Perhaps Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should speak with President Bush. At a speech, Justice Scalia spoke of the Constitution:
“The Constitution of the United States is extraordinary and amazing. People just don’t revere it like they used to,” Scalia told a full auditorium of high school students, officials, religious leaders.
Interesting words by an extreme conservative. I agree with his statement, but I suspect we don’t agree on how to apply our reverance.
Thanks to a link from Wil Wheaton, I discovered Andrew Sullivan‘s blog. He’s a conservative, so I don’t always agree with him, but I find myself agreeing more than I would’ve expected. Whether I agree or not, his views are intelligent and logical. In reading his blog, I came across an article he wrote for the January 26, 2004 issue of Time. It’s called “Nanny-In-Chief: Bush versus Freedom”.
I’ve written extensively about my displeasure with President Bush and his presidency. There are instances where I believe he is attacked unjustly, or at least for the wrong reasons, but Andrew Sullivan’s article is a brilliant synopsis of President Bush’s agenda and its flaws. Consider:
There’s barely a speech by president Bush that doesn’t cite the glories of human freedom. It’s God’s gift to mankind, he believes. And in some ways, this president has clearly expanded it: the people of Afghanistan and Iraq now enjoy liberties unimaginable only a few years ago. But there’s a strange exception to this Bush doctrine: it ends when you reach America’s shores. Within the United States, the Bush administration has shown an unusually hostile attitude toward the exercise of personal freedom. When your individual choices conflict with what the Bush people think is good for you, they’ve been only too happy to intervene. The government, Bush clearly believes, has a right to be involved in many personal decisions individuals make – punishing some, encouraging others, nudging and prodding the public to live the good life as the president understands it. The nanny-state, much loved by Democrats, is now thriving under Republicans.
I recently heard Bill O’Reilly say that America has the decision of which view of personal liberty to support and promote: secular or morality-based. Obviously, he wants a moral minimum for the country, while I believe that a secular view, based on separation of church and state, is best. Anarchy will not result from either, but freedom is extended to everyone under my ideal.
Mr. Sullivan continues with this:
The president is proud of his big government moralism. As he put it in his first State of the Union, “Values are important, so we have tripled funding for character education to teach our children not only reading and writing, but right from wrong.” Sounds inoffensive enough. But who exactly determines what is right and what is wrong? Churches? Synagogues? Parents? Teachers? Nah. The federal government.
Again, President Bush is attempting to have the federal government parent our children. Parents don’t know enough or may not believe the right things, so Congress and the President (but not the activist judges) will do the job properly. This is wrong.
While Mr. Sullivan’s article loses compelling force near the end, he finishes with a succinct flourish.
There has always been a tension in conservatism between those who favor more liberty and those who want more morality. But what’s indisputable is that Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is a move toward the latter – the use of the government to impose and subsidize certain morals over others. He is fusing big government liberalism with religious right moralism. It’s the nanny-state with more cash. Your cash, that is. And their morals.
That’s not a fair trade for me. Others may disagree, but it gets back to the dual edge of freedom. You get freedom, but so do I. Anything short of that isn’t freedom.
I came across this USA Today article about entrepreneurs and the influence received from their mothers. The article focuses on a new documentary, Lemonade Stories. Here’s the description of the documentary:
Introducing Lemonade Stories, a film by Mary Mazzio about extraordinary entrepreneurs and their mothers. This film focuses on how mothers have contributed to the entrepreneurial spirit of their sons and daughters, as well as the influence these mothers have had on their children in terms of instilling a responsibility to give back to the community.
Now that I think about this concept, I can’t wait to see the film. I have many of the characteristics mentioned in the USA Today article. Whether or not I’ll have success in my new business is undetermined, but I am an entrepreneur. As the article points out in a quote from Earl Graves, Sr., the founder of Black Enterprise magazine: “You have to have a junkyard-dog mentality.” I have that and I got it from my mom.
Whenever I switched projects at my previous employer, I sought projects that would provide me with opportunities to move my career in the best direction for my interests. This often conflicted with management’s idea of what I should do next. I seldom got what I wanted, but I always got more than I would have if I’d kept quiet and been a “company guy”. At one point, I had a manager ask me why I “couldn’t just go along.” It’s the way I’ve always been. It’s in my blood.
During graduate school, I was the Administrative Chairman of SEED. As the Admin Chair, I was part of the 4-member Executive Committee responsible for leading the organization. In every vote, we needed a majority. Don’t ask me why the founders never included a tiebreaker in the by-laws, but that’s the way it was. For our team, that wasn’t a problem because the vote on virtually every issue was 3-1. I was always the dissenter in those 3-1 votes.
One of our tasks was recruiting and “hiring” new members, when necessary. (Students didn’t receive payment or class credit, but the experience was invaluable.) In trying to move SEED from the culture of a club to that of a professional organization, we implemented higher standards for our members. At one point during the academic year, we had to recruit a replacement for a member who didn’t fulfill his duties. When deciding upon his replacement, we had two finalists. Everyone wanted one individual, except for me. I voted against the candidate, which makes no difference, since we had a majority. (To my friend Charles’ credit, he let the debate continue for 2 hours to hear my side.)
I’d believed that he wouldn’t perform well in the role. Without a concrete reason other than a hunch, I knew it was the wrong decision. His resume was impressive on the surface, but I sensed something. I’m not a genius at HR matters, but I’ve learned to trust my intuition, especially when it’s as strong as it was. So I fought. And fought. And lost.
We brought the new guy into the team. He eased into his role, then proceeded to perform as I’d predicted for the remainder of the year. We’d made the wrong decision, but we were better prepared to deal with the situation because I refused to give in.
I’m the ideal dissenter. Like my mom, I’d rather stand up for what’s right than go along to avoid a fight. It’s more troublesome, but I can’t accept less. As Michael Faber writes about Mrs. Emmeline Fox not being the leader of the Rescue Society in The Crimson Petal and the White, “Not that she ever would be: she was born to be a dissenter within a larger certainty, she knows that.”
I can live with that, but in not submitting to conformity, I became an entrepreneur. Thanks mom.
I like to pretend that I have a large cache of faithful readers. In reality, I appreciate both of you, so I’m going to offer a brief summary of what’s gone on lately in my life that has caused me to be away from blogging. There’s a lot more than I can reasonably explain on my lunch hour, so I promise to give more details when time permits. With that warning, here goes…
I didn’t blog much in mid-March because I resigned from my job. My last day was March 19th and I didn’t have time to spare as I concluded the tasks I’d been working on and transitioned my responsibilities leading up to that Friday.
As ready as I was to leave, I had to leave on good terms. I’d been with that company for nearly 6 years, ever since graduating from graduate school in ’98. I had a history and reputation that I didn’t want to tarnish. Besides, I didn’t leave the industry (software consulting) and my specialty is a small community in the federal government. It was inevitable that a few bridges would burn because I broke my “loyalty”, but I tried to be professional about it. I didn’t leave my employer, as much as I chased my new opportunity.
As of yesterday, I’m self-employed. This is a huge step for me because I’ve wanted to do this for many years. I’m no longer on the traditional company treadmill of chasing the ever-elusive carrot. Instead of ignoring my career goals and ambitions to please a boss, I determine which path I take. My only requirement is to deliver to my client(s).
There are, of course, greater challenges involved, such as job security and tax burdens, but the reward is worth the effort. Ignoring the monetary aspects, I’ve moved from beggar to builder. And that’s where I want to be.
I’ll reveal more as time permits, but it’ll be a few days/weeks before I get back into a regular pattern of blogging. I miss it, so I promise I haven’t disappeared. Thanks.
I try not to get too wrapped up in celebrity worship, but sometimes I can get sucked in against my will. Earlier this week… yes, I know I’ve been away for a little while. I’m back now and will catch everyone up on the monumental last few weeks… So, I was watching VH1 earlier this week, specifically Best Week Ever. I’d followed the show a little bit since Wil Wheaton mentioned his involvement several months ago. I’ve enjoyed being “in the know” about his involvement, since I read his blog regularly. So I was watching the other night, with the hope that he’d be involved in the episode. That didn’t prepare me for what I saw as I watched.
The episode progressed nicely, with some mildly funny snark. That’s a great introduction a show, so I kept watching. Then the duo from ModernHumorist.com came on to talk about a news story, which thoroughly escapes me now. The reason it escapes me is simple: I was screaming “Holy shit!” at my television. The duo that founded ModernHumorist.com are Michael Colton and John Aboud. Admittedly, I’ve never met Michael Colton, but I spent the seven years of middle and high school as friends with Aboud. He sat on my right (or did I sit on his left, now that he’s the celebrity?) every day during lunch. I hung out at his house with a bunch of friends the day I returned from Virginia Tech‘s freshman orientation. Blah, blah, blah.
I’ve had friends who have media exposure and success. My friend Kevin is a sports writer; he covers the Minnesota Vikings for the Star Tribune. Before that, he covered the Baltimore Orioles for The Washington Times. He’s covered the last few Super Bowls. Blah, blah, blah.
I’m accustomed to watching my friends have success. I’m happy for them, so I don’t want to seem jealous or resentful. But there’s a unique reaction to seeing someone I know on television. So I screamed “Holy shit!”.
The first thing I did was call my brother to tell him to turn on VH1. Then I called Danielle to lament that “my life was over”. She wisely assured me that my life was not over. Unfortunately, she was unavailable this afternoon when I reached page 73 of the new issue of Entertainment Weekly. Specifically, this text:
It’s a brilliantly simple concept featuring comics like Chuck Nice, Brian Huskey, Donnell Rawlings, the far-too-rarely-seen Rachael Harris, plus the cham-peen deadpan kings of Best Week, the duo John Aboud and Michael Colton of the webzine “Modern Humorist.”
accompanied by this picture:
After reading through this, I did some searching. I found this link to Best Week Ever panelists. I also found video that’s funny. My consolation prize in this is that I made Aboud laugh in high school. I remember one uncontrollable-laugh-inducing incident involving dry wit, Richard Simmons and Deal-A-Meal.
Maybe it’s time to dust off the novel…
I’ve been a bit absent from RollingDoughnut over the last week or so, all for good reason. I’ll have a little time over the rest of March to explain, but unfortunately, tonight is not the time. I’m preparing for Spring Training 2004, so I have little time to detail the happenings in my life. Not to leave you hanging while I’m gone over the next few days, I’d like to offer a highlight from my recent trip to Buffalo.
While visiting Niagara Falls, Danielle, Melissa, and I explored Clifton Hill. This is Canada’s response to Las Vegas. Las Vegas is tremendous, but it’s no Clifton Hill. In my four days in Vegas, I never found a great arcade to rival Great Canadian Midway. The best part of this entertainment extravaganza is this from the Great Canadian Midway website: “With over 250 games that give out tickets to win fabulous prizes.”
We enjoyed these games and won our tickets. 595 tickets, to be exact. Because the people of Canada are so quaint and nice, they let us walk out with 600-tickets-worth of fabulous prizes.
Included in this bounty was the skull candle holder I selected. This is a real beaut compared to the normal spider ring selection of fabulous prizes, so I couldn’t wait to get home and fire up the candles.
Yesterday, I undertook this adventure with much excitement bubbling below the surface of my 4-year-old mind. Fire! Fire! The candle was lit. Spooky!
Then I realized that there may be a flaw in the plan. Have a look at the reality of my fabulous prize. I still heart my fabulous prize.
What a concept… The National Cable Television Association announced that it will “provide free equipment to allow subscribers to block unwanted channels”. Here are some details:
The offer is directed to about half the nation’s 70.5 million cable subscribers who don’t have cable boxes that can be programmed to block certain channels or programs. The companies agreeing to the plan include the 10 largest in the country and reach 85 percent of all cable subscribers.
Self-regulation can work. As I’ve suggested, if someone doesn’t like what their children are watching, turn it off. I should’ve gone the extra step and instructed people to block “offending” channels through their cable box. If someone has digital cable, their cable box has the capability to block channels. It’s not hard and everyone’s rights are protected.
Along those lines, consider this:
“No one wants policy-makers to have to choose between protecting children or preserving the First Amendment,” [NCTA president Robert] Sachs told the Cable Television Public Affairs Association. “So if we, as an industry, actively promote the choices and controls available to consumers, there will be no need for anyone to do so.”
Addressing such an idea, consider this:
The cable industry also launched a new Web site, www.controlyourtv.org, which includes instructions on how parents can use the V-chip in televisions built in 2000 and later to block both broadcast and cable programs. The V-chip works with a voluntary industry ratings system.
“This is what we think is the best method of addressing all those concerns,” [Cable association spokesman Rob] Stoddard said. “It leaves the power in the hands of the cable subscriber.”
Naturally, even if the cable industry didn’t do this, there is little that Congress can do. The cable industry is a private broadcast network, so the “protecting the public airwaves” nonsense spewed by Congress is irrelevant. Any attempt to regulate it is a clear violation of the First Amendment, not supported by court rulings.
Self-regulation instead of illegal government intervention is an amazing concept.
In an update to yesterday’s news that Rhea County, Tennessee wanted to ban homosexuals, the county commissioners met again today to rescind their motion. The new motion passed 8-0. The money quote comes from the County Attorney, Gary Fritts:
“They wanted to send a message to our (state) representative and senator that Rhea County supports the ban on same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is what it was all about,” Fritts said. “There has just been so much misunderstanding about this. It was to stop people from coming here and getting married and living in Rhea County.”
I’m assuming that the county commissioners aren’t stupid, so I can only believe that they knew that approving a motion seeking a way to prosecute homosexuals for “crimes against nature” isn’t the same as passing a motion supporting a ban on same-sex marriage. I’m sorry to tell you, Mr. Fritts, but there has been no misunderstanding.
Sometimes, it’s possible to beat The Man. I’m sure everyone remembers my little tirade against my county government regarding their botch of my tax payment. They caved and fixed their mistake. Technically, the government accepted the appeal on my motorcycle, but not the appeal on my car. I convinced them that was stupid since I paid them as one payment.
I’m surprised, but pleased. I dealt with an injustice by challenging it and I succeeded. This is the type of situation that reminds me why I continue to challenge stupidity, even when it would be easier to acquiesce. It can be corrected. I shouldn’t have to fight the government to get it to do what it’s supposed to do, but this isn’t a perfect world. They didn’t admit their mistake, just pretended it didn’t happen.
The consolation is that, at least for today, the tally is: Tony 1, The Man 0. That’s a great score.
Uplifting news from Tennessee… Yesterday, Rhea County commissioners voted 8-0 to request state-wide legislation that would allow the county to charge homosexuals with “crimes against nature”. The specific money quote is this:
“We need to keep them out of here,” said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.
This is definitely an appropriate response to “recent national and state events concerning gay marriages”. With that idea, let’s consider the intellectual prowess that supported this decision, causing audience members to applaud:
There was little discussion before the 8-0 vote, and commissioners didn’t mention that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas sodomy laws last year and ruled there is a constitutionally protected right to adults’ private sexual conduct.
The Tennessee state senator for Rhea County is Senator Tommy Kilby. He responded with this:
“Yesterday in Judiciary Committee, they passed out a bill basically saying we will not recognize same-sex partnerships or civil unions from other states or foreign countries. I voted for that, and that’s my position on that issue,” Kilby said.
Thanks for not answering the question. He knows the citizens of Rhea County are outside the mainstream, not to mention the Constitutional, thought on the privacy of the sexual activity of consenting adults. That’s fine, since everyone is entitled to a personal opinion. However, he should state his belief. Or at least acknowledge that no such law will ever pass in the state legislature, but that the message has been effectively sent that homosexuals aren’t welcome in Rhea County. There’s no need for shouting it from the roof of the state capitol, but don’t cower and offer an evasive answer. It makes him look scared. Why are you scared, Senator Kilby?
