Impatience Is The New Patience

Microblogging.  24-hour news.  Instant messaging.  YouTube.  We are the culture of now is already too late.

Of course, I am not immune to this shift from novels, two-and-a-half-hour films, and land phone lines to 30-second clips, feature-length commercials, and toddlers text messaging.  I’m right in the thick of it.  And I love it.

I’m addicted to Twitter.  I prefer texting over actually talking on the phone.  I have to force myself to do anything for longer than five minutes at a time or without several other things going simultaneously.  My brain needs constant stimuli from all directions at all times.  I’m struggling to not check my phone for messages at this very moment despite the fact that it’s sitting right next to me and hasn’t beeped or lit up in the past hour so I know for a fact that no one has contacted me.  It’s become habit and also a comforting device.  Healthy?  No idea.  All I know is that the little Tweetie icon in my toolbar is glowing blue so I know someone has posted some 140-or-less words of brilliance that I must read as soon as humanly possible.

(I just checked my Tweetie – nothing of monumental importance – and my phone – and now I’ve lost my train of thought.)

So there are some downsides to this shift.  Our need for constant stimuli has made us virtually devoid of patience.  Seriously – I bet an overwhelming majority of you reading this post won’t even make it past the next paragraph because reading this will take far too long for your attention span.  We’ve become so accustomed to having everything at our fingertips the nanosecond that we want them that when we’re forced to actually wait for things to develop in real-time – and by real-time I mean pre-TADD (Technologically-induced Attention Deficit Disorder) – we freak out.  We seriously can’t handle it.

Let me give an example:

Today was the annual meeting of the Michigan and Ohio State football teams.  Michigan is currently rebuilding with second-year coach Rich Rodriguez, who has implemented a vastly different offensive system that requires a different type of athlete than which usually plays in Ann Arbor.  This has led to some serious growing pains.  For some, the growing pains are far too tough to handle.  With ending the season with another loss to Ohio State (this afternoon makes it six in a row, and seven out of the last eight), fans are clamoring for Rodriguez’s ouster, after just two seasons as head coach and the first with a group of kids that he actually recruited.  Many have been wanting him fired since the middle of the season when the team lost to rival Michigan State, a mere five games into his second campaign.  In fact, the word “embattled” became a common adjective for the coach even before the team took a snap this season.

It seems that no one has the time to wait for a program to develop anymore.  Being a Michigan fan, I feel the pain of going 1-7 in the Big Ten.  I feel the pang in my stomach after losing to our bitter rival for the better part of a decade.  My afternoons get ruined when we commit five turnovers and look like a shell of what our team used to be week in and week out in years past.  So I could easily jump on the bandwagon and call for Rodriguez’s head and blast the system every single time there’s a bad play call, a bad decision by an in-over-his-head athlete, or just a lack of talent on either side of the ball.  But what’s the point?

Look at the alternative: RichRod gets fired.  We bring in someone else, maybe someone with Michigan ties or someone who runs more of a traditional pro-style offense.  He can’t run that system with the current personnel so he starts off with a less-than-amazing first season.  Fans either get their hopes way too high after a strong victory over a solid opponent, or they lambaste the program for continuing the losing ways.  They hope for next year when the coach has installed his own players – who will be young and inexperienced at the collegiate level and need to go through their own learning curve, as well, just like our current crop of footballers. What then?  What if it’s another mediocre season? Fire that guy and just keep on going on like that until we just happen to get lucky?  To me, that makes little sense.  We’ve invested in Rodriguez and our system, whether we all agree with it or not, and we owe it to the program to give him the real time it needs to succeed or fail.

We have to adapt to culture shifts, not fight against them with all our might.  Things change, momentum shifts, and life evolves.  No one can wait for anything anymore.  Not traffic lights, lines at the grocery store, web browsers to load, and certainly not Michigan football to get back to its winning ways.

Things aren’t going to change and I, for one, don’t really want them to.  I’ll take the bad with the good.  I’ll try to sit on the deck of this new TADD world while keeping my toes dipped in the pool of the old days.  I’m going to give Rich Rodriguez at least another year before I start questioning his ability to coach Michigan football into a perennial winner.  At least.  No one wins championships with a team of freshmen, so I’m going to wait for these kids to mature, Rodriguez to get his recruiting machine moving, and hope that in the next year or two we get back on the winning track.  I hate losing, especially this much, but I am going to be patient.  Even though, I can barely sit still without checking my email, my text messages, my Facebook status, and my Twitter account all at the same time and that impatience has become the new patience.

(For those of you who made it this far – I commend you.  Had I not been the author of this blog, I doubt I’d have made it to the end, either.  Maybe I should’ve posted this is 140-word installments instead.)

D.C. Board: No Right To Vote On Same-Sex Marriage

From California to Iowa to Arkansas to New Hampshire, the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage has crossed the country.  Recently, Washington, D.C. passed a bill recognizing the union of same-sex couples married legally in one of the handful of states where it’s allowed.

The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics put a stop to a ballot initiative that would’ve put the matter up to a vote, effectively clearing the way for the bill to be signed into law.  However, Bishop Harry Jackson sued in an effort to reverse the decision by the Board.

Let’s take a look at this current debate, shall we?

The Board’s reasoning:

The board ruled Tuesday that the proposed initiative on whether to define marriage as being between a man and a woman violates the city’s Human Rights Act because it would be discriminatory toward gay men and lesbians.

The opposition:

“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative legal group representing Jackson. “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote.”

Without knowing the law I’m not really the best person to weigh in on this topic, and I’m clearly biased in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.  Perhaps there’s something to look at in a government entity denying the right to vote to the people, but the Board is an elected group, so they’re representing the people.  Also, there is this:

[D.C] city code prohibits a public vote on a matter protected under the Human Rights Act.

Which makes perfect sense.  I don’t know where people got this sense of entitlement that made them think that they have the right to vote on the definition of marriage.  We live in a republic, not a true democracy; people don’t get to vote on every single issue.  Most importantly, no one should have the right to vote to deny a specifically targeted group of citizens rights that others have.

Here’s hoping Jackson’s lawsuit gets dismissed by the Supreme Court, that D.C. passes this bill into law, and that legally married same-sex couples from across the country will at least be recognized in our nation’s capital.

It’ll be another step closer to equality.

Your Parents Don’t Know Everything

I get frustrated when people, clearly distressed, defend their decisions and actions based on the old adage, “It’s how I was raised!”

To which I like to respond with: “So what!?”

I’m far less interested in how someone was raised because all that tells me is what someone’s parents believe; I’m interested in what the person himself believes.  (I’m basing this on the notion that most people are raised by their parent(s), but I am using this term loosely to include grandparents, guardians, etc. who happen to raise children, as well.)

Our parents are our very first teachers, so their lessons tend to take hold rather well and stick with us throughout our lives more than many others.  But, like any other lesson, its worth is yours for the interpretation, to digest through the prism of your own personality and intellect.  And, most likely, you won’t come to the exact conclusions about life as your parents.  Perhaps very similar, perhaps very different.  Regardless, it’s okay.

Because you aren’t your parents.

Sure, you’re made up of their DNA, but you are now an adult (I’m not speaking about kids or teenagers here) and therefore free to your own ideas, thoughts, and viewpoints.  Actually, you’ve always been free to have those but now you really can realize them since you are your own, independent person.  So, go with your gut and follow your own ideas and viewpoints.  If not now, when?

The biggest problem with putting those lessons from your childhood on a pedestal is that you’re automatically assuming that they are superior than your own notions about life.  I’m not talking about lessons like “eat your vegetables” either, rather thoughts on politics, religion, and life in general.  Sometimes, probably more than we care to admit, our parents got it wrong.  They were bound to; they’re human.  And it’s not even a matter of right or wrong on some cosmic level, but merely that what’s right for them might not be right for you.  And when it comes down to it, that’s all that really matters at this point in our lives.  If you’re having trouble reconciling your life and your feelings with what you were taught as a kid, chances are there’s not much to really wrestle.  Go with your own feelings.  There’s just nothing to gain from doing things their way other than pleasing them.  And since they aren’t the ones living your life, that will only appease your unhappiness for so long.

I know it’s not all as cut and dried as I make it out to be.  Going against the grain of what your parents have taught you – or, worse yet, what they are still driving into your head to this very day – is no simple task.  It’s not something that you just change overnight.  It’s not something that you can do without struggle, pain, and difficulty.  But, at the end of it all, you’ll be living the life the way that YOU want to.  It’s okay to not agree with how your parents think you should live because their time of parenting is over.  They don’t have to agree with all of your decisions.  And you don’t need their approval for everything that you do.  I highly doubt they listen to their parents anymore, and haven’t for quite some time.

I respect parents for the jobs they do.  I mean no disrespect for their viewpoints on life or the lessons they teach their kids.  Many do the best they can and only mean well for their children, even when they’re being tough on them.  But, these children grow up to be free-thinking adults, like it or not, and they might not go about their business the way you did or the way you would.  It doesn’t make them wrong.  It just means they’re different.  And different isn’t always bad.

“It’s how I was raised!”

“So what!? You’re grown now. What is it that YOU believe?”

Maybe that’s why it’s in our nature to just fall back on what our parents told us.  Sometimes we don’t have the answers to our own questions.  The reality is, neither do our parents.  Or anyone else for that matter.  And you won’t know unless you just find out for yourself.

That’s life.

13 And Life

I didn’t even know it was happening in this country, but apparently 13-year-olds can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

That means that at the age of 13, your life could effectively be over.  Over well before it really even started.  And not even for homicide.  There’s a kid behind bars without any chance of release for armed robbery.

I am not the only one who finds this to be completely unacceptable.  The Supreme Court is investigating whether or not these sentences are constitutional or if they are cruel and unusual forms of punishment.

I have touched on this subject numerous times, usually with regard to capital punishment, and I always find myself wrestling with just what we are trying to accomplish with incarceration.  It’s most certainly a form of punishment.  I would like to think that we could do a lot more in the way of rehabilitation, especially with the non-violent offenders.  There should definitely be a debt paid to society for crimes, and these debts should escalate according to the severity of the crime committed.  But, it’s so much more complex than that.

But here are some places to begin:

Mormons Support Gays

This really is incredible news: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has backed a Salt Lake City law that bans discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is the very same church that poured millions of dollars into a political campaign to deny rights to homosexuals less than a year ago.

This news displays a rather huge step forward for an organization that has quite the history of prejudice and discrimination.  Until 1978, black Mormons were not allowed to become priests.  And given the LDS’s strict stance on homosexuals – “[g]ays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership” – and marriage, it really is shocking to see it publicly support a law that offers them protections.

Of course, I applaud this support.  How could I not?  The fact that conservative Salt Lake City has a more progressive law on fighting discrimination in the workplace and in housing than over half the states in the Union is remarkable.  It’s a wonderful step forward and one that I hope signals a shift away from the hateful rhetoric aimed at homosexuals.  No one should ever be fired from their job or denied a lease for an apartment because of their sexual orientation.

Well done, Salt Lake City, for writing this bill.  And, bravo to the LDS for throwing its support behind it, effectively guaranteeing its passage into law.  Way to use your power for good this time.

You’ve set a strong example.

Ft. Hood Tragedy Polarizes Nation Immediately

Major Nidal Hasan sure got both sides spewing their rhetoric.

One side uses the tragedy as an excuse to condemn all of Islam and its followers and to justify the wars in the Middle East.  The other side condemns those who condemn Islam.

As the picture becomes clearer about Hasan and his extremist views, those who were quick to blame Islam may have more of a leg to stand on than when the news first hit about the shootings at Ft. Hood.  It doesn’t by any means justify jumping to conclusions based on the Major’s Middle Eastern name and apparent religious affiliation, but it’s beginning to seem like what looked like a duck and quacked like a duck is, in fact, a duck.

Perhaps.

One of the downsides of our world of instant news is that no one has the time to gather facts before presenting them in a way that fashions some sort of picture.  There is no illumination; just a few spare details and the rest is left to speculation until more facts help reveal the true image.  Unfortunately, by the time the true story comes to light, the blogosphere has already reached their conclusions and they’re just waiting for new details simply to enhance their preconceived notions.

It’s not just the blogosphere that overreacts, either.  Sen. Joe Lieberman sure has done enough of his own lately, seeking a Congressional investigation to consider the Ft. Hood shootings a terrorist act.  No formal charges have even been made yet and Lieberman wants Hasan declared a terrorist.

Sen. Lieberman:

It’s — first, this was a terrible tragedy. Second, it’s too early — it’s premature to reach conclusions about what motivated Hasan. But it’s clear that he was, one, under personal stress and, two, if the reports that we’re receiving of various statements he made, acts he took, are valid, he had turned to Islamist extremism.

//

And therefore, if that is true, the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act and, in fact, it was the most destructive terrorist act to be committed on American soil since 9/11.

He admits that it’s too early to say, but then goes on anyway with his multitude of ifs leading to his statement meant merely to rile people up.  This is something to be expected from blowhard pundits like Limbaugh, Wallace, and Beck, but not a U.S. Senator.  Nothing good comes of this except for more marginalization, more hate, and more misguided anger.  Thank you, Mr. Lieberman.  Job well done.

Perhaps everyone should just hold off while evidence is gathered, witnesses interviewed, and even an interrogation of the accused before he’s condemned before a trial.  Remember, not only is Hasan an American citizen, he’s a Major in the Army.  It seems that the senator has jumped to conclusions, based either on the information currently available, or perhaps, more likely, due to the fact that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim and there’s a sense of blame associated with Muslims simply due to their chosen faith.  As if his being a Muslim automatically places him alongside Bin Laden and Mohammad Atta without so much as even receiving his Miranda rights.

More and more facts will rise to the surface as the days go by and the investigation continues.  Authorities say that they still don’t have a motive for the massacre, but regardless, there is no excuse.  It was an unconscionable act of violence that took 13 lives and changed countless more.  Perhaps we’ll find that this was part of some bigger plot.  Or maybe we’ll find that it was just a man who snapped and came undone in the worst way.

But like Sen. Lieberman said, it’s too early to tell.

Senate Already Pessimistic About Health Care

The worst part of the news that the Senate will have a really tough time passing the health care bill – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even suggesting that nothing will get done this year – is that the impasse is with Democrats.

It’s disheartening and infuriating to see the Democrats not only straddling the middle of the road mediocrity, but actually being completely on the right side of the party lines.  We already have conservatives that are worried about the size of government.  They’re called Republicans – although, their track record of late really warrants them that term in the loosest of senses.

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe said that she would vote in favor of the bill, so long as the public option is altered so that it only goes into effect after a series of triggers require it.

That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. “If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position,” Landrieu said last week. “It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim.”

Excuse me, Sen. Landrieu, it’s already been triggered by choice (lack thereof) and affordability (again, lack thereof) with the elections of the past three years that saw an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Congress and in the Presidency.  It’s not political whim when those elected officials are doing what the people elected them to do.  In fact, to not do so, would be a failure.

House Passes Health Care Bill

A strong, necessary step forward.  Now, onto the Senate, which always proves to be a tougher forum.  Things get stickier when every state, regardless of population, has equal say.  I’m looking at you, Wyoming.

Upon further investigation, I found that the House Bill does something I didn’t even realize needed to be done:

In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

Why in the world was the health insurance industry exempt from those restrictions in the first place!?  This is fucking bullshit.  There is absolutely NO reason for that industry to be exempt from those protections.  None.  No wonder premiums were skyrocketing and coverages denied.  Insurance companies could work together to keep profits up and payments down without breaking any antitrust laws.  Un-fucking-real.  People should be enraged by this.  Maybe I’m just late to the party with this, but I have a feeling most people didn’t know that the current health care industry was that unregulated.

No wonder everything went to complete shit.  I would love to know whose genius idea that was.  In an industry where there’s already very little competition – everyone needs health coverage – let’s just let them run rampant without any of the antitrust protections that other industries have.  I’m sure it has nothing to do with health care lobbyists and insurance companies donating huge sums of money to politician’s campaigns. None at all.

Here’s hoping the Senate follows suit and passes their version of the health care bill.  It’s beyond time to improve this system.

Prejudice Overheard

Today I heard someone speaking on the phone about the massacre at Fort Hood yesterday.

“…the fact that he is a Muslim doesn’t even come up.  It’s ridiculous.  They try to make it sound like it was some psychological problem…”

This person was convinced that Major Hasan’s motive was simply that he was a Muslim and that Muslims are inherently violent.  And this person clearly is not alone in that belief.

Dreher:

No matter how badly the media try to spin it another way, or to ignore the religion ghost in this story, Hasan’s religion was to all appearances a key factor in the mass murder he committed. You don’t have a Muslim shouting “Allahu akbar!” as he executes people one by one, and conclude that religion is incidental to his crime. You have to be a moral idiot to draw that conclusion, a politically correct nitwit.

So: how should we regard the role of Hasan’s religion in this infamy?

John Infidelesto:

This was jihad.

 

(links courtesy The Daily Dish)

It’s hard to combat this type of prejudice and marginalization when it seems to come directly from our country’s own foreign policy.  Our president for the previous eight years, not-so-subtlely claimed that this war was a “crusade,” evoking pretty stark images of Christians versus Muslims in a holy war.  That wasn’t lost on many Americans.  While some found it cringe-worthy and blasphemous, others found it justified.

Even if Hasan turns out to be some radical Islamic fundamentalist, it doesn’t confirm the belief that Islam is evil, Islam is dangerous, or that all Muslims are homicidal maniacs waiting in the wings.  It just means that this particular Muslim was disturbed – for a multitude of reasons, including his fundamentalism – and snapped.

It’d actually be much easier to just blame Hasan’s actions on Islam.  Most people would like that idea because it sums up a very complex situation into a nice, little box to point your anger and frustration.  From the information so far, it just doesn’t seem like this is the whole story for Hasan and the tragedy at Ft. Hood.

While people like Dreher cry about people ignoring the Muslim aspect of Hasan, it’s equally as irresponsible to neglect the affect the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have on our troops, no matter what creed, race, ethnicity, or religion.

And for those people like the one I overheard today on the phone, it’s helpful to place this deadly rampage in the right context of history.  Case in point, just today, a man opened fire at work in Orlando killing one and injuring five others.

He wasn’t Muslim; he was just pissed off about being fired.

Get Out Of The Desert! Cont’d

I know this is playing to emotions and there are difficult, real-world issues at stake here, but for the same party that touts family values and the traditional nuclear family to also want to just keep sending moms and dad overseas to fight for a pointless war for nearly a decade just seems so very contradictory and blind.

Let’s get out of both Afghanistan and Iraq for all of the little girls in the country who want their daddy back home.