add a bit of governmental control to Metro and that will help the beleaguered agency but I don't really buy it. I can see Metro simply walking away from the work and leaving the mess for Virginia (and specifically Fairfax) to deal with. And what mess would that be? How about incomplete Metro pylons dotting the landscape? An incomplete tunnel linking Route 123 and Route 7? What about all the land that's been torn up and dug up in preparation for various stations? What's going to happen with that? I suppose McDonnell would argue that Metro would be held accountable. Perhaps, but Virginia was the state that promised to match funds to begin the project. Sure, McDonnell (or his party) may not have been the ones to make that promise, but just like Obama, McDonnell is inheriting a project that he didn't start; now he's got to deal with it, not threaten a mess that will be worse.

Let's Not be Too Hasty

2010-06-18T06:02:00.000-05:00

For anyone who saw President Obama's speech on Tuesday evening, I'm sure the thing that stuck out most prominently for them was his declaration of ensuring that BP (formerly known to the world by their full name British Petroleum) would compensate the victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While I'm no fan of BP, I think the good thing is that at least they are intending to comply with the President's request and announced on Wednesday that they would be establishing a fund (worth around $20 billion) from which they would recompense the victims of the oil spill. This money was not only for the residents located along the Gulf coast (thus most directly affected) but the businesses and homeowners in the area who were subsequently affected. Whether or not anyone actually receives payment remains to be seen but I figure if BP doesn't, they are going to be in much greater trouble than they already are.

But one of the big things that has raise tension both here and in Britain is in the fact that President Obama referred to BP by their full un-abbreviated name during a press conference thus (in the eyes of some) implying that the President (and in turn the entire country) was holding Britain (vice BP) responsible. There have been attempts by both sides to ensure that the assumption doesn't hold true and that good will (or relative good will) that has existed between our two countries doesn't suddenly disappear. But when all is said and done, there are still segments of the populations who suddenly seem to jump at the opportunity to bash the British for their supposed 'failing' and thus these same people want the United Kingdom held responsible for the deadliest environmental disaster in history. But to these folks I'd ask them not to get ahead of themselves and to recall Bhopal.

I'm sure many of you readers are wondering what 'Bhopal' is; well it's actually a place. In India in 1984, the city of Bhopal was home to a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide (which is now owned by Dow Chemicals and is an American company) . On the night of December 2, 1984, 27 tons of poisonous gas leaked from a storage tank and killed nearly 3,000 people. As if this wasn't bad enough, problems continue to plauge the region even after 26 years. Though some people appeared to have been unaffected at the time of the gas leak, subsequent generations were plagued with ailments such as cancer and other deadly birth defects. At the time, leaders in Union Carbide were held accountable but they quickly posted bail and soon after left the country.

Though investigations and litigation was made against Union Carbide, the ultimate end result was that while a promise of compensation to victims (present and future), not everyone has received the payout that they were entitled to. Even the Americans who ran the plant have managed to get out of the country and have been living the good life back here in America. Plus those running the plant (namely Warren Anderson) seemed content to blame the workers at the plant and claiming that "the third world nation (India)" wasn't ready to deal with that type of industry. If they were the case then wouldn't it be Union Carbide's responsibility to ensure that proper safety precautions were taken? And since they weren't isn't it only right that the victims demand justice for those responsible? So then I say that if people here wish to hold Britain responsible for BP's failings, so too can India hold the United States (since Union Carbide is American) for the failings of Union Carbide? Just some food for thought.

A Whole Lot of Nothing

2010-06-17T06:28:00.002-05:00

The photo seen here is definitely of happier times for defensive giant (pun most certainly intended) Albert Haynesworth. When former coach Jim Zorn and Daniel Snyder signed Haynesworth to his unbelievable contract for somewhere north of $100 million, there was a lot of talk about whether or not Haynesworth was worth the cost or not. Time always tells the tale and what it told Redskins fans was that a lot of money was dropped and not a whole lot of return on investment could be expected. Haynesworth definitely had his moments during his first tenuous weeks with the team but as time went on (and tempers began to inevitably flare) more and more people wondered whether or not Haynesworth really was worth all that money. The long and short of it is that he isn't.

A lot of players who play as hard as Haynesworth used to often get hurt and have to sit out a play or two once in a while, but when you (and your agent) are perpetuating the belief that you are worth $100 million you better believe that expectations are that much higher and when you don't live up to said expectations, it's not surprising to hear a lot of criticism, especially in a town like Washington. So what happens? Simple, coaching staff changes, player removals and trades and here we are a few short months from the start of a new season but still hearing the same from old Haynesworth. When new coach Mike Shanahan came into the picture, he didn't come through and make big sweeping changes that would have meant another long season for us fans, rather he decided to see what he had to work with and keep the team a work in progress.

That's great for Haynesworth who was more or less guaranteed his payout for the year provided that he at least did his part for the team. Now that Haynesworth went from his usual spot to being tried out as the nose tackle, all Hell broke loose and Haynesworth couldn't be bothered to show up for practice. His agent began spreading the word that Haynesworth was looking to be traded, and Shanahan, not one to mince words said that he and the team would certainly let Haynesworth go provided he got another offer. Of course the catch was that according to his contract, Haynesworth was due to receive a payment of $21 million for the year on April 1st. Of course if Haynesworth had signed with another team by then, then the deal would have been null and void. I guess that amount of money would make everyone reconsider and Haynesworth did the smart thing and took the money.

The team didn't have any outward signs of malice (and granted, we the public and even the press don't have any idea of what goes on behind the scenes) but rather than doing the right thing which would have been to show up for mandatory practice and the like, Haynesworth has been doing his best Chuck Norris impression and has been "Missing in Action". He refuses to come to mini-camp and refuses to take part in team workouts (voluntary and mandatory ones) so then what is the team to do? If his hope is to hold out and sign with another team, Haynesworth has a funny way of going about it. Rather than showing prospective teams that he still has what it takes to be a star defensive player, Haynesworth continues to hide out and hide from practice. That isn't doing the team any good and it isn't doing him any good. Perhaps he will soon come to his senses and do the right thing which is give back the money, break his contract and then all parties can go and do their own things.

Gridlock Our Way to the Future?

2010-06-15T06:54:00.000-05:00

Route 7 in Tysons Corner, Virginia. A stone's throw from my home of these past many years. When I first moved in my realtor kept telling me that the area would soon become a center of commerce given the fact that the Metro was due to open within a year. Flash forward nearly seven years later and the people of Tysons are still awaiting the arrival of the Metro. That's not to say that things aren't happening to help the Metro become a reality. Construction has been going on at a feverish pace for over a year now and slowly but surely we're starting to see signs of that progress coming to the area. Unfortunately along with it comes gridlock that was bad to begin with but has been becoming worse day by day.

Take for example the times of day when I dread driving through Tysons Corner which are morning and afternoon rush hour. I hate going through the area around that time simply because I've seen that while efforts are being made to ensure that traffic continues to flow even with all this construction, it's not being handled in the most efficient manner. For example, you end up racing from one traffic light to the next (a few hundred feet down the road) only to end up waiting there for that light to change to green. Add a couple of hundred cars and you can see how quickly the gridlock and mayhem can add up. I have previously left nearly 45 minutes ahead of time to reach a place five miles away simply because traffic is so bad that I couldn't afford to leave any later.

And before any of you eco-friendly types take it upon yourselves to lecture me about riding a bike the five miles rather than sitting in a car polluting the environment, you can keep your comments to yourself. I had considered that option in the past and very nearly did it until I saw that many bike riders in the Tysons area ride with one foot in the grave given that drivers rarely ever yield let alone 'share the road' with cyclists. That being said, isn't it safer staying in a larger piece of metal rather than protecting the cycle with your much more fragile body? Perhaps those environmentalists figure that the needs of the environment far outweigh those of humans but then I'm not here to argue for or against that point.

Still, the problem as I see it in Tysons Corner at present is the fact that proper study hasn't been done on the traffic patterns. I mean I have waited on the corner of Route 7 and Westfields Boulevard for nearly three minutes with no one moving and that wasn't because the intersection was blocked, on the contrary, it was because the traffic light cycle was completely out of whack and was allowing vehicles to turn left despite the fact that all two cars which had previously been waiting had long since turned. Rather than allowing traffic to progress for at least three or more traffic lights (thus keeping traffic moving) by only having it move from one traffic light to the next leaves a great deal of residual traffic behind. Now I know dealing with traffic isn't going to get any better (at least not for a few more years when all construction is done) so I think the least those in charge of road logistics on the project could do is try to make improvements now before things get worse.

World Cup Mania

2010-06-14T06:44:00.000-05:00

There are very few sports that we here in the US watch that can actually be called 'international'. I mean we tend to call our championship teams in the NFL or baseball or even basketball for that matter, "world champions" although our teams don't really play anyone outside of our own country. Sure you can argue that at least some teams in baseball have gone to countries like Japan and the like to take on international teams but it isn't for the prestige of being a true world champion. It's for that reason that I've taken an interest in wanting to see the World Cup this year. It's true that soccer (I know it should be football but to prove that I'm an American... I shall refer to it as soccer), is gaining popularity here in the United States but it is still well below the level of near obsession that it holds in the rest of the world. Still, in having watched a couple of the early matches of the competition so far this year I can see why it can't be exciting.

Now the average person may say that nothing much really happens other than shuffling the ball from one side to the other until perhaps some lucky person gets a shot at the goal. But to me that's what makes it the most interesting. In the span of a few short seconds, the score can suddenly shift the momentum from one side of the field to the other. For example, the match between Ghana and Serbia was relatively even until an errant handball foul against Serbia gave Ghana a chance through a penalty kick. What was looking like a tie ending suddenly became a victory and put fire into the hearts of the Serbian players. Suddenly there was a greater sense of urgency among them and that's what made those final few minutes so much more enthralling.

As someone who has watched American football for a number of years, I can understand the strategy and skill behind what is going on and I'm sure that there is just as much going on behind the scenes in soccer games but it's not all that readily apparent to the casual fan. In reading some of the news about the early matches I was surprised to read a bit about how some of the players are a bit upset with adidas (manufacturers of the official balls for the games) and the fact that many of the balls seem to be moving erratically through the air despite the assurances of adidas that these are the most accurate balls to have been produced for the World Cup.

I couldn't understand why that appeared to be a point of contention until I read some of the associated stories and found that many players were upset given the fact that because of these erratic ball movements, teams like the United States (and even Ghana) managed to score goals and either tie or win games that they weren't supposed to. Now perhaps the players and fans of the world need to remember that in addition to skill and talent among the players, something is also chalked up to luck. Sometimes all it takes is just a bit more luck on one side of the equation or the other the completely change the outcome. We may not all like it but it is what it is. I can only hope that this doesn't serve to take away from the fun and enjoyment of the tournament overall. I mean from what I understand there have been numerous occasions where teams that weren't expected to win ended up knocking off teams that were perennial favorites. But then isn't that the whole point? To prove which team has the greater luck and pool of players in a given year?

Can Hollywood Save the Gulf?

2010-06-11T06:07:00.000-05:00

It's been over fifty days since the Gulf-based oil drilling platform, the Deepwater Horizon, exploded and unleashed an oil leak which has been pumping out tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. British Petroleum (BP), the company who had contracted the platform to drill for oil and is being held accountable for the mishap, has been attempting to stymie the flow of oil for nearly two months with limited success. They tried capping the oil leak, they tried cutting the pipe and so far everything they have tried has failed. Oil slicks, tar balls, and the like have been washing up on shores as far as Florida. And if the gulfstream is any indicator, we could see oil washing up along the east coast in the not too distant future.

So what can be done? BP is trying but obviously they aren't succeeding. The federal and state governments have tried to intercede as well but the obvious problem is that they drank the Kool-Aid and believed the oil companies when they said that they had contingency plans in place in the event of an unexpected oil spill. I think it's safe to say that that was a bit of wishful thinking. The military is stepping in now as well but really, with them being spread so thin across the globe, is it really right (or fair) to expect them to do so much more for our country than they already are? So what are the people living along the Gulf Coast supposed to do? Well apparently turning to Hollywood isn't out of the realm of possibility. In the past few weeks I've heard of at least two Hollywood big shots planning on doing more than just telethons or making large donations to charity (for tax purposes). I suppose having expertise in making the impossible possible in the movies gives rise to the belief that perhaps they can do so in real life as well.

I first heard about Kevin Costner and his brother a few weeks ago. They are due to go before Congress sometime soon. Apparently the two developed a system shortly after the Exxon Valdez spill a few years ago and have been working on it on their own for just such an emergency. Basically it is a large centrifuge which will ingest tainted seawater and then spit out cleaned seawater. Now from what early reports indicate, tests have been successful and the system has worked to a limited degree so perhaps Kevin Costner will be able to take on a new name for himself. Rather than being Dances with Wolves he can be Cleans Up Oil Spills. There are those inevitable cynics and naysayers out there who wonder what an 'actor' like Costner will be able to do but I say unto them, at least he and his brother are trying to do something; at their own expense no less!

Then there's the self-proclaimed 'King of the World'... no not Leonardo DiCaprio but James Cameron. Some say that there could hardly be a worse choice from Hollywood to come in a step up with potential ideas. I mean sure, perhaps he had a mildly anti-military establishment message in "Avatar" but that aside he's actually had quite a deal of experience in dealing with extreme depth underwater situations. Cameron directed "The Abyss" which dealt with underwater oil rigs as one aspect of the complex story. He then directed "Titanic" and with the help of his engineer brother, managed to construct cameras that filmed the actual Titanic wreckage in stunning clarity for the first time in decades. The challenge there was working thousands of feet below the surface where robots and steady hands are a must. Not only that, but Cameron returned to the Titanic numerous times more in an effort to get more footage of the great ship. That being said, perhaps it isn't so far-fetched to believe that he could find a solution for stopping the oil leak in the Gulf.

But to me, I think the real reason there is hope in people like Costner and Cameron (and their brothers) is the fact that perhaps everyone currently involved in the spill clean up has realized that they are lacking the one thing that could help them come up with a solution and that one thing is imagination. Imagination is what helped Costner and Cameron create some unique cinematic worlds replete with conceivable technology and science that made the impossible seem possible. I suppose the assumption isn't a bad one and perhaps it's just the 'shot in the arm' needed to find a solution. One can only hope.

Understanding Different Cultures

2010-06-09T06:26:00.000-05:00

In "Sex and the City 2", the quartet of 'sophisticated' New York fashionistas go on an all-expenses paid trip to Abu Dhabi and while there they get to experience a brand new culture that not everyone gets a chance to experience. While I'm sure the writer and director saw this as an opportunity to introduce their audience to a new culture through the medium of film, the execution of said introduction left a great deal to be desired. Seeing how shoddily the subject of learning about Middle Eastern culture was treated, I was surprised if for no other reason than the degree of ignorance these four women were shown to have.

Now while I agree that not everyone will have an opportunity to learn about new cultures or even be familiar with them, I beg to differ as to the point the film appears to be making whereby these four women are shown to be so clueless about even the basic aspects of Muslim culture; especially in this day and age. While I could expect such ignorance and idiocy (and there's really no other word for it) from a country bumpkin who has never left their home city before going on such a trip, I refuse to believe that these women, who come from a culturally diverse city like New York, could believably be that stupid and ignorant.

But giving them the benefit of the doubt (and allowing for the sake of telling a story with these particular four women), is it really necessary to portray Americans (and specifically women) in such a negative light? I mean all the cliches that you could possibly have with regards to Americans exposed to new culture seem to apply to this film. What are some of these cliches? Well how about speaking louder and slower to someone in another country? It never ceases to amaze me that human nature works in such a mysterious way. If you think about it, there have probably been innumerable times where you've seen someone, in an effort to be fully understood by someone who doesn't speak their language, speaks in a slow and loud voice.

Or how about acting high and mighty about how all our (and by that I mean American) culture's aspects are better (or preferable) to another's? In this case, the four girls have a very heated and prolonged discussion about how restrictive aspects of Muslim culture are. Perhaps so, but rather than trying to understand the reasons or the rationale behind it (maybe not to agree but at least to understand) the four of them behave as if they are right to continue their ways regardless of their surroundings which includes dressing like streetwalkers and behaving as such (at times).

In seeing the film I was truly disappointed to see that in a time when understanding Muslim culture (as opposed to insulting both directly and indirectly) would be a good thing, this film however continued to perpetuate the false belief that many outside of America have about us and that is that we don't respect or want to understand Muslim culture or any other non-American culture that is out there. Thinking on it I began to wonder if this was just my bias against the film or perhaps that this was a trend. In thinking about it I began to realize that perhaps there truly weren't any films that sought to explore new cultures with respect and understanding. Then while listening to my iPod the other day I realized that that wasn't the case and I found the perfect example film; "The Karate Kid II".

Now while not a great film, this film shows how the main character accompanies his friend and teacher on a trip to Okinawa and in the process learns about Japanese culture and customs. He doesn't know everything and doesn't necessarily agree with everything he sees or experiences but at least the main character makes an effort to learn. While teaching the Japanese about our culture the teach him something about theirs as well. This is true cultural exchange and shows what we can learn if we open our minds to it. Now that they are remaking "The Karate Kid" (to be released this week), I am hopeful that they take the example of the original and try to teach the audience about a new culture rather than simply showing the false belief that all Americans never find anything good to take away from learning from another culture.

Remembering Normandy

2010-06-07T06:14:00.000-05:00

Sixty-six years ago yesterday, Allied forces began their invasion of the European continent in an effort to push back German forces and defeat Hitler's Nazi army once and for all. The landings at Normandy, commonly referred to by many as D-Day, has been in the collective consciousness of most general war buffs for a long time and even those who aren't as avid a history buff as the rest of us tend to know about this event thanks in part to films like "Saving Private Ryan". But as I thought about it, while I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the men and women who fought and served in World War II, I feel that just as much respect and admiration is deserved by the men and women serving our country now.

Some make the argument that World War II was the last "good war" fought by our nation and if one simplifies things that's probably very true. Our country was fighting a common enemy that had declared war on the world, not just on one nation in particular. Had Germany not declared war on the United States alongside Japan following their attack on Pearl Harbor, it's quite possible that June 6th may never have had significance to the world at large. Yet things happened the way they did and the invasion of Normandy ended up changing the course of the European front in the war. That's not to imply that nothing of significance or importance was happening elsewhere on other fronts in the war. On the contrary, it's often forgotten by many that battles that were just as important were being fought in the Pacific as well.

And it was that thought that made me pause and think about the fact that not everyone seems to be aware about what happened in the Pacific or on the Eastern Front of Europe on that day. And then I got to thinking about all the other conflicts our country has been in from World War II onwards and whether you support the war effort or not, it's sad to think that people forget about the sacrifices being made by our servicemen and women on an almost daily basis, especially in the days since 2001. But even before then, perhaps the wars weren't on the scale of World War II but they were no less important, or dangerous. Operations that the public knows of such as those in Somalia and Bosnia, as well as the first Gulf War and all the wars since have required just as much bravery and sacrifice. Isn't it important to remember those dates as well?

June 6th is often credited as being the beginning of the end of the German war machine and we should remember these dates for their significance. Just the way we remember 9/11 and how it changed our world, we should also remember October 7th, 2001. That was the day that the invasion of Afghanistan began, less than a month after the 9/11 attacks. It's now coming close to becoming the longest conflict in which the country has been in combat situations since Vietnam. There also sacrifices are being made which will have an impact on the future of our nation and it is no less important. Remembering the significance of June 6th is a wonderful thing but I hope that it also helps us to remember the significance of today's servicemen and women as well.

Men and Chick Flicks

2010-06-02T06:25:00.003-05:00

I have seen a lot of movies in my time. Probably not as many as some but I have seen my fair share and I am comfortable enough in my masculinity to say that I have seen a decent number of 'chick flicks' as well. For those unfamiliar with the term it is meant to encompass all those movies that appeal to the female species. It typically deals with a female protagonist who is looking for love in all the wrong places and ultimately finds it with a man she has been involved with throughout the course of the film. There are of course variations on the themes such as the guy is initially a jerk but he changes for her over the course of the film, or the guy is her friend who she doesn't look to as a suitor until the end credits are about to roll.

But I'm not here to argue the merits of seeing films of this nature. I can't argue the point because you could make the very same argument about many, if not most, action films as well. No. The reason I bring up chick flicks is because I have made careful study of the poor men who get dragged into seeing such films in the movie theater. It's often a very rare occasion but it has been known to happen. Take for example this past weekend when "Sex and the City 2" opened. When I saw the line for the film I was not too surprised to see a few men accompanying their wives or girlfriends in line but what struck me is that many of them had the same vacant expression on their face as they stood in line as they waited to see the film.

I could only compare it to what must have been the expression on the faces of many of the victims of King Henry's reign when the Tower of London saw numerous executions. It was a plethora of men basically resigned to their fate with nothing more to do other than to go in with a melancholic expression and bite the bullet. I wonder if the women they accompanied have any idea of the mental torture and not-always-friendly ribbing they could be subjected to once word gets out that they were seen going to a chick flick. Women believe that they are the queens when it comes to catty behavior but they have nothing on men who are teasing a fellow who has been caught going to a chick flick.

Besides the obvious teasing that they endure about being a pansy, there is also the inevitable question as to why the guy did it. Women can argue all they want that they endure action films and a dearth of other stupid movies that Hollywood churns out for the male species but it's not quite the same. After all, women will give sympathy to a woman who has had to 'suffer' through a movie made for a male. Sure they may not enjoy "Rambo" or "Lord of the Rings" but they aren't the worse for it. Perhaps it's my male chauvinism coming through but I find male characters to be much more complex than female characters. I suppose that's because Hollywood is full of men and not so many women writers and directors. Often, strong woman characters don't come from chick flicks but from non-chick flicks. Those are the ones that seem to appeal to the masses more. Perhaps chick flicks could take a hint from that and learn to make their films a bit more challenging to the mind. Romance is good but temper it with something more. Perhaps then men won't be so reluctant to see chick flicks.

So Long Jack

2010-05-26T06:33:00.000-05:00

There was no two hour retrospective before the show and there was no appearance on Jimmy Kimmel after it. I didn't see newscasters talking about how Monday night was the official end of "24" and aside from a few mentions in magazines here and there, the show basically left the air with a medium bang and a bit of a whimper (if you saw the show you know what I mean). As a fan of the show I felt in my heart of hearts that the show wasn't living up to the expectations I seemed to have for it at the start of every season. Sure there were highlights every now and again and last season did give me higher hopes for this season but alas it wasn't to be and this could very well have been the last time we see Jack Bauer running (and screaming... and torturing) on the small screen; and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Now don't get me wrong, I think "24" definitely changed the way in which television shows of this nature were shown. From it's multiple scenes to the fact that events occur in real time, "24" was a very timely show (pun intended). Premiering within days of the events of 9/11, Jack Bauer came to encompass the good guy that many people hoped was actually out there fighting terrorism. He was steadfast, determined and ready to break rules (consequences be damned) to ensure that the United States was kept secure. Some would argue that it was the example set by the character that led to so many instances of torture or rule-bending in Iraq and Afghanistan but I beg to differ. If people weren't already of that nature to begin with, it would certainly take more than just a character on a show to make people believe that torture and gunplay was the only course of action in dealing with enemies.

Perhaps it's a means to an end and perhaps it's just a show. To me that's what it always was. I never tried to apply logic to everything I saw. After all, if I were to take the show to be the gospel truth about what life is like in America's intelligence agencies then God help us but we've got a lot of traitors and sleeper agents roaming in our midst. But in the end it's just a show and that's what we need to remember. After the conclusion of "Lost" I read much of the fan reaction on the internet and it ran the gamut of honest observation to inane and banal idiocy. People were crying out that the show 'cheated' fans and left too many questions unanswered.

To me that is the hallmark of truly thought provoking television. If you are given everything in a nicely wrapped package then why even have questions to begin with? You know that by the end the answers will be revealed. By having some questions left unanswered it's almost like allowing a viewer to determine the true ending on their own. While it wasn't as good (or mildly ambiguous) an ending as "Lost", "24"'s final moments were about what I expected with Jack Bauer, the one true hero in the world of the show doing what he's always done; fighting for the truth and his ideals. He's the "Superman" of the post-9/11 era who fights for truth, justice and the American way with a Sig Sauer P228 by his side. I'll miss seeing him next season but I'll rest easy knowing that he'll be out in TV-land defending America.

The End of Lost

2010-05-24T06:01:00.002-05:00

I'm sure the web is going to be full of many pages and blogs dedicated to the end of "Lost". As a fan of the show, I couldn't let this opportunity pass by without writing something. Of course I'm actually writing this a few hours before the finale actually airs but I figured that this is as good a time as any to write down my thoughts on the end of the show. After six seasons the show which has garnered a tremendous cult following will be coming to an end. Looking back on everything that's happened, I can honestly say that I've been blown away by the fact that elements revealed to viewers in the first season and in the first few moments of the show are being brought full circle. I think that's a tremendous credit to the creators and the writers who may not have necessarily known at the beginning what would be happening at the end. That being said it's truly wonderful to have some answers to questions that have been burning for viewers since the beginning. Of course some mysteries will undoubtedly remain but to me that's one of the great things about a show like "Lost". It leaves many things open to interpretation and discussion.

No doubt there will be some who will come away from the finale with a sense of being cheated. Certainly with so much anticipation for the end of the show and hopes that all mysteries will be solved, there's a great deal of anticipation about the show but over the past few years I've seen the end of other shows I have tremendously enjoyed and I certainly hope that this finale lives up to what the show built up. Of course there wasn't as much fanfare in the general public for the end of some of the other series that I have enjoyed as much (if not more) than "Lost". I remember when shows like "Babylon 5" or "Battlestar Galactica" came to an end. Sure there were mentions in the press but nothing like "Lost".

Of course I don't bear the show any ill will. As I stated earlier, I think it's a credit to the creators and cast of the show to have been able to sustain interest and enthusiasm for the show over so many seasons. Certainly some wonder why the show should end when there is obviously still a great deal of appreciation for it and to me the answer is simply best paraphrased by George Costanze in "Seinfeld" who believed that good things should always end on a high note. It was disappointing that "Seinfeld" didn't end on as high a note as many had hoped for but at least it ended when it was still popular and when the majority of the public cared enough to see what happened at the end.

I can say that for those of us who were as loyal to "Battlestar Galactica" or "Babylon 5" or "M*A*S*H" or so many other great shows the end of those series were felt with just as much joy as there was loss. Now some may wonder why there should be a sense of loss for something ending like a television show but like it or not, television shows of this sort become a part of our daily existence. Perhaps it's a bit of exaggeration but just see how many people will be standing around the office talking about the ending and what it means to them. Perhaps they'll be talking about how it was more hype than substance or they'll mention that they found it to be the best end of series that they have seen. Whatever the reaction, I'm sure it will be a hotbed of discussion. As the final few hours tick down, I find myself feeling both a sense of eagerness and a sense of sadness. I'm sure it will be worth the wait.

Saving Our Past

2010-05-20T06:59:00.000-05:00

One thing that I've often heard be said about the United States is that compared to many other countries in other parts of the world (cough cough.... Europe.... Asia), the history of our country seems quite recent. I mean if you think about it, the history of the United States as a country is not very far-reaching on the grander scale. Yet one thing I will often point out to many who make such comments is that while our history may not go back thousands of years, one thing I am proud of is the fact that our country embraces the history that it does have. Case in point? The fight of many Virginia residents to save a portion of Wilderness Battlefield from being turned into shopping space for retail giant Wal-Mart.

Now please understand, given the current state of our economy I think it's great that there are still opportunities for low-cost alternative stores like Wal-Mart, ready to construct new stores so that consumers like you and me can save a few bucks. However, I don't feel that savings such as these should come at the expense of remembering our past. Now some may think that it's a bit stupid to save what is basically empty and unused parcels of land from development just because some battles were fought on those hallowed grounds a few centuries ago. Well to those critics I would ask how they would feel if Wal-Mart or another retailer decided to put up a store where our soldiers have fought and died in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Perhaps it's not exactly an equitable comparison but it's pretty darn close. I think it's important to preserve these areas because they are places where events in our history managed to shape our country and subsequently, our impact on the world. Now it can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective, but I think it's important nonetheless. If we don't wish to preserve these portions of our history, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem, then why bother saving Independence Hall or Plymouth Rock or so many other places in our country. Sure, they aren't as old or as famous perhaps as the Colosseum in Rome but still, they are a part of our history.

If we do our part now then it's likely that generations from now, our descendants will be able to look out and see where the history of our country was made. I sometimes think that maybe I feel this way more so because I'm a student of history, but even those who don't enjoy history all that much, if you sit them down and help them understand why it was so important or so influential, they can understand it as well. Our country will always be one of the younger siblings when it comes to national history but still, that doesn't mean we should lose sight of the history we do have and more importantly, we shouldn't take it for granted. To the owners of Wal-Mart, I would humbly ask that you seek alternative sites and leave our history be.

Who Can You Trust?

2010-05-18T06:31:00.003-05:00

Over the past few years I've gotten into the habit of reading various news sources for my daily dose of news. I've found that despite claims to the contrary, almost no one has a truly 'fair and balanced' look at the world and what's happening in it. Perhaps it's very cynical but the more and more I read these days, the more and more I realize that it's probably closer to the truth than most of us realize. I sometimes wonder if it's always been this way or not. When I was younger perhaps the availability of information was somewhat limited. Sure there was television and news was delivered nearly instantly, but still, there was always that slight delay before word traveled around but now it's almost instantaneous. It has its good qualities and it has its bad qualities.

But I digress; I asked the question in my blog title for today of "who can you trust?" When I ask the question I'm talking about many things; but in particular I'm talking about two that have particular impact on all our lives these days, the media and our government. It's odd that these two should be so closely linked but the more I think about it, the more I realize that the news media (elite, mainstream or whatever the Hell you choose to call it) all has their own agenda. Look at the news these days and most ever channel has a slant one way or the other. Fair and balanced? Only if you happen to agree with the slant that they put on the news. If you like Fox News you will always consider it fair and balanced; similarly, if you like CNN you'll always find them to be fair in their commentary.

But then who do you trust? It's hard to say simply because there are so many people out there who are forcing us to believe one thing or another. It's almost as if they don't want us to form our own opinion anymore. Gone are the truly moderate news agencies or government officials. Everyone has taken the stance over the past few decades of drawing a line in the sand and then challenging everyone to be on one side or the other. No middle ground exists anymore. Honestly, I've tried to stop watching the news, in particular political programs, simply because I've grown weary of hearing nothing but talking heads spewing rhetoric about why this politician is a traitor or why that politician can be considered the Second Coming. No one comes out and tells the truth which is that they are doing most everything they do for their own selfish purposes.

So then who do we trust? Trust ourselves. Form your own opinion; if you think you've gotten to the bottom of an issue by reading up on it on your usual websites or news sources then go to another and read another perspective. It's the only way that we can make ourselves fair and balanced. If we take the lazy way out and only rely on one source then we'll never get the truth. We'll only see what we want to see when it comes to the world around us and essentially we won't be any different than children. I think we can all be better than that but only if we try.

Credit Where Credit is Due

2010-05-05T06:26:00.000-05:00

I wrote yesterday's blog very early, even before I had a chance to read the news and lo and behold what do I read after posting the blog? That an arrest has been made in the Times Square bombing attempt. From the time the bomb was found to the time the arrest had been made was less than 54 hours. That isn't just amazing, it is astounding. For all the talk that many of our politicians and pundits in Washington have been spewing about how there is a lack of security in this country under the current administration or how we are more vulnerable now than we ever were before I would simply point to this arrest as a sign of the system working when it's given a chance.

Sure there will always be mistakes made. Perhaps if we'd paid more attention then Pearl Harbor or the attacks of 9/11 could have been averted but in this case, the system was given a chance and it worked. I wouldn't call it a perfect system but nor would I simply characterize this as a case of blind stinking luck. I recall the case of Mir Aimal Kasi who killed two CIA employees outside of its Langley Headquarters in 1993. He had plenty of time to escape after those attacks and was living in Pakistan for several years until he was finally arrested and extradited to the United States. In that case it took years to catch the culprit and bring him to justice. Now in this case, the arrested Times Square suspect, Faisal Shahzad, was arrested as he prepared to board a flight bound for Dubai. Had things not gone well, it's possible that Shahzad could have also fled as Kasi did and lived a life away from the US for a number of years.

Now perhaps Shahzad isn't the only culprit and perhaps he isn't completely guilty (though I have already read reports that he's confessed to plotting the attack) but the mere fact that he's been arrested and is in custody speaks well of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps all the efforts that were taken to streamline the flow of information to all concerned agencies is really happening. Of course that's not good enough for folks in the opposition parties. They seem to think that nothing is good enough. I sometimes think that even if their kids bring home a perfect report card they'd still expect (or perhaps demand) an even higher performance.

Regardless of what the opposition party states (oh Hell... I'll just say Republicans) they have to give credit where credit is due. I'm not saying that they must credit the Obama Administration, but they shouldn't lambast the efforts of our law enforcement groups who supposedly read Shahzad his Miranda Rights while arresting him. Why behave as if now we'll never unravel the mystery behind this case. Can these same politicians really point to cases where suspects have been arrested as enemy combatants or terrorists and it has led to the complete destruction of terrorist cells? I don't know but I haven't heard of a slew of such cases despite the number of people who have been arrested as enemy combatants as opposed to violent criminals. I'm sure more details will be revealed in this vile act and more action will be taken against those who have attempted to attack our nation. I just wish some of these politicians and commentators could spend a little more time looking at the things that went right rather than pointing fingers like they always seem to do.

Dangerous Times in Times Square

2010-05-04T06:25:00.000-05:00

This past weekend, a disaster which could have claimed the lives of hundreds of people was narrowly averted. An alert vendor in the busy Times Square area was astute enough to notice a Nissan Pathfinder SUV oddly parked at a spot in the area where it soon began to smoke. The vendor notified a mounted police officer and a short time later, the area was evacuated and the police along with bomb squads were called in to deal with the ticking time bomb. The bomb squad managed to diffuse the bomb well before it went off but it gave many New Yorkers and those of us outside the city also have taken pause and have considered just how close we came to another act of terrorism in New York.

Naturally the first thing people want to do is lay the blame. Who is to blame? Is it the police for allowing a vehicle of this sort into the city? People have already started to wonder why the police didn't stop the vehicle at a checkpoint the way they used to. The truth of the matter is that it comes down to complacency and I wouldn't say that it's the police who are complacent. Going through an airport these days can be a very long and drawn out affair. You're subjected to so much security that it feels almost as if the journey through security is longer than the actual flight you're looking to take. Despite that, security precautions at airports have not really changed since 9/11.

So then why did things change everywhere else? Partially it's because we ordinary people are also very fussy. If we're subjected to random vehicle searches or screenings at airports we get ticked off. It's because most of us feel that we aren't the ones who should be scrutinized. It's the other people who look suspicious that should be undergoing this inconvenience, not us. After hearing such complaints all the time and running on limited budgets (after all, how many police officers can you assign to do nothing but randomly check vehicles day in and day out) it's no wonder that checkpoints that were once located all over New York are now dwindling.

I'm sure some will seek to blame the President in what they perceive to be a lack of focus on fighting terrorism and terrorists. But who was the terrorist in this case? It wasn't who most people assume it to be. If we are to believe grainy video footage captured in the area, the chief suspect at this time is assumed to be white. Perhaps it's a jihadist who is wearing make-up or perhaps it's a normal American who has been brainwashed like Richard Reid the infamous Shoe bomber. Whoever it is, they have merely proven that we can't afford to be complacent as a society. Those seeking to harm our citizens are still out there and we must make sure that similar near-disasters don't happen again. If it means a little bit of an inconvenience due to more security checks then so be it. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Slow Down but not That Much

2010-04-22T06:16:00.003-05:00

I read an article in the news yesterday about the Police in Connecticut pulling over a driver for going too slow. Yes. You read right; for going too slow. So for those of your slower drivers out there who believe that driving below the speed limit in the passing lane is your right as a tax payer, be warned, you may be getting pulled over in the near future too. Now granted not everyone drives as slow as this guy was. He was doing 5 MPH in a 40 zone; add to that the fact that he was high on PCP and was driving without a license so for all intents and purposes, he was in trouble even before he left.

Now what does this have to do with driving speed? Well I think it highlights the fact that contrary to what many people believe, if you do drive slow enough, the police will take notice and will take action as well. I've been driving for over two decades and if there's one thing that I have found to be most dangerous is drivers who insist on driving at or below the speed limit in the passing lane or continue to be impediments to the flow of traffic just because they believe that they have the right to drive at whatever speed they desire. I remember discussions with some of my co-workers who believed that it was 'green' to keep cars going at the speed limit and to slow things down to make it safer and while that is true, people's concepts of what exactly is appropriately slower varies from person to person.

I have been known to drive at the speed limit (I know that may shock some of you) when I'm not in a particular rush but I've found more often than not, even the slowest of traffic on most major roads in the country are moving faster and so as to not stand out, I generally keep pace with the rest of traffic after seeing how the weather conditions are. After all, I have confidence in my driving skills but not to the point where I think I can drive a rear wheel drive sports car on ice without suffering any mishap. So then many people as why is it wrong to drive slow?

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, as long as your desire to slow down isn't endangering other vehicles on the road. When merging into traffic do your best to gauge the speed of the traffic you are joining. Don't automatically assume that the traffic will slow down to accommodate you. Keep pace with traffic or at least try to do so, at least that way you will reduce the chances of being rear-ended by someone going a bit faster and not expecting to find a vehicular island in the road ahead of them. And finally if you think that it will keep the police from hounding you after a night of drinking or drug usage? Think again. There's a driver in Connecticut who thought that and is now thinking up better ideas in prison.

Yoga Is as Yoga Was

2010-04-21T06:32:00.000-05:00

I read an interesting article by Aseem Shukla regarding the origins of Yoga and how many people and practitioners of this ancient art tend to forget the origins of the art or choose to overlook it. It seems that over the past five years or so, yoga has gained popularity, much the way many things Asian has over the same period of time. Whether it is interest in yoga or in Indian food and culture, knowledge of historically Indian practices have become rather mainstream these days. What Shukla points out however is that many groups tend not to emphasize or even mention the origins of the art of Yoga for whatever reason. Mostly, he contends, to disassociate it from Hinduism.

Shukla points to the American Yoga Association's position on the matter in which they state that "the common belief that Yoga derives from Hinduism is a misconception. Yoga actually predates Hinduism by many centuries...The techniques of Yoga have been adopted by Hinduism as well as by other world religions." Now while I agree that Yoga may not be a purely Hindu practice in origin, it's wrong to insinuate that it isn't linked to the religion. After all, if it was something that was associated with all the major religions of the world (and after all, most religions did sprout from the same general region of the world) then why did no one else practice it? I'm sure scholars and supporters of this stance can probably list a hundred reasons why they can prove that yoga has no Hindu connection but I would contend that it was Hinduism that helped perpetuate it and then spread it to the rest of the world.

After all, if it wasn't linked to Hinduism in some way, shape or form, then why do many classes begin and end with the traditional Hindu greeting of "Namaste" which essentially means I acknowledge the presence of the Divine in you? Sure you can argue that that's because it is now more or less part and parcel of the popular practice of yoga associated with Hinduism but if it is truly not part of that religion then why bother saying it? You could do like some groups do and say that it is a Christian practice, or a Jewish one or even an Islamic one but then are we reinventing history or just taking the convenient view of it?

I don't believe there's anything wrong in acknowledging the origins of certain practices. After all, understanding the greater context of how something came to be benefits our world view as individuals. To put it another way, I have discovered so many older musical artists just by listening and reading interviews with modern artists who cite the older ones as their influences. In doing so you understand how music came to be what it is today and you appreciate the way in which older sounds have evolved into newer ones. By similar analogy, if we choose to acknowledge the link between Yoga and Hinduism, are we really doing anything wrong? Are people falsely afraid that they will somehow betray their own religion by doing so? If that's the case then they already have problems as their own faith in their religion is on a shaky foundation.

Misguided Fools

2010-04-20T06:43:00.003-05:00

I have a deep respect for the men and women in our armed forces. While those of us who sit back here comfortably in our homes every evening can relax, we musn't forget that it's because of our brave soldiers that we have the right and the freedom to do it. Not everyone agrees with that sentiment and not everyone agrees that soldiers should be respected but what the 70 to 80 congregation members of the so-called "church" known as Westboro Baptist in Topeka, Kansas are doing at any and all events they can join across the nation is disrespecting anyone they feel they have the right to.

Now regardless of whether you support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or not, one thing that can't be denied is the fact that our soldiers are serving their country with honor and as such, when they have lost their lives, they deserve a degree of respect when they are finally laid to rest. However, the congregation from Westboro, led by their Pastor Fred Phelps, has been protesting the funerals of soldiers stating that their deaths are the result of God punishing the United States (and in turn it's soldiers) for the acceptance of gays in the military. Now I'm sure the sane among us are probably wondering what the real connection between the two things is and for what little knowledge I possess in my small brain, I'm unable to decipher it.

I find it despicable that Phelps, who as a priest and head of a church is expected to spread the word of God which I think most theologians will agree is one of compassion, yet Phelps chooses to spread words of hate at every given opportunity. They arrived to protest at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland. Although they had sought permission to be in the area, their antics were so disruptive that Snyder's father sued the Church for mental distress and anguish. However, given that our Constitution allows for gatherings and protests of this type, the court ruled against Snyder and in turn ordered him to pay $16,500 to recompense the Church for their legal fees. Supporters of Snyder and his family raised the money but the fight continues and now it has gone to the Supreme Court to determine whether groups like those from Westboro Baptist can protest.

I don't know how the Court will rule in this case but I think that this is beyond the laws and comes down to simple human decency. How can anyone even consider this shameful act to be within the realm of human decency? If you believe that God is punishing the country for their stance on things you feel go against God's Will then why don't you do us all a favor and savor the fact that you will be saved when the time comes and the rest of us will suffer for it? What unnerves me about many religious fanatics (and that's how I'd classify Phelps and his congregation... many of whom are his children and grandchildren) is that they use God and religion to spread hate. It's a sad and terrible thing and rather than using religion to spread a positive message or offer support, by figuratively spitting in the faces of the families of those whose loved ones have given their lives to their country, they are having just the opposite effect.

The Muppets Deal with War

2010-04-14T06:42:00.000-05:00

I learned a lot from "Sesame Street". I learned my alphabet and numbers by watching and was already a step ahead of a lot of other kids by the time I was in pre-school. I guess the fact that they combined music and silliness to help convey their lessons made it easier to retain what they were trying to teach us. To this day I can still remember some of the sketches that the Muppets and their human co-stars put together. But now, they are stepping up and helping kids learn about more than just the things they need to do well in school. They are helping kids deal with loss.

Given that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been raging for nearly a decade now, it's not necessary to say that some kids have unfortunately been left without a parent due to death in wartime. As such, the Pentagon, in cooperation with "Sesame Street" has worked to produce a special which will air on PBS stations nationwide tonight. Entitled "When Families Grieve" it's meant to help kids understand how to deal with the loss of a parent and to understand what it means to them and their families. Though I haven't seen any clips from the show as yet, I can imagine that it will teach the lesson in the way that only the Muppets and "Sesame Street" can.

It's sad to think that such lessons need to be taught to kids. Some might argue that it's necessary given that the war continues and more time will be needed before all our troops come home. Yet I think it's a good thing that such efforts are being made for kids to help them deal with these trials and tribulations. No matter how hard I try, I can't imagine the difficulty that some kids must be dealing with and how much hardship their surviving families must have to deal with after the loss of a loved one. To some it may seem a bit childish to have Muppets talking about such serious things but I've seen that for kids, sometimes that's the best way to get the message across. Not through an authority figure like a parent, but from someone childlike, like them.

Hopefully there will soon come a time when parents won't have to turn to the Muppets to discuss such topics because all our troops will be home to be with their families. One can only hope. In the meantime, I applaud the Muppets and the leaders at the Pentagon who agreed to this move in wanting to help take a serious message to kids and to help them realize that things will get better with time and love.

Holy Forgiveness

2010-04-13T06:36:00.000-05:00

A long time before I was born, the Beatlemania craze swept the world and for many, it was the end-all-be-all of musical existence. It seemed that you couldn't go anywhere without seeing, hearing or reading about the Beatles. They were literally everywhere and you could not escape them. Their popularity was so far reaching and universal that many realized that people, especially the youth of the world, knew more about the Fab Four than they did about anything else. Put in that context it's easy to understand why John Lennon said that (at that time) the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Now as you can probably imagine, that didn't go over too well with those more in tune with the religious persuasions. In fact the Vatican denounced the Beatles following John Lennon's comment back in 1966. It's sad to think that Lennon's comment was taken in the wrong context. Knowing what I know about the Beatles and about John Lennon, I'm sure the statement was meant to convey his feeling that due to unexpected popularity, people seemed to be more interested in hearing the Beatles than they did their preachers at church on Sundays. He probably wasn't wrong. I mean I think the trend continues today; how many times do you hear kids these days complain about having to go to church on Sunday?

Some might argue then that the responsibility of the Beatles should have then been to act as spiritual guides to get others to believe in religion more than they did rather than inadvertently encouraging them to turn away. But as is often the case with such statements, it was taken in the wrong context and for over 40 years the Vatican had continually denounced the statement as being blasphemous. But now the Vatican suddenly declared that they no longer banned the music of the Beatles and they have even spoken the praises of the groups numerous hits. I guess maybe they rediscovered the great music of the group along with so many others this year with the re-release of their entire record collection and with the release of the game "Rock Band: Beatles".

Imitation Isn't Always the Sincerest Form of Flattery

2010-04-12T06:08:00.002-05:00

Now I have been known to do impersonations and imitations of people I know or have worked with in the past. It's good for a chuckle and a nice way of breaking the tension when people are working hard on something that has them stressed out. And although I do believe in the adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I don't believe the Republicans had that in mind when they selected Michael Steele, the former Democrat turned Republican from Maryland who looks to now be on the verge of leaving his current post of Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Personally, I think it's about time that the Republicans realized that they had hitched their wagon to someone so obviously unsuited for the role and position.

Being a former resident of Maryland, I followed the news closely when Steele was elected as the first African-American Lieutenant Governor of the state. It was not too long after that that he resigned from the Democratic party and joined the Republicans stating that he felt he was being exploited by Democrats or that he was not being given the freedom that he wanted to be effective in his role. Be that as it may, I couldn't help but feel that there was nothing more than posturing in the decision to make him the Chairman of the Republican National Committee a few short months after he joined the party. I mean it's one thing to be the chairman for your state or for a district, it allows you to test the waters (so to speak) before suddenly joining up to lead. But this just seemed to be a response to the fact that the Democrats were beginning to promote Obama in his run up to the Presidency.

So am I to understand that the Republicans could find no one else more qualified to take the Chairman's position at that time? That Steele had such overwhelming qualifications and support in Maryland that he would help lead a revolution across the nation leading to more people turning to the Republican Party? Or perhaps they figured one African-American is as good as another. Perhaps that's being very unforgiving but I was and still continue to be at a loss as to why Steele was given this position in the first place. Now he seems to be determined to do his best to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he is unqualified and ill-suited to hold the position.

Take for example the recent revelations that he authorized the expenditure of thousands of dollars at an adult club in Los Angeles for supporters of his party. Is that how Republicans wish to see their money spent? On strippers and drinks at a bar? Clearly not. Now of course Steele has backpedaled and indicated that he is getting the money back from the organizations that he footed the bill for, yet the damage is done. Republicans within his own party now come forward and claim that he's not doing a good job for the party and that he should step down so that someone more qualified can step into his place. I agree.

While I'm not a member of the Republican Party I'm supportive of this suggestion because I'd hope that the Party realizes that it isn't about race, color or sex of the person holding an office, but their inherent ability to do the job. When Hilary Clinton was a front runner for the Vice President's position and then was passed over for Joe Biden, the Republicans did what they thought all women wanted, and that was for a woman, any woman to be on the Presidential ticket. Enter Sarah Palin. I hope that before the next elections the Republicans realize that they have another Michael Steele in Sarah Palin.

To Honor the Confederacy or Not?

2010-04-08T06:49:00.004-05:00

Governor McDonnell of Virginia is certainly not wasting much time in making sure he makes changes that many of his constituents want. What has he done you may be asking? Well McDonnell recently publicly (and therefore officially) declared that April would be known as Confederate History Month in Virginia. For a number of years, Confederate History Month has been recognized unofficially all across the South however it hasn't been recognized by state leaders for a number of years since many are afraid of what supporting the Confederacy (and therefore the Confederate flag) means for many people.

Now arguments have been made that the Confederate flag isn't necessarily a racist symbol. Although it was the rallying flag of the states which seceded from the United States of America during the Civil War, many contend that it isn't a racist symbol. Never mind that one of the leading causes for the decision to secede was the fact that the government was pushing the Southern states to end slavery and many saw this as the government overstepping their bounds and subsequently led to the war between the states. But that's not what McDonnell chooses to commemorate the Confederacy for. Rather he'd prefer that people remember it as when Virginians stood to defend their homes and the Commonwealth. Never mind that it was due to the fact that they didn't largely agree with the intervention of the federal government into the affairs of the state which did include the issue of slavery (a population of 500,000 that made up nearly a quarter of the population in Virginia at the time).

I find it highly suspect that McDonnell makes this declaration now considering the fact that there is growing support for the Tea Party movement and rallies against the Federal Government. I may not agree with everything that the Federal Government is doing right now but when has anyone ever approved of everything the government is doing. Let me tell you that during the eight years that Bush was in office, I didn't really agree with much and I can tell you that despite his claims that he was helping me (I like to think of myself as an average American), I didn't get any benefit from his tax cuts or from his student loan schemes or any of the other dozens of things he did for the 'average citizen'. I definitely don't count myself among the upper strata of society nor am I rolling in dough but even though I didn't agree with much Bush did (or didn't do) I never once called for secession from the United States.

Now that Obama is in office, I don't expect that many will support everything (or in some cases anything) he does but I find it reprehensible that people are talking about seceding from the country as a means of avoiding the Obama administration. Doesn't anyone else find this growing movement to be a little disturbing? I mean I know that not everyone should blindly agree with what the government does but people are starting to take it a little too far. More and more often these days I feel that this country is changing, and it isn't all for the better. People are so resistant to change that they seem to be taking us back in time rather than forward. We need to grow up as a country rather than revert to the old ways that never really got us anything.

Here We Go Again

2010-04-07T06:23:00.000-05:00

Four months to go before we get to the preseason and already the Redskins are making big news. I waited a day or two to let the news sink in before writing but then I figured I might as well write something about the news that Donavan McNabb, the heretofore quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles and longtime nemesis of the Washington defensive line. After a few rumors about where he may end up, McNabb surprised many when he announced that he would be coming to Washington. Undergoing contract negotiations now, it is still not a certainty that he will be the starter or that he will even be kept on but if the past is any indicator of how the coming season will go, then we might as well cinch up our seat belts because the ride is likely to be very bumpy.

Now I don't mean to imply that McNabb isn't a good pick. On the contrary, I think he's a great quarterback and though he's not as good as he was a few years ago, I think he's still got the tools to be a good leader for the Redskins. After all, if Brett Farve (who is as creaky as they come when it comes to quarterbacks) can play so well then there's definitely hope for McNabb with the Skins. However, this isn't the first time the Skins have drafted a player starting on the downward part of their career. Again, that's not to imply that McNabb is lacking anything that could help him play effectively, but the difference is the team he is playing with. Contrasting Farve with McNabb we find that McNabb in Philly had a lot more targets (that too effective and relatively consistent ones) who helped him execute plays. Combine that with an agility that isn't to be found with very many QBs when flushed out of the pocket and you have a deadly weapon.

But now that he's a touch slower and the fact that Washington doesn't currently have quite as many targets as Philly (or all the teams that Farve has played on save for the Jets) means that it may be harder for him to play at the level that he is expected to play at. Perhaps I'm wrong (and I would certainly love to be wrong in this case) but I think what Washington needs is a bevy of players who can catch and who can run the ball when needed. And most of all they need an offensive line that will give the QB (whoever it is) enough time to execute the plan they have. It doesn't do anyone on the Skins any good if the QB is constantly sacked or rushed to make a play. McNabb has certainly made plays out of nothing when he's been forced to run but then by the same token, so has Jason Campbell (on those rare occasions when the stars align) but he still isn't up to that level. So then perhaps McNabb can help groom Campbell (if Campbell is kept on).

After all, after several losses in DC where Campbell has been booed, McNabb (who has been in that situation since he was drafted in Philly) would often seek Campbell out to offer him words of encouragement. Perhaps McNabb's presence in DC will be somewhat akin to how Darrell Green groomed and guided Champ Bailey (before he departed for Denver) and how he helped elevate his gain through his experience. It's well worth seeing if it comes true. All that I truly hope though is that we don't expect miraculous results right off the bat. We've changed our coaches, players and other personnel more often than NASCAR drivers refuel and it hasn't led to much. What I hope is that McNabb isn't pressured into becoming the one who all the team's hopes are pinned on. It is supposed to be a team so hopefully that philosophy will come through. The Skins certainly need it. I just don't want to see yet another season go by which starts of with tremendous hope and then ends with we fans looking forward to next August even before September is over.

What More Can She Do?

2010-03-30T06:54:00.000-05:00

Now anyone who has read a few of my blogs on politics will know that I'm not a very big fan of Sarah Palin. Of course some would say that that's putting it very very mildly, but it's true. I just can't understand how an educated person who is being objective can look at Palin and actually consider that she would be a good candidate to be President of the United States. I'm not basing it on her level of education (or lack thereof as the case may be). I'm not basing it on her political affiliation and I'm most certainly not basing it on her looks. No. I'm basing it on how she presented herself to the American people in the run up to the elections in November 2008 and how she has continued to carry herself in the months since. Palin has certainly not shied away from the spotlight and continues to try and remain relevant in the public's eye and I'm afraid it's not necessarily helping to portray her in a positive light.

But I should quantify what I state shouldn't I? Okay. Well let me try to articulate my thoughts as best I can. After all, I'm no speech writer and I haven't been the Governor of a state (not even for an incomplete term like Palin) and I certainly haven't been a Vice Presidential nominee so if my views are a bit simplified, it's because I like to think of myself as a relatively normal person. In the nearly year and a half since President Obama took office, the Republican party has attempted to prevent any of his proposals or legislation that he supports go through Congress. It's part of the reason why the Health Care debate raged on as long as it did. Republicans hope that by showing a united front, they can win back control of Congress and then keep President Obama from enacting anything else. And how do they do that? Simple. By doing the same thing that Palin has been doing almost since Election Day in 2008, spewing vitriolic hatred and falsehoods about everything under the sun while milking a gullible public for all they're worth.

What do I mean by gullible public? Well it's those people who foolishly think that Sarah Palin is the greatest thing to come about since sliced bread. They believe that she has the answers for the future of our nation and while that's a very optimistic assumption, I have yet to hear or see anything from this woman that even resembles a plan. Criticizing the President or the opposition party? That's not a plan; that's rhetoric. That's simply pandering to the crowds that believe that Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country since Bill Clinton. These are the people who believe that Obama is a communist even though they can hardly spell it or even state the tenets of communism.

Since leaving the campaign trail and then leaving the governorship of Alaska, Palin has not really done anything to improve her standing among those who aren't already counted among her mindless followers. She hasn't attempted to propose alternate ideas, she hasn't proven that she's trying to learn more about world affairs or how to improve our national security. Other than railing against the Obama Administration against not having invaded Iran as yet, she hasn't said anything about world politics or the economy. She will spout a catchphrase to tell you what she thinks is wrong with this country right now but not a single word about what she'd do different. You know why? Because she doesn't know and neither do the so-called advisers around her. She now spends her time writing books, flaunting her son Trig (when politically or socially to her benefit) and now she's getting ready to launch a limited series on Alaska on the TLC Channel on cable.

Why? Why should she talk about Alaska? Just because she's a former governor? Or because she thinks America should learn more about the 49th state? Or because the anticipated payday will help fill her coffers for her Presidential run in 2012? Well perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps she truly cares for her home state and wants the American public to know more about it. I mean after all, TLC is the network that showed us the dysfunctional and truly screwed up lives of Jon and Kate Goselin and their 8 children. What are they now but punchlines for jokes? Is that what Alaska wants for itself? Again, maybe I'm being a bit harsh. Perhaps the show will do well. That is until Palin decides to leave the show halfway through to prevent the elite media's attention from focusing on how she is exploiting Alaska for her own gains rather than to educate people. At least I'm hoping that we can see a shot of Russia from her yard.

Goodbye Jack

2010-03-29T06:35:00.002-05:00

At last it's official. Jack Bauer will no longer have the worst days of his life and no longer will we, the loyal '24' audience be able to watch and enjoy the often adventurous and twisted plots that exemplified life for the characters on '24'. After last season, which took place in Washington, DC, I had somewhat higher hopes for this season seeing as how it was supposed to be set in New York City. I mean after all, New York, the City that Never Sleeps, why would it be boring? But somehow the show managed to find a means of becoming so and now, as ratings continued to decline, the powers that be at Fox decided it was time to pull the plug on the loud ticking clock.

I started catching up on '24' a couple of seasons after it had already been on the air. I used to have marathon weekends where I would not have class or any work and I would watch back to back to back episodes and I managed to get caught up in no time. Since then I have been watching on television alongside the regular audience but I can tell you, I have noticed a few things in all that viewing that led me to believe that such a show couldn't sustain itself perpetually and I'll attempt to explain why. Firstly, while the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) where Jack and his co-horts work is supposed to be a relatively secret organization that operates within the United States, a lot of people know about it. It's location is fairly well known and terrorists often staged strikes against their headquarters. I can't think of a season where CTU wasn't attacked in some scheme to knock it out of commission.

And that's not the only rotating plot point that the show seemed to latch onto. There were many plot and sub-plot points that seemed to carry on from one season to the next. While I'm sure it was based on some survey of what plot elements random audience members enjoyed, it wasn't the best thing to repeat season in and season out. What am I talking about? Well again, you'd assume that since CTU is an elite security apparatus within the United States, the security requirements to get a job there and to gain access to classified material would be difficult. Yet almost every season, the agency has been penetrated by rogue agents or spies from other countries or terrorist groups.

Okay I grant you the first time, it could happen. But after that, don't you think the security procedures and screening would increase to the point that getting a job there would be harder than doing linear algebra without a calculator? I would like to think so but that's not the case. Terrorists continue to infiltrate CTU with reckless abandon and the leaders there seem powerless to do anything. Suddenly don't you think the audience would begin to view CTU as a relatively powerless (and therefore meaningless) organization? I think even the other agencies in the show seem to think that. Like when CTU was hit with an electro-magnetic pulse device recently this season, when Jack Bauer contacted the NSA to request their help, it seemed as if they were completely unaware that an attack had occurred on US soil.

Now perhaps for the sake of cinematic (or television-atic) liberties some elements like these are left in but then you have to wonder, do people really think that it's plausible anymore? After all, the Bush Administration left our country with a legacy of interdependent agencies that are supposed to know what each and every other agency is supposed to be working on in the interest of promoting greater security, so then are we really supposed to believe that Jack Bauer is the only real person on the case (even when he's tried to retire multiple times in the past)? I mean seeing as how CTU is hiring people like Freddie Prinze Jr (who really needs to learn to stop breathing through his mouth all the time) to serve as replacement Jack Bauers? Perhaps it is definitely time to retire the series while it has a shred of believability and integrity left.

What Country Is This?

2010-03-25T06:11:00.002-05:00

This past weekend, history was made with the passage of the Health Care Reform bill which had been making the rounds in Congress for months now. While not everyone is too thrilled with the passage of the bill for various reasons, it's the reaction in some parts of the nation that has me a bit confused and concerned about the state of my nation. Firstly, while I agree that everyone has the right to protest the actions of their government, I think there's a way to go about doing it. The so-called Tea Party Movement which has been gaining steam since the election of President Obama seems to be at the forefront of the movement afoot to cause as much trouble and raise as much awareness as it thinks it can without much thought given to how it goes about getting the message out.

All weekend there were news reports about the protests and counter-protests in DC regarding the passage of the bill and it was with some surprise that I awoke Monday to hear that the bill had passed, but what surprised me even more were the reports coming in that members of Congress (largely Democrats since no Republican voted for the bill) were being heckled and harassed to the point of threat. Reports started coming in about African-American congressional leaders being called racist names or being jeered about their sexual orientation. Tea Party sites were listing the home addresses of Congressional members who had voted in favor of the Health Care Reform Bill. Virginia Representative Tom Perriello's brother reported to the authorities that someone had come to his Charlottesville home and cut the line to the propane gas grill in his backyard. Now some might argue that this isn't proof that someone is attempting to sabotage or attack his family but it's a bit hard to argue against it when you hear that the address to the house was given out on a Tea Party website encouraging Tea Party followers to go to his house and "express their thanks for his vote".

Now I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of expression but I didn't know that these freedoms also included threatening others and insulting them in public like this. Sure we've had leaders we didn't like but I can't recall a time when there was this much anti-government sentiment being spewed and I can't help but feel that a lot of it not only has to do with what actions the government is taking but also due to the race of the current President. Now I'm sure many people won't agree with my saying that but it's the truth. The automatic assumption that many people make is that whatever decisions that Obama or the government is making is solely motivated by the desire to make the government take control of the country thus promoting socialism. They point to things like the bank bailouts or automotive industry bailouts as prime examples but wasn't this one of the last things that President Bush did before leaving office? If it was acceptable then why do these bitter members of American society now object?

I'm not blindly supporting or standing against the President based solely on his race or his attempts at improving the state of the nation but what I try to do is to educate myself on what these new bills or efforts by the government really mean. For Republicans to stand up in Congress and accuse fellow Congressional leaders of being "baby killers" (despite attempting to argue that they were talking about the bill rather than the actually congressional leader) is really repulsive to me. It seems that many leaders from the GOP are reverting to becoming children and attempting to spread lies and falsehoods in an effort to garner favor with an increasingly radical support base. I'm sure if similar actions had been taken against the Bush Administration in their run up to the war, protesters would have been lynched and hung in order to show that if you aren't with the country then you're against it. So then I ask again... what country is this because it certainly isn't the America I have grown up in.

Younger People Less Apt to Drive? I Think Not

2010-03-22T06:45:00.002-05:00

I read an interesting article over the weekend that I don't necessarily agree with but it came to some interesting conclusions which obviously had some thought behind them. The article was about a study that had been conducted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments' Transportation Planning Department. According to the report, there have been increasing signs that drivers 30 years old and younger are driving less these days and they had a couple of reasons why they believed that to be the case. One of the main reasons was listed as the desire to reduce their 'carbon footprint' and become more environmentally friendly. The other big conclusion was that computer-based and virtual social networking has reduced the time that many young people would have ordinarily spent searching out their friends and socializing in person. Now while these are logical conclusions, I don't necessarily agree with them.

Take for example the fact that the report finds that more and more young people are turning to mass transit for their business and social transportation needs. Perhaps a lot of them are being motivated by environmental concerns and wanting to make the world a 'greener' place but I have an alternate theory behind the uptick in public transportation usage. Have the people on the Council actually driven through normal Washington Metro area traffic? Back up on I-66 can begin as early as 5:30 in the morning and doesn't subside until late-morning or early-afternoon. Elsewhere, getting into the city or around the Beltway can be a trial in and of itself. Having been a commuter in the area I can't tell you how often I have cursed the traffic Gods and wished for a better commute to no avail. But still, given the fact that gas prices are going up and getting into the city isn't getting easier then that's wonderful news environmentally speaking but it isn't accurately indicating why public transportation is experiencing increases.

Want to go to a game or meet friends in DC for drinks? Wonderful idea! Want to avoid getting pulled over at a checkpoint for a sobriety test? Then take public transportation. And speaking of going out drinking, yes, social networking has virtualized a lot of the meeting and greeting that apparently led to a lot of people driving to and fro around the area to meet and discuss the next social plan they wanted to carry out. But now that they can carry it out virtually they can simply decide ahead of time and then use public transportation to get to their destination and back home again so that they can get as sloshed as they want without concern about being pulled over or knowing when to say when. Now perhaps that's a more responsible means of having a good time but I guess that wouldn't look like a very good reason why younger drivers are on the decline in a government Council report.

If the Council truly believes that their conclusions as to why fewer people are on the roads are true then that doesn't explain to me why traffic in the area is still so bad (and seems to be getting worse). Depending on where you need to go and at what time of day, the trip can take up to three times longer than it would when traffic is at it's non-peak time. The Council's report even states that at peak driving times (which is a euphemism for 'rush hour') drivers over the age of 65 are less likely to be on the road. So if we have fewer younger driver and fewer older drivers then is all this traffic being caused by a massive population between the age of 30 and 65? That's a pretty sizeable population given how often I sit in traffic these days.

Change is a'Comin'

2010-03-18T07:13:00.002-05:00

If you're a Redskins fan, looking at this picture probably reveals something you haven't seen for a while. A really long while. And that's Dan Snyder (in the center) smiling an honest to goodness smile as opposed to the photos we'd usually see of him around this time of year where he's smiling a "hey-we-just-signed-the-marquee-name-of-ten-years-ago-now-pay-through-the-nose-to-witness-mediocrity" smiles of seasons past. That's not to say that things are going to be all peachy keen swell this season, or even next season but given the way things are going this year, there's definitely some new direction being taken by the team.

Typically, the night when free-agents could be signed usually resulted in some queasiness on the part of fans in this town, largely because most every year of the past decade has seen morning come with the announcement that a big name for a position that was already filled was now to be occupied by a big name that cost millions upon millions of dollars. Most of the time it meant that Washington had signed a player well past their prime, on the cusp of retirement looking for one last major payday during which he'd be able to make some money in order to retire comfortably. And the side result was that just as often, rather than fostering the growth of younger players, they were let go only to go somewhere else where they could prosper.

Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article today in which he talked about some of the changes he's seen, one of the main ones being how respect is being shown throughout the organization. Now granted, Jason Campbell may not be the next Tom Brady, and the signing of Rex Grossman notwithstanding and the fact that scouts are looking at Tim Tebow, Campbell's been showing a lot of grit given how many times he ended up on the turf last season. He has definitely put out for the team and though he has been potentially tendered for next season, the fact that he hasn't just been let go is a sign that his contributions have been noted and that if there's no sudden revelation that he can be supplanted by another player (potentially with loads of more success) then I think it would be wise to keep him. If anything he's proven that he can learn new offensive schemes. He's done it practically every single season he's been here in DC.

But what about the guys on the team who talk the talk but can't (or don't) walk the walk? Some of them have either been tendered as well or have simply been let go. I was surprised when I heard about ten players on the team that were let go at the start of the free agency period. Most of them were what I would term 'big-name-players' for the team yet they were let go. I think part of it is because new coach Mike Shanahan realizes that he needs to build a team that will suit his needs but not only that, he needs to build a team that won't be a flash in the pan so to speak. Over the past decade there have been moments where it seemed the stars were finally aligning for the Skins only to have a galactic wind blow through and change everything once again. Maybe this time the team will be able to keep things together to find the road to victory. I certainly hope so.

Everyone is Irish Today

2010-03-17T07:08:00.002-05:00

The Irish people state that on March 17th, Saint Patrick's Day, everyone is Irish. And if this photo from South Korea has anything to say about it, I think the Irish are correct. For years now I have celebrated St. Patrick's Day by wearing green, initially to avoid being pinched by people in school but now to take part in the fun. But as is always the case in such festivities, it is easy to forget why the celebrations are held in the first place. I mean when alcohol and revelry is involved, people generally don't need a reason to celebrate (that too to excess at times) but it's good to at least have an inkling of why we celebrate St. Patrick as opposed to many of the others out there. So I decided to do a little research into why St. Patrick is considered important in Ireland and consequently, around a large part of the world.

The story goes that as a child, St. Patrick was kidnapped from his home in Roman Britain and taken to Ireland to become a slave. While in captivity he apparently had a dream in which God came to him in a vision and told him to escape and make his way to the coast where he would be picked up by a ship and returned home. Following through on his vision, Patrick did indeed return to Britain and soon thereafter joined the Church in Auxerre in Gaul and studied to be a priest. Ironically enough, he returned to Ireland many years later to help spread the word of Christianity and to help convert the aristocracy and nobility to the preferred religion. One of his methods? Using the three clovered shamrock to relate to the people the concept of the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). Again, a symbol that is often associated with the holiday but for many of us, a complete mystery as to its importance.

As a result of his efforts (which were largely successful), Patrick was considered an important personage in the establishment of the Irish Church and was consequently highly revered among Orthodox-English-speaking Christians from the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the United States. Although he was never officially canonized by any Pope, he is still part of the List of Saints and remains an important icon in the Christian religion. As the years went on, in order to honor his service to his religion and their followers, celebratory feasts were held on the date that was commonly accepted to have been his death date, March 17th. Over time the celebrations continued and soon thereafter it became not so much a religious holiday as a holiday in which merry-making and partying became the norm.

Now looking at what all is done in celebration of St. Patrick's Day I can't help but feel a bit disappointed. While it's wonderful to be able to celebrate the opportunity to have a party in mid-week or to wear green without objection for the whole day, I can't help but think about how many people may not know why we celebrate this holiday. Not being a Christian, I wasn't as aware of the importance of St. Patrick to the religion and why he's so venerated. Knowing a bit more now I feel that while we should celebrate St. Patrick's Day not just because it gives us another excuse to enjoy a Guinness (which is always a good thing) but also because it celebrates a person who served his religion faithfully in a country where he certainly had reason to hate given the circumstances early in his life. But I think he took the teachings of his religion to heart and wanted to spread hope to another country. Now that's worth celebrating.

Making Sense of the Census

2010-03-15T06:49:00.000-05:00

Well it is time once again for that ten year tradition, the US Census survey. Now there has been a lot of talk in recent years by politicians whereby they have managed to spread fear and misunderstanding about a function of the government that is meant to ensure that the people are given a voice in their government. I suppose there are those in Congress and in other parts of the government who don't really know how government is supposed to function in the first place who spend a lot more of their time continuing to promote fallacies about the census in order to gain political favor with their party or to promote false fears against the government.

So then what is the purpose of the census? Well it is the way in which the government gathers statistics about the population, their location, their ethnicities, etc. in order to figure out how to redistrict and reallocate representation within the government. For example if ten years ago there was a part of Virginia that had a very miniscule population, it would have been rolled under another district. But now ten years on there may be a very sizeable population in that same region which could require the addition of a district on congressional maps and would mean the need for additional representation within the government. What it isn't is a way for the government to track us individually and to keep tabs on the population. Despite a lot of the fearmongering that appears to be going on, the government isn't really going to resort to using a paper census as a means of tracking us.

After all, if we were to believe that the government was capable of keeping such close scrutiny on all of us wouldn't they do it by some other means other than asking you to fill out a paper form? I mean if we want to believe the big brother paranoia that some in Congress are espousing then the government would be watching our every keystroke on the internet, our every phone call via the cell networks of the country, every library book we ever check out. That being said, people like Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has publicly stated that she would only respond by indicating how many people lived at her home and nothing more of the ten questions being asked on the census. She and others seem to want to perpetuate the belief that the government is looking to keep closer tabs on everyone in order to control them.

This is the very same type of paranoia that helped launch the Red Scare during the 1950's and led to a great deal of mistrust of the government during the 1960's and all through the Vietnam War. If people like Bachmann really wanted to be a contributing member of society and of our government then perhaps she should spend her energies educating her constituents rather than attempting to instill them with fear. After all, it's possible that through redistricting, she could be out of a job if it comes to pass that her seat is no longer needed. So what that means is that it's in the interest of most people within the higher echelons of government to promote the census rather than raise doubts about it. After all, it's their job on the line.

Value for the Money

2010-03-11T07:11:00.000-05:00

Let's play a hypothetical situation for a moment. Let's assume that you have a choice between two cars. The basic requirements that you have is that it carry a family of four and give you cargo capacity enough to lug around a week's worth of groceries and additional items as needed. These are the minimum expectations that you have for your target vehicle. Now supposing you were to look at two options. The first is an older model car that has been around for a while and meets all requirements in a proven chassis that can carry the required load though not much more than your current vehicle.

Now supposing for a second option (and for slightly more money) there is another vehicle which offers greater cargo capacity and passenger capacity along with a modular design which means you can alter the vehicle to carry more cargo or passengers depending on your requirements. Price wise it isn't all that much more either, plus it uses newer technology and again a proven chassis. Now for the final comparison, assume that the older model is still in the speculative design phases while the other one is already out and available for production should you wish to purchase it. What would your decision be?

This speculative analysis is more or less what the Department of Defense was faced with when it was comparing the bids of Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS for the KC-X Tanker Replacement for the United States Air Force. Looking to replace their aging fleet of tankers that are older than most of the current crop of Air Force officers (and their parents in some cases) the DoD has been looking to get a contract awarded for nearly a decade to no avail. In the wake of ethics scandals at Boeing and complaints that Northrop Grumman/EADS went 'beyond' the quoted requirements in their design, the competition has been languishing. In 2008 it seemed that there was finally a breakthrough and that the decision had been made but once again questions as to the motivation of the decision were raised and the contract was again rescinded.

Now the way I see it, I have a stake in this decision. As a taxpayer, it's my money (in some way, shape or form) that helps fund the purchase of these aircraft. That being said then it makes sense that the efforts by President Obama and the rest of government to bring transparency to some levels of government spending would get so much press time. Unfortunately what is often spread in the media is spun to such a degree that even spiders would be jealous. The reason I say this is because one of the reasons why there was such resistance in some levels of Congress to the NG/EADS award was due to the assumption that this would mean that foreign made products are taking potential jobs away from American workers and that's definitely not the case. While some components would be assembled in European factories, the actual assembly was slated to occur in the United States. Unfortunately that won't happen now because Northrop decided to withdraw from the competition after the latest batch of product specifications came from the government.

According to statements from the company, the decision was made because it seemed that the new specifications were heavily in favor of what Boeing was going to propose and so Northrop decided that it didn't make sense financially to continue investing in something that was clearly leaning away from them. While I agree with that, I think it completely reverses what Obama and a lot of Congressional leaders like McCain had been pushing for in the first place which was an end to the monopoly that certain defense contractors had over certain sectors of the defense industry. The reason this whole scandal started was because there was evidence that no competition was originally held and an under-the-table deal meant money was given to certain officials to ensure that Boeing won the contract in the first place. By constantly playing a shell game and changing requirements, it gave the illusion that change was happening but it clearly wasn't. It was simply business as usual.

Sharing the Road Goes Both Ways

2010-03-10T07:17:00.000-05:00

Before I was old enough to drive I used to go lots of places on my bicycle. It was fun being out there on the road and riding to and from wherever it was that I wanted to go. I used to work a few miles from the house and during the summer I would ride my bike to the office to get some exercise. It sure beat walking. But one thing I always did whenever I rode my bike was to obey the traffic laws and to share the road responsibly with cars. After all, I may have the right of way but just having the right of way wouldn't save me if I were to get struck by a large moving vehicle. Share the road is a phrase that many communities use in an effort to get drivers to be more aware of cyclists and to make an honest effort to keep them safe. Unfortunately, oftentimes the reverse situation isn't always true.

I raise this point because I read in the news today that DC is considering adding bicycle lanes to certain streets within the city in order to make biking traffic a little safer and more regulated. Now while I applaud the city's efforts to make the city a bit 'greener' and bike-friendly, I am a bit dubious as to whether it will really make any difference or not. The reason I say this is because often on the way to work in the spring, summer and fall, I drive along a road that has a bike path clearly marked a few feet from the actual road. Unfortunately, more often than not, those paths are devoid of cyclists who prefer to ride on the streets.

Now this road is particularly winding and has many blind turns where often, even for cars following the speed limit, it was unnerving (not to mention highly dangerous) to drive around a corner and nearly plow into a cyclist who was in the middle of the lane. Not only that, but in what I can only figure to be ire at nearly being hit by cars, many cyclists often weave in and out of stopped traffic just to get ahead of the pack and then again slow traffic down when cars are unable to pass them by. While I agree that there are plenty of drivers out there who don't drive well enough to share the road with cyclists, that isn't reason enough for cyclists to ignore the rules of the road and weave in and out of traffic with impunity.

If you read the reactions of some cyclists on news websites to the news that bike lanes will soon become a reality they speak with such excitement that it makes one hopeful that they will actually stick to the paths and lanes designated for them. Now I know that some would argue that not all bike paths and trails are maintained with the same efficiency as roads but still, a little bit of common sense is also necessary on the part of cyclists. I mean a few weeks ago when the roads were just starting to clear from all the ice and snow we had, there were still areas where lanes were just not available to drive on and in the midst of all this chaos were a handful of cyclists, looking to get to work in the cold while doing their part for mother nature. As I often state, I think their heart is in the right place but their heads need a little bit of adjustment.

Drawing Inspiration

2010-03-08T07:51:00.002-05:00

Every year, I watch the Oscars to see which movies will take home the prize and of those, I will try to see how many of them I have actually seen or will see (thanks to their winning an Oscar). But I also like to listen to the acceptance speeches, not just of the big winners but also of the little guys. Or who I term 'the little guys' because of the fact that they are the people who work behind the scenes and that the Oscar show producers rarely give more than ten seconds to say their speeches. These are the guys who don't have glamourous roles or even get doted on by make-up artists and directors. These are the people who toil behind the scenes and are just as much a part of making a movie as anyone else. These are the production support personnel.

For many years, I paid keen interest to the original score category because film music is something that has been very dear to me for many years. I rejoiced when composers I knew or scores that I loved took home Oscar gold and I enjoyed listening to the music for days thereafter knowing that it wasn't just me that thought the music was good, but professionals in the voting public of Hollywood. Last evening's 82nd Oscar Ceremony was no different and I took particular inspiration from the speech that composer Michael Giachinno gave upon winning for his score for "Up". To paraphrase, Giachinno stated that he hoped to give inspiration to those kids who may not have had the support that he did. He wanted kids to know that being creative wasn't a bad thing and that with hard work and perseverence would pay off. I am a firm believer in that.

Looking back on the ceremony last night, I think that was a common theme that was carried out throughout the evening. I know that almost all ceremonies have winners thanking their inspirations but last night was a little different. Maybe I was paying attention to it some more or maybe I heard it with a different set of ears, but even in montage clips with statements by past short film winners like John Lassiter (I believe he was the one who said it) raised the point that today we are in a state of technological development where a kid with a laptop and an idea can come up with an idea and make it into a movie with a bit of hard work. It's so true.

Today the technology exists that with a little bit of inspiration you can get some of your friends together and you can make your own movie, create your own music or do whatever your creative desires wish. Hearing so many people make statements last night was inspiring. It was heartening to know that people who have such passion really do make it and that they are recognized for their efforts. While I applaud the actors and actresses and directors and producers, I applaud all the more the people who work behind the scenes and actually 'make' the films that we love. I mean after all, if it weren't for the technical wizards behind the visuals and sound effects in "Avatar" it simply would have always remained a vision in the head of James Cameron.

More Controversy to be Brewed

2010-03-05T07:11:00.000-05:00

Next Friday, yet another film will be released on the current conflict in Iraq and how US forces have dealt with it. However, unlike "The Hurt Locker" which has been generating controversy over the content and depiction of an Army Explosive Ordanance Disposal unit in Iraq, "Green Zone" (starring Matt Damon among others) will show the actions of a 'rogue' Chief Warrant Officer from the US Army who is working with the CIA to hunt down and find weapons of mass destruction in the early days of the Iraqi war. Now I say that this movie will likely stir controversy as well because it deals with a subject that is even touchier for many people and that is whether the hunt for WMDs was cause enough for the nation to go to war. But not only that, the film is loosely based on the book "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" by Rajiv Chandrashekharan.

Now I purposely mention the fact that it appears to be loosely based on the book because I had read the book when it first came out and I have seen the trailers for the film. Now I know it's not fair to jump to a conclusion on a film without having seen it and I'm sure that it will be a decent film given that it's the third time that Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass are teaming up, but I still can't help but feel that people will come away from this film with a different expectation as well. The controversy surrounding "The Hurt Locker" stems from the fact that many veterans of the war are worried that the public is going to look on this film as a true depiction of what life was like for many of them in Iraq and unfortunately it is more Hollywood's version of it rather than the honest truth.

I had previously written about how Hollywood needs to fit lots of story into a short amount of time if the audience is going to buy it and enjoy it. That being said, the movie has to have something that will sustain it. Now as the case with "The Hurt Locker", "Green Zone" also appears to be taking some liberties with the story and the source material. That's not to say that it may not be realistic or interesting; but to say that the film is based on Chandrashekharan's book is a bit misleading. I say this because the book dealt more with the transition of the interim government to the Iraqi government and how life changed for the Iraqi people after Bush declared the 'mission accomplished'. While some mention was given to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was not given a place of prominence in the book.

In the film however it seems to take on the role of the central theme. Now again, that's probably not a bad thing. It probably makes for a more interesting film to have a 'rogue' Army officer going out hunting weapons and trying to prove that there either was or wasn't faulty intelligence that led to the US invasion of Iraq. Still, if Hollywood has learned nothing else from the furror surrounding "The Hurt Locker" these days they should at least know that they should make it clear that this is more of a fictional work than a true one. I say this only because the unfortunate thing is that there are plenty of people out there who don't understand that when filmmakers say that a film is 'based on' something, it doesn't necessarily mean it is completely true to its source. I'm curious to see the movie though I know that it will undoubtedly have its fair share of ire too.

Congressional Inaction

2010-03-04T07:00:00.000-05:00

The talk through most of the halls of Congress in recent days has been about the stands of various leaders in the fight for health care reform. As an issue he promised to tackle upon taking office, President Obama has been taking efforts to try and effect change for the better in terms of health care coverage and how it is provided to people who are currently out of work or are in need of affordable health care due to other reasons. What has been happening however is a lot of posturing by both political parties in an effort to make the change they want to see and the unfortunate thing is that that means that nothing is happening. Since taking office, Obama has talked about having bipartisan cooperation in an effort to make change that will get this country back on it's feet again. Unfortunately, there are some in Congress who seem Hell-bent on stopping change no matter what the consequences are.

Now I'm not naive enough to assume that whatever Obama says should be accepted without question and at face value. I agree that there should be debate and that there should be open dialogue. However, open dialogue and debate can only happen when all parties having the 'conversation' are willing to hear what their compatriots are saying. What appears to be happening more and more often with Republicans is that they outrightly object to whatever Obama or Democrats propose and simply paint a portrait of a President standing on a bully pulpit backed by his party's leaders and attempting to ram their changes through Congress. I'm sorry, but as I recall, the bill passed through the Senate with 60 votes which means some Republicans didn't exactly feel like they were being forced into something.

Still, it's fine if you don't agree. We don't need a country full of yes men. It's good to have debate and discussion over what problems you have with a proposed bill. But when you do nothing but talk about wanting to 'scrap the bill' and to 'start over' it sounds more like little kids to me than Congressional leaders. People with big egos often talk like that. They aren't willing to hear what others have to say. They often say that it should be their way or the highway and if they don't get their way then there is hemming and hawing like no one's business. Take for example the ever eloquent (and I'm being extremely sarcastic here) Sarah Palin. Sure she'll offer up plenty of soundbite worthy clips degrading the government and the President in particular but I can't help but notice two things. She stepped down from office and gave up leadership of her state which strikes me as being very childish but more importantly, she never offers up any concrete alternatives. I guess she can't write all that much on the palm of her hands.

I think that Obama believes that open dialogue and discussions can lead to compromise but what he has at least bullied to make clear is that health care reform will happen and it's up to opponents to step up and make arguments that will make their proposed changes part of the bill. But like Sarah Palin what I see a lot of in Congress is objection for the sake of objection. They object because the proposal comes from someone they are opposed to. There's no real 'meat' to their objection, its simply because they don't want to agree with the person. Then by misrepresenting why they object ("the bill is being 'rammed' through Congress") they paint a completely different picture. I say stop the words and take action. Object; that's your right as our leaders in Congress, but offer up alternatives that you are willing to compromise on. That would be even better.

On the Job Training

2010-03-03T07:13:00.000-05:00

I think it's fantastic when parents want to take their kids to work to teach them about what they do all day. It probably serves better than any other method of getting kids to understand what it means to have a good and interesting career doing something that we like. We already have 'take your daughter to work' day which is meant to inspire young girls to aspire to something more than traditional roles for women but rather to seek fulfillment in the workplace. Similarly, boys have been encouraged to also go visit the workplace of their parents so that they too will get an appreciation for what work actually entails. Of course there are always some parents who don't know where exactly to draw then line and it can have 'interesting' results.

Take for example the recent case of a child who was taken to the control tower at JFK International Airport in New York. The child was not only taken into the control tower but was actually allowed to communicate with several flights. Although an investigation is still underway, what authorities will confirm is that a controller in the tower brought his child to work and then allowed the child to speak to several departing flights, giving them instructions on what to do after take off. If you read the transcripts or hear the transmissions online you probably won't think much of them, but still, I guess it would be a different matter if you were someone actually sitting on those flights. However, once word of this leaked, the FAA immediately stepped in and suspended both the controller and the controller's supervisor for obvious reasons.

Now again, if you listen to those transmission, a naive person would tell you that its no big deal and that the child was being supervised by their parent and was in a room full of other controllers so if something had gone wrong then there would have been plenty of people who would be able to step in and remedy the situation. That's all well and good but doesn't it stand to reason that some would perceive this to be a very dangerous thing to do regardless of how innocent the actual orders seem? I know some parents are of the belief that unless a child actually experiences things for themselves, the concept remains intangible. They fell that unless a child is encouraged and given the opportunity to do something that they have dreamed about and wouldn't normally be able to do then they won't be as inspired. I think that's completely bogus.

But think of it another way; would you let a child drive your car down the highway regardless of whether they can reach the peddles or see over the steering wheel? When put in that context then some people beging to have second thoughts. I'm sure now there will be plenty of reactionary measures taken to ensure that a child can never do this type of activity again regardless of whether a parent authorizes it or not. Don't get me wrong; I think we certainly need to encourage kids but not at the expense and safety of other complete strangers.

Changing the Face of the News

2010-03-01T07:07:00.000-05:00

The way most people get there news these days has had a major effect and it will likely have an effect on the way news is delivered to the public for years to come. Recent studies have revealed that an increasing number of people now get their news from the internet as well as from television news outlets than from traditional newspapers. The result has been that circulation is down and print newspapers are on the decline. In just the past year, numerous newspapers have reduced the number of plants they operate and how many printings they make per day. Some newspaper companies have even gone on to close printing plants as they no longer print in such large quantities.

I can understand why. With rising costs for resources and an economy that is not quite what it was a few short years ago, everyone is trying to figure out how to cut costs and save a bit of money. Still, I can't help but feel sad about the fact that a staple from my childhood, the daily paper, will soon be gone. I will admit that when I was younger I had time to read the paper before going to school. At that time, browsing the internet or going online to read the paper at school was not so common. The internet was still coming into its own when I was in high school so using it for research was still quite a new thing. I can remember clipping articles from the paper and attaching it to reports for some of my English and journalism classes in college.

Now it seems that those days are going to be looked upon with increasing nostalgia. Those same studies concluded that web-based media is on the rise and that many people are looking to those sources for the news. It makes sense. These days we have become a society that requires instant gratification about our curiousities. If we suspect something may have happened in the world, we just hop online and in a few short clicks we'll know what's happening and where. Think about it, the internet is often even faster than television in terms of getting the news out there. You can often read more about events on the internet than you will on television. For example, this past weekend, I found out about the earthquake in Chile after seeing the headline on Google's splash page. From there I got access to news agencies and channels from around the world and with having done nothing more than clicking a mouse button I got all the latest information.

It's a powerful thing to have that much knowledge at the click of a mouse or from a few keystrokes. I can't help but feel sorry for the declining number of traditional newspaper sales out there. It will mean that not only will people who work in that industry have an impact on their jobs but also for some of the smaller folks out there who thrive on the newspaper industry. I'm thinking of the young paperboys who view the job as a rite of passage. What if they no longer have to work paper routes, what will they do then? I guess it's a sign of changing times and as with any steps towards progress, there must be change.

Truth in Hollywood

2010-02-26T07:11:00.000-05:00

As we approach Oscar time here in the States, there is a lot of buzz that is continuing to surround one of the frontrunning movies for Best Picture (and Best Director) which is the Iraq War drama, "The Hurt Locker". The film follows members of an Explosive Ordanance Disposal (EOD) group as the close out the final days of their current tour in Iraq. Without going into political discussions about whether the war was the right or wrong thing to do, the film chooses to focus on the lives of the three main characters as they try to survive one day to the next in the hope of returning home alive at the end of their tour. While the film has garnered a great deal of accolades from critics and award galas, the reviews from actual soldiers has been a bit mixed and some have accused the movie of distorting the truth. Big surprise there.

If there's one thing that I can say about Hollywood its that although it does successfully show the truth on occasion, most of what we see in films is not the truth. It is one person's vision of a story and that's what it should remain but many people don't look at it that way. I've written numerous times about how many turn to movies to learn about the world. It's not surprising, it's an easier and more entertaining way to learn about things we're interested in learning about and it doesn't require a lot of effort on our part. But if we were to believe everything we see in the movies I don't know if we'd have a more well-rounded personality or a dulled one. That's not to knock Hollywood, I think that on occasion, despite the recent penchant for remakes or "re-imagined" films and shows, we are still seeing the occasional film which depicts true events in a fairly accurate and honest light.

I think one of the inherent difficulties in film is to capture the truth in just two hours of time. If you're talking about a two hour event then perhaps you can show it but if you're talking about depicting the essence of a character or of their experiences over an extended period of time then it becomes a bit harder. Cinematic liberties will obviously have to be taken and some degree of dramatization will have to occur and that's when many people have a problem. It's particularly true in the case of films dealing with events in the recent past as opposed to a longer time ago. I remember when "Saving Private Ryan" came out there was a great deal of discussion over whether or not the depiction of the battle on the Omaha Beach was accurate or not. And while the ferocity of the battle was certainly on par with the recollection of many veterans of that battle, the timescale was shortened tremendously. After all, the search for Private Ryan in that film didn't take place on the beaches of Normandy but well after the depiction of D-Day. So then how could you show all of the important events that took place over the course of a day?

The simple answer is that you can't. A film depicting events in real-time or with exacting detail never do well. The Pearl Harbor film from the 1970's "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was chided for it's very dry depiction of the events leading up to the attack and the actual attack itself. Though many appreciated the efforts at portraying how events actually occured many critics and audience members felt the movie was too plodding for it's own good and was negative in the sense that it showed a darker chapter in our nation's history without an American victory. Contrast that with the Michael Bay version of "Pearl Harbor" which showed that had Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett been around at the time, they would have single-handedly won the war for the Allies. But many fans found the action entertaining and the story passable and it did decent business at the box office.

So where do we draw the line for Hollywood? Obviously the studios and producers would care more for what will sell tickets and help them to recoup their costs. If it comes down to a choice between the truth and dramatization, I know that dramatization would win out every time. With "The Hurt Locker" there's no doubt that some of what was shown in the film is meant to help move the story along and develop the characters. But then it's also wrong to assume that this is the complete and unvarnished truth of what life is like in Iraq for EOD technicians. But then that's what much of the audience will believe because we rarely know any better. Take the case of "Top Gun". That movie also had a heavy dose of fiction but the lifestyle and the action portrayed helped to increase enlistment in the Navy by nearly 500 percent. It may not have been the whole truth but it certainly helped the Department of Defense and the Navy meet enlistment numbers at that time.

Toyota Troubles

2010-02-24T07:09:00.000-05:00

Besides the record-breaking snowfall that the Northeast suffered over the past few months the only other thing that seemed to consistently make the news were the recalls being led by Toyota. For those who have been living under a rock for the past few months, the problem is that numerous vehicles in Toyota's stable of automobiles have been suffering problems with their braking systems and their on-board computers which has led to unexpected acceleration or difficulties in braking. What started out as a limited number of recalls has slowly over time blossomed into something much more prevalant and far-reaching and now it's come to the point where Toyota President Akio Toyoda (grandson of the founder of Toyota) is coming to testify before Congress.

When I was studying for my MBA, we often used Toyota as an example of a company that was doing a good job in globalizing but also in improving relations between nations that they entered into partnerships with. For example, one of Toyota's business models is to reduce costs by moving manufacturing to plants in the country where the vehicles will eventually be sold. As a result, although Toyota is a Japanese company, there are many plants in the United States, Canada and Mexico that build the cars that are eventually sold here. Not only that, but the company contributes large quantities of money to local economies to help not only their workers but the communities in which they live as well. There was once a great deal of stigma associated with buying Japanese cars versus American but now, even Japanese cars can be considered American in many respects.

Be that as it may, Toyota has taken some efforts to try and halt the problems plaguing their line of vehicles and although the efforts are ongoing, they are still ot enough in the eyes of many lawmakers. Many in the US government feel that Toyota should be held accountable and to hear some of the leaders on the Hill speak gives the impression that they are looking to end Toyota's sales records in this country. Now perhaps it's a bit of cynicism and while I agree that Toyota needs to make changes to ensure that their products remain safe for a consumer group that obviously buys their vehicles in such large quantities, but isn't it a little hard not to think about the fact that the Federal Government now owns stakes in GM and Chrysler now?

Sure the lawmakers will want Toyota to suffer if it will mean more consumers will go to purchase cars by GM and Chrysler again. I think what they should remember though is that what drove many buyers to Japanese vehicles in the first place was the fact that not only were prices affordable for their vehicles but that they provided good value for the dollar. Sure the occasional GM truck from the last two decades will still be on the road going strong but I don't think those numbers can compare to the fact that nearly 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road and going strong. That's a solid statistic in anyone's book. When you talk about returns on investment, I don't think you can get much better than that.

Toyota has been making efforts to show to the American government, public and the rest of the world for that matter that they are making efforts to improve the situation. Quality control seems to be a major problem and independent analysis of their product lines. In both cases there seems to be a lack of true objectivity and I believe that that has led to some of the problems. If Toyota makes sincere efforts to change these problems and the perceptions that people have of these issues, then I think they will see people returning to buy their products. Fast action and honest dialogue will go a long way, otherwise in an economy that is still reeling, consumer confidence will continue to go down and workers who build Toyotas in this country will also see yet another auto manufacturing company go by the wayside. I honestly don't think our economy can handle another big one like that.

A Piece of Comic History

2010-02-23T07:11:00.000-05:00

Just this past weekend, the rare and highly valuable "Action Comics" issue number 1 in which Superman made his debut was sold for $1 million. Now if that doesn't strike you as a stupendous achievement then I don't know what would. What's more astounding is that if you look back in 1938, it was sold for 10 cents. Now that's not to say that every single comic book is ever going to be worth so much or that any of them could be worth anything at all but still, the fact that a comic book of all things, could sell for so much is a testament to the fact that there are those out there who truly value the comic book as a form of art and in some sense, history as well.

I mean think about it. What is so special about this comic book that it is worth so much money? Well think about it. Up until that time, comics dealt with cartoons and never really delved into superhuman characters but for the first time, Superman presented a character who epitomized what has become the archetype of superheroes that you can truly say that his character paved the way for thousands of other characters that fill the pages of comic lore today. But so what? It still doesn't explain why someone (the buyer and seller of this recent copy of Action Comics no.1 refused to be publicly identified) would be willing to spend so much money on what literally cost a fraction of that so many years ago.

There have been numerous reprintings of the comic in question and you can probably go down to the store and pick up a reprint right at this very moment. It would have been infinitely more cheaper but I suppose it ties back into what I was writing about the proposed sale of Abbey Road Studios (which incidentally isn't going to happen). I suppose that some people have a desire to hold onto what can truly be called a piece of history. The way I look at it is that you can look at that piece of history with some degree of reverence but also curiousity. Look at it this way. We've all found a piece of change on the ground from time to time and many of us do take the trouble to pick it up. One thing that I often wonder when I see these pieces of change is what journey brought it to this point?

The older the coin the more my curiousity gets piqued. I once found a coin from the 1960's laying on the sidewalk. I'm sure it had been in circulation from that time and had probably changed as many hands as there are McDonalds in the world and yet it ended up with me at that point in time. Where would it have gone, who would have held it and how could it have affected someone's life? Perhaps this doesn't really have anything to do with the willingness to spend $1 million on a comic book but still, I feel that were it not for someone who wants to hold a piece of history from that time rather than a cheap copy, it's possible that pieces of this history would be lost. Certainly you can never compare a comic book to something like the Declaration of Independence yet I find both to be of importance in their own ways. No one can deny that comics have had impact on literature and art, I guess it's just some see it more clearly than others.

Is Iran Next?

2010-02-22T07:03:00.000-05:00

Back in 2002, President Bush referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" harkening back to the Axis Powers of World War II. This was meant to rally support behind the belief that these three nations were openly supporting terrorism and working tirelessly to construct weapons of mass destruction. At the time, North Korea was really the only nation that was at the forefront of nuclear weapons. We know this because President Kim Jong-Il blatantly flaunted this technology to anyone who was willing to listen. However, there was a great deal of evidence being shown at the time that Iraq, who had suspected ties (at the time) to the attacks of 9/11, was developing a nuclear weapons program in secret that was meant to strike the United States.

This reasoning was enough to take the country to war against Iraq which had not really shown any outward signs of aggression towards the United States at that time. Be that as it may, eight years later, the fact remains that nuclear weapons were not found in the country and neither were ties to the attacks of 9/11. Still, some satisfaction can be taken from the fact that an evil regime was put down and attempts at establishing a democracy in that nation are proceeding albeit with baby steps. But now with efforts being undertaken by the Obama administration to affect the withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq, there are complaints by many of his opponents that he is showing weakness or deferrence to the 'enemy' by not taking stronger stances against other Middle East hot spots, namely Iran.

Opposition leaders, like television talking-head Sarah Palin, seek to offer advice to Obama by stating that if he were to "declare war" on Iran then perhaps those who don't support him would see that he is actually tougher on perceived enemies than his opponents think. Now taking advice from someone of Sarah Palin's standing can be a hit or miss thing and I would leave it up to the Obama administration to decide whether it is a logical decision or not but I would simply ask where we in the United States would choose to draw the line. Eight years and counting in Iraq have stretched US military forces thin and now the fact that efforts in Afghanistan (which were wrongly allowed to languish in favor of more support to Iraq) are picking up in intensity.

That being the case then should we really be focusing on Iran as our next target? Ask the average person, Palin included, and I'm sure they'd be hard pressed to locate Iran on a map let alone name the President of Iran. And even if they can, what's the point in attacking them? Sure they have spoken out in protest of the United States but then again so have many nations. France often thumbs its nose at us here in the US and it's a known fact that American tourists can often be insulted over there but I don't see any calls to invade France. And what about North Korea? They have clearly stated to anyone who will listen that they have nuclear weapons and have a willingness to use them. Why then are we ignoring that region in favor of looking at a nation that is full of more bluster at this point.

If the arguement is that it would be a pre-emptive strike meant to prove to the other Middle East nations that the US won't stand for nuclear weapons among any of the Muslim nations of the region then okay, but if it is supposed to be against nuclear weapons in general then why not plan to invade any nation with such weapons? For decades the US stood toe-to-toe against the Russians during the Cold War. At that time there was an enemy that we knew had nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them and we had the world's support if we had gone to war. But we didn't. Why? Because it wasn't the right thing to do. Before suggesting a course of action that will stretch our military even thinner and would reduce our standing among the other nations of the world even more, I think our leaders need to step back and re-evaluate what exactly they stand for; what do we have to gain; but most especially, what would we stand to lose?

Preserving History

2010-02-18T07:21:00.000-05:00

I read in the news this morning that there is a movement afoot to try and save Abbey Road Studios in North London from being torn down and rebuilt as high-priced housing. Apparently when word went out that EMI, who owns the studio now, was looking to sell off the property since they couldn't really afford to keep it any longer, concerned fans and luminaries such as Sir Paul McCartney called on the National Trust of England to step in and declare the site to be culturally and historically significant thus helping to preserve and maintain the site. Now in case you are wondering why this site is so significant it's because it was the studio in which the Beatles recorded many of their best hits. That being said, many feel that it is necessary to save the site since it is a part of history.

Times have changed since the Beatles first started recording in the studios at Abbey Road. These days technology has improved to the point that with a minimum of effort, artists can set up a rudimentary studio within their own homes and start recording music that they can mix on a home computer. So then why preserve this studio that is obviously going to soon be outdone by products that could be purchased on Amazon? Well simply because of the significance of what took place there. Now not everyone appreciates the music of the Beatles and though I have been a fan for a number of years, my appreciation of their music was renewed over the last year with the release of all of their albums in higher quality sound (not to mention the Rock Band game that highlights lots of their music).

But so what? The music continues on now in our homes and on our computers, so then why preserve the site where the music was recorded? I suppose it comes from the more sentimental parts of our psychology. There is some part of us that will always continue to harbour a place in our hearts due to the significance of the events that took place there. I guess it's something like how people want to see historical sites like Constitution Hall in Philadelphia or the White House in DC. Doing so seems to bring us that much closer to being a part of history or at least seeing for ourselves what it must have been like to have been there when history was being made.

The decision to save Abbey Road is a good one I suppose. The Beatles are a significant part of music history and though they aren't the only ones in a veritable pantheon of artists and groups that have changed the way music has developed, they definitely rank among the more influential of them. The National Trust of England has already preserved the boyhood homes of both John Lennon and Paul McCartney which is a good thing. We can look to these sites and see that they aren't really all that much different than the average person but that that one spark of inspiration is all that it takes to change the face of music or the course of music history.

Back to Work After the Freeze

2010-02-17T07:06:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago in his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to put aside the partisanship that has more or less divided the government for nearly a decade and strive to work together for the good of the nation, not themselves. For me it was the first time that I can recall a President has openly acknowledged that there is partisan politicking going on and that it is disrupting the efforts (by both parties) to affect any change in the current state of the country. It's a shame that the statement seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

While driving to the office this morning, I heard a reporter on the radio remark that although the federal government was back to work (on time) for the first time in a long time (well... at least since the last two snowstorms hit the city) the reporter wondered whether it would have made any difference had the government remained open and Congress had remained in session I agree that most of what is shown on television with regard to Congressional snippets in the news, it is basically paring down what is said to soundbites but even those soundbites can be telling if it essentially amounts to the fact that liberal congressman X is upset that conservative congressman Y (or vice versa) didn't agree to back a particular bill and how it has managed to screw things up for the country.

That's great but then rather than launching into what eventually regresses into a "they said we said" type of discussion why don't they work to come to a solution? Has the political spectrum shifted so drastically that it is impossible for congressional leaders to work together or even come to a compromise? The middle ground seems to have evaporated over the years and it seems that most congressional leaders take the George W. Bush approach that you're either with us or you're against us. While that's great for showing your loyalty to your particular party, that doesn't do anything for Joe the Plumber or anyone else for that matter.

I don't blame Joe the Plumber for being upset and feeling used because that's exactly what was done to him. He was used as a political pawn in the last Presidential election and once it was done then he was forgotten just like all the talk that was given about working with the President (whoever it is) to come to a solution to return our country to a path of success. While the words are great to hear and probably do well as soundbites, I'd like to see Congress take a little more action. The economy didn't tank at the tail end of Bush's second term; it was on the decline well before then so to say that this is a new problems is a fallacy. Now over a year into a new administration, with efforts underway to stabilize and jumpstart the economy, do we really need to regress to the political name-calling and posturing that got us into this position in the first place?

Both sides need to compromise and both sides need to work together to find a solution. I certainly hope that while our congressional leaders sat at home during the recent snowstorms they paused to look outside at the workers digging out their driveways. I doubt that there was a single Congressional leader who actually took shovel to hand for anything other than a photo opportunity. I hope that they did look out there to see the people who do the hard work and who are really strapped by the current state of the nation and I hope it inspires them to take a fresh look at how they can improve the situation. We need more action and less talk. With the amount of hot air most of our Congressional leaders tend to put out, I'm surprised it snowed as much as it did in Washington.

Celebrate the Games, Not Just the Names

2010-02-16T06:56:00.000-05:00

I think it's safe to say that the Winter Olympics aren't generally being covered as well as the Summer Olympics from Beijing had been. There are many reasons for it I suppose. Perhaps since the United States isn't expected to dominate all of the sports or the fact that it has been a particularly harsh winter for most people so there's less enthusiasm for seeing more snow (even if it's on television) but still, I can't help but feel that these Olympians deserve just as much coverage and recognition. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like NBC and their affiliates are doing a heck of a lot to cover it properly.

One problem I've almost always had with the coverage of the Olympics is that there's generally more coverage of the big names (understandably) and very little of the lesser known sports or athelets competing in those particular sports. For example, while everyone was waiting with baited breath for Apolo Ohno's race last Friday (to see if he could tie Bonnie Blair's record 6 medals in an Olympic career) there was comparatively less coverage given to JR Celski who also had a good race that had him skate away with a bronze medal for the 1500-meter short track speedskating race. But why didn't we hear more about him before the fact? Why was he not shown until he won a medal? Is that the only benchmark to being famous?

I can't (and won't argue) with the notion that a medal-winning Olympian will always garner more attention than those who don't but the fact that an athlete is chosen to represent their country in a true test against the world's best is reason enough to cover them. Sure we'll see lots of coverage of Bode Miller (even though it took him until a night ago to win a medal) all over the coverage because he's a popular and talented skier but what about the others on his team. Maybe they didn't finish in the top ranks but at least they were there. That's more than can be said about the rest of us who would struggle to stand, let alone stumble down a hill at the speeds that they do.

And if there is to be coverage, it is for something that isn't as happy. Case in point is the coverage given to Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, 21, who died tragically on the luge course last week before the games even began. Suddenly there was tremendous focus on the Republic of Georgia and how dangerous the luge is and how much the young man wanted to compete in the games. Shortly after the tragedy, NBC couldn't show enough of the accident and the aftermath it seemed and I think until there was tremendous backlash against the fact that while warning viewers that the footage was graphic in nature (and it was) they continued to show it almost adnauseum.

I can't help but wonder if there would have been any coverage whatsoever of Kumaritashvili had he not died. I doubt it. I say that because most events rarely have coverage of anyone outside of the top favorites. Again, I can understand it but I don't agree with it. To me the games should celebrate the talent and skill from all over the world. People made fun of the Jamaican bobsled team that competed in Calgary so many years ago but it was not just a novelty, it was a true testament to the desire to be a part of the games. So what if they didn't win, they made it to the top to compete with the rest of the world, that itself is an achievement. So I think we should start celebrating the games for the way in which it helps bring the world together rather than just the famous names and faces who sell magazines and cereal boxes.

Lending a Hand

2010-02-09T06:13:00.003-05:00

Well the snow that had been predicted to arrive on Friday afternoon did come and it came in abundance. For about 24 hours the snow was falling and for a while it seemed like it wouldn't end. When it finally did, then the dig out began. But after the massive rush at the stores which had occurred on Thursday and Friday of last week I was a little doubtful that the spirit of assistance that usually comes out in such circumstances would appear or not. Now while I understand the panic that had some people worried that they would never see the sun again at the start of this storm, I was also surprised at how selfish some people seemed to become.

Seeing reports at stores and seeing how much food they had literally hoarded in anticipation of the storm left me to wonder what would happen if the worst did actually come to pass. I mean it's one thing to have milk and water enough to sustain you for a few days but some people appeared to be hoarding up in case they were stranded for a month. And again, if it was for a large family I could understand but when you're only talking about a couple in their own home then I wonder why they need 10 gallons of milk and five loaves of bread. It seemed that many were thinking of only themselves and not of any others at this time of potential crisis and that was sad to see.

But once the snow ended I saw that the spirit of helping isn't only limited to the Christmas season and is alive and well in many people and in many places. In digging my car out of the snow shell it was encased in I was happy to find my neighbors coming out to lend a hand. Together we not only dug out our own vehicles but those of our friends as well and within a short time we were able to get ourselves out on the road. Walking around the neighborhoods and such it was again heartening to see many people coming out to lend and hand to those who needed it and without expectation of reward. It was a sign that that spirit that comes out under difficult circumstances wasn't gone. Perhaps it had just been in hibernation.

I heard on the radio about how a group of seniors living in a seniors community in Virginia were stranded because a plow had not come through and no one could help them dig out so a group of police officers who were off duty got together and helped dig the seniors out. What is more amazing is that these officers drove from their homes in central Maryland to Northern Virginia to help them out after they heard the story on the news. And before you begin thinking that I should be doing rather than just saying about helping and taking help from others, I'm proud to say that I've helped my neighbors and complete strangers get out of sticky situations in the snow and ice and will continue to do so because when bad weather strikes, it's good to know that people are their for each other.

Snow is A-Comin'

2010-02-05T07:53:00.002-05:00

So for the last few days they have been predicting that a major snowstorm shall be hitting the Washington Metro area and that it could potentially rival the 20+ inches of snow that hit our area in December 2009. Though it's still early, the weathermen seem to be quite confident that we are going to be whalloped and in an effort to be prepared, news agencies and government spokesmen have been asking residents to get ready for what could potentially be a very bad storm. Now anyone who has read my site before knows that I am a bit wary of weathermen and it's not because they are wrong or right, but because they choose to speak with so much confidence in their predictions but then don't apologize when their predictions are way off.

I remember a few years ago when our area was under similar warnings. For a week we had been warned that a storm was tracking through our area and would dump two feet (or more) of snow before the storm ended. It seemed possible and so everyone took the necessary precautions. Unfortunately (for the weathermen and residents farther north... as in New Jersey) the snow tracked beyond our area and we didn't have anything than broken clouds and sun. One pleasant side effect was that at least the grocery stores were relatively empty for the next few weeks because people had loaded up in anticipation of that storm. Then a week or two later the ramp up for fear of another storm began again and once again people braced and as luck would have it, nothing happened. It was a good thing of course for us but rather than admitting that they didn't know what the storm would do they explained it away by stating that it was simply blown farther north by tradewinds or some other such technical jargon.

Now I'm not arguing that it's a good or bad thing that these predictions are so hit or miss; I'll be the first to admit that it's a difficult thing to predict storms of this sort but a side effect of this effort to get people aware and then have nothing happen is like the boy who cried wolf. After a while people tend to become very jaded and just assume that the next time a major storm is predicted it probably won't hit again. Sure that may happen for the majority of cases but there are often those that defy the outliers. In this case I'm assuming that we'll get some snow in a few hours and that it may be significant as they've predicted and then I wonder whether I've made enough preparations. I'm not one to go and hoard bags and bags of toilet paper or water and milk. We live in an urban society; even if the power goes out we aren't going to suddenly revert to the stone age where fire was an essential component to life.

Sure there can be inconveniences but there's something called 'roughing it' which can make for a good experience. So for a few days you may not have access to the internet or to television. What difference does it make? As long as you can get to food and water you should be fine. I mean after all, no matter how bad things get, it' isn't like it's completely impossible to get the necessities a little farther away from where you live and work. All week people in the office have been speaking with baited breath waiting for Friday to see if the snow will actually arrive. the last few times they have predicted dustings we've ended up with more; perhaps that could be the case this time as well. Time will tell.

Pandering to the Masses

2010-02-03T06:54:00.000-05:00

Oscar nominations were announced yesterday morning and there were quite a few expected nominations and a few surprises for first time nominees as well. This year marks the first time that ten films will be nominated for Best Picture and while I understand a part of the logic behind it, I still don't get why it's being done. Be that as it may, I'm curious to see whether or not it really will make any difference to the number of people watching the Oscars in the first place. It may show as such simply because a little movie by the name of "Avatar" is in the running for Best Picture (among many other nominations) but I'm curious that in the years to come whether doubling the number of Best Picture nominees will really make the show better or worse.

The original idea behind the decision was due to the fact that a few years ago there were movies being nominated that no one had really seen (until after the Oscars) and so people were tuning out simply because they didn't care who won. There were discussions held as late as last year over whether it made sense to include a film like what a travesty it was that a film like "The Dark Knight" (which was both a critical and box-office hit) was not even nominated for Best Picture. Many felt that had it been nominated, many more people would have tuned in to watch. Critics argued that the inclusion of films that were not only critical successes but also box-office successes would lead to greater viewership. And while I understand that (to some extent) I feel it does nothing but prolong the ceremony and truly make the competition an exercise in subjectivity.

There is no doubting that films like "The Dark Knight" have mass appeal just as a film like "Avatar" has mass appeal as well. But in looking at the story of "Avatar" I'm not wholly convinced that it is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Certainly it has altered the way in which we all see movies (literally) but I don't think it did anything different in terms of the story. It was territory that had been explored in some way before so then was it truly worthier than some other films that could have been on the ballot? Don't get me wrong; "Avatar" is a great film and I think it has a decent story to tell, I wonder whether it would win for that fact or because it was a box-office smash.

Speaking for myself, I have seen only four of the ten nominated Best Picture films for this year's ceremony and while I know I may be in the minority, I have a feeling that the movie that ultimately wins the prize still won't have been one of the ones I saw. So then my question is that if the hope for having this expanded field of nominees was meant to garner interest in watching the awards show then it may work but I thought that the purpose was also to raise awareness of the films that have been ranked as a top film among so many others. I don't know if it will continue to accomplish that goal or not. Of course I'll still watch and I'll still be curious to see the films that are nominated (and that ultimately win) but it just seems like this decision to expand the field is being driven more by corporate thinking heads that want to be able to get larger viewership numbers so that they can make ad time that much more expensive for companies.

Bumps in the Road Back to the Moon

2010-02-02T07:05:00.000-05:00

With announcement by the Obama administration that Federal spending (save for security-related expenditures) would be frozen came confirmation that what many ardent supporters of the space program had long feared and that was that the plans to return to the moon by 2020 would be cancelled. Now most people that know me know that I'm a big supporter of the space program. I think the continued exploration of space and the worlds beyond our own are important in understanding more about the universe and in some small way, about ourselves as well. Returning to the moon was to be the first step in our nation's eventual goal of landing on Mars and beginning a colony there. Since 1972, there hasn't been a single manned exploration of our planet's nearest neighbor let alone to planets farther out and over time, interest has waxed and waned almost like the phases of the moon (pun intended).

Now as an economist I do understand the rationale behind the decision to freeze the budgets of numerous agencies. Given that many private companies are being forced to rollback the amount of work they are doing or are curbing costs for the near term should logically also take place in the government as well. Maybe not everyone agrees with that but that's what I feel is leading by example. But one of the unintended casualties that I have mixed feelings about is the space program and the ulitmate consequence that the budget freeze/cuts means to the planned Constellation program intended to return US astronauts to the moon. Now some have made the argument that returning to the moon will have little value to those of us on Earth since there is no real immediate benefit to doing so. Don't believe me? What if scientists proved that there were oil deposits all over the entire moon; how fast do you think we'd be returning there?

In this case that's probably a case of wishful thinking (especially for those of us who want to see us return to space exploration) but I think one of side consequences of the decision to reduce NASA (and hence the government's) direct participation in the space program is to help private industry companies get in on the race back into space and hopefully turn out technology at a much faster clip. Already we have seen evidence of how quickly private industry can move when it has a good motivator. The Ansari Space-X price from a few years ago which helped pave the way for Scaled Composites to develop and fly their SpaceShip One and SpaceShip Two spacecraft was driven to success in the hope of not only winning the prize but in proving private companies could do just as much as government agencies like NASA but for far less.

Already industrialist have started developement on spacecraft that will carry passengers into the outer reaches of the atmosphere for short duration space voyages. I don't think it will be long before it's popularized. Think back to when LCD and plasma TV's first came out. When they were first released the cost was prohibitively expensive. Now it's more affordable than ever to get a decent HDTV. Similarly I think after a few years, seats on flights to the outer atmosphere will become vastly encheapened and we'll see it becoming more mainstream. Perhaps it will take longer than if it were on a larger or grander scale (like with NASA backing) but it doesnt' mean it can't happen.

When the Wright Brothers first flew they didn't do it through government funding; they did it on their own dime and then innovators followed their example to help expand the aviation industry in our country and around the world. I think a similar sort of genesis could occur this time around if the industry remembers two things. They should definitely keep the consumer in mind since the consumer is who will help spur any industry. If flights around the world at the edge of space are made affordable, people will come. The other is that jobs in this industry should be kept here as far as budgets allow. Sure it's cheaper to outsource work but then we're sending the brain trust, the people who were instrumental in landing man on the moon in 1969 (over 40 years ago!), to other countries. That would be worse than the financial recession we're already going through.

Weighing In on Employee Discounts at Whole Foods

2010-01-29T07:31:00.002-05:00

Most every retail store I have heard of usually offers up discounts to its employees. Sure there are differences in how much of a discount one can earn depending on their years in service or the type of position they have; but Whole Foods, the popular supermarket, has come under a bit of fire for the way they implement their employee discounts. It was recently brought to light (by protests and lawsuits) that the company's policy to adjust employee discounts based on an employee's weight was a form of discrimination and has led to some discussion on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that the management at Whole Foods has done.

These days there is a lot more focus on the fact that obesity is on the rise and good eating habits are on the decline. Despite the fact that there is more awareness of the need to be healthy, there hasn't been a great deal of success in curbing the bad habits of some. So now here comes Whole Foods, a supermarket that prides itself on quality food and organic products which are supposed to be healthier for us. That being said it isn't surprising that their prices are higher than the average grocery store. For an employee it would be incentive to shop at the store if you're getting a discount on their prices but to base it on your general health level (i.e. weight) is a bit much for some people.

Now I haven't always been of a relatively healthy weight. I was much heavier for a number of years before I finally managed to work off a lot of the poundage, still, it's hard enough trying to maintain a healthy weight in the face of so much temptation. Perhaps the discount is meant to motivate people who might be on the heavier side feel motivated to lose more weight and get healthy if it means getting a bigger discount on their grocery bill. It's a good theory but I don't know if it will have the effect that Whole Foods manangement expects. Weight issues are a touchy subject for a lot of people and I know that some will retort by stating that their weight is a result of glandular problems or because they are predisposed to having a heavier body type which is fine, but then again that can't be the case for everyone who is of a unhealthy weight type.

As much as it may be a painful or hurtful discussion point for some people, there sometimes needs to be a tangible benefit to attaining a goal (in this case weight loss) and reaping the benefits. I agree that there must be some resentment over this policy at Whole Foods but if the managers figure that the employee, overweight or not, is working there then they are already halfway to getting into a healthier lifestyle when you figure that an employee would want to use their discount to purchase groceries which are a necessity rather than a luxury. So then why not add an extra carrot in front of the employees if it's going to motivate them to lose weight and get in shape?

What's in a Game?

2010-01-26T07:09:00.000-05:00

Kevin T. Singer is currently serving a life sentence for first-degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin's Waupun prison. The crime that Singer committed was that he intentionally bludgeoned his sister's boyfriend to death with a sledgehammer. Found guilty in 2002, he's been serving his term out in relative peace. Recently however, one of his favorite pastimes was denied to him due to a court ruling that the pastime he was pursuing "promotes fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling." Now on the surface this seems like a potential description of some aspects of NFL football but the prison officials and courts were actually referring to the fantasy role playing game, Dungeons and Dragons.

Long a cult favorite among role playing game enthusiasts, Dungeons and Dragons (or D&D) is a 'game' in which players have characters whom they control and who have powers that often delve into fantasy. The purpose of the game is to create adventures in which the characters participate. Unlike traditional boardgames, depending on the rules a particular group is following, a narrator will describe the game to the players and the players will accordingly control their players through a roll of the dice. Games of this type can become more and more complex depending upon the experience of the players or how much time the players have to work out this particular 'fantasy'. Generally populated with characters elves and orcs and the like D&D has been a cult favorite of players for many years and in fact, Singer stated that he had been playing the game since he was a child (he is now 33).

Now the arguement that was given by the Prison and the courts was that games of this sort could promote gang-mentality among prisoners and was conducive to violence among inmates. This conclusion was reached when an anonymous note was given to prison officials expressing concern at the fact that Singer and three other inmates were forming a 'gang' focused on playing the game. The law cracked down and within a short time, all material which Singer had related to the games (including books, magazines and a 96-page manuscript he had written in almost a story-like format) were confiscated. Now while I agree that within the letter of the law the prison and courts acted properly, I think it's a bit much to crack down on a fantasy game where prisoners are limited to using their imagination (more or less) than anything else.

I mean from what I know, I don't think prisons currently ban playing basketball or football, they certainly allow card games and other recreational activities so then why simply crack down on D&D. Perhaps it's the nerdy part of me coming to the forefront but if it's okay for prisoners to play football (which is also a competitive sport that could be considered 'gang'-forming) then why not ban it? Is the arguement in that case that football doesn't promote 'escapist' tendencies? Perhaps it is a very naive thought but my understanding is that no one actually wants to be in prison; so doesn't it make sense that regardless of whether they are playing checkers or D&D that every single prisoner would be harboring escapist tendencies?

At present, appeals courts have denied Singer's charges that his first amendment rights are being stifled. The courts also argue that it's within a prison's rights to deny prisoners their right to certain forms of entertainment since prison is supposed to be a form of punishment and not a form of recreation. If that's the case then perhaps it makes a little bit of sense but given the rationale of wanting prevent gang mentality or to curb escapist tendencies makes me feel like they are reaching for straws in making their decision.

The Oddity That is Human Nature

2010-01-25T07:48:00.002-05:00

By now, people the world over have heard and are aware of the devastating earthquake that leveled the island nation of Haiti a few weeks ago. In that time the world has responded with tremendous kindness by dispatching rescue teams, collecting donations, and doing anything and everything that they can to try and improve the situation in the already impoverished nation. It seems that people everywhere are reaching out to help Haiti in whatever way they can. But what this episode has also highlighted are some of the lighter and darker aspects of human nature.

Take for example the incident that was covered by CNN on Friday of last week. A reporter and his cameraman were filming what they believed to be the arrest of three men in Port-Au-Prince who were accused of looting when several shots rang out. When the reporter and crew looked back to the scene again and were shocked to see three men laying on the ground. Upon investigating they were shocked to see that the three men had been wounded (one fatally) for doing nothing more than taking a bag of rice that had fallen from the back of a truck. One of the wounded men stated that the truck driver had given the rice bag to the men while another stated that the rice had simply fallen into the street but regardless of the reason why, what is most disquieting is the fact that the police officer involved felt that such a level of violence was necessary to maintain the peace and to prevent looting.

It's sad to see that while on the one hand there is a desire to maintain peace and order amid the chaos of the aftermath, it's not worth it if it is going to result in violence on the part of authorities. Not having been to Haiti or (fortunately) having never experienced such a disaster it is hard to say what anyone's reaction would be but I'm sure we could see similar things happen virtually anywhere in the world. It's easy for us to sit thousands of miles away and speak out against the violence and the seemingly random acts of violence in and around Port-Au-Prince but we can never know what it's like unless we go there. I'm not trying to justify the acts of the police officer (whose commisioner arrived on the scene shortly thereafter to condemn the attack) but one can see how different reactions are based on where we are in relation to the disaster.

We all feel the need to help in some way when we see suffering somplace. It's hard to imagine people not being affected in some way by seeing footage of starving families and injured people staring at the remains of their homes. We see these images and we see them as an impartial observer. Seeing it on television takes it out of that sense of reality for me in some ways. But in seeing the results of this recent shooting in Haiti, that reality did sink in and I began to wonder why the reporter didn't act to do anything. Seeing injured people on the ground, rather than zooming in to film the individual, put the camera down and render assistance. It's clear that it wasn't a serious threat so why not help? Why do their only duty and report the news? People should want to do something.

In Hollywood there was certainly an outpouring of support when George Clooney managed to gather a veritable plethora of entertainment talent to gather funds to aid in Haiti's resurgence. But for every group attempting to do good you also see people who are trying to justify why we shouldn't do anything or to look at our nation's actions with cynicism. People like Rush Limbaugh were particularly vocal in telling the nation that no more aid should be sent to Haiti since we already did so much for the nation. Ministers from France come out and start claiming that the US isn't helping so much as coming in to occupy the country. Is that what these people really think? Is that what they really feel? Are they of the opinion that the work our military and aid organizations are doing over there is for political reasons?

To be honest, what political leverage is there to be gained by aiding Haiti? Is Haiti an important nation on the UN Security Council? Does it have a vast army that could certainly help us in our efforts in the Middle East and Asia? Does it have vast oil reserves that could help us drive down energy costs? It has none of these things so then why bother helping? Because it is the right thing to do. Certainly one could argue that one political reason for helping Haiti is to improve the standing of the country after years of discontent following the invasion of Iraq but by the same token, what was President Bush's motivation for helping Indonesia after their devastating tsunami a few years ago? Nothing more than doing the right thing. Let's end the cynicism and do the right thing. It's what I have always felt made our nation great.

Reaching an Obvious Conclusion

2010-01-20T08:38:00.004-05:00

There are times when I'm driving into work where I'll be listening to the news and I'll wonder why research on certain subjects was even done. I mean it's one thing if scientists are conducting a study because they want to discover something new but it's something else completely when you hear conclusions to research that should have been blatantly obvious but I suppose maybe it isn't. I suppose it's just a means of raising awareness and making the obvious even more so, so that people will take positive action. The latest study that I heard about reached the conclusion that kids are texting and playing games on cell phones even more than actually talking on them. But what this means is that there have been increases in the number of "distracted activity" incidents.

For example, the story on the radio interviewed a young girl who had been hit by a car (at low speed apparently) when the girl walked into the street while typing a text to her BFF (best friend forever). Now I don't have a scientific degree nor do I have a PhD in behavioral science but even I could have told you that people will start suffering injuries the more they begin to text or do other activities which keep them from looking up at where they're going. I mean did it really take a scientific study to tell us that driving and texting at the same time (and now walking and texting) would lead to increasing numbers of accidents and incidents?

But now parents have something else to worry and complain about when it comes to cell phones. Not only are they making it dangerous for younger users to drive and walk but it's having other effects as well, and none of them are good. Recent studies over the past few years have found that the number of nearsighted people has been on the rise. Since the 1970's the number of people reporting being nearsighted has gone up by nearly 66%. The reason being there are many more activities in which we are required to focus on a small screen. When I was growing up the doctors believed it was due to the fact that I'm such a voracious reader but now doctors feel it may make some contribution but not much. I couldn't help but chuckle when they brushed off reading as being the reason and pointed to small screens.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. If we're texting so much more it means we're staring at the small screen of a cell phone. We're focusing our eyes on a smaller space and if you're doing it while moving, your eyes have to concentrate more so that they can maintain that focus. Just the way many people get headaches reading in moving cars, similar things happen when using cell phones. But what about those who are too young to use or have a cell phone? Well who says that iPods or Game Boy screens are any better. Concentrating on a small area can lead to the same type of result. Not to mention the little TVs that so many parents have in their cars now to distract their kids for the ten minute drive to the dry cleaner. Is it really necessary to do all that?

And then parents get confused when doctors report that their kids have attention disorders. Is it any wonder when we have so many forms of stimulus and so little time to take advantage of it all? I'd like to hear about researchers looking into ways to prevent some of these problems and again by not stating the obvious. By explaining that people who don't text while walking or who don't spend more than half an hour staring at their Game Boy screens won't develop eye problems. That much I could figure out on my own even with my limited scientific knowledge.

Bigger and Better Things

2010-01-19T08:12:00.003-05:00

I was watching the NFL Playoffs this weekend and though the Redskins were nowhere in sight (although they were shown in various teams 'highlights' reels for allowing touchdowns or missing tackles) I was happy to see that the Cowboys didn't fare much better. After trouncing the Eagles not once but twice to make it to the playoffs, the Cowboys were the last hope for the NFC East division but alas it came to no avail. Shortly after the game, speculation began as to whether Dallas coach Wade Phillips would be let go from his post. After all, after numerous trips to the playoffs, the Cowboys had yet to advance beyond and return to their Super Bowl-winning ways of the 1990's. However, owner Jerry Jones knew that he had a good coach and a good team that needs a bit of tweaking (and a bit of better luck) but that the parts of the puzzle were all there. They just had to come together.

And when I heard that Phillips was signed on to continue coaching, I knew that he would do an even better job because his bosses (despite his loss) saw the value in keeping him. So it was nice to hear a similar story with San Diego Chargers coach Norv Turner. After losing a fairly close game to the New York Jets, there was a great deal of speculation that Turner would not be signed on to an extended contract (therefore making next year his final year and one in which he could be considered a 'lame duck'). But this morning I was surprised to find that Turner had been signed to a three-year extension on his contract and that he would retain his spot with the Chargers. Remembering him from his time in Washington, I couldn't help but feel just a bit happy for him.

After the way in which Turner was unceremoniously removed from his post with the 'Skins it was heartening to see that not all teams treat their coaches that way. Sure one can argue that Turner is doing far better in San Diego than he ever did in Washington or Oakland but the fact remains that he has been consistent. Most seasons have seen the Chargers get off to a slow start before launching into a winning streak that has seen them win their division the last three years. Now for some that isn't enough. To make the playoffs consistently isn't a good enough result, the fans in San Diego want to see their team finally return to the Super Bowl. I can understand that. I mean the Redskins (and their fans) have been seeking to see the team to return to the Super Bowl for decades now. Hell; I'd be happy to see the team even make it to the playoffs more than once every four years. I know beggars can't be choosers but we've been begging for so long here in Washington that we have the right to be choosy.

But one fact that I can't let go of is the fact that at one point, Norv Turner was considered to have bad mojo that would mean any team he worked with would fail. But one thing which I think was holding him back was the fact that he didn't get the team he needed. Looking back at who he had and how much say he had here in Washington leads me to conclude that it isn't so much the players or coaches that are the problem but the way in which the system has worked (or failed to work) for so long. I can rattle off names of players and coaches who left Washington and went on to have very good careers elsewhere where the owners weren't as controlling as Snyder in Washington. So many quarterbacks who were considered mediocre went on to play for teams where they had the receivers they so desperately needed. Same for running backs and the offensive line they required.

They are all parts of the puzzle which has so far eluded the Redskins. I have hope now that Shanahan is here that things will improve given the changes in the way in which the Skins foresee Shanahan choosing players and making roster decisions. I'd like to see Shanahan succeed, not because I think it's high time that the Redskins do go to the playoffs (and beyond) and not because I think Shanahan is a good coach, but because I'm tired of seeing players and personnel flounder in DC only to other teams and live up to their potential. Patience is something that the fans in Washington have shown a lot of but it's time that they finally get a chance to show their patience was warranted.

A Sign of Things to Come?

2010-01-18T07:25:00.002-05:00

I remember 12 years ago when James Cameron took to the stage at the Golden Globes numerous times when his film, "Titanic" raked in the awards in what is generally considered a precursor to the outcome at the Oscars (to be held in March I believe). At that time "Titanic" managed to beat out other films that many considered to be superior films in terms of acting and story ("Good Will Hunting" among them... the film that made Matt Damon more or less a household name). Many people felt that "Titanic" was simply riding the wave of public popularity and that it didn't truly deserve the awards that it had won. Now over a decade later, James Cameron's film "Avatar" appears to be on the verge or repeating that feat.

After taking home the Golden Globe for Best Director and Best Picture last evening, there is a strong chance that Cameron and the film will earn nominations in the same categories come Oscar time. Not only that but I'm quite certain that it will earn many nominations in technical categories along with some of the more traditional ones including music, sound, set design and editing. Whether "Avatar" deserves the awards or not is something the voters will determine but one thing remains certain, that Cameron has once again managed to change the way we look at films and how films will be made into the future.

While Martin Scorcese was honored for the work that he has done over the past decades not only in terms of filmmaking but preservation as well, I couldn't help but wonder if Cameron would share in these accolades years hence. While his movies have never been high people's lists as having acting tour de force performances, there have been the occasional portrayals that have earned praise (Sigourney Weaver for "Aliens" in 1986 for one). But when I think of Cameron's lasting legacy I can't help but think of the technical achievements that he helped usher in that have changed movies. Much the way in which George Lucas helped revolutionize special effects in 1977 in "Star Wars", I think Cameron has similarly pushed the envelope in terms of technical superiority and that has made tremendous difference in how movies are seen.

Anyone who has seen "Avatar" in 3D will tell you that more than anything, the experience helped bring the story to life in a way that it had never been done before. Gone were the old tricks of 3D where something came flying at the camera so that the audience would be reminded, "Hey, we're watching a 3D movie" but rather the effects were kept subtle so that the focus did not go away from the characters and story. Just as "Titanic" literally sunk us (excuse the pun) into the world of the doomed ocean liner, "Avatar" takes us to the future and brings it right before our eyes (again... excuse the pun). And to me that's what makes Cameron's contributions so significant and worthy of the honors he's earned thus far.

When he began using special effects in his films such as "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" people stopped and took notice. With "Titanic" again the special effects were in the background and helped to convey the story, not be the story. Similarly in "Avatar" the effects and 3D visuals help carry the story, not detract from it. Perhaps it is a sign of how movies will be in the coming years. And why not? Think of the last time you've seen a movie where visual effects weren't incorporated in some shape or form. So then perhaps the detractors to Cameron's awards should remember that these awards not only honor the movie but also in the way they push the entire art. There may be other movies out there that deserve more praise than "Avatar" but "Avatar" has certainly changed the way in which we see movies.

Mysterious Ways... Of Thinking

2010-01-15T07:49:00.004-05:00

While most of the world is looking to provide aid to the island of Haiti after a powerful earthquake struck earlier in the week, some are already looking for answers as to why this tragic event had to occur. Many point to the fact that scientists had predicted that an earthquake of magnitude up to 7.2 on the Richter scale could strike the island at any times. Within a few years of that prediction it's sad to say that it came true. That's one explanation for why things happened that way on the tiny island nation but others have a 'different' view of things. Televangelist Pat Robertson appeared on television shortly after the rescue efforts in Haiti began and told his viewers that this tragedy was a result of Haitians having made a 'pact with the devil' during their rebellion against the French in the 18th Century.

Now I believe the expression that "God works in mysterious ways" but do religious leaders like Robertson truly believe that it's God's will to have such devastation visited upon the people of Haiti? Roberston's claim is based on reports from around 1791 in which Haitians declared that they swore allegiance to the devil if he promised them victory over the French colonists. Robertson backs his claim by pointing out that ever since then, the Dominican Republic (which is also shares the island) has been spared the problems that Haiti seems to have had since its becoming an independent nation. But regardless, isn't it a bit cheap to 'hit' a country when it's down? To put it in perspective, what would the reaction of our nation have been if North Korea declared that the attacks were divine retribution on our nation for not following the will of God.

Folks like Robertson and Rush Limbaugh who quickly called upon their fans to refrain from sending donations to help Haiti seem to view things far differently for their own reasons. It's a sad thing to see. It makes me proud when I see rescue workers from not only our country but others as well, rushing to lend assistance in a time of need. After the tsunami in Indonesia several years ago and now in Haiti, it cannot be denied that the US responds quickly and wholeheartedly. To me that's a sign of positiveness that should be fostered rather than viewing it as something that is based on political agenda or ideology. Limbaugh proclaimed that the US had already provided ample assistance to Haiti in the past and there was no need to provide more. Hopefully for Limbaugh then the doctor's at his hospital won't take the same view when he goes there the next time he has chest pains.

Now anyone who speaks out again Robertson or seeks to censure him is likely to also face criticism from some Christian groups who feel that their religion has been marginalized in this era of political correctness. Perhaps that's true to an extent. If we look at how commercialized some (originally) religious holidays have become it's no surprise that they feel that way. However, I think what raises people's ires is not the fact that it's a Christian speaking but the condescending way in which they will often talk about other religions. Recently when Britt Hume made a statement to the effect that Tiger Woods should consider turning from Buddhism to Christianity due to the fact that Christianity allows for forgiveness while Buddhism doesn't led many to raise a stink.

Perhaps there is salvation for Tiger Woods or the people of Haiti by turning to God and believing that He is on their side and is the answer to salvation. But then I would ask these same advocates to consider that German soldiers during World War I and World War II had "Gott mit uns" (or "God is with us") stamped on their belt buckles. I don't believe this was based on false faith or pacts with the Devil or any other explination. If that was the case and it was based on a true religious belief then how does that explain or justify the Holocaust? How does it explain that they lost the war? If God was with them then who was with the Allies? Did they not also have faith in God to see them through to victory? God works in mysterious ways and possibly even more mysterious than most religious leaders could ever understand. But I don't think God, no matter how vengeful He may be, would advocate 'kicking' a country when it's down.

On a Level Playing Field?

2010-01-14T07:08:00.001-05:00

This past Monday, Mark McGwire, the baseball player who captured the world's attention when he broke the record for number of home runs hit in a single year back in 1998, admitted that during that time he had taken steroids. In the wake of investigations into whether baseball players were using performance enhancing drugs or not, McGwire had raised suspicion among many given the fact that he wanted immunity in exchange for his testimony. Why would that be the case unless there was some reason for him to have fear. The truth came out on Monday when McGwire admitted to sports reporter Bob Costas about his past usage. McGwire's teary admission looked genuine and heartfelt though many of those that didn't have as much public adulation during their admission to using drugs (Jose Canseco) didn't have much to say in support of him and I can understand that.

Now I'm no big fan of baseball but I know enough about the game to know that its certainly a different game than when I was a kid and used to watch a bit more due to my friends in elementary school. As with most sports these days, performance is what determines how much a player is going to get paid and unless you are a big name star, there isn't much hope for raking in the big bucks. I mean for every Michael Jordan in basketball, there are at least twenty other players who aren't really known and will likely never be anything more (in the public's eye) than a name on a roster. For a team like the Redskins, this was the year where many of these players had a chance to shine and prove that you don't have to be a big name to impact the future of the team. But not every player (regardless of the sport) may get the opportunity to do that. So then it comes down to how well you perform when it really matters.

McGwire came to fame in 1998 when his home run record began creeping up close to Roger Maris's 1961 record of 61 home runs in a season. Now even then people argued that when Maris beat Babe Ruth's record in 1961, he played in more total games than Ruth and similarly McGwire also had more games in which to play in order to get home runs so again the question arose whether or not the record was actually shattered or not. At that time of course there was no mention of doping or steroids as no one really spoke out about it. It's understandable; why ask about something when you don't think there's anything to ask about. But it leads me to a question about how we choose to look at performance of players.

People make the arguement that McGwire's record making season was assisted by the addtion of more games than what Ruth originally played and so people felt it unfair that a record which had stood for many years would be broken again by someone who had an advantage of a longer season. McGwire, broke this record playing in the 145th game (Ruth played 154 the year he set the record) of his season and so the arguement was put to rest. But when Barry Bonds broke the record three years later and subsequent investigations revealed that he used steroids as well, suddenly the debate of 'playing on a level field' came up again. Many were of the opinion that Bonds had an unfair advantage in that he used drugs to help his performance whereas previous record holders (presumably this only now includes Babe Ruth and Roger Maris given McGwire's admission) played of their volition.

Now some might say that regardless of what drugs a player may or may not have used, the fact remains that the player still managed to perform at a level high enough to set a record in the first place. I mean I can see that arguement making a little sense. After all, if I shoot myself full of steroids I may become a muscle bound behemoth but that doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly start playing at the level like McGwire, Bonds or Canseco. Skill is still involved and that's what should be remembered, even if as the public more or less damns these figures for their transgressions.

Most of us are raised to believe that cheating isn't right and that it's the wrong thing to do to attempt to guarentee victory. Now while I feel that McGwire finally admitting to using steroids was the right thing to do (though it's too little too late) I think it's not fair to count his accolades unless and until the true spread of steroid usage within Major League Baseball is revealed. I mean if there was debate over the comparison of McGwire to Maris or Ruth being fair based on the number of games they played then why not over whether they used drugs or not. To me it would be unfair if one player used them and the other one didn't (as could be the case with McGwire vs. Sammy Sosa); so then why don't the majority of the players just come out and admit that they use steroids. And those that don't? Well they should start shouldn't they? I mean if we want the playing field to be level, and if the majority of players are using them anyways, then why not make it easy for everyone?

A New Soapbox for Fox

2010-01-13T06:32:00.000-05:00

I can't say that I'm very surprised by the announcement earlier in the week that former Governor and former Vice-Presidential Running Mate and original Rogue, Sarah Palin, had signed a deal to become a commentator on Fox News. I'm just surprised that it took this long for her to land the gig. In all honesty, I'm surprised this deal didn't get inked in the days following her resignation from the post of Governor of Alaska. I assumed that as soon as she was free from the mundane duties of running the state in charge of watching Russia and waving when Putin flies overhead, Palin would have been signed to be a commentator so that she could continue to spread her message and world view. It took a few months and even required the publication of her book (aptly titled "Going Rogue") but it seems that Palin will finally be back on television to report her views on the news rather than making it.

Now news reporting isn't something new for Palin as she was a broadcaster in Alaska before she turned her attention to politics. I have no doubt that Palin will deliver the news off of the teleprompter with as much vim and vigour as she ever showed on the campaign trail leading up to the last Presidential elections. After leaving that profession for the political arena however things were a little different. I won't say that I fully believe all the stories coming out about Palin and her trials and tribulations during her campaign with McCain but who knows, behind every story there must be some small grain of truth. But be that as it may, I think Palin made it clear that she was bothered by the fact that the media... make that the elite media (who is everyone except Fox) asked her "gotcha" questions that were meant to make her look dumb. Nevermind that she couldn't answer questions on the fly. As her interview on Fox News with Shawn Hannity showed, she could still answer questions with poise when they were posed to her in a very nice manner.

But since the end of the campaign and her defeat, Palin has attempted to maintain a public persona. She continues to visit cities around the nation in support of her book sales and signings. When asked by the media (elite or otherwise) about her opinion on this, that and the other thing, Palin always has some answer up her sleeve with a wink and a "you betcha" for good measure. Perhaps I'm being just a bit condescending (just a bit) but I really don't see what qualifies Palin to be a commentator other than the fact that she is sure to draw in an audience who will just be gaga over the fact that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will be the conservative television equivalents of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

For Palin the move appears to make the best sense. Why wait to make news or be deemed newsworthy. As a commentator there will be plenty of opportunity for her to be asked for her opinion on what is happening in the world. Like it or not she is going to become an even more prominent fixture on television and for better or for worse, people are going to fall for the facade that will undoubtedly be put up. I'm sure the folks at Fox, who have a soft corner for Palin and her views (despite their half-hearted attempts to say otherwise) polish up the rough edges in order to paint a picture of a woman who is well-versed in the happenings of the world and is ready to take on the challenge of being President. Frankly I shudder to think about what that could potentially mean for our country.

Now of course this means that if Palin does want to run for President in 2012 then she'll need to resign from this position prior to starting her run. According to the rules as I understand them, a Presidential candidate can't have free access to television (or be paid to be on television) unless all candidates have equal access to such facilities. Still, in the meantime she'll get her stories out there and will attempt to spread her message to rally the sympathetic and supportive masses to her cause. Two years is a long time for someone to prepare for an election and that's what I believe she's doing. What she'll have a harder time convincing people (especially those who will be on the fence) is what she's done to actually take action. I'm not talking about being Governor (which is a job she would have left nearly four years earlier by the time of the next election) but in general. Being a commentator on television will likely mean less time in Alaska and more time with the rest of the Beltway Bandits or the 'Fat Cats of Washington'. Hmmm... seems like her polish is already starting to show signs of tarnish already.

No Pants? No Panic

2010-01-12T06:19:00.001-05:00

I was reading the news this morning when I heard that this past Sunday was officially the unofficial day for No Pants Subway Rides. The concept (started by a group called Improv Everywhere whose charter is to "scenes of chaos and joy in public places.") is for participants to assemble at Subway stations or on trains and then calmly and quietly strip down to their undies an then act as if nothing unusual is going on. What started out as an event staged by seven people in one city (I believe it was New York) has become a phenomenon that has spread to many other cities around the world. Now what I find highly ironic is that while there were reports of people reacting with a bit of surprise at the actions of some of the folks who suddenly began stripping, there was no other negative reaction to the incidents.

I began to think about that. Here we are nearly three weeks after an incident on an airliner where a passenger was attempting to blow up a plane on Christmas Day by smuggling explosives in his underwear. When vigilant passengers realized what was going on, the would-be terrorist was set upon and his attempted attack was thwarted. That was simply the case of one man attempting a dasterdly deed but what about if dozens of people had attempted to do the same thing? Now I'm not saying that something meant to be a humorous and unexpected incident is a bad thing but you have to wonder why there weren't reports of people removing their pants being tackled and injured either by Police or other passengers? Perhaps I wouldn't have been the one to do the actual tackling on either the airline or on the subway (I have never been in that situation so I can't really say) but I wonder what made this situation anymore 'normal' than the other.

I mean think about it; sure in one case (the actual terrorist) was caught because his pants started flaming when he tried to detonate the explosive in his briefs but who's to say that up until that point no one was reacting simply because they thought it was another one of these types of incidents where rather than "No Pants Subway" it was "No Pants Airlines". Thankfully the terrorist attempt was thwarted before an actual explosion occurred but do you see what I'm trying to get at? Here we have a whole bunch of people taking their pants off for no other reason than to take part in a worldwide prank but what are the consequences? I'm not one of those who thinks that these people should be arrested or that there needs to be laws against removing your pants in public. I just think a little common sense should be exercised. Why potentially cause a panic if there's no reason to do so.

And while we're on the topic of panic, I have yet to read about people complaining that there was anything indecent or wrong in people participating in this 'event'. I am even more surprised given the current uproar over passengers being screened at airports using the full-body x-ray scanners. People are contending that they will inadvertently reveal more than the public needs to see even for the sake of security. If that's the case then what about people who are willingly stripping off some of their clothes in public? What about their decency or privacy? I suppose one could argue that people who took part in "No Pants" events are actually helping security rather than hindering it. After all, if you're only wearing your undies I suppose you can't really carry a weapon. Then again....

It's All About How You Think

2010-01-08T06:14:00.001-05:00

James Cameron may not rank among the greatest directors for many critics but there is no doubt that his impact on motion pictures has certainly paved the way for many of the current trends in Hollywood. When he made "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" he pushed the envelope in terms of computer graphics and special effects which led to so many of today's special effects driven blockbusters. With "Titanic" he proved that big budget spectacles were still popular if done right and with a gross revenue intake that shot the film into being one of the most successful of all time it's no wonder that many people had high expectations for his next full-length feature and it would be amiss to say that he didn't deliver when it came to "Avatar". But rather than looking at the film as what it was more or less intended to be, a showcase of new camera and film technology with a decent story backing it, some are choosing to look at the film with something other than their 3D glasses.

For those who don't know, a very brief summary of the film is that by the year 2154, the natural resources of Earth have been completely consumed and mankind has gone to the stars to seek out new power sources. One such source, called unobtanium (since it is so hard to find and so rare) can be found on the planet Pandora. However, the native population of the planet, the aliens called the Na'vi are not too enthralled about having their planet stripmined. Nor are they agreeable to relocating their homes just because it happens to reside on a place known to have the largest deposit of unobtanium on the planet. Naturally, the Na'vi tribes are not too happy about the suggestion that their homes be uprooted and moved just so that human miners can then get the mineral so pockets of insurgency began to pop up. In order to counter the insurgency, the United States sends private military contractors to provide security. That's the background of the film but the focus is on a soldier, Jake Sully, who joins the team on Pandora because he is capable of mind-linking into a genetically engineered body that makes him appear like the Na'vi.

Initially sent in to gather intelligence that the military can then use to exploit the Na'vi should war arise, Sully then begins to identify and sympathize with the Na'vi and ultimately joins their forces in order to defeat the humans and free the planet from the invading force. Now this is not the first time a story of this sort has been done. There have been others that share this same general storyline including "Dances with Wolves" and "The Last Samurai" but what sets this version apart is the visual way in which it's presented. The 3D presentation adds a whole new dimension (if you'll excuse the pun) to the film and makes for a very unique experience. Not surprisingly then there has been tremendous success for the film at the box office and in less than a month, the film has already topped $1 billion gross revenue around the world and it doesn't seem that the trend will stop anytime soon.

So then why the backlash in certain sectors? Well some conservative commentators are pointing to the fact that there are some obvious references to the war in Iraq and how the military and America in general are perceived. Many conservatives have openly stated that they feel that this film sends the wrong message and that it glorifies the insurgency within Iraq while vilifying the American military. They feel that it sends the wrong message not only to the American public but to the world as well. After having read that I couldn't do anything but shake my head in a mix of despair and disgust. The reason for that reaction is because I shudder to think that our society has finally descended into a level of cynicism that we really can't enjoy a film for what it is (entertainment) but instead go to great lengths to try and understand the hidden (or blatant) subtext behind the story. If you ask the average filmgoer they probably wouldn't even think about these things. I mean if you ask a kid what their impression of the movie was and they'll probably tell you about the neat creatures, the cool aliens and the battle scenes. Ask the average adult and you'll probably get comments on the beautiful visuals and the wonder of seeing a film brought so vividly to life through 3D technology. Ask the average cynic and they'll tell you that the film does nothing more than glorify the defeat of America.

I then wonder where some of these cynics were when films like "Rambo III" came out. In that film the titular character and defender of freedom Rambo (John J.) fought alongside Afghanistan's Mujaheddin against the Russians. Sure it was during the height of the Cold War and when anyone against the Russians was our unquestioned ally. Even if at that time the Mujaheddin was the Taliban and splinter groups that later became part of Al-Queda. At that time it wasn't cynical but support for freedom I suppose. There was no hidden message in a film like that about the need to support the war (overtly or subvertly) against the Russians. There was no question about how a film like "Red Dawn" (the 1984 original or the forthcoming sequel) were sending a message of fighting for democracy no matter where the battle occurs. Many conservatives point to "Red Dawn" stating the story (about American high schoolers fighting a guerilla-style war against communist invaders in America). There there was no problem with the message of the film because it was what conservatives wanted to see and what they supported. Still, I have always looked at it as more of an action film than anything else; I suppose it just means that we look at things with the eyes we choose to use.

Out With the Old and In With the New

2010-01-06T08:20:00.003-05:00

The announcement is only a few hours old but already there is a renewed sense of optimism in Washington given that there's a new coach in town. Former Denver Broncos coach was named head coach and vice president of operations late last night (only a few miles from my house in Tysons Corner) and signed a five-year deal which is reported to pay out about (on average) $7 million per year. Not a bad deal for a coach with a proven record and a talent for getting his team to the playoffs. And once again there's a renewed sense of hope in the city that will likely last until the start of the season in August but then we'll see if this latest move will lead to a recovery of football morale in the city. I'm hopeful too but then again I'm a hopeful who has been hopeful since 1991.

I sometimes wonder about us Washington fans. I mean it takes just a small step to get us excited and optimistic again. When new head coaches were being interviewed two years ago there was a sense of hope that a good decision would be made and when Jim Zorn was finally announced there was hope but I would say it was sharply tinged with a good deal of incredulity as well. Here was someone who was brought in as an offensive coordinator and then was elevated to the position of head coach when you alread had someone waiting in the wings who the previous coach (the great Joe Gibbs) had already coached and worked with closely. Be that as it may, here we are two years later and we're almost right back where we started.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the fact that someone of Mike Shanahan's stature has come to Washington but the fact of the matter is that this isn't the first time (and as much as it pains me to say it... it may not be the last time either). One thing about Washington fans and Dan Snyder as well is the fact that many of us still cling to the memories of Joe Gibbs first tenure as coach and the almost perennial trip to the playoffs. Sure they may not have been to the Super Bowl each and every year but at least there was some hope. As the 20th Century gave way to the 21st, things kind of reversed and it became almost a joke to talk about the playoffs even if the early part of the season was going well. One thing about Washington is the fact that they could rarely close out the way they began. In clinging to that past is it any wonder that Gibbs was brought back?

Now with Shanahan there is hope that the winning ways he had with Denver will somehow be recreated here in Washington should be taken with a large grain of salt and good deal of wishful thinking. It's not that I don't think Shanahan will be effective as coach or that the change will potentially be good for the team but I think by having two people who are familiar with football and who will have final say in player decisions (Dan Snyder is more or less reported to be out of the decision loop) then it speaks well for the future. This power was something that the team should have given the coach a long time ago. Things could have been very different and perhaps a decade was how long it took for Snyder to realize that but let's hope he can carry through on this arrangement and allow the team to get back to their winning ways.

Still, eight months is a long time and lots of things can happen. One thing I would hope is that the fans (but even more so the owner) doesn't look for miraculous changes to occur. Shanahan has big decisions about who to keep and who to let go on the team's current roster. Will we see a massive influx of former and current Denver players into Washington like when Marty Schottenheimer arrived and basically put together a team that was the Kansas City Chiefs in everything but name? Or will he keep elements he thinks have potential? The unknown is what makes it so exciting and is what lulls us Washington fans into a sense of optimism yet again. Who knows what the new season will bring in terms of victory but one thing it has certainly brought back to DC (at least for a little while) is hope.

Down a Familiar Path

2010-01-04T08:11:00.002-05:00

And so another era comes to an end in Washington. I can only say that it's fitting that Sunday's loss to San Diego comes with a point margin of three since that's about how many points were needed to defeat the Redskins in majority of their games this year. After two years that began with some amount of hope followed by the bitter truth of reality, it's with some sadness that we heard this morning that Coach Jim Zorn, coach of the Washington Redskins had been fired from his position. I mean it when I say it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. If you've ever seen any of his press conferences he's probably one of the most congenial and kindest coaches to speak to the press, even in the face of some of the most embarassing and unkind situations that Zorn found himself in this year.

Though I agree that some of the blame for Washington's performance these past two years can be piled on Jim Zorn, I think there's plenty of blame to be passed around and now that one spot for piling on the blame has been let go, there's little other place to hide it. First off I think a step in the right direction has been the removal of Vinny Cerrato. Friendship notwithstanding, Cerrato and owner Dan Snyder formed a partnership that had more misses in their acquisition decisions than hits. Sure they've had a handful of good players come along during their tenure at making personnel decisions but it hasn't always been the case. They've had more busts (at times) than a Roman colleseum. But they weren't initially content with looking at themselves when the chinks in the armor of the team became apparent.

Sure it was embarassing to lose a game to the Detroit Lions (a team which had not won a game in nearly 20 starts) in front of the American public. But it was embarassing still to see it happen multiple times in the early part of a season where victories were expected to come without any effort whatsoever. What was anticipated to be a potential 6-0 start became anything but. Then in the tail end of the season, despite the turmoil and the turnover in terms of starters, backups and backup backups the team showed that they had the potential to put together drives, to set up a strong defense and push opponents (even those that were clearly infinitely better) to the edge of defeat. But in the end it was always just a little less than what was needed to secure victory.

When it came time to pin the blame a lot of it fell squarely on the shoulders of Zorn and despite having his play-calling duties stripped from him or the fact that he was almost always being targeted as a scapegoat he showed good character and integrity by continuing to look foward to each and every week with the same vigour that would lead one to question whether his team was actually scraping the bottom of the NFL barrel or if they were bound for the Super Bowl. To me it only says one thing, that one person does not make a team but one person can certainly break one.

Jim Zorn can be blamed for a lot of things but certainly not for all of them. I don't know how keen he was to get some of the players and personnel that he did. It often seemed that name recognition counted for a lot more than actual skill with some Redskins acquisitions. It wasn't always that way but more often than not it was. It's like trainers in a gym will tell you; if you want to lose your gut then you have to do more than just sit-ups. Spot training and fixes will only do so much; you have to do an overall workout that gets the whole system working right. Perhaps losing Zorn on the heels of Cerrato is a good thing but the whole system (i.e., the Redskins) need to be shaped up. It's a whole new year and about eight months to the start of the next season. Time enough to see some change; hopefully for the better.

Can't Have it Both Ways

2009-12-31T07:54:00.003-05:00

In light of the recent attempts at a terrorist act by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria, there have been increasing numbers of people calling for tighter and more stringent security. The problem is that while on the one hand people are calling for change, the other arguement makes it seem that they aren't willing to pay the price associated with that change. In this case the discussion is over whether or not the use of full-body scanners at airports and if they are to be used then in what capacity. Now since these full-body scanners have been introduced to the public they have never really been free of controversy.

The way the machine works is that it's similar to an x-ray in that it uses various visual lighting methods to virtually 'strip' away the clothes from an individual in order to determine if the individual is carrying any illicit materials similar to how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria did over Christmas using his underwear as the bomb carrier. The argument currently being made is that had he been required to go through such a scanner it's possible (though we'll probably never know) that he may not have even made it through security let alone board the flight thus preventing any sort of terrorist attack. The problem is that Abdulmutallab boarded his flight in Amsterdam. Even if we implement these machines here in the United States, what do we do about flights coming in from elsewhere?

But that's a completely different part of the argument. The argument over these machines now comes to whether they should or shouldn't be used as primary screening devices and the reasons for it. Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA.) co-sponsored a bill in the House of Representatives last year in which he called for these scanners to be used as a secondary security tool and not a primary one. His main concern being who would undergo this type of scan and whether 'grandmothers and little children' should be made to undergo this type of scan. Now as I mentioned, since these devices were first introduced to the public, there has been controversy over how much is 'stripped' from someone undergoing a scan. Despite examples to the contrary, many still feel that it will basically reveal a naked version of you on a screen and that the image will then be stored someplace for use by devious minded perverts somewhere within the Transportation Security Agency.

For the public to come up with these theories is understandable since they may not know that much about it. But for our Congressional leaders who should know better, it's just disturbing. To me the implication that they seem to be making is that those who are entrusted to run security at our airports, namely the Transportation Security Agency officers, can't be trusted to run security without saving these scanned images for their own purposes. To me then that also implies that the people being hired to run security are of questionable backgrounds so then how could they get those positions in the first place? It sets of a chain of 'if-then' type of thoughts which simply proves that people are inherently trustworthy of authority.

I say this because people seem to want these security measures put in place but only so long as it isn't applied universally. People seem to imply through their statements or actions that the only ones who should have to undergo more thorough inspections are those with questionable names or who fit certain ethnic stereotypes. I think the thing that people need to remember is that if we want to be safe then we need to be willing to make sacrifices. You may know that you aren't a security threat but I don't know that and neither does the guy at the gate. If you want to be safe then you have to undergo some difficulty. I think these full body scanners should be implemented but they shouldn't supplant any additional checks if an officer feels that a more thorough search is required. I'm willing to make that sacrifice of my modesty if it is required.

What's the Solution to the Problem?

2009-12-30T06:48:00.003-05:00

About a week ago, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to ignite an explosive that he had managed to smuggle aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Thanks to faulty execution on his part and the rapid response of some vigilant passengers the act of attempted terrorism was halted before it had a chance at success. But what this has served to do is raise the issue of what is being done to safeguard our skies and where the problems continue to exist. Since 9/11 the process by which passengers are screened has become increasingly stringent depending upon where you're going to and where you're leaving from. These days it can take almost as long to go through security than it does to reach your destination by air. With incidents such as this one with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the process will only get longer.

But how can you fix it? Many already assume that the inconvenience of having to go through screenings and carry along limited quantities of toiletries such as toothpaste and mouthwash is enough to keep us safe but it really isn't. I'm sure these new security procedures have helped to keep a certain type of danger at bay but not all of the dangers that exist out there. After Robert Reid, the shoe-bomber, attempted to blow up a flight using a butane lighter and homemade explosives packed in the heel of his shoe, the result was to require passengers to remove their shoes for screening and inspection. In addition, butane lighters were no longer permitted though you could still carry matchbooks onto flights. Why? Because smokers complained that then they couldn't smoke as soon as they got to a smoking area at an airport.

What this proves though is that our responses often seem to be spot responses to problems; that is fix what problems are known to exist and keep the others aside until they become real problems. So what that means is that if you have someone attempting to blow up a plane using their shoes then you should inspect shoes more closely. Done. But now you have an individual who attempted to blow up a plane with explosives and chemicals mixed into syringes in his underwear. Do you see where this line of thought will lead us? Now I don't deny that it's very hard to ensure everyone's safety in an world like the one we live in but sometimes the solutions that are put out there are beyond absurd; they border on the insane. Take for example the case of the terror watch list that the Transportation Security Agency and Homeland Security maintain.

This list contains a list of names (and known aliases I believe) of individuals with questionable ties to terrorist organizations or activities. Perhaps they are disgruntled individuals or perhaps their name was provided to authorities by concerned citizens (or parents) as in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. His own father notified authorities of his suspcisions a little over a month before he boarded his Christmas flight. So then why was he allowed? Well part of it is because there are nearly 500,000 names included the terrorist watch list and checking each and every person against that list can mean that some fall through the cracks. Now of course there are those who suggest that a simple means of expiditing the process would be to check against people's names but then I ask you who should be under greater suspicion: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab or David Headley.

If you answered 'both' then give yourself a prize. Although Headley sounds like a non-terrorist name it is the name of an Pakistani-American (who changed his name) who was arrested in connection with the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. That being said then where do you draw the line in terms of being 'selective' in how you screen people. The problem is that you can't. You can't say that a certain type of name or religious belief or city of origin should be used because there have been plenty of exceptions to the rule. Headley is just one known example.

I envision two days in the distant future; one good and one bad. The one that is going to eventually happen decades from now is one in which all travellers will be able to travel without having to undergo such rigorous checks which leads to endless hours of searches and checks. The other day which will likely occur in the more near term is one in which we will be required to travel in approved translucent clothing so that nothing can be hidden from view of anyone. You will be allowed to wear approved underwear which must be vaccum-sealed to prevent explosives planting and of course there will be the lack of carry-ons which will make travelling by air a much quicker and safer form of transportation again.

Road Sense vs. No Sense

2009-12-29T08:01:00.002-05:00

Probably since the dawn of time have two things been a decidedly dangerous combination. Men and directions and men and technology. Now being a man I think it's okay for me to talk about both of these since I'm something of a snob when it comes to these two subjects. I am decidedly stubborn when it comes to getting directions to a destination and I like to think that I can figure out most pieces of technology given sufficient time and (more importantly) interest. Hence it is not with a lot of surprise when I read an article in the paper about a couple in the high desert of eastern Oregon that ended up getting stranded in snow for three days.

Apparently the couple who had gotten a new GPS as a Christmas gift just a few days before, decided to use it on their way home. Now programming the destination was a snap and getting started was easy, but the GPS was smarter than it really needed to be. Now most people choose 'shortest route' or 'fastest route' when the GPS asks them about the route they want to take. Now choosing 'shortest route' can often be a chancy proposition because a GPS will take you by whatever route reduces the distance by the greatest amount regardless of the terrain or land features you may or may not have to overcome. In this case the road that the GPS requested the couple to take ended up being more 'road-esque' than actual road and as they proceeded down the indicated path in their four-wheel drive SUV, they managed to get themselves stuck.

Now thankfully there is a happy ending to this tale since despite being in the mountains in a particularly remote area, they had just enough signal on their cell phones that they could call for help after two-and-a-half and they had more than enough supply of food, water and warm clothes in their SUV to stay safe until rescue arrived. Apparently the couple explained that they managed to go nearly 35 miles down the path that was indicated by the GPS before getting stuck in about 18 inches of snow. That itself proves two things to me; (1) four-wheel drives don't always overcome any terrain, and (2) technology isn't always the best of guides.

Perhaps it's wrong to blame technology for the couple getting stranded but I do feel (as I have often expressed on this blog) that technology has made us a bit lazy. I say that because in times past, we wouldn't rely on something like a GPS to tell us where we were and where we're going. Reading a map was something worth learning and it was necessary. I have always believed that even if you have a GPS, you should know in general where you're going and what route you have to take. Having the general directions in the back of your head can help you figure out where you're going and where you need to be at any given time. But these days due to things like GPS, cell phones and the like you end up relying on them for information. Why memorize numbers if you can just scroll through your phone list in your phone and get it.

Similarly why bother looking up directions when your GPS will show you the route. There have been plenty of stories that could give you ample reason to at least have a little trepidation when deciding whether to use a GPS or not; stories of people ending up driving into rivers because bridges weren't completely built yet or taking roads that weren't open to the public yet. We tend to check our brains at the door as technology improves and it can have decidedly negative consequences. Now the good thing is that this story has a happy ending but I would think it would serve as inspiration to the rest of us to keep our own mental GPS tuned when going on a road trip.

Not Saying What We Mean to Say

2009-12-28T07:45:00.002-05:00

Anyone who knows me knows that one of my pet peeves is when people say (or write something) thinking that it means one thing but it means something completely different. An example? Well when people write something along the lines of, "Your going to have to go to the store" rather than writing the correct, "You're going to have to go to the store". The difference is subtle and in this age of word check and e-mail shortform, it's very easy to overlook something so trivial but it can distract a reader (at least some of us) from what the meaning is that we're trying to get across.

I guess some of the problem stems from the fact that we often use words or phrases because they have become popular and we say them without really ever having considered how to spell them. If you read through both of those previous sentences you'll find that if you know what the word is you'll pronounce it correctly but if you don't know what you're spelling you likely won't. One way in which I keep the difference in mind (especially when writing words as contractions... and this was something my high school English teachers always drilled into my head) was to break it up into its root parts to see if it makes sense when read that way. So for example, if you break up the word into its parts in the previously written sentence, the contraction (which is the correct usage of the word) would be read as "You are going to have to go to the store" Then it makes sense and you will likely not make the same mistake.

Well that likely works fine in the case of contractions and commonly used words like that but what about words that are popular but that you generally don't use all the time but have become popular through pop cultural references? Part of the blame for those mistakes can be attributed to George Lucas. Why do I blame Lucas for this? Simply because he introduced some of these phrases to the average person and now the average person uses these phrases without thinking about what they mean. Now when George Lucas released his original "Star Wars" films he didn't refer to it as his trilogy (which basically means three stories) until much later. There was the introduction of the first of several phrases which Lucas has made popular these days.

Now my English teacher in 9th and 10th grade was Mrs. DeRoo and she made sure that we knew our Greek and Roman word parts so I know that 'tri' in trilogy refers to three so a trilogy of films is a series of three films. Similarly, a trilogy of books refers to a three book series. So then when someone refers to a four book series as a trilogy in an online review you can't help but feel a little disappointed that people don't think about what they are writing, that too on a site largely dedicated to literature like Amazon. It just proves that now many people will refer to a series (regardless of how many books or films it entails) as a trilogy. Similarly, Lucas is to blame for the popularization of the terms 'prequel' and 'sequel'. Thankfully most people know what these words mean but what it has also given rise to is the term 'reboot'.

In computer parlance, rebooting means to start over and in movies that's also more or less what the term means. However, the term is generally applied to a film series that has been running for quite some time and is suddenly shedding all of the history that had heretofore been established and was starting from scratch. Now in the case of films like the recent Batman or James Bond films, that's a fair use of the term but relating it to "Sherlock Holmes" is a bit of a mistake since though there have been many Sherlock Holmes films, this is still an independent film to the previous films. Still, it just shows that once a phrase catches on in the public's mind it is very hard to get them to use anything else.

Remember Those Overseas

2009-12-24T08:08:00.003-05:00

There are predictions of heavy snows in the midwest and in the plains of the United States. The east coast is already in the midst of reeling from the blizzard that hit us last week and we're expecting ice again tonight in the Washington area. News reporters are chiming in from various regional airports and train stations letting people know to get to their respective departure points early so that they can transit security ahead of time. People are on the news complaining about having to get to the airport earlier than what their eventual flight time will be but that's all part of the holiday travel season. The roads are jammed, the malls were full until the last minute and through it all we continue to focus our attention on what's happening here. But we mustn't forget those who are serving in our armed services overseas.

For many of us, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are so far removed from our thoughts that it's hard to contemplate having to eat Christmas dinner in a mess tin or holding mass inside of a sandbag-lined bunker with your machine gun ready at your side but that's been the reality for many soldiers who are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether you support the war or you don't, one thing that we should all do is support the troops. Like those of us who work, they are also doing their jobs and doing them under the most difficult of circumstances. While the rest of us can spend the holidays with friends and family, many servicemen and women are deployed thousands of miles from home in hostile environments. It's easy to forget these things but we really shouldn't. It's important that we don't.

Many troops have been in the field for multiple deployments; others have come home only to be deployed again within a few months. Yet the continue to do their jobs despite the difficult circumstances. Now I have never served in the armed services personally but I know many who have and it never fails to astound me that these ordinary folks often looked at their deployments not as an inconvenience but more as a duty to their country and their chosen service. They did it because it was the right thing to do and though it interupted the normalcy of most of their lives, they found that it was in service of their country so they did it.

So if you find yourself on the road stuck in heavy traffic with hundreds of miles left to go, remember that at least you don't have to be worried whether your car will be ambushed by insurgents. If the heater in your home or office fails for a few hours, remember that you don't have to do without one all the time in the high mountains of the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan. If you have to stand in line at the airport for a longer time remember that old saying that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". We can take it for granted because of the brave men and women who are serving abroad in an effort to ensure that the horrors visited upon our country in 2001 don't happen again. Happy Holidays to all of them!

Updating the Classics

2009-12-23T07:57:00.003-05:00

Every year over the past so many decades, Hollywood has pulled out all the stops in an effort to release films that are sure to draw in the crowds and in turn make the studios a lot of money. Some of these movies have been tremendously successful and others have been tremendously terrible but one thing remains; the studios keep trying. The subject matter for these films is often as varied as the people acting in the films. You can have movies like "Titanic" which was released in 1997 just a week before Christmas or you can have movies like the "Lord of the Rings" films which were each released a year apart in the week before Christmas. This year is no different; James Cameron's latest efforts (his first major film since "Titanic") entitled "Avatar" has been released and is already making a boatload (pun intended) of money. This coming week another film is hoping to dethrone the current champion and it is based on one of the most beloved and revered characters in classic literature; the forefather of all great detectives, Sherlock Holmes.

The character of Sherlock Holmes has been portrayed in numerous forms of media by actors of all shapes and sizes. Historians estimate that next to Bram Stoker's Dracula, Sherlock Holmes is one character who has been portrayed the maximum number of times in media. He's been portrayed by actors such as Peter Cushing, Christopher Plummer, Michael Caine and of course Basil Rathbone. He's been shown in stories based upon the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and he's been shown in films based upon completely original material. The latest version which is being directed by Guy Ritchie stars Robert Downey Jr. as the irascable Holmes with Jude Law portraying his faithful partner Dr. John Watson.

Now when I was in my final years of college I read every single story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle dealing with Sherlock Holmes. I read them in the order that they were written and came to appreciate the way in which Holmes managed to solve so many mysteries. Unlike many of the current crime shows on television, Holmes didn't always have the luxury of modern technology or a team of forensic scientists backing him up; rather he always relied on his knowledge and the assistance of his able companion Watson. It made me appreciate that the human mind was just as important (if not more so) in accomplishing what can often seem to be a difficult task. But more so, it gave me an appreciation of the fact that this was all shown to be during the Victorian era when sciences like detection and forensics were still in their infancy. It's hard to fathom these days but back then it was the standard.

So what does this all have to do with the new movie that will be coming out? Well nothing so much as just helping to set the background on what I'm hoping to see in the film. Films that are set in a historical era are often required to walk a very narrow line. They can either be true to their era or they can turn it on its ear for the sake of telling an entertaining story. For me, I tend to appreciate the more historically accurate depictions. As entertaining as the "Pirates of the Carribean" films were, I thought the age of sailing was better depicted in a film like "Master and Commander". Still, "Pirates of the Carribean" spawned two sequels (with talk of another) while "Master and Commander" was appreciated but didn't result in any sequels (at least not yet).

So what worries me is that a film like "Sherlock Holmes" has to walk that very narrow line too but the filmmakers also have to remember that with a character like Holmes who is so ingrained in literature and has always been depicted as being (more or less) true to his era, they can't stray too far from what is known. What that means is that I would hate to see a Sherlock Holmes who behaves more modern than what his character really was. He was cutting edge at the time but that doesn't mean that he should be depicted as being decades ahead of his time. I would rather see a Sherlock Holmes that is more in tune with Basil Rathbone than with Captain Jack Sparrow. I'm giving the film the benefit of the doubt but I just don't want to see a beloved character like Holmes turned into a caricature of what he truly is.

Marking Your Territory

2009-12-22T08:06:00.002-05:00

This past weekend the Washington area was hit with what was one of the largest snowstorms to hit the region in many years. Of course any snowfall total that amounts to over a quarter inch in this region is enough to send many Washingtonians into a state of hyper-panic. But in the case of this storm at least it was justified. With just over two feet of snow, it was enough to make a mess of things but fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) it occurred over a weekend again so most people were able to stay off the roads and avoid becoming road hazards for crews that worked very hard to keep the roads and lanes clear. But by staying off the roads what that meant was that many people ended up having to dig their cars out after the snow fall reduced.

A system that works well for us is to go out and shovel a bit of the snow every few hours even as it is falling so that when the snow finally does subside then there's less to deal with. Sure you have to trudge out there more times but would you rather shovel two feet of snow or two inches? I rest my case. One of the main problems that comes from this type of storm though is dealing with the dilemma of figuring out where to dump all the snow that accumulates. In a parking lot like the one in my complex, that is a very serious dilemma and what happens when a plow coming through discovers an empty space? Why all the snow is dumped into that space and the spaces adjacent. It comes down to the intrinsic understanding of most such services. Most will tell you that their job is to clear the travel lanes in the parking lot and nothing more. What is done with the excess snow is not their problem.

So for those of us who get our cars or our parking spots buried under snow not only have to deal with the snow piled into our spaces but surrounding our spaces as well. Now what is one saving grace is that for most of us in my complex who live in my building or the surrounding buildings, we have at least one reserved parking space so the problems that were occuring elsewhere in our complex or in places like DC didn't affect us so much? What problems would those be? Well after spending several hours digging your vehicle out of the snow to either head out to work or to go out and run errands it would be frustrating to know that someone would very likely come along and nab the parking space that you had so lovingly cleaned just to gain freedom.

What some residents in DC took to doing then was to 'mark' their territory with some object that would prevent others from taking the space. Unfortunately according to DC law, if a space is along a public road then it cannot be reserved or held through the use of traffic cones or folding chairs unless police have authorized such action. Now to me that makes sense but I also think that the laws should be bent in the case of heavy snowfall like what we had this past weekend. Think about it, it took nearly two and a half hours to make the road in front of my parking space passable so how do you think you would feel if you drive off for half and hour and return to find someone parked in your space or snow piled into the spot? Exactly. Of course the anger and frustration probably wouldn't be as strong with those who simply take the spot. They figure it's their good fortune to nab a pristine spot like that. Yet it's the principle that matters. One should be able to enjoy the fruits of one's labors without having to worry if the work will be enjoyed by someone else.

One More Cog in the Wheel

2009-12-18T08:35:00.003-05:00

The day that many Redskins fans have been waiting for came earlier this week when Vinny Cerrato, the man many charge with being responsible for some of the more 'insane' decisions made by the team over the last decade announced his resignation from the team. Now many people (myself included to a certain degree) have pinned a great deal of blame on Vinny Cerrato and Daniel Snyder for the current situation with the Redskins franchise. They took a team that was a perennial contender for the playoffs and made them the benchmark by which self-imploding or paper teams measure themselves. What do I mean by paper teams? Well these are teams that look like a fantasy football player's dream but is actually just that; a dream.

As this season went from bad to worse to a little better, people have been scrutinizing the "why's" and the "how comes" all the time. It seemed like after nearly every Sunday, analysis would be pouring out from all corners of the region with questions as to why the team was doing so poorly. And again a lot of the blame fell onto Cerrato as the man behind many of the decisions. As I've stated many times, the major problem is that the team often behaves (and still does on occasion) like it is being run by a fantasy football team. Just because a player has had big stats or was a standout player in college doesn't necessarily translate into success on the NFL field. For every Brian Orakpo we've had a slew of defensive players who were either past their prime or had never attained it in the first place. For every Jason Campbell (who I think has the potential to be good if he is given an offensive scheme built to his arm strength and not one that's built to a scheme he is not suited for) we have a Heath Schuler.

Now the blame doesn't fall only on Cerrato, it also falls on those around him but also on some of the people he brought into the organization. For all the blame being tossed around obviously there was something in Jim Zorn that made him appealing to the team when they made him head coach nearly three years ago. Perhaps he didn't end up being exactly what he was expecting to be but that's not necessarily all his fault. If he is stifled then how can he be expected to produce? For that I often blame Dan Snyder. Sure he may be one of the most kind-hearted and caring people off the field (his charity work speaks volumes) but it's a shame that he hasn't been as successful with the Redskins.

Players have often talked about how they are congratulated during their times of success but often stigmatized during their failures (which is more often the case). I can understand since Snyder is shelling out a boatload of money for some of these players and they don't live up to expectations. But sometimes the difference is in the way you treat your players. When members of the Cowboys get hurt on the field, Jerry Jones can often be seen cringing or coming down to the sidelines to see what's happened. Nowadays you can't even get camera shots of Snyder during the game lest his grimmace be used to prove the point that he seems to view his players as nothing more than commodities and not people. Perhaps that's not his attitude but I could be wrong.

So what does this all mean? Well to me in the short run, the resignation of Cerrato signals yet another round of change for the Redskins. What it also means is that barring some miraculous event, I don't think we fans can expect to see a successful run from the team for some time yet. If Zorn is removed and the rest of the 'creative consultants' are removed and the roster is started from relative scratch then I would say that it will be at least another three or four years before we can expect anything. But to me, regardless of whatever decision is made by upper management at the Redskins, one thing needs to be shown by management, in particular by Dan Snyder and that is patience and having a coach who can make decisions on what he needs based on his experience and not on stat sheets. The removal/resignation of Cerrato is one of the first steps, now we have to see if it really makes any difference. After all, Snyder is still at the helm of the ship.

Healthy Christmas to All

2009-12-17T08:15:00.003-05:00

Every year around this time there are endless stories in the news about what the real cost of all the items in the 12 Days of Christmas would cost or about how spending trends are up or down from previous years or what toy is the most popular. They also have news stories on how fast Santa would need to be moving to go around the world in one night and leave all his presents while having enough time to eat cookies (or carrots) before heading out. This year for the first time in a very long time though I think people finally started thinking about Santa and not just about presents at that.

Nathan Grills of Monash University in Australia recently presented a tongue-in-cheek piece on Santa and the overall health concerns surrounding the jolly giver of gifts. What Grills determined through his research was that if Santa really did all the things he did, he'd probably be one of the most unhealthy people on the planet. Medically speaking he would be a walking nightmare due to his repeated exposure to various illnesses and diseases that he would likely contract from repeated hugs and kisses from kids. In this season of swine flu mania, the average mall Santa would have likely been exposed to the disease enough times to qualify as a petri dish. It's gotten to the point now that many carry disinfectant around with them so that they can sanitize themselves in between kids.

But Grills also concluded that Santa wasn't just running the risk of contracting some disease, he could also create some on his own through his various unhealthy habits. Take for example the fact that Santa would be termed obese by today's standards. Rather than exercising on a regular basis, it seems that Santa spends most of his day making lists and checking them twice. That means that he's seated for most of the day and by the time he finishes those chores he has to go down to the workshop to supervise the toy construction and wrapping by the elves. Again, something that likely doesn't require much in way of physical activity. Sure you could make the argument that he probably burns off a year's worth of calories on Christmas night as he races around the world to deliver his gifts but does the ends justify the means?

And what about the unnessary risk of bodily injury he subjects himself into by partaking in what can be considered an extreme sport or activity? He rides around in an open top sleigh with just a lap belt. Travelling at the speeds that he does in order to make his deliveries he would need to have a five-point safety restraint system to truly be safe in his travels. Additionally he runs around rooftops and down chimnies without helmets which means he could suffer a particularly bad head injury if he's not careful. Plus the way in which he carries the gifts in a sack over his shoulder is not very healthy. He could throw out his back and injure himself. I think the conclusion that Grills wants us to reach as we think through these things is that it takes a very special person to be Santa.

Taking Off with Hopes and Dream(liner)s

2009-12-16T06:54:00.000-05:00

Finally! After months and months and months and months and months of delays, the employees of Boeing finally could breathe a sigh of relief since their latest offering to the aviation world, the 787 Dreamliner finally took flight. Designed to be a competitor to the Airbus megaplanes that have been garnering attention since their maiden flights over a year ago, Boeing is hopeful that the test flights of their new 787 will be a sign of things to come and a return to the dominence of the air travel industry that they once held nearly universally. As an aviation fanatic I've also been following the news of the Dreamliner with great interest but I sometimes wonder if it's too little too late.

When designs for planes like the Dreamliner and Airbus's double-decker (the A380) first hit the books there was a major boom occuring in the aviation industry. Economy airlines were sprouting all over the place like crab grass in summer and it seemed that everyone was looking to establish an airline. With that type of demand it was no wonder that airline manufacturers were looking to cash in on the trend and offer up newer and better planes. But what seems to have happened in the interim is that the overall industry has suffered just as the economy has. With airlines folding nearly as quickly as they started, demand has gone down and routes that many airlines fly have also been drastically reduced. Where once you had a veritable cornucopia of choices for domestic air travel you are now down to a handful. Even stalwarts of the aviation boom are no longer looking as prominent as they once were.

But now as the economy seems to be on an upswing, maybe it is the time to look into getting more airlines into the air; that too on wings made by Boeing. Boeing has been pushing their new concept very hard and are hopeful that customers will come back in the numbers that they once had. Part of the problem is that Airbus has been a big competitor and they have offered up products that are as good (if not better) than some of Boeing's planes but more importantly, the delays that Airbus has faced have not been as long or as drastic as what Boeing has experienced with the Dreamliner. With product deliveries to All Nippon Airlines expected nearly two and a half years behind schedule, it's no wonder that people are curious but not enthusiastic about signing on to purchase the planes.

Not that there's anything wrong with the Dreamliner or Boeing for that matter but it just seems that perhaps it is still a bit too early for Boeing to succeed and do well on the basis of just the sales of the Dreamliner. Last year was full of nothing but bad news for Boeing planes as their contract for a replacement tanker for the US Air Force was revoked and then delayed plus the delays with the Dreamliner experiencing manufacturing delays meaning that no major money was flowing into the aviation section. Boeing has long enjoyed having a place of prominence in this market but now that things are slowing down for them it's looking like it's going to be harder to keep things afloat.

Boeing provides many jobs in the Seattle area where they have long had their manufacturing facilities. But in an effort to diversify and 'spread the wealth' they have moved their executive offices to Chicago and are opening plants to manufacture the Dreamliner in South Carolina in addition to Seattle. Whether this diversification is timely or too late remains to be seen but one thing is for certain; the success of this test flight and subsequent test flights will prove whether or not the time and effort being spent on the Dreamliner will yield good fortune for the company or not. I'm certainly hopeful but I won't hold my breath.

How Quickly the Mighty Fall

2009-12-14T08:17:00.002-05:00

You've undoubtedly heard the old adage, "the bigger they are the harder they fall?" Well if you have then you'll likely agree that no one has personified that statement better in recent history than golf icon Tiger Woods. After the discovery of his 'secret life' and the eventual joke that his life has seemed to become, Woods announced that he will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from the golf tour. With the announcement of this decision he suddenly became an anathema to all the company's for whom he was endorsing products and now it seems that perhaps he will never again recapture the luster that once surrounded him. But why is that? Why is he so different now than he was before his SUV hit a tree and the whole sordid tale of his private life came tumbling out?

What is it about celebrity that is so fleeting? One moment you can be the poster child for everything that is good and in the next you are being treated like the scum you find floating on top of a swimming pool that hasn't been cleaned in a long while. Tiger Woods was long viewed as a model of hard work and perseverence. He earned his place as a champion in golf by working at it. He wasn't like many other players who are at the top of their game in their respective sport who mouth off about as often as they win. Woods was humble and soft-spoken and a man who played well even when he wasn't at his best. He's had his highs and lows throughout his career and it was part of what made him a household name when he first burst onto the golfing scene.

Parents in particular liked to (apparently) use him as an example of what hard work and dedication could get you. They liked to tell their kids to emulate Woods and become someone 'respectable' like him. Now I say 'apparently' because now that this scandal has broken (and continues to break) it appears that parents are all up in a huff about the fact that Woods has 'done this'. I would simply ask why parents are using complete strangers to be inspirations for their kids in the first place. Tiger Woods's public persona was no doubt a model for many to want to emulate but the private life is where the problems lay and now that the private has become public, there is the suddent and fierce desire to break any and all ties to Woods. Now parents are behaving as if Woods has betrayed their trust somehow and are all ready to show their disdain for his actions and transgressions.

But what surprises me is that people still believe that what we see in public of celebrities is how they really must be in private as well. Celebrity is a fleeting thing and what has become apparent to me as the Tiger Woods 'situation' has continued to evolve and grow worse is that as quickly as we like to build up a celebrity, the public loves to tear them down just as quickly if not faster. Gone are the stories about how he worked hard to achieve the level of success he's achieved; now Woods serves more readily as a punchline for jokes than anything else. And to think, a simple car accident is what led to the disclosure of all these problems to the public.

I think any celebrity out there needs to take notice and be wary. I say this because there are undoubtedly many many more out there with similar (if not worse) transgressions out there and it can take something so small to let it out. What celebrities (be they sports stars or entertainment personalities) need to take notice that if someone as admired as Tiger Woods can suddenly become a bane to companies and the like then it's no different for anyone else. As much as we love our public figures, we love tearing them down since I guess it makes us (the general public) feel a little better knowing that the people we see on television or playing in the big game are not so different from us. That can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Making Her Voice Heard

2009-12-11T06:42:00.002-05:00

She just won't go away. And the sad thing is that most people don't want her to. This past week Sarah Palin wrote an opinion piece that was printed in the Washington Post regarding her thoughts on the Copanhagen Climate Conference. One of the key takeaways that she wants readers to take away is the fact that whatever is being discussed in Copanhagen is all based on lies and heresay and that she feels that President Obama should not attend the conference to send a clear message that global warming is a myth and not based on scientific fact. What disturbs me is that there are many people out there who believe that what Palin talks about is the truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately if people bothered to confirm what she was saying to be the truth then perhaps they wouldn't have bothered to put so much stock in her.

Now there are those who claim that Palin is doing this merely to show the public that she's aware of the issues affecting our globe and despite the fact that she's not necessarily the darling of the Republican Party as she once was she is still a force to be reckoned with. Just what direction that force is being directed is up for debate but that's the problem; most people are hardly interested in the debate. If Palin's main purpose is keeping in the public's eye until 2012 then she's doing a wonderful job because no matter what, she's having great success at having her views continually heard in public whether it is through the publication of her book "Going Rogue" or having opinion pieces printed in major newspapers like the The Washington Post.

People have questioned why the Post printed Palin's op-ed piece in the paper in the first place. Even more so because of the gross misinterpretation of events such as the debate over whether the material on the theories on global warming are true or not. Regardless I think (as some other readers do) that the reason for printing the piece was not to show support for her way of thinking but rather to put out there the fact that she constantly flip-flops her positions or contradicts herself on a regular basis? Don't believe me? Well last year when she was running for Vice President she raised the point that some global changes could certainly be associated with man's growing prescence in the world and the drain it is having on the planet. Yet in the piece that was published this week she contradicts herself and boldly states that this is nothing more than a natural trend; almost like what George W. Bush used to say when he was asked to sign treaties on the environment.

There is no doubt in my mind that science is a very subjective manner but that doesn't mean it should be completely discounted. After all, if we don't have that much faith in science then I don't think we should have faith in all of it, not just in what we believe in. After all, if it wasn't for science (albeit medical science) Palin would never have known that her youngest child Trig would be born with Down Syndrome and become the poster child for "special needs" children after Palin popularized the phrase. I suppose it's a sign of what is typical of Palin and many of her ilk in that they will put stock in science and fact when it's convenient and then conveniently ignore it if it is contrast to what they wish to portray as their belief.

The appeal of most politicians comes from being able to draw appeal from the voting public. Many past leaders have had it and they've used it to their advantage; President Obama being one of the most recent examples. But what I feel sets Obama apart from Palin is the fact that if put on the spot he'll be able to respond with some knowledge on almost any topic. Palin on the other hand seems like she'd rely on a wink and a nod to get her point across. I say this in the hope that many more Americans will take an objective view of her as a potential leader and think back on the fact that we had a leader for eight years who originally took the lead in a poll as to whether you'd rather drink a beer with him or his opponent. To me that's the wrong kind of leader to have. Sure you'd like to have a beer with a lot of your leaders but it's just as important to know that conversations you'd have be intelligent and not the 'fake' intelligence that would come from an alcohol inspired stupor.

Space: The Final (Commercial) Frontier

2009-12-08T08:37:00.003-05:00

Richard Branson and his Virgin companies have always pushed the limits no matter what industry they have chosen to enter. From records to airlines the group has continued to hallmark cutting edge and ingenuity. Take for example the past season in Formula One where Virgin got involved with Brawn GP, a rookie team that was literally starting from scratch. They had nothing with them at the start of the season save for high hopes but after some early successes it became apparent that the team was destined for great things. So after a few races, Richard Branson and Virgin became a sponsor for the team and eventually the team went on to win the championship (for both driver and constructor). Now I'm not saying that Branson was the reason for it, but he certainly hasn't been wrong when he's attempted to hit 'the next big thing'.

I remember flying Virgin Atlantic a few years back and all I kept thinking was that I was seated in the wrong class. Touch screens in every seat and roomy seats to boot. Decent service and eclectic style (which often typefies Virgin endeavours), Virgin Atlantic set the trend that many airlines have sought to mimic and surpass. But the fact remains that Branson was the first to go through with it. In an age where air travel has become akin to riding a bus but with more hassle and less enjoyment, it was a joy to fly Virgin America. With their mood lighting and top notch service they have made domestic air travel in this country a little more enjoyable than it had been for a very long time. Now he's at it again.

Virgin Galactic, the company that Branson started to fly flights into edge of space (and back again) unveiled SpaceShipTwo this past week in New Mexico. Dubbed the New Mexico Spaceport the spaceplane, named Virgin Space Ship (VSS) Enterprise (after the starship of "Star Trek" fame) hopes to begin making regular trips into sub-orbital space within a few years. Tickets to the maiden flight have already been sold for tens of thousands of dollars and the the amazing thing about it? The VSS Enterprise hasn't even flown yet. Although tests are forthcoming (and are expected to be successful), permitting and licensing are to follow but what it again proves is that Branson is looking to become a pioneer in a business that will undoubtedly pick up within a few years.

Don't believe me? Well think about it. When commercial aviation began it was truly a unique experience and it was something that not everyone could experience. Within a few years, as with any market, as options grew, prices came down and it became much more affordable. But why look at something that's been around for nearly a century now? Look at LCD and Plasma HDTVs. When they first came out you needed to mortgage your house (again) to be able to afford one but now it's almost to the point that you can get a decent sized one for the same price as filling up your average sized SUV for the week. But what it takes is for someone to prove that it's a viable industry, product or service. For now, flights on the VSS Enterprise may only be something people who shop in the Neiman Marcus Christmas Catalogue can afford but within a few years I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing similar lights launch from airports around the world. And why not? I'd rather spend more to reach my destination in less time (with a little bit of weightlessness to boot) than I would travelling nearly 24 hours to get to another part of the world. Richard Branson and the Virgin Group will be a major component in making that 'fantasy' a reality.

Is This Really News?

2009-12-03T08:12:00.002-05:00

These days I tend to dread watching the news but it's not for the reasons you might think. These days it seems that we tend to get hung up on news items that have no business being news items. Since the State Dinner held for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh a few weeks ago now not much news has been made about what was discussed between the President and Singh. Rather the media appears to be more focused on Tareq and Michaele Salahi who 'crashed' the party and have raised a stink that has long after the party ended. After the initial 'who is to blame' finally died down a bit now comes news that the couple will be subpoenaed to testify before Congress as to why they attended the party when they were clearly not invited. What I'm beginning to wonder is whether this is being blown up to even larger proportions simply because this pair was making headlines and were set to appear on a reality show 'The Real Housewives of DC'?

I don't understand why they are the issue. Shouldn't the issue be how they managed to penetrate security in the first place? The Secret Service is tasked with keeping the President and First Family safe so then why are we focusing our news on whether or not Salahi's phone did or did not die before receiving the call that informed him that he and his wife were in fact not invited to the party. What does it matter? This is something that the investigative committee needs to find out; I don't need to know about it, at least not every single day.

For example today there was a major article in the Washington Post about how Michaele Salahi is listed as being part of the Washington Redskins Cheerleader alumni even though she never cheered at a single game. She claims she did even though she can't say with whom, she can't furnish any proof and in reading interviews with other cheerleaders it was clear that she couldn't cheer either. If nothing else at least we know she (and her husband apparently) are very good at manipulating their way into fancy situations. When I checked out the headlines this morning I was surprised to see that before many other important (in fact even more important) stories was the headline about the Salahis and Tiger Woods.

Speaking of Tiger Woods; again I ask the question, why should I care? I understand that Woods is a public figure so his case will obviously garner more attention than the average person's may have but still, it's his personal problem between he and his wife. I don't need to listen to recordings of his cell phone calls or see copies of mails he sent to various women. There are more important things to discuss and talk about. And it's not just the entertainment or sports media focusing on the story either; the amount of time that Fox News (the self-proclaimed bastion of 'fair and balanced' news) has covered these two stories to such a degree that it reminds me of the time that Anna Nicole Smith passed away from a drug overdose. I remember that they spent 45 minutes (45!!) covering her death. I know it was 45 minutes because I was at the gym that evening and that's how long I was on the treadmill.

So many times these days we start seeing headlines that have no business being there. Certainly these are noteworthy news bits but they are noteworthy and not newsworthy (in my opinion). I don't think it's worth looking into to the degree that many media outlets are. Granted there aren't very many 'feel good' stories out there and the disappointing news about Tiger Woods's "indiscretions" are going to tarnish the good-boy image he had garnered over the years, it still doesn't justify the time that is spent on this case. Rather than worrying about world events we seem to be focused on entertainment news. Definitely a step that should make us all a little worried.

Yet Another Surge

2009-12-02T08:17:00.002-05:00

I remember when the declaration was made that US forces would be sent to Afghanistan. In the months following the attacks of September 11th it was inevitable that troops would be sent to quell an enemy that had run of a nation and that had provided a base to some of the most devious terrorist masterminds the world had seen. Most allied nations were with us as well. After seeing the horror and devastation that was visited upon New York and Washington it wasn't surprising to see so many nations coming out in support of the proposed war in Afghanistan. But things didn't quite work out the way they should have. Rather than sending an overwhelming force to Afghanistan to stop the Taliban and al-Queda, the military was sent over in relatively smaller numbers and was expected to subdue the organizations that ran the terrorist networks.

Well when US forces managed to oust the corrupt and malicious Taliban government it seemed like mission accomplished and now on to Iraq to many people. Unfortunately what many of us fail to realize is that unlike wars in the past where there was a clear cut definition of who was our enemy and who were our allies, in Afghanistan those lines are somewhat more muddled. You see the main problem, as I see it, is the fact that just ousting the central government from Kabul was not the main problem. That was part of it; but what needs to be realized (and I believe that many of our military leaders and government leaders should be aware of this) is that Afghanistan is made up of more than just a single people but numerous tribes and villages spread across the country. Not all of them recognize or care about the government in Kabul. They are so far flung that they often side with whomever appears to be most sympathetic to them or who seems to understand them better.

Another way to think of it is to consider that if Canadians came to the US and declared that our federal government was corrupt and evil and they were run off into the countryside, would our nation come to a standstill? No. Simply because power also rests in the states and that is more or less what is happening in Afghanistan. That being the case then how can you reasonably attempt to quell an additional uprising by various tribals who are often inspired by terrorist networks like al-Queda? This isn't like Germany in World War II where once the Nazi party was finally defeated that the conflict could end and the rebuilding could begin. This is country where even the basics and things we take for granted here are something relatively unknown and often times have no real value.

So what if we bring democracy to this nation and allow it to thrive? If the people of Afghanistan feel that there is still unfair religious bias in a government that's in power then do you think they'll support it? They'd rather support the terrorists that fight against the perception of a corrupt government. So what does this have to do with the surge that President Obama introduced to the American people last night? Simply that depending on what the scope of this surge and the mission of those in the military that will be going to Afghanistan (or are already there) really is this surge can either end up being a good thing or a very bad thing. It will be a good thing if realistic and plausible solution that should be spelled out. It will be a bad thing if it becomes a self-perpetuating problem that will continue ad naseum.

The mission in Afghanistan was the one that really needed to be accomplished before we began looking at other 'clear and present dangers'. Iraq was just one problem spot in the world and although there is no longer any evidence that the inevitable nuclear missle strike that Iraq supposedly had is gone we can concentrate on fighting those that really attacked us on 9/11. President Bush made a bold statement at the time during which he said to those nations that harbored terrorists, "you're either with us or you are against us". Those are prophetic words and after only completing part of the mission in the country, it was left at the wayside when Iraq took center stage. And if, as many people still believe, that Iraq was a danger than needed to be quelled sooner rather than later then what about other nations that have also shown signs of unrest and genocide like North Korea, Sudan, Mogadishu, Rwanda? The list can go on but what should be done should be a realistic option.

Rash Shopping Decisions

2009-11-30T08:14:00.003-05:00

It seems that the media loves to create buzzwords or to use buzzwords or phrases that are meant to encapsulate a certain feeling, emotion or event. Early on in the Vietnam War many began to throw the word quagmire around as a reference to the fact that the war was continuing without any 'clear' indication of progress or victory. Soon after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began the media again began to use slogans to rally (or stifle) support fot the wars. But don't get me wrong; not all slogans are used to gain or lose support for wars but for human behavior as well. What behavior would that be? Why shopping of course. For the last few decades the term Black Friday has been thrown around to describe the day after Thanksgiving and all the buzz surrounding the supposed sales that kick off at that time. However most people tend not to associate it with the dubious origins of the phrase and for good reason too.

The term 'Black Friday' was first used in 1869 to describe the financial failure that occurred in the stock market that year. It occurred on a Friday and hence the expression 'black Friday'. Later on the expression came to be associated with two different understandings of the ettiquette of shopping. Firstly it became associated with the time when retailers would first begin printing their shopping ads full of sales and specials for the Christmas shopping season. Typically this was witheld until after Thanksgiving and since no retailer wanted to break tradition this was held for many years until retailers began to realize that they were losing potential business by waiting for so long so in order to help the economy (as part of his efforts to help break the Great Depression) so this led to Franklin Roosevelt moving Thanksgiving up by a week.

The day after Thanksgiving came to be known as Black Friday in more popular parlance due to the fact (and understanding) that sales were expected to be so high that retailers would be in the 'black' (vice being in the 'red' which would indicate a loss). Now when I was growing up there was certainly hype surrounding the day after Thanksgiving sales and deals that would be available to shoppers but I don't ever recall it being so....crazy. I mean there are websites and organizations set up to break the news on who will have the best deals on what merchandise beginning on Friday. Stores and malls often open at midnight in order to get people excited with the hype and hopefully once again ready to spend. I have seen people lined up outside of stores like Wal-Mart and Best Buy as early as 4:00 on Thursday afternoon in order to be among the first into the store on Friday (be it at midnight or 10:00 the next morning).

Now retailers are geared up for today which (since about 2005) is Cyber Monday. The origin of this term comes from the rise in online retailers. Sites like Amazon make it much easier to comparison shop and find really good deals. The logic being that people will go and browse to their heart's content over the Thanksgiving holiday and then begin shopping and comparing prices on Monday online. Hence the moniker 'Cyber Monday'. According to some news outlets it is the busiest shopping day 'online' and sales are expected to be even higher on this day as opposed to Fridays nowadays. And for the life of me I can't figure out why? I mean I won't deny there are great deals to be had on items but is it really that big a deal? Most of this merchandise has been sitting in stores for weeks, months and sometimes longer. No one has been ready to buy it up until this point. The reason being that it is either not the best product for the price or the company is looking to clear inventory. But nowadays if you chalk it up as a after-Thanksgiving bargain then you'll have people lined up out the door?

Why? Why is there such a rush to get in on a deal? Is it because we are by nature a very competitive species? I mean if you ask yourself, isn't there a sense of fulfillment in the fact that you can get your hands on something that someone else can't? If there wasn't that competitive nature built into us would we actually be looking to line up to get movie tickets for weeks ahead of them going on sale (and no this isn't limited to 'Star Wars' fans). Would we fight tooth and nail with fellow shoppers over televisions and DVD/Blu-Ray players? Would we trample people to death at stores simply to ensure that we get something that someone else wanted? Part of the reason for the current financial crisis in our country is the fact that we have overspent ourselves in this competitive market (and I'm not talking competitive in terms of retailers... I'm talking about shoppers). The perception of a deal or a day of deals (i.e., Black Friday or Cyber Monday) means that by our very nature we'll want to make sure we also get in on the deal. That's even if we don't have the money to do it. Isn't credit a wonderful thing?

The Politics of Hypocrisy

2009-11-25T06:03:00.000-05:00

The more things change the more things stay the same. I don't know whether it is lingering resentment over the 2008 Presidential Elections or a lingering effect of the Bush Era attitude of "you're either with us or against us" that is driving so much of a schism between the parties these days. Gone are the days when you could be a moderate. I suppose it means that the battle lines have been drawn and there will no longer be an option of walking through no-man's land. You are either well back on the right or well back on the left and if you're in the middle you'll probably be left behind or marginalized in the grand scheme of things. I think it's a sad thing because not only does this attitude not accomplish anything, but it prevents any positive change from happening as well.

For a while now it's been the healthcare debate but prior to that one of the major issues that affected many in this downturned economy was the decision to extend unemployment insurance. Rather than presenting a unified front which was something that most governmental leaders profess to support they jab the finger at one another over issues that are self-made. What I mean by that is that when the decision to approve the expansion of the insurance was being debated, one side would accuse the other of 'not supporting' the bill. What wasn't being said was that support was being withheld due to the fact that extraneous and unnecessary items were being added to the bills. These included things that have ranged (in other bills at least) pay increases for Congressional leaders or projects that someone believed needed to get tacked onto a bill that was likely to get passed without debate. But all this is hidden from the public (or at least not openly spoken of). Why? Because they (and I include all political leaders in this) want to sieze the opportunity to portray their opponents in a negative light.

Now there are those in power right now who are opposing anything President Obama (or other Democrats) are proposing for no other reason than to show their party (more than their constituents) that they are willing and ready to tow the party line. Why? Because they have more interest in being re-elected than they do in supporting (or in some cases opposing) a bill that they know will affect the public (for good or for bad). At times these same leaders appear to put blinders on to what they tout in public to what they believe their party stands for in public and during elections. Take for example our former President; during his campaigns he consistently talked about the need to streamline government and to return power to the states rather than expanding the Federal Government. Yet after 9/11 one of the first things that was done was the establishment of several new offices including the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

These are three major agencies that have required millions upon millions of dollars to establish and equip. I'm not saying that they aren't necessary to the continued security of our nation and I'm not saying that they were created simply out of some other selfish rationale but what I'm saying is that the Republicans who chastised anyone who didn't support the establishment of these agencies need to admit is that these actions went against what they claimed to stand for in the first place. By creating three major agencies that have federal control are they taking control away from the states or returning it to them? I think the answer is pretty clear. Again; don't misunderstand what I'm saying to mean that I don't support these agencies. I think they're doing a good job in accomplishing what they set out to do but what I don't see polticians doing is admitting to having to bend their political ideology to conform to the needs of the now rather than what they usually stand for. That being the case then I would be more inclined to listen to them. It would be refreshing to hear them spout the truth rather than more CYA type of talk.

The latest forerunner to the Republican poltical landscape is Sarah Palin. Coming in out of nowhere over a year ago she has served to attempt to re-establish the conservative Republican mantra like the religious hymns she professes to sing all the time. It's certainly easier for her to talk about her ideals and the ideals of conservative Republicans now since she's no longer in office as Governor of Alaska. It's like Monday Morning Quarterbacks. They go through a 'woulda-coulda-shoulda' discussion every week (I know... I am a Redskins fan so I've done more than my share this year). Solutions and sticking to your party's base ideology is fine when you're not a politician looking to put it into action. It's harder when you're in office. Ask President Obama. While he's been making good on his promise to withdraw from Iraq he's been forced to seriously consider beefing up US military presence in Afghanistan; something he wasn't exactly for when he was on the campaign trail. I guess things change when you're on the other side of the fence.