A foolish bet from a national sportswriter named Charles Robinson has spurred on a whole new phrase to describe something almost entirely inconceiveable. For those who are not aware, he made a preseason bet that if the Chicago Bears won the NFC North, he would eat his laptop. I find great amusement in such bets as these. "Pride comes before a fall" comes to mind as a suitable scripture for these situations. Needless to say, the Bears won the NFC North, and indigesetion awaits. When one makes a bet such as this, one had better be willing to pay up, or in this case, eat up.
Other people have, unsurprisingly, picked up on this expression. Doing a google search on the topic (as I am wont to do) uncovered the expression used in such varying ways as a taunt ("if your cartoon is anything more than stick figures I will eat my laptop") to pride about a musical being developed ("if this musical doesn't make it on Broadway in the next few years I will eat my laptop"). Besides these uses for it, one can imagine a suitable taunt for enthusiasts of end-time prophecy ("If the tribulation doesn't begin in five years I will eat my laptop" springs to mind, for example). Such a useful boast could even be useful for solving parent-child problems ("If I don't improve my grades next semester I will eat my laptop").
Of course, if one makes such foolish and rash predications that would involve invoking the laptop bet, one had better be willing to suffer some heartburn. Laptop's don't taste good. They're mostly made up of plastic, with some silicon chips thrown in for seasoning. The power cords are a bit of a problem too. My laptop, for example, has a tendancy towards the "fried laptop," with its long-standing power-cord problems, which have caused flames to spurt from the back of the machine before (and nearly electrocuted me in the process). Not all laptops, however, are as spicy as mine. Nonetheless, to put it rather mildly, eating a laptop is far from a welcome task.
Life would be so much easier if people meant what they said and didn't have to come up with such extravagent language (as eating laptops is, you must admit) in order to demonstrate that they are really serious about something. I mean, people should be able to take what one says at least somewhat seriously (although, sometimes people take what one says a bit too seriously--without an understanding of dry and deadpan humor, or sarcasm, or even the occasionally witty barb). If our yes was yes and our no was no, it would not be necessary to swear on one's digestive health (laptops are murder on the intestines) in order to make a point. It would also be less, um, unpleasant if what one said did not come to pass. It is one thing to look like a fool (because when one is in the prediction making business, one is going to be wrong a lot) when false predictions fail to come to pass (whether it is in the realm of sports, politics, or the occasional prediction of the return of Jesus Christ), but it is entirely another thing to break one's word. In short, if you are going to be foolish enough to make a ridiculous bet, you'd better be willing to pay the price. I wonder how humble pie tastes like. It probably tastes like lappy.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
On Leadership
In a recent World News and Prophecy article entitled "Leadership Under Seige Around The World," John Ross Schroeder comments on the lack of faith people have in their leaders and in their lack of trust in institutions of any kind. Surely, this is obvious to all. A large majority of people have no trust in any insitutions whatsoever, be they churches, political parties, companies, not-for-profits, international organizations, nations, local governments. In addition, the author correctly notes that people long for trustworthy leaders, and just may grant such leaders improper and unaccountable power. I happen to agree with the analysis of this person in this case (though he fails to apply it to, say, religious organizations, or see the validity of the mistrust, as well as the fact that no human is fit to hold power unaccountable to those they serve). Lest I bite off more than I can chew, however, I would like to comment on the phenomenon of the mistrust, its cyclical nature, its origins, and its cure.
All over the world, leaders are facing rather dissatisfied people. Schroeder refers to the lack of trust and institutional corruption in such organizations as the UN, horrific public approval letters of political parties, presidents, prime ministers, and so forth. Indeed, there are large amount of people in any given nation or organization who act with extreme distrust towards their leaders, with good reason (as I will get to later on). It would be a lie to say I did not share this particular tendency myself, though I am far from extreme in it. Then again, one always knows people further along a certain path for either favorable or unfavorable comparison.
The reasons for the pervasive mistrust in leaders is both natural and entirely proper. According to generational theorists Howe and Strauss, we are in what is called the Fourth Turning, an age of anarchy, where there is little desire for unity, or little unity. In any way, shape, and form, these represent our times. They are times when people spend their effort on personal persuits rather than working towards the common benefit (this is certainly true). Leaders themselves of all stripes have utilized their power for personal benefit. I could give many examples of this, but it would be impolite to do so, as certain groups of people would feel somewhat put upon. There are no types of leaders exempt from this particular, and just, criticism, though. With leaders focused on making service pay for them, it is no wonder that they are not trusted. They simply are not trustworthy. Even if individual leaders may not be corrupt (as difficult as it is to tell that with any degree of certainty), the entire system of leadership all over the place is corrupt. By rewarding seniority rather than talent, by rewarding appearance over reality, and by rewarding pleasant and polite fiction rather than bitter and ugly truth, organizations and nations have gotten the leadership they deserve. This is not a good thing.
Such epochs of mistrust are cyclical, which is itself a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Whether the cycle ends up being good or bad depends on how societies and organizations react to the defining "crisis" that ends the mistrust and forces people to once again work together to solve some pressing, urgent, and calamitous problem. History is full of good and bad leaders in such dark times (good: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill; not so good: FDR, Jefferson Davis, Louis XVI; really bad: Hitler, Tojo). The result of the crisis depends on the moral fiber of the people more than that of their leader. The South, for example, failed badly in dealing with the crisis of slavery, and thus merited its fall in the Civil War to the more advanced (and more righteous) North. Germany's people before WWII failed also in choosing a demagogue who offered simplistic solutions to difficult problems (such people are a must to avoid in positions of any resopnsible authority), and merited their fall in WWII. While FDR himself was nothing special as a leader (and his policies were downright idiotic), the American people themselves had not been completely corrupted at that time, and so America was more robust. England, more decadent, fared less well, and France, even more decadent than England, fared worse still.
Thus, the cure for the current climate of malaise when it comes to leadership is a sense of iminent and serious crisis that forces people to work together because they cannot make it on their own. The types of leaders that people in such situations choose are one of two kinds. Both leaders are leaders of profound vision. Good leaders are those who share in the sacrifices of their people, and are able to bring good meaning to suffering, avoid (permanent) increases of central government power (for temporary increases, as those of the Civil War, seem inevitable), and explain conflicts in their genuine moral terms. Leaders who are less able fail in one of these aspects, either using crises to seek permanent increases in power, seek to avoid sharing the dangers of the crisis (and are thus cowardly), provide false meaning and vicious (rather than virtuous) moral meaning to problems (usually this involves making a group of people a scapegoat for the crisis). In short, people who wish for an end of the carping attitude towards leadership and long for inspiring leaders and a sense of purpose had better be careful what they wish for. In the end, we get the leaders we deserve. Whether that speaks will or ill depends on ourselves.
All over the world, leaders are facing rather dissatisfied people. Schroeder refers to the lack of trust and institutional corruption in such organizations as the UN, horrific public approval letters of political parties, presidents, prime ministers, and so forth. Indeed, there are large amount of people in any given nation or organization who act with extreme distrust towards their leaders, with good reason (as I will get to later on). It would be a lie to say I did not share this particular tendency myself, though I am far from extreme in it. Then again, one always knows people further along a certain path for either favorable or unfavorable comparison.
The reasons for the pervasive mistrust in leaders is both natural and entirely proper. According to generational theorists Howe and Strauss, we are in what is called the Fourth Turning, an age of anarchy, where there is little desire for unity, or little unity. In any way, shape, and form, these represent our times. They are times when people spend their effort on personal persuits rather than working towards the common benefit (this is certainly true). Leaders themselves of all stripes have utilized their power for personal benefit. I could give many examples of this, but it would be impolite to do so, as certain groups of people would feel somewhat put upon. There are no types of leaders exempt from this particular, and just, criticism, though. With leaders focused on making service pay for them, it is no wonder that they are not trusted. They simply are not trustworthy. Even if individual leaders may not be corrupt (as difficult as it is to tell that with any degree of certainty), the entire system of leadership all over the place is corrupt. By rewarding seniority rather than talent, by rewarding appearance over reality, and by rewarding pleasant and polite fiction rather than bitter and ugly truth, organizations and nations have gotten the leadership they deserve. This is not a good thing.
Such epochs of mistrust are cyclical, which is itself a good thing, or at least not a bad thing. Whether the cycle ends up being good or bad depends on how societies and organizations react to the defining "crisis" that ends the mistrust and forces people to once again work together to solve some pressing, urgent, and calamitous problem. History is full of good and bad leaders in such dark times (good: Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Winston Churchill; not so good: FDR, Jefferson Davis, Louis XVI; really bad: Hitler, Tojo). The result of the crisis depends on the moral fiber of the people more than that of their leader. The South, for example, failed badly in dealing with the crisis of slavery, and thus merited its fall in the Civil War to the more advanced (and more righteous) North. Germany's people before WWII failed also in choosing a demagogue who offered simplistic solutions to difficult problems (such people are a must to avoid in positions of any resopnsible authority), and merited their fall in WWII. While FDR himself was nothing special as a leader (and his policies were downright idiotic), the American people themselves had not been completely corrupted at that time, and so America was more robust. England, more decadent, fared less well, and France, even more decadent than England, fared worse still.
Thus, the cure for the current climate of malaise when it comes to leadership is a sense of iminent and serious crisis that forces people to work together because they cannot make it on their own. The types of leaders that people in such situations choose are one of two kinds. Both leaders are leaders of profound vision. Good leaders are those who share in the sacrifices of their people, and are able to bring good meaning to suffering, avoid (permanent) increases of central government power (for temporary increases, as those of the Civil War, seem inevitable), and explain conflicts in their genuine moral terms. Leaders who are less able fail in one of these aspects, either using crises to seek permanent increases in power, seek to avoid sharing the dangers of the crisis (and are thus cowardly), provide false meaning and vicious (rather than virtuous) moral meaning to problems (usually this involves making a group of people a scapegoat for the crisis). In short, people who wish for an end of the carping attitude towards leadership and long for inspiring leaders and a sense of purpose had better be careful what they wish for. In the end, we get the leaders we deserve. Whether that speaks will or ill depends on ourselves.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Blow the Trumpet
Finally, a blog with entries longer than mine, from some people I know in the Church of God who are very concerned with biblical prophecy and end time events (obviously).
http://blowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/
Okay, plug over. Carry on.
http://blowthetrumpet.blogspot.com/
Okay, plug over. Carry on.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Frequency
Today, while on an errand at work to get a semi-retired engineer to seal some plans, I had the opportunity to watch a rippling pond and I wondered about sinosidal waves (that's because I'm an engineer, probably). It made me ponder that certain frequencies that are very calming to me. Considering the brief time I have available this night to comment on them, I will look at them and ponder the oddities of their patterns.
Music:
As I am a (somewhat) irritable person, I need things to calm me down and relax me, as I can be somewhat high-strung. It is fortunate that I like to listen to melodic music, as well as sing and play the viola. Music has a calming effect on me, soothing the wild beast, if you will. It is noteworthy that I am attracted to certain types of music, though, that demonstrate certain patterns. Pop music, with its very narrow constraints involving chords, or baroque and classical music, with their patterns of harmonies and rhythms, meet the bill. Rap music, sadly, does not.
Water:
Bodies of water are very relaxing to me, even from childhood. I can sit for hours (this is a hard task, you ever tried to get me to sit still?) watching the ocean, or a lake, or a stream. There is something in the pattern of the waves and ripples that is relaxing and soothing. The same is true even of watching a rainstorm, which is quite soothing as well. It was a favorite pasttime of mine when I was a child (well, rather, playing in the rain at least). Watching waves is one of the most enjoyable things to do at the beach of course, at least if I want to relax. Relaxation is a rare thing for me, so at least it's good to know some places to go.
Rolling Country/Rollercoasters:
My father's family lives in the gently rolling hill country of Eastern Pennsylvania. I find great contentment in riding in cars along such country (less enjoyment, as can be imagined, hiking the country, unless it is with good friends as I did in northern England once). Incidentally enough, I like rollercoasters for the same reason. I'm not a big fan of the loops, but I love the ups and downs of a rollercoaster, especially the wooden ones, which have an organic feel to them, instead of the jerky and abrupt steel roller coasters (though I still like those).
Conclusions:
Is there a reason for this odd sort of attraction to sine and cosine waves? I don't know, but it sure is interesting to think about (at least for me). I wonder if anyone else has the same sort of odd contentment in such cyclical patterns as I do...
Music:
As I am a (somewhat) irritable person, I need things to calm me down and relax me, as I can be somewhat high-strung. It is fortunate that I like to listen to melodic music, as well as sing and play the viola. Music has a calming effect on me, soothing the wild beast, if you will. It is noteworthy that I am attracted to certain types of music, though, that demonstrate certain patterns. Pop music, with its very narrow constraints involving chords, or baroque and classical music, with their patterns of harmonies and rhythms, meet the bill. Rap music, sadly, does not.
Water:
Bodies of water are very relaxing to me, even from childhood. I can sit for hours (this is a hard task, you ever tried to get me to sit still?) watching the ocean, or a lake, or a stream. There is something in the pattern of the waves and ripples that is relaxing and soothing. The same is true even of watching a rainstorm, which is quite soothing as well. It was a favorite pasttime of mine when I was a child (well, rather, playing in the rain at least). Watching waves is one of the most enjoyable things to do at the beach of course, at least if I want to relax. Relaxation is a rare thing for me, so at least it's good to know some places to go.
Rolling Country/Rollercoasters:
My father's family lives in the gently rolling hill country of Eastern Pennsylvania. I find great contentment in riding in cars along such country (less enjoyment, as can be imagined, hiking the country, unless it is with good friends as I did in northern England once). Incidentally enough, I like rollercoasters for the same reason. I'm not a big fan of the loops, but I love the ups and downs of a rollercoaster, especially the wooden ones, which have an organic feel to them, instead of the jerky and abrupt steel roller coasters (though I still like those).
Conclusions:
Is there a reason for this odd sort of attraction to sine and cosine waves? I don't know, but it sure is interesting to think about (at least for me). I wonder if anyone else has the same sort of odd contentment in such cyclical patterns as I do...
Friday, December 02, 2005
Lay Off The Booze...
I don't know if it's just me, or some sort of macabre interest I have in attempting to notice patterns, but it seems to me there has been an awful lot of interest in the press in the drinking habits of celebrities these days.
It was not even a month ago that Kurt Busch, who won NASCAR last year, was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion of drunk driving. He was suspended from the last two races of the NASCAR season and forbodden from turning over the championship banner at the last race of the season, the accustomed action of outgoing champions in that racing circuit. While a preliminary field sobriety test had him passing, his rather argumentative manner had him being arrested and held for a couple of hours in jail. That's not a pleasant place to be, from what I hear anyway (note: I have never been arrested myself, something I'd rather like to continue).
Around the same time, there was a rather infamous accident involving the car of Paris Hilton, being driven by her Greek boy-toy (who was probably had a little too much Uozo to drink--yuck). Despite three of the four passengers of the car being rather visibly drunk (at least according to video), the four were given rather kid-glove treatment by the LAPD. Look, the LAPD are apparently nice to celebrities, as scary as they may appear to the common folk of Los Angeles (they were quite in force in the area of Los Angeles I lived in, but then again, I lived in South Central). Nonetheless, despite visible drunkness, they managed to avoid any legal sanction. Lucky them.
Then, yesterday, Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn (does the word rebound mean anything to any of you?) were stopped on suspicion of drinking and driving while together, and they got a friend to pick them up for the night. I find that sort of thing rather entertaining. At least the machine worked for them (unlike for Busch). Is it just me, or are the deputies in Arizona quite dilligent when it comes to making DUI arrests on the stars? At any rate, they ended up alright, and no worse for the wear, if a bit embarassed perhaps (no worse than, say Nick Nolte when he provided one of the worst mug shots of all time when he was arrested for DUI in Florida some years ago).
Finally, two minor actresses on the series lost were almost simultaneously stopped for DUI, and both failed ye olde breathalizer test (honestly, these famous people had better lay off the booze). Hawaii has an interesting law when it comes to DUI--the driver's license is automatically, upon a court hearing, revoked. A temporary license is given for work, but with numerous restrictions. Now, those actors and actresses of Lost are a little too busy working to be drinking, right? I mean, at least they should have the sense not to drink and drive. The nerve of them.
Such are my random thoughts as my brother enjoys a college visit with friends in North Carolina (Duke and UNC are on his list of colleges to visit). I hope he's doing alright, and I'm pretty sure he's not driving...
It was not even a month ago that Kurt Busch, who won NASCAR last year, was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion of drunk driving. He was suspended from the last two races of the NASCAR season and forbodden from turning over the championship banner at the last race of the season, the accustomed action of outgoing champions in that racing circuit. While a preliminary field sobriety test had him passing, his rather argumentative manner had him being arrested and held for a couple of hours in jail. That's not a pleasant place to be, from what I hear anyway (note: I have never been arrested myself, something I'd rather like to continue).
Around the same time, there was a rather infamous accident involving the car of Paris Hilton, being driven by her Greek boy-toy (who was probably had a little too much Uozo to drink--yuck). Despite three of the four passengers of the car being rather visibly drunk (at least according to video), the four were given rather kid-glove treatment by the LAPD. Look, the LAPD are apparently nice to celebrities, as scary as they may appear to the common folk of Los Angeles (they were quite in force in the area of Los Angeles I lived in, but then again, I lived in South Central). Nonetheless, despite visible drunkness, they managed to avoid any legal sanction. Lucky them.
Then, yesterday, Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn (does the word rebound mean anything to any of you?) were stopped on suspicion of drinking and driving while together, and they got a friend to pick them up for the night. I find that sort of thing rather entertaining. At least the machine worked for them (unlike for Busch). Is it just me, or are the deputies in Arizona quite dilligent when it comes to making DUI arrests on the stars? At any rate, they ended up alright, and no worse for the wear, if a bit embarassed perhaps (no worse than, say Nick Nolte when he provided one of the worst mug shots of all time when he was arrested for DUI in Florida some years ago).
Finally, two minor actresses on the series lost were almost simultaneously stopped for DUI, and both failed ye olde breathalizer test (honestly, these famous people had better lay off the booze). Hawaii has an interesting law when it comes to DUI--the driver's license is automatically, upon a court hearing, revoked. A temporary license is given for work, but with numerous restrictions. Now, those actors and actresses of Lost are a little too busy working to be drinking, right? I mean, at least they should have the sense not to drink and drive. The nerve of them.
Such are my random thoughts as my brother enjoys a college visit with friends in North Carolina (Duke and UNC are on his list of colleges to visit). I hope he's doing alright, and I'm pretty sure he's not driving...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
