nothing really needs to be said, but . . .

Nearly each morning, I have a sad routine that I follow once I go online: check e-mail; read all my friends' blogs*; search through Squizzle's new stuff--i.e., pictures, movies, etc; check out Ebaum's stuff; occasionally look at the Slate; and sometimes I'll read through some of the BBC. Like I said, it's a sad routine; but hey: everybody's get one.

A couple of days ago, while following this routine, I came across this picture on Squizzle. This is truly one of those instances where nothing really needs to be said, but I simply cannot stop myself. (I will try and keep my waxing to a minimum, though I cannot promise I will succeed--the picture is saturated with elements that simply beg for comment).

First of all, I'm not real sure how long ago this article was run in the papers; but that's really not my concern. My primary concern is that it exemplifies certain strands of thought that run through our society--many of which some do not see as problematic. One of these strands is the tendency to find another cause for problems that are ultimately self-induced. The dude in this picture is doing just that. He's not willing to own up to the possibility that his smoking is the cause of his coughing. There was another article that illustrates this same way of thinking--as seen in the following picture:

Another strand, which is only implicit in this, is what some people have called "the entitlement mentality". While this mentality has so many variables connected with it, the primary one is: because someone (or something) else is (supposedly) at fault for another's problem, that someone (or something) owes the one who is "suffering". Part of this thinking may be closely connected with the idea that lawsuits are the new lottery. (Don't know how to handle or drink a hot cup of coffee? That's okay; spill it on yourself and sue the company for a boatload of money because it's obviously their fault).**

People need to own up to their own problems and admit it when they are the cause of them. Casting blame elsewhere and/or suing corporations for large sums of money will not remedy the heart of the problem, nor will such tactics actually improve one's quality of life. It is only when people acknowledge what's wrong in their own life--and recognize that much of it is self-induced--that people can truly make a change for the better.

________________________________

*Jake, Chad, Derek (my brother), and Dr. Weatherly (a professor from my school).

** A local coffee shop here in Cincinnati has one of the best messages on their cup-sleeves that I have ever seen. It simply says: "Don't be a bonehead--this stuff is really hot".

history, or historians?

In a recent USA Today article, the headline simply read: "Majority say history won't be kind to Bush". That phrase alone is immediately problematic because it only takes a moment to see what they classify as the "majority". They say 54% of the people polled believe that Bush is not going to receive flying colors in historical recollections about his time as president.

Cast your eyes leftward--that 54% is only 54% of 1009 adults. They try and make the variables sound more fair by saying this 1009 pool is "nationwide" and that it has a 3% margin of error. The ironic (or, convenient) part about the margin of error is that even if the numbers were 3% less, it would still maintain a "majority" status simply because it is greater than 50%. (Statistical analysis is a careful science that can be used to promote just about anything, if one knows how to set up the test and manipulate the variables).

That aside, there is another problematic element to this article. "History" is not some disembodied critic of human affairs; the historians are the ones who are responsible for how history is critically understood. This truth is nothing new--it has been firmly set for several millennia. The ancient Egyptians were known for only recording that which was beneficial to their imperial autobiography. Very few--if any--overly negative events in Egyptian history were recorded. The historians were the ones who determined what they would write; but their refusal to document certain events does not mean that such events did not actually take place. The same is true today.

If history (or, better yet: "historians") is not going to be kind to Bush, then there is only one culprit to blame. Now, this statement does not proceed from my fingers naively--I fully understand that Bush has made some decisions in the past that were not necessarily "good" ones; but it is only by being on this side of retrospect that we can truly know the quality of a past decision. It is very possible that the points at which various decisions were made by Bush and his committee, they were most likely concluded to be "good". It is impossible to know for certain just how dramatically (or, traumatically) a given choice will unfold once it is made. There are simply too many unknowns.

Historians have the choice to include or exclude certain events in their presentation of history. They have the choice to present Bush in a negative light or in a positive one. They have the choice of focusing solely on his faults or on his accomplishments. They also have the choice to take a "both-and" approach in their presentation--i.e., they could be fair and balanced in their portrayal. They cannot, therefore, hide behind some disembodied entity called "history" and place all blame on such an entity while claiming complete innocence. If historians choose to portray Bush as a completely incompetent president whose decisions plunged this country into the abyss, then that's their choice (not really sure it's a good one); and it's a choice where they already know how it will unfold--"history won't be kind to Bush."

the "beauty" of photosmart

Last night, Jenn (my wife) and I were watching the evening news--well, she was watching, I was half-way paying attention--when we heard about the following story. Thankfully enough, this quasi-mini-documentary was found under the segment "Don't Waste Your Money." Personally, I think there should be a tag-line that reads: "And Don't Be A Complete Idiot."

Think about this one with me: if you happen to be overweight, and if you happen to be (overly) self-conscious about it, and if you want to change things; then using a camera that has (get this) a "slimming feature" in its menu options is not truly going to bring about the (real) desired changes. But here is the sad part(s): this camera has been made with that very feature (and that very feature is a part of the sales pitch), and people are (presumably) buying this camera and using it for the purpose of making themselves look thin. There are two key problems with this whole deal: 1) a picture that has been altered does not alter reality, and 2) the marketers of this product are implicitly insulting. Not only that, but they stand to line their pockets quite heavily. With respect to the second problem, consider the following:

As of 30-Nov (9:47--EST) the population of the US is: 300,313,684.*
CDC notes the number of US adults who are obese: over 60-million.**
CDC notes the number of US children who are considered overweight: over 9-million.***
The Photosmart R727 camera runs for: $206.99 (after your wonderful "instant rebate")
These figures translate into a rather captivating potential bottom line: $14.5-billion.

How do I get this? One of the first things to learn in marketing is "know your customer", which tends to bleed into the second lesson: "location, location, location." Another variable to consider, when it comes to mass-production of a given product, is its viability--what is the cost-profit ratio (or, more simply: is the product worth the time and effort--or, even more simply: will it make money?) Therefore, possibly those who wrote the proposal to create this camera with a slimming feature possibly did the same quick analysis I just did, which took only about 10 minutes. They got to know their (potential) customers. Having such information handy, the all-important question was dealt with, which produced a rather appealing figure.

Granted, I understand that not all 70-million people who are considered obese/overweight are going to buy this camera--that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that these are the variables taken into consideration when generating ideas for new products. Even if only a fraction of that 70-million purchase this camera, HP will still receive a nice handfull of pocket change. Keep in mind, the potential $14.5-billion profit is only from one product within the HP line.

Go back to the first problem--i.e., a picture does not change reality. I know it sounds harsh, but it better than honestly believing that a picture will actually change how you feel--or how you actually look. (If you actually believe it will, I recommend reading, "The Picture of Dorian Grey", by Oscar Wilde). I openly admit that I now have a fair amount of insulation around the belly than I have ever had. Many years ago, I was 150lbs and somewhere between 6 and 7% body-fat. Today, I'm around 165lbs and I honestly have no idea what the percentage is. A picture from my honeymoon, which was in August, reveals the reality that I am not what I once was and I confess that I don't like my current state. Now, I could take the logic of the Photosmart sales pitch and use it for my advantage by slimming down the (visually noticable) insulation. But here's the deal: I could do that, put the picture somewhere in my office or some other room in my house; but I would know that the picture does not reflect reality. And if ever I am unsure about whether or not the picture reflects reality, a quick glance in the mirror will give me the proof I need.

Let's not be complete idiots in thinking that a camera is going to solve a particular issue. If problems exist, then we need to use real solutions that produce real results. If we buy into the notion that problems can be masked or altered or concealed, then we have fooled ourselves and we have become blind to reality. Masking, altering, or concealing problems does not make them go away--it only makes them appear more tolerable and/or less ugly. But: altered reality is not real reality.

--------------------------------------------------

* This site has a "real-time" counter--I saw four documented US births and three worlds births in less than a minute. Just for fun, at the time this post was completed (11:00--EST), the US number increased to: 300,314,035.
** This figure, found here, is inclusive of only those between the ages of 20 and older.
*** Same site noted above. The age range in question is between 6 and 19 years old.

a (potentially unpopular) different theory

Recent announcements from local and national news have been resounding with similar concerns about the ongoing war and what it means for national security. The primary argument being given is that the war in Iraq is not truly helping; it only seems to be fueling further terroristic plots against America. Therefore, as the logic goes, the longer we stay in Iraq; the more we increase the likelihood of becoming victims of terror attacks in the near future.

There is some truth in this -- partly because of the style of fighting we are engaged in and partly because of the type of combatants we are fighting (i.e., they do not always fight fair). But there may be another reason why Iraqi militants are becoming more courageous in their desires to attack us again. In any type of combat situation -- whether it be war, martial arts, etc -- the key is to watch for weaknesses in the opponent. Sometimes these weaknesses manifest themselves in physical forms (i.e., a bum knee; or, an unprotected border); sometimes they manifest themselves in diplomatic forms (i.e., the one being attacked simply wants to talk); or sometimes, they emerge as a result of psychological struggles (i.e., hope of winning is divided from within).

The first form is always the primary focus; for once a weaknesses is found, exploitation of that weakness is the next step (i.e., continually pummel that area). The second form is the most fun for an enemy to find because it makes his job that much easier (i.e., fish in a barrel). (I should, at this point, apologize for all the "i.e.'s". If they are a bit annoying: sorry). There is a proper place for talking when it comes to dealing with potential conflict -- the key word being "potential". If both parties are willing to seek a compromise before a struggle begins, let'em talk until they pass out from exhaustion. But if one party lurches across the table and sucker-punches the other party in face -- and the assailant has no desire of backing down -- the conversation is over. (I guarantee that if I went up to one of our leaders in government, who simply wanted to talk about things, and punched him in the face; he’s not going to ask me to stop so that we can talk about it. You can bet that he’s going to fight back). The third form of weakness is the one that an enemy truly wants.

My theory on why the terrorists are becoming more anxious: they see the division within the ranks -- both in politics and on the battlefield; they see a nationwide media-promotion advocating surrender and withdrawal; and they even see portions of their enemy’s government (i.e., us) standing behind this promotion. How are they seeing this? Well, we would redefine “foolish” if we thought that these terrorists do not have access to televisions and we would further redefine it if we thought they didn’t watch them. We, for the most part, are basically showing (quite literally) our enemy that we don’t want to fight this war; but remember two things: 1) our enemy does not always fight fair (i.e., they could care less that we don’t want to fight -- they do!), and 2) our enemy has already come across the meeting table and sucker-punched us in the face, and they are certainly not going to stop -- no matter how politely we ask them.

About two years ago, I had the opportunity to speak with a Muslim from Somalia while being transported from my hotel to the Denver airport. The first 10 minutes of the ride was uncomfortably quiet, partly because it was 4:30am and I was the only passenger in the van. The driver then broke the silence by asking a rather pointed question: “What do you think of war in Iraq?” (Not really a topic of discussion I had planned on with a complete stranger -- let alone at 4:30 in the morning). I told him that I was saddened by the fact that the situation had come to war, but in light of the circumstances surrounding it; there was no other choice. To my shock, he agreed with me. Then he said something that has clearly rung in my ears ever since: “Now that you [i.e., Americans] are in this war, you can never leave; and it is a war that will never end. If you do leave, we will go right back to where we were before. If you stay, you have to want to stay because Islamic fighters don’t know how to give up.”

If we are fighting a war with an enemy who does not know how to give up, and if we are fighting an enemy that does not always fight fair, and if we are (inter)nationally broadcasting our lack of desire to fight this war; we are giving them every reason to plot further attacks on our country. I understand that this is not going to be a popular post -- I may even lose one or two of my four or five readers; but I think it is an option that has gone unnoticed for too long.

past "million", or past . . . well, a WHOLE lot less than a million

Dateline NBC broadcasted another (laughable) story yesterday on the issue of global warming. Please know that I am, in no way, belittling this particular issue nor am I suggesting that we as a global-community should not be concerned about it. I am, however, suggesting that we keep our perspectives on the ground and in check, which will in turn generate proper and beneficial responses to the problem. (If the issue is presented in an outlandish and overly exaggerated manner, then the solutions offered will be based on that information rather than actual evidence).

The brief story given by Dateline did not help the effort in remaining grounded, simply because it posited a completely unsustainable argument: "Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday." A more provable -- albeit with great difficulty -- argument was given later in the report by Alan Robock: "It's certainly the warmest it's been in the last couple of thousand years."

My first question is admittedly a bit rash: how in the crap do they know this? The first recorded concept of a distinction between hot and cold is thought to have come from Aristotle when he defines the four essences of the cosmos. His concepts were then furthered by a later philosopher in the mid-2nd century AD, Galen, who is thought to be the one who coined the term "termperature" and applied a numerical value to the distinction between hot and cold. It wasn't until the 16th century AD that the first concept of a thermometer was created by Giambattista della Porta. Advancements were made to della Porta's ideas over the next few centuries -- names such as Galileo, Santorio Santorii, Robert Fludd, Gabriel Fahrenheit, Anders Celsius are found dotting the pages of this area of study.

The obvious conclusion is that it is historically impossible to know the conditions of the earth (accurately) before the 16th century AD. Therefore, Sara Goudarzi (writer for Dateline NBC) and the scientists in question have a rather limited scope of data to work with in constructing their argument. The primary argument of these scientists is that the current wave of temperature is on its way up and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. Yet, one must ask: isn't it virtuely impossible to know with any certainty what the temperature curve looked like on the other side of the 16th century? Thus, the conditions prior to this point could have been parallel to what they are now. This possibility is implicitly noted by one scientist, in the story, who said: "The last time it was that warm was in the middle Pliocene, about 3 million years ago, when sea level was estimated to have been about 25 meters [80 feet] higher than today."

If the waters were 25 meters higher than they are today, that logically suggests that the waters receeded (or fell) at some given point in time. (The chief concern today is that as temperatures rise, the icecaps will melt, which will naturally cause the overall waterline of earth to rise). Two possibilities come to mind: 1) the water level evaporated due to the increase of temperatures over the past 3 million years -- a possibility I don't see as all that persuasive; or 2) the earth goes through cycles of hot and cold, which naturally leads to the rising and falling of sea levels based on the (temporary) "melting" and "(re)freezing" of the icecaps.

Finally, a seemingly unrelated question: do scientists actually talk with one another in order to corroborate findings (or, theories)? The reason I ask is because another group of scientists in Britain have found a cosmologically given glimmer of hope to the problem of global warming. According to this study, the sun will be going through a phase where its solar energy will be less than it has been in the past few decades/centuries. The research conducted in this study sought to examine the possibilities of cycles in the earth's temperature in relation to the solar activity of the sun. There are two things that I like about this study: 1) it seriously considers the more plausible alternatives; and 2) it reinforces the fact that, even if this plausible alternative is true, it does not preclude the human race from in its pursuit for finding ways of being more eco-friendly.

what kind of message is being sent?

For the past few weeks, there has a been a promotional plug on the cable network TLC about a new "reality" series: The Messengers. Just by watching the initial trailers on the show, my interest certainly peaked. The original commercials concering the show were quite hopeful -- a group of 10 individuals with a passion for reaching out to the socially lost and bringing a message of hope into their seemingly hopless lives. Beyond this plug, not much else was said about the show.

Then the show begins, and a slightly (though significantly) different nuance is given to the "plot" of this new "reality" documentary.* Here is a direct quote from the TLC site (noted above) detailing the purpose of the show: "This innovative eight-part series kicks off July 23 at 10/9c and has a simple yet lofty goal: to find America's next great inspirational speaker. Showcasing 10 speakers from a variety of perspectives, The Messengers explores their ability to communicate the many complexities of life’s toughest lessons. Along the way, the speakers address issues viewers face in their everyday lives and communities." All of a sudden, the original rhetoric implicit in the initial commercials and the explicitly stated intention of the show collide leaving many with questions of what exactly happened.

In my opinion**, the purpose of the show is not necessarily what they originally claimed (though the proclamation was somewhat implicit). The idea of actually walking a mile in someone else's shoes in order to grasp the hard (and really real) reality of what it's like to walk in those shoes is replaced with the idea of finding out who has the best ability to speak to such people in an effective manner. Another implication should be quite explicit: the show is no longer (necessarily) about those on the plagued fringes of society (though the show does involve them); the show is about how inspirational a given speaker (presumably living in a far greater standard of living than those to whom they are trying to inspire) can be in the face of such circumstances.

Once the group of 10 "messengers" complete their given task of trying to inspire a group of social outcasts, they come back to the comfortable studio filled with hundreds of people who then hear a speech created by each "messenger" based on the experience they had. After the speech is given, a small panel*** of judges critique the speech! Immediately following this period of constructive criticism, a vote is taken as to who will be eliminated from the show. Here's the kicker (again, quoting from the TLC site): "The speaker remaining at the end of the series will be crowned "The Messenger," awarded a publishing deal and given the chance to host his or her own TLC television special."

As if that was not enough, the part that troubled me the most was the very presence of one particular judge who was essentially endorsing the nature and outcome of the show: Bobby Schuller -- the grandson of the teddy-bear-theologian Robert Schuller. (Bobby is also a pastor at Crystal Cathedral in southern California). One would think that Bobby, being a minister, and especially being raised under the teaching of his grandfather, would provide a completely different agenda; one that is more in harmony with the original plug for the show -- i.e., actually sending 10 (twelve would have been a better number) people into the depths of lost society in order to bring a message of freedom and refuge. One would also think, in light of the fact that Bobby is a minister -- representing a (somewhat) well-known church -- that he would emphasize actual compassion over ethos; yet, neither one of these can be found.

The message being sent across the airwaves of cable TV -- being typified within this new series -- is indicative of a deeper problem. The focus is being taken off the message and being placed on the messenger; help is being stymied to those who actually need it so that an contestant can ultimately help himself; hope is given to one of 10 (now 9) individuals that they will become successful while millions have little hope of being rescued from their plight. Such is certainly not the message of Jesus, Paul, or any other NT writer; nor is such a message reflective of the message commissioned to those who take on the name of Christ; therefore, these 10 messengers are not really representative of the kind of messagers as defined with the NT. I dare say this: Bono (along with the One Campaign) is doing a far better job of representing the intention of Christ's commission found in Matthew 25.34-40 than Bobby Schuller's new show.

Let's (finally) consider the off-chance that one of the homeless people, to whom these 10 messengers go, sees an episode of this new show. How would they feel if they found out that the only reason why these 10 individuals came into their "world" was to increase the odds of the contestants becoming a host of their TLC show with a publication deal? What king of message would that be? It would certainly not be the message they need to hear (or, see), and it would certainly not be the message that Christ would endorse -- and Bobby Schuller should know that more than anyone.

*If you cannot tell by now, I have a strong distaste for reality shows.
** And we all know what they say about opinions; and I admit that mine is not going to smell much better.
***Surprising lacking the stereotypical make-up borrowed from American Idol -- like every other reality show of this sort.

epitome of laziness

As I am writing this posting, I am sitting in a quiet Ethiopian coffee shop in Tucker, GA where I encountered a prime example of culturally-induced laziness. There are only three people in the cafe right now with an expected arrival of a fourth. This fourth individual was pulling into the parking lot when he decided to call the cafe and order a drink -- from his car!

I would have given him the benefit of the doubt -- he may have been in an extreme rush and needed to get in and out as quickly as possible -- yet, I found there was absolutely no reason to grant such a gesture. Again, there were only three people in the cafe (one of which was the owner), so there was no long line to endure. The drink the guy ordered was an easy one to make, so there was no period of waiting needed. He ultimately paid with cash, so there was no fear of being delayed by the credit card machine.

But the greatest variable in why I could not give the guy a break was that when he finally pulled into the parking space, he took his sweet time coming into the cafe to get his drink. If he was in such a rush -- the presumable reason for why he would call-in his order -- then he would have been a bit more swift in getting his desired drink. Yet, this swiftness was nowhere to be found and/or seen.

on a car or in the grass - there is no real difference

Recently, while driving through the glorious, pristine, and captivating avenues of upper Price Hill (Cincinnati); I came across an informational sign/marguee in front of the St. Peter & St. Paul United Church of Christ that brought a smile to my face. The smile was not induced because of the deeply moving message placed upon the sign, nor was it stimulated because of the potentially rewarding events advertised as taking place at the church. No, the smile was created because a twofold conviction was affirmed the very moment I read the sign: 1) church billboards, for the most part, hardly ever offer anything deeper than an espresso spoon;* and 2) church billboards, when attempting to offer something insightful, tend to fail miserably in their pursuit.

(Incidentally, the best bilboard signs that I have seen thus far come from Tire Discounters).

The particular sign that I encountered that day carried an element of self-defeat, for it simply read: "Actions speak louder than bumper stickers". (The self-defeating nature of this sign was the ultimate reason I had to smile). The question must, therefore, be asked: how is that sign any different -- in intent -- than a bumper sticker? If the primary criticism against bumper stickers is that they are nothing more than pithy sayings with no life in them (which I'm assuming is the underlying argument of this church); then the same criticism could be placed at the feet of SPSPUCC, for their sign functions in a highly similar way. Since there is no real difference between the two -- other than the fact that one is on a car and the other is in the grass -- a further question must be asked: is the sign actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish -- i.e., to be better than a bumper sticker? I hope and assume that their intent was to place life (or, actions) in the message set upon the sign, thus making it better than a bumper sticker; the difficulty, however, is that the message does not convey this intent -- it merely falls victim to its own criticism.

* For those unaware, espresso spoons hold far less than teaspoons

gotta love new yorkers

The 106th US Open -- one of the PGA's most telling tournaments -- is being held at the picturesque Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, NY (which is about a 20-25 miles north of New York City). As of today the leading score is a painful two over par, which is not reflective of the abilities of the players; instead, the scores are indicative of the grueling nature of the course itself. The commentators of this particular open are quietly wagering bets that the winning score will not fall below par in tomorrow's final round. If Phil Mickelson, however, has a round like he did today; the commentators may have to dish out the cake. We'll see.

The real reason for this particular blog was prompted by the final approach of the third-to-last pairing of today's round -- Phil Mickelson and Graeme McDowell. As the two made their way to the green of the 18th hole, in typical NY fashion, there was explosion of excitement and appreciation -- mostly for NY's adopted spokesgolfer Phil Mickelson -- that was probably heard throughout the entire Club (if not over the yelling of Paul Sr. down in Orange County). Mickelson's approach shot was aggressively beautiful -- landing just a couple paces away from one of the toughest hole locations for the whole tourney. McDowell's approach, however, came up a bit short of the green.

The front of the 18th green is anything but inviting -- especially for players who like to play it safe. (The slope of this frontage might as well be redefined as being a wall). The hole placement for today's round was slightly beyond a crucial "ledge" on this green; a ledge that could easily make or utterly destroy someone's round. The margin of error on this ledge is almost non-existent -- it's do or die. McDowell's ball was at the bottom of the wall, on the initial upslope, with just a short pitch to the hole. For some unknown reason, McDowell was trying to be tenderly aggressive with his shot by attempting a little pitch and run; yet, his shot rolled to the infamous ledge, hesitated, and then proceeded to roll backwards. The ball not only rolled back to in front of McDowell's feet, it actually settled itself back its own divot.

*editorial comment: if it isn't apparent by now, I sometimes take a longer route between two points in order to make one. In the words of Chevy Chase, in Caddyshack: "Sometimes the shortest distance between two points is a straight line . . . in the opposite direction"*

The moment the ball stopped its roll in the divot, a smile emerged on McDowell's face which then prompted a respectful wave of laughter throughout the stands. Then, once the response started to subside, a fan unashamedly shouted: "Hit it harder!", to which McDowell smiled again. Now on his fourth shot (on a par-four hole), McDowell has to regain his composure and essentially hit the exact same shot -- only harder. He takes his stance, makes his swing, and watches his ball fly on the same trajectory to the same location on the green; only this time, it held on the ledge and stayed put. The moment the ball stopped moving, the crowd errupted into an applause that would be expected had McDowell holed the shot from 200-yards out.

This type of response is indicative of a New York audience . . . they are passionately involved with what they're watching and they feel unhindered in manifesting such passion -- especially if you're an underdog (or, have underdog-like tendencies, which was apparently the case for McDowell today). They love the games they watch, and they love the athletes that play them. I can only dream of what the players are feeling when they hear such unhindered passion errupt on their behalf.

grey is dependent upon black and white

While loafing comfortably on the couch this morning, enjoying my morning dose of Arabian-born joe, I found myself watching a "old" episode of The District -- a show that was a noble attempt at being one of the more ethically-based on public television. Ironically situated in this nations capital, which may have had something to do with the show's brief shelf-life, the new commissioner of the DC police department seeks to right the wrongs that have seemingly hitherto gone unnoticed and/or unchecked. Hence, the noble impetus of the show.

The point that caught my attention was a comment made by one of the commissioner's subordinates. Her rant, which prompted mine, was simply this: "Is police work always about black and white with no room for grey? I can't buy that." (Oddly enough, her retort to her own concern was built upon black and white style thinking). Not more than a few moments later -- in the same scene (and camera angle) no less -- she adamentally accuses a fellow co-worker of making a "wrong" decision. . . actually, she openly says, "Temple was wrong" -- Temple being the character played by Sean Patrick Thomas. The irony is that the very thing she sought not to buy was the very thing she was passionately trying to sell.

This example points to an issue that has plagued our thinking for the past few centuries -- i.e., relativism. The overriding problem with holding a relativistic position is that you cannot hold it absolutely. In other words, such a position will not last in the long run. Those who hold relativistic views wind up contradicting themselves typically in the same breath. Not only that, but the moment they try and argue for their position is also the moment they lose steam in their onslaught. To say there are no absolutes is in and of itself an absolute assertion. Even if a relativist tries to wiesel himself out of this, the very fact that he's wieseling is evidence of some sort of standard (i.e., an absolute) he seeks to defend. But more importantly, a relativist should ultimately not care if you disagree with his position because your disagreement -- in his eyes -- is not an actual threat because there are no absolutes -- i.e., those things that actually pose a threat to his position. Yet, the fact of the matter is that a relativist does become uncomfortable the moment someone disagrees with them. The reason for the discomfort may come from the innate understanding that "grey" positions are ultimately dependent upon the absolute existence of black and white positions.

who's really doing the capitalizing?

In a rather bold, yet entirely predictable, rhetorical move; the AP, as posted in USAToday, made the ironic statement that Bush's visit to Iraq was an attempt to capitalize on the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with the hope of casting a positive light on the Republican party. The reason for the irony is that the article itself begins by noting the most recent American death in the Iraqi war, which incidentally speaks negatively about the Bush administration and the nature of this war.

If the irony is not clear by this point, let me state it in clear terms: the very thing USAToday criticizes Pres. Bush for alledgeldy doing is the very thing they themselves do -- unalledgedly. For Pres. Bush to conduct a trip to the Middle East shortly after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not to be understood as a move to capitalize on his death. It must be remembered, and I have doubts that USAToday does, that his itinerary is set months in advance; thus, the timing of this particular trip and the timing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death could simply be coincidental. Yet, for USAToday to print such an article after the death of the 2500th soldier in Iraq with the intent of casting a negative light on the Republican party (and, to attack the credibility of the Pres); that is the very definition of capitalization.

One final comment before closing out this post: USAToday (i.e., the AP) needs a good lesson in modern history. This current war in Iraq has certainly been subjected to many false comparison -- e.g., the Vietnam War -- and it has also been presented in such a way that (please forgive the crassness) makes a mountain out of a mole-hill. It is true that this war is like Vietnam; but only in the sense that it is a completely different style of fighting than conventional warfare. It is also true that 2500 soldiers have lost their lives in this fight against terrorism. It is here that history must be remembered. In one day, more than 2500 lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy; the Civil War claimed more lives in its short period than all of the wars from the Revolution to Vietnam combined (on multiple days, 10,000+ soliders died in various battles during the CW).