I am a chumbolone. I freely admit that.
(What, you may ask, is a "chumbolone"? John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has brought this word to the attention of the uninformed masses in a number of his columns. Chumbolone is a word used by some members of Chicago's Legitimate Businessman's Association to describe an idiot or fool.)
As I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, I am a chumbolone. Now I don't walk around with my knuckles dragging along the ground while breathing through my mouth, but truth be told I am quite often not the smartest guy in the room, sometimes not even in a roomful of chumbolones. Part of my dimness can be attributed to the fact that I spent some time in the Chicago Public School system in the 1980s, not a great time for public schooling anywhere, but particularly not in Chicago. The school system, and the city itself, were a bit run down in that time between the Daleys, Richard I and his son, Richard II.
I feel no shame due to my knuckleheadedness, and this is not merely because people in this day and age no longer feel shame. I feel no shame because I am not alone. We are, as a nation, not all that bright, at least when it comes to science. Sure, we've made a success out of not one, but two, "Nutty Professor" movies, one with Jerry Lewis, one with Eddie Murphy. But that doesn't mean we as a people actually understand the science behind the transformation of Professor Kelp into Buddy Love. What's that? It was fictional, not a documentary? As a I was saying...
Students in the United States rank behind those of many other industrialized nations in math and science. We are behind Finland for crying out loud. The schools of Finland are filled mostly with reindeer, yet Americans trail the Finns in science scores on international tests. That's just great.
I must say, though, that I can sympathize with these ignorant children. I was one of them. I didn't know squat about science when I was in school and I still don't. But let me tell you why this bothers me so much right now.
I read the other day that Harvard scientists are getting closer to being able to create synthetic life. That's a big deal, I would think. Or at least it should be. It was on page two of one the newspapers I read on Sundays. Almost creating synthetic life. On page two. not the front page. Didn't see anything on any TV news program about it. Probably not the kind of story that translates well to television news, not like a murder or a car crash.
But really now, this should be a big deal. This scientific advance could pave the way for wonderful new drugs that help cure so far incurable diseases. Or it could lead to an uncontrollable disaster that rips apart the very fabric that holds humanity together. Just check out "I Am Legend" with Will Smith to see what happens when fantastic new medical breakthroughs turn out not to be so much with the fantastic but more like the end of life as we know it.
Anyway...I wonder how many people read this article about the discovery. I think people usually bypass this sort of stuff. I myself frequently overlook articles about science. It just seems to too difficult a subject to broach over my morning cereal. While I did stop and read this story about synthetic life, I have to admit it took me a couple of tries before I made it all the way through. For whatever reason, whenever I read about something like this, I get a little sleepy, no matter how important the subject may be.
Why is that? I mean, other than I'm a chumbolone. Did we not get taught science in a manner that made it interesting? That's one possibility. I know I didn't. The biology teacher I had my freshman year of high school appeared to be drained of life, and her teaching style reflected that. Maybe I was too distracted by sex, drugs and rock and roll. Not that I was having any sex, nor was I into drugs yet. But I was definitely preoccupied with rock and roll. (Still am.) Where was I now...?
Oh yeah. Almost being able to create artificial life and why science bores the average American. I'm not sure why we're bored with science. Maybe it's because we Americans historically have an aversion to them egghead types. I can tell you right here and now though we need to get over that. We as a people are getting left behind educationally by other countries. I for one have no desire to be ruled someday by an well educated Finnish reindeer.
What we need in this time of change is a new way of teaching the sciences. Like what, you ask? Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps we need an exciting cable personality, like a Bill O'Reilly-type, yelling at us about the wonders of new scientific advances instead of the dangers of liberalism. Better yet, how about a cable science network manned and womanned by say, Halle Berry and Salma Hayek, and whoever People magazine says is the sexiest man of the year. Sex sells. We'll pay attention then. Otherwise, get ready to bow down to your reindeer overlords.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Cramer vs. non-Cramer
Video from YouTube of Jim Cramer on the "Today" show: free. Sight of Cramer's face going from an arrogant/crazed smile to an angry grimace as a "comedian" makes him look foolish: priceless.
By the way Jimmy, I don't there's any way you could make Warren Buffett look like an idiot. There's a reason he's a billionaire and you're not.
By the way Jimmy, I don't there's any way you could make Warren Buffett look like an idiot. There's a reason he's a billionaire and you're not.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
A Newt is like a salamander, right?
What kind of bizzaro world are we living in when someone I once thought of as evil (I passed him by on the sidewalk once - he smelled of sulphur - true story) is the voice of reason in the Republican party.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Some Words of Advice to Michael Steele
First of all, stop trying to be cool, or hip, or dope, or whatever the kids call it when you try to act like you're all that. Because you are not any of those things. You are a Republican. Act like one.
Secondly, I saw you attempt to converse with Chuck D the other night. If you're going to speak with anyone via a media format that could potentially be viewed by millions, do your homework. Don't assume that just because the person you're speaking with is a rap music icon, and an African-American, that he is from "the projects," as you put it. While you were speaking, Chuck was giving you the stink-eye, and with good reason. As Chuck told you, he is from Long Island, not from the projects. Mr. Steele, Chuck D made you look stupid. Because you were.
Lastly, here's the the most important thing. Two things actually: 1. Grow a set and stop apologizing to Rush Limbaugh. 2. Repudiate Limbaugh as the vile hate monger that he is.
The No Apologies part should be easy. Just stop doing it, and tell every member of Congress to not apologize either if they are critical of Limbaugh. It's a free country, they should have the right to be critical of anyone they choose.
The Repudiation thing will be a little trickier, but it is a must. America is a different country than it was even a year ago. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency proved that. We are a nation tired of political rancor, and we yearn for political leadership, and we yearn for something, anything, positive. Just saying no to everything the president wants, and being divisive is not what the American electorate wants.
We are now, I think, more than ever a nation of moderates. We no longer care so much, if we ever did, about ideology as we do about effectiveness. We want results. The nation at large is past the whole notion of only conservatives can be right, or only liberals can be right. We don't care so much about the size of government, or whether it's red or blue, as long as the government is effective and efficient.
Mostly, we are past wanting to hear the kind of negativity that Rush Limbaugh spews out on a daily basis. Wanting the president to fail to satisfy one's political needs and beliefs is not what the normal, average, every day American wants. The average American wants the president to succeed, because if he succeeds, we all do. I didn't vote for Obama, I don't care for him too much, but I want him to succeed. At the very least, I want some of his ideas, like supporting alternative energy sources and rebuilding the nation's fraying infrastructure to succeed. It's what's good for America.
Limbaugh may very well motivate the conservative base like no other person can. So what. That base is not big enough on it's own to get a Republican in the White House in 2012, and Rush is not the kind of guy who will win over moderates, independents, and swing voters, and you need voters from each one of these groups to win the presidency. He is a polarizer, not a uniter. Until you, Mr. Steele, and all Republican politicians understand this, you will be out of power. Remember, if Limbaugh's listeners actually translated to votes, John McCain would not have won a primary, nor would he have been the Republican presidential candidate.
Until Republicans thoroughly and unanimously denounce the hateful Limbaugh, the party of Lincoln will be as dead as he is.
Secondly, I saw you attempt to converse with Chuck D the other night. If you're going to speak with anyone via a media format that could potentially be viewed by millions, do your homework. Don't assume that just because the person you're speaking with is a rap music icon, and an African-American, that he is from "the projects," as you put it. While you were speaking, Chuck was giving you the stink-eye, and with good reason. As Chuck told you, he is from Long Island, not from the projects. Mr. Steele, Chuck D made you look stupid. Because you were.
Lastly, here's the the most important thing. Two things actually: 1. Grow a set and stop apologizing to Rush Limbaugh. 2. Repudiate Limbaugh as the vile hate monger that he is.
The No Apologies part should be easy. Just stop doing it, and tell every member of Congress to not apologize either if they are critical of Limbaugh. It's a free country, they should have the right to be critical of anyone they choose.
The Repudiation thing will be a little trickier, but it is a must. America is a different country than it was even a year ago. The election of Barack Obama to the presidency proved that. We are a nation tired of political rancor, and we yearn for political leadership, and we yearn for something, anything, positive. Just saying no to everything the president wants, and being divisive is not what the American electorate wants.
We are now, I think, more than ever a nation of moderates. We no longer care so much, if we ever did, about ideology as we do about effectiveness. We want results. The nation at large is past the whole notion of only conservatives can be right, or only liberals can be right. We don't care so much about the size of government, or whether it's red or blue, as long as the government is effective and efficient.
Mostly, we are past wanting to hear the kind of negativity that Rush Limbaugh spews out on a daily basis. Wanting the president to fail to satisfy one's political needs and beliefs is not what the normal, average, every day American wants. The average American wants the president to succeed, because if he succeeds, we all do. I didn't vote for Obama, I don't care for him too much, but I want him to succeed. At the very least, I want some of his ideas, like supporting alternative energy sources and rebuilding the nation's fraying infrastructure to succeed. It's what's good for America.
Limbaugh may very well motivate the conservative base like no other person can. So what. That base is not big enough on it's own to get a Republican in the White House in 2012, and Rush is not the kind of guy who will win over moderates, independents, and swing voters, and you need voters from each one of these groups to win the presidency. He is a polarizer, not a uniter. Until you, Mr. Steele, and all Republican politicians understand this, you will be out of power. Remember, if Limbaugh's listeners actually translated to votes, John McCain would not have won a primary, nor would he have been the Republican presidential candidate.
Until Republicans thoroughly and unanimously denounce the hateful Limbaugh, the party of Lincoln will be as dead as he is.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Paul Harvey 1918-2009
"Hello Americans, this is Paul Harvey. Stand by for news."
For many years, Paul Harvey was the voice of America. And why wouldn't he be? He embodied many of the good things of our country, the kind of characteristics the people that made the United States such a great success also had, be they well-known personages, or the unknown masses who labor every day without much ado.
Paul Harvey was industrious beyond belief. Well into his late 80s he was waking up every day at 3:30 in the morning to get to work by 5:30. Many thought him to be a conservative, but I found him neither particularly conservative nor overly liberal. I think he understood that ideologies weren't as important as how people behaved, whether they did right or not. He was, as much of America is, middle of the road. To him, there was right and wrong, and it was always better to do right. He held the values that are called "middle-American," the kind of belief system that held that what happens with and to your country is incredibly important, but God and family are even more important.
I had heard of Paul Harvey for as long as I could remember, but I didn't start listening to him until the late 1980s. I had a job where I drove around in a car all day, thereby affording me much time to tune in to the radio. He came on WGN every day at noon. I would listen to Harvey give his take on the day's news and then listen to the farm report, even though I knew less than nothing about agriculture and had absolutely no ties to the farming world, other than enjoying the end results of the farmers' efforts.
The farm report went by the wayside eventually, as did my job driving around all day, but Paul Harvey remained on the radio during the noon hour, and I always listened when I could. He was on less and less frequently the last year or so, a year of great loss for him as his beloved wife, "Angel," died last spring. But whenever he was on, he was still a joy to listen to.
Paul Harvey's voice itself was the voice of the Great Plains, coming as he did from Oklahoma. It was the voice of the American Century, a strong, determined voice, but one filled with kindness and warmth, a voice in which you heard hard won confidence and genuine humility.
Paul Harvey was something we may not hear in radio again, the airwaves being filled now with voices of negativity. Paul Harvey would never have wished failure on an US President, no matter how much he disagreed with him. When Harvey took a position opposite to the Commander-in-Chief, he did it respectfully and with compassion, as when commented directly to Richard Nixon one day on the air about the Viet Nam War: "Mr. President, I love you, but you're wrong." So many today, on the radio and off, don't know what love and respect are.
As were the times in which he lived, from the Roaring Twenties through World War II through 9-11 through to just the other day, Paul Harvey was unique. We may never, unfortunately, see, or hear, his like again.
For many years, Paul Harvey was the voice of America. And why wouldn't he be? He embodied many of the good things of our country, the kind of characteristics the people that made the United States such a great success also had, be they well-known personages, or the unknown masses who labor every day without much ado.
Paul Harvey was industrious beyond belief. Well into his late 80s he was waking up every day at 3:30 in the morning to get to work by 5:30. Many thought him to be a conservative, but I found him neither particularly conservative nor overly liberal. I think he understood that ideologies weren't as important as how people behaved, whether they did right or not. He was, as much of America is, middle of the road. To him, there was right and wrong, and it was always better to do right. He held the values that are called "middle-American," the kind of belief system that held that what happens with and to your country is incredibly important, but God and family are even more important.
I had heard of Paul Harvey for as long as I could remember, but I didn't start listening to him until the late 1980s. I had a job where I drove around in a car all day, thereby affording me much time to tune in to the radio. He came on WGN every day at noon. I would listen to Harvey give his take on the day's news and then listen to the farm report, even though I knew less than nothing about agriculture and had absolutely no ties to the farming world, other than enjoying the end results of the farmers' efforts.
The farm report went by the wayside eventually, as did my job driving around all day, but Paul Harvey remained on the radio during the noon hour, and I always listened when I could. He was on less and less frequently the last year or so, a year of great loss for him as his beloved wife, "Angel," died last spring. But whenever he was on, he was still a joy to listen to.
Paul Harvey's voice itself was the voice of the Great Plains, coming as he did from Oklahoma. It was the voice of the American Century, a strong, determined voice, but one filled with kindness and warmth, a voice in which you heard hard won confidence and genuine humility.
Paul Harvey was something we may not hear in radio again, the airwaves being filled now with voices of negativity. Paul Harvey would never have wished failure on an US President, no matter how much he disagreed with him. When Harvey took a position opposite to the Commander-in-Chief, he did it respectfully and with compassion, as when commented directly to Richard Nixon one day on the air about the Viet Nam War: "Mr. President, I love you, but you're wrong." So many today, on the radio and off, don't know what love and respect are.
As were the times in which he lived, from the Roaring Twenties through World War II through 9-11 through to just the other day, Paul Harvey was unique. We may never, unfortunately, see, or hear, his like again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
