This week’s song comes from their Unplugged album. It’s called “Lake of Fire” (it’s a cover of the Meat Puppets):

As a side note, I’ve changed the look of the blog to be in harmony with my homepage. However, I’m not really Wordpress savvy quite yet, so it’s quite likely that there will be a glitch or two in the system. If you find a glitch or just something that you don’t like, please let me know either in the comments or via email: jeff at wingets dot net. Thanks.

After fielding a few questions from students about their reading assignment (I assigned the first 40 pages to be read by Monday), I went and talked to the student, who told me that I couldn’t expect so much of him because he couldn’t do it.  I tried to explain to him that he was more than capable of reading the book, which he is, and that I thought that he would like it.  He loved the book Hatchet by Gary Paulsen, and I told him that London’s classic had some similar themes that he might enjoy.

“It’s too hard; I can’t do it” was his reply again as he returned his head to his desk.  I’ll try again tomorrow.

It seems like I’m having this conversation with students a lot this year, like students are giving up before even trying.  Another one of my students swears up and down that he can’t do any homework because I give too much.  When I ask why he can’t at least do some, he replies that it stresses him out too badly.  I’m not sure how to counter that one.

My question then as I push forward is this: have we as a society become apathetic as life has become easier?  Have modern conveniences made us lazy and almost afraid of hard work?

I’m not sure that there’s an easy answer to this question, but I do think that it has happened to some degree.  In the age of easy information, easy entertainment, and easy gratification, it is harder to find intrinsic motivations for learning and other types of self improvement.  Most people don’t believe that school has value beyond the economic (educated people get better jobs), and that outlook has been detrimental to an already dysfunctional school system.

Now, I’m not the type of person that just likes to whine about the ills of society.  I would much rather propose solutions or alternatives than just complain that things aren’t right.  For the problem of apathy, I think that it begins at home.  Parents need to install a love of work and of learning in their children at an early age.  They need to give their kids responsibilities when they are young, and they need to expect that those responsibilities will be met.  Parents need to turn off the TV and read with their kids, and they need to take an active role in the education of their children.  If they don’t, this apathy is only going to get worse.

For those parents who do these things, I thank you.  As a father and an educator, I am truly grateful for the difference that you are helping to make in our country and our world.

/end of soapbox

Here is the video.  It’s absolutely hilarious:

While he probably will be fined by the FCC, I don’t think that anything else should happen to Joe.  It was an accident, an absolutely hilarious accident, but just an accident.  I can feel Joe’s pain to some degree since last week I slipped and said “shit” in front of one of my classes after I spilled coffee on all of their papers, so it happens to the best of us.  Of course, by “the best of us,” I mean me.

(verse 1)

well, hell, i just turned 30, and i’ve got a lot to do

it seems life’s more complicated than when i was 2

i’ve got 2 kids, a wife, and job

i’ve thought about the death of god

i’ve seen the sky a perfect shade of blue

(verse 2)

i’ve been a republican, became a democrat

now i don’t think any of them can wear the statesman’s cap

should i run for office, then?

and tell them all what fools they’ve been?

just march right in and take our country back?

(chorus)

and i believe that if there is a god,

she’s out wondering where no other boots have trod

she’s not in church or in that temple there

she’s in my daughter’s smile and my son’s curly hair

this i believe

(verse 3)

i’d like to write a novel and walk the streets of Prague

sometimes i wish i’d understand about that iron rod

but if those things i never see

i still have my family

and it’s through them that i’ll live on

(chorus)

and i believe that if there is a god,

she’s out wondering where no other boots have trod

she’s not in church or in that temple there

she’s in my daughter’s smile and my son’s curly hair

this i believe

As a coach, Jerry is hardnosed, demanding, and disciplined.  He expects the same out of his players.  While I’m not sure that he’s a great game manager (he’s good, not great), I think his biggest strength as a coach, in my opinion, is his ability to develop players, especially young players.

This ability to develop players has been a great asset to Jerry over the past three years as he has coached one of the youngest, most talented teams in the NBA.  They are also probably the deepest, most athletic team that has ever suited up for the Jazz.  Players like Deron Williams, CJ Miles, Andrei Kirilenko, Paul Millsap, DeShawn Stevenson, Bryan Russell, Donyell Marshall, and many others have grown and developed under the tutelage of Sloan.  The Jazz are championship contenders because of Sloan’s coaching and his players’ belief in his system.

The outlook for the Jazz is bright.  At 5-0, they are at the top of their division and playing well without Deron Williams, their best player.  They are 9 players deep, and their core group of guys have all embraced the roles that they have been assigned, giving Jerry all kinds of lineup options.  Need defense?  Play Millsap, AK, Brewer, Memo, and Deron (or Knight).  Need offense?  Play CJ, Korver, Boozer, Memo, and Deron (or Price).  There are many combinations to be had that can be successful in certain situations.

A couple of changes that Jerry has made this year that I never thought he’d make are to play small, athletic lineups and play a lot of zone defense.  Both have made the team more dangerous and more dynamic.  Sloan is often seen as an old-fashioned coach; however, with this young, athletic team, he has shown the ability to change things up and play a more modern style.  For this he deserves a lot of credit.

I know Jerry doesn’t want the credit, but I want to thank him for what he’s done for the Jazz.  Here’s to many more victories, Jerry…many, many more.

So, without further ado, here is why I’m voting for Obama:

Reason #1: He supports a common-sense approach to the separation of church and state

This is a big issue for me.  I worry about the direction that we are taking in our country when we start to make laws based on religion.  And, I worry about people who distort the historical reality of the founding of our country to try to justify those laws.  Many of these, like Connor Boyack, perpetuate the myth that our Constitution justifies the legislation of “Judeo-Christian values“:

The second and more subtle group of Constitutional enemies are those who adhere to and advocate for a moral standard that rejects natural law, traditional morality, and Judeo-Christian values.

Not only does this statement show a lack of understanding of the term “natural laws,” but also shows a willful misrepresentation of our Constitution and its purpose.  If this was just a position posited by one extremist with a blog, I wouldn’t even bring it up; however, it’s not.  Many in congress and in other high public offices (including Sarah Palin) believe in this argument, and it’s simply not true.  That being said, McCain’s recent move to a more neo-Conservative standard makes me worry that he holds many of these same views.  I hope that I’m wrong and that he still believes that we should fight against the “agents of intolerance,” but I’m not sure.

Obama proposes a much more moderate, Constitutional balance between religion and politics.  He explained that position in a speech in 2006 (Read the whole speech here):

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

That’s what “natural law” is.  It is a moral code that applies to all people (or at least most people), a code that protects freedoms and uplifts us all as human beings.  Religion doesn’t need to be part of the discussion.  A position like Connor’s above suggests that only people that follow the Judeo-Christian faith can be moral; it even suggests to me that they are the only people who can appropriately interpret the Constitution.  That position is the antithesis of freedom, and unfortunately, it is held by many people on the right like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, etc.  Obama’s approach will help heal the wounds opened by the christian right and its divisive policies and ideas.

Reason #2: His skill set is ideal for uniting a terribly divided nation

Obama is a wonderful speaker and a powerful agent for change.  He has shown a willingness to work with all people to find common ground and common sense solutions to problems.  I honestly feel that he will help heal our fractured country, that he will help bring everyone to the table for honest debate of issues, and that he will help find compromises on “wedge” issues that are dividing our nation so we can move to more substantive issues.

Reason #3: His economic policy is better than McCain’s

As a believer in laissez-faire capitalism, I can’t say that I like Obama’s economic plan in its entirety; however, a middle-up approach is way better than the now discredited top-down approach espoused by McCain.  ‘nuf said.

Reason #4: He believes in diplomacy

McCain doesn’t, at least not enough.

Reason #5: He has shown tremendous judgement and leadership during the campaign

One needs to only compare the direction, tone, and consistency of the two campaigns to see which candidate is better equipped to lead.

Reason #6: Joe Biden is way more prepared to be VP than Sarah Palin

I have few reservations about a Biden presidency should something happen to Obama.  A Palin presidency scares the hell out of me.

Reason #7: Obama’s SCOTUS nominees will be much more in line with my beliefs than will McCain’s

I wish this wasn’t an issue and that presidents would choose moderate, non-partisan justices, but they don’t.  One more conservative justice on the court could tip it irrevocably to the right and lead to a type of judicial activism that could be terribly dangerous to civil liberties.  This might be the most important issue of the campaign, and it really shouldn’t be.

Well, there it is, my brief (except for reason #1–do you think I have some pent-up anger on that issue?) case for an Obama presidency.  My greatest hope, however, is that people educate themselves on the issues and cast their votes accordingly.  I cringe when I hear about people voting because of one issue or because of a “feeling” that they have about a certain candidate.  America can only survive if we have an educated populace.  Debate about issues is healthy for the country, not voting for a candidate because of their lapel pin is stupid.

Vote!

1st Question: Where do you stand on the $700,000,000,000 bailout?

Obama:

I like his four protections that must be protected in an economic plan.  I wish he hadn’t taken a swipe at Bush–it’s  a tired line.  I agree with him that the economy should be judged by the well being of the middle class, but I don’t necessarily believe that more regulation is the answer.  I think these companies should be allowed to fail, that the market demands that those who take risks in speculative business have a chance to lose it all.  These companies should face that.  I do, however, think that some protections of consumers need to be put in place.  I’m not sure what those are yet, and I haven’t heard a proposal that I like.

McCain:

McCain opens up with a touting of bi-partisanship.  I hope that he’ll actually bring that to the White House if he is elected.  Honestly, I don’t think that him going to Washington to “negotiate” helped solve the crisis at all.  It would have happened with or without him.  I think it’s a dumb political move to keep bringing it up.

Back and forth:

Obama needs to get specific about what regulations were “shredded” and what new regulations he would like to put forth.  This issue needs specifics.  McCain is lacking the same specifity on his discussion of accountablity.  Whom does he want to hold accountable?  The companies?  The consumers?  The lawmakers?  There is more than enough blame to go around.  Who needs to take responsibility?

Obama is going to hammer McCain’s statement on the “fundamentals of the economy” being strong.  I want to hear both sides explain that more.

They’re not debating…they are spouting platitudes.  Yuck!

2nd Question: Are there fundamental differences between your economic plans?

McCain:

Curb spending in Washington!!  Hallelujah!

Wait, how are you going to veto every spending bill without a line-item veto, Senator?  There is no way you can do it.

Obama:

No more tax cuts to just the wealthy!!  How marvelous!

I was going to smart off about his lack of detail, but he actually gave some: give tax breaks to working Americans because they are the consumers who help grow the economy and they are the ones struggling through the economic crisis.  That’s a pretty good start.

The fundamental difference between their plans is that Obama’s is bottom up (or at least middle up) and McCain’s is top down.  Top down doesn’t work as currently constituted, and the free market won’t solve everything if it’s not really a free market (which it’s not–not even close, but that’s a whole other post), so I think Obama’s plan is stronger, but if we don’t cut Washington spending, neither idea will work.

Back and forth:

I love that they’re actually arguing.  This is what a debate is supposed to be.  The main issue that I take out of this exchange is another difference between the candidates: McCain would rather have no bill (like the energy bill he voted against) than a bill with something he disagrees with in it; Obama seems more disposed to compromise (again, the energy bill, Obama’s defense of voting for it was interesting).  Principles are good, but letting idealism get in the way of progress isn’t.  McCain almost sounds too stuborn to be president.  If he vetos every bill that he has some kind of beef with, nothing will ever get done.

3rd Question: What will you give up to help pay for the financial rescue?  (Great question!!)

Obama:

I like how he flipped the question into a positive.  He didn’t say what he would cut; he discussed what he wouldn’t cut.  His four things are good: energy independence, health care, education, and infrastructure.  I would like to know what programs he would cut, but I’m happy with his focus although I’d like to hear more specifics.

McCain:

He threw out the “liberal” as a pejorative card–another tired argument.  He supports oil subsidies, but not ethanol subsidies…ouch!  He also threw out the national security argument without mentioning all the waste that has come from the defense department…oh yeah, and they are still fighting a costly and wasteful war in Iraq.

Back and forth:

Good follow-up by Lehrer, challenging them to dig deeper into what changes they would actually make.  I like Obama’s dig on the subsidies for private insurers.  If we’re going to have a national health care system as an entitlement (Medicare/Medicaid), why are we subsidising private companies to do the same thing?  McCain’s proposal of a spending freeze is indicative of what he has done for the past two weeks in his campaign, that is look for the most forceful, extreme solution possible and go for that.  He can’t criticize Obama’s liberalness as extreme and then propose a more extreme solution.  That’s not going to help him at all.  Obama’s response about using a hatchet when we need a scalpal is good.  After that exchange, both candidates got specific for a minute, refreshing.

After Lehrer’s follow-up, Obama continued to get specific about what values we should protect in spending cuts.  McCain’s response seemed canned, lacked specifics, and resorted to “Obama’s a liberal and won’t cut spending” instead of specifics.  Obama used the word “orgy” heh heh heh (funny Beavis).

4th Question: What are the lessons of Iraq?

McCain:

He keeps saying that he’s a leader, a maverick, and not “Miss Congeniality,” but he’s not getting specific.  He seems to subscribe to the Bush method of debating: don’t give any specifics, and you can’t get hammered about them.  McCain’s support of Bush on the war in Iraq is going to hurt him.  He can say that he was a leader on things, but he just followed Bush around on the issue of the war.  That’s not leadership, captain.

Obama:

He needs to hammer how much money this war is costing.  If McCain wants to talk about cutting spending, he needs to take heat about the war in Iraq.

Back and forth:

All the arguments on Iraq are tired and overused.  It’s not about winning or losing anymore.  It’ not about whether or not we should have gone in.  It’s about how we’re going to end it without totally destabilizing the region.  Neither one is really talking about that.  Since they’re not, I don’t really have a lot to say, except for *yawn*.

P.S.- I think Obama smacked down McCain pretty hard on this point.

5th Question: Should more troops be sent to Afganistan?

Obama:

Good answer.  Very comprehensive and detailed.  I agree with his assessment and strategy.

McCain:

I agree with his assessment too, but I worry when we try to say what the intentions of terrorists are (like McCain saying what that bombing was meant to convey to the Pakistani government).

Back and forth:

For essentially agreeing on the issue, they are sure finding a lot to argue about.  I guess that’s okay, but they could just say, “I think that we fundamentally agree on this issue, and we should work together to make it happen.”  I guess that’s too hard to do.  However, McCain needs to quit using already discredited attacks against Obama.  They make him look stupid.  Attack with facts, not already debunked lies.

The Pakistan issue is interesting, and I honestly don’t know enough about it to comment much.

McCain’s story about the bracelet is touching, but irrelevent.  Obama’s follow-up was excellent, and very relevent.  He attacked McCain’s judgement and temperence.  McCain replied by being mean and sarcastic; that isn’t how to sure up your record on temperence.  Ooops!

6th Question: What should we do about Iran?

McCain:

I don’t like the words “existential threat.”  They are overused in today’s political discourse.  After listening to McCain, I think that he would be a great Secretary of Defense, but he’s too hawkish to be president.  However, his idea of a “league of democracies” to put economic pressure on Iran is a good one and should be something that we look into.

Obama:

I’ve said for a year that the real winners in Iraq are the Iranians.  Obama agrees.  He also has a good point that any sanctions will need the support of Russia and China.  I also like how is touting the idea of diplomacy.

Back and forth:

McCain can bash diplomacy, but it is sorely, sorely needed.  Sitting down with people who disagree with you doesn’t “legitimize” anything.  It shows a willingness to solve problems without violence.  Obama is handling this issue very well.  He looks more moderate, more level-headed, and more qualified to lead than McCain on this issue and on Iraq.  I love the point that diplomacy strengthens our position with our allies if negotiations fail.

Obama easily wins this point as well.

7th Question: Russia?

Obama:

Good response.

McCain:

His response sounds like Obama’s.  They seem to be agreeing and arguing about it quite a bit on some issues.  I don’t get that.

Back and forth:

Obama pointed out that they agree.  Great, move to the next question.  Nevermind, Obama shifted the focus to energy and has brought up some good points.  McCain says off-shore drilling is a “bridge”; I say it’s a band-aid, and a small one at that.

8th Question: Odds of another 9/11?

McCain:

His “safer than we were the day after 9/11″ answer was pretty dumb.  Also, I feel like McCain could be a much stronger voice against torture, and I don’t think that he’s done nearly enough to stop it.

Obama:

His argument about perception and standing in the world is strong, and I’d like to hear him push it more.

Back and forth:

I only saw the tracker on the bottom of the CNN coverage drift into the negative a few times.  When McCain tried to say that Obama wants us to fail in Iraq, the tracker went way into the negative.  The audience’s bullshit sensor works as well as mine.  They know that McCain is mischaracterizing Obama’s plan, and if he continues to do it throughout the campaign, he will lose.

Obama brought the issue back to the economy and how the economy leads to security and strength.  Excellent answer.  McCain shot back with an attack on Obama’s experience and not a substantive counter-argument.  He’s worn that line of reasoning out.  The tracker shot back into the negative; even the Republican line was in the negative…ouch.

Overall, I thought Obama won the debate handily.  He seemed comfortable, calm, and composed.  His answers to questions showed a good temperement and judgement that are qualities needed in a president.  It was a fun debate to watch.

I’m saying here and now that I believe Jon Stewart is one of the best political commentators on television. With all the hypocrisy and crazy contradictions in Washington, it’s hard not to make fun of it all.

“There’s no God above and no Hell below.  It’s here with us.  It’s up to us to keep afloat.”

Amen, Brother Dave.  Whether God exists or not is not nearly as important as we as human beings taking care of each other and trying to make this world a better place.  The problems of the world won’t be solved by religion.  They will be solved by human beings putting their talents and ideas together in productive ways.  It’s here with us.