If you are going to only allow "Catholics in public life" speak at your who school "whose positions run contrary to the church," then I guess you are going to not allow anyone gay, anyone divorced, anyone who has lied, anyone who has killed someone, anyone who supports the death penalty, or anyone who is not Roman Catholic to speak or for that matter work for your school. Those are the teachings of the Catholic Church, so then you are going to screen out everyone who has not broken those rules?
When will Summit Country Day issue a political test to its staff to determine where they stand on these issues? If they don't, are they simply going to ask who they voted for and then judge based on that? That would be an odd split. Which is more important, being anti-abortion or anti-death penalty?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Thin Skinned Cole
Laketa Cole needs to look past minor pranks. She now will be tagged as the person responsible for removing the barricade on 13th Street, all because she raise a ruckus over a flier. That pushed Enquirer reporter Greg Korte to write a news story and then make her the focus of what some view as opening back up the door to drug dealers.
She should win back her seat anyway, but she might loose a few moderate votes. This would not have been known if she would have just taken it and moved on, don't arm your opponents with your own anger.
She should win back her seat anyway, but she might loose a few moderate votes. This would not have been known if she would have just taken it and moved on, don't arm your opponents with your own anger.
Blue Collar, White Collar, & the Future
When I was in college I was trained a what I believe was and is one of the best public university undergraduate business programs in the country. We were taught how to be corporate soldiers. Whether it was accounting, management, marketing, or Finance, all of us learned the tools needed to run any corporation. What we didn't learn were the operations of what that corporation might do. We didn't learn how to build anything. We didn't learn to design much, beyond a few spreadsheets. Some of us can sell, but we didn't learn about what we are selling.
20 years ago it would take about 25 people to do what it takes 5 to do, in about half the time. The ratio in the future will likely increase in its efficiency. Where will that leave our workforce?
What plans are in the minds of our corporate leaders and political office holders? Are they thinking it will all just work out? Do some think that in 50 years we will not build or make anything and only provide services to the world? It appears that is the model we are heading towards. China, India, and South America will make everything, and we will sell it and buy it. The job skill sets in America are shrinking. There are fewer companies that doing fewer things. Will there be enough jobs to support our economy? How long can we make money when we are just trading sticks of butter, taking a cut in each transaction? Would it not be better to not only sell the butter, but make it too? Do we not in the long run make more money when we don't out source everything? At some point the market for outsourcing will crash, and companies will scramble to find people to answer the telephone, let alone find people to service their Servers or make their toothbrushes. What companies are looking beyond stock price? What are we going to do when consolidate everything as far as we can? Will CEO's ever care about anything other than share price?
20 years ago it would take about 25 people to do what it takes 5 to do, in about half the time. The ratio in the future will likely increase in its efficiency. Where will that leave our workforce?
What plans are in the minds of our corporate leaders and political office holders? Are they thinking it will all just work out? Do some think that in 50 years we will not build or make anything and only provide services to the world? It appears that is the model we are heading towards. China, India, and South America will make everything, and we will sell it and buy it. The job skill sets in America are shrinking. There are fewer companies that doing fewer things. Will there be enough jobs to support our economy? How long can we make money when we are just trading sticks of butter, taking a cut in each transaction? Would it not be better to not only sell the butter, but make it too? Do we not in the long run make more money when we don't out source everything? At some point the market for outsourcing will crash, and companies will scramble to find people to answer the telephone, let alone find people to service their Servers or make their toothbrushes. What companies are looking beyond stock price? What are we going to do when consolidate everything as far as we can? Will CEO's ever care about anything other than share price?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
One for 'Us,' and None For 'Them'
Abraham at Political Influentials brings up an interesting column about how Evangelical Christians are not Monolithic. This is a true statement, technically. When it comes to social issues I think it wrong. That is the point of the whole theocratic movement, to impose a social order on the society based on conservative Christian religious dogma. It will be "open" to variation, but only those where Christians can swallow it, so to speak. The reactionaries are not going to make everyone be Baptists or even be born-again, but what they don't seem to understand is that not everyone is Christian, and because they (me) are not, that should not be a reason to discriminate against them, nor should it a be license to use the government to try and either force or even just encourage religion or more likely a particular brand of religion on anyone.
I think history is missed on people. In the past the evangelical Christians oppressed Catholics in this country. The Catholics gave some back too, but catholic discrimination was not just common, it was the norm.
Today we have something relatively similar. The Evangelicals have evolved. They are tolerant of most other Christian variable, and to some degree to Jews and Muslims. Inside the evangelicals you still will get plenty of blood loss over whether you are a KJV fan or you push forward with NIV or some other heathen text. The tolerance level is far dicier and has we have seen lately in the new outright oppressive against other non-monotheists. Admitting this reality is a big debating point though.
I fully agree that the 'born-again' Christians are not going to view the same issues the same way. They do however have a slew of issues that they move in crisp step with far and above all other Christians. There is no middle ground on abortion or homosexuality or other social issues. Do they disagree on taxes? Sure they do. The political spectrum of view points in many churches though I think is shrinking.
In the column though one thing was really missing: debate on anti-gay stances. It is quite clear that evangelicals most often either out-right anti-homosexuals, or they compartmentalize the issues. Think of being against gay marriage, but not being anti-gay. I don't see a difference, they often nuance it. It is the same as the cliché: "hate the sin, not the sinner." Well, when you are not religious, you don't sin, it is not applicable as a concept, so again, it is failure to grasp that people live outside your frame of reference.
Abraham had a funny, which I don't think was intentional in his post:
I think history is missed on people. In the past the evangelical Christians oppressed Catholics in this country. The Catholics gave some back too, but catholic discrimination was not just common, it was the norm.
Today we have something relatively similar. The Evangelicals have evolved. They are tolerant of most other Christian variable, and to some degree to Jews and Muslims. Inside the evangelicals you still will get plenty of blood loss over whether you are a KJV fan or you push forward with NIV or some other heathen text. The tolerance level is far dicier and has we have seen lately in the new outright oppressive against other non-monotheists. Admitting this reality is a big debating point though.
I fully agree that the 'born-again' Christians are not going to view the same issues the same way. They do however have a slew of issues that they move in crisp step with far and above all other Christians. There is no middle ground on abortion or homosexuality or other social issues. Do they disagree on taxes? Sure they do. The political spectrum of view points in many churches though I think is shrinking.
In the column though one thing was really missing: debate on anti-gay stances. It is quite clear that evangelicals most often either out-right anti-homosexuals, or they compartmentalize the issues. Think of being against gay marriage, but not being anti-gay. I don't see a difference, they often nuance it. It is the same as the cliché: "hate the sin, not the sinner." Well, when you are not religious, you don't sin, it is not applicable as a concept, so again, it is failure to grasp that people live outside your frame of reference.
Abraham had a funny, which I don't think was intentional in his post:
Evangelicals Are Not A MonolithThe bold is mine. It is subtly funny. A better choice would have been "some of them” instead of "they," but I got the overall point of post.
I've seen quite a few references to theocracy lately. If you're interested in another point of view read this opinion article from an evangelical. He offers some insight on what they stand for.
Loss of Cinergy?
What will the effects be on the loss of Cinergy's HQ? The back office will surely lose jobs, but how much of the operation can be handled from NC?
The Soundtrack to Life
Is the intense love of music and the emotional and social connection it instills, as well as the cultural identity it can provide, a modern phenomenon? Is it something that only infects some of us? Is there a gene for music appreciation?
Music is one of the most unifying and yet deviding elements of American Culture today. We are divided by class and race. Music is an element of the identity we profess, whether we are a headbanger, a gangsta, a cowboy, or a wine and cheese taster. Yet within out subcultures we can share songs that fill you full of memory and sense of time or tone that can take you out of your current reality.
What makes music so vital to some, yet just background noise to others? To me, music is like a vital element to living. I need it as much as I need sleep. I don't need just sounds, I need music. What I think of music and of sound or of noise is what someone else might find enlightening. That variation is part of the mysticism of music that defies logic. How can people not at least like some of the Beatles? I know it is hard to fathom but it is true.
Then there are those who just like background noise, just a monotone movie soundtrack that adds a little foundation to their existence, but nothing they will remember the next time they hear the same song. Think of a Ritz cracker to the cheese. Bland on bland. Are those who like easy listening looking to just numb their brains to the pain? Do those who instead embrace as wide view of music reach out to it the variations that contain, dear I say it, soul? I think it is really more like emotion, depth, or something more than just contentment.
I like music that has power, emotion, beauty, complication, and is vibrant. I listen to it for the emotion it can cause me to emote. Music is not like the drapes or a seat cushion. It is art. Art is what I think separates the wheat from the chaff, and the music from the mind numbing drivel. How we tell the difference is what I think is the rub. That is where the conflict and division comes in.
Why though are more of those under say age 50 more into music, than those over it? My parents for example love music, but they don't just turn on the stereo and listen to it, while they do something else. I do that constantly. Is that just us or is it another element of just growing older?
Music is one of the most unifying and yet deviding elements of American Culture today. We are divided by class and race. Music is an element of the identity we profess, whether we are a headbanger, a gangsta, a cowboy, or a wine and cheese taster. Yet within out subcultures we can share songs that fill you full of memory and sense of time or tone that can take you out of your current reality.
What makes music so vital to some, yet just background noise to others? To me, music is like a vital element to living. I need it as much as I need sleep. I don't need just sounds, I need music. What I think of music and of sound or of noise is what someone else might find enlightening. That variation is part of the mysticism of music that defies logic. How can people not at least like some of the Beatles? I know it is hard to fathom but it is true.
Then there are those who just like background noise, just a monotone movie soundtrack that adds a little foundation to their existence, but nothing they will remember the next time they hear the same song. Think of a Ritz cracker to the cheese. Bland on bland. Are those who like easy listening looking to just numb their brains to the pain? Do those who instead embrace as wide view of music reach out to it the variations that contain, dear I say it, soul? I think it is really more like emotion, depth, or something more than just contentment.
I like music that has power, emotion, beauty, complication, and is vibrant. I listen to it for the emotion it can cause me to emote. Music is not like the drapes or a seat cushion. It is art. Art is what I think separates the wheat from the chaff, and the music from the mind numbing drivel. How we tell the difference is what I think is the rub. That is where the conflict and division comes in.
Why though are more of those under say age 50 more into music, than those over it? My parents for example love music, but they don't just turn on the stereo and listen to it, while they do something else. I do that constantly. Is that just us or is it another element of just growing older?
Monday, May 09, 2005
City Cards
CNN had a side story last week on pooling of regional attractions into a discount plan in the form of a car or pass that allows users to get discounts to several places in the area.
The idea is brilliant, but they need to take it one step further, even if it has a certain Disney quality to it. What a better way to market and to steer tourists to the entertainment areas of the city than to have admission bundling. This allows places like the Museum Center, the CAC, and Newport Aquarium to allow users to buy one ticket to all three places for one price, which ends up being a discount over three individual tickets, but it means all three can be a reason for tourist to stay over night in the city, not just an afternoon. This could bring a family from Dayton or even Cleveland to downtown for a couple of days. The tickets could include transportation between each attraction, making it easy for those fearful of city street driving. Throw in a deal somehow with a sporting event, and you really could have a nice little mini-vacation. This type of trip is the only type of tourism that makes sense for areas like Cincinnati.
I would through in Kings Island, but just don't know if the tie in would work. It might work as well as the sporting event, but its location, so far out of town, takes away some of the ease added with downtown transportation. A family could park their car and be shuttled cheaply around the urban core area. Adding a trip out to Mason adds cost that may not work.
[Via SoC]
Sidenote on SoC; Publius has added a second blogger to his blog: Hayek.
The idea is brilliant, but they need to take it one step further, even if it has a certain Disney quality to it. What a better way to market and to steer tourists to the entertainment areas of the city than to have admission bundling. This allows places like the Museum Center, the CAC, and Newport Aquarium to allow users to buy one ticket to all three places for one price, which ends up being a discount over three individual tickets, but it means all three can be a reason for tourist to stay over night in the city, not just an afternoon. This could bring a family from Dayton or even Cleveland to downtown for a couple of days. The tickets could include transportation between each attraction, making it easy for those fearful of city street driving. Throw in a deal somehow with a sporting event, and you really could have a nice little mini-vacation. This type of trip is the only type of tourism that makes sense for areas like Cincinnati.
I would through in Kings Island, but just don't know if the tie in would work. It might work as well as the sporting event, but its location, so far out of town, takes away some of the ease added with downtown transportation. A family could park their car and be shuttled cheaply around the urban core area. Adding a trip out to Mason adds cost that may not work.
[Via SoC]
Sidenote on SoC; Publius has added a second blogger to his blog: Hayek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)