Writeminded

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

...and nobody got hurt

This bank heist yesterday netted the crooks about $43,500,000 and these guys managed to pull it off without cutting anybody's head off, or blowing them up, or torching the building, even!

The clean, efficient execution of this well-planned job makes one almost wish that Al-Queida would emulate them, and start robbing banks. Just take the money, and leave people alone.

Brad

Monday, February 20, 2006

George Washington's cherry tree


One of the simplest and most enduring stories from the personal histories of great Americans is the familiar tale of George Washington and the cherry tree. As one of the very first history lessons that most of us were taught in school, it presented an example of honesty and integrity, virtues that few, if any, historians (and even his rivals) ever denied our first president embodied.

Some voices in today's media and academic elite, however, seem to take great pleasure in dismissing this traditional tale as sentimental folklore. Some jaded intellectuals express cynicism about the story, denying its veracity as historical propaganda aimed at creating a false image of Washington's character, of almost deifying him as ever-virtuous and true.

Why?

Is the story really so unbelievable? What facet of it is beyond belief? Is it absurd that a kid would cut down a tree on his family's land? Is it preposterous that his father might have a "favorite tree"? (As the story is sometimes told.) Does it stretch credulity that, when confronted about the incident by his father, a boy would tell the truth about it?

Or, is it the traditional wording of Washington's response: "Father, I cannot tell a lie..." that goads the cynics?
Do these fools actually think that we believe this to be an exact quote? (Even that is not unlikely, given the proper english common to that day.) Or do they think that George was saying that he was incapable of telling a lie, any lie? Is that the rub?

Whatever the criticism, what's to be gained by rejecting this tale?
Do we not want to instill our youth with a sense of honesty, an expectation of taking responsibility for one's actions? Is personal integrity a character trait we'd rather our children not develop? For, the tale has more than mere historical value. It's a lesson in personal virtue.
By holding George Washington up as a great American, worthy of emulation, we give our kids something to shoot for when we share the simple tale of his boyhood honesty. They are able to identify with the concept of a thoughtless act committed, and the natural temptation to avoid punishment by lying about it.

Have we become so jaded in our own time of well-publicized dishonestly by our elected officials that we cannot believe a simple story about a boy 'fessing-up to something?

This is a very humourous retelling of the famous tale, circa Bill Clinton...

It's bad enough that we've diminished the memories of both Washington and Lincoln by concocting "President's Day" so government employee's can have another 3-day weekend.

Brad



Thursday, February 09, 2006

Why more violence in hockey?


For those who've wondered why it is that hockey players are involved in more scuffles during games than athletes in other sports, and why games often erupt into violence, I have a theory: frustration.

Frustration: an act of hindering someone's plans or efforts; a feeling of annoyance at being hindered or criticized; the feeling that accompanies an experience of being thwarted in attaining your goals.

We all know that feeling; what it's like to be frustrated in something we try to accomplish.
The anxiety of an unmet goal can be very oppressive, even defeating.

The main source of frustration in hockey is the difficulty of handling the puck with your stick. The constant inevitability of losing control of the puck, combined with the fast pace of the game and the near chaos of the arrangement of players on the ice, creates an environment of frustration. Unlike in basketball, football, and baseball (even soccer affords more control over the ball), hockey players are continually thwarted in simply getting from point-A to point-B (a short distance in a short amount of time, too) with the very object of their game, using the main modes of conveyance in their sport, stick-handling and passing.

As a basketball player, if I constantly had the ball stolen from me while I was playing, I would get very frustrated!
This frustration, I believe, is the single greatest source of the edginess, short tempers, and uncontrolled aggression that is so characteristic of hockey and many of it's players.


Which brings us to the subject of violently fanatical Muslims, and their frustrations...

Brad

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Real blaphsemy vs. imaged ones




While fundamentalist Muslims riot, destroy, and kill people
over the noninflammatory cartoons in Europe, this image ->->
of REAL blasphemy should never leave our consciousness.













Do Muslims worry about what THIS tells the world about Islam?













How does this treatment of a REAL human being compare to
cartoon images of the "prophet" Mohammad?











This Wikipedia page shows the cartoons that have sparked the massive Muslim protests, riots, destruction, threats of violence, and several murders. And here's another link, to a page from Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonists Index, a fairly useful clearinghouse of political cartoons.


I especially like the clarity of this item by John Sherffius:

This entire ordeal makes me want to go out and see Albert Brooks' latest film, Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, to see if he actually found any. I'm doubtful.

Brad