Positive Reinforcement

This year, 2009, was to the year I stayed positive. Specifically, I meant to not criticize others. That is proving very difficult. Just look at some of the posts on this blog.

The positive resolution is one I've made before. I truly want to be known as someone who speaks well of people, without being critical or denigrating, but the natural tendency is to speak evil and not good (at least mine is, you can speak for yourself).

The thing is, I really don't think of myself as being overly negative, but I know that is relative. I, and we all, know folks who complain, kvetch, and bellyache about every detail of their lives, and who can stand these people? It's a reaction against these fault finders I think that makes me want to ride the pendulum to the other side (man, that sounds negative).

(OK, I'm back. I played Old Maid with my kids and then watched The Flowers of St. Francis.)

You know who stayed positive? That St. Francis of Assisi. Wasn't it St. Francis that said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words."? What is the Gospel but the Good News? Perhaps that's what I strive for, to tell the good news with my actions rather than the bad with my words.

One last thing. I really don't know what to expect from being positive. Will I be happier? More likable? Or will people find me strange? Pious? Oh well, I just think it's something I should do.

OK, here's to a positive rest of 2009! Salute!

Cut the Fat/Build a Monorail

This is what I'm talking about. The President said he is going to direct his cabinet to find wasteful programs and cut them. Bravo! I applaud that effort. I'll give them a head start-federal funding of abortions (I should really get off that single cause lest I be labeled a right wing extremist terrorist).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124002247015831371.html#mod=whats_news_free?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1

The President, who wants to cut wasteful spending, announced he wants to spend $13 billion on high speed trains. I'm of the opinion that an industry that is highly subsidized by the government today should not be given $13 billion. Public transportation, as much as I've appreciated it when I've had the need for it, doesn't support itself at all.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123989461947625407.html

I know there are probably dozens of subsidized programs that I've benefited from through the years, but this is a matter of principle for me. If a service cannot be supported by the free market, should I have to support it with my tax dollars? Should anyone? If something is truly needed, won't the free market find a way to provide it? I think so, assuming the government stays out of the way, or merely protects the rights of free people to make their own choices.

This notion of letting the free market work itself out is probably a little simplistic, but the alternative is a bunch of elected officials pretending they know best how to spend my money. They don't.

Tax

It's not that I don't think we should pay taxes, it's just that I doubt they are being spent wisely once collected. Well, for instance, once elected, our President, who would like to work together to reduce the number of abortions, immediately authorized the federal funding of abortions in foreign countries. That is probably the last thing I'd ever spend money on. I'd sooner pay to study the mating habits of snail darters, or some other useless endeavor.

Please don't tell me we're creating jobs. Give us our money back, and we'll spend it on the things that matter to us, creating real jobs that provide real services.

It's doubtful we'll ever end poverty, especially by taking money from those who have it and dolling it out to those who don't. Didn't Jesus Christ say we'd always have the poor among us? We might as well let government get out of the way so that those who have the ambition have a chance to become upwardly mobile. Isn't that what's great about America? We all have the same opportunity, or at least we don't have to worry about the government getting in our way?

Roads, military, space exploration. That's what I want my government to spend my money on. I'll study the mating habits of various life forms myself, for free.

Be Healed!

Our president authorized federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (escr) today. Oh, that is just wonderful! I'll be looking for the cure to my dermatillamania next week.

Think of it! Escr holds so much promise that even though it's been legal for private companies to conduct it, they have demurred, saying, "No, it's too important for us to do, we'll wait for the gov't to fund it, so they can have the glory"! That's a direct quote (more or less).

It must suck to have a serious disease. I am thankful I do not have that cross to bear. But if I did, would I advocate destroying life to potentially cure my disease? God I hope not. It's impossible for me to really know what it's like to live with a debilitating disease, so I can't stand in judgement, but somewhere along the way I have to accept that I'm going to die of my last ailment.

So we have to cut our losses somewhere. Sure, maybe experimenting on 10 year old children would lead to all kinds of advances and cures and life would be wonderful, no disease, no pain, no suffering, yet, somehow, I still think we'd end up dying. Where would it leave us? Living a few more extra years here, which is a minute fraction of eternity, after hurting, injuring, and destroying something else.

Is escr necessary? Aren't they making advances with adult stem cells? Why aren't the big evil pharmaceutical companies studying embryonic stem cells if there is so much potential (oh, wait, they want us to be sick so we have to buy drugs). Where does life begin? I'm not sure, but I'm not going to take any chances.

Oh, and yes, I do believe people ought to think about what they're doing before a bunch of eggs are fertilized without being spoken for.

New Pants

They say there's no problem common to the human condition that can't be solved by a well- placed, well-timed, high explosive. Well, I think there is no problem that a man will face that can't be alleviated by a well-pressed, well-fitted, comfortable pair of slacks.

A man can do nothing better for himself than find a pair of slacks that are truly magnificent. Just to be clear, jeans are not what we have in mind. There's a reason they won't let you wear dungarees to the office, and there's a reason the ladies are always kvetching, "I wish we could wear jeans, at least on Fridays." No sir, denim, as useful as it may be, especially when it comes to sailing ships, does not make a fine pair of slacks.

Good things happen when you wear slacks. I spent most of my high school years wearing jeans and cannot think of even one really great thing that happened, save one. I met my wife in high school, but the night I met her, I was wearing slacks! I got married in slacks. Any job I ever really wanted I got while wearing slacks. The best shrimp alfredo I ever ate I enjoyed while wearing a pair of gray, flannel, flat front slacks.

Think about it, the men you admire the most always wear slacks: James Bond, Abraham Lincoln, William Wallace. OK, Wallace may not have worn slacks, but he didn't wear jeans either. They're not 'dress-up pants' or 'church pants,' they're just slacks, but they will change your world.

If you needed any more proof that slacks are essential it's that a good pair is so hard to find. More on that in another entry. Also, though the word slacks denotes a single unit of clothing, you treat it like it's plural, both with an 's' at the end and using the second-person plural. (Sure, the other pieces of clothing you wear below the waist to cover your legs, even half way down, follows that rule, but still.)

Well, if you'll excuse me, I need to go iron some slacks. This is not a domestic chore you can trust with your wife. As skilled as she might be with your shirts, you'd better let mamasan do your slacks, or else do them yourself.

Prison Break

Despite the title, I've never seen the show Prison Break, not even one episode. I'm sure it's a great show, though.

Have you ever seen a movie that begins with the protagonist, after what you assume has been years behind bars, walking out of prison? I'm thinking The Getaway here, or any other number of movies. Whenever I see that scene I think, "Man, what a great feeling that must be!" Can you imagine? Getting out of prison, and having the rest of your day free! There is not much that can beat that, I bet.

We spend a lot of time and energy, and money, trying to have a truly great experience. I went on a vacation a few months ago that I thought would be pretty great, and honestly it was, but I still don't think it would compare to that day you get out of prison. Maybe it's that whole freedom thing. Being locked up and getting sprung. I think that scene in The Shawshank Redemption, though he isn't released per se, may demonstrate it well. Once he craws out of the sewer and stands there, arms outstretched in the rain, there he knows freedom once again.

There is one experience that may rival getting out of prison. Being convicted, but getting some kind of reprieve and not having to go. Now that would be amazing. I can't imagine the relief a person would feel.

So, the only way I know to experience all this would be to get convicted and sent up the river. I'm just not sure what crime to commit. I may need some legal advice.

Coming Attractions

I hope to blog about the following topics in the near future:

Getting out of prison

Look for these new and exciting posts, all coming soon to this blog.

________