My in-laws are coming for a night. No biggie. Jackson is a bit closer to East TN than Millington. The kids get to see their grandparents. We will have dinner. All is good. Except for the boxes.
The guest room is (now was) full of boxes yet to be dealt with. We went through most of them. Stuff was put away. Some will be tossed. Some donated. Some stuff is now in the attic. Another phase of moving and unpacking complete.
I think we will be unboxing stuff forever. When we are finally settled and have our house like we want it, I will probably sit down in my chair to blog in celebration, and die! Unpacking seems never ending. Hopefully we will be finished soon. At least in time to...unbox the Christmas decorations!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Memphis Tigers to the Big East: Don't hold your breath.
Everyone who knows me well knows that I am a huge Memphis Tiger fan. Since I was small I have been going to tiger football games (although not this year due to our move to Jackson), and I have endured some of the most tragic and painful college football on the planet. For years I have hoped that one day my Tigers would land in a conference that would allow them to compete with the SEC teams in the surrounding area. Recently the Big East announced that they are preparing to expand in football. Could this be the opportunity for the tigers to finally move on up and join the BCS party? It could be. But I do not think it will happen. Here are some reasons why I do not believe that Memphis will ever move up to a BCS league.
1. Losing. In the late 1960s and early 1970s Memphis State was the second winningest independent football school behind Notre Dame. Teams such as Louisville, Florida State, Cincinnati, and Tulsa were routinely games that were counted as wins. After Spook Murphy left, Fred Pancoast sustained winning but moved on to Vanderbilt. Richard Williamson was in position to keep the school on track but had numerous issues that undermined his success. Ultimately he was replaced with Rex Dockery (a sitting coach in the SWC). He was killed in a crash. By this time it had been 8 yrs since Memphis State had been a consistent winner. Many schools surpassed us during the Williamson and Dockery years. What followed was a series of blunders, bad hires and probation. The 80s solidified MSU as a losing program. Chuck Stobart may have turned it all around but was too bland for the fan base. By the time Tommy West took over for Rip Scherer there were nearly 30 yrs of losing. A brief renaissance occurred but could not be sustained, and here we are again. Losing has eroded the fan base to a few thousand who are steadfast and loyal. The program does not look attractice on paper and looks worse on the field.
2. Lackluster Vision: There has never been a cohesive plan for football. Tiger Lane is the first new thing in years but is it too little too late. The idea of an on campus football stadium was nixed by administration from the get-go. The players practice at a satellite campus. Simply stated football has no on campus home. There is no reason for alumni to return to campus. A clear vision for where the athletic program is going could potentially inspire more community involvement, donations, attendence, and ultimately ownership and pride in the university.
3. Limited Perspective: The primary focus of the athletic department and fund-raising has been towards basketball in recent years. This is understandable given the on court success of the men's team under John Calipari and now Josh Pastner. The basketball team is easy to follow, they win, and at the highest level. However, limiting the perspective to hoops is very short-sighted. Football is king in college sports, not basketball. Consider that the amount of payout money for the NCAA championship game is less than a minor bowl. When it looked like the Big 12 might completely fall apart earlier this year, was anyone clamoring for Kansas to be in their league? Big 10-nope Pac-12-nah, SEC- no thanks. Kansas practically invented the game of basketball, but when it came time to start dividing up the haves and have not, they almost got left out. I can assure you, Memphis basketball, although good, is not Kansas. The focus of the athletic department in terms of landing in a BCS league should begin and end with the development of football.
4. Lack of Facilities: The majority of successful college programs play football on campus. An on campus stadium says your are ready to play with the big boys. The basketball facilities are fine, but other sports have been neglected. Soccer plays in Collierville. Baseball finally got a facelift, but it is still a far cry from SEC, ACC, PAC-10 facilites. Track and Field is abyssmal. Again everything is too spread out. The sports facilities do not bring the fans and alumni back to campus. The big time schools take every opportunity to bring folks back to campus. The football practice facilites are not in line with area schools even though they have been upgraded. Players have to drive to practice. A master plan for facility upgrades should have been developed after Lousiville and Cincinnati left C-USA, AND it should have been presented to the public.
5. Lack of Athletic Funding: The athletic budget at Memphis is around 36 million a year (according to USA today/not my father). This is smaller than every Big East budget except South Florida which is also 36 million. It is smaller than every SEC budget (although close to Ole Miss and MSU). Most Big East budgets are in the 55-60 million range. It takes agressive fundraising and ticket sales to get this kind of money. How do you get the money? That is a good question, and I believe it is through getting people behind your vision and need for facilites. It goes back to planning. People do not give money because you need it. They give because they believe in what you are doing. Funding is lacking because their is no faith in the product or leadership.
6. Lightly endowed: This does not come into play regarding athletics on the field, but university presidents look at the entire scope and mission of the school, including academic and research endowment levels. The University of Memphis total endowment level is around 180 million. Louisville is at 589 million and Cincinnati is 833 million. The avg endowment of Big East schools is 664 million. SEC schools avg 750 million, big 12 and big 10 each around 2 billion. To be fair conference usa is at 632 million, but this figure is skewed by SMU, Rice, and Tulane. From an overall funding standpoint, the University of Memphis is most similar to the Mountain West. We are behind the Big East but light years behind the Big 12 and Big 10. A great university must have the backing of its community. To be certain the University of Memphis is not supported financially as well as the schools it wishes to partner with. Bottom line: the Big east schools have surpassed us both athletically and financially.
7. Loss of Learning: Memphis is currently listed as a tier two university by US News. All of the Big East and SEC schools are tier one institutions. Academically the university is being surpassed as well. Allowing under qualified students admission, and trying to wear too many hats has eroded the academics at the university. Their needs to be an emphasis on cutting programs that are inferior and enhancing excellence, such as the biomedical engineering and college of business. You can't be everything, and when you try to be good at everything, you are excellent at nothing. The idea that university presidents do not look at the academic quality of an institution when considering conference expansion is ludicrous. It matters a lot. Right now the University of Memphis is not in the same league academically with Big East schools.
8. Legacy Leaving: Because of the above mentioned academic issues, coupled with lack of funding, and lackluster athletics, (and I am sure other issues) prior graduates are sending their kids elsewhere. I remember learning the words to Georgia Tech's Ramblin' Wreck fight song as a child..."...if I had a daughter sir, I'd dress her in white and gold, and put her on the campus to cheer the brave and bold..." I think about this, and know that I don't want my daughter to wear blue and gray. Why? Ole Miss grads send their kids back, so do UT, Miss State, Alabama, and Auburn. I want my kids to have a better college experience than what U of M offers. I want a fun game day atmosphere, active student body, strong Greek system, tough academics, and more opportunities for my kids. Sad to say, my university is not where I will look for it unless things change. I know that others feel like I do.
9. Leadership: The importance of college athletics should not be overstated, but it is a major recruiting tool for students. The exposure of a university through football, basketball, and other athletic events develops brand recognition. The president of the university must realize and embrace this fact. It is no surprise to me that three of the largest universities, that are academically superior, well endowed and tradition rich are Texas, Michigan, and The Ohio State University. They also have pretty good football. High end academics and top-notch athletics are not mutually exclusive. Dr. Lane Rawlins understood this. He developed the campus with numerous building projects and placed an emphasis on athletics as well. He hired John Calipari. In spite of the the recent NCAA sanctions and general animosity towards Cal; you would be hard pressed to find a tiger fan who does not think we are better off for him coaching here. The problem is that the vision is not ongoing. Current leadership seems satisfied with the status quo. There is no aspiration to bigger and better things. Leadership starts at the top. Presidents and Athletic Directors have to understand their university, athletic programs, fan base, and alumni. Then they must develop a vision and plan that those people can believe in. That is what Louisville did. That is what Ole Miss is doing. It is happening at Houston, Central Florida, TCU, Boise State. Why not Memphis?
I am afraid that we will be left at the alter again. Much like the NFL efforts of the 70s and 80s. We spend too much time trying to retrofit and make what we have work, instead of looking into the future and developing our capital giving, facilities, and coaching hires for what is coming. Charlotte and Nashville built new stadiums and have NFL teams. We built the FedEx forum and got the NBA. 7-8 years ago we should have been planning for today, now it is probably too late. Go Tigers! I hope I am wrong about this.
1. Losing. In the late 1960s and early 1970s Memphis State was the second winningest independent football school behind Notre Dame. Teams such as Louisville, Florida State, Cincinnati, and Tulsa were routinely games that were counted as wins. After Spook Murphy left, Fred Pancoast sustained winning but moved on to Vanderbilt. Richard Williamson was in position to keep the school on track but had numerous issues that undermined his success. Ultimately he was replaced with Rex Dockery (a sitting coach in the SWC). He was killed in a crash. By this time it had been 8 yrs since Memphis State had been a consistent winner. Many schools surpassed us during the Williamson and Dockery years. What followed was a series of blunders, bad hires and probation. The 80s solidified MSU as a losing program. Chuck Stobart may have turned it all around but was too bland for the fan base. By the time Tommy West took over for Rip Scherer there were nearly 30 yrs of losing. A brief renaissance occurred but could not be sustained, and here we are again. Losing has eroded the fan base to a few thousand who are steadfast and loyal. The program does not look attractice on paper and looks worse on the field.
2. Lackluster Vision: There has never been a cohesive plan for football. Tiger Lane is the first new thing in years but is it too little too late. The idea of an on campus football stadium was nixed by administration from the get-go. The players practice at a satellite campus. Simply stated football has no on campus home. There is no reason for alumni to return to campus. A clear vision for where the athletic program is going could potentially inspire more community involvement, donations, attendence, and ultimately ownership and pride in the university.
3. Limited Perspective: The primary focus of the athletic department and fund-raising has been towards basketball in recent years. This is understandable given the on court success of the men's team under John Calipari and now Josh Pastner. The basketball team is easy to follow, they win, and at the highest level. However, limiting the perspective to hoops is very short-sighted. Football is king in college sports, not basketball. Consider that the amount of payout money for the NCAA championship game is less than a minor bowl. When it looked like the Big 12 might completely fall apart earlier this year, was anyone clamoring for Kansas to be in their league? Big 10-nope Pac-12-nah, SEC- no thanks. Kansas practically invented the game of basketball, but when it came time to start dividing up the haves and have not, they almost got left out. I can assure you, Memphis basketball, although good, is not Kansas. The focus of the athletic department in terms of landing in a BCS league should begin and end with the development of football.
4. Lack of Facilities: The majority of successful college programs play football on campus. An on campus stadium says your are ready to play with the big boys. The basketball facilities are fine, but other sports have been neglected. Soccer plays in Collierville. Baseball finally got a facelift, but it is still a far cry from SEC, ACC, PAC-10 facilites. Track and Field is abyssmal. Again everything is too spread out. The sports facilities do not bring the fans and alumni back to campus. The big time schools take every opportunity to bring folks back to campus. The football practice facilites are not in line with area schools even though they have been upgraded. Players have to drive to practice. A master plan for facility upgrades should have been developed after Lousiville and Cincinnati left C-USA, AND it should have been presented to the public.
5. Lack of Athletic Funding: The athletic budget at Memphis is around 36 million a year (according to USA today/not my father). This is smaller than every Big East budget except South Florida which is also 36 million. It is smaller than every SEC budget (although close to Ole Miss and MSU). Most Big East budgets are in the 55-60 million range. It takes agressive fundraising and ticket sales to get this kind of money. How do you get the money? That is a good question, and I believe it is through getting people behind your vision and need for facilites. It goes back to planning. People do not give money because you need it. They give because they believe in what you are doing. Funding is lacking because their is no faith in the product or leadership.
6. Lightly endowed: This does not come into play regarding athletics on the field, but university presidents look at the entire scope and mission of the school, including academic and research endowment levels. The University of Memphis total endowment level is around 180 million. Louisville is at 589 million and Cincinnati is 833 million. The avg endowment of Big East schools is 664 million. SEC schools avg 750 million, big 12 and big 10 each around 2 billion. To be fair conference usa is at 632 million, but this figure is skewed by SMU, Rice, and Tulane. From an overall funding standpoint, the University of Memphis is most similar to the Mountain West. We are behind the Big East but light years behind the Big 12 and Big 10. A great university must have the backing of its community. To be certain the University of Memphis is not supported financially as well as the schools it wishes to partner with. Bottom line: the Big east schools have surpassed us both athletically and financially.
7. Loss of Learning: Memphis is currently listed as a tier two university by US News. All of the Big East and SEC schools are tier one institutions. Academically the university is being surpassed as well. Allowing under qualified students admission, and trying to wear too many hats has eroded the academics at the university. Their needs to be an emphasis on cutting programs that are inferior and enhancing excellence, such as the biomedical engineering and college of business. You can't be everything, and when you try to be good at everything, you are excellent at nothing. The idea that university presidents do not look at the academic quality of an institution when considering conference expansion is ludicrous. It matters a lot. Right now the University of Memphis is not in the same league academically with Big East schools.
8. Legacy Leaving: Because of the above mentioned academic issues, coupled with lack of funding, and lackluster athletics, (and I am sure other issues) prior graduates are sending their kids elsewhere. I remember learning the words to Georgia Tech's Ramblin' Wreck fight song as a child..."...if I had a daughter sir, I'd dress her in white and gold, and put her on the campus to cheer the brave and bold..." I think about this, and know that I don't want my daughter to wear blue and gray. Why? Ole Miss grads send their kids back, so do UT, Miss State, Alabama, and Auburn. I want my kids to have a better college experience than what U of M offers. I want a fun game day atmosphere, active student body, strong Greek system, tough academics, and more opportunities for my kids. Sad to say, my university is not where I will look for it unless things change. I know that others feel like I do.
9. Leadership: The importance of college athletics should not be overstated, but it is a major recruiting tool for students. The exposure of a university through football, basketball, and other athletic events develops brand recognition. The president of the university must realize and embrace this fact. It is no surprise to me that three of the largest universities, that are academically superior, well endowed and tradition rich are Texas, Michigan, and The Ohio State University. They also have pretty good football. High end academics and top-notch athletics are not mutually exclusive. Dr. Lane Rawlins understood this. He developed the campus with numerous building projects and placed an emphasis on athletics as well. He hired John Calipari. In spite of the the recent NCAA sanctions and general animosity towards Cal; you would be hard pressed to find a tiger fan who does not think we are better off for him coaching here. The problem is that the vision is not ongoing. Current leadership seems satisfied with the status quo. There is no aspiration to bigger and better things. Leadership starts at the top. Presidents and Athletic Directors have to understand their university, athletic programs, fan base, and alumni. Then they must develop a vision and plan that those people can believe in. That is what Louisville did. That is what Ole Miss is doing. It is happening at Houston, Central Florida, TCU, Boise State. Why not Memphis?
I am afraid that we will be left at the alter again. Much like the NFL efforts of the 70s and 80s. We spend too much time trying to retrofit and make what we have work, instead of looking into the future and developing our capital giving, facilities, and coaching hires for what is coming. Charlotte and Nashville built new stadiums and have NFL teams. We built the FedEx forum and got the NBA. 7-8 years ago we should have been planning for today, now it is probably too late. Go Tigers! I hope I am wrong about this.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
2nd Amendment Rights
The Tennessee gubernatorial race has grown more intense over the past several days over the issue of rights to carry weapons in the state of Tennessee. Republican candidate Bill Haslam has indicated that he would sign a bill eliminating the need for handgun permits if passed by the state legislature.
This has created much debate across both sides of the gun control aisle and in the press. I will note that Haslam will likely win regardless of the affect his stance has on the race. He has also stated that he is in favor of maintaining current permit to carry laws as they stand now. I say all this to emphasize that the debate is over a hypothetical bill in a race for governor that is not likely to be close anyway. Regardless, it makes for good debate.
This issue has made me think further about gun control and the constitution, and it may have little bearing on who I vote for next week. I favored Zach Wamp for what it is worth. Getting back on track, I read the constitution again this week. It is a marvelously simple document. It is a framework for our government and emphasizes at its core the concern our early leaders had regarding abuse of power and the dangers of a government that interferes too much in the lives of the people. It also clearly states areas where the government dare not interfere in the lives of people.
The two issues that seem to arise the most are the right to free speech and assembly (1st amendment) and the right to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment). The issue in the governor's race is clearly an issue of state regulation regarding second amendment rights. When I first read Haslam's stand on signing the potential bill, I thought, "how irresponsible." I also considered that this is simply politial pandering (and still think it probably is) because Tennessee law requires only a simple majority to override a veto, thus any bill that passes can be overidden. I thought this was irresponsible because simply stated, I despise handguns. I really do. Handguns serve only one general purpose (other than sport shooting) and that is taking the life of another person. Far too often I have seen news of tragic shootings, both accidential and volitional, as a result of handguns. I truly believe the world would be safer without them. But then I read the constitution....
The second amendment to the constitution states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Our country has mostly secure borders, and we have a standing army, navy, air force, and marine corps. The state militias have essentially been replaced by the national guard. Although the keeping and bearing of arms to ensure a militia is no longer a concern, this is clearly in my mind a two part amendment. It clearly states the right of the People shall not be infringed. This really has to do with government interference in liberty. I do not like handguns. No one is forcing me to own one. By the same token, I have no right under the consitiution to say who can or can't have one or where they can have it (unless they are on my property). I think background checks are appropriate because I believe that there is some room in the constitution to prevent felons and habitual lawbreakers from owning weapons. I do not see why gun owners should have to register. There is no other right that requires registration. I believe that property owners should have the right to control (on their own property) the presence of guns, liquor, tobacco, pornography, bibles, or anything else they chose under the constitution. The government is not given this right under our constitution.
That being said I do not like the idea that just anyone can be out there packing a weapon. I do see how criminal activity could be curtailed by the concern that a potential victim could be ready to kill the criminal. I also see the potential for senseless argument escalating to use of force by irresponsible people owning guns. This is the United States of America. You take the good with the bad. The same right that allows one to protect their home against a threat, can also allow for a nonsensical killing by irresponsible gun owners. In the same manner, the same law that allows Lifeway, Zondervan, and other Christian distributorships, also allows Larry Flynt to publish Hustler. There is no law in this land against poor taste or stupidity.
The authors of the constitution were very libertarian. That means they favored a political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual. The doctrine of libertarianism stresses the right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to private ownership of material resources and property. Conservatives favor government action to promote civil order. Liberals favor goverment action to promote equality. Libertarians favor freedom and limited government interaction to promote either order or equality. When you read the constitution, it seems evident that the framers of the constitution wanted enough government to ensure the defense of the nation and its economic development. The framers wanted to ensure that the government could not oppress the people and supress their pursuit of life, liberty and wealth. Guaranteeing the right to free speech, assembly, gun ownership, jury trial, and protection from self-incrimination are all part of the process.
When you look at the role of government in our society today, we have fallen off track. In my own industry, healthcare, we are now being told exactly how to practice medicine, how much we can charge for it, and what information must be present in prder to get paid. This is government regulation at its highest level. Having the government run healthcare may not be wrong, but it is not the American way. Limiting gun ownership may not be wrong, but it is not the American way. One thing about the United States that is certain: there will always be folks who are doing things you disagree with. Our freedom and liberty allow for it, but the price is you also have to put up with it.
Since I do not like handguns and generally disapprove of their intended use, I choose not to own one. You can too. Or you can choose to own one. You have that freedom. If the legislature passes a bill eliminating the need for registration, it will be based on the will of Tennesseeans. The constitution allows for this. If you don't like it, then there are 49 other states to choose from, and each handles the issue differently. You don't have to like the rules, but our contitution ensures that you have the right to pursue liberty without government interference, and I believe that is a good thing.
This has created much debate across both sides of the gun control aisle and in the press. I will note that Haslam will likely win regardless of the affect his stance has on the race. He has also stated that he is in favor of maintaining current permit to carry laws as they stand now. I say all this to emphasize that the debate is over a hypothetical bill in a race for governor that is not likely to be close anyway. Regardless, it makes for good debate.
This issue has made me think further about gun control and the constitution, and it may have little bearing on who I vote for next week. I favored Zach Wamp for what it is worth. Getting back on track, I read the constitution again this week. It is a marvelously simple document. It is a framework for our government and emphasizes at its core the concern our early leaders had regarding abuse of power and the dangers of a government that interferes too much in the lives of the people. It also clearly states areas where the government dare not interfere in the lives of people.
The two issues that seem to arise the most are the right to free speech and assembly (1st amendment) and the right to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment). The issue in the governor's race is clearly an issue of state regulation regarding second amendment rights. When I first read Haslam's stand on signing the potential bill, I thought, "how irresponsible." I also considered that this is simply politial pandering (and still think it probably is) because Tennessee law requires only a simple majority to override a veto, thus any bill that passes can be overidden. I thought this was irresponsible because simply stated, I despise handguns. I really do. Handguns serve only one general purpose (other than sport shooting) and that is taking the life of another person. Far too often I have seen news of tragic shootings, both accidential and volitional, as a result of handguns. I truly believe the world would be safer without them. But then I read the constitution....
The second amendment to the constitution states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Our country has mostly secure borders, and we have a standing army, navy, air force, and marine corps. The state militias have essentially been replaced by the national guard. Although the keeping and bearing of arms to ensure a militia is no longer a concern, this is clearly in my mind a two part amendment. It clearly states the right of the People shall not be infringed. This really has to do with government interference in liberty. I do not like handguns. No one is forcing me to own one. By the same token, I have no right under the consitiution to say who can or can't have one or where they can have it (unless they are on my property). I think background checks are appropriate because I believe that there is some room in the constitution to prevent felons and habitual lawbreakers from owning weapons. I do not see why gun owners should have to register. There is no other right that requires registration. I believe that property owners should have the right to control (on their own property) the presence of guns, liquor, tobacco, pornography, bibles, or anything else they chose under the constitution. The government is not given this right under our constitution.
That being said I do not like the idea that just anyone can be out there packing a weapon. I do see how criminal activity could be curtailed by the concern that a potential victim could be ready to kill the criminal. I also see the potential for senseless argument escalating to use of force by irresponsible people owning guns. This is the United States of America. You take the good with the bad. The same right that allows one to protect their home against a threat, can also allow for a nonsensical killing by irresponsible gun owners. In the same manner, the same law that allows Lifeway, Zondervan, and other Christian distributorships, also allows Larry Flynt to publish Hustler. There is no law in this land against poor taste or stupidity.
The authors of the constitution were very libertarian. That means they favored a political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual. The doctrine of libertarianism stresses the right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to private ownership of material resources and property. Conservatives favor government action to promote civil order. Liberals favor goverment action to promote equality. Libertarians favor freedom and limited government interaction to promote either order or equality. When you read the constitution, it seems evident that the framers of the constitution wanted enough government to ensure the defense of the nation and its economic development. The framers wanted to ensure that the government could not oppress the people and supress their pursuit of life, liberty and wealth. Guaranteeing the right to free speech, assembly, gun ownership, jury trial, and protection from self-incrimination are all part of the process.
When you look at the role of government in our society today, we have fallen off track. In my own industry, healthcare, we are now being told exactly how to practice medicine, how much we can charge for it, and what information must be present in prder to get paid. This is government regulation at its highest level. Having the government run healthcare may not be wrong, but it is not the American way. Limiting gun ownership may not be wrong, but it is not the American way. One thing about the United States that is certain: there will always be folks who are doing things you disagree with. Our freedom and liberty allow for it, but the price is you also have to put up with it.
Since I do not like handguns and generally disapprove of their intended use, I choose not to own one. You can too. Or you can choose to own one. You have that freedom. If the legislature passes a bill eliminating the need for registration, it will be based on the will of Tennesseeans. The constitution allows for this. If you don't like it, then there are 49 other states to choose from, and each handles the issue differently. You don't have to like the rules, but our contitution ensures that you have the right to pursue liberty without government interference, and I believe that is a good thing.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
I Think I am getting Old
My oldest daughter, Sydney, was talking to me after dinner about her technology class in 5th grade. She is having to learn some of the components of PCs and also some history behind the development of the personal computer. I told her some of the background on how our technology developed in the late 70s and early 80s, and I started thinking about some of the changes that have occurred in my 38 short years. Here are some of the things I thought about and shared some of it with Sydney:
Pong: the 1st video game. Pre-Atari. blip-boop-blip. Square ball, rectangle players, black and white. We played for HOURS!
Rabbit Ears and the vertical hold. All people over thirty five should remember your father saying, "get up and jiggle the rabbit ears" when the reception was bad. I also had to reach behind the TV and adjust the vertical hold when the screen would start "flipping".
Vinyl record and tapes: I'll admit the eight track was mostly a dinosaur by the time I came of age, but you could still buy vinyl singles and LPs. I also remember trying to tape songs on cassette off of the radio, and hoping the deejay didn't mess it up by talking.
Movies before PG 13: Life was simplier. F-word or nudity=R, everything else PG, unless it was a cartoon or Benji, then it was G.
Busy signal: the noise you heard when the person you were trying to call was on the phone. No caller ID, no call-waiting, no three-way. Some of us had push button phones, but I still remember my grandmother had a rotary. I think she missed talking to the operator to connect a call and also party lines.
Full-Service gas stations: I can remember as a small child, going to the gas station and the attendant pumped your gas and checked the oil. Didn't last long. I always pumped my own.
Pay Phones: I was in college before I ever saw a cell phone. They were huge. I would take quarters (or dimes when I was younger) when i went out, just in case I needed to call home.
The Library: every research paper I wrote was accompanied by hours spent at the public library on Peabody in Memphis. You could do your research on the internet. Books and encyclopedias had to be scoured and reviewed. You couldn't do it at home.
Typewriters: Until I was in college, I had to use my mother's typewriter (which usually meant getting her to type for me). No personal computer or word processors.
Now in all fairness a lot of technology developed during my formative years: we went from pong, to Atari, to colecovision, commodore 64, and nintendos in quick fashion. By the time I was in medical school I had Internet access (high speed) at home, and a cell phone. We had cable TV installed around 6th grade, and got a microwave around that time. At some point we even bought a VCR and a TV with color AND remote control. Power windows and door locks became standard on most cars. We upgraded to CDs then MP3. Now we have HDTV with Blu-ray, 4g networks, i-phones, kindles, netbooks, back-up video cameras on our cars, wi-fi at home.
Gone for us are parachute pants, neon shoelaces, leg warmers, big hair, Michael Jackson (before surgery and diprivan), John Hughes movies (and the Brat Pack). We no longer hate the Russians. Guys no longer want to join the Navy to be like "Maverick". Dirty Harry is not making any one's day. We are approaching the "future" that Marty McFly travelled to, and I am finding the world I grew up in was much more like the past my parents grew up in than the future my children will grow up in.
I don't think this is a bad thing. The world is different and the same. Change happened fast, but I think we are better for the technological advances that have been made. Sydney told me that her teacher said, learning about keyboarding on computers may be obsolete by the time she finishes school, because by then we will probably just talk to our computers. If the next thirty years are as fast paced as the past thirty, I think she is right!
Pong: the 1st video game. Pre-Atari. blip-boop-blip. Square ball, rectangle players, black and white. We played for HOURS!
Rabbit Ears and the vertical hold. All people over thirty five should remember your father saying, "get up and jiggle the rabbit ears" when the reception was bad. I also had to reach behind the TV and adjust the vertical hold when the screen would start "flipping".
Vinyl record and tapes: I'll admit the eight track was mostly a dinosaur by the time I came of age, but you could still buy vinyl singles and LPs. I also remember trying to tape songs on cassette off of the radio, and hoping the deejay didn't mess it up by talking.
Movies before PG 13: Life was simplier. F-word or nudity=R, everything else PG, unless it was a cartoon or Benji, then it was G.
Busy signal: the noise you heard when the person you were trying to call was on the phone. No caller ID, no call-waiting, no three-way. Some of us had push button phones, but I still remember my grandmother had a rotary. I think she missed talking to the operator to connect a call and also party lines.
Full-Service gas stations: I can remember as a small child, going to the gas station and the attendant pumped your gas and checked the oil. Didn't last long. I always pumped my own.
Pay Phones: I was in college before I ever saw a cell phone. They were huge. I would take quarters (or dimes when I was younger) when i went out, just in case I needed to call home.
The Library: every research paper I wrote was accompanied by hours spent at the public library on Peabody in Memphis. You could do your research on the internet. Books and encyclopedias had to be scoured and reviewed. You couldn't do it at home.
Typewriters: Until I was in college, I had to use my mother's typewriter (which usually meant getting her to type for me). No personal computer or word processors.
Now in all fairness a lot of technology developed during my formative years: we went from pong, to Atari, to colecovision, commodore 64, and nintendos in quick fashion. By the time I was in medical school I had Internet access (high speed) at home, and a cell phone. We had cable TV installed around 6th grade, and got a microwave around that time. At some point we even bought a VCR and a TV with color AND remote control. Power windows and door locks became standard on most cars. We upgraded to CDs then MP3. Now we have HDTV with Blu-ray, 4g networks, i-phones, kindles, netbooks, back-up video cameras on our cars, wi-fi at home.
Gone for us are parachute pants, neon shoelaces, leg warmers, big hair, Michael Jackson (before surgery and diprivan), John Hughes movies (and the Brat Pack). We no longer hate the Russians. Guys no longer want to join the Navy to be like "Maverick". Dirty Harry is not making any one's day. We are approaching the "future" that Marty McFly travelled to, and I am finding the world I grew up in was much more like the past my parents grew up in than the future my children will grow up in.
I don't think this is a bad thing. The world is different and the same. Change happened fast, but I think we are better for the technological advances that have been made. Sydney told me that her teacher said, learning about keyboarding on computers may be obsolete by the time she finishes school, because by then we will probably just talk to our computers. If the next thirty years are as fast paced as the past thirty, I think she is right!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Stem Cell Dilemma
I read in a article this week that embryonic stem cells have been used to create oligodendrocyte progenitor cells. These cells help create the myelin sheath around nerves. Myelin works in nerves much the way rubber insulation works in an electrical wire. without it signals are not transmitted properly, or they are lost. The result can be pain, weakness or paralysis. These cells have been used in mice to essentially reverse catastrophic spinal cord injuries. Now the first human trials are being conducted in Atlanta. The company that has developed the cells is called Geron. It is a private based firm with no government support.
This is encouraging and worrisome at the same time. I am a proponent of stem cell research. I am not a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. The cells used to develop this line were donated by an individual who had undergone fertility treatments. These cells were from "left over" embryos that were to be "discarded". I am encouraged because I would love to see our best scientists discover cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, and other catastrophic illnesses like ALS, and muscular dystrophy. The reality is that these embryos are destroyed in the process. Embryos that if implanted in a uterus would grow and thrive and be born as healthy babies. For this reason, I hope this fails.
If they were using cells harvested from cord blood I would feel differently. If the cells could be harvested without destroying the embryos, I would support it. I am glad that the government is not using tax dollars to underwrite and support this project, but the reality is that most research of this nature is done in the private sector where there is little regulation against using embryonic stem cells. For me it is not just about the destruction of unborn embryos, it is the potential extension of programs such as this. If this project is a huge success, then we could see more breakthroughs requiring more cell lines. The potential end is the development of embryo farms for the harvesting of stem cells for research and therapies. If we can do this without hurting/destroying embryos, then let's go for it. As long as embryos are used, I hope it fails, so that this industry will flounder and fade away.
It bothers me that fertility clinics could create more embryo's than necessary for possible in-vitro fertilization in order to sell them to private research companies. Potential parents could actually pay for their fertility by offering to sell the extra embryos. I hope people see where this could go. Although my conclusions and the possibilities seem far-fetched, they are real. These issues may not arise in my generation or even the next one, but it is possible. It is an ethical line that our society should approach with extreme caution. For these reason, I think stem cell research should be limited to non-embryonic cell lines.
This is encouraging and worrisome at the same time. I am a proponent of stem cell research. I am not a proponent of embryonic stem cell research. The cells used to develop this line were donated by an individual who had undergone fertility treatments. These cells were from "left over" embryos that were to be "discarded". I am encouraged because I would love to see our best scientists discover cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, and other catastrophic illnesses like ALS, and muscular dystrophy. The reality is that these embryos are destroyed in the process. Embryos that if implanted in a uterus would grow and thrive and be born as healthy babies. For this reason, I hope this fails.
If they were using cells harvested from cord blood I would feel differently. If the cells could be harvested without destroying the embryos, I would support it. I am glad that the government is not using tax dollars to underwrite and support this project, but the reality is that most research of this nature is done in the private sector where there is little regulation against using embryonic stem cells. For me it is not just about the destruction of unborn embryos, it is the potential extension of programs such as this. If this project is a huge success, then we could see more breakthroughs requiring more cell lines. The potential end is the development of embryo farms for the harvesting of stem cells for research and therapies. If we can do this without hurting/destroying embryos, then let's go for it. As long as embryos are used, I hope it fails, so that this industry will flounder and fade away.
It bothers me that fertility clinics could create more embryo's than necessary for possible in-vitro fertilization in order to sell them to private research companies. Potential parents could actually pay for their fertility by offering to sell the extra embryos. I hope people see where this could go. Although my conclusions and the possibilities seem far-fetched, they are real. These issues may not arise in my generation or even the next one, but it is possible. It is an ethical line that our society should approach with extreme caution. For these reason, I think stem cell research should be limited to non-embryonic cell lines.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Yoga...right or wrong?
I have read where Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, is encouraging Christians to avoid the practice of yoga. Apparently Dr. Mohler is concerned about the Hindu origins of yoga, and the use of the body as a means to reach consciousness with the Divine.
I will agree that Christians have no business reciting incantations to Hindu gods. I am also aware that in many Western iterations of yoga, the Eastern religious mysticism has been removed. Dr. Mohler might argue that this form of yoga without the chants and incantations is not yoga at all. Christians are taught to spend time in prayer and meditation in order to receive direction and peace from God. We are also taught to treat our bodies as temples. With this in mind, it seems to me that the techniques derived from yoga, (mainly clearing the mind of stress and meditating, along with stretching) could actually help the Christian in his or her spiritual walk.
I am uncertain where the above practices would be contrary to Christianity. Jesus Himself spent much time in meditation. I am also concerned that a respected Christian leader would not temper his thoughts with a bit more grace. Jesus stated that He did not come to condemn but save the world. I realize that Dr. Mohler was trying to address an "in-house" issue and was not implying that Christians who practice yoga are "lost", but I do think his remarks appear legalistic and harsh to the outside world. I think that the church should use whatever means are possible to reach people, as long as the message of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone is not compromised. Taking some of the positive aspects of yoga and "Christianizing" it may be one such way. After all, I do not see how clearing one's mind and trying to connect spiritually with the true and living God could be a bad thing.
I will admit that I am no expert on yoga or Eastern religions, so I would like your thoughts Christians.
I would also remind you that I have seen very few unhealthy and overweight Hindus (and I count some among my friends); I will note that Baptist preachers are some of the fattest and unhealthiest folks I have ever seen. I am reminded that it was a Baptist preacher that I once heard say the BUFFET stands for Big Ugly Fat Folks Eating Together. I hope I haven't offended my many preacher friends, but you thin ones know what I am talking about. For now, I say eat less, exercise more, and yoga (if it improves your health and faith)
I will agree that Christians have no business reciting incantations to Hindu gods. I am also aware that in many Western iterations of yoga, the Eastern religious mysticism has been removed. Dr. Mohler might argue that this form of yoga without the chants and incantations is not yoga at all. Christians are taught to spend time in prayer and meditation in order to receive direction and peace from God. We are also taught to treat our bodies as temples. With this in mind, it seems to me that the techniques derived from yoga, (mainly clearing the mind of stress and meditating, along with stretching) could actually help the Christian in his or her spiritual walk.
I am uncertain where the above practices would be contrary to Christianity. Jesus Himself spent much time in meditation. I am also concerned that a respected Christian leader would not temper his thoughts with a bit more grace. Jesus stated that He did not come to condemn but save the world. I realize that Dr. Mohler was trying to address an "in-house" issue and was not implying that Christians who practice yoga are "lost", but I do think his remarks appear legalistic and harsh to the outside world. I think that the church should use whatever means are possible to reach people, as long as the message of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone is not compromised. Taking some of the positive aspects of yoga and "Christianizing" it may be one such way. After all, I do not see how clearing one's mind and trying to connect spiritually with the true and living God could be a bad thing.
I will admit that I am no expert on yoga or Eastern religions, so I would like your thoughts Christians.
I would also remind you that I have seen very few unhealthy and overweight Hindus (and I count some among my friends); I will note that Baptist preachers are some of the fattest and unhealthiest folks I have ever seen. I am reminded that it was a Baptist preacher that I once heard say the BUFFET stands for Big Ugly Fat Folks Eating Together. I hope I haven't offended my many preacher friends, but you thin ones know what I am talking about. For now, I say eat less, exercise more, and yoga (if it improves your health and faith)
Faith, the Force, and the Fab Four
I chose the title for my first blog post because it says a lot about who I am. I am NOT the Walrus... I was a child of the late 70s and 80s. I remember wondering...is Darth Vader really Luke's father the same way my daughter wonders if Severus Snape is evil or not. In my teens I discovered the Beatles and the way the music and culture of the Vietnam era had shaped the world I lived in. I found Jesus Christ or I should say he found me. I went to college and medical school, got married, started a family, finished residency, joined a medical practice, had a second child, started a new practice, left that practice, changed careers, moved to a new town, and here I am.
I am entering middle age now, getting gray around the temples, but enjoying the time I have with my wife and kids. I find that I struggle with many things in the same way I always have, problems arise and solutions are found often in ususual ways. Through it all my faith is firm (though I often fail), and I can always watch Han Solo, Luke and Yoda, and the Beatles are still there (although on MP3 now and not vinyl). Nowhere Man, Helter Skelter and the Fool on the Hill have different meaning to me now from when I was sixteen. God has been good to me and along the way He has shown me how to be less judgemental and more compassionate toward people. I think my best years serving Him are ahead of me, as I lead my family into a new phase of our life.
I am rambling through this post, and I realize that it is not the most elegant piece of prose written, but I think it offers a glimpse of who I am. I will post when I think I have something interesting to offer. Hopefully that will be often. I hope you enjoy my blog...the Doctor is IN!
I am entering middle age now, getting gray around the temples, but enjoying the time I have with my wife and kids. I find that I struggle with many things in the same way I always have, problems arise and solutions are found often in ususual ways. Through it all my faith is firm (though I often fail), and I can always watch Han Solo, Luke and Yoda, and the Beatles are still there (although on MP3 now and not vinyl). Nowhere Man, Helter Skelter and the Fool on the Hill have different meaning to me now from when I was sixteen. God has been good to me and along the way He has shown me how to be less judgemental and more compassionate toward people. I think my best years serving Him are ahead of me, as I lead my family into a new phase of our life.
I am rambling through this post, and I realize that it is not the most elegant piece of prose written, but I think it offers a glimpse of who I am. I will post when I think I have something interesting to offer. Hopefully that will be often. I hope you enjoy my blog...the Doctor is IN!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)