Summer Reading Book Review #1

I just finished my first book in my summer reading list, Yes, You Can Still Retire Comfortably by Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth. I loved this book. Stein and DeMuth inject enough dry humor to make what would normally be a dry reading an actually entertaining AND informative reading (quite a difficult act). One of the most interesting things they did that I had not seen in these types of popular books was their use of Monte Carlo testing of their proposed investing strategies as well as comparing their method to other methods (and pointing out where other methods might be more advantageous). The book is divided into three parts:

1. The coming crisis of the coming "baby boomer" retirement tidal wave.
2. Figuring out how much you REALLY need to save.
3. What you can do if you are behind the eight-ball.

While providing a lot of analysis and custom tailoring options the main points can be boiled down to the following:

Most people are not saving enough and most financial planning people are misusing commonly know statistics NOT to the advantage of those looking at retirement.

While sophisticated investors have some options, the best investment strategy that the relatively uninformed lazy investor is the "couch potato" portfolio: invest half of your money in a broad market index fund and half in an medium-long bond index fund.

Save as much and as long as you can into this fund.

When it comes time to withdraw in retirement, withdraw based on whether the market is overvaluing stocks. If yes, withdraw a larger amount from the stock side. If it isn't, withdraw from the bond side (their Web site provides the indicator for you).

Rebalance every five years.

Now there are a lot of details that I, with my mathematical background, absolutely loved (such as rather basing your withdrawal rate based on a combination of comfort level, probability of outliving your investment, etc). The numbers, statistics, and theories are all there but bundled in such a way that if you don't want to read them you are allowed by the authors to skip them and just hit the "What do I do", but anyone serious about retirement should make the effort to plow through the analysis to get an excellent education about what investment and retirement planning should really consider.

Great work guys! I'm definitely getting your other books!

One word...

Pain.

Effective Therapy

I had what some call a "break through moment" this past week in therapy. I had been wandering all over the map (much to the chagrin of my therapist who kept trying to reign me in to the topic at hand), trying after 44 years of living to make any sense at all of my life. But this week was different (who knows, maybe it is because I am now paying out of pocket), but this time when I walked into my therapist's office I said "I want to know why... why did I betray someone who professed to love me so much?". And that was where it started. I could see it in his eyes, that "FINALLY! He's starting to get it" look. Then we did something really, really useful that I had never done before. We deconstructed all of my long-term relationships up to my last one. He then pulled out all of his notes from our sessions and started reading things I had said before, bringing out touchpoints between my wild, general ramblings and this very concrete experiment. What an eye opener. Each subsequent relationship creating an environment that allowed something inside to get off track and not providing exactly the type of environment that would help me bring it back on track no matter what I "wanted". In essence, some of the problem had been allowed to operate at a subconscious level allowing me to act somewhat split... I had compartmentalized two very important areas of human existence... I have "learned" to separate love from sex. There are other issues and I'll be delving into them as time goes on, but it was quite fascinating to hear someone else piece together a plausible trail and to tell me "If you don't get a handle on this now, assuming you want to, you will eventually repeat this same set of events." Good, now I have something to go on, to actually work with.

Sometimes the concrete is a much better realm than the abstract (sorry Plato).

SNAFU

What an up-and-down weekend. Aleks invited me to his graduation up in Burbank. I was so happy because I know what it means to him to get his degree and given all that has happened I was honored that he still wanted me to come. So, I buy new pants, new shirt, a new digital camera (beware, this means photos coming), went to bed early Friday night thinking that if I get on the road by 7:30am I can easily be in Burbank by noon (even with LA traffic). So I get up Saturday, well rested, eat breakfast, shower, shave, feed Romeo, and decide to check the address on the invitation just to make sure I know where I am going... and my heart stops. The graduation ceremony is at 9AM. I see this at 7:10am! There is no way I can dress and get up there in less than two hours! I was heart broken. I started crying (yes, I cry). THE major personal accomplishment in his life and I miss it! I called him (still crying) to tell him that I stupidly read the invitation incorrectly (I thought the reception was at 9 and graduation at noon) and that I was so proud of him and happy for him. His reply was interesting and it started me thinking about things. He said "It's probably for the best". Now this can be taken several ways. His parents had come in and generally that is not the most pleasant of times for several reasons and having me there would be another stressor. Then add to the fact that his friends know that we are apart so it would add yet more confusion and even more stress. This wasn't supposed to be how it happens. It was his day, a time to celebrate meeting a fantastic goal. All morning I began thinking about there things. How I really wanted to be there to support him, to wish him well, to thank him for not shutting me out even though I was the one that betrayed him. But who was going to get the most from that? In the final analysis, me. As much as I was telling myself I wanted to do it for him, I was also doing it for myself. And in the end, it probably was better that I wasn't there. But that doesn't mean my wishes and feeling and thoughts for him are any less.

Summer Movie Season

Well, Friday starts the annual bombastic summer movie season but for all the big budget movies coming out I am not terribly excited. For all the money thrown at the film industry it seems almost everything is at best a sequel and for the most part we're looking at "three-peats" (at least for those with the biggest budget). Let's see... we have first up "Spiderman 3", "Shrek The Third", then "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" (Pirates 3), followed by "Ocean's Thirteen" (Ocean's 11 segment 3), "The Bourne Ultimatum" (Bourne Identity 3), and finally "Rush Hour 3". Add to this the sequels ("Hostel: 2", "Evan Almighty", "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer", and "28 Days Later"), "four-peats" ("Live Free or Die Harder"), "Five-peats" ("Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix"), movies based on television shows ("The Simpsons Movie", "Bratz: The Movie", "Underdog", "Mr Bean's Holiday"), reboots of previous movies ("Halloween", "Transformers", "Hairspray"), and there doesn't seem to be much left. Movies I am looking forward to:

"Fay Grim" (May 18)

"La Vie en Rose" (June 8)

"Transformers" (July 4)

"Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix" (July 13)

"Stardust" (August 10)

"The Invasion" (August 17)

Sure, I'll see more... but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Spring/Summer Reading List

Well, it's that time of year when Borders starts putting out books that they recommend for summer reading. Of course, what they put out never looks like what I wind up reading. I've assembled my own reading list for what I hope to have completed by the end of summer. I've broken it down into various categories for unlike most summer reading programs I hope to have my be both enjoyable and applicable to some area of life:

Personal Growth:

Word Power, Fiske

Golden Men: The Power of Gay Midlife, Kooden

Letting Go Of The Person You Used To Be, Das

You Can Still Retire Comfortably, Stein

The Book of Acts

Professional:

Information Technology Project Management, Schwalbe (for my project management certification)

Microeconomics, McConnell (for my MBA class)

Straight To The Top: Becoming a World-Class CIO, Smith

Pleasure:

The Children of Hurin, Tolkien

The Forever War, Haldeman

Snow Crash, Stephenson

(NOTE: This section seems a little light, but in three weeks I plan on joining a Sci-Fi book club, so I will be reading whatever they select... I'll keep you updated)

So folks, that's my list as it stands. Now to find my glasses!

Leadership the Iacocca Way

I just finished reading Where Have All The Leaders Gone? by Lee Iacocca. Now as most of you know I am working on an MBA which has required a tremendous amount of reading on the idea of leadership. Mr Iacocca's book wouldn't make the cut as one of the school's textbooks but it's a rip-roaring read by a man who has spent his life leading and not just "studying" leadership. Now in all honesty, if you are looking for deep analysis or some type of gimmick (the "seven effectual habits of the four circles at the top of the five level pyramid" types of books prevalent today) you can just skip this one. But if you are looking for passionate talk from a "real man" check it out.

Mr. Iacocca's closing chapter is very impassioned plea for people, everyday people, to take on the role of leaders. Though his main thoughts area about the 2008 election, his three points are worth thinking about in our daily lives. In his call to action Mr Iacocca asks every American voter to do three things:

Give something up

Put something back in

Elect a leader

Let's look at these out of the singular context of politics and apply them to everyday life:

Give something up. Let's face it, most people today are not taught to view things in a "give and take" manner but in a "take, and then take some more" way. We want everything given to us without our having to do without. Don't save for that vacation, put it on your credit card. Don't be content with what you have when you can borrow on your house to buy that H2. But if we are honest, there WILL come a day that you (or your children) will have to pay. Perhaps we as a people would be better off if we experienced a little more "delayed gratification" and a little less "instant gratification". Real leaders know that sometimes you give up the "quick buck" to get more in the future.

Put something back in. Let's expand on the first point and not just "save", but "invest". How about instead of a movie every week we give the price of that ticket to a charity? And do we really need to spend an average of 20 hours a week in front of the television? Suppose we spend only 16 hours a week in front of the tube and donated an afternoon or evening teaching people to read or cleaning up the neighborhood park (or one of a number of things to make our neighborhood/society a little "better")? Real leaders know that putting in even a little can yield much whether it is time or money (or better yet, both).

Elect a leader. Expect things from people, especially those who are in power. Don't just put the guy or gal in who seems nice or dresses nice or speaks well, but have a standard (or better yet, SET ONE YOURSELF)... and don't expect anything less. And when they want to do something, ask questions like "Show us where this has worked." and hold them accountable.

Not bad. Imagine where we would be as a people if we adopted Mr. Iacocca's "simple" three points. I think better off than we are now.

Nurturing My Inner Nerd

Last weekend I got back in touch with my "inner nerd". I attended the 2007 One Ring Celebration (affectionately known as ORC). It was good for me to get out of town for a few days and nurture/pamper myself given all that has recently happened. As expected, I spent most of my time in the academic track attending presentations such as "Why We Should Care About the Children of Hurin" by professor/film critic/author Greg Wright (a fantastic speaker and a great guy... thanks for the book!) and "The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful in The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings" by Katrelya Angus (I loved the parallels that she drew between the works as well as the contrasts). Doug Adams did two great presentations about Howard Shore’s music which made me want to run out and buy the CDs. The Friday night concert by The Brobdingnagian Bards was a lot of fun and the mixer Saturday night gave us a surprise by the appearance of Andy Serkis who spent time with everyone in the room.

I shared a room with my friend Sarah (who didn't mind at all that I got up at 5:30am to go to the gym). I came back with some nice things, won two art auctions for LOTR-related art, and spent many hours discussing and debating themes in Tolkien's works, all of which will help firmly reconnect me with my "inner nerd"... I think this is the start of something good.

Why Apologize?

OK, who hasn't read heard or read the statements by Retired Miami Heat guard Tim Hardaway? I've done both and I have to say that Tim really, really, really hates gay people. I mean, how much more blunt does he have to put it:

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people...I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

Fair enough, at least he's honest. But what really bugs me is his "apology" during a subsequent phone interview with a sports radio host:

"Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake."

So what is he sorry for? For speaking his mind when asked about what he thinks (or at least believes)? Does anyone really take his apology seriously? Personally, I think the man is an idiot, but I also think he has the right to speak his opinions. Things like this need to be out in the open. Silent enemies are enemies just the same. I think that I am better off knowing who and where they are.

44

Today I turn 44. Other famous 44's include:

The 44 Magnum

U. S. Route 44

+44

APA Division 44 (interestingly enough, The Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues)

Ruthenium

U. S. Title 44

Star Cluster M44

Yahoo

Travels Into Zen: Part One

Change is difficult to take and lately a lot has come my way in the past month. As part of trying to learn about myself I am learning the practice of Zen meditation. For those of you that do not know about it, Zen is simply learning to live now, to be aware of the present rather than worry about the past or to fear the future. It is learning to be able to quiet the constant chatter of the mind, to focus thoughts and attention and not be distracted by the ebb and flow of things you cannot change. What I like about Zen is that it isn't religion and in fact it can be integrated into whatever religious tendencies you have. Saturday I attended my first meditation session at the neighborhood Dharma Center. A few of the things said I let go past me (some of the Buddhist aspects of the teaching) but the Zen aspects were very enlightening. Jenna (the teacher) spoke about learning to be responsible for the things we have control over and gave a good example about driving in our "lovely" San Diego traffic and getting cut off in traffic. We cannot be held responsible for the actions of the jerk who cuts us off in traffic but we can be responsible for how we deal with it. Another section of the talk during the session was dealing with work. What we need be concerned about is just doing the best job we can do and not be so worried about how much the boss likes it. To do this we have to be mindful of our actions, to be aware of what we think and what we do. This is the beginning of Zen. It will be a long, long journey but one that I think will be worth it.

A New Year For Self Discovery

It's amazing how much can change in a short time. One minute it is 2006, the next it is 2007. One minute you're happy, the next your world collapses around you. I have to say that 2007 is starting off as the worse year of this decade. But, as corny as it sounds, rather than seeing problems you should see opportunities to improve yourself. I starting working on some serious problems in my life this year... emotionally, spiritually, physically, and mentally (God, I sound like a real wreck). One of the books I am reading has me do something that Pookie had been trying to tell me, but with my anti-Oprah mentality I greatly resisted. What was that little nugget of wisdom that might help me? It is this... create a list of things you want. Now this is part of cognative behavior modification, but the idea is the same. In this "course" you create a one year list and a five year list of things you want to accomplish. Not just cream-puff stuff either, but real goals that you have to strive for. Pookie has a life list. I'm not that far yet (shoot, lately seeing tomorrow is a major accomplishment), but putting things within a one and five year framework seems reasonable to me. Why do this? Two things I have recently learned thus far:

I have been drifting through life. I have been fortunate getting this far, but to be perfectly honest I never planned it. Goals help give me some focus. I have tried to hit several areas of living, so hopefully when this period is over I will be a more fulfilled person.

Not only have I drifted through life, but I have not really taken the time to examine this life I have been given. I've taken people and events for granted. This would have greatly injured Socrates who said "The unexamined life is not worth living". Putting down goals helps me to examine my life and where it is going, where I want it to be, and hopefully map out a way to get there.

So, if you are the praying type, please pray for me as well as those around me whom I have hurt due to my thoughtlessness, my inattention to the effects the waves of my own life have on those around me. Hopefully I will have something better to report later.

Disagreeing With Dennis

I like Dennis Prager. He has a radio talk show out of LA that I am fortunate enough to hear in San Diego. He is calm, rational, a passionate conservative, endorses my favorite cigar shop but unfortunately this time, is wrong. To what am I referring? In this morning's San Diego Tribune Mr. Prager has an editorial piece titled "To GOP disaffected: Stay angry, but vote 'smart' and Republican anyway". Now I do not disagree with everything he says, but Mr. Prager creates a false dicotomy in his article by presuming that the only alternative to voting Republican is to vote Democrat. For smaller-government folks like me there are alternatives such as the Libertarian Party, for more socially conservative (yes, believe it or not there are those more conservative than the Republicans), there is the Constitution Party, and even for those who are really contemporary liberal in California I suggest you look at the Peace and Freedom Party or at a national level the Green Party. Now where I agree with Mr. Prager is that disaffected Republicans shouldn't vote Democrat. That would send the WRONG message to the National Republican politicos as well as making Democrats think that people actually support their ideas. Those of us whole fall under the Goldwater/Reagan brand of Republicanism don't and it would be wrong for us to vote Democrat simply to spank those Repulbican politicians in DC. If you are for smaller government, help the Libertarians. If you really are more theocratic, seriously consider parties such as the Constitution Party. As Ryan Sager points out in his excellent book The Elephant in the Room, both branches of the old "fusionism" have been abandoned by the current cabal of "big government conservatives" currently occupying the halls of power. Now granted, if enough of us did switch to third parties this election cycle Democrats would be the ultimate winners, but there HAS to be some way to tell the ruling Republicans that enough is enough and that WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK!

Does He Expect Us To Believe This?

I fear that Christianity has become infected by the liberal virus. What do I mean? Well, it is well known that the liberal elite consider evangelicals to be stupid, weak willed, and easily led. It appears that this same feeling is now among the evangelical elite. Consider the recent shenanigans of evangelist and former president of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) Ted Haggard. Now let's face it, people in places of power are mighty tempting targets for their opponents so it is not beyond the pale of belief that someone was "gunning" for him and started spreading stories about his hidden trysts with a gay prostitute. But, if they were not true, simple denial and demand for evidence should suffice. However, me thinks that "Rev" Haggard protests too much in his attempt to follow former President Clinton's "I smoked but didn't inhale" defense. I mean, really, does Ted Haggard actually think that the people who follow his ministry and the the people he associated with as head of the NAE believe that he:

Bought meth because he was curious about it, then threw it away.

Went to visit a male prostitute for a massage and didn't engage in sex.

Of course, what is as embarassing is how the politicos are playing it, chalking it up to some conspiracy because it is close to election time and using it to hurt either (1) the gay-related initiative in Colorado, (2) Rebpulicans in general (they don't need help in doing that, thanks Mr. Foley), and (3) George Bush himself since he calls himself evangelical.

Is this the best we conservatives can do (please note I call my self conservative, NOT Republican as I no longer believe they two are close enough to be properly interchangeable)? Are we really so stupid to believe Haggard's story AND the Republican response? I pray we aren't.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

Well, I just took the famous "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and like everything else in my life I fall on a boundary, but it was not unexpected:

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

You fall exactly on the border of two political philosophies...

CONSERVATIVE

LIBERTARIAN

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal
and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government;
one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion
and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual
responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes,
promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the
free market, and defend civil liberties.

So now it's official... I'm Superman.

Your results:
You are Superman

Superman 85% Green Lantern 75% Spider-Man 75% Iron Man 70% The Flash 60% Supergirl 57% Robin 54% Batman 50% Wonder Woman 47% Hulk 45% Catwoman 40%

You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others.

Click here to take the Superhero Personality Quiz

To Whom Much Is Given...

I'm a very upset conservative Republican. So much so that I am casting aside what little protection they provide against the wacko Democrats and am really hoping they get walloped this election cycle. This batch, is a word, sucks. Why do they suck? Simply because they violate something I was taught as a child by very conservative, commonsense oriented parents, that you should live your life according to the very Biblical principle of "To whoever much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48). Growing up, this principle was also a very Republican principle. In 1994 the Republicans gained control of Congress. This should have brought in a golden age of Republican principles of care, rational compassion, and liberty. But we find out that Washington is stronger than principles. Witness the fact that Republicans fell prey to the same problem that overtook what was once a principled Democrat party, they moved from a party of ideas and principles to a party concerned only with keeping power. SHAME! And no, this isn't just about Foley, but Foley is a symptom of the greater disease. Delay, Abramson, Cunningham, etc. have all showed that there is a cancer in the GOP that needs to be excised. And don't you dare give me the "Well, the Democrats are just as bad if not worse" excuse, that doesn't cut it... my ethics is neither relative nor situational, and why should I have to settle for the lesser of two evils? So, here's to the necessary surgery that hopefully will bring back some discipline and principles, here's to losing!

Washingon and Cajones

I watched the first part of ABC's rather good The Path to 9/11 last night. Unfortunately I have to wait until Saturday to see part two since our local ABC affiliate is showing Charger's football tonight (go figure, I watch a television show for the first time in months and they make me wait almost a week to see the conclusion). A very powerful part of the film, even though it was cut from the original version, was when the United States botched the opportunity to actually get Bin Laden. Due to a lack of testicular fortitude our national security "leaders" refused to give the go-ahead to our people in the field who along with several members of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance had Osama in their sights. Ahmed Massoud, the later assassinated leader of the Northern Alliance is given the line "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" I have been asking myself this question over the last couple of years. Time and time again those in Washington, and particularly those in my own party of choice (Republican, just in case you haven't figured it out by now), have demonstrated a depressing lack of will or even desire to lead. What matters now is re-election and politicians on both sides of the isle have sold their souls to get get the power that comes with it, but they no longer want the responsiblity that comes with it. Within the Republican party one need simply look at the following statements to see the shift in thinking:

"Government isn't the solution, government is the problem" - Ronald Reagan

"Too often, my party has confused the need for limited government with a disdain for government itself" - George W. Bush.

Government, geeze, I find it had to even use that word because it implies some type of governing which means to exercise authority (which has been abdicated to polls and greed for power) or to exercise control (and as we have seen those in both parties exercise about as much control as drunken sailors on payday), has lost it's backbone. I have come to believe, as does Pat Buchanan, that "... Congress is an institutional coward", they allow the courts and the administration deal with the hot issues that they should deal with all for the sake of enough popularity to get re-elected.

Sadly Mr. Massoud, the answer to your question is "No".

A Lover's Squabble

It's so sad, two institutions that have been "in bed" for oh so many years having a lover's tiff. Who are they? Why, it's the Democrat Party and ABC news. For those of you who didn't know, ABC is set to air a miniseries about the "road to 9/11". While the mainstream democrats who have seen the preview have little bad to say about it, Bill Clinton and his gang are all upset with the focus being on them, which is a natural consequence of having been the governing group in the time leading up to 9/11 (for those of you who have problems with math, GW had been in office less than eight months). ABC has said that it is not a factual documentary but "a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials." Given this, Democrat leader Harry Reid said it was "a work of fiction" (duh... ABC publically admits it is not a documentary) and adds his voice to the Clinton chorus demanding that ABC pull the movie.

It's sad to see a lovers' quarrel. It's even more sad to see how Clinton and company think the world still revolves around them.

I'm Back!

Okay, enough time sitting on the sidelines and watching the parade. It's time to stick the foot out and trip someone. Seriously, it is amazing how a great vacation can clear up your head. Pookie and I spent two weeks in France (yes, that place, home of the "Great Satan", a place that I love). We spent time in Figeac, Albi, Carcassonne, Bordeaux, Mont St. Michel, Rouen and Paris. As much as I love the United States (and trust me, I do... I get all teary-eyed when I hear the "Star Spangled Banner"), there are just some things that you cannot do and cannot get here... like foie gras that doesn't taste like liverworst, or go to a piano recital in a 12th century church). And I just HAVE to have some admiration for a country whose productivity exceeds that of the United States while working a 35 hour week, taking two hour lunches, and getting a month of vacation!

But now I'm back and promise to write you all much more regularly.

Mike

Welcome to the Mexican State of California

It's interesting... this morning I heard this on the Bill Handel Show (KFI AM640, Los Angeles). Later, over lunch, I was listening to a previously recorded show hosted by Mr. KABC and my favorite radio personality April Winchell and it was announcement of the same story at the moment it happened. What was it (if you are too lazy to click the link)? It was a story about a Mexican couple in Los Angeles who had given birth to quadruplets. The babies are doing fine, but as amazing as having quadruplets is that is not the focus. Instead, let me outline the facts and present them as exhibit A in the case against allowing unfettered illegal aliens into the country:

• The couple have been in this country for over two decades, the husband for 28 years and the wife 22 years, yet according to the article neither speak any English. Their oldest daughter speaks very limited English.


• The couple have 10 children, nine living at home. They live in a one bedroom apartment in Los Angeles.


• The family income is $400 per week, plus federal and state assistance including $700 per month for medical expenses for a child born with hydroencephalopathy.
  
  
• The wife actually had a tubal ligation after their third daughter. Because the husband wanted a son, they later had the the ligation reveresed and they had fertility drugs smuggled in from Mexico. The wife then had triplets and finally the quadruplets.

But that is not the end of the story. It seems the family of the wife had other daughters who came into the country illegally as well. One of them married a man and, seeing they couldn't make it in Los Angeles, moved to Lexington Kentucky. According to the article they are doing well today. They and their small family have accepted America as their home, learned English, learned trades, and are making more money in Lexington than they could in Los Angeles. What is quite interesting are the comments they make about life in LA. The sister says that California has become Mexico, that there are too many people, illegals they say, that depress wages for blue-collar workers. They have large families they cannot support. Their daughters start having children of their own at age 14. They have large enclaves of like-kind and feel no need to learn English or become "more American". These aren't the words of a racist white man (the common charge) but the sayings of those who lived what is happening. Yet in the name of "capitalism" far too many supporters of big business and the ruling caste of Congress seem to be willing to accept it.

Some Information on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Well, here we are again. The American press and the liberals-with-an-agenda-but-without-information have painted the picture of "ignorant Christians" against the so-called science of the agnostic/atheist. But things are not as simple as the press would have us believe. As things stand today, in the roughly 30 years of stem cell research there have been no medical treatments come from embryonic stem cell (ESC) studies. On the other hand, adult stem cells have yielded success in no less than 72 treatments. The potential may be great, but it is at least at present an unfulfilled potential that has as of yet not delivered on its widely touted promises. However, to further investigate this "potential" it requires the destruction of "cells" that will become fully-developed human beings. So is the possible payoff worth the ethical taint that comes from killing the innocent? Many scientists have said the answer is no. As an example, consider the following quote:

“Although embryonic stem cells have the broadest differentiation potential, their use for cellular therapeutics is excluded for several reasons: the uncontrollable development of teratomas in a syngeneic transplantation model, imprinting-related developmental abnormalities, and ethical issues.” (Gesine Kögler et al., A New Human Somatic Stem Cell from Placental Cord Blood with Intrinsic Pluripotent Differentiation Potential, Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. 200, No. 2 (July 19, 2004), p. 123).

Conservatives are not against stem cell research and I am getting tired of liberals and the press trying to make that case. Restrictions on federal funding does not make stem cell research, even ESC research illegal in any way. Consider the current case in California where the state has allocated $3 billion for such research and there is nothing the federal government can do about it.

Liberals should learn to think before shooting off their mouths in an attempt to score political points by abusive ad hominem attacks.

I'm NOT Nitpicky... I'm Simply Accurate

Geeze, some days I really get slammed. I mean, I like accuracy, regardless of the area of life it falls into. The past few years I have been rather upset over the liberties that film makers take with certain movies (the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for instance, or more lately, X3), but when I voice such concerns I seem to be drowned out by the chorus of my friends who tell me that they "separate the book from the movie" and can "appreciate the director's interpretation" (or some similar drivel). They seem to think I don't understand how art is supposed to work. Well trust me, I understand, but what I understand (and care more about) is truth and accuracy. It is one thing to alter settings, switch around minor characters, mix dialogue, but it another to create a different story and try to pass it off as something that has a history. When I evaluate movies based on literature that I know, I have two simple criteria:

1. After seeing the movie, can you tell me a reasonable accurate summary that does justice to the primary source?
2. Do the characters portrayed on screen do things consistent with how the character in the text might do them given the same situation (see, I am flexible... they don't have to do exactly the same things, just act consistently with the character of the person in the text)

Now I can argue details, but for most people that isn't fun, but there are certain things that are just not right happening in movies today that really bother me. Here are a couple of "for instance" situations:

In the first LOTR movie, The Fellowship of the Ring, they have Arwen taking the injured Frodo to Rivendell while the book says it was Glorfindel. Fair enough, I can live with that (Story: "Important elf takes injured Frodo to Rivedell to heal", which is what happened). What I detest is the line they make her say, something NO TOLKIEN ELF would utter: "If you want him, come and claim him." ARGH! No, no, no. This is completely out of character for an elf in Middle Earth. Now, jump to X3, out this year. ******* MOVIE SPOILER ******** There is no way Wolverine would kill Phoenix. In fact, in the Dark Phoenix saga, he does have a chance to and he pulls his claws at the last minute. In a later conversation where the terror of Dark Phoenix (which actually isn't developed in the movie, it just appears), Wolverine pulls a "fast ball special" with Colossus and hurls Colossus at Dark Phoenix to kill her, Wolverine TELLS COLOSSUS HE (Wolverine) CANNOT KILL HER, that he had his chance and just couldn't do it so it was up to Colossus. And yet, what do they do in the movie??? Wrong, wrong, wrong! I can live with certain alterations, the problem of time and the need to compress and blend, but I just cannot stand it when they change the character. It would be impossible for anyone to tell me the basics of the Dark Phoenix saga from watching X3. And by the way, what's up with the bridge scene? Yeah, it looked cool, but there are so many ways for Magneto to have taken down the building and taken out the guards. Sheesh!

Anyway, I hope that this rambling makes sense. I can appreciate artistic license as much as anyone else, but just like with a driver's license or a gun license, that does not mean you can do just any old thing you want!

Frustrated Capitalist

It's becoming more and more difficult to support capitalism, or at least the current flavor of capitalism existing in America today. I have never really been a fan of what I call "Corporate Capitalism", the idea that big business is always good for us and whatever they want or need is what we must give them. Perhaps if they were better corporate citizens I might take a more favorable stance towards them, but given recent news over CEO pay and executive pensions I simply am disgusted. Consider the following two pieces of information:

An article recently ran in our local paper (see Yahoo!News here) stating that on average, CEOs earn 262 times the average worker's salary (CEOs about $11 million, average worker about $42,000). And if you look at the various different articles on this same topic, you will find that it seems what they actually did at the company made no difference. You can drive your company into the ground and STILL make more in a day than the average worker makes in a year. Back in the 1960s the multiple was closer to 24 or 25... have CEOs improved ten-fold over that period in time? As hourly wages are frozen or barely keeping up with inflation, the top tier take home more and more. Now not all companies are like this (consider Whole Foods which caps CEO pay at 14 times the average employee's pay, plus stock options), but enough are that I am surprised stock holders do not rise up and in a fit of disgust sell out everything they have (and given the current market, bonds might be a better short-term deal). I dunno, perhaps it was a fact of growing up poor and believing that hard work will be valued that I find myself in disbelief when I see such reports on compensation.

The second article is from the Wall Street Journal (23-June-2006) titled "Hidden Burden: As Workers' Pensions Wither, Those for Executives Flourish" (you can find a summarized version here. All you hear today is how employee pensions are a drag to business and must be jettisoned for many companies to survive. One quote from GM: "Our extensive pension and [post-employment] obligations to retirees are a competitive disadvantage for us". But the Journal, after looking at the reported numbers, states "The pension plans for its rank-and-file U.S. workers are overstuffed with cash, containing about $9 billion more than is needed to meet their obligations for years to come." At the same time, the pension obligations for executives are a liability to the company of $1.4 billion! And Lucent's employee pension actually brings in money to the company (over half of its profit comes from revenue from the employee pension). Disgusting! If you have the time, track down a copy and read it... but take your blood pressure medicine first.

I'll write more about this later, but right now I am so angry I can't see straight.

Wisdom From Lord of the Rings

The skill of the Elves can reforge the sword of Elendil – but only you can wield it.
– Elrond, to Aragorn

It's difficult not to find things that make you stop and think in The Lord of the Rings but this morning that line hit me out of left field. I was fortunate enough to work from home today and when I do I like to put something in the VCR to help break the silence. I had intended to watch the second disk of The Two Tours but what got popped in was the second disk to Fellowship of the Ring and my random button pushing stopped it right on that line. Suddenly I was hit with implications of what Elrond was telling Aragorn, and not just in Professor Tolkien's wonderful world of Middle Earth! Just as that choice was put before Aragorn it is put in front of each and every one of us today. Consider the following: Society can help create opportunities, but they cannot really make us take those opportunities and make something of them. We have to be active. The elves could repair the sword (heck, they made the sword), but they could not fight the battles that were not theirs to fight. Government can allocate all the money it wants and create as many quotas it wants, but unless those qualified take the opportunities granted to them and make something of them it comes to naught. You cannot make people go to college, succeed at studies, take certain jobs, and be successful in life unless they actually have some desire to do so. If you try to force them, or create artifical environments in which they work (that is, make the wrong weapon... not the needed "sword of Elendil", but the "salad fork of Martha Stewart", both useful but not interchangable), they will fail at their task. Not only will they fail, but they will more likely than not screw it up for those coming behind them (after all, if you went into battle who would you want to follow, someone with a sword or someone with a salad fork?). People can do things to help me, social organizations and even occasionally government can help create situations for me, it is up to me (or you in your case) to grab the pommel, to take the sword and use it as it was meant to be used.

Truth Hurts

Posted by Picasa
I'm a Christian and a conservative (and let's complete it, I am a conservative Christian), but I have gotten so disgusted with Republican pandering that I want to run out and join the ACLU in protest! The most difficult thing about this editorial cartoon is that it really is an accurate portrayal of what is happening today with our Republican "representation". Rather than deal with many of the hard issues of the day they would rather do things such as hold silly votes over the definition of marriage (which is a local issue last time I checked). Our students are being dumbed down by our educational system, we have government failures at all levels during emergencies such as what happened with Katrina, Our deficit is running out of control, people are worried about losing their jobs due to outsourcing, our infrastructure in crumbling, a sizeable percentage of our legal population is without adequate health care, a vast majority of Americans may never get to retire without living in fear, and what do we get? "Our country is threatened by homosexuals being able to marry!" and "Let's make English our national language, sort of, kinda, well, without actually doing anything to make it anything special!" "Let's proclaim smoking bad and slap a big nasty tax on cigarettes!"
I mean really, if you are going to waste our time and our (the taxpayers' monies), at least really DO something. You want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Make divorce illegal! You want English to be the established language, then make language classes required for citizenship and stop publishing documents in 140 different languages. If smoking (or fast food or whatever) is so bad, then make it illegal! Seriously, lawmakers are a joke anymore. There is no longer governance and leadership coming from our seats of power, only politics. But until we the voter population get serious as well, nothing will change. As they say in the re-enactments on television, "The names have been changed", but the stench of the policy remains.

666 Silliness

What a cool marketing ploy, releasing The Omen on June 6, 2006. Great for movie marketing, but what makes me sad is how many Christians get caught up in such silly ideas as assigning any meaning whatsoever to today's date. And of course the press has just salivating over showing what ignornate rubes we are. While at the gym this morning each television in the aerobics area was showing a different morning "news" program and every single station (four in all) had a segment within minutes of each other talking about the significance Christians applied to 666 (or 06-06-06). Unfortunately they never spoke with me.

So where does this come from? In the book of Revelation we are told:

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666" (Rev. 13:16-18)

Well, I have yet to hear of the emergence of a world leader nor have I heard of people being forced to accept "the mark" to be able to conduct any commerce. Interesting isn't it how Scripture is pretty clear that this "mark" is the "name of the beast". Not a date (especially not June 6, 2006... why not June 6 1906, 1806, 1706, etc?) but a name, it has to be associated with the person who is called "the Beast".

How much more plain does it have to get? Personally, I think stupidity is the mark of the beast, after all, what better allies can Satan have than people who proclaim the name of Christ yet can't even interpret the plain teachings of texts like this one, discrediting those of us who struggle against such popular perceptions.

Remember... And Be Worthy

Today is Memorial Day and what more fitting quote than that of General George S. Patton:

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died, rather we should thank God that such men lived.

Yet how many of us really do thank God that such men (and women) lived, those who as Lincoln said "gave the last full measure of devotion"? And just as importantly, are we making ourselves worthy of the their sacrifice? Have you ever stopped and thought about what it really is that we ask of the young men and women in our armed services? In today's editorial section of the San Diego Union Tribune we are reminded:

The soldiers and Marines who are casualties in this war didn't make the policy. They went where their country sent them and did what it asked them to do against murderous enemies

I hope you realize that we cannot abstract this request as "the Government" told them to do this, it wasn't me. Oh, but it was you, and me, who did it, we cast our ballots, we get lazy and think in a sloppy manner and go through mental acrobatics to absolve ourselves of responsiblity, but we don't hold our "leaders" accountable in any meaningful way. The left is a shrill whose hatred of George Bush the Republican and public evangelical *gasp* makes them a parody of what political opposition should be, while the right takes the tax cuts and cares about nothing else. SHAME ON YOU BOTH! Saying "We hate all Republicans and everything they stand for" (thanks Mr. Dean for the great soundbite) or "I'm a loyal Republican" is not part of argument any sane person would make. This is your government, whether you voted for the man or not. If I cannot convince you of this, perhaps Lincoln can:

It is rather for us the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Now go, whether you support the war or not, make yourselves worthy of these people who gave their life and limb for our country... no, for you.

I Suspected Draco... But Harry Too?

My friend Angelique passed the first link on to me today and I found the second on on my own. Depending on how sacrosanct you hold Harry Potter, you may not like them but I found them hilarious. Enjoy!

Harry Meets South Park?
Which Hogwarts Boy Is...

Problems With Statistics

If you were to look at the unemployment statistics for San Diego you would think that we were living in boom times. According to the San Diego Workforce Partnership unemployment for April 2006 was 3.7% (4.5% for the United States which, in the thinking of economics students across the country, means we are at full employment). We are constantly told that San Diego is a haven of job security. Why, if you lose your job for whatever reason you should have no problem at all finding another one. Given the numbers, that may be true, but before you decide to take out that loan against your house's equity perhaps you should look a little closer at those jobs. Our political and civic "leaders" want to tell us that we are a big draw for high paying jobs such as biotech and technology. After having lived here for seven years I am still looking for all of those high-paying high tech companies. True, we do have Qualcomm, and Intuit does have a pretty big presence here, but except for those two and Sony what we have at best are small "mom and pop" shops. While they are doing some interesting work, the salaries I have been quoted by various agencies are not all that promising. I get the same feedback from my friends working in similar technical positions. Salaries for the most part have been stagnant and new offerings at the same level of experience has been a little lower than existing positions. Not good considering the ever increasing cost of living in southern California. And as for biotech, the vast majority of companies here employ less than 100 people. While the benefits are pretty good, again the pay for most positions has stagnated or slightly declined. Now, we are losing jobs in what many have been saying is our strongest area (biotech). In today's San Diego Union Tribune business section there appeared an article titled Diagnostics plant will close; toll is 150 jobs. The parent company of Applied Biotech, a Massachusetts company by the name of Inverness Medical Innovations, is closing its plant here and moving the jobs to China. What I found stunning was the admission in the article that

... while there are no reliable figures on how many U. S. life science jobs have been lost to the practice [offshoring] the toll is beginning to be felt in San Diego.

The article discusses what happened to another San Diego biotechnology company, Discovery Partners International, that let go half of its workforce when it lost a contract with Pfizer to "a rival overseas firm". Discovery is now trying to sell most of its remaining operations with the fate of its remaining employees unclear.

Oh well, given the strength of the San Diego employment market, if I lose my high-tech job I suppose I could always be a bartender (hospitality had the highest increase in jobs created for the category "non-farm and salaried jobs). I couldn't afford my rent, my car payment, or my utilities, but our "leaders" would be happy to know that I was still employed and helping to keep that unemployment figure down.

Marcel For Today

My reading program this year includes the works of the French philosopher and playwrite Gabriel Marcel. I have found some very interesting insights from this "Christian existentialist" that, though written more than 60 years ago, are very applicable today. Consider this passage from Man Against Mass Society (it is a bit long, but please bear with me):

... this sinister ambiguity in the popular argument for equality - that those who demand the greatest equality claim to be thinking of the nation's economic strength, when in fact they may be secretly encouraging its weakness - has not really been cleared away; and that levelling down, that is to say the basest and easiest way of seeking social equality, is the principle which seems to underly most of the legal arrangements which in France weigh so heavily on our day-to-day existence.

Substitute American for France and we have a pretty accurage picture of those who scream "Equality" the loudest. Rather than really trying to help raise people up, hold them to certain standards, the current point of view is to lower the bar.

This is all part of a broader "degradation" that Marcel addresses in this marvelous work that seems to speak across the decades to me. As I read more I promise to share them with you, if for no other reason to show you that not all Frenchmen are bad.

Immigration This Time Around

Over and over again we are told by President Bush that "America is a nation of immigrants". While this statement is true as far as it goes, we must understand that this time it's a bit different. If we only stop and think about the various waves of immigration prior to the current time of debate we can easily see the following important differences that the supposed defenders of our American ideals and American way of life, for what ever reason, seem to miss (greed is my bet, what's yours?):

• Virtually all previous waves of immigration have been from distant shores. The original settlers of the late 17th century were mainly northern Europeans. The second wave of immigrants coming in the late 19th century and early 20th century were mainly southern Europeans, the Irish, the Poles, and the Asians. Coming here meant separation from your "mother country" to begin a new life. You really had to try to assimilate, and since the migration here was largely controlled (there are only so many steamers crossing the Atlantic and Pacific) it was, for the most part, successful. This is not the case with the current immigration problem with Mexico. Not only is it continuous, but with the United States sharing a border, there is no real reason to separate yourself from your place of origin. Let's face it, with our porous border illegal aliens can move back and forth pretty much as they wish. I would bet that if there was a large body of water separating the two countries rather than what currently exists (almost nothing), the assimilation issue would go away within a couple of generations. But what we have is a continuous influx of new Mexican arrivals which diminishes the need for assimilation into the culture. And let's face it, in their greed American businesses are not helping. As Victor Davis Hanson so bluntly puts it in his book Mexifornia

A Pole once accepted that she would perpetually stumble through the Cleveland phone book if she kept speaking Polish; a Mexican accepts as a given that Pacific Bell will double the size of its directory assistance just to accommodate her Spanish.


• According to various polls (such as this Zogby poll) and the expressed thoughts of organizations in this country such as The National Council of La Raza and Mecha, the majority Mexican citizens believe that the American Southwest "rightfully belongs to Mexico". Their attitude is, "This place is ours, not yours, so we have every right to come here when we want regardless of whatever laws you pass." Where in the other mass movements to the United States have we see this attitude so prevalent?



• The proximity of the United States plus the attitude of the majority of Mexicans give the Mexican government a great incentive to keep this up. After all, if the poorest people keep leaving the country then the government will have little incentive to deal with the problems of their countrymen (and lets not forget all the money that is sent back... that sum is supposedly the second largest source of revenue for Mexico). It's interesting that we have Latinos protesting here when our own government makes the slightest whisper of any inclination towards a desire of doing anything about the issue of illegal immigration, yet there seems to be no protests by Latinos in Mexico against how that government treats its poor. To see just how important it is to the Mexican government to keep this social pressure valve open you need only consider the recent rumblings within the Mexican government about using any means to prevent the United States from reinforcing its border protection. What we do on our side of the border is really none of their business, but they make it their business because of the benefits they gain.

So if I can figure this out without the aid of thousands of analysts and millions of dollars in strategic studies about the issue why can't Washington?

Real Republicans

I am starting to think that nearly all Republicans in Washington are RINOs (Republican In Name Only). After the disaster with immigration, we now get the following report about Congress and the budget. In case you hadn't heard, Congress passed a 2.7 TRILLION DOLLAR "budget" in which Congress itself estimates will have a 348 BILLION DOLLAR deficit! And to make matters worse, it will probably be more because they allocated half of the current amount going to efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

First, the lie:

House Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, addressed conservatives' concerns about deficits saying, "With revenues rising and holding the line on spending we can in fact balance the budget in the next four or five years."

Tell me Mr Boehner, how is having a 348 BILLION DOLLAR deficit "holding the line" when you did unrealistic allocations for things you know will cost more? Please, don't lie to me. I would respect you more if you simply admitted you and your kind (both Democrats and the supposed Republican politicians) are addicted to money and the power of the office.

Now the scare:

With U.S. government debt rapidly escalating, the budget authorizes a $653 billion increase in borrowing authority next year to total $9.62 trillion.

I am at a loss as how to comment on this one. Although I studied mathematics through the Ph.D. I have no real concept of 9.62 trillion dollars.

And finally, to the man I voted for twice:

Earlier in the day, President George W. Bush signed into law a $70-billion tax-cut bill...

Mr. President, with all due respect, you cannot cut taxes like a Libertarian and allow spending like a Democrat. It just simply will not work.

Where are the real Republicans? My father's family has been Republican for generations. The way I understood the Republican approach to government was to make it small, efficient and as non-intrusive as possible into the lives of the individual, with an emphasis not on leveling downby creating a false sense of equality but removing roadblocks to allow individuals the freedom necessary to live their lives in a way meaningful to them. Lately this isn't what I see coming from Washington.

Please Say It Ain't So

Holy cow. As if my faith in the rational powers of people these days isn't low enough, out comes this story about the results of a poll stating

People are now twice as likely to believe Jesus Christ fathered children after reading the Dan Brown blockbuster and four times as likely to think the conservative Catholic group Opus Dei is a murderous sect.

In an poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), 60% of people who read Mr. Brown's book believe that Jesus had children by Mary Magdalene (of course, it is almost as frightening that they reported 30% of those who hadn't read the book believe it as well). It stuns me that solid historical evidence to the contrary can be overthrown by a novel (and to be honest, aside from the bad history, philosophy and theology, a not very well written novel). Are people really so intellectually lazy and so yearning for titillating scandal that they will believe this rubbish? Mr. Brown, you must be so proud. When are you starting your own religion? Once Tom Cruise is "clear" of those pesky alien spirits he may be shopping around for another one.

Why Bush Is Wrong On Immigration

One way to judge someone's comments is to look at those who agree and those who disagree with them. In an AP story today we are given the following quote of support for President Bush's "proposal" provided to us in last night's speech:

"The president gets it," added Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

For some chilling news about what our legislators in the upper house have proposed, check out this report from the Heritage Foundation.

How Low In The Poll Can He Go?

Well, I just listened to President Bush's speech on immigration and the question that immediately came to mind was "Is it possible to drop to a single digit approval rating?" If you missed the audio version you can read the text here. It's amazing that you can be all over the map and yet find a way to tick off everyone.

In his speech the President listed five points to show where he stood on the issue of illegal immigration:

First, the United States must secure its borders. Okay, sounds good, but how? Well, he wants to increase the number of Border Patrol agents by 6,000 (from the current 12,000 to 18,000) by 2008. That's not bad, but the numbers I have heard batted around by immigration experts says we need closer to 25,000 border agents, so the President's number is too small (I wonder if he is getting his intel from Rumsfeld?). In the interim, he plans on sending 6,000 National Guard men and women to "assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities..." But were many of these activities being done by the Border Patrol? If not, if it really doesn't free up those agents to chase down illegals, how will it really help close up the holes in the border? In limited ways, but not directly.

Second, the President says we "must create a temporary worker program". His reasons are that illegal aliens will do anything to get here, that we need them for our economy, and "it would give honest immigrants a way to provide for their families while respecting the law." I read this, reread the text in the speech and still cannot see why we "must" do this. Immigrants here illegally are not honest immigrants, they broke the law in coming here, they obvious do not repect the law. As for our economy needing them, I simply ask "why?" I have yet to hear a solid reason for this and President Bush doesn't provide one.

Third, we need to hold employers responsible for the people they hire. At least President Bush admits it is against the law to hire illegal aliens, but he softens it a bit and says that the reason is because verification is difficult and he proposes that the solution is a secure identification card. But this is just plain silly. He says "Yet businesses often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud." Really? Every job I have had since graduating college involved a background check including my having to prove that I was eligible to work in the U.S. So if the problem is so bad, why have I had to do that? If documentation is so difficult why stop at immigrants, why not provide them for citizens (whoever they are... if it is so tough to check then we all are suspect... well, at least you are, I know I am a citizen *grin*).

Fourth, we are given a lesson in social dynamics and told that we have to accept the fact that there are illegal immigrants already here. Here is what he says:

They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration.

But what he proposes is just that, to make those who are here unlawfully and magically make them lawful. So if they are no longer here unlawfully the hurdle to citizenship that President Bush raised is dropped. And while I cam sympathetic to those the president says have "deep roots" here, that does not negate the fact that they are here illegally!

The fifth point, while a nice sentiment, doesn't say much except that the president acknowledges that in America we speak English:

The success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans. Americans are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly, and an ability to speak and write the English language.

Nice sentiment... why doesn't he push through something declaring English as the official language of the United States? Symbolic, yes, but at least it is more than just words in a speech that are tied to nothing.

So there ya go. Does it make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me. If anything it shows me just how out of touch the guy I voted for really is on this issue.

Lowering The Bar in California Education

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman suspended the California high school exit exam stating "There is evidence in the record that shows that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested." (here) I was shocked, stunned... students who after 12 years of elementary and secondary education had not had the opportunity to learn the material tested? Why, this must be some intense, demanding test covering the minutia of all aspects of knowledge that had the most remote possiblity of being presented to such students! I decided to do what I bet most people arguing the issue have not done, I read what the California Department of Education (CADEd) Website said about the exit exam.

The purpose of the exam, as stated on the CADEd Website:

The primary purpose of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) is to significantly improve pupil achievement in public high schools and to ensure that pupils who graduate from public high schools can demonstrate grade level competency in reading, writing, and mathematics... The CAHSEE has two parts: English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics.

Okay, not so bad. They want to improve achievement and ensure that high school graduates can actually work at "grade level" in the "3 Rs". But what stunned me is the bar they placed for the acceptable "grade level competency". According to the site, The ELA part addresses state content standards through grade ten... The mathematics part of the CAHSEE addresses state standards in grades six and seven and Algebra I. Tenth grade language arts and eighth grade math is the "grade level competency" expected for a California high school graduate? That is appalling! Of course, in California the fact that people pass the exam in hearlded as outstanding news. According to California Superintendent of Public Schools Jack O'Connell "Nearly 90 percent of this year’s seniors have passed the California High School Exit Exam. This shows that students are acquiring the necessary knowledge and our high schools are focused on making sure students who graduate have the essential mathematics and English-language skills they will need to survive in the workplace or college."

So what does this really say about the beliefs of Judge Freedman and the plaintiff's attorney Arturo Gonzalez? If you have been following the case, quite a bit. For starters:

Feelings trump achievement.

Race and economic status trump hard work and endurance.

Being a credentialed teacher trumps being a competent teacher.

Throwing money at a problem always fixes it.

Standards are discriminatory (the bugaboo of the times).

And who loses?

The students (both those who have taken it... tough, as well as those who now do not have to because you now know that these people don't care about you).

The teachers (those of you who put in long hours and work hard to try to help children learn, you can stop now, it apparently isn't a value people like Freedman and Arturo deem a worthy goal).

The parents (at least you can now stop nagging your children to do better in school, they are guaranteed to graduate by simply showing up).

Anyone with a California high school diploma (oh well, at least you have spare toilet paper).

The California taxpayer (NICE investment in the future isn't it... say, since we aren't going teach these people, can we fire the teachers and at least fix the darned roads?).

Ah, what a way to start the week... let's see if President Bush's speech tonight tops this.

Didn't I just Say This?

Perhaps I can sue for some cash. The business section of the 10-May-2006 edition of the San Diego Union Tribune lead with an article by Kevin Hall that looks like a business writer's version of my previous post. The article, titled For many, outlook not so rosy shows two sets of graphs constrasting how The Economy Is Stronger...Yet Many Americans Don't Feel It. Okay, so I didn't provide charts in my posting. The analysis is boils down to the same concepts of how while experts all agree that U.S. economic growth is above norms, American's aren't celebrating. Jared Bernsstein of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington puts it quite well: "The gap between the economy from 40,000 feet and on the ground level just seems to get wider with every report." But I already told you that didn't I. You can find the article here.

Existential Economics

Pundants, pollsters, and economists appear confused. Why, they ask, don't people feel better about their current economic situation? Why according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment is at a new low (4.7%), payroll employment is up, productivity is up, and we are told in financial news that the market [well, really the Dow] is at a six year high. Why, everyone should be giddly! But you know something, we're not, and it's not just the problem with Iraq and Iran (or for me, the soon to be outlawed fois gras *sob*), there really is something about the economy that is bothering people and it bewilders the big brains for politico-economic think tanks. Well, I am here to shed some light on it for those overeducated folks. You see, what happened is, you followed the path of philosophy... your methods became too far removed from reality to be of any use. Back around the time of Socrates there was an idea that the mind, body, and soul moved in concert. Becaue of this, Socrates thought that people should development their thinking and since thinking (philosophy?) affected the other two areas of man's existence it would help determine how best to live. But somewhere along the way philosophy seems to have gotten off track and began to become detatched from how the "average" person lives. Saddly, there appeared no gadfly to help bring it back down from its lofty heights into the realm of the living, no thinker who was invited to parties by the social and academic elite who after hearing a boring and irrelevant speech would simply say "So what?" This was one of the major points of the existentialist movement (if you can really call it that). We are individuals, leading individual lives, forming relationships with other individuals... somehow mainstream academic philosophy forget that. This same shift from thinking about a person to thinking about people to thinking about thinking in philosophy's case shows the path to irrelevance taken by economics. You see, to tell me that I should feel good that the national unemployment rate is a low 4.7% is an attempt to deindividualize me (is there such a word?). Yet it doesn't make sense to tell me that I should feel economically secure because surgeons, college professors, fry cooks, and even other IT people in aggregate are well employed. You are trying to lump me, Mike, into some amorphous body and try say that I am just like everyone else. Shoot, even if my own company is doing well that is no guarantee that I will be able to report to work tomorrow. Perhaps some low-evel executive somewhere will come up the insane notion that we need one less person doing what I do and by making everyone else in my group work harder the company can save money. The same goes for other macro numbers such as the rise of the Dow. For me, and I would guess for the majority of the people out there, my livelihood does not closely track the Dow Jones Industrial Average, for if it did my pay would be about 70% higher than it was back in 2000. What matters to me isn't that shares of Intel are trading higher, but whether or not my income is sufficient to cover my bills, whether or not I am saving enough for retirement or vacation, whether or not I can cover a sudden economic shock like needing a new set of tires or having to pay $4.00 per gallon for gas over an extended period of time. You see, people in college are taught two braod brances of economics: macroeconomics (say, national or sector level) and microeconomics (say, factory level), but they are not taught what matters to most people, personal economics. So, I propose that we create a new branch for the academics, existential economics, the economics of me (*well, okay, perhaps not me, how about the individual. Unless something like this occurrs, our political leaders, who looks to pollsters and think tanks for advice, will drift only farther away from reality as experienced by the majority of America.

My Day Without A... Huh?

It started out as "Day Without An Illegal Alien", then "Day Without An Undocumented Immigrant", then "Day Without An Immigrant", and finally, thanks for our wonderful California Assembly it became "Great American Boycott". Supposedly it was to show us the "economic might" of the (illegal) immigrants but expanded to show support for (illegal) immigrants. I listened to reports all day long and I learned the following:

• Supporters of the march know virtually nothing about history.
  
• Supporters of the march know virtually nothing about logic.
  
• Supporters of the march, on the whole, know nothing about the current political climate in Washington.
  
• Supporters of the march, on the whole, know nothing about economics.
  
• School age supporters, on the whole, were there simply to skip school and party.
  
• The greatest negative economic impact was in the heavily hispanic populated areas.
  

In thinking about my "Day Without An (Illegal Alien/)Immigrant - Great American Boycott", the only impact I experienced was positive... my normal morning and evening commute was about 30% shorter than normal (shaved off about 10 minutes normal commute time each way). Let's see... I got up at 5:30AM to go to my gym (which was open and full), stopped in at my grocer (open, busy, and fully stocked), bought my morning paper at "my" 7-11 (open, stocked, full of customers), listened to my morning programs on the radio (normal programming) as I ate breakfast and got ready for work, drove to work (roads about 70% normal capacity, wonderful traffic flow), arrived at work (parking lot nearly full), worked the morning, had lunch with my friend Andrew at our regular watering hole (normal capacity, fully staffed), went back to work, drove home (again, nice traffic flow), had dinner with Pookie, watched a DVD, did a little homework, went to sleep. Impact... NONE.

As I said before, I am shifting in my thoughts about mankind. As I listened to the reports coming in from the mainstream press and listening to the speeches of the activists I kept sputtering "But... but... non sequitur... hasty generalization... invalid form... strawman arugment...", but alas, it didn't matter. People don't want to reason through things. In our French class there is an older man who is the same way. I had to leave while he polluted the air with biased, unfounded opinion about Christianity. Aleks apparently tried to engage him after he attacked one of our classmates (this happened while I was venting outside), but Aleks said he wouldn't listen, he had absolutely no intention of engaging in conversation, just like the people I heard on the radio. Two more examples of why Aristotle's definition of man was off base. *sigh*

Philosophy, Movies and Me

As I get older I feel a shift occurring in my underlying philosophy. I used to be a hard-core, rationalistic, "Enlightenment-based" philosopher. Knowledge, logic, science... those were the keys to advancing mankind as a collective concept (though still a Christian, but salvation is noncorporate, its influence being through the conversion of individuals who, acting in concert, become "salt", but I never bought into the idea of theonomy). The last couple of years, through observation of society and intense reflection, has brought a change. I find myself moving more and more in the direction of a type of Christian existentialism (or perhaps as Marcel would day, a Christian "neo-Socratic" direction). I now think Aristotle was wrong in his Metaphysics to define man as a rational animal. I think that while we as a species have the capacity to be rational, mankind for the most part has chucked that idea right out of the ontological window. I find more and more that people actually recoil when faced with any type of logical argument, their only rejoinder coming as a variation of "How can you say that, you hurt my/his/her/their feelings!" During my lifetime this type of irrationalism began picking up steam in the 1990s and has finally swamped the boat. Now I refuse to agree with the atheistic existentialists that life is absurd, that it has no meaning, but I am ready to yield up a part of my world, the part that believes society is basically rational and will do the "right thing" when faced with a difficult choice. I now no longer believe that. I'll talk more about the philosophy involved later, but I want to briefly mention two recent movies that have touched me and hopefully demonstrate some of this shift I am facing.

The first movie is Sophie Scholl, The Final Days. If you don't know the story I strongly suggest you read some of the pages about the White Rose group. In short, in 1943 a small group of students in Munich came together and began publishing leaflets protesting the atrocities of Herr Hitler against both the German people and against mankind in general, even though if they were caught they would be tried as traitors and put to death. To borrow from the aformentioned site about the White Rose:

The members of The White Rose worked day and night, cranking a hand-operated duplicating machine thousands of times to create the leaflets which were each stuffed into envelopes, stamped and mailed from various major cities in Southern Germany. Recipients were chosen from telephone directories and were generally scholars, medics and pub-owners (which seemed to puzzle the Gestapo -- but who better to spread the word or post a leaflet!). While Hans and Alex alone drafted the first four leaflets, they counted on Christoph Probst to comment and criticize. Jürgen edited the third and fourth leaflets and traveled to Berlin with the dangerous documents. Willi contributed to the fifth leaflet and did a generous amount of leg-work, getting supplies and trying to recruit support outside of Munich. Sophie worked hard at getting stamps and paper (one couldn't buy too many stamps at one place without arousing suspicion) and also managed the group's funds. Kurt Huber contributed to the fifth leaflet and solely drafted the sixth (and final) leaflet, while Hans was apprehended with a rough-draft of a seventh leaflet written by Christoph Probst. All members traveled throughout Southern Germany (and beyond) to mail stacks of leaflets from undetectable locations. Hundreds of leaflets were also left at the University of Munich, carefully hand-delivered in the middle of the night.

They were caught and the film takes you through the trial of Sophie, Hans, and Christoph (they were arrested Feb 18, 1943, tried, and executed on Feb 22, 1943). As I sat in the theatre listening to their words I was struck with the following question: "What ideals do I have worth dying for?" Now that is extreme and thank God we don't actually face such decisions in our current society. I am free to express my beliefs and opinions without having the threat of the guillotine, but for what beliefs am I willing to face such an end? I bitch about our government but I still pay my taxes, I don't join any protest groups (I used to think the Republican party was a protest against the atrocities of big government but that is DEFINITELY no longer the case). I don't take to the streets to try to rally people to any of my so-called causes. I risk nothing for what I claim to believe. Instead I act as just another little drone in the cogs of American social machinery. Seeing that movie was like a slap in the face. Yet how quickly the sting seems to pass... Before leaving this movie I do want to comment on one Christian-related moment (Sophie was portrayed as a Christian and a right good one from what we see). Just moments before her execution she is allowed to see her parents. Her mother tells her "Sophie, remember Jesus Christ". Sophie replies something to the effect of "Mother, you remember Him too". Brilliant! It's one thing to tell a Christian facing death to remember all the promises of God, but with this instantation of life about over it's somewhat easy (that doesn't sound right but I hope you understand what I am saying... if not, write me), but for the people who have to live on after their loved one is gone, THEY are they ones who need the comfort that comes from true faith. For the Christian who passes from this existence, they are in the presense of God, no longer in need of anything. Those left here on earth are in even greater need of His grace and comfort. I thought this was a wonderful moment in the film.

The second movie that hit me is Thank You For Smoking. Here, Aaron Eckhard plays tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor. This movie is one of the best examples of moral relativism and semantic holism that I have seen since the British classics of Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch and Yes, Minister's episode "The Whisky Priest" (emphasis on the bit about Humphrey being a moral vaccum). Ah, I can hear you ask "What is semantic holism?" Simply put (and with some gloss), semantic holism is the idea from philosophical linguistics that truth value in language is only possibly within a larger context of language. Any individual phrase can have any truth value you want (or put another way, a sentence in isolation has no truth value). Nick Naylor relies on this thinking, that you can make any sentence mean what you want my sifting your context at any given time, in some remarkable ways. What surprised me is that I have heard his arguments before with respect to many different "debates". Logic and rationality are irrelevant as long as I get what I want. The more I reflected on this, the more I saw it in our society and the more depressed I became. IS there any such thing as truth anymore (now before you get too shocked, I do believe in Truth, but I am trying to speak for society)? Is winning really more important than being right? Are you better off being a "moral vacuum" than actually believing in anything? And if so, where will this take us? I am afraid that if this really is true then we as a society will suffer the same fate Jim Hacker predicts for Sir Humphrey: "If you believe that, Humphrey, then when you die, you will go to Hell."

Theological Illiteracy, More Da Vinci Code Silliness

I could spend weeks writing posts on what's wrong within Dan Brown's The Da vinci Code (TDC) but being merciful I'll finish up today with a few more big blunders made by Mr. Brown in his statement of "fact". Our last few postings addressed the Gnostics and the supposed manipulation by Constantine to exclude certain "facts" from the canon. Let's look at another commonly batted about conspiracy player, the Priory of Sion. Here are a few "facts" we are told regarding this organization by Mr. Brown:

• It is one of the oldest surviving secret societies on earth (p.113).


• The Priory learned of hidden documents that told the "true" story of Christ's bloodline (p. 158)


• The existence of the Priory was firmly established when documents were found in the National Library of France in Paris, naming the names of the "Grand Masters of the Priory" which included Botticelli, Newton, and da Vinci (pp. 206, 326).


• The Knights Templar was founded by the Priory and given the mission of finding the documents regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene's progeny. (p. 158)


• Pope Clement V decided something had to be done to stop the Knights Templar and cospired with France's King Philip IV. Secret orders were supposed issued by Philip to all his soliders all across Europe to be opened simultaneously on October 13, 1307. The orders were to round up and kill all of the knights (p.159, 160).

Okay, that's enough. I could spend pages writing just on these points, but I'll spare you. Let's hit the highlights to see how these "facts" stack up against reality. I'll break the discussion into two broad groupings, The Priory of Sion and The Knights Templar.

The Priory of Sion

There have been at least three organizations called The Priory of Sion. The first was a catholic monastic order founded in Jerusalem in about 1100. This order ceased to exist around 1600 when it was absorbed into the Jesuit order. The other two occurrances are linked to the Frenchman Pierre Plantard who, in 1956 along with three friends formed a social club called the Priory of Sion. This club disolved within a year, only to resurrected by Plantard in the 1960s and used as a mechanism to show himself an occult master and a descendant of the holy, royal bloodline of Christ. But what about the "secret documents" that show the long history of the the Priory's existence and the listings of names of its Grand Masters? Documents planted by Plantard and his associates. For example, papers with titles such as "A Geneaology of the Merovingian Kings" and "The Secret Records of Henri Lobineau" (this one repeatedly named in TDC), were distributed around France and "discovered" to show support of Plantard's claims. Fascinating if they were real, but they have all been shown to be fakes (a pretty good summary can be found here and here. So it appears there is no actual historical evidence for a Priory of Sion as described by Mr. Brown.

The Knights Templar

The Knights Templar were founded as a military religious order around 1100 by Hugh des Payens and Godfrey of Sainte-Omer, two French knights, not the Priory. The move against the Knights was initiated by King Philip IV, not Pope Clement. Philip wanted the lands and the wealth that had been accumulated by the knights and it was Philip who ordered his soldiers to take the knights into custody in a mass arrest on October 13, 1307, not the Pope as TDC states. The knights were rounded up and placed on trial by Philip. Many were found guilty of "charges" and executed, but it was not carried out ala Emperor Palpatine's "Order 66" against the Jedi! In fact, a few months before this, Philip forced about 70 knights to "confess" their sins to the Pope. Clement opened investigations against the Knights Templar but at the trials held throughout Europe the various knights were found innocent... except for those France, the seat of Philip's power, where he secured the execution of 54 knights in 1310, not 1307. In 1312 Clement decided to dissolve the Order of the Knights Templar. The knights were allowed to join other military orders or to retire. Many chose to join the Order of Hospitallers and continued to live and work within the Catholic Church.

So what can we say about TDC and Mr. Brown's "facts"? Let's ignore interpretation for now, but just on simple matters of documented historical facts (dates, places, people) many of what are stated as facts in TDC are just flat out wrong. What Brown is relying on is (1) people enjoy conspiracy theories and (2) people are ignorant of history, particularly religious history and are too lazy to check out things for themselves. And if he cannot get historically documented facts right, what does that say about his interpretation of his facts? If nothing else, it should be enough to give us pause before accepting the allegations as true.

Next up, the last I have to say in this series, the "newly discovered" Gospel of Judas.