Resolutions

Do you do New Year's Resolutions? I don't. It is not because I do not think that I can not improve myself. I am far from perfect. But the whole idea of resolutions baffle me.
The general idea of resolutions is that we are trying to make changes that we know we should make (i.e. stop drinking so much, exercise more). But if we know we should make them then why have we not changed. In other words why are we waiting until the beginning of the year to make resolutions? Why not change as soon as we know that we need to improve? It seems to me kind of silly to think that January 1 has special powers to make us change.
Come to think of it I have a hard time thinking of someone in my life who told me of a New Year resolution that really changed his/her life. People have made life-changing decisions. But New Year's Eve had nothing to do with them having the willpower to make those changes.
So my attitude is that if I see something in my life to make changes then I try to change. I do not always succeed. Maybe if I did always succeed then I be a lot closer to that measure of perfection. But it is better to act on your convictions as soon as you have them than to wait until an arbitrary date to make "resolutions."

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Celebrating Christmas

Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone we can really get into the celebration of Christmas. I cannot say that I am one of these huge Christmas people. I do not do decorating and stuff like that. But Christmas does have important spiritual significance for me. And I do like hearing the Christmas songs that I only hear at this time of the year.
Because I am a Christian it is natural that Christmas has meaning to me. But do some Christians go overboard and become rude with their celebrations. There are probably some cases of that. But it does not seem to me that the generic wishing of "Merry Christmas" or talking about a Christmas tree instead of a holiday tree should be so offensive.
I remember when I was in grad school that one of the professors on my dissertation committee was Jewish. When I went to visit him about my dissertation I notice a menorah on his desk during the Christmas holidays. Even back then there was controversy about Christmas celebrations. I looked at that menorah and wondered what the fuss was all about. Looking at it did not offend me as a Christian. I felt no pressure to become Jewish or feel that he was going to treat me differently because I am not Jewish. I am as serious about my faith as they come but this did not hurt my feelings in the least. For me this was just his expression of his culture and beliefs.
I gotta wonder about people who get offended by the term Christmas or expression of "Merry Christmas." I wonder what all the fuss is about. Why do these people not see it as merely an expression of a person's faith and culture? Many of these same people often emphasis ideas about tolerance but this does not seem very tolerant to me.
So I wish to all "Merry Christmas." If you want to wish me "Happy Hanukkah" or "Good Kwanzaa" then that is fine with me. I will not be offended.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Living in Transparency

The recent news about Herman Cain and Joe Paterno have got me thinking. Thinking about my past. I have to wonder if there is some event in my past that will come up and bite me someday. I am certain that I have never tried to stick my hand up a lady’s skirt as Cain is accused of doing and I am doubly certain that I do not know of any unreported child abuse that Paterno has confirmed not reporting. So I think I am clean of any of the really horrible potential bombs that can explode in my life.
But that does not mean that I am squeaky clean. Like just about everyone I have done things in my life that I am not proud of. There are events that if they came to light have the potential of embarrassing me. (And no I am not going to tell you in this public forum. They are embarrassing remember.) I have tried my best to live a good and moral life but I am human and at times I have failed. Fortunately my faith has helped me to deal with the guilt that can come with those failings but I have to recognize that they are there nonetheless. Sometimes, as I think it was in the case of Paterno, a person may not fully realize how much he or she has failed until the event blows up. Paterno probably had forgotten about the molestation until it became public. This is not to excuse him but I can see how this has taken him by surprise and now has greatly damaged his legacy.
What if we lived our lives as if our worst actions can be made public at a later stage of our lives? That is not a pleasant thought to consider but if we ever become famous it is a wise thought to have. If we lived our lives this way would it change what we are doing right now? If you would change your life then why not go ahead and make those changes? It is a kind of selfish motivation to not do bad because you are afraid someone will one day “out” you but if this means that one less spouse is beaten or one less child is abused then I will take it.
So I challenge all of us, myself included, to live as if people are watching and will report on you someday. I hope your worse sins are never revealed to the rest of the world. But who knows? Maybe one day they will be.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Sometimes the Stereotypes are True.

All groups like to stereotype out-groups. Even those groups that pride themselves on tolerance engage in stereotyping of those they disagree with. For example, I notice that a common stereotype progressives tend to have of conservatives is that they are stupid. You saw this a lot in comments about President Bush and Governor Palin. I do not believe that you can become President if you are stupid and such a stereotype undervalues the fact that Palin became governor of Alaska without a lot of resources. I do not agree with those individuals all the time but that does not mean I have to think they are stupid.
But then there is Governor Perry. You know. Sometimes the stereotypes are true. Tonight during the Republican debate he forgot the government departments he wanted to cut. Yes you read that correctly. He is eager to cut governmental agencies but just do not know which ones to cut. Hope he does cut the wrong one by accident. You know we may want that department of defense to not be cut in case we go to war or something.
Yeah Perry reminds us that some people do exhibit the stereotypes of their group. I do not believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. But a whole lot of them seem smarter than Perry. The task for those of us who want to be fair to others is not to look at the performance of Perry and then buy into the stereotype of conservatives. We have to remember that any stereotype will have people who fit them. Some women are bad drivers. Some poor people are lazy. But women are on average not worse drivers than men, and the poor are not lazier than the rich. So even if Perry is as intellectually challenged as we think this says nothing about conservatives as a whole. But that does not mean we have to stop having fun laughing at his mistakes.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

A one percenter meets his critics.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-per-center-peter-schiff-visits-occupy-wall-street-produces-18-minutes-of-civility/

You have to admit that this Peter Schiff has got some guts. How many of us would go down to a rally where people are complaining about us and deal with them in honest dialog. I am not saying that I totally agree with Schiff because I don't. But I highly respect a man who choose to have dialog in a situation that is not completely under his control. Especially since as a self-identified top one percent of our society he can easily keep his detractors at bay.
I hope his interaction allows some of those detractors to see that the people they oppose are, well people. Not just stereotypes of the uncaring rich. I hope he can see that his critics as individuals as well. Not just a rabble that has to be put down. When we disagree with people we are so tempted to dehumanize them and react to our stereotype of them. That is why dialog like that initiated by Peter Schiff is so important. We can still disagree with others but do so in ways that help us to find solutions instead of merely demonizing them as the enemy.
So God bless you Peter Schiff. You may not have the the right answers to our economic crisis but you do have the guts to put your ideas to those who disagree the most. I hope that I can dialog with my critics if I am ever in a similar situation. That sort of dialog is the only way we will be able to find those right answers.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Christian but not conservative?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/conservative-evangelicals-implore-gop-presidential-hopefuls-tone-down-181946140.html


For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
 
Sincerely,
 
Trouble-Maker

Is this diversity?

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110915/OPINION03/309150052/Vanderbilt-flirting-religious-suppression?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.

Sincerely,

Trouble-maker

The Male/Female Thing part 3 - Nature or Nurture

I have spend the last couple of post showing how despite the desire to get away from traditional roles that we still live them out here in the United States. It is not as simple as men dominating women with their aggressiveness. I have used dancing and my study on height to show how women respond more positively to the male aggressiveness and to the image of men as masculine protectors. Let's face it. If women really did not like aggressive men we guys would get a clue and become less aggressive. We simply like women too much.


Now is this something that is innate or is this gender difference purely cultural. As a sociologist I know that at least some of it is cultural. We know that is the case because while gender roles are a cultural universal, how those roles manifest themselves vary by culture. But is what we call masculinity all cultural? I am beginning to have my doubts about that.


I suspect that there is some innate basis for the aggressiveness of men. It may have evolved in evolution. It may be given to us by God. But it seems that despite being told that we guys should be more sensitive that we still act like Neanderthals and many women seem to love it.


I have no big prescription as to what to do about it except that we should be more open to the possibility that male and females act differently because we are different in ways that are not just physical. Saying that is taboo since we like to believe that there are no real differences between men and women. Some want to believe that all of the different economic and social outcomes between men and women is due to sexism. Sexism exists and it is a problem. We need to deal with it as much as we can. But as they say it is also true that at times "boys will be boys" and that this is different from what the "girls" will do. We probably should factor that in to sex differences as well.





Sincerely,





Trouble-Maker

The Male/Female Thing part 2 - Height

I am a data nerd. There I said it and now I feel better. Yes it is true that I get some sort of sick enjoyment out of the collection of data. Maybe that explains what happened when I had a friend come over a few months ago and when he left we had an whole new research project in mind. I was excited. I got to collect more data!!!!!
Well our project was to look at the role that height plays in physical desirability, especially as it pertains to women. As a single tall man I am fascinated, and gratified, by the interest that tall women have in men who are even taller. So we set up a survey with open ended questions to find out why height was so important to both men and women.
I have not fully analyzed the data. But one factor comes out again and again to me. A good percentage of the women, not most but a sizable minority of them, mention "protector" or "protect" as part of their reason why they want a tall man. These women are college students and the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age so we are not talking about older women living out values from a traditional time. A good percentage of women are looking for men to protect them.
Now how can a taller man be a better protector than a smaller man? He is not in a better position to protect them from economic ruin is he? Furthermore while we still have differences in the economic opportunities of men and women, they clearly are more equal than in the past. It is reasonable for a woman today to think that she does not need a man for financial protection today, which is something that was less true in the past. I guess a tall man makes a bigger target for a gun and can offer physical protection. But are women really looking for men to be physical beasts? That sounds kind of barbaric to me. But it does suggest that the traditional male role of protector has not gone away in our society.
We talk about equality in our society but traditional gender roles are alive and well in our society. We can make all the rules we want and try to enforce some sort of PC mentality on people but we tend to run back to traditional gender perspective. What are we to think of this phenomenon?
One possibility is that traditional gender roles have been so embedded in our society that we have not had enough time to get rid of them. Perhaps if I do this research fifty years from now the word "protector" will not show up. Perhaps if I do the research in Europe women would not talk about wanting men to protect them. So in time we may see more egalitarian gender attitudes. The alternative possibility is that traditional gender attitudes are embedded in our very nature. Sociologists hate such possibilities and as a sociologist I should not bring it up. But I am a trouble-maker.
What is clear is that the narrative that men and women are alike in their romantic aspirations is not accurate. Men do not look for women as protectors. We fool ourselves if we think of men and women as wanting the same thing in relationships. Distinctive gender roles is alive and well in the United States. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the values we bring to that question.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

The Male/Female Thing part 1 - Dancing

As a sociologists you can learn about society even while you are learning about something else. For example, this summer I decided to brush up on my country and swing dancing skills. I did so in part because I was tired of going to parties where they played country music and having to sit out the dances. I must say it has been fun although at times it can be frustrating to learn a new skill. I am much more confident with my academic skills than my dancing ones and that is part of the challenge. But daring to try new things can be a topic for another blog.


Now I have to be brutally honest with myself. When it comes to this partner type of dancing, where it is not freestyle, then I am not that great at it. I am getting better. But I am not nearly as good as I would like to be. Part of it is my ignorance of how you are suppose to do things. But I gain more knowledge with every dance. But part of it is my lack of skill in leading the dances. Do not know if that will change any time soon.


Anyone who does country or swing dances knows that this is one of the last areas where men are unashamedly expected to take the lead. Like any good academic I have learned about the patriarchal nature of our society and do not want to be one of those guys that pushes women around. You know. The bad guys. But a lot of taking the lead in dance is just that. More than one woman has complained that I do not push hard enough with my movements and they do not know what to do. A good male dancer has a firm enough "lead" that his female partner knows what he wants and can execute it.


I am working on being firmer with my lead but I know this will take a little time with me. The idea of using my strength to guide a women into doing something can feel like I am forcing a women. And I do not want to do that do I. I mean all of the feminist have talked to me in my head about the horrors of male dominance. Hey. I can blame the feminist for being a bad dancer. Heaven help me if I take blame for myself for not being as good of a dancer as I would like.


If it was just the dancing then that would be one thing. However, I have made other observations while attending the dance classes. You see these classes happen at a night club. And it seems that the guys who are most aggressive in pursuing dance partners are the ones who seem to have none of the soul searching I have about pushing women around on the dance floor. They have no problem with the lead on or off the dance floor. They also seem to be the ones that the females get exited about when they are approached by them whether it is for dancing or just basic social interaction.


Is it possible that dancing is a metaphor for male/female relationships? Despite all of the lessons we have learned lately about egalitarian male/female relationships that men taking a lead is a natural process. Sociologists will say that this is due to social conditioning. There is undoubtedly some truth to that. But we have had a few decades now of challenge to the male dominance paradigm yet in everyday life it still plays out with men expected to take the lead.


Of course I could be wrong. I often am. If dancing and the night club scene is the only place where this happens then we have a limited arena where traditional gender values continue to play themselves out. And I point out that they play themselves out with the full permission and endorsement of the women in that venue. But there is other evidence for the persistence of these traditional values to take into account. However the blog is long right now and so I discuss this other evidence in my next entry. Until then.





Sincerely,





Trouble-Maker

Money is not everything

Ever play the game - If I had a million dollars I would____. Unless you are already a millionaire of course you have played this game. Don't we all think about what if we had a big pot of money. We could insure financial security of our families or support a favorite religious or political cause or even just buy some new fancy toys. Yeah, It is kind of fun to fantasy about having a lot of money.
But do you know what Nevin Shapiro decided to do with his riches? He decided to spread his cash to University of Miami football players. His "support" of the team allowed him to pal around with the players and coaches. Imagine a 40ish year old man throwing money around on cars, prostitutes and even an abortion so that he can hang out with 18 and 19 year olds. The word pathetic comes to mind.
Nothing wrong with supporting one's alma mater. As a college professor I like to see more support for the school I work at. But to do it to impressive athletes is pretty sad. The Miami players are not smarter, or more moral, or more charismatic than other college students. Their physical prowess may warrant their receiving scholarships but not adoration of supposedly mature adults.
This merely indicates that merely because individuals have money does not mean that they are better individuals than others. In fact Shapiro made his money on a Ponzi scheme which reinforces my already low level of respect for him. Wealth does not make a person better. If that person is immature without money then chances are that he or she will be just as immature with money. In fact with money the person can be worse since he or she will have resources to indulge in their immaturity.
Why is this important. We are a society that holds those with wealth in high esteem. Ever watch the Millionaire Matchmaker. All of these beautiful women throwing themselves at men who are able to get their attention because of their wealth. The message is that the way for a man to attract the opposite sex is to be rich. Not to be nice. Not to be smart. Not to be mature. It is not the Nice Guy Matchmaker or Intelligent Guy Matchmaker or Mature Guy Matchmaker. It is the Millionaire Matchmaker. I guess Shapiro can be a featured guy on this show after he gets out of jail.
My point is not to attack the show. The show is merely reflecting the values of the larger society. My point is that those values do not serve us well. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we do not have to place those who are wealthy on pedestals. In fact we would do well to remember that many of them are losers like Shapiro. Then we may be able to move ahead in a world where all people have equal value, regardless of their bank account, and are judged on their own moral and intellectual merits instead of on their wealth.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Be nice.

Well they have finally confirmed what I have kind of known for a long time. It does not pay to be a nice guy. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mean-guys-finish-first-least-paychecks-193159172.html Okay I have thought about it in terms of romance but it is probably true in financial matters as well.
My observations is that this study is correct. In a society in which we have interaction of nice people and pushy, aggressive people that the pushy aggressive ones tend to win out. Not every time of course. Sometimes their aggressiveness irritates those around them and they lose out. But it is naive to think that the rude often gets their way because people rather give in to them than have to deal with them.
Would it not be great if we could push those who are overly demanding and be more sensitive to the nice people around us? Perhaps those who are not nice would learn to be nice to get their way instead of being aggressive to obtain what they want. Would that not be a better society? Too bad that is not the way it is.
I consider myself a nice guy. At least I am when I am not blogging. When I read stuff like this it tempts me to be more of an irritant so that I can get what I may believe I deserve. Try to find ways to put pressure on the Dean and others in the college unless they pay me better. But that is not me. And I do not want it to be me.
I think that niceness has its own rewards. I like being a nice guy. Even if it means that I do not get the pay increase or nice job perks. Even if it means that I may be taken for granted some in my friendships and relationships. I rather like the person I am than become a rude person, gain from other people but not like myself. Somehow when they assess about whether nice people have a better life they may not be able to measure the satisfaction gained being good to other people regardless of whether you are "paid" for it.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Bummer!!

Those of you not in Texas probably know that we have been undergoing quite a heat wave here. In fact we were on pace to set a new record. The old record was 42 straight days where the high temp was 100 or over. Until yesterday we had 40 straight days of such temps. But yesterday it was only 94 degrees. Bye bye record.
I am actually disappointed that we did not get the record. I figured that we had undergone so much heat already that why not get something for it. I was looking forward to getting a t-shirt " I survived the record heat of 2011." Guess I will have to just satisfy myself with another longhorn t-shirt now.
It was kind of surreal hoping for more heat yesterday. I was really wanting the record. Before you just think I am crazy consider this. I can curse this terrible heat wave we have undergone or I can just laugh at it. When given the choice of cursing or laughing I choose to laugh. I just do not want to start another streak of 40 plus days of heat over 100 degrees. At least not until next summer.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Christian Terrorist?

Much has been made of the claim that Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian terrorist. A few months ago I blogged about Muslim terrorist and pointed out that a certain percentage of Muslims are dedicated to violence. The only thing we can do with them is kill or imprison them. That begs the question of whether there are Christians who are dedicated to violence. Those that we must either kill or imprison. It can be argued that Breivik is one such person.
As I often see it, such a statement is only partially true. It does not seem to me that Breivik is a good example of a Christian terrorist. The citations I have seen in his "writings" indicates that he is discussing a cultural Christianity and he sees Christianity more as an anti-Islam system than a intrinsic belief system. A better example would be Paul Ross Evans who was convicted of attempting to bomb an abortion clinic. He openly talks about having a Christian motivation for his actions.
Christian terrorists do exists. But they are very few and far between relative to Islamic terrorists. That is not a politically correct statement but it is a true one. Any reasonable, knowledgeable person would make that conclusion. But it is of interest how fast the media was to tie Breivik to Christian terrorism. They were not so fast to tie Major Nidal Hasan Islamic terrorism. The same New York Times that ran the "Christian Terrorist" headline for Breivik barely mentioned the Islamic faith of Hasan as his motivation in the body of their stories even though he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he did his shooting.
Why this unequal treatment.?Here I must engage in speculation. I think that there is an eagerness to argue that there is an equal level of Christian terrorism as there is Islamic terrorism. Perhaps some individuals hostile to religion want to show that all religions are equally violent. Others may believe that Muslims are victims in a Christian society and so it is not fair to point out that there is more violence tied to contemporary Islamic terrorism than contemporary Christian terrorism. Either reason is a distortion to reality and hampers us as we try to deal with violence.
Finally, I know that it may be considered Islamophobic to point out that Islamic terrorism is more prevalent today than Christian terrorism. That is too bad since if we do not recognize this difference then we are hiding from reality. If I am walking by myself on a dark street and notice five men coming behind me I will be a little more scared than if I see five women walking behind me. That does not make me anti-male but just that I am aware that men are more likely to commit violence than women. Likewise let us be honest about the reality of religious terrorism today.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

A Plan Please

In my last post I blasted the Republicans for being unwilling to work with President Obama on the debt ceiling. I stand by my criticism of them. However, I would be remiss if I did not also point out the fact that the Republicans have at least presented a plan out to the public. First, it was the plan from Congressman Paul Ryan. Now they have recently passed a plan through the House of Representatives that requires a balanced budget. I may have issues with the plan but at least it is out there, which is more than what we are getting from our president.
Why have we not seen the Democrat plan? Are they not capable of putting together a plan to solve the debt ceiling crisis? Of course they are. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to put out a plan. Once you put out a plan then the opposing political party can attack the specifics of the plan. It is smart politics to let your political opponents produce a specific plan that you can attack while you stick with generalities. The Democrats are playing smart politics with this ploy.
But they are not contributing to solving our problem. Perhaps this is what is really wrong with us. It is not that our political system is creating our economic problems, although that might be the case, but it is that our political system does not provide incentives for us to solve those problems. Republicans want to keep the Tea Party people happy and thus take tax revenues completely off the table. Democrats want to keep their political advantage and so will not produce a workable plan. Both are playing politics instead of finding solutions.
And do you wonder why I refuse to be either a Republican or a Democrat?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Can we be adults about this?

Everyone agrees that we will have to raise our debt limit. But the Republicans want a deal with no increase in revenue but plenty of spending cuts. The Democrats want revenue increases and will do some spending cuts as long as Social Security is off the table. So we have had an impasse with neither side really serious about getting a deal.
But then recently President Obama showed that he is serious. He put Social Security on the table for debate. Now it has been up to the Republicans to put revenue increases on the table as well. It did not even have to be tax increases. It could have been the closing of the tax loopholes for revenue increases. Funny thing happen on the way to the compromised. The Republicans decided to play games instead of cutting a deal.
To be sure not all of the Democrats were willing to have Social Security on the table. Pelosi and a lot of the liberal Democrats were gearing up to fight Social Security cuts. But President Obama decided that trying to fix our budget was more important then trying to have a political issue. It is too bad the Republicans did not want to do the same.
For the Republicans stopping President Obama from enjoying political success was more important than solving our problems. It is similar to what the Democrats did to Bush. Obstructing the president of the opposite party seems to be an American tradition.
But the problem with that tradition is that in situations like this we as Americans can not come together to compromise and find solutions. Even as I praise President Obama in this current situation I can not forget that he voted against raising the debt ceiling when President Bush wanted it. We have to get past just trying to stop the other party and look at compromises that can solve the problems of our country. Is that too much for a troublemaker to ask?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Getting away with it - Part 2

No I did not plan on having a part 2 to my last blog. Then Anthony Wiener happened. Now what can this sorry episode add to my general point. I did not think he added much until I heard the hot dog say "I am taking full responsibility for my actions."
Really hot dog? Full responsibility would have been to come clean as soon as information started to come out. Full responsibility would have been not to blame conservative media for his trouble when he knew he was guilty. Full responsibility would not have dragged his wife though this mess by getting help when he saw he had a problem. The way hot dog handled this is anything but full responsibility.
Now why did not hot dog take full responsibility. The answer is simple. He thought he had a chance to get away with it. Put yourself in his position. You have seen politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have sex scandals and get away with it by blaming their political enemies. So you can either come clean and pay the consequences of your actions. Or you can use the tried and true method of shifting blame onto others and maybe get away with it. You know shifting blame may work because people from your party want to blame their political opponents and may overlook evidence that you are guilty. Come on and be honest. Which choice would you make?
Hot dog made his choice because he reasonably thought he had a chance to get away with it. What if he knew he would not get any support from his fellow Democrats for lying? That his they would be suspicious from the very beginning and would have demanded that he have an external investigation of his "hacked" account. He would have had an incentive to been honest in the first place. (By the way this is not an attack on the Democrats. I have no doubt that Republicans would have initially covered for their own in the same manner).
We live in a society where people do not always react with their better angels and so we need social sanctions that go beyond merely defending the interest of our social groups. Just like we need Democrats to not merely blame Republicans at their first opportunity, but to hold their own accountable, we need to be aggressive in challenging those in our own groups. I like to see a culture where we are driven more by larger principles of honest and fairness rather than tribal loyalty. Such tribal loyalty encourages members of our own group to use our prejudices and stereotypes so that they can engage in immoral deeds and then manipulate us to get away with it.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Getting away with it

Not a good year for the Govenator. Arnold step down as Governor of California with terrible ratings. And now he may lose his marriage because he decided to fool around with the help. Let me get this straight. The baby of the housekeeper was born about the same week as the baby of his wife. So at the same time he was impregnating his wife he was... well you get the picture. He clearly can not say that he was having an affair due to lack of sex by his wife. This guy had it all. A great career, beautiful wife and kids, money, fame. He still may have had some political career but that is gone now. His marriage appears to be toast which is going to effect his relationship with his kids. He will still have money but he may now be famous for things he does not want to be famous for. All for a little role in the hay. Why would he risk so much for what is really so little?
Then there is the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You remember him. The IMF leader who is about 70 years old but has sexual urges so powerful that he had to go ahead and rape his maid. Wow. What a great decision that was. This guy was going to challenge for the presidency of France before he decided that rape was a better political move than say hiring a prostitute. Not that I am condoning prostitution but why did he not just do that? The French would have forgiven him for that. Instead he has lost his political career and maybe his freedom because he could not "control" his sexual impulses. As old as he is even a five year sentence may be a life sentence. So from a non-moral but practical standpoint what do you think is smarter - rape a maid or hire a prostitute?
Ever wonder why some men do dumb things. And men seem to do it a lot in the sexual realm. Anybody remember John Edwards threatening his presidential candidacy so that he could have an out of wedlock kid. All while his wife is fighting cancer. I do not want to just focus on men as I have seen women do dumb things and throw away great opportunities as well. Usually they do this trying to save a dumb guy that they "love" but they are being dumb nonetheless. But why people can be so short sighted is something that is worth thinking about. These cases of men trading in their families and careers for a sexual encounter is one of the best ways to show this tendency.
I have a theory about this. I think that Arnold, Dominique and John did their stuff because they thought they would get away with it. They were powerful men who thought that their power would shield them from the consequences of their actions. Those actions show what can happen when people think that there are no consequences for their actions. Murders kill because they think they can get away with it. Thiefs steal because they think they can get away with it. When you see the worst of human behavior you are seeing those who think they can get away with what they are doing.
Sociologist talk about social control in society. That is aspects of our society that compel us to behave. When there is no social control there is the potential of human horror and we see that all the time. Ever wonder what you would do if you could get away with it. What would you take? Who would you oppress? How would you punish those you hate? You may not want to think about that. Those can be an uncomfortable thoughts to have. But if we can truly engage in self-introspection then when we truly are in situations where we think we can get away with evil we may decide to restrain ourselves and live by our true principles. Just saying.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Will I help out?

Today I was taking some computers to be recycled. It was out in the country. On the way there I saw an older man in the middle of the road with an even older woman in a wheel chair. He looked a little lost and I did not know what to make of it. I continued on to the recyclers and dropped off my computer. On the way back I saw the couple again. I saw that they were trying to hitch a ride. At first I was thinking that there was not enough room for me to stop and get them and the chair in the car. But I realized that I could not leave them out there. So I stopped to pick them up.
A cop came up and examined the situation. He had received several calls from concerned drivers. After I got the couple and the chair in the car I took them a few miles to a relative. The man was the son and in his 50s. The woman was in her 80s. They had fallen on hard times and needed to stay at a relative for a few days. The mother also needed some medication that they were not able to get easily.
The episode made me wonder about helping each other out. Why did I not recognize they needed help the first time I drove past. Was it because I did not want to take the time to help or because it was not clear they needed help? Why did other people not help them during the time I was at the recyclers? Was it fear? We are not suppose to pick up hitchhikers but I could not see them as a threat. I think that a 6 foot 3 inch guy should not be scared of two small older adults. But I understand that other people may have some fear. Regardless it is tough for us to get involved in the lives of others even when it is to help them.
It would be easy to drive past people and not help them out. I do it often enough. I am glad I did not do it today but I am no angel. I hope today makes me more willing to stop and give a ride or help someone out when necessary.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Another take on Bin Ladin's death

Sometimes things are not what they seem to be. Smart people learn not to point such things out as it can aggravate other people. But I am not smart. I am a trouble-maker. So here I go.
As I read about the killing of Osama bin Laden it was clear that the soldiers were there to kill him and not capture him. The way I heard it was to shoot him unless there was no possibility he could engage in violence. Since he could have hidden explosives on himself the only way they could be sure that he would not engage in violence is if they caught him naked. hmmmm. That is an image I do not want to see. But I digress. This may have been a capture or kill assignment but it was much more on the kill than on the capture.
It did not have to be that way. When the U.S. went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), care was taken to capture him instead of killing him. It is possible to capture these terrorist. But President Obama did not focus on capturing Bin Laden. He gave orders that almost assured his death.
Now does this bother me. No. But here is what is interesting. Bush was president when KSM was captured. I believe Bush wanted him captured while Obama wanted Bin Laden killed. I believe that if Bush was president Bin Laden there would have been more of an emphasis on capturing him than killing him. Why?
Bush had no problems using what some call "enhanced interrogation" and other call torture on terrorist to gain information. A captured terrorist had value for Bush. That terrorist can provide information that Bush hoped to use against the terrorist's organization. A capture terrorist has no value for Obama. That means questions of trials and civil liberties come into play. Would we have tried Bin Laden in New York or at a military base. How do we get information from Bin Laden if we do not use enhanced interrogations. I believe that the Obama administration did not want to deal with those hot potato political questions. A Bin Laden with a bullet hole in the head is much better for Obama than a live one in a cell.
Here is the irony. In one way Obama has not been very progressive. He is definitely not a pacifist. He has emphasized killing terrorist with drone missiles rather than capturing them. Bush had no qualms about killing terrorist but he wanted to capture them more than killing them. If you are a terrorist your life expectancy is shorter under an Obama administration than a Bush one.
I am not picking sides in whether it is better to capture or to kill terrorist. Someone like Bin Laden or KSM has to be either capture or killed. We can not reason with such vermin. But our assumptions that the Democrat administration is softer on terrorist does not comport to reality. Political motivations to keep terrorist out of jails has ironically made Obama more bloodthirsty to terrorist than Bush. Go figure.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

We are all Americans now

The world is a better place now that Bin Laden is no longer in it. I am not a violent man. In fact at one point of my life I was a pacifist. But I shed no tear at the death of that terrorist. In fact I have a sense of justice in the way he died. Shot down in the middle of the night like a dog. The only regret I have is that an innocent woman was killed in the attack.
And I am glad that it was President Obama who gave the order. I have nothing against President Bush but there is something special about having Obama give the order to take out Bin Laden. So often Democrats are thought of not being very patriotic and not willing to fight for our country. President Obama showed that he is willing to take out an American enemy by force if necessary. It is a lesson that love of country is not confined to one political party over the other. In moments like this and right after September 11 we are all Americans and we can feel a unity of purpose that often escapes us.
That is one of the reasons why the celebrations did not bother me. Some were concerned about Americans celebrating the death of someone. I do not see it as much as a celebration of a killing as it is the affirmation of justice. A justice denied to us for ten years. I am not "happy" Bin Laden is dead. But it is what had to happen given what he was about. While I may not jump in the lake as some Ohio State students did in celebration, I see no reason to have a mournful attitude towards his death. His death or imprisonment was something that Americans have longed for and it has temporarily brought us together.
How long will the unity of this event last. Not long. I am not naive about that. We will be back to being polarized soon enough.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

From Hats to Heels

I hope everyone had a very happy Easter. But I notice something when I went to my church yesterday. As you probably know Easter is the time where everyone is suppose to dress up. It is especially the time when women wear big hats. I remember as a kid seeing all of the fancy hats that were on the heads of the women in the Easter service. But yesterday I saw only one hat and it was not fancy at all. It seems the hat tradition is dead in my church.
But that did not mean that women were not dressing up. In fact what I did notice was that almost all women were wearing high heel shoes. And by high heels I do not mean an inch. I was looking at three and four inch heels on those women. And I use the term woman with some caution. I think some of the girls who were about 10 also had on these monster heels. I am not saying that women never wore high heels to my church except yesterday. But, yesterday almost all of the women wore these super heels and that does not usually happen.
So what am I to make of this. It seems to me that Easter is still a big dress up day but that fancy hats seem passe. Instead women dress up their feet more than their heads. Funny but I thought that women always wore heels to dress up but I really notice it yesterday. Maybe it has always been this way but the big hats distracted me from their feet. Or it may be a racial thing. The churches I went to as a kid were predominately black churches but now I go to a multiracial church. Perhaps big hats are a black thing. But the black women at my church yesterday were not wearing the hats either.
There are several ways to take this. As a sociologist I can note that heels are not physically healthy for women and this is another way that body images are used in a patriarchal way. As a Christian I can complain about the emphasis on dress instead on the true meaning of Easter, which in some ways is a more meaningful holiday than Christmas. As a man I can just appreciate the way high heels creates a beautiful site when worn by pretty women. Hey I gotta be honest or else I can not be a real trouble-maker. Regardless, it will be an interesting trend I will keep my eyes on in the coming years.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Truth or Birth

Remember the 9-11 truthers? They were the mostly left-wing nutjobs who argued that President Bush was behind 9-11. Supposedly Bush did this to help increase his popularity. Still sounds stupid today.
Well now we have the birthers. They are the mostly right-wing nutjobs who argue that President Obama was not born in the United States. I guess that way back someone knew that Obama would be the future president if they could fake his birth in the United States. They sound about as stupid as the birthers.
Under normal circumstances I would basically ignore both groups. They do not represent the left (truthers) or the right (birthers). They can be entertaining but are not much good for anything else.
But now the birthers have their champion. His name is Donald Trump. I should ignore him too. However, some of the recent surveys show that Trump is a leading contender as a possible Republican candidate for President. So I can not totally ignore the birthers. I have to wonder why so many people can fall for this crude.
I have heard some people say that they like Trump because he is a straight talker. He is not PC and will say what is on his mind. But if what is on his mind is a bunch of illogical thinking then what good is that? Do people really think that Trump is right? If so then heaven help us.
It does not bother me that some kooks believe in the birther nonsense. It does disturb me that a sizable percentage of the population does. What can we do to help people become clearer thinkers on issues like this? I see Trump's popularity as a warning that we have allowed to much sloppy thinking in our society. I hope we take the warning seriously.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Have you seen the commercial for the new "comedy" series Wilfred on FX. Please spare me. It looks as funny as that other FX knee slapper "Its always Sunny in Philadelphia." If terrorist ever want to get information out of me all they have to do is sit me down in front of that program for about 10 minutes. Of course FX makes up for these shows with the classic "The League." Not. Do not get me wrong. I like FX when they put the right movies on the air. Because that is what they are known for. Good sci-fi movies. It is when they dabble into "comedy" that they seem totally clueless. But they are not the only channel that has lost its way. I loved the History channel. I often fantasized that one day we may have a sociology channel with shows as interesting as what they did with history channel. Shows like "The Barbarians", and "Dogfights" were highly entertaining and informative. I remember non-war presentations of biblical history and the historical westward expansion. It was great. But now. Come on. Swamp People? Top Shot? Ax Men? What does that have to do with history. You can not bribe me to watch those shows with all the cheesecake in the world. What happen here. What I think happened in both cases is you had TV channels that forgot what they were. They went for something that they thought was glamours like comedy for FX and contemporary human drama for the History channel. In doing so they lost what made them special. At least in my eyes. Maybe these shows are succeeding. But I can not help but to think that something has been lost. That is one of the dangers of forgetting who you are. In time I like to see both TV channels return to their roots and give me something I can not get somewhere else. But in the meantime I like to think that what I have observed helps to keep me remembering who I am. There is only one me and I like to think that the world would be a little poorer if I tried to be something or someone else. But I could be wrong about that. Sincerely, Trouble-Maker

Dancing with Trouble

Okay I solved the problem of terrorism in my last few blogs so on to a more serious subject - dancing. Recently I have started to attend dancing lessons at the Electric Cowboy. It only costs me the three dollar cover and then I buy one drink so that I do not feel guilty about taking space in the nightclub. We have been working on a swing dance called the push. I have been twice but plan on making this a regular part of my routine. I must say that this is both fun and frustrating. I thought for a while that my dance instructor liked me until I realized that she was spending so much time with me because I am so bad as a swing dancer (now give me some r and b and then watch out!!!). But it is fun to learn something new and that is the point of this blog entry. Too often people my age get settled into their lives and do not want to learn new things. But learning new things is an important part of life. I remember reading somewhere that learning new tasks is important for helping us to stay healthy and mentally active. So while I have accidentally happen upon these dance lessons, I have intended on trying to learn something new in my life. It may be that I throw myself into swing dancing (I can see myself on Dancing with the Star now. Only I will not drop Kristi Alley) or something else will take my fancy. But I want to learn something new. By the way. Something new is not a different sociological statistical or methodological technique or discovering some new academic theorist. I have been doing that for the past twenty years or so. To learn something new it has to be something that is totally out of our comfort zone. Swing dancing is that for me, at least right now. And it has been fun. And frustrating. Sincerely, Trouble-Maker

Being Realistic about Terroism - Part 3

Given the different type of Muslims in our world how do we tackle the problem of terrorism. We need a flexible solution that detains or kills Type 1 Muslims, empowers Type 2 Muslims and convince Type 3 Muslims that terrorism is not a good option (If all of these types are confusing you then please look at my last blog entry. I will not repeat my classification at this time). Notice last week that I did not state the percentages of Muslims that fall into each group. That is because we really have no way of finding out how big each group is. The sociological methodology has not yet been created to survey such a diffuse and suspicious population. We know that there are enough Type 1 Muslims to create a lot of trouble but beyond that we are just guessing. So anyone who tells you that most Muslims are warmongers or most are peaceful is just guessing as well.

The key is the Type 2 Muslims. It is in the interest of everyone that such individuals become more powerful in the Muslim community. There interpretation of Islam is one that allows for us to live in peace. I have heard some people argue that Islam is a religion that preaches violence more than other religions. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. We want the Muslims who see Islam as a religion of peace to gain more influence in their communities so they will convince Type 3 Muslims of their religious interpretation. As such our policy towards terrorism should center on the fact that we need to empower Type 2 Muslims.

Does this mean that military action is off the table? Not really. There are times where the Type 1 Muslims are so powerful in a given area that military action may be necessary to stop them. I am under no illusion that Type 1 Muslims can be reformed in any great number. But that military action must be measured and justifiable to Type 2 Muslims. The case for war must be made in ways so that at least the Type 2 Muslims, if not the Type 3 Muslims, accept the need for violence. Deaths to non-combatants will empower Type 1 Muslims to recruit from Type 3 Muslins and must be avoided. I understand that this seems like I am arguing for “politically correct” war but actually I am arguing for “politically smart” war. We must move in ways that reduce the threat of Type 1 Muslims but do not inhibit the ability of Type 3 Muslims to emphasis a peaceful interpretation of Islam.

We who are non-Muslims must negotiate in good faith with Type 2 Muslims and give them some of what they want. They can then take such victories to their communities and show the fruits of non-violence. This does not mean that we capitulate to Type 2 Muslims in all areas, but we have to understand that if we listen to and can address their concerns that we are helping them to create a more peaceful community. On the other hand we must fight to never reward the violence that comes from Type 1 Muslims. If police action or limited military action is necessary to punish then we must carefully engage in such action.

Ultimately it is Muslims who will change Muslims. It does not matter if I think that the Koran is a book of peace. It matters if Muslims believe such and work to promote such peace. There is a limit to how much we can life up Type 2 Muslims. If it looks like they are co-oped by non-Muslims then their influence in the Islamic community will wane. However, our governments need to weigh each action with the question of whether this will empower peaceful Muslims to have more influence in their communities. Even when violence is necessary for dealing with Type 1 Muslims this question must take priority as we decide how to engage in that violence. Only when we have developed this priority will we be able to develop measures that will attack the problem of terrorism at its roots, and thus create long-term, instead of temporary, solutions.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Being Realistic about Terrorism - Part 2

In my last blog I established what I think is an obvious fact. The problem of terrorism is one that is linked to individuals motivated by Islam. I am not saying that Islam, in and of itself, is the problem but it is the source of legitimization that most of the dangerous terrorists are using to justify their attacks against us. The fact that there are terrorists who are not Muslim does not eliminate the reality that most of the danger of terrorism is our society today is due to Islamic-based terrorism. The propensity for some individuals to ignore this can be attributed to a misplaced sense of political correctness.Now I want to look a little more carefully at this source of terrorism. The way I see it, as it concerns terrorism, there are three types of Muslims. There are Muslims who are dedicated to terrorism and can not be reformed. Come on. Does anybody seriously think that we can convince Osama Bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki to renounce violence? They cannot be reformed. They can only be killed or imprisoned. Let’s call them Type A Muslims. Second there are Muslims who will never engage in violence. No matter what happens they are dedicated to peaceful methods of change or do not worry about trying to change society at all. Some of my friends are such Muslims. They may be sympathetic to some of the causes enunciated by Type A Muslims but they would never engage in the violence the Type A Muslims will use. Either their interpretation of Islam emphasis non-violence or they have some other non-violent ideology that keeps them from being a threat. Let’s call them Type B Muslims. Finally, there are Muslims who do not engage in violence but could become violent under the right circumstances. They are sympathetic to the causes that animate Type A Muslims but for some reason are not willing to take the same violent measures that they engage in. But they could be convinced to engage in violence. The United States invasion of a country or a family tragedy that turns them violent but the capacity for violence is there. Let’s call them Type C Muslims.

It is important to recognize these different types because unfortunately we have a tendency to stereotype Muslim as all the same. We know a few Type A or Type B Muslims and we think that all Muslims are like that. But there are different solutions depending on who you are dealing with. We have to stop Type A Muslims with some form of violence be it military or police based action. Type B Muslims are no threat and we can just treat them like everyone else. Type C Muslims must be nurtured so that they do not turn to violence. But too often we attempt to find some overarching solution that is inadequate for the different types of Muslims. A “War on Terrorism” approach can neutralize some of the Type A Muslims but will convince some of the Type C Muslims to turn violent. An attempt to provide economic aid to Islamic countries can prevent many of the Type C Muslims to stay peaceful but the Type A Muslims will continue to wreak havoc on our society. Simple solutions that address only one type of Muslim group will not work.

But there is a possible solution. The group that we are overlooking may be the salvation for those of us who are concerned about terrorism. I believe the key is the Type B Muslims. I will conclude this series with how I think they can be helpful for us to create a useful strategy to use against terrorism.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Being Realistic about Terrorism - Part 1

Time for another series. First a disclaimer. I am not a police detective nor do I play one on TV. But I am a thoughtful person and I do think about the problems in our society. So I have some thoughts about terrorism which is clearly one of the big problems today. I am not interested in political correctness but in merely thinking clearly about such problems. So let us see where we can go with this series.

The foundation of dealing with terrorism is to be completely honest, even if that foundation is a controversial statement. That statement is that Islamic terrorism is the biggest source of terrorism that threatens our society and our world. To me this statement is so obvious that I should not have to defend it. But in our politically correct world I already know that some readers are already objecting. They are saying that I am trying to pick on Islam. I am not. I just know how to read a newspaper and follow world events.

Okay what about terrorism based in other religions? Compared to Islamic terrorism there are relatively few terrorism based on other religions. Timothy McVeigh was not religious. A few abortion doctors have been killed by what can be called Christian terrorists but these heinous crimes do not create near the amount of damage that Islamic terrorists have created. We should not ignore terrorism from other sources. But we have to be honest about the relative damage that Islamic terrorism has created.

Am I saying the Islam leads to terrorism more than other religions? All religions have had their dark days. I am not in a position to state that Islam is any more dangerous than other religions. But it is reasonable to argue that most of the other major religions have had their violent times in the past. For whatever reason, Islam is more likely to provoke violence today.

What about governmental sources of violence? Some may contend that the United States government is a terrorist given the way we have waged war. I do not like some of the wars we have gone into. But if terrorism is defined as the deliberate attempt to kill civilians in order to create terror then we are comparing apples to oranges. There is little reason for our military to gain by targeting innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 9-11 was a direct attempt to kill innocent people to create terror. It is not accurate to call the military terrorists unless you want to change the meaning of the word terrorists.

Why is it important to get through the PC BS to make what I think is the obvious statement about the Islamic source of terrorism? It is important because until we understand the nature of the problem then we will not be about to deal with the problem. The solution is not to demonize Muslims, but to understand how those relatively few Muslims who are terrorists can be stopped. In the next few blogs I will speculate as to how we can do this and hopefully address terrorism in a realistic way.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Ruin a good thing!!!

Okay, time for a sports rant. Why did the NCAA ruin the best sports tournament in the world. Of course I am talking about March Madness.
Remember when it was just the 64 teams. That made every league championship exciting because to win it meant that you got to go to the 'Big Dance." Then once the tournament started you get the Cinderella stories of a 15th seed upsetting a 2 seed. Man it is great stuff.
It is still good but then they added that stupid play-in game. Now if you win your conference they may ship you off to play the winner of another scrub league before going to the "Big Dance." And if that is not bad enough now there are four play-in games. WHY. The original 64 team set-up was great. Allowed everyone to have a shot, but the better teams got easier games early. Sets up the possibility of the exciting upset. What a way to choose a national champion.
I guess we can never be satisfied when something is good. Maybe it is a good thing that we are trying to make things better. But sometimes we have to know when things can not be made better. They probably think that they can make a little more money adding those four extra games. But in my mind they just cheapened the tournament a little. It is still great but not as great as it once was.
You know this started as a sports rant, but it clearly has implications in other parts of life. How many people ruin a good relationship thinking that there is someone better waiting for them? Or move to a new job before realizing how good they had it at the old one? Or move to a new city and miss all their old friends? Change is good and sometimes necessary. But sometimes the best change is no change.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Going Nuclear?

I have made my prayers for the poor souls in Japan. I hope that many of you have done likewise. The pictures of Japan are heart-wrenching. How can anyone not have sympathy for those who have suffered and continue to suffer from this natural disaster.
Now on to unnatural disasters. Trouble-maker can not help but notice the discussion that has risen from this tragedy concerning nuclear power. Already there are opponents of nuclear power who are passionately arguing that Japan is evidence that we have to avoid using it. And there are proponents of nuclear power who argue that Japan teaches us no such thing.
I have one question for both groups. How do you know this? They have not even gotten the fires under control yet and people are telling me that they know what went wrong. This does not pass the smell test. I have a novel idea. How about we get the tragedy under control, then do an investigation and see what went wrong. Wow. Having information before drawing a conclusion. Who would have thought of that?
To often political pundits use their own paradigm to develop conclusion that support those paradigms regardless of what the evidence says. We would be better off if we look at these pundits with a great deal of skepticism. Instead we tend to automatically dismiss those we disagree with and unconditionally accept the rantings of those we agree with. Until we learn to escape this mentality and think for ourselves we will always be vulnerable to making big decisions without having collected all of our evidence. Just a little advice from a little trouble-maker.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Public Unionization

Okay let's be honest. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin signed into law rules that are not just there to balance the budget. They are there to break up the public unions. To say otherwise is to pretend that reality does not exists. It is not just the removing of the right to collectively bargain. It is also the removal of the requirement of employees to deduct union dues and the requirement for the unions to be recertified by vote every year. Maybe those are good measures for Wisconsin to have but those measures are not about saving the state money, but they are about breaking the power of unions.
If we are honest about the attempt to break up the unions then the next question is whether that is a good thing. Most Americans, this one included, believes that people should retain collective bargaining rights. On the other hand, collective bargaining means something different when we are looking at a public union as opposed to a union for a private company. When a union bargains with a private company you have a true adversarial relationship. If the company agrees to concessions with the union then that company has to pay the union out of its own pocket. But a public union is bargaining with someone who is not going to have to ante up for any concessions. In fact, because unions are so politically active, there is a real possibility that their "adversary" has more interest in keeping the union members happy than in saving money.
Some conservatives have argued that because government officials are less likely to bargain in a way to protect the interest of the taxpayers the way a company will protect the interest of the share holders that we should outlaw public unions. I acknowledge that, just as we had to be honest about Governor's Walkers intention to break the union, we have to be honest that this is a legitimate concern. But do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can we not keep the public unions and neutralize this concern?
I think we can. My compromise is that we allow public unions to bargain for whatever they can get. However, they are not allowed to become involved in politics. They can not endorses or donate to campaigns, set up get out the vote drives, or help to do political organizing. This way they do not directly help to determine who they will bargain with. This will put public union more on the same footing as private unions.
Will we ever reach such a compromise. Not if we are just calling each other names. Not if we take advantage of a temporary political advantage, like what the Republicans are doing right now, to put for all that we want. Not if we run away from our obligations to debate and vote, like what the Democrats did, if we do not get our way. In short, we will not find solutions that solve the problems that Republicans and Democrats both point out as long as we do politics like we have always done. But what else is new?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Balance Part 4 - When Societies go bad

I have noticed something about oppressive societies. I have noticed that usually they are build around admirable values. For example, much of the oppression connected to the Dark Ages is based on the desire to create a moral Christian order. Morality is a desirable quality for a society. It is clearly better to have a moral society than one that is chaotic. But the imposed morality in the Dark Ages led to a great deal of bloodshed and oppression.

Or what about the terror visited upon us due to Stalinism and other communist societies. A lot of people died due to the laudable desire to create equality. These communist societies are built around the notion of promoting economic equality. Nothing wrong with that. Except that these efforts to promote equality led to millions send to gulags, or being executed.

A desire to be patriotic to one's country is a good thing. But such loyalty allowed Hitler to create his own version of Hell. Islam has some commendable qualities in it. But forcing everyone to accept those qualities has created many of the Islamic tyrannies we see today. As you can see trying to impose some good quality to the rest of society is a big reason why we see the development of oppressive and cruel societies.

This is tied to my discussion of balance. Balance forces us to recognize that any good quality can be used to justify horrible actions. If we remember the importance of balance then we will not be persuaded by the next would-be dictator who asks us to sacrifice it all for a sacred principle. We can agree the principle is good without throwing away our rights and freedoms.

I love my country. I believe we have a right to protect ourselves against terrorists. But my love for my country does not lead me to do anything to protect it. There must be a balance where we do have rules that protect us against a very real threat but we also balance those rules with efforts to maintain our freedom. I neither completely agree with the ACLU nor with conservative talk show host as it concerns the measures to protect ourselves. Rather I will look for a balanced approach that allows us to protect ourselves with a maximum protection of our freedom. I find that on most issues such a need for a balanced approach is best.

Sincerely,



Trouble-Maker

Balance Part 3 - Societal Effects

In my last blog, I looked at the importance of balance in a person's life. But balance is not just important to us as individuals. It is also important to society in general.
Let me illustrate this with a not so obvious example. We know that unemployment is too high today. All of us would like for it to be lower. But do we want a society with absolutely no unemployment. If you imagine such a society it would be one in which employees would have a difficult time finding someone to hire. They likely would have to higher people who are not qualified and the work done in society would suffer. Obviously, we do not want unemployment that is too high but having it too low can produce its own problems.
Or what about society change. We want society to progress and to become better. But do we want everything to change at once? There is a healthy rate of change for our societies that is not too fast or too slow. It is all about a balanced approach to societal change.
The qualities we think are good in a society are only that way if they are not too much. Societal pacifism can reduce incidents of war but also produce appeasement of evil nations. Technological development can improve the lives of people in society but also can create cultural changes that people are not ready for and may de-humanize them. Societal morality can turn help produce discipline among its members but also create a sterile legalism. Furthermore qualities that we think as negative in society can also produce positive effects in the right amount. Societal deviance can often lead to new social innovations. A social "warrior" mentality can provide a deterrence to invasion from other countries. It is all about balance. It is hard to think of a beneficial societal quality that there can not be too much of or even a negative social quality that can not be useful in certain situations.
The lesson of balance is that we can not become too attached to any certain social quality as an absolute good. In fact some of the worst atrocities occur in societies that "worship" some beneficial societal aspect. In my next blog I will outline what I mean by this and further illustrate the need for balance in our societies and lives.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Balance Part 2 - Our Greatest Strength/Weakness

I believe that our strengths and our weaknesses are related. Often what is a person's greatest strength is also his/her greatest weakness. How can this be?
Imagine someone who is very compassionate and really cares about other people. This person has a strength in that compassion. Caring about others is something we want in a person. But such compassion may blind that person. For example, such a person may meet a prisoner and feel compassion for him. The person may fight for the release of this prisoner who had a tough time early in his life. But it can turn out that the prisoner is still dangerous to society. Compassion for the difficult childhood of the prisoner may lead to a continued criminal campaign of violence.
This may seem extreme. But have we not all met someone who has a great deal of compassion that leads to tragic consequences. Perhaps someone who stays in an abusive relationship out of compassion for the abuser. Or a parent who fails to discipline a child due to compassion. Or a professor who passes a student with a hard luck story even though the student does not have the work ethic to achieve a degree. This is not to say that there is something wrong with compassion. It is a fine quality to have. But in an excess the strength of compassion can become a weakness.
This is the same for all such strengths. The strength of love can become the weakness of co-dependency. The strength of assertiveness can become the weakness of aggressiveness. The strength of ethnic pride can become the weakness of ethnic ethnocentrism. The strength of being autonomous can become the weakness of being a "lone wolf." The strength of passion can become the weakness of fanaticism. The list goes on.
It is within the seeds of our strengths where we often find our weaknesses. This has practical implications in that it can help us find our weakness and to appreciate the strengths connected to them. But is also shows how balance is such an important part of our reality. No characteristic is good in the extreme. And many bad characteristics are connected to other qualities that are good. We have to look for balance in our approaches and our personal actions.
But balance is not just important in our personal lives. It matters in the characteristics of our society. Looking at that reality will require more space than I want to use in this blog entry. Thus this series on balance will continue.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Balance Part 1 - Egypt Revolution

Well we will have a new government in Egypt. By all accounts that is a great thing. The old government was repressive to its people.
And what did the U.S. government do to facilitate this occurrence? It seems that we have done very little. By and large the U.S. was largely powerless to do much but watch what happened. We are not use to be so powerless. But looking at this outcome, it may be that doing nothing, or very little, was the best tactic to take.
This may be a lesson for us all. At times it is important to take action to get the desired result. But then I notice that people who have such a philosophy think that we always have to take action. They do not seem to understand that being proactive is beneficial in some situations but can be detrimental in other situations.
This illustrates an important concept we have to consider and that is the concept of balance. Being proactive is a valuable quality to have. But an unbalanced approach where all you are is proactive will eventually get you into trouble. The answer is not to become submissive. While there are times that staying out of the way, like the U.S. largely did with Egypt, is appropriate it is not always the right path.
There is no approach that is always right and none that is always wrong. The key is to find balance in our approaches so that we can find the wisest path. Balance is such an important aspect that I think I want to spend a few blogs on it.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

You want to honor who?

Just when I think I can get away from talking about racial issues they pull me back in. How can I avoid commenting on the following story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110210/ap_on_re_us/us_confederate_license_plates

Maybe it is because this is fresh in my mind because I just say a documentary on the origin of the Klan but I know that Forrest was a major player in making that vile organization violent. He is also responsible for executing black soldiers who had surrendered. This was not a nice man.
Now he may have renounced all of that later in life. And I am a believer in forgiveness. But he is not known for his good works. What he is known for is helping to create the violence that is the Klan. This is not a George Washington situation who was a slave owner but that is not why he is famous. People who honor Washington are not automatically honoring his slave owning. But Forrest is most famous for his hatred and violence, so how do you honor him without also honoring that hatred and violence.
I try to put myself in the mindset of those that I disagree with. A lot of times it helps me to understand why they thing the way they do. I may not always agree with them but trying to understand why they think the way they do helps me to humanize them and not fall into the trap of demonizing others. But it is hard for me to understand why people fight to honor someone like Forrest. People like that really challenge my ability to look at the perspective of others.
Do I try to understand the perspective of those who want to honor Forrest or admit that it is a bridge too far? Do I try to avoid demonizing them or believe that they deserve to be demonized if they push such ideas? To be honest I still do not know how much effort I should go into trying to understand them. A big part of me would love to write them off but I also worry about picking up habits of demonizing those I do not agree with. For me personally these are tough questions but they are questions that we should all ask. Who do we try to understand and who do we write off?

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker

Super Holiday

Well it was a great game. I was pulling for the Packers as my beloved Chargers choked this season. I know that my friends in Wisconsin are celebrating and ecstatic right now.

The Super Bowl is at a type of unofficial holiday in the United States. We technically do not get the day off but it functions as a holiday nonetheless. Holidays represent the culture celebrating them. We clearly see this in the Super Bowl.

For example, the halftime show is generally a big production and represents the popular culture of that day. Whether we like it or not the entertainment industry is an important part of our culture. The Super Bowl helps to reinforce this reality. After all we do not need a big musical production to play a football game. But we get one nonetheless.

Also the Super Bowl can also be known as the corporate bowl. Most of the ticket sold do not go to the fans of the competing teams but rather have been brought up by corporations who want to reward their employees and clients. We all know how important capitalism is in our society. The Super Bowl is merely reflective of that fact.

And of course who can forget the commercials. They have become almost as big as the game itself. Watching them gives one a great deal of insight into what is important in our society as advertisers are constantly attempting to find ways to convince us to buy stuff. I could do several blogs on the different commercials and how they reflect a variety of aspects in our society.

Whether you agree with my interpretations of the Super Bowl or not, it is clear that these elements, big halftime show, corporate tickets and commercials, are not necessary for the game. After all the purpose of the Super Bowl is to decide who is the best football team. These other things are rituals that are part of the Super Bowl holiday. We think of rituals as connected to religion. But we often have non-religious rituals. They help to remind us about our society and reinforce the values we have accepted. They perform this purpose in religion but also in other societal aspects as well.

There is nothing wrong with rituals. There is something wrong with just doing them and not thinking about them. I enjoy the commercials (can not say I enjoyed the halftime show, sorry) but I know that they are not the real purpose for the game. That allows me to accept the values I want from these rituals and avoid the messages I do not want to recieve. Recognizing the rituals in our lives can help us to become introspective about the messages that society offers to us.

Sincerely,

Trouble-Maker