Trish and I tried to check into a LaQuinta motel about 1 p.m. yesterday afternoon.
"Sorry, check-in time is 3 o'clock," I was informed by the desk clerk.
I wasn't surprised, but decided to ask some questions just for fun. "Do you have any clean rooms?" I asked.
"Yes," she admitted.
"But I can't have one of them now?" I asked, already knowing the answer she would give.
"No," she said simply.
"Why not?" I persisted.
"Because the computer won't let me rent any rooms until 3 o'clock," she answered, as if that were a reasonable response.
"Aren't computers wonderful?" I laughed. She kinda laughed with me, but I could tell that she didn't get the joke. So I continued, "Doesn't it strike you as strange that you have a customer standing here wanting to rent a room for the night and you have rooms available, but your computer won't let you rent them for two more hours?"
Clearly, however, she saw nothing strange at all about the situation. Her mind has become so conditioned to the company way of doing things that she had no ability to even consider the possibility that there might be a better way of doing business.
I didn't get upset with the desk clerk because I understood that she was just doing her job and following LaQuinta's policies. However, this does tell me that there are people in LaQuinta's management who are "process" people, more concerned with following the process than with getting the desired result -- paying customers occupying hotel rooms. I don't mean to pick on LaQuinta -- it is a good chain and, overall, I have been very satisfied with staying in their hotels. Other hotel chains probably follow the same check-in policies.
However, it cannot be smart business tactics to send away customers because your system isn't flexible enough to accommodate them. Perhaps LaQuinta is a microcosm for one of the things wrong with our economy. Where are the "inventors" in today's business world? Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and lots of other bright minds in the business world a century ago were constantly looking for problems and searching creatively for ways to solve them. Doing it better was always a top priority for them. Retailing giant J. C. Penney is credited with coining the slogan, "The customer is always right." All too often today, it is the system that is always thought to be right and customers have to accommodate the system.
In our case, LaQuinta's short-sighted check-in policy didn't hurt them. Trish and I had other things to do, so we took care of those things and returned to check in at 3 p.m. However, there were numerous other hotels and motels in the vicinity of the LaQuinta where we stayed. I would guess that more often than not, when the LaQuinta desk clerk sends away customers because it isn't check-in time, they would simply go across the street and check in somewhere else where they had a more customer-friendly policy of renting clean rooms whenever they had a customer wanting to rent them. I suspect that J. C. Penney would not have given LaQuinta a second chance to show top priority to customers over process.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
History and Time
On the June 22 Jeopardy program, the Final Jeopardy question essentially asked who the President of the United States was in the year 1895. The qualifying tests for Jeopardy are notoriously rigid (according to all reports), which assures that anyone who makes it to one of the three contestants' podiums will be bright and knowledgeable. However, none of the contestants correctly identified the president in office 114 years ago. One intelligent young woman, who had performed very well earlier in the competition, didn't even venture a guess.
I will confess that presidential trivia is a hobby of mine and I can usually answer any Jeopardy question about presidents with little difficulty. I understand that not everyone shares that interest. Just because someone cannot rattle off the names and dates served of the 43 men who have held the office of President does not discredit their intelligence or expertise in other areas. I may know my presidents, but I'd be quickly out of my depth in the Shakespeare and opera categories.
However, there is a definite linkage between an understanding of the time sequence of historical events and one's enjoyment and appreciation of history. If you have a general idea of when things happened, you have a better understanding about what other things were going on in history at the same time. That leads to appreciating how what otherwise would seem to be random, isolated events actually relate to one another. History is not just a boring series of events and dates. Rather it is a web, a network of great numbers of intersecting causes and effects. Knowing the time lines of history makes this all much clearer, and therefore, must more interesting.
Talking about this with my wife this morning, I commented that I had never known anyone who understood the importance of time in history who found history boring, and I had never known anyone who failed to understand the important of time who found history interesting.
If this is true, it offers an obvious key about how we should be teaching history. If the Jeopardy contestants are typical (and I think they are), then we have not been very effective in getting across the importance of time in history.
By the way, if you thought President Obama was the 44th person to be President of the United States, you should revisit the history books.
I will confess that presidential trivia is a hobby of mine and I can usually answer any Jeopardy question about presidents with little difficulty. I understand that not everyone shares that interest. Just because someone cannot rattle off the names and dates served of the 43 men who have held the office of President does not discredit their intelligence or expertise in other areas. I may know my presidents, but I'd be quickly out of my depth in the Shakespeare and opera categories.
However, there is a definite linkage between an understanding of the time sequence of historical events and one's enjoyment and appreciation of history. If you have a general idea of when things happened, you have a better understanding about what other things were going on in history at the same time. That leads to appreciating how what otherwise would seem to be random, isolated events actually relate to one another. History is not just a boring series of events and dates. Rather it is a web, a network of great numbers of intersecting causes and effects. Knowing the time lines of history makes this all much clearer, and therefore, must more interesting.
Talking about this with my wife this morning, I commented that I had never known anyone who understood the importance of time in history who found history boring, and I had never known anyone who failed to understand the important of time who found history interesting.
If this is true, it offers an obvious key about how we should be teaching history. If the Jeopardy contestants are typical (and I think they are), then we have not been very effective in getting across the importance of time in history.
By the way, if you thought President Obama was the 44th person to be President of the United States, you should revisit the history books.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Has Evolution Been Proven By New Discovery?
You can't get away from news of the fantastic discovery of the "missing link." Even trying to do a Google search and you see the fossil. The word spreading like wildfire is that this discovering proves evolution to be true.
Not so fast. There is a great deal yet to be proven before these claims can be accepted. Here's a link to the Institute for Creation Research web site which gives their preliminary reaction to the news.
Not so fast. There is a great deal yet to be proven before these claims can be accepted. Here's a link to the Institute for Creation Research web site which gives their preliminary reaction to the news.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
How Things Have Changed!
Today's issue of my hometown newspaper carried on its front page a tragic story about a young woman from a neighboring town being killed earlier this week by a drunken driver. The reporter went on to tell about the young woman's high school successes and how she was being mourned by a large number of friends, including a fiance whom she had planned to marry this summer. Your heart has to be touched by such a promising life being cut short tragically and unnecessarily.
Then the reporter revealed one additional fact. The young woman was six weeks pregnant. My first reaction could be described by what I've heard called T.M.I. -- Too Much Information. I admit that I don't always understand the carefree attitude some in the younger generation seem to take about what, it seems to this old fogey, ought to be personal information best kept private. If this young woman and her husband-to-be wanted to share the news of their impending parenthood with friends and family, that was their business. But why did it need to be included in the lead paragraph of the story of her unfortunate death?
This may be nothing more than an example of gross insensitivity on the part of an incompetent reporter. Perhaps a grieving family feels the same revulsion I do at this fact being broadcast far and wide on the front page of the daily paper. If so, I trust they will make their opinions known to the newspaper's publisher. He is the one, after all, who has to take ultimate responsibility for his paper's descent into tabloid journalism.
But what if I'm the one who is so out-of-step in my thinking that I don't understand that things have changed so much that being pregnant outside of marriage no longer carries any stigma at all?
Young people in love have been transgressing the boundaries of both morality and propriety for a long, long time. With one notable exception, babies don't come into being without some activity by both father and mother. If that happens when mommy and daddy aren't married, the Bible word for that activity is fornication. The sin is the same whether or not a baby is made. This is basic biology and is almost as old as the human race itself.
What has changed is people's attitudes toward having babies without being married. Only a generation or so ago, the normal course of action in a situation like this would have been to move up the wedding date so that the appearance of propriety would be maintained as long as no one became too specific in referencing their calendars.
I don't intend to defend the hypocrisy and sometimes outright deception that characterized such attempts to cover up scandalous behavior. It is sinful to lie, just as it is sinful to fornicate. Nevertheless the sense of shame has been lost.
It is a good thing if babies born out of wedlock are no longer stigmatized for something that was in no way their fault. If anyone needed to wear a scarlet letter for sinful sexual behavior, it should have been the mother and the father, but never the child produced by that behavior.
However, it would be better for the souls of the parents and for the welfare of our culture if we still had a consensus of opinion that children should be conceived as an act of love within marriage. The now-widespread perception that procreation outside of marriage is something to be celebrated is an unhealthy development. No shadow of shame should be attached to the children, but neither should the behavior of the parents be condoned, much less congratulated.
Then the reporter revealed one additional fact. The young woman was six weeks pregnant. My first reaction could be described by what I've heard called T.M.I. -- Too Much Information. I admit that I don't always understand the carefree attitude some in the younger generation seem to take about what, it seems to this old fogey, ought to be personal information best kept private. If this young woman and her husband-to-be wanted to share the news of their impending parenthood with friends and family, that was their business. But why did it need to be included in the lead paragraph of the story of her unfortunate death?
This may be nothing more than an example of gross insensitivity on the part of an incompetent reporter. Perhaps a grieving family feels the same revulsion I do at this fact being broadcast far and wide on the front page of the daily paper. If so, I trust they will make their opinions known to the newspaper's publisher. He is the one, after all, who has to take ultimate responsibility for his paper's descent into tabloid journalism.
But what if I'm the one who is so out-of-step in my thinking that I don't understand that things have changed so much that being pregnant outside of marriage no longer carries any stigma at all?
Young people in love have been transgressing the boundaries of both morality and propriety for a long, long time. With one notable exception, babies don't come into being without some activity by both father and mother. If that happens when mommy and daddy aren't married, the Bible word for that activity is fornication. The sin is the same whether or not a baby is made. This is basic biology and is almost as old as the human race itself.
What has changed is people's attitudes toward having babies without being married. Only a generation or so ago, the normal course of action in a situation like this would have been to move up the wedding date so that the appearance of propriety would be maintained as long as no one became too specific in referencing their calendars.
I don't intend to defend the hypocrisy and sometimes outright deception that characterized such attempts to cover up scandalous behavior. It is sinful to lie, just as it is sinful to fornicate. Nevertheless the sense of shame has been lost.
It is a good thing if babies born out of wedlock are no longer stigmatized for something that was in no way their fault. If anyone needed to wear a scarlet letter for sinful sexual behavior, it should have been the mother and the father, but never the child produced by that behavior.
However, it would be better for the souls of the parents and for the welfare of our culture if we still had a consensus of opinion that children should be conceived as an act of love within marriage. The now-widespread perception that procreation outside of marriage is something to be celebrated is an unhealthy development. No shadow of shame should be attached to the children, but neither should the behavior of the parents be condoned, much less congratulated.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Almighty NCAA Needs Cutting Down to Size
C'mon, all you big-name, high school basketball superstars, you need to accept a scholarship from XYZ State University and be a part of their great legacy of winning.
Oops! Apparently, I've just broken an NCAA rule and gotten dear ol' XYZ State into all kinds of trouble with the powers that regulate college recruiting. Assuming of course, that the NCAA can find XYZ State on their list of members.
Or have I just been exercising my freedom of speech?
More to the point, how can the NCAA expect XYZ State (or any real-life member institution) to regulate the free speech of people not under its control in any way?
In the real world of college athletics, North Carolina State University told one of its freshmen students, Taylor Moseley, to cease and desist from operating a Facebook group imploring the nation's number one prospect, John Wall, to choose NC State as the place to further his basketball ambitions.
The NCAA does have a tough job trying to police collegiate recruiting and prevent illicit under-the-table payoffs to highly-sought prospects. The institution's arrogance and inability to recognize that their member institutions and the fans of those institutions' athletic teams do not live in Flatland have made their task much more difficult than it needs to be.
The NCAA has a tremendous credibility problem with people who have followed its actions over a period of years. It has been highly inconsistent in the way it has enforced its rules and regulations. In cases where the actual payments of goods, services, and even cash have been admitted, little or no consequences have resulted. On the other hand, a small Division II NCAA member like Abilene Christian University can find itself in trouble because church members in the university community offered assistance the NCAA considered illegal to needy foreign athletes. According to reports, the fact that the foreign students were athletes was inconsequential to the church members giving the students assistance. Church members were concerned with doing what churches are supposed to do . . . help people in need.
It is reasonable for the NCAA to prevent university coaches, staff members, administrators, and other employees from giving money or other unauthorized financial aid to athletes. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect universities to have enough influence with their athletic boosters to prevent them from doing anything in violation of NCAA rules.
However, how can a university be expected to control the activities of a church in their community? Apparently the all-knowing NCAA has no problem expecting their rules to trump any other rules which come into conflict with them. The fact that churches have a God-given mission to feed the hungry and help the needy must take a back seat to the all-powerful NCAA.
Or in the case of the NCSU student, Mr. Moseley, the NCAA expects its precious rules to triumph over an individual's freedom of speech. In fact, an NCAA spokesperson claimed the censoring of the NC State Facebook group was not a free speech issue at all; rather it was just a recruiting issue.
However, the University ordered Moseley to take down the site even though its compliance director, Michelle Lee, admitted that the group was not causing any harm. Ms. Lee said she had to take the action she did because of NCAA regulations.
Adam Kissel, who works with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, was right on target when he said the NCAA can impose rules on its members, but those universities "can't enforce them if it means punishing students in any way for expressing an opinion."
I am sympathetic to North Carolina State's dilemma. It would have been nice if the administration at NC State had had the gumption to stand up to NCAA autocrats and defend its student's right to freely express his opinion that John Wall should come play basketball for the Wolfpack. However, the NCAA is virtually all-powerful and has shown in the past its willingness to make an example of member schools who buck the system. Thus, it should not surprise us that Ms. Lee bowed her knee before the almighty NCAA and sent out the "cease and desist" letter to Moseley even though she admits she did not agree with what it required the student to do.
What comes next might surprise anyone who knows how resistant I am to government involvement in the lives of citizens. However, the NCAA has evolved into a dictatorial autocracy over college sports in the U. S. It has no interest in disciplining its own excesses, so the only solution I see is for legislation to overhaul the NCAA and make it subject to the rule of law, rather than being a law unto itself in American collegiate athletics.
It is time to ask Congress to get involved. This NCAA disaster has gotten so out of hand that even the United States Congress couldn't mess it up worse than it already is. Why not bring the enforcement of right behavior into the justice system. Let "guidelines" be given the force of federal law with civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties imposed upon violators. Let the enforcement of those laws be equitable and those charged with violations be given full due process, including the right to face their accusers in open court. Let qualified jurists (rather than NCAA in house decision-makers who are beholden to the status-quo system in the NCAA) be charged with both enforcing the laws and protecting the rights of all associated parties.
No doubt, there are arguments to be made against this proposal. Perhaps it can be improved, but SOMETHING has to offer a better system that the sorry state of affairs governing collegiate athletics now.
Link
Oops! Apparently, I've just broken an NCAA rule and gotten dear ol' XYZ State into all kinds of trouble with the powers that regulate college recruiting. Assuming of course, that the NCAA can find XYZ State on their list of members.
Or have I just been exercising my freedom of speech?
More to the point, how can the NCAA expect XYZ State (or any real-life member institution) to regulate the free speech of people not under its control in any way?
In the real world of college athletics, North Carolina State University told one of its freshmen students, Taylor Moseley, to cease and desist from operating a Facebook group imploring the nation's number one prospect, John Wall, to choose NC State as the place to further his basketball ambitions.
The NCAA does have a tough job trying to police collegiate recruiting and prevent illicit under-the-table payoffs to highly-sought prospects. The institution's arrogance and inability to recognize that their member institutions and the fans of those institutions' athletic teams do not live in Flatland have made their task much more difficult than it needs to be.
The NCAA has a tremendous credibility problem with people who have followed its actions over a period of years. It has been highly inconsistent in the way it has enforced its rules and regulations. In cases where the actual payments of goods, services, and even cash have been admitted, little or no consequences have resulted. On the other hand, a small Division II NCAA member like Abilene Christian University can find itself in trouble because church members in the university community offered assistance the NCAA considered illegal to needy foreign athletes. According to reports, the fact that the foreign students were athletes was inconsequential to the church members giving the students assistance. Church members were concerned with doing what churches are supposed to do . . . help people in need.
It is reasonable for the NCAA to prevent university coaches, staff members, administrators, and other employees from giving money or other unauthorized financial aid to athletes. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect universities to have enough influence with their athletic boosters to prevent them from doing anything in violation of NCAA rules.
However, how can a university be expected to control the activities of a church in their community? Apparently the all-knowing NCAA has no problem expecting their rules to trump any other rules which come into conflict with them. The fact that churches have a God-given mission to feed the hungry and help the needy must take a back seat to the all-powerful NCAA.
Or in the case of the NCSU student, Mr. Moseley, the NCAA expects its precious rules to triumph over an individual's freedom of speech. In fact, an NCAA spokesperson claimed the censoring of the NC State Facebook group was not a free speech issue at all; rather it was just a recruiting issue.
However, the University ordered Moseley to take down the site even though its compliance director, Michelle Lee, admitted that the group was not causing any harm. Ms. Lee said she had to take the action she did because of NCAA regulations.
Adam Kissel, who works with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, was right on target when he said the NCAA can impose rules on its members, but those universities "can't enforce them if it means punishing students in any way for expressing an opinion."
I am sympathetic to North Carolina State's dilemma. It would have been nice if the administration at NC State had had the gumption to stand up to NCAA autocrats and defend its student's right to freely express his opinion that John Wall should come play basketball for the Wolfpack. However, the NCAA is virtually all-powerful and has shown in the past its willingness to make an example of member schools who buck the system. Thus, it should not surprise us that Ms. Lee bowed her knee before the almighty NCAA and sent out the "cease and desist" letter to Moseley even though she admits she did not agree with what it required the student to do.
What comes next might surprise anyone who knows how resistant I am to government involvement in the lives of citizens. However, the NCAA has evolved into a dictatorial autocracy over college sports in the U. S. It has no interest in disciplining its own excesses, so the only solution I see is for legislation to overhaul the NCAA and make it subject to the rule of law, rather than being a law unto itself in American collegiate athletics.
It is time to ask Congress to get involved. This NCAA disaster has gotten so out of hand that even the United States Congress couldn't mess it up worse than it already is. Why not bring the enforcement of right behavior into the justice system. Let "guidelines" be given the force of federal law with civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties imposed upon violators. Let the enforcement of those laws be equitable and those charged with violations be given full due process, including the right to face their accusers in open court. Let qualified jurists (rather than NCAA in house decision-makers who are beholden to the status-quo system in the NCAA) be charged with both enforcing the laws and protecting the rights of all associated parties.
No doubt, there are arguments to be made against this proposal. Perhaps it can be improved, but SOMETHING has to offer a better system that the sorry state of affairs governing collegiate athletics now.
Link
Monday, April 6, 2009
Something Good From High Gas Prices
Maybe something good came from last year's high gas prices. The number of highway deaths in 2008 was the fewest since 1961. Preliminary statistics say that 37,000 people died in motor vehicle traffic deaths last year, down from 41,000 in 2007. This comes from an AP story reported by Fox News .
Christians know it is a blessing to die in the Lord (Revelation 14:13). But meeting your demise in a fiery crash of metal on the highway is not the way a reasonable person would prefer to be ushered into eternity. So be careful on the highways. Let's see if we can keep these numbers going in the right direction.
Gasoline prices are going up. That's normal in the springtime as consumption increases. However, the experts say we won't get anywhere close to last year's $4+ per gallon costs. That means more people will be on the highways. The danger level increases when traffic levels go up.
We can't control what other drivers do, but we can be serious about being good drivers ourselves. Every Christian should understand that he or she has a personal responsibility to perform well whenever sitting behind a steering wheel. The life you save may be your own.
Christians know it is a blessing to die in the Lord (Revelation 14:13). But meeting your demise in a fiery crash of metal on the highway is not the way a reasonable person would prefer to be ushered into eternity. So be careful on the highways. Let's see if we can keep these numbers going in the right direction.
Gasoline prices are going up. That's normal in the springtime as consumption increases. However, the experts say we won't get anywhere close to last year's $4+ per gallon costs. That means more people will be on the highways. The danger level increases when traffic levels go up.
We can't control what other drivers do, but we can be serious about being good drivers ourselves. Every Christian should understand that he or she has a personal responsibility to perform well whenever sitting behind a steering wheel. The life you save may be your own.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Guiding Light Going Out
Guiding Light, the longest-running scripted program in broadcast history, is going off the CBS network in September, after 72 years.
I'm not a soap opera fan, but the very idea of an soap opera surviving for almost three-quarters of a century astounds me. Since soap operas don't do reruns, five days a week, 52 weeks a year equals 260 epidsodes per year. Multiply that by 72 years and you will discover that they have produced more than 18,000 episodes.
By contrast, C.S.I. aired its 200th episode last night.
In fact, Guiding Light is one of the programs responsible for the term "soap opera" since it was produced by Proctor and Gamble, the detergent company. In days when companies not only sponsored, but owned and produced their own radio programs to promote their products, P&G offered a number of serial dramas first on radio, then later on television. Thus, the birth of the "soap opera."
Nothing in this world lasts forever!
I'm not a soap opera fan, but the very idea of an soap opera surviving for almost three-quarters of a century astounds me. Since soap operas don't do reruns, five days a week, 52 weeks a year equals 260 epidsodes per year. Multiply that by 72 years and you will discover that they have produced more than 18,000 episodes.
By contrast, C.S.I. aired its 200th episode last night.
In fact, Guiding Light is one of the programs responsible for the term "soap opera" since it was produced by Proctor and Gamble, the detergent company. In days when companies not only sponsored, but owned and produced their own radio programs to promote their products, P&G offered a number of serial dramas first on radio, then later on television. Thus, the birth of the "soap opera."
Nothing in this world lasts forever!
Sunday, March 22, 2009
33
The USA Weekend Sunday newspaper supplement carries a feature each week that notes celebrity birthdays during the coming week. By coincidence, pro football quarterback Peyton Manning and actresses Reese Witherspoon and Keri Russell all turn 33 within the next two or three days.
By any reasonable reckoning, age thirty-three is not old. However, there must also be the realization that it isn't exactly young either. Thirty-three was the age where I realized that even if I lived to be 100, I had moved into the middle third of that lifespan. As unpleasant as the thought seemed at the time, I had to deal with the fact that I was getting awfully close to middle age.
It's all a matter of perspective, of course. Currently, from the standpoint of one in his mid-fifties, thirty-three seems ridiculoulsy young. A 33-year old has another thirty, forty, maybe even fifty years of productive living ahead. By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered anything other than the bloom of youth.
Reality insists on intruding, though. Even barring serious injury, Peyton Manning most likely has only 1/3 of his NFL career ahead of him. Most actresses (excluding the indomitable Meryl Streep) see their careers begin to decline once they pass 40. So, Reese and Keri better make the most of the next few years.
The secret is to stay ready . . . make preparations for each coming stage in our lives. Being 33 is different from being 22, but it's also different from being 44, 55, or 66. The person who puts God first always, and lives each stage of life to the fullest is the one who gets the most satisfaction out of each day along the journey from youth to old age.
Comments, anybody?
By any reasonable reckoning, age thirty-three is not old. However, there must also be the realization that it isn't exactly young either. Thirty-three was the age where I realized that even if I lived to be 100, I had moved into the middle third of that lifespan. As unpleasant as the thought seemed at the time, I had to deal with the fact that I was getting awfully close to middle age.
It's all a matter of perspective, of course. Currently, from the standpoint of one in his mid-fifties, thirty-three seems ridiculoulsy young. A 33-year old has another thirty, forty, maybe even fifty years of productive living ahead. By no stretch of the imagination could that be considered anything other than the bloom of youth.
Reality insists on intruding, though. Even barring serious injury, Peyton Manning most likely has only 1/3 of his NFL career ahead of him. Most actresses (excluding the indomitable Meryl Streep) see their careers begin to decline once they pass 40. So, Reese and Keri better make the most of the next few years.
The secret is to stay ready . . . make preparations for each coming stage in our lives. Being 33 is different from being 22, but it's also different from being 44, 55, or 66. The person who puts God first always, and lives each stage of life to the fullest is the one who gets the most satisfaction out of each day along the journey from youth to old age.
Comments, anybody?
Friday, March 6, 2009
What I've Learned on Facebook
Facebook has been around for quite a while. It started with college students, but gradually spread upwards through the Generation Xers and Baby Buster generations. Now, it is finally reaching into the big, now kinda old Baby Boomer generation. That includes me, so finally I've gotten caught up in the craze. I've had a basically inactive Facebook account for some time, but last Saturday I logged in and found a bunch of friends requests waiting for me. That got me going on a crusade to see who I could locate among friends, acquaintances, and first cousins of people I used to know in elementary school. My "Friends List" tells me that I have added 72 new friends in the past two weeks. In truth, I have added 72 friends in the last six days . . . and at this moment have a total of 86 friends. Since I do know a few old fogies who have not yet succumbed to the Facebook craze, that gives me hope that I might have even more than 86 real life friends.
However, let me tell you a few things I have learned about Facebook these last six days.
However, let me tell you a few things I have learned about Facebook these last six days.
- It's lots of fun to re-establish contact with people I've known from long ago. I've exchanged notes and in some cases used the online chat feature with quite a few old friends, many of whom I haven't seen or heard from in 30+ years.
- There are some fantastic features to Facebook. It's great to be able to see pictures of people you haven't seen in a long time. However, it can also be a little shocking because we don't look exactly like we used to. One lady I remembered from college as a sweet, shapely brunette has now become a not-quite-so-svelte, white-haired grandmother-type (who is still just as sweet, I'm sure). Some of the guys have for some strange reason lost a considerable portion of their hair; others, like myself, still have our hair, but it has gotten quite a bit lighter in color for some puzzling cause. Most of us have grown somewhat broader, although not any taller. Hey, I know that's called aging, but it can still be shocking to be reminded of how we have changed over a few decades. Facebook also offers some fun apps (applications) which can be a fun way to spend some spare time.
- There are some silly, next-to-useless features to Facebook, too. I won't identify any of these by name since one person's "useless" might be somebody else's "greatest thing ever." However, some of the quizzes and games don't exactly float my boat. But to each his own.
- Facebook can take up lots of time. Everybody needs to be a good time manager. That has always been one of my challenges and Facebook doesn't necessarily help my struggle. Probably, the fascination will wear off in time, though, so this may become less of a problem for me.
- Facebook friendships (like those in real life) will require some effort to maintain. Real friendships aren't static things, they are either growing or dying (like most other living things in life). I suspect some of the old friends I've discovered will fade away into obscurity once again because either I won't put forth the effort to keep up with them, or they won't have any interest in staying in touch with me. However, that doesn't mean we don't have good memories of shared experiences in the past or that we do not still think of ourselves as friends.
- Re-connecting with old friends can bring on some unpleasant news. It is always possible that we might learn that someone we once felt closeness with has passed on into eternity. That hasn't happened to me yet through Facebook, but inevitably it will at some point. It's also possible to learn about friends' marriages breaking up. Several of the couples who met and married while attending the same college at the same time I did are now divorced. In many cases, those marriages failed because one partner or the other committed infidelity. It is always a sad thing to learn about that kind of sin and the consequences it has in the lives of people whom you care about. It has also brought some sadness to me this past week to learn of three or four people who were once faithful members of the Lord's church, but who have made spiritual changes which (at least according to my understanding) have taken them in the wrong direction away from the Lord's will. On the other hand, knowing this gives me the opportunity to pray for them, and I would not have known of that need had I not renewed some connections on Facebook.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Rating the Presidents
C-SPAN has presented a compilation of a group of historians' ranking of our 42 former presidents. This updates a list C-SPAN offered in 2000.
The top ten are:
1) Lincoln
2) Washington
3) FDR
4) TR
5) Truman
6) JFK
7) Jefferson
8) Eisenhower
9) Wilson
10) Reagan
Rated the worst of all the presidents: James Buchanan, who was president just before Lincoln.
Other recent presidents are LBJ (11), Clinton (15), George HW Bush (18), Ford (22), Carter (25), Nixon (27), and George W Bush (36).
My comments:
Most over-rated: Kennedy -- perhaps historians who have a living memory of Camelot will have to die out before JFK's 1000 days in power can be objectively evaluated. JFK belongs in the top 20 of all presidents, but nearer the bottom of that range than the top.
Also over-rated: Clinton -- up to 15th from 21st in the 2000 survey. 21st is about right. Also Grant up to 23rd from 33rd in the 2000 survey. The earlier ranking was charitable; the huge jump in the latest survey is unexplainable. In reality, U. S. Grant was a bottom five president.
Slightly over-rated in the top 10: Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson -- no quibbles with Truman and Wilson being in the top 10 but not quite as high as they are. The General is 6-8 spots too high.
Underrated: Reagan (ought to compete with TR and TJ for the middle spaces in the top 10); Andrew Jackson (ranked 13th; a stronger case can be made for Old Hickory being in the Top 10 than Kennedy, Eisenhower, and possibly Wilson); Andrew Johnson (the historians ought to have gone back and read JFK's Profiles in Courage before ranking AJ next-to-worst; he deserves better than that. If being impeached by a hostile Congress doesn't count against Clinton, then it should not be a black mark against A. Johnson either); Lyndon Johnson (if not for the Vietnam War, he might be a Top 5 President because of his social and civil rights programs, but Vietnam destroyed his presidency).
It is early for any real historical analysis of the Bush 43 presidency. In time, his ranking might improve, but he most likely will always be considered in the bottom half of the presidents.
Obviously, there is some subjectivity involved in anyone's ratings of presidents. That is true for me as well as for the historians who participated in the C-SPAN survey. In some cases, the subjective judgment is obvious. In other cases, it is much more subtle.
My personal top ten:
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Reagan
6. TR
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Truman
9. LBJ
10.Wilson
Link to C-SPAN material: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
The top ten are:
1) Lincoln
2) Washington
3) FDR
4) TR
5) Truman
6) JFK
7) Jefferson
8) Eisenhower
9) Wilson
10) Reagan
Rated the worst of all the presidents: James Buchanan, who was president just before Lincoln.
Other recent presidents are LBJ (11), Clinton (15), George HW Bush (18), Ford (22), Carter (25), Nixon (27), and George W Bush (36).
My comments:
Most over-rated: Kennedy -- perhaps historians who have a living memory of Camelot will have to die out before JFK's 1000 days in power can be objectively evaluated. JFK belongs in the top 20 of all presidents, but nearer the bottom of that range than the top.
Also over-rated: Clinton -- up to 15th from 21st in the 2000 survey. 21st is about right. Also Grant up to 23rd from 33rd in the 2000 survey. The earlier ranking was charitable; the huge jump in the latest survey is unexplainable. In reality, U. S. Grant was a bottom five president.
Slightly over-rated in the top 10: Truman, Eisenhower, Wilson -- no quibbles with Truman and Wilson being in the top 10 but not quite as high as they are. The General is 6-8 spots too high.
Underrated: Reagan (ought to compete with TR and TJ for the middle spaces in the top 10); Andrew Jackson (ranked 13th; a stronger case can be made for Old Hickory being in the Top 10 than Kennedy, Eisenhower, and possibly Wilson); Andrew Johnson (the historians ought to have gone back and read JFK's Profiles in Courage before ranking AJ next-to-worst; he deserves better than that. If being impeached by a hostile Congress doesn't count against Clinton, then it should not be a black mark against A. Johnson either); Lyndon Johnson (if not for the Vietnam War, he might be a Top 5 President because of his social and civil rights programs, but Vietnam destroyed his presidency).
It is early for any real historical analysis of the Bush 43 presidency. In time, his ranking might improve, but he most likely will always be considered in the bottom half of the presidents.
Obviously, there is some subjectivity involved in anyone's ratings of presidents. That is true for me as well as for the historians who participated in the C-SPAN survey. In some cases, the subjective judgment is obvious. In other cases, it is much more subtle.
My personal top ten:
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Reagan
6. TR
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Truman
9. LBJ
10.Wilson
Link to C-SPAN material: http://www.c-span.org/
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Blogging the Inauguration
As most everyone familiar with his skill as an orator would have expected, President Barack Obama gave an inspiring, uplifting speech where he recalled the greatness of America past and challenged the nation to reclaim that greatness.
This writer did not vote for the new president and admits a degree of trepidation about what the Obama administration holds for our country. However, he is the President of all Americans and every citizen should hope and pray that he will live up to the brightest expectations of his ardent army of supporters. In a time of troubles, all of us should be working together for our common good. May the Lord bless our new President with wisdom and judgment to carry us forward in the direction we need to go.
Without meaning to dampen in any way the spirit of the day, we should note that things can only get better than the beginning of the inaugural ceremony. Several minutes behind schedule, the new president did not take the oath of office until several minutes after noon, eastern standard time. The 20th amendment states that presidential and vice-presidential terms end at noon on January 20th. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states that a new president must take the oath of office before he shall "enter on the Execution of his Office." Since Vice-President Biden had already been sworn into office, presumably he was actually the acting president for those few minutes when we listened to the musical performance. It doesn't matter in retrospect, but had some great emergency taken place, it could have made for some awkward moments (or worse) as they stood around trying to figure out who the president actually was.
Then the bungling of the presidential oath was embarrassing. I haven't heard a replay and don't know for sure if the Chief Justice or the new President is responsible for the mistake.
Finally, President Obama made a historical faux pas when he claimed to be the 44th person to take the presidential oath of office. Somebody ought to have caught that Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th presidents since he served non-consecutive terms. In reality, Barack Obama is the 43rd man to be president even though he will be called the 44th president.
None of these things is significant. But as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. The Obama administration did not get off to a good start in taking care of details.
This writer did not vote for the new president and admits a degree of trepidation about what the Obama administration holds for our country. However, he is the President of all Americans and every citizen should hope and pray that he will live up to the brightest expectations of his ardent army of supporters. In a time of troubles, all of us should be working together for our common good. May the Lord bless our new President with wisdom and judgment to carry us forward in the direction we need to go.
Without meaning to dampen in any way the spirit of the day, we should note that things can only get better than the beginning of the inaugural ceremony. Several minutes behind schedule, the new president did not take the oath of office until several minutes after noon, eastern standard time. The 20th amendment states that presidential and vice-presidential terms end at noon on January 20th. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states that a new president must take the oath of office before he shall "enter on the Execution of his Office." Since Vice-President Biden had already been sworn into office, presumably he was actually the acting president for those few minutes when we listened to the musical performance. It doesn't matter in retrospect, but had some great emergency taken place, it could have made for some awkward moments (or worse) as they stood around trying to figure out who the president actually was.
Then the bungling of the presidential oath was embarrassing. I haven't heard a replay and don't know for sure if the Chief Justice or the new President is responsible for the mistake.
Finally, President Obama made a historical faux pas when he claimed to be the 44th person to take the presidential oath of office. Somebody ought to have caught that Grover Cleveland is counted as both the 22nd and 24th presidents since he served non-consecutive terms. In reality, Barack Obama is the 43rd man to be president even though he will be called the 44th president.
None of these things is significant. But as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. The Obama administration did not get off to a good start in taking care of details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
