Several days ago the state of Arizona passed a law authorizing police to request proof of residence from anyone have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally. This has since sparked the latest protests from immigrants and their supporters, claiming civil rights abuse and the legalization of racial profiling. It is reminiscent of the "Day Without an Immigrant" movement several years ago, where illegal immigrants tried to band together and not work for a day to show the country their value to the economy of America. The problem with that movement was that in turn it caused more outrage from legal Americans and has since made people in this country more focused on fixing the immigration problems we are facing. So in other words, it backfired. The outcries against this Arizona law are just as misguided, and I believe will further demonstrate the people of this country's desire to expand such laws nationwide.
What no one in the mass media seems to be bringing up or emphasizing in this whole debate is the fact that we are talking about people who are in this country ILLEGALLY. By definition these are people who should not be in the country, and therefor they do not have the same rights as American citizens do. The President can try to change the wording of what he calls these people, but it doesn't change the fact that they came here without proper permission or background checks, and the majority are living under the radar and not paying into our tax system.
My other issue with this is also tied into the whole "Immigration Reform" debate that has been talked about for the last several years, where certain groups want to give amnesty to those here illegally. Most people, including the media and special interest groups assume when talking about illegal immigrants we are automatically talking about Hispanic people. But that simply is not the case as a whole. An illegal immigrant can be from Mexico as well as Russia, Pakistan, China, or anywhere else in the world. The majority of the men that hijacked the planes on September 11th were here illegally from countries in the Middle East. So think about it, any amnesty that is given to illegals not only allows Hispanics (which we assume are hard working, harmless people) but also any possible terrorists that may be here also. Do we really want to have an open door policy for anyone who wants to come into this country? We can not pick and choose who are the good immigrants and who are the bad ones, it's all or nothing. That is the basic reason why we have a process to enter the country and to become a citizen. I understand the desire for those who are struggling in other countries to come to America to make a new start, but how fair is it to those who go through the proper channels when there are so many that bypass the law and then cry for rights?
As far as the Arizona law, the one thing that I keep going back to is how outraged people are that the police now have the right to demand proof of residence. To me, the only ones who would feel threatened by this would be those who have something to hide and are actually here illegally. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care? So that is like saying "I am a criminal, but you can not ask me if I am a criminal". How much sense does that make? And so if you are here legally and are asked to show proof, you should have no problem showing proof. My wife is of Hispanic descent but was born here, so if we were driving through Arizona and pulled over and she was asked for proof of residence, she has her driver's licence and Social Security card. No harm, no foul. So I do not understand how we somehow have gotten to the point in this country where we have laws yet are guilted into not enforcing them, as to not hurt anyone's feelings. I am in no way against anyone from any country coming to America to start a new and better life. But there is a process and if you don't follow it you might possibly be caught and sent back to the country where you belong. I do not find that nasty or cruel, it is only following the law. So please, think about the term Illegal Immigrant and then tell me what Arizona has done that is so wrong...
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
No Crime, Yet Still Punishable?
I have become very disturbed by what I have been hearing and reading and spoken about over the last several weeks concerning Ben Roethlisberger and possible action being taken against him by the National Football League. Now my outrage might not be at what most would think. those who know me know that I have always been very critical of professional athletes and celebrities who get themselves in trouble with the law. to me, with all the money these people make and the resources at their fingertips there is no excuse for a DUI and no reason to be hanging out with thugs and carrying guns. Why then, am I so upset by what has been going on with this case you ask? Because this situation is far different than that of Michael Vick or Donte Stallworth or Mel Gibson. In those cases you had rich professionals who were arrested for and convicted of crimes. All of those situations were a case of someone doing something they shouldn't have and being caught. The Roethlisberger situation is different, way different, yet the media and even sports apologists are chastising an athlete for something that he was accused of yet never charged with. For some reason which I can not fathom, this person has been found guilty in the court of public opinion, when in so many other cases the opposite is true.
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Roethlisberger was out bar hopping with some friends in Georgia last month when he is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 20 year old college student in the bathroom of a bar. He was never arrested, and after weeks of investigating the local District Attorney declined to file any charges. It also came out that the alleged victim asked the DA not to file charges because she did not want to go through a long trial. But since this decision numerous details have come out about the night in question and what Ben was accused of. Problem is, these details are only one person's story (a drunk person at that), and even the statements given to police by the accuser seem vague and open to interpretation. She claims she was ushered to a back hallway by one of Ben's bodyguards, then when Ben made advances towards her she said it wasn't a good idea, to which he said it was okay. She also then makes the statement that "he had sex with me", not "he then raped me". She then went on to say that when he was done he left the room and didn't say anything. Now all of these things, I agree, sound like the actions of a creep, of a guy who does not know how to treat a woman and is only out for his own gratification. But at the same time, in of itself is that a crime? Is it a crime to be a single guy who goes to bars and has drunk sex with random women? No, it isn't. As much as I agree this isn't what you would want your son to do, their has been nothing proven to say that Roethlisberger did anything wrong or especially illegal. he may not win Man of the Year awards or be well liked by women's advocacy groups, but it also does not, or should not effect his job status. Yet the NFL commissioner has had harsh words for Ben, and it is expected that he will levy a fine and/or suspension against him soon. I just don't get it.
Michael Vick was arrested for, lied about, and eventually plead guilty to running a dog fighting ring and participating in the execution of dogs. Donte Stallworth was arrested for and plead guilty of driving drunk and hitting and killing a man. Plaxico Burress was arrested for and plead guilty to carrying a loaded weapon in a New York City nightclub and shooting himself in the leg with it. Matt Jones was arrested for Cocaine possession. These are all situations that are different than the Roethlisberger case because of one thing: he was never arrested or charged with anything. The one thing I have always been amazed by is how an elite athlete making millions of dollars can go out drinking and then drive his own car. All that money and you would think they would pay someone to drive for them, just to avoid any possible situations. Yet here is a guy who is not out driving himself, drinking with friends and yes, had sex in a bar bathroom with someone he just met. while it may not be what most people consider appropriate behavior, it is by far not illegal.
Twenty or thirty years ago if an athlete was out in a bar womanizing it wouldn't even be reported, because they weren't considered "celebrities". Yet with the salaries that the modern athlete makes now most are now tied in with the celebrity crowd and are followed and reported on daily. Mickey Mantle was a big time drinker and womanizer, so much that it shortened an already amazing career. Babe Ruth caroused just about every night yet was a national hero and considered a role model. Even Michael Jordan had a gambling problem and cheated on his wife very publicly, yet is considered a national treasure and icon. There was also the case of Kobe Bryant several years ago, where he was accused of raping a female worker at a resort he was staying at. And although charges were eventually dropped in that case, the entire time the proceedings were going on Bryant was practicing and playing with his basketball team night in and night out. so my point in all of this is why is Roethlisberger being treated so differently? Yes, you can bring up the fact that he was accused of rape last year, yet those accusations came a year after the alleged assault and the DA there also refused to file charges. To most who followed it, it appeared to be a woman that wanted more who decided to get paid off by a rich athlete.
So what is it that makes this case so different? Is it because he is a big star and the face of a historic franchise? Is it because the media and public are so tired of all the public debauchery that they want to make an example of someone? I honestly am still searching for the answer. As far as I have always been taught, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. So if the authorities did not find substantial evidence to charge this person with any crime it seems to me there should be no further action in the private sector. The main difference between the examples I laid out prior and this one is that in those cases there was no doubt a crime had been committed, it was simply a matter of judging whether or not those people were responsible for it. In the Roethlisberger case there is still a question whether or not anything criminal even happened. It is a matter of her word versus his, and it is up to authorities to determine that. So how can others decide that he is guilty when those trained to make those types of decisions say there was no crime? I am all for those we watch on Sundays staying off the police blotter, but if we take every claim of sexual assault and immediately assume the person is guilty, what is to keep anyone from making up accusations just to get money out of it? I agree that what happened that night in it's simplest form was not what you would expect out of an elite athlete, but then again who are we to say what they should do? Why just because they make millions of dollars should they not go out and have fun and even make bad decisions, so long as they stay within the law?
With media coverage growing by the day, and every step celebrities and athletes take being recorded, it is for sure that many more cases of bad behavior and criminal activity will be reported on. On many cases an example needs to be made of those who think they are above the laws and rules because of their profession. But we set a very scary precedent by assuming guilt just because someone might not be a squeaky clean person. We need to let law enforcement do their jobs. But when we take sides in a he said-she said, we head down a slippery slope...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
A Wonderful Birthday Gift
For my birthday this January, my wife presented me with an airline ticket to visit my family in Florida, by myself. She explained that the reason for this was because of my job working at night and watching my daughter during the day, I do not get to have much time for myself and this was a chance for me to get away and just be me. Great, so I am looking forward to the week with family and friends back home, although a little bummed not to be sharing the time with my wife and child. But my two brothers tell me not to make any plans for the weekend, and not to ask them what we are doing. So of course my mind is going in a million directions wondering what they have planned...to the point that I finally stop trying to figure it out and just go with it (as anyone who knows me well enough would know how hard that was for me).
So the night I arrive in Florida I go to dinner with my parents and two brothers. At some point my older brother hands me a handful of papers, which in order spell out a story about how they were considering what to do while I was visiting. The surprise was that I was going on a 3 night cruise to the Bahamas with my two brothers. I was just as shocked by this as I was with my wife's presenting me with an airline ticket. My brothers had both been on cruises before, but this was to be my first. Once the shock wore off, I was totally excited. My wife knew the plans, and had packed a few extra things that I was going to need for the cruise without my knowledge. So the next morning we were off for Miami to hit the high seas.
It all happened so fast that I never really was able to think about just how meaningful it was to be able to do this with my brothers. W e were always close growing up, not best of buddies but always did things together. Of course with three of us there was usually sides being taken here and there, and constant bickering, but never anything serious or nasty. But as we have all gotten older we have become a lot closer. All of us have our own lives, and my wife and I live in New Jersey as opposed to the two of them still in Florida, but we talk a frequently and see each other as much as possible. But still, to be able to spend 3 nights on a cruise ship, just us, no parents or wives or girlfriends, or even cell phones or computers, was such a great bonding opportunity.
From the time we got onto the ship there was really no plan. They asked what I wanted to do, and I said I was just there to do as much or as little as we wanted, no plans, no pressure. We ate, we drank (a lot), we gambled, we smoked cigars, we saw comedy shows. We met some very cool people, and we talked a lot. The thing I noticed was how time really seemed to stand still while on the ship. At one point my younger brother and I spent 2 hours in a hot tub talking with numerous groups of people, drinking beer and just enjoying the sun. One night he and I actually closed down the last bar that was open at 4 AM. Another night my older brother and I closed down the casino playing blackjack for what must have been 3 hours or so. We watched playoff football at one of the bars on board, I ate sushi for the first time, and we walked around the streets of Nassau, Bahamas. It was truly a great time spent between three brothers. I can not say enough about how meaningful it was to be able to bond like we did, to just get away and enjoy spending time together.
To think, that the entire reason that I was able to have this opportunity to go on that trip with my brothers was because my wife cared enough about me to want me to have some time for myself. She set it all in motion by being selfless and wanting me to get away from life a bit and just think about me. And everyone we met on the cruise when I told them why we were on the trip together, they all said how great of a wife I had for doing that for me. It was such a shock, and such a whirlwind, but at the end of the day one of the nicest and most meaningful things anyone has ever done for me. And for my brothers to think as much of me to take me out on a cruise, that is also something I can never repay them for. Not the money or the adventure as much as just the time we were able to spend together, the opportunity to see each others in a different light. I would love to make this a tradition, because it is so important to family, especially siblings, to stay close and connected. Here's hoping this was just one of many Hayman Brother Retreats...
So the night I arrive in Florida I go to dinner with my parents and two brothers. At some point my older brother hands me a handful of papers, which in order spell out a story about how they were considering what to do while I was visiting. The surprise was that I was going on a 3 night cruise to the Bahamas with my two brothers. I was just as shocked by this as I was with my wife's presenting me with an airline ticket. My brothers had both been on cruises before, but this was to be my first. Once the shock wore off, I was totally excited. My wife knew the plans, and had packed a few extra things that I was going to need for the cruise without my knowledge. So the next morning we were off for Miami to hit the high seas.
It all happened so fast that I never really was able to think about just how meaningful it was to be able to do this with my brothers. W e were always close growing up, not best of buddies but always did things together. Of course with three of us there was usually sides being taken here and there, and constant bickering, but never anything serious or nasty. But as we have all gotten older we have become a lot closer. All of us have our own lives, and my wife and I live in New Jersey as opposed to the two of them still in Florida, but we talk a frequently and see each other as much as possible. But still, to be able to spend 3 nights on a cruise ship, just us, no parents or wives or girlfriends, or even cell phones or computers, was such a great bonding opportunity.
From the time we got onto the ship there was really no plan. They asked what I wanted to do, and I said I was just there to do as much or as little as we wanted, no plans, no pressure. We ate, we drank (a lot), we gambled, we smoked cigars, we saw comedy shows. We met some very cool people, and we talked a lot. The thing I noticed was how time really seemed to stand still while on the ship. At one point my younger brother and I spent 2 hours in a hot tub talking with numerous groups of people, drinking beer and just enjoying the sun. One night he and I actually closed down the last bar that was open at 4 AM. Another night my older brother and I closed down the casino playing blackjack for what must have been 3 hours or so. We watched playoff football at one of the bars on board, I ate sushi for the first time, and we walked around the streets of Nassau, Bahamas. It was truly a great time spent between three brothers. I can not say enough about how meaningful it was to be able to bond like we did, to just get away and enjoy spending time together.
To think, that the entire reason that I was able to have this opportunity to go on that trip with my brothers was because my wife cared enough about me to want me to have some time for myself. She set it all in motion by being selfless and wanting me to get away from life a bit and just think about me. And everyone we met on the cruise when I told them why we were on the trip together, they all said how great of a wife I had for doing that for me. It was such a shock, and such a whirlwind, but at the end of the day one of the nicest and most meaningful things anyone has ever done for me. And for my brothers to think as much of me to take me out on a cruise, that is also something I can never repay them for. Not the money or the adventure as much as just the time we were able to spend together, the opportunity to see each others in a different light. I would love to make this a tradition, because it is so important to family, especially siblings, to stay close and connected. Here's hoping this was just one of many Hayman Brother Retreats...
Friday, September 18, 2009
Waiting for the Next Musical Icon
I was watching a documentary the other night about the making of the album "The Doors", and it really made me think about the landscape of music today. Here was a band, The Doors, who had been huge on the LA club scene, and when they released their debut album in 1967 it made such an impact on people and on pop culture. Here was a band that recorded an album through practically all live takes and over a week's time. This is an album that to this day remains relevant and fresh. What the Doors did was take their live energy, charisma and musical talent and bring it across at a time where nothing quite like it was being heard over the radio. This was at a time when the hippy culture was in full force, and it brought an alternative to the "peace and love" vibe that was so popular. But as dark as the lyrics could be and as wild as Jim Morrison's behavior was, the music stood on it's own and still does to this day. Unfortunately it is hard to find this kind of earth-changing, emotion-stirring music anymore. Sure, artists have come up along the way that have revolutionized music and a few that have forever left their print on the music industry, but I can't help but feel that the surprises and moments of awe are due to be few and far between anymore.
The problem with music today is that there are so many genres, so many record companies and so many different outlets. Sure, this is a great thing as far as everyone can find something they like and it is so easy to get new music, but at the same time the industry seems so diluted. There is so much to be heard, so many genres and sub-genres that some really amazing bands could take years to be discovered by the mainstream, if at all. Don't get me wrong, I think having so many choices is a great thing, but to find that "diamond in the rough" is almost never heard of today. Artists are hyped so much before they come out that there is nowhere to go but down at times. Sure, history is full of One-Hit Wonders, but in these days of iTunes and Napster and file sharing people can just purchase the one song and not have to deal with the rest of the tracks on the album. Problem is sometimes those deep tracks are the real musical gems. To go back to The Doors, the last track was a song called "the End", a nearly 12 minute track that was perhaps their most eclectic piece ever, and it was noticed and heralded even though it was never released as a single. Now if that album was released today very few people would even hear that song, and that is the shame of the music scene today.
I think back over my limited time on earth and certain musicians come to mind that shook the industry and really made people re-think music. Elvis brought together rock & roll and blues, the Beatles made simple music with smart lyrics that appealed to the masses. The Doors and Led Zeppelin brought raw music and deep lyrics to a time when simple, happy music was dominant. The Clash and Sex Pistols popularized punk music, which was a welcomed adversary to the Disco scene that had become so big and void of emotion and feeling. Metallica emerged in the 80's as a thrash metal band that got next to no airplay on the radio, yet their amazing sound and energy-filled concerts rose them to mythical status by the end of the decade driven by mostly word of mouth. And in the 90's Nirvana came out with a simple, dark sound that no one had quite heard before and again changed the way people looked at and thought of music. The thing these artists all have in common is not only was their music new and fresh, but it became part of the fabric of it's time and caught on with the popular culture. Since Nirvana, who has had this type of impact? Sure, there are a lot of musicians and groups that are making great music, a lot of which I really enjoy. But there isn't that iconic person or band, no one who has changed how we look at music or has had mass appeal across social and racial lines.
Other categories of music have had the same thing happen over time. Rap had Grand Master Flash, Run DMC, and the Beastie Boys who all brought this new musical style to the mainstream in their own unique way. Country had Waylon Jennings, Hank Williams, Reeba and Garth Brooks, all of which brought their music to the attention of those who ordinarily weren't following country music. And Michael Jackson and Madonna both became pop music icons in the 80's, each with their unique musical style. But since then there have been plenty of talented artists, but none who has stood out as being an icon of American music.
So the question is, will we ever see that iconic artist arrive that blows us all away and gives us something that once we hear it we wonder how we ever lived without it, or have all the good ideas been discovered? As a lover of music, there are a lot of people who move me today. The problem I see is that the music industry is trying too hard to find "the next big one" that it's hard for a musician to break naturally, unexpectedly as The Doors did in the late 60's. The music today, most notably pop music, seems so forced and overproduced. There are many bands that are forced into the mainstream so fast that after one album they flicker away. There are others who spend much time as relative unknowns before finally hitting mainstream success, such as Kings of Leon, who after 4 albums and nearly 10 years have become one of the more unique groups in a while. And then you have a band like Pearl Jam, who broke out in the mid 90's and continue to make music, but in time have faded from the mainstream because they did not agree with the standard practices of the music industry, mainly concert ticket and album prices.
The cynic in me says music has become too specialized and too diluted with talent to ever give us that new iconic figure or group, yet the music lover in me hopes that I am wrong. Music is what lives in me, it is what gets my blood flowing. I see music as the timeline of my life, and I feel that music also marks the timeline of the world's life also. It can speak for a generation, and can heal a generation. So even if that new musical icon doesn't come along in my lifetime, I will enjoy all that is our there to listen to, and I will continue to be inspired...
The problem with music today is that there are so many genres, so many record companies and so many different outlets. Sure, this is a great thing as far as everyone can find something they like and it is so easy to get new music, but at the same time the industry seems so diluted. There is so much to be heard, so many genres and sub-genres that some really amazing bands could take years to be discovered by the mainstream, if at all. Don't get me wrong, I think having so many choices is a great thing, but to find that "diamond in the rough" is almost never heard of today. Artists are hyped so much before they come out that there is nowhere to go but down at times. Sure, history is full of One-Hit Wonders, but in these days of iTunes and Napster and file sharing people can just purchase the one song and not have to deal with the rest of the tracks on the album. Problem is sometimes those deep tracks are the real musical gems. To go back to The Doors, the last track was a song called "the End", a nearly 12 minute track that was perhaps their most eclectic piece ever, and it was noticed and heralded even though it was never released as a single. Now if that album was released today very few people would even hear that song, and that is the shame of the music scene today.
I think back over my limited time on earth and certain musicians come to mind that shook the industry and really made people re-think music. Elvis brought together rock & roll and blues, the Beatles made simple music with smart lyrics that appealed to the masses. The Doors and Led Zeppelin brought raw music and deep lyrics to a time when simple, happy music was dominant. The Clash and Sex Pistols popularized punk music, which was a welcomed adversary to the Disco scene that had become so big and void of emotion and feeling. Metallica emerged in the 80's as a thrash metal band that got next to no airplay on the radio, yet their amazing sound and energy-filled concerts rose them to mythical status by the end of the decade driven by mostly word of mouth. And in the 90's Nirvana came out with a simple, dark sound that no one had quite heard before and again changed the way people looked at and thought of music. The thing these artists all have in common is not only was their music new and fresh, but it became part of the fabric of it's time and caught on with the popular culture. Since Nirvana, who has had this type of impact? Sure, there are a lot of musicians and groups that are making great music, a lot of which I really enjoy. But there isn't that iconic person or band, no one who has changed how we look at music or has had mass appeal across social and racial lines.
Other categories of music have had the same thing happen over time. Rap had Grand Master Flash, Run DMC, and the Beastie Boys who all brought this new musical style to the mainstream in their own unique way. Country had Waylon Jennings, Hank Williams, Reeba and Garth Brooks, all of which brought their music to the attention of those who ordinarily weren't following country music. And Michael Jackson and Madonna both became pop music icons in the 80's, each with their unique musical style. But since then there have been plenty of talented artists, but none who has stood out as being an icon of American music.
So the question is, will we ever see that iconic artist arrive that blows us all away and gives us something that once we hear it we wonder how we ever lived without it, or have all the good ideas been discovered? As a lover of music, there are a lot of people who move me today. The problem I see is that the music industry is trying too hard to find "the next big one" that it's hard for a musician to break naturally, unexpectedly as The Doors did in the late 60's. The music today, most notably pop music, seems so forced and overproduced. There are many bands that are forced into the mainstream so fast that after one album they flicker away. There are others who spend much time as relative unknowns before finally hitting mainstream success, such as Kings of Leon, who after 4 albums and nearly 10 years have become one of the more unique groups in a while. And then you have a band like Pearl Jam, who broke out in the mid 90's and continue to make music, but in time have faded from the mainstream because they did not agree with the standard practices of the music industry, mainly concert ticket and album prices.
The cynic in me says music has become too specialized and too diluted with talent to ever give us that new iconic figure or group, yet the music lover in me hopes that I am wrong. Music is what lives in me, it is what gets my blood flowing. I see music as the timeline of my life, and I feel that music also marks the timeline of the world's life also. It can speak for a generation, and can heal a generation. So even if that new musical icon doesn't come along in my lifetime, I will enjoy all that is our there to listen to, and I will continue to be inspired...
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Open Letter to New Jersey Voters
This coming November, the people of New Jersey have a choice to make. We will be asked to vote for who will be the Governor of this state for the next four years. Now to many, this election is no big deal, it is not something they have ever done or think they will ever care about doing. To many the statement echoed most is "they are all the same". As sometimes that may be the case, this election is different. This election, action must be taken or else the slow decline of this state is sure to continue beyond repair.
If there is anyone who is happy with the way that the state of New Jersey has been run the last four years I would love to talk to them. If there is anyone living here who feels that the standard of life in the Garden State has improved over Jon Corzine's tenure I would love to pick their brain and find out how. As bad as things have been in the past, the last four years have brought this state to a new level, to a new low that we can not allow to get worse. Some say that Chris Christie, the Republican candidate running against Corzine brings more of the same, that he is as corrupt as the next person, that he isn't going to be able to make a difference. People are starting to say that they aren't going to vote at all because they don't like either candidate. But these thoughts are so flawed, and they are the kinds of actions (or lack thereof) that will allow this state to continue it's free fall past the fiscal point of no return. The idea that a proven failure is a better choice than a possible failure is ludicrous.
Jon Corzine ran for the office of Governor by campaigning that he was going to lower taxes and help the state of New Jersey get out of fiscal decline and debt because of his financial background and prowess. Instead, what the citizens of this state have gotten is a Governor who several years ago shut all state-run entities, including the casinos, down because he could not pass a fiscal budget through assembly. A Governor who tried to pass a piece of legislature that would hike the tolls on our major highways by nearly 600% over time, when in their inception the tolls were supposed to eventually go away. This Governor has been found to have colluded with the then head of the State Worker's Union, who was at the time also his girlfriend. He has also held back 2008 Property Tax Rebates to help fill the debt in the state budget, and already announced the same will be done to the 2009 rebates. The already ridiculously high alcohol tax has been raised this year, ans property taxes are already planned to be raised in 2010. All of this, while at the same time pandering to the state workers union and teacher's union, without which he would have almost no chance at re-election.
So comes this frightening thought of actually electing a Republican Governor, who during his term as State Attorney has been key in bringing to justice countless public officials on corruption charges. So much of this fear is based on the liberal feelings of most voters in this state. New Jersey is also heavily unionized, most notably the aforementioned teacher's and state worker's unions. And why this fear? It's based on the fact that the Republican party is historically not in favor of pandering to the wants and demands of these unions. But a large part of why the state is in such financial straits is because of the black hole which is union salaries and benefits. The usefulness of unions as a whole, which is a subject in it's own which I will not get into now, has long past us by. Yet for some reason they seem to be a key part of why the great state of New Jersey can not rescue itself.
The key factor in the race for Governor is who is best suited to lead this state in the right direction over the next four years. You can say what you want about one candidate being more corrupt than the other, how this one or that one panders to special interests or takes care of their friends while in office. The bottom line is we have seen what Jon Corzine has done for this state so far. We have seen that he has shied away from confronting his corrupt colleagues, while Chris Christie has brought many of them down. We have seen how Corzine's answer for fixing the hole our over sized government has caused in our budget is to raise taxes for the ever-shrinking middle class, while Christie's plans are to start by downsizing our state government and cut unnecessary spending.
So please, come November make sure that you go out to vote, because without a voice there can be no change. And also remember that you can not predict what someone will do once given the chance, but you can sure know what someone has done over the last four years. Wake up, look around, and see what has been done under Jon Corzine's control, and please do not vote for another four years of it, because chances are we will all be worse off for it in the end...
If there is anyone who is happy with the way that the state of New Jersey has been run the last four years I would love to talk to them. If there is anyone living here who feels that the standard of life in the Garden State has improved over Jon Corzine's tenure I would love to pick their brain and find out how. As bad as things have been in the past, the last four years have brought this state to a new level, to a new low that we can not allow to get worse. Some say that Chris Christie, the Republican candidate running against Corzine brings more of the same, that he is as corrupt as the next person, that he isn't going to be able to make a difference. People are starting to say that they aren't going to vote at all because they don't like either candidate. But these thoughts are so flawed, and they are the kinds of actions (or lack thereof) that will allow this state to continue it's free fall past the fiscal point of no return. The idea that a proven failure is a better choice than a possible failure is ludicrous.
Jon Corzine ran for the office of Governor by campaigning that he was going to lower taxes and help the state of New Jersey get out of fiscal decline and debt because of his financial background and prowess. Instead, what the citizens of this state have gotten is a Governor who several years ago shut all state-run entities, including the casinos, down because he could not pass a fiscal budget through assembly. A Governor who tried to pass a piece of legislature that would hike the tolls on our major highways by nearly 600% over time, when in their inception the tolls were supposed to eventually go away. This Governor has been found to have colluded with the then head of the State Worker's Union, who was at the time also his girlfriend. He has also held back 2008 Property Tax Rebates to help fill the debt in the state budget, and already announced the same will be done to the 2009 rebates. The already ridiculously high alcohol tax has been raised this year, ans property taxes are already planned to be raised in 2010. All of this, while at the same time pandering to the state workers union and teacher's union, without which he would have almost no chance at re-election.
So comes this frightening thought of actually electing a Republican Governor, who during his term as State Attorney has been key in bringing to justice countless public officials on corruption charges. So much of this fear is based on the liberal feelings of most voters in this state. New Jersey is also heavily unionized, most notably the aforementioned teacher's and state worker's unions. And why this fear? It's based on the fact that the Republican party is historically not in favor of pandering to the wants and demands of these unions. But a large part of why the state is in such financial straits is because of the black hole which is union salaries and benefits. The usefulness of unions as a whole, which is a subject in it's own which I will not get into now, has long past us by. Yet for some reason they seem to be a key part of why the great state of New Jersey can not rescue itself.
The key factor in the race for Governor is who is best suited to lead this state in the right direction over the next four years. You can say what you want about one candidate being more corrupt than the other, how this one or that one panders to special interests or takes care of their friends while in office. The bottom line is we have seen what Jon Corzine has done for this state so far. We have seen that he has shied away from confronting his corrupt colleagues, while Chris Christie has brought many of them down. We have seen how Corzine's answer for fixing the hole our over sized government has caused in our budget is to raise taxes for the ever-shrinking middle class, while Christie's plans are to start by downsizing our state government and cut unnecessary spending.
So please, come November make sure that you go out to vote, because without a voice there can be no change. And also remember that you can not predict what someone will do once given the chance, but you can sure know what someone has done over the last four years. Wake up, look around, and see what has been done under Jon Corzine's control, and please do not vote for another four years of it, because chances are we will all be worse off for it in the end...
Friday, August 28, 2009
A Call for an Honest Media
As I surf the channels on TV, going from news outlet to news outlet, I am troubled by what I see. It seems as though the political influences over the media are becoming more and more powerful, and at the same time more and more phony. The national media is beginning to show signs of why the majority of people are turning to internet outlets to get their news and insight. Now I am a registered Independent voter, partly because my beliefs fall on both sides of party lines and partly because I do not feel like supporting either group financially as one is just as corrupt as the other. But what I have started to see more and more recently is that the liberals in this country, especially the media, are seeing, if not only speaking, with blinders on.
As more and more people in this country are starting to get uneasy over the amounts of money being thrown away with issues they do not believe in and fears of a more costly health care system, I see a dangerous theme being played through the media. Yes they are reporting the unrest, but the stories are lined with innuendo that this is all orchestrated by the Republican party and that it is all a scare tactic. You also hear a loud sentiment that those causing this stir are only doing so because they want to see the Obama administration fail. These thoughts are totally preposterous! The fact is people are beginning to get worried because they see their jobs being lost and their income shrinking yet their expenditures increase. Taxes are going up and up with no end in sight, and every "improvement" and "bailout" the White House approves means more taxpayer money. Yet instead of reporting just the facts, the liberal media and hardcore Democrats try to mask these issues with ideas of racism and party bias.
I am not going to say that some of this is not true, because I will admit there are plenty of extreme right wingers who are racist and who will never support this President. But those people are few and far between anymore. For the most part, people in this country regardless of their political beliefs want what is best for this country and for themselves. We want job opportunities, money in our pockets and a government that is going to protect us and our interests. Regardless of who is in power in the White House, they are going to make good decisions and they are going to make bad decisions. Every President is going to have times where a large group might not agree with one or several of their policies. This is politics, this is democracy. God knows that people criticized George W. Bush for many things, most of them rightfully so. Yet when their is criticism towards Barack Obama the media and Democrats alike get on the defensive and cry foul and racism. This is not only unhealthy, but it is so plainly transparent. When people stand up and say they are tired of banks and car manufacturers getting handouts while the rest of us are squeezed even tighter, I don't feel like that is a racist or even a partisan complaint. The people of this country have legitimate reasons to be worried about their own financial situation, and the media needs to report that fairly and accurately.
The bottom line is all who serve our country need to be held to the same standards. Because George Bush was considered such a terrible leader does not give this President a free pass. When your policies and goals have our estimated national debt four years from now to be double what you inherited, that says something and it needs to be reported fairly and accurately. When you signed a "stimulus package" that totalled almost $800 billion, and it's main focus besides special interests is funding road and infrastructure projects, there are a lot of questions that need to be raised. The vast majority of people have seen and will see no financial benefits from this package. Yet it has come and gone and the mainstream media did little to question how this got passed knowing it is not going towards the everyday person's fight for a better life. In addition, you did not hear an outcry from the media outlets about how so many billions of dollars were paid out to GM with next to no guidelines, and in turn they ended up filing for bankruptcy and now the government has ownership in the company with US the taxpayers as the ones at risk to lose money from it. And again, it does not matter what side of party lines you fall on, the fact is the story needs to be explored from both sides, not just one while the other is left blank.
So next time you watch CNN or MSNBC make sure you then log on to your computer, type in the topics you saw and read some of the articles that pop up on the web. You will be surprised what you find might be different from what the TV told you, or it might be the same only with a more in depth detail. And whichever side you fall on, no matter your beliefs, do yourself and this country a favor and be a well informed voter. Just because you voted for Barack Obama does not mean that every choice he makes is the right one for the country, just ask all the people who voted for George W. Bush...
As more and more people in this country are starting to get uneasy over the amounts of money being thrown away with issues they do not believe in and fears of a more costly health care system, I see a dangerous theme being played through the media. Yes they are reporting the unrest, but the stories are lined with innuendo that this is all orchestrated by the Republican party and that it is all a scare tactic. You also hear a loud sentiment that those causing this stir are only doing so because they want to see the Obama administration fail. These thoughts are totally preposterous! The fact is people are beginning to get worried because they see their jobs being lost and their income shrinking yet their expenditures increase. Taxes are going up and up with no end in sight, and every "improvement" and "bailout" the White House approves means more taxpayer money. Yet instead of reporting just the facts, the liberal media and hardcore Democrats try to mask these issues with ideas of racism and party bias.
I am not going to say that some of this is not true, because I will admit there are plenty of extreme right wingers who are racist and who will never support this President. But those people are few and far between anymore. For the most part, people in this country regardless of their political beliefs want what is best for this country and for themselves. We want job opportunities, money in our pockets and a government that is going to protect us and our interests. Regardless of who is in power in the White House, they are going to make good decisions and they are going to make bad decisions. Every President is going to have times where a large group might not agree with one or several of their policies. This is politics, this is democracy. God knows that people criticized George W. Bush for many things, most of them rightfully so. Yet when their is criticism towards Barack Obama the media and Democrats alike get on the defensive and cry foul and racism. This is not only unhealthy, but it is so plainly transparent. When people stand up and say they are tired of banks and car manufacturers getting handouts while the rest of us are squeezed even tighter, I don't feel like that is a racist or even a partisan complaint. The people of this country have legitimate reasons to be worried about their own financial situation, and the media needs to report that fairly and accurately.
The bottom line is all who serve our country need to be held to the same standards. Because George Bush was considered such a terrible leader does not give this President a free pass. When your policies and goals have our estimated national debt four years from now to be double what you inherited, that says something and it needs to be reported fairly and accurately. When you signed a "stimulus package" that totalled almost $800 billion, and it's main focus besides special interests is funding road and infrastructure projects, there are a lot of questions that need to be raised. The vast majority of people have seen and will see no financial benefits from this package. Yet it has come and gone and the mainstream media did little to question how this got passed knowing it is not going towards the everyday person's fight for a better life. In addition, you did not hear an outcry from the media outlets about how so many billions of dollars were paid out to GM with next to no guidelines, and in turn they ended up filing for bankruptcy and now the government has ownership in the company with US the taxpayers as the ones at risk to lose money from it. And again, it does not matter what side of party lines you fall on, the fact is the story needs to be explored from both sides, not just one while the other is left blank.
So next time you watch CNN or MSNBC make sure you then log on to your computer, type in the topics you saw and read some of the articles that pop up on the web. You will be surprised what you find might be different from what the TV told you, or it might be the same only with a more in depth detail. And whichever side you fall on, no matter your beliefs, do yourself and this country a favor and be a well informed voter. Just because you voted for Barack Obama does not mean that every choice he makes is the right one for the country, just ask all the people who voted for George W. Bush...
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Let Kids be Kids
Okay, so is it just me or are kids being raised these days with absolutely no skills that are going to help them become well adjusted adults in the future? I see it and hear it every day. It's like we are so afraid to upset our children or have them suffer or want for everything, that they are growing up not knowing the facts of life and hard realities. My fear is that these children that are growing up today have no idea how to get along in the real world, and they are the ones who will be taking care of my generation when we get older. We are raising a generation of children who are coddled so much and we shield them from disappointment. I have my suspicions on why we are doing this, but I am also afraid of the direction it is leading us in.
I saw a disturbing segment several months ago on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumble. In the piece, they highlighted how schools across the country are starting to ban activities such as Tag and Dodgeball. These are games that go back decades; who doesn't recall playing these at school and/or summer camp when they were younger? Well it seems as though certain educators feel that these games are a danger to our children, both physically and mentally. There is the danger of a child tripping and falling during a violent game of Tag, or a possible welt from a well directed ball during a heated round of Dodgeball. But besides the physical hard, we are told of the mental scars a game such as Dodgeball can inflict on our precious little angels. The fear is that a child is being taught that if you get hit with the ball you are out and you lose. The fear of intimidation. All these things that I must have somehow blocked out of my conscious mind, because I took out of it that Dodgeball was a fun activity that promoted competition, physical movement and coordination. I must have been one of the lucky ones that escaped my years of Dodgeball hell without any mental scars.
Also in the segment on HBO was a Phys Ed teacher who instead of having his students jump rope, he had they go through the motions without actually using a rope. The whole point was that they can skip the imaginary rope as little or as much as they desire without having the failure of tripping on the rope. I suppose somewhere hiding among us are people just stewing inside because of the shame and disappointment of getting their feet caught up in a jump rope when they were children, right? Once again I was one of the lucky few who escaped only taking out of if hand to eye coordination and the art of exercise. In addition, there was a woman who I wanted to jump through the TV screen and strangle. She was a principle at a school in Arizona who declared her elementary school a "no touch zone". In other words, no child is allowed to touch another student AT ALL. This means hugging, high fives, whatever. They play "shadow tag", where instead of tagging each other they tag one's shadow, and give each other "air five". And the way the woman smirked and giggled when asked about the insanity of these rules, it just made me sick to my stomach.
We are creating an entire generation of sissies...children who experience no failure and do not know what it feels like to have their feelings hurt. Many schools around the country now forbid teachers from grading papers with red ink. The reason for this is because the color red supposedly relays anger and is intimidating. So God forbid children get upset when they read the corrections on a paper they turn in. Supposedly we all grew up bitter and shameful because whenever we got a paper back with red corrections on it we shuttered and hid in shame. This also goes along with many youth athletics in where the games or competitions end without a winner or a loser. And in the rare cases where they do declare a victor, the losers are also given an award or are said to have come in "second" as opposed to being labeled the loser. Somehow we have lost our competitive edge in this country. No wonder other countries around the world have closed the gap, if not taken over the lead when it comes to sports and industry. We are so afraid of hurting our kids feelings that we are holding them back.
My suspicion as to why we are doing this to our children today is because of the old adage "give your children a better life than you had". Now I am all for that simple desire, to try and give your kids every opportunity you didn't have, to instill in them the wisdom you gained from your experiences both positive and negative. But are people, especially educators and lawmakers not going overboard in order to shield our youth from any possible negative experience? After all, has anyone not heard the adage "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or "learn from your mistakes"? We are bastardizing life so as to take away any chance at our kids failing, so that when they are in the real world and have to deal with failure they do not know what to do. I am all for giving our children a better life, but we can not take away the possibilities of the disappointments we endured in our youth from them. Kids need to live life, they need to be kids, they need to get bumps and bruises and get their feelings hurt, so that they can learn how to deal with it. Because God knows that as adults they will have plenty of disappointments and hurt, and if they don't know how to cope they will end up the ones shooting up a school or hurting themselves because they have no other outlet.
So please, let's not continue on this ridiculous path we are going down when it comes to the sheltering of our children. Yes, we all cherish our kids and want what's best for them. But by holding them back and not teaching them how to deal with losing and disappointment and shame, we are raising a generation who knows not emotion. We do not want a nation of robots, so please allow our kids to be kids...
I saw a disturbing segment several months ago on HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumble. In the piece, they highlighted how schools across the country are starting to ban activities such as Tag and Dodgeball. These are games that go back decades; who doesn't recall playing these at school and/or summer camp when they were younger? Well it seems as though certain educators feel that these games are a danger to our children, both physically and mentally. There is the danger of a child tripping and falling during a violent game of Tag, or a possible welt from a well directed ball during a heated round of Dodgeball. But besides the physical hard, we are told of the mental scars a game such as Dodgeball can inflict on our precious little angels. The fear is that a child is being taught that if you get hit with the ball you are out and you lose. The fear of intimidation. All these things that I must have somehow blocked out of my conscious mind, because I took out of it that Dodgeball was a fun activity that promoted competition, physical movement and coordination. I must have been one of the lucky ones that escaped my years of Dodgeball hell without any mental scars.
Also in the segment on HBO was a Phys Ed teacher who instead of having his students jump rope, he had they go through the motions without actually using a rope. The whole point was that they can skip the imaginary rope as little or as much as they desire without having the failure of tripping on the rope. I suppose somewhere hiding among us are people just stewing inside because of the shame and disappointment of getting their feet caught up in a jump rope when they were children, right? Once again I was one of the lucky few who escaped only taking out of if hand to eye coordination and the art of exercise. In addition, there was a woman who I wanted to jump through the TV screen and strangle. She was a principle at a school in Arizona who declared her elementary school a "no touch zone". In other words, no child is allowed to touch another student AT ALL. This means hugging, high fives, whatever. They play "shadow tag", where instead of tagging each other they tag one's shadow, and give each other "air five". And the way the woman smirked and giggled when asked about the insanity of these rules, it just made me sick to my stomach.
We are creating an entire generation of sissies...children who experience no failure and do not know what it feels like to have their feelings hurt. Many schools around the country now forbid teachers from grading papers with red ink. The reason for this is because the color red supposedly relays anger and is intimidating. So God forbid children get upset when they read the corrections on a paper they turn in. Supposedly we all grew up bitter and shameful because whenever we got a paper back with red corrections on it we shuttered and hid in shame. This also goes along with many youth athletics in where the games or competitions end without a winner or a loser. And in the rare cases where they do declare a victor, the losers are also given an award or are said to have come in "second" as opposed to being labeled the loser. Somehow we have lost our competitive edge in this country. No wonder other countries around the world have closed the gap, if not taken over the lead when it comes to sports and industry. We are so afraid of hurting our kids feelings that we are holding them back.
My suspicion as to why we are doing this to our children today is because of the old adage "give your children a better life than you had". Now I am all for that simple desire, to try and give your kids every opportunity you didn't have, to instill in them the wisdom you gained from your experiences both positive and negative. But are people, especially educators and lawmakers not going overboard in order to shield our youth from any possible negative experience? After all, has anyone not heard the adage "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or "learn from your mistakes"? We are bastardizing life so as to take away any chance at our kids failing, so that when they are in the real world and have to deal with failure they do not know what to do. I am all for giving our children a better life, but we can not take away the possibilities of the disappointments we endured in our youth from them. Kids need to live life, they need to be kids, they need to get bumps and bruises and get their feelings hurt, so that they can learn how to deal with it. Because God knows that as adults they will have plenty of disappointments and hurt, and if they don't know how to cope they will end up the ones shooting up a school or hurting themselves because they have no other outlet.
So please, let's not continue on this ridiculous path we are going down when it comes to the sheltering of our children. Yes, we all cherish our kids and want what's best for them. But by holding them back and not teaching them how to deal with losing and disappointment and shame, we are raising a generation who knows not emotion. We do not want a nation of robots, so please allow our kids to be kids...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)