PC

                                                                 PC

        No - not Personal Computer and not entirely Politically Correct. I am referring to the two words I most often use to refer to Liberals and Progressives – Patronizing and Condescending. And while I would still argue these words are very descriptive of many on the left who arrogantly think their solutions are not only the best, but also the only solutions to problems that beset us all, I might suggest we are all guilty in some degree of being Patronizing and/or Condescending.

       We seem to categorize people as either beneath us, our equals, or superior to us intellectually. We sometimes are willing to accept, though we may not like those we consider above us or look up to, using a P and/or C (Patronizing and/or Condescending) tone. Those we consider our equals had better not dare use a P and/or C tone in our presence. And yet we feel justified using a P and/or C tone to those we have judged our intellectually inferiors and figuratively look down upon.

        An omniscient God certainly is intellectually superior to each and all of us and figuratively looks down upon us, and chooses not to be P and/or C, but loving towards us. Might we copy this attitude, forgo our judgements, and treat others with love?

Too High a Cost

My fourteen year old son Joe just finished his basketball season with a tournament. I have struggled for years with how rough this game has become. Towards the end of a tight (and extremely rough and loosely called) game, Joe stole the ball and attempted a layup. The boy that had the ball stolen lowered his shoulder and rammed Joe with no apparent attempt to block the ball. Joe ended up in a heap against the wall with his neck bent grotesquely after his head had bounced off the wall and/or floor. A foul was called, but I was incensed and let the referee know that I thought it should have been called a flagrant foul. Later as Joe was attempting a layup he was hit hard again, but no foul was called. When I talked to Joe after the game, he said he had little memory of the final moments of the game. He did not know why he was at the foul line after the foul and had no idea if he made either or both shots. In the locker room after the game he had to ask a teammate what had happened and was told they had lost.

Later it was explained to me that the referees are expected to call a 'loose' game so that we can better compete with the rougher city schools. Thus the referees are faced with the impossible task of not only recognizing a violation but having, in the same split second, to judge the severity of said violation. It is said that today kids play better defense but their offense suffers. I had much rather see a cleaner, closer called game that rewards the beauty of truly athletic plays and punishes the less athletic physicality that reeks of bullying. How many Joe's will be hammered into the floor and wall, and then minutes later in the locker room will have to ask what happened, before we have the maturity to stop this senseless wallowing in brutality, all in the hopes of winning a couple more games?

Lawyers, politicians, pundits, and logic

A number of years ago, I took a course in Modern Geometry. We spent several weeks studying deductive logic (and fallacious arguments), before looking at the geometries. When I had conversations outside of class during that semester and a period of time thereafter, I was struck by the number of times I realized that the conclusion a person was attempting to justify was formed by a fallacious argument. During friendly dialogue I seemed to be constantly thinking that the person's point did not follow from his/her previous statements.
I suppose lawyers prefer to use logic to persuade, but will resort to any and all fallacious arguments to "prove" their point or case. At least in a court of law the representative of the other viewpoint has the opportunity to cast doubt on the falsely reasoned conclusion.
A high percentage of politicians are/were lawyers and seem to relish a platform that is not restrained by a court of law. They no longer have to politely defer to a judge that has sustained an opponent's objection. Our elected officials, in their self fortifying arrogance, when confronted by a differing opinion often loose their composure and become irate (or feign anger) that anyone could disagree with their omnipotence.
Our news people and political pundits seem to be blurring the line between news and opinion, and are willing to stoop to any means to advance their agenda. When I teach, I feel I have succeeded if my students are not sure where I stand after a political discussion. Very few news people and their organizations attempt to report news without not too subtly interjecting their opinions and prejudices whether by choice of words, delivery nuances, or story content.
A recent editorial attempted to minimize the Tea Party by once again characterizing them as racists who cannot accept a shrinking white majority in our country. The lack of validity of the article is rendered secondary when repetition by other "news organizations" that treat the piece as enlightening, reduces the true purpose of and reason for the Tea Party. One might think that these elitists are so far removed from us in "fly over country" that they actually believe their racist propaganda. But I submit that they are very aware of the absurdity of this idea (and others), and choose to use repetitions of falsehoods to mislead those that have been taught what and not how to think by our education system.
Once again I am left with the same two conclusions. The spiritual answer is that however frustrated with our world we become, God is in control and a better world is promised to those of us that are believers. The secular answer is a lifetime of continuing education that comprises not only the accumulation of facts, but also the ability to find and disseminate information, and the reasoning power to think for ourselves.

Free Market Healthcare - Economics 101

2700 pages of government interference is supposed to fix the problems created by past government interference? If one researches the financial meltdown (or was paying attention when it happened), one finds that liberal meddling into safeguard requirements for loan qualification caused the banks to loan money to clearly unqualified customers. Why are we in such a rush to dismantle free market forces and grow a government that has enough trouble handling the areas that the Constitution allows?
Do away with the government requirements for health insurance policies to cover a list of many unnecessary and often unwanted by the customer procedures and drugs, and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. Competition will drive prices lower and keep them there. We could custom fit are needs to our policies - certainly of portion of the millions without healthcare would choose to purchase a low cost, high deductible, catastrophic insurance if it were offered. Those that do not would still be subsidized indirectly by those that do, but solutions that illegally require purchase are also subsidized.
As large as this bill is, it pales in comparison with the largess of government control that it predicates. To assume that our elected officials are more intelligent than those poor in the cities and those primarily in 'fly-over' country is to negate the collective intelligences of the people. It is time for us to realize our individual life experiences and education often deem us as having better understanding and better solutions than the arrogant, patronizing, self serving representatives that have forgotten they are public servants. We, as a nation are at a crossroads in our history. Do we continue down the path of more and more interference in all aspects of our lives until we become drones that exist to maintain a massive and all pervasive, all controlling government, or do we reverse course in an attempt to recapture the dream of our forefathers of a nation of individual liberty and personal responsibility, a nation of people that have unlimited opportunities and yet maintain the capability, through their compassion and unity of purpose, to find viable solutions for those less fortunate?

Is our government broken?

When I was in high school, and during a class meeting about the upcoming prom, the class voted on either the theme colours or the theme song (at my advanced age I cannot remember which). After the vote some who did not get their way tried to force their choice upon the others. I was appalled at their arrogance to think that their choice was so much better than the majority's.
Many progressives/liberals cannot believe others do not share their vision and/or their ideas that are necessary to accomplish that vision. Their belief in their superior intellect does not allow the possibility of a valid dissenting opinion. Those that disagree are labeled racist, obstructionists, compassionless, or mentally deficient. Like my friends from high school, they attempt to achieve their goals by whatever means are available, no matter how unethical or immoral.
Our system of government with its system of checks and balances was set up by our founding fathers so that change would would not come easy. Our government is not broken. It is working quite well, thank you, making sure change is sufficiently thought about and studied before it becomes law.

Those Spoiled Rich-kid Steinbrenners

I am amused at the interplay between Red Sox and Yankee management. It reminds me of a spoiled rich kid who gets angry when he cannot have his way, and his protagonist who realizes how foolish his rival is, but cannot resist poking fun at him. Can anyone imagine any of the Steinbrenners laughing good naturedly at the gift membership in Red Sox nation?

I remember when a former player wanted to play in a regular season game to say he had played in , I believe, a fifth decade. The commissioner vetoed the move as it would make a travesty of the game. Are exhibition games immune? Or or the Yankees playing by different rules? If I were a pitcher asked to pitch against an almost sixty year old Billy Crystal, I would have made sure the inside of the plate was mine. To do this against a team that probably never will have a chance to contend for a championship again (unless a more equitable revenue sharing plan is implemented), is further proof of the ignorance, arrogance, and pomposity of Yankee management.

Will new manager Giraldi overuse the Yankee pitching staff as he did in Florida? Will the Yankee management oversee this and think long term (as they have wisely done with their younger players), or will they once again mortgage their future for another championship? A denial of the championship that they feel is their right probably means heads will roll, heads that are well aware as they play each game of the consequences of failure. Contrast that attitude with the Red Sox, who seem excited to be returning most of their World Series team, but realize many things must fall into place to win it all, and know their part is to work and play to the best of their abilities while enjoying what many of us would trade our souls for.

Television Commercials

It amazes me that it is profitable for companies and corporations to spend so much on commercials. There must be a lot of people out there that buy every '$19.95 plus shipping and handling' item that comes along. How can companies afford these commercials that are run thousands and hundreds of thousands times (and probably millions), if they don't average selling at least several of these items each time they are run? I know most people have car insurance, but every third commercial seems to be about car insurance - what percentage of our insurance bill is just for advertising?
I assume that viewer per television show is declining and the use of the remote to censure commercials, creates a need to show more commercials at a forced lower cost to pay expenses (might greed also be a reason?). One incentive to place ads is increased volume to make sure viewers are jolted into attention. This practice and/or a high number of commercials per hour often helps me to decide that I didn't really want to watch that program.
Many stations have started overriding the credits with commercials. I find this practice deplorable. I would think that those whose names are being rendered unreadable would protest. Couldn't the owners of these shows stipulate that the credits be shown without interference? TVLand even advertises their shows over the ending of the show in progress.
For those of us who have not completely given up on television as a form of entertainment, thank God for Ted Turner and Turner Classic Movies.