Nicholsclan.com : a dimension of mind...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm obviously missing something here. Exactly how is it you limit a 3-year olds activity to 20 minutes a day? I admit it's been awhile since I had a 3-year old in the house, but I seem to recall that short of medical sedation and a healthy application of duct tape I couldn't have kept my kids this still. Hell, I got more activity than this just chasing them about. Who are these lethargic Lilliputians?

------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm probably going to tread on a little sensitive ground here, but if you've been reading for awhile then you should be used to it by now. I've been mulling the age old question of the value of a human life. Let's start with something personal. It goes without saying that I would sacrifice my life to save my children. Most parents would. Should one of my children be killed, I would likely risk life or limb in the short term to avenge him. I would certainly want to see the killer get his due, and I wouldn't mind giving it to him myself. But what if the killer was a mystery that, after a fashion, couldn't be solved by the police. Would I be judged rational if I bankrupted myself and destroyed my life and the lives of my remaining family in an effort to hunt this guy down? Would I be judged rational if I fenced in my house and forbade my remaining son from ever being in any sort of uncontrolled situation? Probably not.

So why does this scenario seem rational on a national scale? Yes, it was a tragedy that thousands died on 9/11. A measured response was justified. But the current war on terror has cost us over $100 billion and is projected to cost at least that much again. More people have been killed (not limited to Americans) in the war on terror than on 9/11. The Patriot Act has eroded our personal freedoms. While it's true we haven't been attacked domestically since 9/11, it's not at all clear if that's cause-and-effect or serendipity. When is enough enough?

Over 500,000 people die of cancer every year in this country. If 2000 lives are worth $100 billion a year, are 500,000 worth $25 trillion? Probably not. But can you imagine how many lives could be saved if even $10 billion were pumped into cancer research and treatment? Or let's invest in education, economic development, or countless other productive ventures.

Who is more successful, the bully who everyone was afraid of in high school or the nerdy kid whose lunch money he stole? When you were 16 and looking on, the bully sure looked like the cock of the roost. But what about now? The bully is flipping burgers and the nerd is pulling down 6 figures. Whose life looks better on a whole? "Carpe diem" may have a sensual satisfaction, but those who grok the "Gestalt" and can see past their primitive emotions are the mark to beat.

The terrorists sought to cripple our way of life through an act of terror. They did. They were the catalyst which has triggered an ongoing succession of destructive actions on our part which have hurt us economically, disrupted the lives of more families, and eroded our future more than the loss of a few buildings and a few thousand cherished individuals ever could have.

I am in no way trying to downplay the loss of life and the feelings of vulnerability brought on by 9/11. But in the same way that the Twin Towers are being replaced by a monument to our determination to succeed and rebuild and be reborn from the ashes of despair, shouldn't we be doing the same as a nation? Let's build, not destroy. Why conquer a nation when you can own it?

We seem to be forgetting that we won the cold war not by way of military might, but by economic strength. We bankrupted the Soviets. For their part, they spent so much on overextending their military might that they saw their currency devalue until they were so far in debt their economy crumbled. Their people, deprived of many personal freedoms (for the sake of protecting the state), were unmotivated, unemployed, and unsupportive of a government they thought was operating in the best interest of the oligarchical elite rather than in their best interest.

There, but for the grace of God, go we...

----------------------------------------------------------------
So perhaps there are limits to what duct tape can fix...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the latest example of PC run amok, I submit the State of Tennessee. Apparently there will be no more honor rolls or posting of meritorious school work in Tennessee because it may embarrass those who didn't make the grade. There are so many things wrong with this policy, it's hard to know where to start.

One particular sophistry is the notion that kids pick on students who don't make the honor roll. Maybe Tennessee is a whole different world, but when I was in school, it was hardly the honor roll kids who were picking on the kids who didn't make it. Hell, there were enough reasons to beat us up on the bus as it was. The last thing we ever did was rub our grades in the face of anyone. More often than not, we hid our grades and tried to appear "normal" and hoped no one picked on us!!.

But the truly misguided logic here is the underlying social policy. Is it really government's intention to ban anything which could show one child's success over another? In any discipline? Will we stop publishing sports statistics for the football team? Will we stop keeping school records for track and field? Will we ban musical solos and debates? Will it no longer be acceptable to be called to the board to solve a math problem? This is lunacy!!

What if we carried this into our adult lives... nobody should drive a better car than me or have a bigger house. Nobody should get a patent award or an advanced degree. All these things might make me feel bad or inadequate.

Hey, welcome to life. Adolescence is hard. Kids can be merciless. It's a shame that everyone can't succeed at everything, but that's a cold hard reality that people need to learn. Leverage your talents and accept your limitations. That is not to say that everyone can't or shouldn't dream, but they should dream somewhat realistically. And no matter who you are or what you do, somewhere, sometime, someone has, is, or will do it better. Get over it.

I watched the opening night of American Idol last week. I had heard about the bad performances, and had heard about the evil Simon. But honestly, after watching it, I think Simon is right. Some of these people do need a cold hard look at reality. Most of them will never be pop stars. However, some of those wash outs might make wonderful doctors, engineers, teachers, etc. They just need to find/recognize their strengths and move past their shortcomings. Reality hurts sometimes, but pain is a part of life too. Kids need to learn that as much as some adults. The ability to cope with one's failures says more about a person than their ability to leverage their successes. We should not take that lesson away from our children by removing all sense of competition from their lives.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm unsure how to feel about dear 'ol Dr. Dean. Many are claiming he made a damaging, if not fatal, mistake the other night when he kind of lost it after the Iowa Caucus. Ironically, he's now trying desperately to appear more "human" by wearing sweaters, appearing on Letterman, and trotting his reluctant wife out to the press. Has it occurred to any of the political wonks advising him (or maybe even to Dean himself) that his humanity would be cemented by simply admitting he kind of lost it the other night and moving on.

For some reason no one wants to appear fallible as a presidential candidate. Sure, they can lie, cheat on their wives, etc. once they are in office. But they must appear somehow warm, approachable, and perfect during the campaign. And they wonder why people don't trust candidates? It's obviously a facade.

I actually respected the fact that Dean hadn't insisted his wife be at his side playing the part. She had her own life. This wasn't her thing. As long as it worked for them, I was fine with that. I actually liked the non-conformity (go figure). Now I'm thinking he's caving to all the pressure to be the perfect candidate. And I pity his wife. He's lost more credibility with me while trying to recover from his faux pax, then his misstep alone ever could have eroded.

I wonder if a candidate will ever have the nerve to just be him/herself during the campaign. I have a suspicion they might do better they the political strategists seem to believe.

------------------------------------------------------------------
So I'm still reeling from all the sunshine and roses Bush laid on us last night. I've read the press reviews and I've heard the radio interviews with all kinds of people. And I'm wondering (again) if, as a nation, we're as stupid as the Bush administration thinks we are? I generalize this to the administration, because I don't think Bush is bright enough to realize that he's spewing crap. I think he really believes the only serious problems left to solve are improving people's math skills and constitutionally protecting marriage from homosexuals. And he was clearly getting off on the applause - I'd be surprised if he didn't call his mom afterwards and exclaim, "They liked me!!" But clearly those surrounding him know that last night's testosterone laden political blather was just that.

Now in fairness, it was masterfully done. If you just set back and let the words and the undercurrent of emotion wash over you like a re-run of Friends, you had to admit it felt good. It was kind of like that locker room speech the coach gave at halftime that made you wanna go give your all despite having your all handed back to you in a bucket in the 1st half.

But if people really allowed themselves to just feel good about the speech without applying any critical analysis to the message, what does that say about them? Have we become a nation of malleable masses whereby the message is indistinguishable from the marketing? Do we really put Hanes on our butts because we like Mike?

Ironically, Bush is claiming many of us aren't bright enough to find jobs in his new economy. We need better math and science skills. Does he realize that those skills go hand in hand with critical reasoning skills? Does he know that the cornerstone of those disciplines isaemotional analysis? If he's successful in this endeavor, he will be creating the very people who will no longer buy the feel-good rhetoric which is the foundation of his popularity.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen in time to stop him getting another term in office. We probably are as stupid as they think. We can't resist that feel-good high. Perhaps what scares me most is that the administration's behavior in the first term was outrageous and they knew they were going to face an election. Will there be any gating factors once they are on a 4-year lame duck run?

They scare me.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Bush is on TV now explaining how unfortunate it is that many Americans lack the math skills to be gainfully employed in our present economy. Has he checked his own math skills lately? He's asking for the tax cuts to be permanent. He's proposing countless new programs. He's going to submit a budget which limits the increase in discressionary spending to 4%. He's going to continue the war on terror. And he's going to cut the deficit in half in 5 years. Huh? Where's all the money for that coming from?

He has completely ducked any of the difficult questions. He didn't address the WMD issue which was the cornerstone of his State of the Union last year. In fact, he claimed victory at finding "evidence of weapons programs" which would be threatening us today if he didn't act. He's shifting to touting how Iraq was violating the will of the U.N., yet he violated the U.N.'s will by going to Iraq. He's not addressed the deficit other than to say his magic budget was going to cut it. And now he's explaining how federalizing the institution of marriage will protect us from the evils of same sex unions, and why funding faith-based groups will protect the faithful from discrimination. Huh?

This speech was little more than self-egrandizing pre-campaign rhetoric. And judging by the applause, lots of people are buying it. Kudos to Ted Kennedy for at least sitting there shaking his head and looking disgusted.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Looks like I'll be needing more room in the fridge.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if this isn't correct, then what is the proper way?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
And less than 12 hours after Carol Moseley Braun impresses me, she drops out of the race. Granted, it was only a 5 minute interview I saw, but she was very articulate and didn't seem to be pandering to voter blocs. Then again, she probably knew she was history in a few hours so maybe she had nothing to lose.

Besides, she made two off-hand references to classic Sci-Fi in the course of conversation. She used the phrases "Live Long and Prosper" from Star Trek, as well "Fear is the Mind Killer" from Dune. They were clearly casual everyday sorts of references for her, and she didn't cite the source - she just used the phrases. I'll admit, she doesn't look the type, but I'm thinking she should have revealed sooner that she was a Sci-Fi Geek.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh ferchrisesake!! As if Bush's new interest in Mars wasn't a hopeful signal that he'd given up on Earth (Martians beware!!), now he's claiming the only solution to our problems is divine intervention? He knows he's President, right? Did someone tell him he was the Pope? Should I take solace in the fact his domestic agenda is based on public funding of religious based efforts to save America? Is it that he's clueless so he's turning it over to his god, or are we back to him being an instrument of the lord? Neither makes me think he's sporting gravy on his fries.

In what may be the most Quayle-esque statement he's made in a while, Bush left nothing to chance by emphasizing, "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith. It's important for our government to understand that." Thanks for clearing that up George.

It's not bad enough that our foreign policy seems to have been designed by Yosemite Sam, our domestic policy was apparently developed by Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Honestly... it's getting embarrassing to be a U.S. citizen.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Will anyone who has not been thrown a political bone by George Bush please step forward and receive your federal program? Geeze. As if the whole illegal immigrant proposal wasn't blatant pandering to Hispanic voters, now GW has tossed bones to geeks and conservatives.

I have mixed emotions on the whole space exploration thing. I love the idea. It's hugely romantic, it drives cool innovations, and ultimately holds the future of mankind. But I'm not convinced we can afford it right now. Bush makes the point that this won't be much if any incremental funding in the short run, but ultimate success will require hundreds of billions of dollars over many years. There's no point in planning for a trip you don't intend to take. So until we get a viable path to spend those large sums, this is just so-much political posturing.

The marriage program is one of those things where you'd laugh if you weren't trying to fight back the tears. $1.5B on promoting healthy marriages? I've not seen any specifics on this, but I'm unsure just what role the government thinks it needs to play here. Do we really want the state defining what constitutes a healthy marriage? Apparently we (and by "we" I mean Bush) already know that only relationships between heterosexual couples are healthy. (Which I guess means he's given up on the gay vote.) But beyond that, what will they be promoting? Isn't this the domain of religions, counselors, self-help books, and Oprah? Does GW really add value here? Probably not, but it's a bone to throw to the conservative Christians. I can only hope that Bush is as committed to this as he was to his "no child left behind" initiative and pulls the funding after the election.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, science is being used: for good. I'm thinkin' I gotta get me one of these for the kitchen. Then again, in my house anything which "cuts by blasting apart the molecular bonds that hold materials together" is likely to wind up being used in mock battle by one of my boys to separate the other's appendages from his body, which would be an awful mess to clean up on the carpet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The government is now seriously studying how to protect airliners from shoulder fired missiles. While it's hard to argue with the intent of the investment, you have to wonder if this is really worth it don't you? I fly more than the average American, and I've never once thought how much safer I'd feel if the plane had a missile defense system. In general, I'm content if the pilots are sober and there isn't a really wide person sitting in the next seat.

Now granted, on that one day a missile is fired at my plane, I'm gonna wish I had the system. But then on the day I'm shot, I'm gonna wish I'd worn the kevlar vest. But in reality, I don't own one. I'm not in a position where I'm personally a high profile assassination target. I'm not in a job where I routinely encounter armed people. If I'm shot, it's likely a random event. And the chances are low enough that I really don't take precautionary measures to avoid being shot.

Isn't adding missile defense to passenger planes the same deal on a larger scale? Having such systems on Air Force One makes sense. It's a high profile target. Having such systems on military planes make sense. People shoot at them. But if an airliner is shot down, while a tragedy, it would be a random event. Now it's true that the terrorism level in the world makes such an event more likely, but planes are still more likely to crash because of mechanical failure than missile attack. You're more likely to die in an automobile accident than a plane crash of any kind.

Perhaps the government should take all the money ear-marked for airline missile defense and spend it teaching all those "other people" out there how to drive...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Somehow I suspect she just didn't want him to get off that easy...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting read... perhaps the most interesting quote, "basically any white person who believes in God is a Republican."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When Atkins Dieters go bad...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another compelling reason to be a Christian?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you've seen this story about Steve Irwin feeding crocs while holding his infant son. I was initially appalled by this as was most everyone I knew. But I'm beginning to have second thoughts.

You see, parents always judge what's dangerous to their children by what they fear. When I used to teach swimming, I found that kids who were afraid of water usually had a parent who was afraid. One mother in particular was terrified that her young daughter would be in the pool. However, to the rest of us this seemed like a perfectly safe activity. Twist this just a bit, and you have a man who apparently has no fear of crocodiles. To him, feeding one from his hand is perfectly safe. To those of us with a healthy fear of reptiles with teeth and snouts longer than our arms, this looks nuts. Given that Irwin has obviously survived many such croc feedings, holding his son while doing it probably didn't seem more dangerous to him than us taking the little one for a dip in the pool.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country where getting a visa, passport, educational degree, or even a driver's license is becoming increasingly difficult as we increase standards in the interest of safety and well being, it's nice to know you can still go out on a drunken binge and get married. And it's a damn good thing we don't let gays in on this hallowed heterosexual institution, ain't it? Fer cryin' in yer beer...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I see that Subway, the company which re-made itself as the low-fat fast food, has now come out with an Atkins-friendly menu. Amazing, since low-fat and Atkins are pretty diametrically opposed. But not surprising given the number of overweight Americans flocking to the latest diet trends in hopes of the miracle cure for their lack of self discipline. I can't help but wonder how long it will be before restaurant menus and grocery stores start to organize themselves by diet rather than by food group, menu course, or other anachronistic delineations. Geeze...