In one of my favorite movies, “The Natural,” New York Knights manager Pop Fisher and aging comeback star Roy Hobbs, played by Robert Redford, have an exchange about farming. Pop talks about what he would do if he had won a championship: “I’d have walked away from baseball and I’d have bought a farm.”
Hobbs replies, “Nothing like a farm. Nothing like being around animals, fixing things. There’s nothing like being in the field with the corn and the winter wheat. The greenest stuff you ever saw.”
Growing up on a small farm and loving baseball, I’ve seen that movie several times. There is a lot in that movie about life, comebacks, passion, greatness, mistakes, and greed. It’s an examination of how fast life can change.
Our farm was small and not necessarily commercial. It really only lasted six or seven years. We had chickens, ducks, rabbits, cows, pigs,and occasionally a horse. The 11 acres also had a barn, vegetable gardens, pasture, and tractors. My father was a city kid and I am still not sure what really inspired his attraction to farming. As a child, it was often a hindrance — creating a list of chores that delayed playing with friends.
However, I now look back at our time on the farm with great affection. For me, our farm offered more than just tomatoes or eggs; it provided an insight into life and nature. As a kid, so much was imprinted on me, from what cucumber leaves look like to the difficult realities of the lives and deaths of farm animals. I did a lot of things I wouldn’t do now, such as shoot a rabbit or kill a chicken. At the time they seemed like rites of passage.
Farms are a lot of work. There is not only the daily feeding and watering of the animals, there is work in the garden, maintenance, and other miscellaneous duties such as ordering supplies and feed. Animals need to be taken care of every day of the year—and that means in the freezing cold of winter and days we were going to Cedar Point. Some days were miserable. Others it was just an annoying chore. In between, it was learning about life — and is probably why I majored in biology. I spent time with the animals, worked with them, looked them in the eyes, played with them, and learned their personalities. I also cried when they died or it was time to send them to slaughter. It was certainly a family endeavor and some of our lasting family moments come from the farm, such as the time the horse got stuck on the frozen pond or the time the cows got out. There was nothing better than a home-cooked dinner after a long day of work.
With the advent of large corporate farms, genetic modifications, and modern science medicine, I think we have lost an important aspect of what it means to live on and off this planet. More than that, I think children have lost the opportunity to learn about nature, hard work, and responsibility. I don’t want to stereotype because there are still many farms but increasingly society is moving away from the viability of small farms and the families that work on them.
Living in the suburbs and cutting the grass once a week, walking through the metro parks on Saturday mornings, or attending farm camp once a summer is not a substitute for the experience of the daily responsibility of farm life — just as my experience was not nearly as difficult as those that lived in previous generations. When watching shows about life in colonial times or visiting historic sites and seeing what they endured, I am left in admiration.
If we want to make America great again, I think America needs to get tougher. Of course, I don’t mean gangster tough, I mean grind it out, down-and-dirty tough. We need teach the value of hard work and the appreciation of life to the next generation. It should be the personal work ethic that leads to future success — doing what it takes through adversity to get ahead.
A little farm work might just be the answer. There is nothing like it.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
250. Explaining the right-left presidential election split
With Donald Trump securely now the Republican nominee for president, and Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee thanks in large part to the ridiculous notion of superdelegates, Americans will likely choose between the two in November.
Trump survived more than a dozen Republican candidates in an entertaining primary. Though many candidates were seriously flawed, which convoluted support, the voters bought the notion of a “non-establishment” candidate despite his lack of professionalism and pervasive schoolyard name-calling. On the Democratic side, Clinton appears to have survived an unexpectedly strong challenge from socialist Bernie Sanders.
The match-up is ironic in that while winning their primaries, both candidates are widely unpopular. Their unpopularity ratings are above 50 percent, which suggests the general election may be decided by voting for the lesser of two evils. Trump has had difficulty unifying a Republican party that hasn’t been able to fathom the fact that he is their nominee. Likewise, the Clinton and Sanders’ battle has become so contentious that Clinton now faces the challenge of winning over Sanders’ voters even in the general election.
The support for Sanders has not only been a passionate plea for a new type of social equality, but also politics — particularity how political campaigns are financed. Sanders enthusiasts, who feel (rightly so) that the Democratic primary has been a highly prejudicial affair want big money, particularly corporate money, out of politics. In this respect, Clinton upsets a fundamental philosophy with Sanders supporters and to them represents everything that is wrong with politics.
Despite being highly qualified for the presidency, Clinton supporters lack the passion of the other candidates. Currently Clinton and Trump are running neck and neck, which is implausible considering that Trump is unpopular even among Republicans, Clinton has the chance to be the first woman president, and the Democrats should be united and highly motivated about the chance to elect another Democrat. I’ve personally heard from many Republicans who said they will vote for Clinton over Trump.
So why does this race appear to be so close?
The problem is those Sanders voters who reportedly won’t vote for Clinton. Polls indicate that up to 20 percent won’t support her in the general election. Some say they will vote for Trump, many indicate indifference or are holding out hope that Sanders will still somehow win the Democratic nomination or run as an Independent. Whether it is the superdelegates, perceived Democratic party favoritism toward Clinton, or Clinton herself, Sanders supporters are having a hard time warming up to her.
I suspect after the convention when Democratic voters are forced to deal with the reality that it will be either Clinton or Trump in the White House, more Sanders supporters will fall in line. If the Republicans had nominated someone a little more reasonable, Democrats — particularly Sanders supporters — would maybe have had a more difficult decision. But with Trump, it’s hard to see any progressive or liberal wanting that.
In addition, a looming issue in the November election is the Supreme Court vacancy. If Senate Republicans refuse to act and confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, the task will be left to the new president to do so. This important addition to the court might draw voters back to the party alliances. For example, my wife, who like myself is a staunch Sanders supporter, said she will not vote for Clinton unless a new Supreme Court Justice has not yet been confirmed. Thus, the abhorrent defiance of Republican senators might actually harm Trump in November.
Obama has nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who seems to be quite fair and moderate by many standards. However, I’ve said, in line with my wife’s position, that if he is not confirmed by November, I will vote for Clinton and, if she wins, I hope she nominates the youngest, most liberal potential supreme court justice available. Swift justice for irresponsible and obstructive Republican senators.
The Presidential election will be not only historic and important, but also entertaining for political junkies. Clinton vs. Trump will certainly provide some amusing debates, but also has the potential to be one of the ugliest elections in recent history. Both are parts of political machines that are willing to win at all costs.
Trump survived more than a dozen Republican candidates in an entertaining primary. Though many candidates were seriously flawed, which convoluted support, the voters bought the notion of a “non-establishment” candidate despite his lack of professionalism and pervasive schoolyard name-calling. On the Democratic side, Clinton appears to have survived an unexpectedly strong challenge from socialist Bernie Sanders.
The match-up is ironic in that while winning their primaries, both candidates are widely unpopular. Their unpopularity ratings are above 50 percent, which suggests the general election may be decided by voting for the lesser of two evils. Trump has had difficulty unifying a Republican party that hasn’t been able to fathom the fact that he is their nominee. Likewise, the Clinton and Sanders’ battle has become so contentious that Clinton now faces the challenge of winning over Sanders’ voters even in the general election.
The support for Sanders has not only been a passionate plea for a new type of social equality, but also politics — particularity how political campaigns are financed. Sanders enthusiasts, who feel (rightly so) that the Democratic primary has been a highly prejudicial affair want big money, particularly corporate money, out of politics. In this respect, Clinton upsets a fundamental philosophy with Sanders supporters and to them represents everything that is wrong with politics.
Despite being highly qualified for the presidency, Clinton supporters lack the passion of the other candidates. Currently Clinton and Trump are running neck and neck, which is implausible considering that Trump is unpopular even among Republicans, Clinton has the chance to be the first woman president, and the Democrats should be united and highly motivated about the chance to elect another Democrat. I’ve personally heard from many Republicans who said they will vote for Clinton over Trump.
So why does this race appear to be so close?
The problem is those Sanders voters who reportedly won’t vote for Clinton. Polls indicate that up to 20 percent won’t support her in the general election. Some say they will vote for Trump, many indicate indifference or are holding out hope that Sanders will still somehow win the Democratic nomination or run as an Independent. Whether it is the superdelegates, perceived Democratic party favoritism toward Clinton, or Clinton herself, Sanders supporters are having a hard time warming up to her.
I suspect after the convention when Democratic voters are forced to deal with the reality that it will be either Clinton or Trump in the White House, more Sanders supporters will fall in line. If the Republicans had nominated someone a little more reasonable, Democrats — particularly Sanders supporters — would maybe have had a more difficult decision. But with Trump, it’s hard to see any progressive or liberal wanting that.
In addition, a looming issue in the November election is the Supreme Court vacancy. If Senate Republicans refuse to act and confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, the task will be left to the new president to do so. This important addition to the court might draw voters back to the party alliances. For example, my wife, who like myself is a staunch Sanders supporter, said she will not vote for Clinton unless a new Supreme Court Justice has not yet been confirmed. Thus, the abhorrent defiance of Republican senators might actually harm Trump in November.
Obama has nominated Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who seems to be quite fair and moderate by many standards. However, I’ve said, in line with my wife’s position, that if he is not confirmed by November, I will vote for Clinton and, if she wins, I hope she nominates the youngest, most liberal potential supreme court justice available. Swift justice for irresponsible and obstructive Republican senators.
The Presidential election will be not only historic and important, but also entertaining for political junkies. Clinton vs. Trump will certainly provide some amusing debates, but also has the potential to be one of the ugliest elections in recent history. Both are parts of political machines that are willing to win at all costs.
Monday, May 9, 2016
249. Prince’s passing and problematic priorities
Although I enjoy music and can find it inspiring, emotional, or motivational, I rarely attend concerts.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate them, it was just usually a measure of time and money. I am not much for crowds and have never been the “partier” type.
However, one of the concerts I did attend was Prince, thanks to a friend of mine who was a passionate fan. He shared with me awesome seats, something like 15 rows center. What I remember most about the concert was one of the first things Prince said: If you came to hear songs from “Purple Rain,” you were in the wrong place. He played a lot of his new music, much I did not recognize, but I greatly enjoyed it nonetheless. He was an amazing talent.
“Purple Rain” was one of the few albums I associate with a specific time in my life and one of the few I listened to over and over. Others include Michael Jackson’s “Thriller,” of course, as well as the Bee Gees’ “Saturday Night Fever,” Eminem’s “The Eminem Show,” Beastie Boys’ “Licensed to Ill,” and Boyz II Men’s “II.” There are a few others across a wide variety of genres, which would include Garth Brooks, Def Leppard, and Shania Twain. What they all have in common is when I hear their music, I am taken back in time. In high school, it was Prince. In college it was the Beastie Boys. And when I fell in love with my wife, it was Boyz II Men.
I did not pay much attention to Prince’s personal life, I only knew that he was socially active and a vegan — the latter of which of course touches my heart. A PETA blog after his death noted, “A committed vegan who never shied away from speaking the truth, Prince laid out the reasons why animals are not ours to eat in these stirring lyrics from his song “Animal Kingdom”: “No member of the animal kingdom nurses past maturity, no member of the animal kingdom ever did a thing to me. It’s why I don’t eat red meat or white fish, don’t give me no blue cheese. We’re all members of the animal kingdom, leave your brothers and sisters in the sea.”
Through his music, activism, and compassion, Prince impacted many lives across the globe. Artists, especially once-in-a-generation artist, have the ability to do that.
Yet Prince had his detractors, as all socially-active artists do, and while Facebook and Twitter were largely filled with sadness and a recognition of his talents and achievements, there were a few of the typical posts that basically ask why we mourn more about his death than that of American soldiers. After all, they risk their lives to protect our freedoms, while earning a comparatively paltry salary.
Although the timing is callous, it is not an unfair question. It is, however, a slippery slope and if you are bold enough to go there then you better be ready to call everything into question.
I often write in this regard and could fill many pages in a book asking such questions as:
• Why do many CEOs make more than the president?
• Why do athletes and actors make so much more than doctors and nurses?
• Why do we care more about our steak than the dreadful life of factory-farmed cows?
• Why do people care more about a football game than who is running for judge?
In fact, each day I open up my Internet browser and there are probably 100 different headlines. As I scour them, many are met with a roll of my eyes. Why do people care at all about Kate Middleton, let alone Kim Kardashian? Who cares if Michael Strahan quit “Live! with Kelly and Michael” and Kelly Ripa is upset about it. And the fuss people make over what other people say — Charles Barkley said this and Curt Shilling’s wife said that — followed by comments about the comments about what Barkley and Shilling’s wife said. Why do more than 100,000 people gather to watch a horse race, and many more care whether Tiger Woods wins a golf tournament?
Just today there is an article that asks, “Katy Perry Drinks Apple Cider Vinegar; Should You?” Another notes that Prince Harry has massive paranoia about love life. Oh, and the Canadians are upset that Dwayne Wade might have disrespected their national anthem. Why do we care about any of this stuff? It is so trivial and unimportant in our lives. Why do some people, as fans, seem to care more about celebrities than they do their own families?
The point is, I suppose, a matter of perspective and it’s often frustrating for anyone passionate about a good cause, justice, or fair economic and political systems. Sometimes it seems like everything else is a waste of time, money, and resources. In modern times, we are afforded the time and ability to care about things that don’t really matter except our own interests or pleasures.
Whether it matters or not, Prince did impact my life and I am sad about his early passing. His music will always trigger an emotional response.
But it doesn’t mean that I don’t care, appreciate, and admire those who serve our country, or others that truly act to make this world a better place.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate them, it was just usually a measure of time and money. I am not much for crowds and have never been the “partier” type.
However, one of the concerts I did attend was Prince, thanks to a friend of mine who was a passionate fan. He shared with me awesome seats, something like 15 rows center. What I remember most about the concert was one of the first things Prince said: If you came to hear songs from “Purple Rain,” you were in the wrong place. He played a lot of his new music, much I did not recognize, but I greatly enjoyed it nonetheless. He was an amazing talent.
“Purple Rain” was one of the few albums I associate with a specific time in my life and one of the few I listened to over and over. Others include Michael Jackson’s “Thriller,” of course, as well as the Bee Gees’ “Saturday Night Fever,” Eminem’s “The Eminem Show,” Beastie Boys’ “Licensed to Ill,” and Boyz II Men’s “II.” There are a few others across a wide variety of genres, which would include Garth Brooks, Def Leppard, and Shania Twain. What they all have in common is when I hear their music, I am taken back in time. In high school, it was Prince. In college it was the Beastie Boys. And when I fell in love with my wife, it was Boyz II Men.
I did not pay much attention to Prince’s personal life, I only knew that he was socially active and a vegan — the latter of which of course touches my heart. A PETA blog after his death noted, “A committed vegan who never shied away from speaking the truth, Prince laid out the reasons why animals are not ours to eat in these stirring lyrics from his song “Animal Kingdom”: “No member of the animal kingdom nurses past maturity, no member of the animal kingdom ever did a thing to me. It’s why I don’t eat red meat or white fish, don’t give me no blue cheese. We’re all members of the animal kingdom, leave your brothers and sisters in the sea.”
Through his music, activism, and compassion, Prince impacted many lives across the globe. Artists, especially once-in-a-generation artist, have the ability to do that.
Yet Prince had his detractors, as all socially-active artists do, and while Facebook and Twitter were largely filled with sadness and a recognition of his talents and achievements, there were a few of the typical posts that basically ask why we mourn more about his death than that of American soldiers. After all, they risk their lives to protect our freedoms, while earning a comparatively paltry salary.
Although the timing is callous, it is not an unfair question. It is, however, a slippery slope and if you are bold enough to go there then you better be ready to call everything into question.
I often write in this regard and could fill many pages in a book asking such questions as:
• Why do many CEOs make more than the president?
• Why do athletes and actors make so much more than doctors and nurses?
• Why do we care more about our steak than the dreadful life of factory-farmed cows?
• Why do people care more about a football game than who is running for judge?
In fact, each day I open up my Internet browser and there are probably 100 different headlines. As I scour them, many are met with a roll of my eyes. Why do people care at all about Kate Middleton, let alone Kim Kardashian? Who cares if Michael Strahan quit “Live! with Kelly and Michael” and Kelly Ripa is upset about it. And the fuss people make over what other people say — Charles Barkley said this and Curt Shilling’s wife said that — followed by comments about the comments about what Barkley and Shilling’s wife said. Why do more than 100,000 people gather to watch a horse race, and many more care whether Tiger Woods wins a golf tournament?
Just today there is an article that asks, “Katy Perry Drinks Apple Cider Vinegar; Should You?” Another notes that Prince Harry has massive paranoia about love life. Oh, and the Canadians are upset that Dwayne Wade might have disrespected their national anthem. Why do we care about any of this stuff? It is so trivial and unimportant in our lives. Why do some people, as fans, seem to care more about celebrities than they do their own families?
The point is, I suppose, a matter of perspective and it’s often frustrating for anyone passionate about a good cause, justice, or fair economic and political systems. Sometimes it seems like everything else is a waste of time, money, and resources. In modern times, we are afforded the time and ability to care about things that don’t really matter except our own interests or pleasures.
Whether it matters or not, Prince did impact my life and I am sad about his early passing. His music will always trigger an emotional response.
But it doesn’t mean that I don’t care, appreciate, and admire those who serve our country, or others that truly act to make this world a better place.
Monday, April 11, 2016
248. Trump’s claims don’t hold up
Donald Trump supporters say they like him because he “tells it like it is.”
He’s bold and brash and rich, and to some that offers credibility to what he says. He’s perceived as an outsider and his followers have adopted a religious mindset. They offer unconditional support, feeding off the sentiment that it’s them against everyone else. They have become so entrenched that there is no going back now — regardless how much “The Donald” embarrasses himself or the Republican Party.
The problem is Trump doesn’t tell it like it is.
His rating on Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth meter for political statements, is quite dreadful, and includes the 2015 Politifact lies of the year. Of the 117 analyzed Trump statements, only three — that’s right, three — were graded as “true.” Another 24 were judged to be “mostly true,” or “half-true.”
Conversely, the other 90 statements were rated as “half-false,” “mostly false,” or “pants on fire.” That’s a remarkable 77 percent of his statements regarded as some sort of falsehood.
Some examples include:
• On David Duke: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” Pants on fire, Trump actually denounced Duke, specifically and explicitly in 2000.
• On unemployment: “Don’t believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.” Pants on fire, and Politifact noted that those numbers are not even close.
• On taxes: “Right now we’re the highest-taxed country in the world.” False. Politifact says that the “United States is far from the most taxed nation in the world, whether it’s an advanced industrialized economy or not.”
• On refugees: “And when you look at what just happened… And our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria.” Pants on fire. Politifact explains that “the administration has plans to increase refugees admitted from all countries from 70,000 in 2015 to 100,000 in 2017,” nowhere near 250,000 from Syria alone.
• On Bernie Sanders: “He’s gonna tax you people at 90 percent. He’s gonna take everything. And nobody’s heard the term communist, but you know what? I’d call him a socialist/communist, OK? ‘Cause that’s what he is.” More pants on fire. This is absurdly wrong because though Sanders wants to increase taxes, it is predominantly on the wealthy and nothing close to 90 percent.
• On Iran: “We love the deal you made with Iran. We give them $150 billion, we get nothing.” False. The only thing Trump got right, according to Politifact, is the name of the country. It was already Iran’s money; sanctions were lifted in exchange for not pursuing nuclear bombs.
But don’t take it from me, go to Politifact and research it for yourself. Each claim is researched and clearly evaluated and explained. Actually, it is quite interesting.
Despite fleeting details in many of his policy statements, Trump manages to exploit a portion of a story, often twisting and turning them into attractive but largely inaccurate campaign ploys. When pressed, he falls back on, “We’re going to make American great again,” and that we should simply “believe” him, or “trust” him.
The problem that voters should recognize is that the president is an important job. This isn’t a reality show; this is real life with consequences that will resonate around the world.
My frustration has often led me to proclaim that this country deserves Trump. This country continues to have googly-eyes for wealth and materialism. We live in a world of self-promotion, personal branding, and selfishness, and Trump is the poster child.
Trump’s extremism and erraticism has even Republicans scrambling to coordinate his defeat. What Republicans don’t want to admit is that they created Trump. For years, many have rallied voters with discrimination towards minorities and homosexuals. They have used fear to create detestation for not only Islamic extremism, but all of Islam, even American Muslims. They have angered people with the idea the Second Amendment was at risk. And they get people worked up over the idea that government is too big, taxes are too high, and welfare only helps the undeserving poor.
So, come on folks, vote for Trump if you like, but enough with the “telling it like it is,” fantasy. The truth is that he’s a snake oil salesman of the most dangerous kind.
He’s bold and brash and rich, and to some that offers credibility to what he says. He’s perceived as an outsider and his followers have adopted a religious mindset. They offer unconditional support, feeding off the sentiment that it’s them against everyone else. They have become so entrenched that there is no going back now — regardless how much “The Donald” embarrasses himself or the Republican Party.
The problem is Trump doesn’t tell it like it is.
His rating on Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth meter for political statements, is quite dreadful, and includes the 2015 Politifact lies of the year. Of the 117 analyzed Trump statements, only three — that’s right, three — were graded as “true.” Another 24 were judged to be “mostly true,” or “half-true.”
Conversely, the other 90 statements were rated as “half-false,” “mostly false,” or “pants on fire.” That’s a remarkable 77 percent of his statements regarded as some sort of falsehood.
Some examples include:
• On David Duke: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” Pants on fire, Trump actually denounced Duke, specifically and explicitly in 2000.
• On unemployment: “Don’t believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.” Pants on fire, and Politifact noted that those numbers are not even close.
• On taxes: “Right now we’re the highest-taxed country in the world.” False. Politifact says that the “United States is far from the most taxed nation in the world, whether it’s an advanced industrialized economy or not.”
• On refugees: “And when you look at what just happened… And our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria.” Pants on fire. Politifact explains that “the administration has plans to increase refugees admitted from all countries from 70,000 in 2015 to 100,000 in 2017,” nowhere near 250,000 from Syria alone.
• On Bernie Sanders: “He’s gonna tax you people at 90 percent. He’s gonna take everything. And nobody’s heard the term communist, but you know what? I’d call him a socialist/communist, OK? ‘Cause that’s what he is.” More pants on fire. This is absurdly wrong because though Sanders wants to increase taxes, it is predominantly on the wealthy and nothing close to 90 percent.
• On Iran: “We love the deal you made with Iran. We give them $150 billion, we get nothing.” False. The only thing Trump got right, according to Politifact, is the name of the country. It was already Iran’s money; sanctions were lifted in exchange for not pursuing nuclear bombs.
But don’t take it from me, go to Politifact and research it for yourself. Each claim is researched and clearly evaluated and explained. Actually, it is quite interesting.
Despite fleeting details in many of his policy statements, Trump manages to exploit a portion of a story, often twisting and turning them into attractive but largely inaccurate campaign ploys. When pressed, he falls back on, “We’re going to make American great again,” and that we should simply “believe” him, or “trust” him.
The problem that voters should recognize is that the president is an important job. This isn’t a reality show; this is real life with consequences that will resonate around the world.
My frustration has often led me to proclaim that this country deserves Trump. This country continues to have googly-eyes for wealth and materialism. We live in a world of self-promotion, personal branding, and selfishness, and Trump is the poster child.
Trump’s extremism and erraticism has even Republicans scrambling to coordinate his defeat. What Republicans don’t want to admit is that they created Trump. For years, many have rallied voters with discrimination towards minorities and homosexuals. They have used fear to create detestation for not only Islamic extremism, but all of Islam, even American Muslims. They have angered people with the idea the Second Amendment was at risk. And they get people worked up over the idea that government is too big, taxes are too high, and welfare only helps the undeserving poor.
So, come on folks, vote for Trump if you like, but enough with the “telling it like it is,” fantasy. The truth is that he’s a snake oil salesman of the most dangerous kind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)