It's been a while since I posted, mostly because I've been swamped the last three weeks. I had my kids most of that time, and with the kids, regular day work, teaching at night, preparing for the dance show we had two weeks back, and my well-deserved vacation last week, it's been tough to find time to put a post together.
But now I'm back, and it's time for some random thoughts.
1. Oklahoma truly is my home. Every time I go back, everything seems right in the world. Even at the end of December, when I went back and got a questionable traffic ticket, I was still much happier there. (The ticket mostly just represented the ridiculous piling-on I was getting with stuff in my life, and was nothing against my home state.) I just got back Sunday from 6 full days there, and it was wonderful. I can live anywhere, but I'll never be happier than when I'm living in Oklahoma.
2. The Supreme Court handed down a decision today regarding individual property rights, and we've all lost as a result of it. Today's decision gives cities and counties greater rights to raze homes to provide room for development. This is terrible, as it opens more inroads for corruption within the planning and development departments, which are usually already terribly riddled with corruption and politics from big developers. On the other hand, it also opens the way for cities that are more radical in their thinking regarding conservation to trample property owners' rights further in the name of saving some obscure species of water beetle, or seizing property with minimal compensation to the property owner at some later date for other equally ridiculous reasons. These latter cases already happen regularly in Oregon and Washington state. The point of owning something is that it is YOURS, and the government should not be able to simply willy-nilly take it away from you without a VERY compelling argument and without full market compensation.
3. How about that 11-year-old Scout in Utah surviving 4 days in the wilderness, totally on his own? Isn't it interesting how often young children get into bad situations all alone, yet seem to turn up not too much the worse for wear? I can remember a story from last year of a 3-year-old whose mother died in the house. The mother was single, and there was no one to check on her for a few days, so the child was not discovered for a while. Yet after two days, once people arrived to check on what was happening there, they found the child just fine, slightly underfed but overall in good shape for two days on her own. I read a book on how and why some people get into bad situations and survive when others in the same situation die. The argument for young children's survival was that they have not "unlearned" their natural instincts, as most adult humans have. Basically, when kids in those types of situations get thirsty, they find any water they can and drink it. When they get hungry, they find any food they can and eat it. They don't try to plan out what they're doing or think of the best way to do things or let their past experience or "training" get in the way; they just act on instinct, like any animal. For some reason, that seems to work pretty well for them.
4. In other news, the teenage girl is still missing in Aruba. I doubt they'll find her alive, unfortunately. It just goes to show you that you have to always be on your guard when you leave the country, no matter where you are going or how "friendly" or benign it might seem. There is no better, generally safer country in the world than the United States, and it's important that everyone understand that the rest of the world is a very hard place.
5. How about that completely lame and boring U.S. Open? Yet another year where the USGA overworked the course to make it difficult and supposedly fair (but not really); yet another year where a once-great major golf tournament turned itself into a laughingstock by having another lucky no-name golfer win it. I mean, really...who IS Michael Campbell? "What about Retief Goosen?" many ask me, "he's a really good golfer." Yes, he's pretty good, but can he win anything other than the U.S. Open? I honestly don't remember the last tournament he won on the PGA Tour that wasn't the U.S. Open. His game is uniquely suited for the way the USGA sets up the courses for the Open. He plays golf like you or I or any average amateur try to play. He hits the center of the fairway, the center of the green, and makes two putts. It's boring, grinding, conservative golf: just the kind you need to play to win the U.S. Open these days, but not really sufficient in any way to win any other tournaments (and certainly not any other major tournaments like the Masters, PGA, or even the British Open). And this year, even he self-destructed down the stretch. No, the last few winners have been unknown guys who got lucky, because that's all the USGA's course setup leaves for the players, PURE LUCK. There's no reward for great shots, and there's certainly no margin for error on very good or nearly great shots. Any shot other than the absolute perfect one is a missed fairway or green. That's definitely NOT what a major golf championship is supposed to be about. If I have to watch the same garbage next year, I'm going to quit watching the U.S. Open and just play golf myself those days instead. At least that way I'd get some actual enjoyment from watching someone (namely, me) get beaten up by a golf course.
6. Sigh...another year, another boring NBA Finals. At least this one is going to seven games, but yet again, I have no desire to watch overpaid crybabies who can't regularly demonstrate the fundamentals and play the game like it's hockey. I have two suggestions for the NBA. First, it's a non-contact sport if it's called the way the rules are written. The officiating would be a LOT more consistent, and the lack of contact would really open the game up much more for some great passing and shooting. Picks would still be permitted, but this hands-all-0ver-the-guy-all-the-time garbage should stop, and soon. Second, if you can't do the first suggestion, just put in boards, let the players wear pads and helmets, allow goaltending, and just turn it into no-stick floor hockey. I might actually go back to watching basketball if it came to that.
7. Can Democrats do anything but obstruct? They holler and scream about the Republicans using the "nuclear option" to kill the ability of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominees. Last time I heard, though, the United States is a democracy, where the majority is supposed to rule. (I suppose this does fit well with the Democrats' ideas of government, where the minorities rule--and overrule--everything the majority asks for.) If you don't have a majority, don't use ridiculous obstructionary tactics to block the will of the majority. Try actually improving your party platform so that it's palatable to the majority of voters, and take back your majority in Congress. That should really solve your problem.
Well, I think that's enough for today. Sorry for the long layoff. Now that my busy early summer time is over, I should have a little more time to post regularly, and I'm going to try to go back to posting at least twice a week. (Well, here's hoping, anyway.) Thanks for reading along.
No comments:
Post a Comment