-
All responses Most smiled responses
-
Man, I never get easy questions. What about something like, where's your favorite place to sit and think? Or, what are your top 5 songs for driving? Instead...I get this.
Still, a question's a question. And, I believe you've limited my options unnecessarily. I'd like to blame the cancellation of "Studio 60" and the New York Yankees for the current economic crisis. Actually, in all seriousness, the current state of the economy (which is actually, in my humble opinion, looking better these days) can be traced back to the incredibly poor decision-making by the banking industry and their ties to the housing industry which collapsed in on itself back in 2005-6. And, to paraphrase Lewis Black, we all knew this was coming back then when our neighbors were selling their houses for six times their original value and all we could do was look around and say "we're fucked." But it happened, so here we are.
Now, to answer your question, using your limited options, I'll have to go with Congress. And, here's why: Obama can come up with the options, but he requires Congress to approve them. He can't just unilaterally decide to up and change things. That's one of the great things about our government is the system of checks and balances. So...Congress, Republican or Democrat controlled makes no difference, is responsible for the current state of the economy. At least, in my very limited understanding of how things work, this is how I see it. If you'd like a better answer, you're gonna have to find an economist. -
I think there are people IN government who are sort of clueless about how it all works. Still, I think there are things that we can make work, compromise on when necessary, and alter when need be. I also think that we can learn from other nations. Then again, what do I know?
Come again soon! -
Oh, man...do I ever LOVE a parade! Seriously, I love a parade, love a parade, love a parade, love a parade. The funny thing is I know the writer of this question and this is actually an inside joke and truly, I'm not a big fan of parades, but I do like the idea. But after you sit there for a while, your ass becomes numb and you just sort of wish it was over so you could go home. But I like the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade and the Rose Bowl parade which I can watch from the comfort of my own chair. Still, the joke is a reference to Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Vacation where he is lost in the desert and is singing this song...much the way the questioner and I did at summer camp many years ago.
So, in honor of our many years of friendship, I offer these videos in reference to this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpr682j5DA - Original song by Arlen and Harburg of "Wizard of Oz" fame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhCVmFc8jy8 - The Lawrence Welk Show - New Year's Eve 1979
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqUmkPTX8dQ - National Lampoon's Vacation (0:27-0:41)
Hope you enjoy! -
I've been wrestling with this one for a while now...it's 2 weeks old. I apologize for the delay. First, let me say that this article delves into economic policies which I have no background in, but it also references the Bible which I have enough background in to throw around a few Bible verses much as they do. Whenever one uses the Bible as an "end-all" reference book, one stands to lose ground in an argument. However, for the close-minded (which you are obviously not being as you've posed this question in the first place) sometimes the Bible is all that is necessary...and that is unfortunate.
I was going to go point by point, but I realized after awhile that it would take forever and you might get tired of reading the answer. So, I'm going to sum up my thoughts as succinctly as possible. Just before "they" (whoever writes for faithfacts.org) begin their countdown of the top 10 things wrong with socialism, they define it. Their definition is poor in my opinion. Socialism is not linked to the government, it is linked to the people. And, though, the two should be united as one, government and people that is, surely we are not naive enough to believe that. I would also say that socialism does not violate commandments in article 1. Rather, socialism attempts to eliminate breaking those very commandments by leveling the playing field for all of God's children. By allowing everyone a similar piece of pie, you no longer have envy or, hopefully, theft because everyone enjoys the fruits of the garden. There are problems with socialism, just as there problems with capitalism, communism, and other economic system. Nothing is perfect, short of heaven if indeed there is such a place. However, socialism properly administered may be a better system than others that we've experienced. Trust me when I say, though, that the Obama administration is light years from creating a socialized economy for the United States. The barons of industry will never allow it and there are many citizens who would revolt against it. It's not an idea to be taken lightly and it is unlikely to be popular in this country as long as it continues to be linked to communism.
Anyway, many points in this article could be debated for generations to come and never reach a conclusion. If you'd like my specific input on a particular point in the article, feel free to post another question...and I'll do my best to get to it in less than the 2 weeks it took to get to this one. But, allow me to close with my own Bible verse if you will: Matthew 19:21-24 (NIV)
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
To me, it sounds like Jesus advocated for socialism, the redistribution of wealth. And this from the basis of Christianity. I wish you the best in your continued journey on The Way and I hope that you see some reconciliation in this answer to your question. -
This is a very intense question and I can only hope that I provide a decent, well-thought out response.
Regarding the strong marriage, there are two inspirational stones in our home. We're not the sort of people who go for inspirational kitsch all that often, so there is usually a fairly strong impetus behind things of that nature. That is to say, we don't like to dust around things, so the less clutter the better. Anyway, back to the stones. One is engraved "trust" and the other "always" and that, I believe, is the backbone of a strong marriage. Now there are certainly other values that are involved, but the bedrock of a strong marriage is trust. And, I think that the other values are sort of based on that trust. You have honesty, love, and commitment...all of which have a foundation in trust. Truth be told, I don't think I'm telling anything that hasn't been told a thousand times before, but it's important to reinforce these values, particularly in a society that so easily dismisses them. And, I'm not one of these people who believe that marriage is some sort of sacred institution (as the joke goes...who wants to be in an institution), but I do believe it should be reserved for people who have the desire to commit themselves to each other through trust, whether they be straight, gay, illegal immigrants, or what have you. In addition to all of this, you have to be willing to go through the good AND the bad, and there will always be both, in order to have a strong marriage. Strong marriages are not easy. If they were, you'd see a lot more of them. My parents have been married for over 35 years and theirs is a strong marriage. They have had many ups and downs I'm sure. I can remember some pretty big blow ups in our house, but I also remember the funny, happy, goofy moments that made their marriage work as well. C. and I both had excellent role models for marriage and I think that having that to draw from also helps. If your parents didn't fare so well, all is not lost. You're still able to learn from what didn't work for them and make your marriage the best it can be.
As for being a single woman, let me give you two pieces of advice. First, I don't know how old you are, but be patient. I understand that it's frustrating and it can feel like time is running out. I remember thinking that I had passed the point of no return as far as finding a person to share my life with when I was only 23. Twenty-three is so young, heck, thirty-three is young. There have been times when I thought that had I waited a few more years it still may have been rushing it. C. will tell you that she felt rushed right up until the moment she walked down the aisle. Secondly, and this is the most important, there is a rule to live by for anyone that you think might be "the one" and it boils down to this: Does he/she make your life better? When you can answer this question "yes" honestly from a deep part of your soul, then see part 1 about being patient. It's hard to nail down exactly how you will know, but when it occurs, you'll be able to write this answer yourself. How did I know? Ask anyone who knew me before I met C. and they will tell you I was a miserable sonofabitch who was on the slippery slope to lonely and depressed. After I met C., my life became immeasurably better on a number of scales, some easy to identify and some a little less tangible. Still, I can say with certainty that there will be a tipping point when you absolutely can say to someone else "They make my life better" and mean it with your very being and that will be the starting point for you. Then, and only then, should you start working toward a strong relationship. On the other hand, if you ever find yourself in a relationship where the answer is already, or becomes "no, they do not make my life better" it's time to move on. This is true even if you've been in that relationship for a decade...and I've told people that. It's only recently that C. and I decided on this "Better Life" anthem for single friends who want to know our secret, but it has been true for everyone who has asked the question.
You want someone who can share your dreams, your failures, your success, and your pain. You want someone who knows how and when to listen and can be there even if you just need a shoulder to lean on. You want someone who will dance with you in the middle of the frozen food section at Kroger and laugh, even if its halfheartedly, at your stupid jokes. You want someone who challenges you to be the best you can be and support you in that goal. You want someone who can beat you at Jeopardy but still be humble, share a coffee and newspaper with you during a Saturday morning rainstorm, and be happy to get you cold medicine at 2 a.m. When you meet that someone, let me know and I will sing at your wedding, whoever you are, because I will know that you've found the right person.
I really do wish you the best of luck, because I know it seems like the most awful thing in the world to be single. And, I hated the usual platitudes that people used when I was in your shoes. Things like "you just have to stop looking," "plenty of fish in the sea," "it'll happen when you least expect it," just make you more angry and less likely to be open about the possibilities. Don't force it. Cinderella's shoes only fit on her foot. I hope you find the happiness that I continue to share with my wife. And I hope that this long answers helps. -
This is a multi-faceted question. There are a number of factors that would contribute to both sides of this equation. Are we ready? Emotionally, probably. Mentally, maybe. Financially, not really. Ivy is a wonderful, wonderful gift and every moment with her is absolutely delightful. I don't know that right now is the moment that we want to alter that situation. We're still enjoying the parental experience and, while I can't speak for my wife, I think for the moment, we're happy with one child. So, I would say that Ivy is enough.
But, I could see us having more kids...maybe even more than one. We're not planning on it at the moment, though. And, that's something I would like to stress is that having children is not something that should be taken lightly. It should certainly be a planned event; something that both parties have thought through thoroughly. If we do have more children, it will be after much consideration. -
Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. UK had a decent season, but that was due in large part to John Wall and DeMarcus Cousins, among others. And, as I understand it, they're moving on to the greener pastures of the NBA. Also, that snake-oil salesman Calipari is in the midst of a little snafu at the moment that has occupied the hearts and Twitter accounts of the Big Blue faithful that sheds a little doubt on whether he plans to continue at the "helm of the UK juggernaut." I have ZERO love for Calipari. He's what is bad with college basketball...or at least some of it. I just don't care for his ilk.
Anyway, on to your question...I don't think Pitino's success depends on Calipari or UK at all. I think Pitino gives a lot more credence to the Big East than he does the in-state rivalry...and he should. I also think Pitino keeps his eye on the prize and doesn't worry much about one game over the course of the season. His goal is the NCAA Championship and my research shows that he has more of those than Calipari does. Plus, I think he has shown himself to be fairly successful without regard to Calipari. -
The chicken. I realize that this is supposed to be some sort of grand philosophical quandary, but it's pretty obvious to me. You need a chicken to lay an egg, at least that's how I figure it. However, my understanding of evolutionary theory is that chickens didn't necessarily need eggs to appear in the timeline. So, I'm gonna go with chicken. Feel free to argue.
-
Probably not, but it won't be from lack of trying. I think Pitino's recruiting suffers from a current dissatisfaction among basketball players with the college system. They desire the "get-rich-quick" scheme and move to the NBA, often times before they're ready. I also think that Pitino lost much of his fire and desire after 9/11. Events around him at that point seemed to reorient his life, sex scandal notwithstanding, and he just seemed to become a different person. You can't blame him really and he doesn't really need to prove his abilities anymore. I think he's just coasting through to retirement which is not really acceptable given the money that he's being paid...but he'll probably have some great teams in the future and one of them might luck into a NCAA championship. We'll just have to wait and see.
-
Okay, first of all...it's imprisoned, with an I.
Secondly, I'm betting you already know the answer, or you need the answer for some sort of school report. Either way, I'm probably not going to give you an answer that you're interested in. The truth is, unfortunately, that there are numerous occasions on which the U.S. government has imprisoned citizens for expressing discontent with an administration's policies and/or for the color of their skin/nationality. And, since you asked for the presidents and the party affiliated with these actions, I'm guessing that the events in question are moments that are glossed over in history books due the fact that they happened during Democratic presidencies.
So, let me give you a small history lesson:
1)Luther Baldwin of New Jersey was fined and placed in jail for speaking "seditious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" in 1798. The President was John Adams and he was a member of the Federalist party (a forerunner of the GOP.)
2)In 1838, the Cherokee people were removed from their homes in north Georgia and forced onto reservations in Oklahoma because of their nationality. Illegally, I might add, as the Cherokee had a treaty held by their majority maintaining their sovereignty and a Supreme Court victory upholding that treaty. Still, they were forced to march to Oklahoma. You may have heard of the "Trail of Tears." The President responsible was Andrew Jackson, a member of the Democratic-Republican party (a forerunner of the Democrats.)
3)In 1875, the U.S. government ordered all the Sioux onto a reservation which covered most of western South Dakota. Sitting Bull and his followers disagreed with this policy and fought the government. They were imprisoned in 1881 at Fort Randall for 20 months as prisoners of war. This is a direct result of imprisonment for discontent due to policy and nationality. The President was James Garfield, a member of the Republican party.
Now, I'm assuming you're referring to the Japanese-American internment during World War II, propagated by the so-called bastion of Democrats, President Franklin Roosevelt. And, I will agree that this was a black mark on his presidency. I'm guessing as well that you're probably lumping President Abraham Lincoln in as well for his handling of southerners and their slaves during the Civil War, although I'm not aware of the specifics. Feel free to enlighten me. However, I hope by now that you've seen that the United States government, Republican or Democrat, has never been a beacon of justice and equality to humanity. Unfortunately, this only comes to light in the hindsight of history. We would do well merely to avoid repeating such disasters. -
I don't care for your tone, but I'll answer anyway.
I think that Al Gore truly cares for the environment. Just because you love the earth doesn't mean you have to live in a hole somewhere using your socks to strain your organic coffee and using only solar power for everyday conveniences. Do I think the mansion is excessive? Sure I do. Am I bothered by the media's non-coverage of this purchase? Not in the least...and here's why. I think the media, ALL MEDIA, is overly concerned with a number of things that have no real bearing on the lives of average individuals and coverage of Al Gore's new house would be one of them. However, I do think that their coverage of earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, a colossal oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and volcanic eruption in Iceland is warranted and much, MUCH, more important than where Al Gore lives.
Does it matter in the least how he came by the money to purchase this home? Maybe, a little. Particularly if it was ill-gotten and deceitful, but I'm guessing that his engagement fees and Nobel prize money helped a little in this department.
And, if you think for one minute that Newsbusters is dedicated to fairness in media, you're as loony as they are! -
Okay, sorry I haven't been on the ball with this one. This question is 2 weeks old...but we'll get an answer here.
First, the OISM petition has been debunked by no less than the National Academy of Sciences. It was a petition started by biochemist Arthur Robinson who has a history of being entangled with the fringe element. At best, this petition has been signed by some scientists (not nearly 30,000 meterologists), but certainly some of the names are unverifiable and there have been reports of the ease of adding fictitious names to the petition.
Now, I don't think that Al Gore needs to debate anyone regarding his views on global warming. I think it's clear what his views are and they are fairly in line with most of the international community. In addition, he has said that he will not debate this issue because he does not see it as theory or conjecture. I will allow that predicting global climate change is inexact simply because of the vast number of variables involved. However, the trends are there and are unmistakable. Global climate change is occurring, just ask James Lovelock.
Finally, Brian Sussman is a weatherman from San Francisco whose right-wing ravings surpass the lunacy quotient for acceptance on the fringe. In addition to his claims that global climate change is a hoax, he also has cast doubts on the citizenship of our President (something for which he certainly would've been castigated during the last administration) and has compared President Obama's presidential campaign to the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. In my humble opinion, Sussman doesn't deserve to debate anyone given his radical views. A debate would have to be rational argument for which Sussman has not shown a propensity.
Does that answer your question? -
First off, health care reform is great for some people, particularly the 32 million Americans who did not have health insurance before now. Secondly, bad things are always happening...but since you've brought it up, let's examine your examples:
Number 1) Based on what I've read regarding this issue (and it's not hard to find a PDF copy of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act), I'm not sure why those doctor-owned, and that's the key phrase here, hospitals are going to be cancelled. According to the bill, the hospitals would not be eligible for Medicare and Medicaid payments. Also, there appear to be provisions for exclusion from this provided that certain conditions are met...mostly that you, as a patient, are informed that your hospital shows certain specific conflicts of interest in the course of its doing business. As a matter of fact, the article you cite says that they're "in danger of cancellation," not that they've actually been cancelled. Plus, not to rain on your parade, but World Correspondents (which seems to have been in business since October 2009) seems little more than an opinion page with some news thrown in to appear legitimate, but I'm sure that's for another forum.
Number 2) Now, the Wall Street Journal is certainly a bona fide news source, so I have no problems with the article here. But your case is that health care reform, which is just weeks old, will cause an alarming shortage of doctors. To which, I say, this is old news. How, you say? The American Journal of Medicine had an article about shortage of primary care physicians in December 2009. A letter to The Wall Street Journal, by none other than the president of the American Association of Medical Colleges, in January 2010 discusses the shortage of primary care physicians through 2020. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine from April 2008 discusses a physician shortage and provides a detailed history of this issue, including the Reagan administration declaring a surfeit of doctors in 1981 and eliminating most of the funding for educating new physicians. All of these articles predate the new health care reform law, so physician shortage has not occurred in the last few weeks. As a matter of fact, many locales, including my own state, have been claiming a physician shortage for years, particularly for rural areas, where, if you're a new doctor looking to make money to pay back your student loans, you're unlikely to venture into rural areas where you're unlikely to get that money back at a fast rate.
So...while health care reform may not be your cup of tea, I don't believe it is the root cause of the articles you've cited. No sandwich for you. -
As a wise Edna Turnblad once said, "Boys are not the brightest things."
What you're referring to is called a double standard. It's unfortunate that society is this way, but there doesn't seem to be any way to eradicate it. This standard stems from, I'm guessing, how people viewed sexual mores in previous eras, wherein the sexual conquest of males was seen as, just that, a conquest. Whereas, when a woman has sex, she is viewed as having given away a prized possession and is ridiculed for such actions.
In my view, I don't think you should be having sex until you're emotionally mature enough to handle the delicacies of the act itself without worrying about the issues of "he said/she said." To that end, I'd venture to say that if you're still in a social circle that views sexual intercourse in this way, you're probably too young to be having sex. -
I think there are two ways to look at this. First of all, the fact that Locke is basically appearing in two places at once is not all that disconcerting given the propensity for the island to move forward and backward in time. For reference, see Emma Watson as Hermione Granger in "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" when she uses a "time-turner" to alter her appearance in time and, thus, be in two places at once. So, I don't believe in this instance that Locke's body is necessarily proof of his death; merely a glitch in the time-traveling conundrum of the island. Perhaps, his body and his appearance in the statue are evidence of his slipping through a wrinkle in the time-space continuum.
On the other hand, if we take Locke's body to truly be dead, then we're faced with the problem of who, or what, exactly is inside the statue? For this scenario, we assume that "dead Locke" is merely a proxy for Christian, Jack's father, so that Jack and the other members of the Oceanic Six can get back to the island. This also enables Jacob's rival (who is unnamed at this point) to take the form of Locke to assassinate Jacob, via Ben Linus, through a loophole in the karmic system of the island.
Given all this information, I'd have to say that John Locke is dead. The "John Locke" inside the statue is not Locke, rather a loophole for Jacob's rival to gain access to Jacob.
Oh, and, um, spoiler alert! -
Well, I suppose the existential answer would be the product of cell division. And, the philosophical answer would be that I think. But, I'm guessing that this question is a direct result of my not having posted recently.
Well, things are great. The new job is fantastic. I've been keeping very busy and everything has gone very smoothly. My running regimen has suffered of late due to illness and weather and a host of other issues. I do hope to post again soon because I'd love to weigh in on any number of things from Haiti to the Supreme Court and I'd like to do it before those topics leave the news cycle.
But, all in all, I'm really good. I think I've managed to find a balance in my life and I'm excited with how things are proceeding. Thanks for asking. -
There are no questions that have easy answers it seems. This one is almost impossible to answer because I can't really narrow it down to ONE trip. There've been so many great ones.
However, I'll play by the rules and say the trip where my wife surprised me by kidnapping me and taking me off to Cooperstown to the National Baseball Hall of Fame for my 30th birthday. The Hall of Fame is a mecca for me and I wept silent tears of joy as I stared into history, particularly at the plaque of Hank Aaron, my favorite ball player.
Cooperstown is also an amazing little New England town which does not suffer from its famous connection, rather it thrives on it without drawing commercial problems. But aside from just the trip to the Hall of Fame, there was the side trip to Ommegang Brewery and Fly Creek Cider Mill which really made the trip outstanding.
I've been to Europe, I've been to South Africa, I've been to Mexico, and I've been to many great places in the U.S. but Cooperstown was my favorite. -
I've attended very few concerts in my life. I was never really a concert goer and I'm not sure exactly why. I assume most people get into going to concerts when they're in high school...but my friends and I were not concert people. Anyway, that's beside the point; of the concerts I've attended, I'd have to say that David Gray was probably the best. When C. and I first started dating, we listened to "White Ladder" non-stop, to the point that I really thought it must be the only CD she owned. Turns out she was quite the music fan, AND quite the concert-goer. Anyway, that was one of the best concerts I've been to, plus there was a meet-n-greet afterwards which was very short and we neither met nor greeted Mr. Gray, but we were at least in the same room as he was.
Close seconds would have to be Patty Griffin, then Ben Folds, followed by the Indigo Girls. -
*chuckling to myself* Hmm, this one might be a little less anonymous, if only to me. And, regardless of how self-serving the question is, it does give me a chance to tell you about two great people who have become known as the "Capital-N Neighbors" in my blog.
When C. and I moved in, lo these 6.5 years ago, we were met in the fast approaching darkness by two figures. S. and B. quickly identified themselves as "even-numbered" neighbors and as the light faded we struck up a friendship that has only cemented itself further in that length of time.
Serendipitously, B. and I had gone to high school together and, as time went on, we surmised that C. and S.'s family trees were rooted quite closely with each other all of which solidified the notion that our fair city is the "biggest small town in the lower Midwest and upper South."
The Neighbors have been part cruise director, part security guard, and part psychotherapist over the years and I can only hope that our children will enjoy each other as much as we enjoy each other's company. I can't imagine having better neighbors and while I know things change and people move on in life, I hope that we're good friends for many, many more years to come.
But, don't even get me started about those "really odd"-numbered neighbors across the street, because that's an entirely different question. -
Hmm...interesting question. There are I think many parts to the answer.
Economically, we're not prepared to support any more offspring. I know many people say that this is always the case, but in this circumstance there is a definite lack of financial ability to have more children.
Emotionally, at this point, I'm really not ready. I'm still trying to work through the rough spots with IvyCat (not sleeping well, general fussiness) which, and I'm not ashamed to admit this, are sometimes a direct result of altering what my life used to be like. And, that's an issue I'll have to get through.
I know C. would love more kids, or she did at least the last time the subject was broached. But I'm not prepared to commit at this time. I'm really trying to enjoy IvyCat and focus my attentions on her. Plus, really, she's been the perfect baby from pregnancy, through birth, and on to the present time...and my patent response is "Why mess with perfection?"
So, I guess the short answer is no, not really...but I'm open to the possibility that it will at some point.
-
Loading...
Aaron Vowels’s Bio
Sometimes I wonder what life would've been like had I done things differently, and then I realize that I rather like my life the way it is, so I'm sort of glad it turned out that way.
