Your lesson for today
If only we produced educational videos this simplistic and naive today. Wait a second...
Random musings of two football fanatics (in 160 characters or less)
Exchanging messages during football is becoming a regular happening between myself and friends and family who aren't close in proximity. Gabe happens to be my main partner in crime for football watching. As such, I offer the commentary of two geniuses over the course of two nights.
November 15: Colts vs. Patriots
Me (9:38 p.m., Colts losing 24-7): Poor Colts...
Gabe (9:39 p.m.): This suuuuuuuuuckss. See what had to happen for te thrars (Panthers) to win? The football gods are upset.
Me (9:40 p.m.): Remember, this has happened before, in the 2007 AFC title game (Colts came back from 21 down to win). The Colts have hope.
Gabe (9:41 p.m.): Yes sir.
Gabe (9:41 p.m.): The defensive pressure is crazy.
Me (9:44 p.m.): I think PI (pass interference) penalties should count toward receiving stats. It's like goaltending in basketball.
Me (9:47 p.m., after Wes Welker picks up some yards): See, this is better. You've cut Kenny's (fantasy football) lead to three.
Gabe (9:47 p.m.): Need Welker.
Me (9:48 p.m.): Me too. I need 28 between him and the Ravens kicker to win in my money league...and this is after getting (Drew) Brees!
Gabe (9:49 p.m.): Yeah dude. Not a good week. So many people got hurt.
Me (9:51 p.m.): I've scored 42 points in two separate Yahoo games today. In one league I'm losing by 50, and in the other I won by five. Ugh.
Gabe (9:52 p.m.): Yeah I'm down all the way around.
Me (10:02 p.m.): The East Division in our league is sad. The leader is losing to me by 80, two teams barely got to 50, and the other team's about to go 2-8.
Me (10:32 p.m.): Did you see the bit about how Tom Brady's been on all these magazine covers and Peyton keeps on getting Sports Illustrated? Cute. F*** the Pats.
Gabe (10:33 p.m.): Yes, exactly.
Me (10:39 p.m.): Ugh. (Cris) Collinsworth thinks people don't talk about Brady enough? F*** that little man.
Gabe (10:39 p.m.): I hate him so much.
Gabe (11:37 p.m., after the Colts got the ball back at the 28-yard line, down only four): Wow how did this happen? Go Peyton!
Gabe (11:39 p.m., after the Colts win): Unreal.
Monday, November 16 (I'll save you most of the commentary, as this game was bad)
Gabe (8:26 p.m.): Oh also Danny finally responded to my trade request. He wants Chris Johnson, Andre Johnson, and Matt Ryan for Drew Brees. I hate my life.
Me (8:54 p.m.): Are we both actually watching the Browns?
Gabe (8:59 p.m.): Sigh. Is this what it's come to?
Me (10:44 p.m., after a Steve Bureurlein sighting): Arguably the greatest QB in Panthers history. Oldest player to reach his first Pro Bowl and more passing yards than Peyton Manning in 1999.
Gabe (10:46 p.m.): He's clearly not better than (Chris) Weinke. (Who went 2-16 as the Panthers' QB.)
Gabe (10:49 p.m.): Browns fans are weird.
Gabe (10:50 p.m., after converting on fourth down): The Browns just did something the Patriots can't. Zing.
Gabe (10:52 p.m.): Wow they're so bad.
Lessons to be learned from these conversation:
- I play way too much fantasy football.
- I watch way too much football if I actually watch the Browns.
- I'm freaking Nostradamus.
- Chris Weinke sucks.
The best of both worlds!
Amanda asked me last night why I hadn't blogged much recently. In short, it's been a pretty hectic week, but it's finally died down. And conveniently enough, I came across a story today that got me thinking again!
As I've said before, there are two things that really appeal to me: higher education and journalism/first amendment issues. Seeing as I have degrees in both fields, I feel I can speak to both somewhat-intelligently. So imagine my surprise when I came across a story today that deals with both areas, thanks to my weekly reading of my alma mater's Blue Banner.
Jess Zimmerman is a student at Butler University. He started an anonymous blog last year called the TrueBU Blog, a blog set up to chronicle happenings at Butler. Things really picked up last December when Zimmerman's stepmother was fired as a departmental chair under what Jess feels were unfair circumstances.
Over the course of the next several months, Jess wrote some pretty harsh opinions about the University, posting correspondence sent out by various administrators and faculty members and offering his own take on what's been happening. His harshest criticism was directed towards a Dean and the Provost. That's when he got the University's attention.
The University filed a lawsuit against the anonymous blogger in January, claiming defamation and libel. The lawsuit claims that the TrueBU blog's statements "have harmed the honesty, integrity, and professional reputation of Butler University and two of its high-level administrators."
Oh, but it gets more complicated. After identifying Zimmerman as the blogger, Zimmerman's father who was also a Dean at the University, did not have his contract renewed. This was followed by the Provost allegedly misrepresenting the nature of the elder Zimmerman's dismissal. When Mr. Zimmerman attempted to seek recourse for that, the University attempted to tie both settlements together: Butler will correct the disparaging statements made against Mr. Zimmerman if Jess agreed to go through the student conduct process for his blog and waive any right to appeal sanctions. Smart.
The University has apparently dropped the lawsuit but is still processing Jess through the student conduct system, setting off more cricticism about First Amendment rights and all that jazz.
While I am certainly not a legal expert on First Amendment or higher education issues, I do feel compelled enough to offer some clarifications and opinions. If any of my old professors actually read this, feel free to correct me if I misspeak on something:
- The fact the University would sue (even if it was simply in an attempt to find the identity of the blogger, as Butler's president argues) is a huge waste of time, money, and resources. Virtually everything cited in the lawsuit is opnion and would fall under "Fair Comment and Criticism," which isn't libel. Butler may have felt they had a case when Zimmerman said that the Dean and Provost lied about aspects of the firing, but even that's a weak case. Also, keep in mind that Zimmerman was criticizing the administrators in their role as University officials, not as private citizens. There's a difference.
- Butler University is a private institution, meaning they CAN take more liberty with limiting first amendment rights than a public school. Unless they provide a contract (a student handbook, for example) stating otherwise, private institutions can limit students' rights as much or as little as they want. So unless Butler's handbook stated that students will have full First Amendment rights without any sort of student judicial consequences, they are well within their rights to pursue this through internal processes. Does that make it right? No, but they can.
Ultimately, I think this is a case of an institution making an unpopular decision and not having the thick skin necessary to stand behind it. The administration should have reached out to Zimmerman (either through the anonymous email or after he was identified) and had a private conversation with him. A lawsuit and potential judicial sanctions is not the way to win favor with those you have already angered.
Democrats are spineless
Well, I guess I shouldn't say that statement applies to all Democrats. However, I'm certainly willing to question a good chunk of them after this weekend.
The House passed their version of health care reform, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, this weekend. The bill includes, among other things, a public option to be established by (I believe) 2013. However, it's something that made it in there at the last minute that really shows what could be in store.
The House bill contains the Stupak Amendment, which lays out what is covered and not covered with regards to abortions. Stupak's concern was that he didn't want public funding to pay for abortions. This would mainly be the public insurance option and private companies that participate in the health care exchange also proposed in the bill. The bill originally stated that this could be remedied in a few steps:
- Have providers set up two seperate accounts: one for public money and one for money from premiums. Any abortions covered would be out of the premium account.
- For people who didn't want their premium money potentially going towards funding abortions, there would have to be at least one plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion, as well as one that does.
Problem solved? Not if you're Bart Stupak.
The passed bill includes Stupak's amendments which basically states two very important tidbits:
- Any person or family receiving a government subsidy for health insurance (also included in the bill) is prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortions.
- Any insurance comapny that participates in the government exchange is prohibited from covering abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, and the "mother's life being in danger."
Approximately 50% of insurance plans offer some sort of coverage for abortions as of 2008. So basically, if you're a member of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and your plan covers abortions, you would lose this coverage regardless if you get insurance through an employer, through a government subsidy, or even if you pay your entire premium out-of-pocket.
This a serious hit to reproductive rights. But that's not even the part that makes me the maddest. What makes me really angry is that a good percentage of the Democrats who voted for the bill did so despite carrying the "pro-choice" banner. Pelosi, for example, has a voting history that has been scored as 100% pro-choice. But she, along with many Democrats, were so desperate to pass a health care bill that it didn't matter if it clashed with one of the major ideals for many in the party.
So now we're one step closer to "reform." Great. Too bad this is going to do nothing but potentially kill the bill in the Senate and/or anger a good percentage of the pro-choice demographic. Go ahead and celebrate your "victory," Madam Speaker, but some of us see this for what it truly is: selling yourself out to pass something that was nothing more than a self-serving move with the hopes of advancing your political career.
And sadly, that simply makes you one of roughly 540 people in Congress who are just as bad.
Random ramblings
Nothing really comes to mind today that would warrant an entry by itself, so I figured I'd throw out just a few random thoughts on this lovely Tuesday afternoon!
- Just saw a story about four people in Fayetteville who were found dead of apparent gunshot wounds. Police say they do not suspect foul play. How is it possible that four people (including two juveniles) were found shot to death, in the same place mind you, and it's not foul play?
-Florida linebacker Brandon Spikes was suspended for the first half of UF's next football game after attempting to gouge the eyes of an opposing player. Why is it that the good players at the bigger schools either: a.) get suspended for a half as opposed to the whole game, or b.) get suspended for the games against the bad teams? If you're going to be that transparent, why even suspend them?
-The Panthers won a big game this past weekend against Arizona, the defending NFC champions. Jake Delhomme threw the ball 15 times, threw a touchdown pass, and didn't turn the ball over. The Panthers also forced six turnovers (including five interceptions...poor Kurt Warner) and ran for 270 yards. If they keep doing that, they may make a surge.
Here's the thing: this is how the Panthers are built to play: a very strong running game, a strong defense, and a passing game that doesn't depend on the quarterback too much (which limits his chances to commit turnovers). They've had three seasons where they did that very well: 1996, 2003, and 2008, and guess what? They won the division all three of those years.
-My computer at work has decided to start acting crazy, especially when it comes to Microsoft Outlook. Because of this (and because of improved features in GMail), I've decided to move everything over to GMail. If you've never had chance to import 10,000 messages from one account to another, be glad. It sucks.
-My friend Terence wrote last night/this morning about love and what that means. He poses a very interesting question, and I'm not sure I can answer it myself. I think I may try to at some point soon, though. Thoughts?
I think that's all for now. Holler!
Much ado about nothing
Health care reform is the hot topic in the news right now, and it has been for many months. Both Democrats and Republicans agree (for the most part) that the current system is broken, but they can't agree on how to fix it. Nowadays, the big issue is whether or not we're going to see a public health insurance option.
A good number of Democrats, including the high-profile ones (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) support a public health care option. Some more-conservative Democrats and all the Republicans oppose it. It's unlikely that Democrats in the Senate will be able to get the "magic 60" votes needed to end debate and vote on a bill containing a public option. Well that ends that.
Not so fast, my friends. That's where the term "reconciliation" comes into play.
Here's a quick primer on reconciliation, courtesy of Keith Hennessey:
- It only is meant for bills dealing with the budget-related items and germane amendments. Senator Reid instructed two committees last spring to create a bill that reduces the federal deficit by $1 billion over the next five years. (Which, as we've learned over the last year, is a drop in the bucket for the federal government.) A carefully-worded health care bill could achieve this, even if some don't agree with the method for reducing said deficit.
- Only amendments "germane" to the bill may be included. In other words, a health care bill using this procedure cannot include unrelated amendments. (An example of a non-germane amendment would be the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Act being inserted into the defense spending bill.)
- Debate is limited to 20 hours. This is the big one. When a bill is introduced normally, debate can continue until 60 senators vote to end it. Unless all the Democrats are in unison on a health care bill (which they won't be), it can be filibustered until it's dead. This means you only need a majority (51 votes) to pass the bill, which is more-feasible.
It's a good idea if you really need to pass something without 60 votes. It's a bad idea if you're trying to promote bi-partisanship. Arlen Specter threw around the idea several months ago, and he's recently said he would only support it as a last resort to pass a bill with a public option. Republicans, as you can imagine, are already threatening a revolt if that happens. Take Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R., Tenn.) comments, for example:
"They either don't know how to operate in a bipartisan way or don't want to operate in a bipartisan way," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.). He warned that if Democrats use a parliamentary tactic called reconciliation to push through a bill by a majority vote in the Senate, "there'll be a minor revolution in this country."
Here's my thought on this: so what?
If you're a Democrat, and if you're absolutely sure that a bill with a public option is best for America and the only way to really reform health care, why not pass a bill through reconciliation. Then, when everyone's happy and insured, you can say, "We took a big risk to get this for you. My opponent did not have your best interests at heart. Vote for me."
And if you're a Republican, it can work the same way. If you're so sure that a public option is going to fail, let the Dems pass it through reconciliation. Then you can say, "My opponent and his/her party did not have your best interests at heart, they didn't improve health care, and they sacrificed bipartisanship to do it. Vote for me." Then you get elected/re-elected, you probably get a majority, and then you can fix health care the way you think it should be fixed.
I have some thoughts on health care, but I'll save them for the jump; this post is getting long enough already. Click on if you want to read them.
Microsoft: Better late than never?
In case you've been hiding under a rock, you know that Windows 7 launched last week.
Yes, Windows 7, the latest operating system from software giant Microsoft, has been released to the general public. This release comes after only a few years of PC users suffering through the trainwreck that was Vista. The big question was obvious: after releasing an OS with so many problems, how would Microsoft, PC manufacturers, and the general public respond for the next go-around?
Based on most of most of the early reviews, it appears Windows 7 is a pretty good piece of software. Some say it is what Vista should have been. What really caught my attention was a recent article on CNet that spoke about how Vista was basically a reality check from Microsoft. They realized they screwed up pretty bad, and they needed to make right.
And by the looks of things, it appears they're headed in the right direction. According to the article:
This time around, though, Microsoft shared its earliest plans, sought input, and held regular meetings with the PC makers. In addition, it dedicated engineering teams to work with each of the biggest computer makers to help them work through any issues specific to their designs.
Imagine that. They actually worked with the PC manuacturers to get input and to make sure their software worked well on their systems. Should it be any surprise that Windows 7 is an improvement?
Microsoft shouldn't necessarily get credit for finally doing the things they should have been doing from the start when making their software. They should, however, get credit for realizing what they were doing wasn't working and they needed to change something. Change isn't always bad.
Is monogamy rational?
Monogamy - noun - the process of having one partner or mate during a period of time.
That definition above can be one of the most wonderful concepts imaginable. It can also be one of the most scary and intimidating concepts imaginable.
I recently came across this CNN.com article which examined the concept of monogamy. It looks at relationships through the lens of notable public figures to be caught in affairs: Mark Sanford, David Letterman, and John Edwards are a few names that come to mind. It raised a very important question: did these people stray because they made a mistake, because they're bad people, or because they did something natural?
The author of the article talks to one man who offers a pretty straightforward opinion on monogamy:
"We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age. ... It's oddly pressuring to set up that scenario," said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)
The article also examines the benefits of monogamy:
"People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner," (Nadine) Kaslow said. "I think that we can make choices in a different way than [other] mammals and think through the consequences of things."
Seattle Columnist Dan Savage also gave his thoughts on the topic. (If you're familiar with Dan Savage at all, you'll realize these are his thoughts cleverly woven into a tounge-in-cheek piece.) He wrote:
I would argue that serial monogamy also has its limitations: a strictly monogamous couple that might be great together and doing a great job raising kids may be prompted by sexual boredom or alienation—a circumstance that could be temporary—to part ways in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. A little leeway, a discreet sumpun on the side now and then, could help countless otherwise solid marriages survive a sexually fallow period.
Here are my thoughts on the concept: like I said above, monogamy can be a wonderful thing, but it can also be a very intimidating thing as a relationship progresses. Dating someone exclusively is nowhere near the same thing as being permanently committed to someone, whether it's through marriage or other means. When I finally settle down with someone, I want it to be because of the complete package: there needs to be a physical connection, but there also needs to be some sort of emotional connection and a intellectual connection. Does that mean people can find the best of all three connections with one person? Not necessarily, but I think we can find someone with strong connections in all areas.
I feel the problem with Savage's logic is that it's almost looking at things with the mindset that your lovelife can and should be perfect at all times. Would it be wonderful if that were the case? Absolutely. Does it need to be that way? I don't think so.
I think a relationship can evolve to a point where the physical, emotional, or intellectual connection may diminish a bit. What's important with that is how it impacts your view of the relationship: if you find yourself less attracted physically to someone than you did before, but you're still more than satisfied because of the other aspects, I don't see anything wrong with staying with that person. If, on the other hand, you view that as a vitally-important part of a relationship, maybe it's time to reassess. Keep in mind, however, that an attraction that's diminished always has the chance of coming back.
But here's the big thing: everyone should approach relationships in whatever way makes them the happiest. People who feel that being polyamorous will make them the happiest should pursue that, while people who prefer monogamy should go for that. Everyone has their own unique personality, traits, needs, wants, and desires. We should recognize that and embrace that. In the end, we need to concern ourselves with what makes each of us happy, not with how other people conduct their lives.
Social networking and privacy
Privacy is dead, and social media hold the smoking gun. -Pete Cashmore, 10/28/09, CNN.com
I love the Internet. It truly is a wonderful place. Thanks to a computer and a high-speed internet connection, I can keep up to date on what's going on in the world, how my favorite athletic teams are doing, and I can research just about any topic to ever cross my mind. In the last several years, we've developed the ability to stay updated on our friends' lives more easily: Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. have allowed us to learn more about our peers than we ever thought imaginable.
However, it's because of this that many people forget a very valuable lesson: it's still the Internet.
I first got on the Internet around the time I got to high school, thanks to non-traditional means. (Sega Saturn NetLink or WebTV, anyone?) It was at this point I gained the desire to put myself on the internet by starting my own Web sites. Of course, I really didn't have much to offer except a few pictures an an "online journal." It was basically a blog without the cool interface to create it. Back in those days, I wrote about whatever I wanted: school, friends, problems, etc. It was then I discovered I really enjoy writing, but I also had a tendency of writing too much. It didn't hit me at the time that maybe I shouldn't be writing about my "relationship issues" or why I was mad at the drama club, even when people got mad. It's my personal Web site, I thought. Nevermind the fact it was on the Internet and I made sure other people knew it was on the Internet. It's a mindset that went away shortly after I got to college, with a few painful exceptions.
Sadly, most people still haven't gotten the memo.
Most of you probably remember the uproar over Facebook's news feed being introduced. (Here's the group that started the revolt if you don't remember.) So many people complained: "I don't want everyone to know my business. It's my personal life."
Here's a suggestion: if you don't want something to get out there, don't put it on the Internet.
Ben Parr, the student who started the popular "Students against Facebook News Feed" group several years ago, wrote last year about how privacy has evolved things to Facebook. He argues that people are more comfortable than ever broadcasting their life over the Internet, which can be both good (e.g. connecting with old friends and family members) and bad (e.g. when current or potential employers discover something they shouldn't). But Parr offers a pretty good piece of advice:
The thing we’ve realized is that we still have control over our privacy. It’s called choice. If you’re uncomfortable with speaking to people digitally, you can decline to sign up for those social media websites. Or you update them differently than others. I can either block relationship updates from News Feed or, in my case, I just never update about it.
He's right on with that. Thanks to social networking, 500 of your "closest friends" can know within minutes if you have a new job, if you're engaged, if you just had a baby, or if you just went to the bathroom. But that doesn't mean you have to share this information. You have the choice to share as much personal information as you want. Or, for that matter, as little as you want.
So go, my friends. Broadcast your life as much as you want. Just remember that it's the Internet, and you never know who may viewing your broadcast.
Recent Greatness
- Your lesson for today
- Random musings of two football fanatics (in 160 characters or less)
- The best of both worlds!
- Democrats are spineless
- Random ramblings
Blogroll
- Extended AIM Profile Terence’s blog
- Profiles in Cuteness
- Shanenanigans Shane Ryan’s blog
- The Elephant Flies at Night
- The Mrs.
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Nov | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |