Dear Kids,
You found me. Through your Googling skills, you were able to stumble upon this post. Now that you're here, you might as well take the time to read it.
I know I've told you this many times, but I'll say it again. I did not go to school to become a substitute teacher. That said, though I'm not in my dream job, I enjoy my job. I have you to thank for that. You guys make the job. Sure, sometimes you drive me crazy, but I am young enough to remember the times I may have driven my teachers a little crazy myself. Each day with you is a new adventure, and I truly want to see all of you succeed not only in the classroom but in life as well. I have no doubts that you will.
I say that first because it is the good news before the bad news. I know many of you have found my Facebook. After nearly two years of privacy, you found me. A small part of me wishes I could accept each and every one of you, but I can't. District policy clearly tells me that I cannot.
You may have other teachers who do accept you. What they do is not my business. I can only worry about myself, and I have to follow the rules. This is my career, and I refuse to sabotage my career our of stubbornness. I understand that this decision may destroy the image many of you had for me as the young, rebellious guy who does and says what he wants when he wants. If you've read my other stuff, you probably realize I've never truly been that guy. I've never been that cool. The me you think you know and the me that exists after 3:15 are probably two very different people.
I say this all to tell you that as flattered as I am that you love me, I cannot reciprocate this love in a social networking way. If I run into you somewhere in Orland or Tinley, feel free to approach me, bother me, or talk my ear off. I enjoy hearing about your lives and the good you're doing with it. If I really matter that much to you, wait four years and add me then (even though by then I'll be older and significantly less cool). You guys are the best, and I not only want but expect you to succeed.
All the best,
"Mr. D."
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
It's Time For War, Pt. 9: Jakob vs. Intolerance
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
Every now and then I ponder what the world would be like if it was comprised of six billion or so Jakob Duehrs. Every time, almost immediately after pondering, I decide that even I would not want to live in a world where everybody was just like me. I would get annoyed far too easily. Diversity is a good thing, and variety is the spice of life. While I do not like spicy food, I do prefer a spicy life.
Intolerance is an ugly thing. At its worst it is entirely ignorant. At its best, it is grossly uninformed. For purposes of this post, I am going to take the liberty of assuming that my readers understand that giving people grief due to things they cannot change (ethnicity, gender, physical appearance, etc.) is entirely unacceptable and tolerable under no circumstances. In this post, I am looking at the aspects of others that are products of choice.
Take a moment and think about yourself. Then think about your family, your closest friend or group of friends, and your significant other (if you have one). Think about your similarities, and think about your differences. There will probably be a number of things for both categories. There are undoubtedly parts of them that you absolutely love, and there are some aspects of them, their personalities, or their lifestyles that you simply cannot stand. Because you care about them, you likely tolerate the negatives with the positives.
It is a well-known fact that I subscribe to the straight edge lifestyle. I believe in being alcohol, tobacco, and drug free at all times because I believe in having a soundness of body and mind at all times. The vast majority of those I associate with do not adhere to the straight edge lifestyle. Despite what CM Punk may say as a heel, straight edge does not make me better than them, nor do the substances I abstain from make others better than me. We are tolerant of each other’s differing opinions on this issue because it is but one piece to the puzzle that comprises who we are.
Believe me, there are a lot of people I encounter who do a number of different things. I would be a liar if I said that I am pleased with everything they do. But unless their actions are destructive or have a direct effect on me, I have no right to say or do anything about it. I do not live, so I certainly should not be in control of the decisions of others. I am going to assume you do not live your life perfectly, either. Intolerance is not the answer.
Harsh actions or reactions because someone behaves in a certain manner or does a certain thing are completely unacceptable. Treating others as second-rate citizens is a horrible and foolhardy way to get your opinion across. Humans are defensive creatures. They will begin to shut you off as a defense mechanism, and no peaceful discourse will occur.
And sometimes, as Gibbs’(NCIS) Rule #51 states, you’re wrong. Believing that you have the only right answer is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. Believing that you have the only right answer when it comes to the life of someone else is particularly foolish. Therefore, I declare war on the intolerant. I am not advocating approval of everything that everyone else does. I am not challenging you to change your opinion on the issue at hand. I am not even saying that you must accept everything that everyone else does. Believe me when I say that many of the people closest to me do things that I don’t like at all. But I deal with it and accept them as people. You should as well. Look for the positives in others. Dwell on those things instead of the negatives. We are who we are, for better or for worse.
Every now and then I ponder what the world would be like if it was comprised of six billion or so Jakob Duehrs. Every time, almost immediately after pondering, I decide that even I would not want to live in a world where everybody was just like me. I would get annoyed far too easily. Diversity is a good thing, and variety is the spice of life. While I do not like spicy food, I do prefer a spicy life.
Intolerance is an ugly thing. At its worst it is entirely ignorant. At its best, it is grossly uninformed. For purposes of this post, I am going to take the liberty of assuming that my readers understand that giving people grief due to things they cannot change (ethnicity, gender, physical appearance, etc.) is entirely unacceptable and tolerable under no circumstances. In this post, I am looking at the aspects of others that are products of choice.
Take a moment and think about yourself. Then think about your family, your closest friend or group of friends, and your significant other (if you have one). Think about your similarities, and think about your differences. There will probably be a number of things for both categories. There are undoubtedly parts of them that you absolutely love, and there are some aspects of them, their personalities, or their lifestyles that you simply cannot stand. Because you care about them, you likely tolerate the negatives with the positives.
It is a well-known fact that I subscribe to the straight edge lifestyle. I believe in being alcohol, tobacco, and drug free at all times because I believe in having a soundness of body and mind at all times. The vast majority of those I associate with do not adhere to the straight edge lifestyle. Despite what CM Punk may say as a heel, straight edge does not make me better than them, nor do the substances I abstain from make others better than me. We are tolerant of each other’s differing opinions on this issue because it is but one piece to the puzzle that comprises who we are.
Believe me, there are a lot of people I encounter who do a number of different things. I would be a liar if I said that I am pleased with everything they do. But unless their actions are destructive or have a direct effect on me, I have no right to say or do anything about it. I do not live, so I certainly should not be in control of the decisions of others. I am going to assume you do not live your life perfectly, either. Intolerance is not the answer.
Harsh actions or reactions because someone behaves in a certain manner or does a certain thing are completely unacceptable. Treating others as second-rate citizens is a horrible and foolhardy way to get your opinion across. Humans are defensive creatures. They will begin to shut you off as a defense mechanism, and no peaceful discourse will occur.
And sometimes, as Gibbs’(NCIS) Rule #51 states, you’re wrong. Believing that you have the only right answer is foolish at best and dangerous at worst. Believing that you have the only right answer when it comes to the life of someone else is particularly foolish. Therefore, I declare war on the intolerant. I am not advocating approval of everything that everyone else does. I am not challenging you to change your opinion on the issue at hand. I am not even saying that you must accept everything that everyone else does. Believe me when I say that many of the people closest to me do things that I don’t like at all. But I deal with it and accept them as people. You should as well. Look for the positives in others. Dwell on those things instead of the negatives. We are who we are, for better or for worse.
It's Time For War, Pt. 8: Jakob vs. Arrogance
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
Oh, arrogance… how I cannot stand you. To be clear, I am not referring to “Arrogance”, the cologne sprayed by “The Model” Rick Martel in late 1980s/early 1990s WWF. I do not want to beat the horse of redundancy by rehashing a post from last year, but I feel there is enough material to warrant another post.
To recap last year’s post with as much brevity as possible, I believe arrogance is best defined as having a disproportionately high confidence-to-ability ratio. The world is infested by individuals who believe that everyone else is privileged to merely be in their presence. Not only do they have an obscenely high opinion of themselves, but that high opinion is generally accompanied by minimal regard for others.
Don’t get me wrong. Confidence is a good thing in and of itself. It has been the catalyst for many individuals to do many great things. However, I believe since confidence is from within, it is for within and should stay within. Aspiring to greatness is a noble thing. Believing in oneself is also a great thing. Projecting one’s self belief as a sense of superiority is not.
Maybe it’s because at some point I lost the desire to compete with others, but I simply do not get why others have such a deep-rooted desire to put themselves over, especially when it involves putting others down. I have long viewed life as a continuous battle of improvement against oneself. I see it as an athlete constantly striving to improve his or her personal best. The abilities and actions of others are out of our hands and beyond our control. Therefore, I find it pointless to look at people in terms of superiority and inferiority.
To the arrogant out there, consider this a declaration of war. I have a message for you. Get over yourselves. Your abilities may be greater than the abilities of others. Good for you! I hope it helps you sleep better at night. Ability does not afford you the unalienable right to place yourselves atop a pedestal or act as if others are beneath you. Arrogance merely provides a harder landing when you inevitably fall. Focus your confidence inward, not outward. Stop trying to be better than others. Just be better.
Oh, arrogance… how I cannot stand you. To be clear, I am not referring to “Arrogance”, the cologne sprayed by “The Model” Rick Martel in late 1980s/early 1990s WWF. I do not want to beat the horse of redundancy by rehashing a post from last year, but I feel there is enough material to warrant another post.
To recap last year’s post with as much brevity as possible, I believe arrogance is best defined as having a disproportionately high confidence-to-ability ratio. The world is infested by individuals who believe that everyone else is privileged to merely be in their presence. Not only do they have an obscenely high opinion of themselves, but that high opinion is generally accompanied by minimal regard for others.
Don’t get me wrong. Confidence is a good thing in and of itself. It has been the catalyst for many individuals to do many great things. However, I believe since confidence is from within, it is for within and should stay within. Aspiring to greatness is a noble thing. Believing in oneself is also a great thing. Projecting one’s self belief as a sense of superiority is not.
Maybe it’s because at some point I lost the desire to compete with others, but I simply do not get why others have such a deep-rooted desire to put themselves over, especially when it involves putting others down. I have long viewed life as a continuous battle of improvement against oneself. I see it as an athlete constantly striving to improve his or her personal best. The abilities and actions of others are out of our hands and beyond our control. Therefore, I find it pointless to look at people in terms of superiority and inferiority.
To the arrogant out there, consider this a declaration of war. I have a message for you. Get over yourselves. Your abilities may be greater than the abilities of others. Good for you! I hope it helps you sleep better at night. Ability does not afford you the unalienable right to place yourselves atop a pedestal or act as if others are beneath you. Arrogance merely provides a harder landing when you inevitably fall. Focus your confidence inward, not outward. Stop trying to be better than others. Just be better.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
It's Time For War, Pt. 7: Jakob vs. Bad Announcers
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
As most of you know, I absolutely love watching sports (and the WWE). I like to root for my favorite teams and players and against my least favorite teams and players. There is nothing like seeing a sporting event live. Even if the event is a dud, the atmosphere makes up for it. Unfortunately, it is not possible or feasible to attend every event. If the event on television or on the radio, it is the responsibility of the announcer to bring that atmosphere to the viewer or listener.
Since I rarely listen to the radio (and when I do, I have been pleased with the work of Chicago radio announcers such as Pat Hughes, Chuck Swirsky, and Bill Wennington), my ire is directed towards television. Pick up your game, men. Some of you tarnish the viewing experience.
I loathe any time one of my favorite teams plays a game on ESPN. The announcers range from decent to tolerable to earsores. Any network that keeps Joe Morgan employed and in prime time for upwards of twenty years has some serious programming issues. The worst part about watching anything on ESPN is that the network has an agenda and a distinct bias towards certain teams in each league, the “moneymakers” so to speak. I really do not want to sit through a game and hear constant reminders of how great a player or a franchise is, especially if that team or player is not even playing in the game they are calling!
I am pleased that the Bulls have advanced to a round in the playoffs where they are immune from the announcing of the ghost of Dick Stockton. He may have been an excellent announcer years ago, but this is 2011, and it is seriously painful to have to listen to him.
It is a travesty that CBS and Gus Johnson could not agree to terms. He is one of the few announcers who “gets it” in terms of bringing the atmosphere of the game to the viewer. He knows both how to call and how to react to a big moment, whether for NCAA basketball or for the NFL.
Speaking of the NFL, it disappoints me how such an exciting league can have such duds for announcers. Their announcers range from arrogant and self-serving (Phil Simms and Joe Buck, your table is ready) to boring (the majority of play-by-play announcers) to difficult to listen to (Jon Gruden, I’m looking at you). How the NFL NETWORK thought it was a good idea to have BOTH Matt Millen and Joe Theismann (the patron saints of poor announcing) in the same booth for their Thursday Night Coverage is mind-boggling. NFL, your games are great. Your production values are great. It’s time to bring the announcing up to par.
Now let’s get to the WWE. Though not a sport in the traditional sense, it is just as (if not more) important for good commentary to put over the superstars and the storylines. I had the privilege of growing up to the glorious announcing of Gorilla Monsoon, Bobby “The Brain” Heenan, and Jim Ross. Monsoon and Ross both knew how to call a match, how to bring fans in through their announcing, and when to back off to let the story speak for itself. Heenan was the perfect color commentator, sharp in wit and tongue and the perfect foil to Monsoon’s straight man. These days, we get drivel such as Michael Cole. Before he was assumed the role of the antagonistic twerp of an individual that he plays, he was saying such things as “solid steel bamboo”, and “NOT THIS WAY!!!” For years, he has erroneously referred to Randy Orton’s Irish whip powerslam as a scoop slam. Now, Cole cannot be bothered to put over anyone or any storyline not involving the Miz or himself. Todd Grisham was such an emotionless announcer that he got demoted to the back and was replaced by Josh Mathews (who is actually a very talented announcer).
To the major sports leagues, the networks that broadcast their games, and the WWE, I have a challenge for you: Pick up your game. Each of you has a compelling product that is easy to follow and watch, but you need a little something extra to make your events “must-see”. You have a great product. Put people in place who recognize how great the product is and go out of their way to put over the product without allowing personal or professional biases to come out. It’s time to raise the bar and declare war on subpar commentary.
As most of you know, I absolutely love watching sports (and the WWE). I like to root for my favorite teams and players and against my least favorite teams and players. There is nothing like seeing a sporting event live. Even if the event is a dud, the atmosphere makes up for it. Unfortunately, it is not possible or feasible to attend every event. If the event on television or on the radio, it is the responsibility of the announcer to bring that atmosphere to the viewer or listener.
Since I rarely listen to the radio (and when I do, I have been pleased with the work of Chicago radio announcers such as Pat Hughes, Chuck Swirsky, and Bill Wennington), my ire is directed towards television. Pick up your game, men. Some of you tarnish the viewing experience.
I loathe any time one of my favorite teams plays a game on ESPN. The announcers range from decent to tolerable to earsores. Any network that keeps Joe Morgan employed and in prime time for upwards of twenty years has some serious programming issues. The worst part about watching anything on ESPN is that the network has an agenda and a distinct bias towards certain teams in each league, the “moneymakers” so to speak. I really do not want to sit through a game and hear constant reminders of how great a player or a franchise is, especially if that team or player is not even playing in the game they are calling!
I am pleased that the Bulls have advanced to a round in the playoffs where they are immune from the announcing of the ghost of Dick Stockton. He may have been an excellent announcer years ago, but this is 2011, and it is seriously painful to have to listen to him.
It is a travesty that CBS and Gus Johnson could not agree to terms. He is one of the few announcers who “gets it” in terms of bringing the atmosphere of the game to the viewer. He knows both how to call and how to react to a big moment, whether for NCAA basketball or for the NFL.
Speaking of the NFL, it disappoints me how such an exciting league can have such duds for announcers. Their announcers range from arrogant and self-serving (Phil Simms and Joe Buck, your table is ready) to boring (the majority of play-by-play announcers) to difficult to listen to (Jon Gruden, I’m looking at you). How the NFL NETWORK thought it was a good idea to have BOTH Matt Millen and Joe Theismann (the patron saints of poor announcing) in the same booth for their Thursday Night Coverage is mind-boggling. NFL, your games are great. Your production values are great. It’s time to bring the announcing up to par.
Now let’s get to the WWE. Though not a sport in the traditional sense, it is just as (if not more) important for good commentary to put over the superstars and the storylines. I had the privilege of growing up to the glorious announcing of Gorilla Monsoon, Bobby “The Brain” Heenan, and Jim Ross. Monsoon and Ross both knew how to call a match, how to bring fans in through their announcing, and when to back off to let the story speak for itself. Heenan was the perfect color commentator, sharp in wit and tongue and the perfect foil to Monsoon’s straight man. These days, we get drivel such as Michael Cole. Before he was assumed the role of the antagonistic twerp of an individual that he plays, he was saying such things as “solid steel bamboo”, and “NOT THIS WAY!!!” For years, he has erroneously referred to Randy Orton’s Irish whip powerslam as a scoop slam. Now, Cole cannot be bothered to put over anyone or any storyline not involving the Miz or himself. Todd Grisham was such an emotionless announcer that he got demoted to the back and was replaced by Josh Mathews (who is actually a very talented announcer).
To the major sports leagues, the networks that broadcast their games, and the WWE, I have a challenge for you: Pick up your game. Each of you has a compelling product that is easy to follow and watch, but you need a little something extra to make your events “must-see”. You have a great product. Put people in place who recognize how great the product is and go out of their way to put over the product without allowing personal or professional biases to come out. It’s time to raise the bar and declare war on subpar commentary.
It's Time For War, Pt. 6: Jakob vs. The New Breed of Celebrities
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
We live in a society that cares more about others than possibly at any other point in history. Don’t mistake that for being a caring society, though. It is not a care for others but rather a care about others and what they are doing.
We live in the generation of Twitter, Facebook, and TMZ. We can keep tabs on our favorite celebrities with much greater precision and regularity than we could have in the past. I admit that I do it. I use my Twitter primarily to know the goings-on of my favorite WWE Superstars, bands, and celeb crushes. Every so often, they actually reply to me. Dolph Ziggler and I have a fairly good Twitter friendship. That is beside the point.
For whatever reason, even though we can track our more famous counterparts more than we probably should, it is not enough. Society cares so much about hero-worshipping that it churns out new celebrities at an alarming rate. It is truly scary.
The new breed of celebrities does not consist of those who have accomplished great feats or have any great skill. It seems that the only skill the new breed of celebrities have is the ability to get in front of a camera and act like an idiot.
It blows my mind that the cast of Jersey Shore will probably make more money from that show than most of us will see in our lifetimes. It is troubling that so many can work their rears off in school and at work, never to achieve the same status as reality television loudmouths who are devoid of any redeeming qualities.
I do not mean to pick on Rebecca Black again. I think I did enough of that earlier in this series. But it annoys me to no end that her “smash hit” has more views than every song by most of my favorite bands combined. These are talented people who work so hard to make ends meet, and others gain a ridiculous amount of mainstream exposure from aural feces.
Unlike the other posts in this series, I am not actually going to war with the new breed of celebrities themselves. They are merely salvaging the alchemistic opportunities afforded them by a society starving for someone to follow and have turned their mere existences into gold. My issue is with society in general.
Are we as a society really that displeased with our current state of affairs that we have to latch onto anyone and anything to distract us from our own less-than-satisfactory existences? Do we really have such a great desire to be entertained that we are magnetically attracted to those who lack the social graces and tact that the vast majority of us were taught as toddlers? I just don’t get it.
I issue a challenge to society: If you absolutely cannot get through your days without hero-worshipping, find someone more worthwhile and/or deserving. Instead of patrolling Twitter to see what Snooki ate for lunch, find out what those around you are doing to make a difference. Seek out the teachers, the visionaries, and the philanthropists. Check out the volunteers. Shout their stories to the rooftops. See what you can do to make a difference as well. In doing so, not only will you be doing your part to make the world a better place, but you will be carving your own legacy as well.
We live in a society that cares more about others than possibly at any other point in history. Don’t mistake that for being a caring society, though. It is not a care for others but rather a care about others and what they are doing.
We live in the generation of Twitter, Facebook, and TMZ. We can keep tabs on our favorite celebrities with much greater precision and regularity than we could have in the past. I admit that I do it. I use my Twitter primarily to know the goings-on of my favorite WWE Superstars, bands, and celeb crushes. Every so often, they actually reply to me. Dolph Ziggler and I have a fairly good Twitter friendship. That is beside the point.
For whatever reason, even though we can track our more famous counterparts more than we probably should, it is not enough. Society cares so much about hero-worshipping that it churns out new celebrities at an alarming rate. It is truly scary.
The new breed of celebrities does not consist of those who have accomplished great feats or have any great skill. It seems that the only skill the new breed of celebrities have is the ability to get in front of a camera and act like an idiot.
It blows my mind that the cast of Jersey Shore will probably make more money from that show than most of us will see in our lifetimes. It is troubling that so many can work their rears off in school and at work, never to achieve the same status as reality television loudmouths who are devoid of any redeeming qualities.
I do not mean to pick on Rebecca Black again. I think I did enough of that earlier in this series. But it annoys me to no end that her “smash hit” has more views than every song by most of my favorite bands combined. These are talented people who work so hard to make ends meet, and others gain a ridiculous amount of mainstream exposure from aural feces.
Unlike the other posts in this series, I am not actually going to war with the new breed of celebrities themselves. They are merely salvaging the alchemistic opportunities afforded them by a society starving for someone to follow and have turned their mere existences into gold. My issue is with society in general.
Are we as a society really that displeased with our current state of affairs that we have to latch onto anyone and anything to distract us from our own less-than-satisfactory existences? Do we really have such a great desire to be entertained that we are magnetically attracted to those who lack the social graces and tact that the vast majority of us were taught as toddlers? I just don’t get it.
I issue a challenge to society: If you absolutely cannot get through your days without hero-worshipping, find someone more worthwhile and/or deserving. Instead of patrolling Twitter to see what Snooki ate for lunch, find out what those around you are doing to make a difference. Seek out the teachers, the visionaries, and the philanthropists. Check out the volunteers. Shout their stories to the rooftops. See what you can do to make a difference as well. In doing so, not only will you be doing your part to make the world a better place, but you will be carving your own legacy as well.
It's Time For War, Pt. 5: Jakob vs. Past Dwellers
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
I’ll be honest. I can’t write this post without feeling the slightest tinge of hypocrisy, as I was once a noted past dweller, but it needs to be written, nonetheless.
We all do it to an extent. We fixate on a particularly enjoyable or profitable period of our lives. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Some of us only look on it fondly. Others dwell upon it, doing anything and everything in their power to recreate the magic of what once was. At times, it can be easier to focus on the memory of better times than stare the demons of difficulty in the face.
There is a major difference between reminiscing and dwelling. Reminiscing is done within the confines of the present. Even with those who pine for what once was are cognizant of the ever-changing reality of today. Past dwellers are an entirely different animal. They hold on to this fleeting memory to the point that they delude themselves and their perceptions of reality.
Past dwellers either refuse to acknowledge or refuse to accept two truths. The first truth is that things change. The world is always in forward motion, and there is nothing we can do about it. We get older. We find ourselves in new situations. These are things we absolutely cannot and should not try to combat. Very little (if anything) ever truly stays the same.
The second truth is that people change. It would be a lie to say that all personal changes are for the better. That said, people change. We are constantly shaped by our experiences and interactions with both the world and the people around us. Past dwellers have a distinct inability to accept this. They feel a sense of betrayal when it comes to the personal growth of those for whom they have fondness. Conversely, the past dweller always holds negative feelings to those whom they once felt negativity towards. Their minds are ingrained with the doctrine that who someone once was is who they always will be, and they can never look past it.
We all have our awkward stages. Some of us have them worse than others. I will be the first to admit my social ineptitude over time. In fact, I didn’t become the Jakob you know and tolerate today until 2008. It took me a long time and a lot of hard work, but I finally outgrew a great deal of the awkwardness and “creepy” tendencies. I admit they were there. I am not without my share of mistakes. However, I am not the same Jakob I was in 2000, or 2003, or any other year for that matter. As such, it is wrong to treat me or anyone else in that way.
I will also be the first to admit that I have done more than my share of dwelling on the past. I have had some very good years, and I have had some trying times. I would be lying if I said I didn’t wish things would revert to how things were in some ways, but that is mostly because I selfishly miss my friends and miss the stress-free life of a child. I realize that things are not and cannot be that way in the present. Therefore, I deal with the constant changes of my life as they come, accept them for what they were, and take the time now and then to reminisce.
So past dwellers, I declare war on you. I issue you a simple challenge: Grow up. Come to terms with the fact that you cannot compartmentalize people and things so easily. Life is complex, so stop being simple minded. You do not wish to be judged by your past transgressions, so treat others in like fashion. Do not cast judgment on what others once were, but take note of who they are and who they are working to become.
I’ll be honest. I can’t write this post without feeling the slightest tinge of hypocrisy, as I was once a noted past dweller, but it needs to be written, nonetheless.
We all do it to an extent. We fixate on a particularly enjoyable or profitable period of our lives. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Some of us only look on it fondly. Others dwell upon it, doing anything and everything in their power to recreate the magic of what once was. At times, it can be easier to focus on the memory of better times than stare the demons of difficulty in the face.
There is a major difference between reminiscing and dwelling. Reminiscing is done within the confines of the present. Even with those who pine for what once was are cognizant of the ever-changing reality of today. Past dwellers are an entirely different animal. They hold on to this fleeting memory to the point that they delude themselves and their perceptions of reality.
Past dwellers either refuse to acknowledge or refuse to accept two truths. The first truth is that things change. The world is always in forward motion, and there is nothing we can do about it. We get older. We find ourselves in new situations. These are things we absolutely cannot and should not try to combat. Very little (if anything) ever truly stays the same.
The second truth is that people change. It would be a lie to say that all personal changes are for the better. That said, people change. We are constantly shaped by our experiences and interactions with both the world and the people around us. Past dwellers have a distinct inability to accept this. They feel a sense of betrayal when it comes to the personal growth of those for whom they have fondness. Conversely, the past dweller always holds negative feelings to those whom they once felt negativity towards. Their minds are ingrained with the doctrine that who someone once was is who they always will be, and they can never look past it.
We all have our awkward stages. Some of us have them worse than others. I will be the first to admit my social ineptitude over time. In fact, I didn’t become the Jakob you know and tolerate today until 2008. It took me a long time and a lot of hard work, but I finally outgrew a great deal of the awkwardness and “creepy” tendencies. I admit they were there. I am not without my share of mistakes. However, I am not the same Jakob I was in 2000, or 2003, or any other year for that matter. As such, it is wrong to treat me or anyone else in that way.
I will also be the first to admit that I have done more than my share of dwelling on the past. I have had some very good years, and I have had some trying times. I would be lying if I said I didn’t wish things would revert to how things were in some ways, but that is mostly because I selfishly miss my friends and miss the stress-free life of a child. I realize that things are not and cannot be that way in the present. Therefore, I deal with the constant changes of my life as they come, accept them for what they were, and take the time now and then to reminisce.
So past dwellers, I declare war on you. I issue you a simple challenge: Grow up. Come to terms with the fact that you cannot compartmentalize people and things so easily. Life is complex, so stop being simple minded. You do not wish to be judged by your past transgressions, so treat others in like fashion. Do not cast judgment on what others once were, but take note of who they are and who they are working to become.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
It's Time For War, Pt. 4: Jakob vs. One-Uppers
This is part of a ten part series in which I “go to war” against a thing or group. Some of these posts are to be taken seriously; others are not. It is up to you, the reader, to differentiate between the two.
Part of being Jakob, the "Greatest Man That Ever Lived", or "Mr. D." is encountering a variety of people in a number of settings. For the most part, I tolerate those whom I encounter. Some of them, I even like! Even if someone rubs me the wrong way, I try to make it a point to not dwell on it because I am not so arrogant to believe that I am universally accepted and adored. There is, however, a specific group of people that really set me off. I’m looking at you, one-uppers.
We all know the type. If you’ve done something once, they’ve done it twice. With their eyes closed. In freezing temperatures. While being chased by lions. They are the people who never seem to stop talking, and their topics of conversation are limited to themselves and their exploits. These stories range from irrelevant to grossly exaggerated, but that does not stop them from proclaiming their greatness and the greatness of their accomplishments to anyone within shouting distance. If for one second the focus is on the accomplishments of someone else, there is no depth they will not stoop in their attempts to re-divert attention in their direction.
I have come to the sobering reality that most of us fall into three levels of irrelevance. There are those who have done nothing of lasting relevance who are fine with that and do not aspire to anything else. They are content in their existence. There are those who have done nothing of lasting relevance, realize this, but continue to aspire to big things. They believe their time has not yet come, and they are very optimistic about making a mark upon the world. The final group has done nothing of lasting relevance, but good luck telling them that. They are so convinced of their importance to the world and superiority over others that there is absolutely no way you can successfully tell them anything to the contrary. Guess which one of these groups the one-uppers fall under?
For the longest time, I thought the best way to combat a one-upper was to put him or her in their place. This has led to a number of uncomfortable situations, and for the most part they were unfruitful. Sure, there would be times I would be successful in my mission, but most of the time I would end the exchange more frustrated than when the exchange began. The one-uppers would either be entirely ignorant of what I had to say or pleased that this sort of attention was given to them at all.
I do not concede defeat to these one-uppers, but I admit that my previous modus operandi to combat them was flawed. I played right into their hands. The War on One-Uppers is not over. I finally realize that by actively caring about this annoying and obnoxious behavior is pointless, and I am giving them exactly what they want. Instead, I am not going to give any attention to any such people. It’s attention that they are after. It is time to cut the head of the monster.
To any of you who are actively one-uppers, considering becoming a one-upper, or are unintentionally involved in the one-upping business, I have but one thing to say to you. Worry about yourself in terms of improving yourself and that alone. Do not worry about or compare yourself to others. Life is not a contest. It is a journey of self-awareness and self-improvement. At the end of the day, you are not going to be judged on how much more impressive you are than your neighbor. So shut up about it now.
Part of being Jakob, the "Greatest Man That Ever Lived", or "Mr. D." is encountering a variety of people in a number of settings. For the most part, I tolerate those whom I encounter. Some of them, I even like! Even if someone rubs me the wrong way, I try to make it a point to not dwell on it because I am not so arrogant to believe that I am universally accepted and adored. There is, however, a specific group of people that really set me off. I’m looking at you, one-uppers.
We all know the type. If you’ve done something once, they’ve done it twice. With their eyes closed. In freezing temperatures. While being chased by lions. They are the people who never seem to stop talking, and their topics of conversation are limited to themselves and their exploits. These stories range from irrelevant to grossly exaggerated, but that does not stop them from proclaiming their greatness and the greatness of their accomplishments to anyone within shouting distance. If for one second the focus is on the accomplishments of someone else, there is no depth they will not stoop in their attempts to re-divert attention in their direction.
I have come to the sobering reality that most of us fall into three levels of irrelevance. There are those who have done nothing of lasting relevance who are fine with that and do not aspire to anything else. They are content in their existence. There are those who have done nothing of lasting relevance, realize this, but continue to aspire to big things. They believe their time has not yet come, and they are very optimistic about making a mark upon the world. The final group has done nothing of lasting relevance, but good luck telling them that. They are so convinced of their importance to the world and superiority over others that there is absolutely no way you can successfully tell them anything to the contrary. Guess which one of these groups the one-uppers fall under?
For the longest time, I thought the best way to combat a one-upper was to put him or her in their place. This has led to a number of uncomfortable situations, and for the most part they were unfruitful. Sure, there would be times I would be successful in my mission, but most of the time I would end the exchange more frustrated than when the exchange began. The one-uppers would either be entirely ignorant of what I had to say or pleased that this sort of attention was given to them at all.
I do not concede defeat to these one-uppers, but I admit that my previous modus operandi to combat them was flawed. I played right into their hands. The War on One-Uppers is not over. I finally realize that by actively caring about this annoying and obnoxious behavior is pointless, and I am giving them exactly what they want. Instead, I am not going to give any attention to any such people. It’s attention that they are after. It is time to cut the head of the monster.
To any of you who are actively one-uppers, considering becoming a one-upper, or are unintentionally involved in the one-upping business, I have but one thing to say to you. Worry about yourself in terms of improving yourself and that alone. Do not worry about or compare yourself to others. Life is not a contest. It is a journey of self-awareness and self-improvement. At the end of the day, you are not going to be judged on how much more impressive you are than your neighbor. So shut up about it now.
My Stone Church Christian Academy Experience 10 Years Later: A Retrospection
It blows my mind how fast time flies. By this time next week, ten years will have elapsed since my graduation from eighth grade at the (now-defunct) Stone Church Christian Academy. In some ways, it doesn’t feel that long. In other ways, it amazes me that it has only been ten years.
I could give a year-by-year rundown of my time at the school, but that would only be self-edifying, and I really don’t feel like doing that. I could give a recap of our eighth grade graduation, as I still have VHS footage of the event. I’ll spare you that as well. Nothing of great note occurred outside of some amusing one-liners from Mr. Prosapio and a family of one of my classmates causing a bit of a scene. I guess I will attack this post from three directions. I will do my best to cover the things about my experience that were positive, the things that were negative, and some of my feelings, etc. that have changed over the course of the past ten years.
I had the good fortune of spending all day for nine years (since we did not switch classes at Stone) with three of my closest friends growing up. Not unsurprisingly, those guys are still my closest friends. In addition to them, I was close with a great number of my other classmates. A lot of the girls were all sorts of fun, and in all honesty, I looked forward to getting up each morning with the opportunity to hang out with (most of) my classmates. Sure, I did not get along with a few of my classmates at times, but it was nothing serious (and nothing close to what I had to deal with at times in high school).
I also had the privilege of having my favorite teacher twice. Mr. Clifton was about THE best person possible to deal with the 24 of us. No, he was not the perfect teacher, and yes, some educational scholars may have cringed at some of his styles and methods, but he was successful in reaching us, in connecting with us, and in making us care about what he had to say. His relative youth (it’s a weird thought to think that I am currently the same age that he was when he taught our eighth grade class) and Virginian charm really resonated with most of us. He was one of the primary reasons I became interested in education. There were many other excellent teachers (as well as a few teachers that I did not enjoy). For the most part, the school excelled in providing instructors who gelled with the students.
The final positive I feel like discussing were some of the special events that made Stone what it was. We had weekly chapel, but for the three major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter) things were turned up a notch. It had a more important feel. I’ll never forget the Thanksgiving dinners we had following the chapel, nor will I forget Field Day (a day of athletic events) or Grandparents Day (a day where our grandparents got to observe our classes and eat lunch out of an elaborately decorated box).
As much as I probably gushed about the school in the previous paragraphs, Stone was certainly not without its faults. First things first, the curriculum was atrocious. While it was strong in its grammatical foundations and its rote memorization training, it certainly lacked in most other areas. Science was a joke, and math did absolutely nothing to prepare students for high school. The disallowance of calculators did students no favors as well. The history curriculum was thorough, but unfortunately biased. Anyone and anything without a fundamentalist Christian background was more or less doomed to the depths of hell and buried in the book.
While I cannot fault Stone entirely for the curriculum (since they were not the ones who wrote it), I can not say the same for the next point. Stone attempted to instill a sense of discipline and respect in its students but did so at the cost of breaking down the individuality of the students. While I was more than fine with wearing uniforms (because I really didn’t care what I looked like until early 2003), some of the rules were excessive. In-school suspensions for boys who got their hair cut too short were way over the top. Limiting the color of girls’ nail polish to red, pink, and purple was ridiculous as well. There are many other rules with which I do not agree, but I will not continue on because a) I think I have said enough, b) many not involved with the school will find them unbelievable, and c) I do not wish to come across as condescending to those who found these rules perfectly acceptable.
Unfortunately, the most glaring negative of the school (and I truly do not believe this one was intentional) was its inability to socially prepare its students for the non-sheltered world of public high school. As I have progressed in my study of the educational field, I have become more and more of a proponent of the middle school system. It is a specific system that prepares students academically, socially, and emotionally. It is an especially important period of students’ lives, and it is the responsibility of the school to do their part in shaping the lives of its students and aiding their journey of self-discovery and self-sufficiency. By providing an extremely sheltered “bubble”, it made the transition to high school exponentially more challenging. While I do not speak for all students in saying that, I know this to be true in my own life, and in speaking with some other graduates, it was true in theirs.
So, what has changed the past ten years? Other than finally beginning to grow into my ears (a little), a lot. If you had asked me ten years ago about the school, I would’ve likely told you of my belief that the school could do no wrong. As I got older, and as I became slightly more socially adept, I became more aware of some of its shortcomings. I realized that for many years I truly did live in a bubble.
A lot has changed with my classmates as well. A number of them are married. One has sadly passed away. Some have probably gotten arrested. I am no longer close with any of my female classmates. It happens. Time goes by and people grow apart. It doesn’t make any of us bad people. It just makes us human.
The school itself is no longer in existence. After a tumultuous final few years, the school closed its doors for the last time in May 2009. Stone Church no longer exists in that location, either. As I said, much has changed.
After all this reflection and remembrance, I asked myself two questions. First, if I could go back in time and change my personal history, would I still have attended Stone? Second, would I ever send my (potential future) children to a school like Stone? To answer the first question, I weighed the social negatives against the friends I made and still have to this day. I would not trade them for anything; therefore, I would still choose to attend Stone. To answer the second question, I don’t believe we live in a day and age where private school is that much of a greater good than public school. In my experiences with both private and public schools, both have their positive and negatives. The positives of private schooling do not offset the economic burden. So, while I would not change the details of my life, I would not choose that life for my children.
I could give a year-by-year rundown of my time at the school, but that would only be self-edifying, and I really don’t feel like doing that. I could give a recap of our eighth grade graduation, as I still have VHS footage of the event. I’ll spare you that as well. Nothing of great note occurred outside of some amusing one-liners from Mr. Prosapio and a family of one of my classmates causing a bit of a scene. I guess I will attack this post from three directions. I will do my best to cover the things about my experience that were positive, the things that were negative, and some of my feelings, etc. that have changed over the course of the past ten years.
I had the good fortune of spending all day for nine years (since we did not switch classes at Stone) with three of my closest friends growing up. Not unsurprisingly, those guys are still my closest friends. In addition to them, I was close with a great number of my other classmates. A lot of the girls were all sorts of fun, and in all honesty, I looked forward to getting up each morning with the opportunity to hang out with (most of) my classmates. Sure, I did not get along with a few of my classmates at times, but it was nothing serious (and nothing close to what I had to deal with at times in high school).
I also had the privilege of having my favorite teacher twice. Mr. Clifton was about THE best person possible to deal with the 24 of us. No, he was not the perfect teacher, and yes, some educational scholars may have cringed at some of his styles and methods, but he was successful in reaching us, in connecting with us, and in making us care about what he had to say. His relative youth (it’s a weird thought to think that I am currently the same age that he was when he taught our eighth grade class) and Virginian charm really resonated with most of us. He was one of the primary reasons I became interested in education. There were many other excellent teachers (as well as a few teachers that I did not enjoy). For the most part, the school excelled in providing instructors who gelled with the students.
The final positive I feel like discussing were some of the special events that made Stone what it was. We had weekly chapel, but for the three major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter) things were turned up a notch. It had a more important feel. I’ll never forget the Thanksgiving dinners we had following the chapel, nor will I forget Field Day (a day of athletic events) or Grandparents Day (a day where our grandparents got to observe our classes and eat lunch out of an elaborately decorated box).
As much as I probably gushed about the school in the previous paragraphs, Stone was certainly not without its faults. First things first, the curriculum was atrocious. While it was strong in its grammatical foundations and its rote memorization training, it certainly lacked in most other areas. Science was a joke, and math did absolutely nothing to prepare students for high school. The disallowance of calculators did students no favors as well. The history curriculum was thorough, but unfortunately biased. Anyone and anything without a fundamentalist Christian background was more or less doomed to the depths of hell and buried in the book.
While I cannot fault Stone entirely for the curriculum (since they were not the ones who wrote it), I can not say the same for the next point. Stone attempted to instill a sense of discipline and respect in its students but did so at the cost of breaking down the individuality of the students. While I was more than fine with wearing uniforms (because I really didn’t care what I looked like until early 2003), some of the rules were excessive. In-school suspensions for boys who got their hair cut too short were way over the top. Limiting the color of girls’ nail polish to red, pink, and purple was ridiculous as well. There are many other rules with which I do not agree, but I will not continue on because a) I think I have said enough, b) many not involved with the school will find them unbelievable, and c) I do not wish to come across as condescending to those who found these rules perfectly acceptable.
Unfortunately, the most glaring negative of the school (and I truly do not believe this one was intentional) was its inability to socially prepare its students for the non-sheltered world of public high school. As I have progressed in my study of the educational field, I have become more and more of a proponent of the middle school system. It is a specific system that prepares students academically, socially, and emotionally. It is an especially important period of students’ lives, and it is the responsibility of the school to do their part in shaping the lives of its students and aiding their journey of self-discovery and self-sufficiency. By providing an extremely sheltered “bubble”, it made the transition to high school exponentially more challenging. While I do not speak for all students in saying that, I know this to be true in my own life, and in speaking with some other graduates, it was true in theirs.
So, what has changed the past ten years? Other than finally beginning to grow into my ears (a little), a lot. If you had asked me ten years ago about the school, I would’ve likely told you of my belief that the school could do no wrong. As I got older, and as I became slightly more socially adept, I became more aware of some of its shortcomings. I realized that for many years I truly did live in a bubble.
A lot has changed with my classmates as well. A number of them are married. One has sadly passed away. Some have probably gotten arrested. I am no longer close with any of my female classmates. It happens. Time goes by and people grow apart. It doesn’t make any of us bad people. It just makes us human.
The school itself is no longer in existence. After a tumultuous final few years, the school closed its doors for the last time in May 2009. Stone Church no longer exists in that location, either. As I said, much has changed.
After all this reflection and remembrance, I asked myself two questions. First, if I could go back in time and change my personal history, would I still have attended Stone? Second, would I ever send my (potential future) children to a school like Stone? To answer the first question, I weighed the social negatives against the friends I made and still have to this day. I would not trade them for anything; therefore, I would still choose to attend Stone. To answer the second question, I don’t believe we live in a day and age where private school is that much of a greater good than public school. In my experiences with both private and public schools, both have their positive and negatives. The positives of private schooling do not offset the economic burden. So, while I would not change the details of my life, I would not choose that life for my children.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Five Improvements to the Traditional Wedding
So the world (or at least the United States) has been abuzz with this “Royal Wedding” stuff (and likely making some combination of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson turn over in their graves). Rest assured, loyal reader(s). I was not one of them! It frankly seemed like a waste of time and sleep to get up in the middle of the night to watch some ridiculously extravagant event for two people who have absolutely no effect on my life. It did get me thinking of ways I could outdo this “Royal Wedding” when it’s Ol’ JD’s turn to get hitched. Granted, any woman who would consent to any of these ideas either has a great sense of humor or is certifiably insane, so I won’t hold my breath. Given some of the women I have aligned myself with in the past, it’s not totally out of the question. Here are five ideas for the GREATEST WEDDING EVER~!
1. The Foil Wedding: Too many people undeservedly made a big deal out of the Royal Wedding. A “Foil Wedding” would deservedly be a huge event. I’m sure if you’re reading this, you’re wondering what in the world a Foil Wedding is. It is exactly what it sounds like. Everything is made out of aluminum foil, from the attire of the wedding participants (other than undergarments) to the displays to life-sized statues of the bride and groom. The Foil Wedding is the latest breakthrough in wedding technology and is sure to be the preferred marriage ceremony of the 21st Century!
2. Pyrotechnic Displays: Perhaps it’s the WWE fan in me coming through, but I absolutely love the idea of coming down the aisle while Europe’s “The Final Countdown” plays and glorious fireworks rain from the sky. Of course, this would mean the wedding would have to be outdoors, but that does not bother me. We’re eschewing tradition as it is. I’m thinking an amazing display after our first kiss as a married couple would be in order too.
3. Motorcycle Entrances for the Attendants: While I have absolutely no desire to hop on a chopper myself, I believe that there should be a time for the bridesmaids and groomsmen to shine. Since we’ve already established the idea of an outdoor wedding, I’m thinking that we install a motorcycle ramp for the wedding party to arrive in style. Of course, there might be some pyrotechnics in it for them as well.
4. A Live Performance by The Graduate: Seriously, it’s not an event unless those five guys are involved, and nothing screams epic more than Corey Warning belting out “Surround Yourself” or “Pull Me In” while he, Max, Matt, Jared, and Tim wear those tuxedo t-shirts. This would be during the wedding and not the reception, of course.
5. A Minister-by-Committee Approach: I have two pastors that I absolutely love, Scott Bradley and Doug Harris, and I would be very hard-pressed to pick one over the other. In addition, I realize the future Mrs. D. may have her preferred minister as well. Therefore, I have come up with the revolutionary minister-by-committee approach. The responsibilities for the wedding would be evenly distributed amongst the ministers, however many there may be. If possible, each minister would sign the marriage certificate as well.
Some of you who know me might be surprised at my “progressive” approaches to improving on the traditional wedding. Some of these ideas might not work as well in application as they do in principle, but we shall see. To my future wife (whose name will likely begin with an A, J, R, or S), I look forward to negotiating the terms of this wedding with you. I would settle for at least one of my five ideas being approved. Guess we’ll wait and see.
1. The Foil Wedding: Too many people undeservedly made a big deal out of the Royal Wedding. A “Foil Wedding” would deservedly be a huge event. I’m sure if you’re reading this, you’re wondering what in the world a Foil Wedding is. It is exactly what it sounds like. Everything is made out of aluminum foil, from the attire of the wedding participants (other than undergarments) to the displays to life-sized statues of the bride and groom. The Foil Wedding is the latest breakthrough in wedding technology and is sure to be the preferred marriage ceremony of the 21st Century!
2. Pyrotechnic Displays: Perhaps it’s the WWE fan in me coming through, but I absolutely love the idea of coming down the aisle while Europe’s “The Final Countdown” plays and glorious fireworks rain from the sky. Of course, this would mean the wedding would have to be outdoors, but that does not bother me. We’re eschewing tradition as it is. I’m thinking an amazing display after our first kiss as a married couple would be in order too.
3. Motorcycle Entrances for the Attendants: While I have absolutely no desire to hop on a chopper myself, I believe that there should be a time for the bridesmaids and groomsmen to shine. Since we’ve already established the idea of an outdoor wedding, I’m thinking that we install a motorcycle ramp for the wedding party to arrive in style. Of course, there might be some pyrotechnics in it for them as well.
4. A Live Performance by The Graduate: Seriously, it’s not an event unless those five guys are involved, and nothing screams epic more than Corey Warning belting out “Surround Yourself” or “Pull Me In” while he, Max, Matt, Jared, and Tim wear those tuxedo t-shirts. This would be during the wedding and not the reception, of course.
5. A Minister-by-Committee Approach: I have two pastors that I absolutely love, Scott Bradley and Doug Harris, and I would be very hard-pressed to pick one over the other. In addition, I realize the future Mrs. D. may have her preferred minister as well. Therefore, I have come up with the revolutionary minister-by-committee approach. The responsibilities for the wedding would be evenly distributed amongst the ministers, however many there may be. If possible, each minister would sign the marriage certificate as well.
Some of you who know me might be surprised at my “progressive” approaches to improving on the traditional wedding. Some of these ideas might not work as well in application as they do in principle, but we shall see. To my future wife (whose name will likely begin with an A, J, R, or S), I look forward to negotiating the terms of this wedding with you. I would settle for at least one of my five ideas being approved. Guess we’ll wait and see.
Jakob's Look at the NBA Playoffs
The “It’s Time For War” mini-series is still in a bit of an intermission, so bear with me for the next two posts. While I like to write about both serious and humorous topics, I am a man of many interests. The NBA and NHL are two of those interests. With the playoffs kicking off, I thought I’d give a little bit of my perspective concerning them. I do not profess to be an advanced sabermetric expert on either sport, so I will not be providing any power rankings. However, I will rank the teams in order of how much I would like to see them win their respective titles. You might find some of my reasons ridiculous. To that I respond, “You shouldn’t be surprised.” I apologize for getting this so late after the NHL playoff preview, but once it got into the first round, I thought it would be best to wait until the second round. Plus, I only had to do 50% of the writing! With all that said, here are my NBA rankings.
8. Miami Heat: Did you seriously expect any other team to be at the bottom of my list? Though I have met Dwyane Wade, I absolutely can’t stand his running buddies, and they seem to have led to a regression in Mr. Wade’s attitude. For all the hype and hoopla this group heaped upon themselves, they should have focused more on closing out games.
7. Los Angeles Lakers: Before “The Decision” last summer, the Lakers had a stronghold as my 30th favorite team. I think that Phil Jackson values his opinions far too highly and that Kobe Bryant is a (talented) jerk. I’m tired of seeing them at the top.
6. Boston Celtics: It somewhat pains me to have to put them here because I like Ray Allen and Doc Rivers so much, but the three-headed monster of awful (Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett) forces me to hate this team. That said, I’m rooting for them in this series against Miami.
5. Atlanta Hawks: It’s nothing against the organization, the front office, or any of the players. I just don’t like the way they play. They run far too many isolation plays. They seem like a team built to lose in the second round.
4. Dallas Mavericks: They’ve been close enough to the top that it wouldn’t be THAT awful to see them eventually reach the pinnacle. I think this may be their best shot. Mark Cuban needs to tone down his “Cubanness” a bit.
3.Seattle Sonics Oklahoma City Thunder: I can’t stand their owner, but I don’t hold that against the players. Kevin Durant is my favorite player not named Derrick Rose, and I like the amount of young athleticism they have. Barring anything unforeseen, this team should be very good for a very long time.
2. Memphis Grizzlies: There is something absolutely charming about this team. Quite honestly, they don’t seem like they should be as good as they are, but they continue to find ways to win. Plus, everyone likes a good underdog story.
1. Chicago Bulls: If you were expecting any other team at the top of this list, you’re even crazier than me. I love my Bulls. I love the defensive tenacity this team has played with the entire season, the sense of purpose that Tom Thibodeau has instilled in each player, and the play of their (likely) MVP, Derrick Rose. While the play of Carlos Boozer has been maddening at times, the team has done a good job of negating the most troubling components of his play.
8. Miami Heat: Did you seriously expect any other team to be at the bottom of my list? Though I have met Dwyane Wade, I absolutely can’t stand his running buddies, and they seem to have led to a regression in Mr. Wade’s attitude. For all the hype and hoopla this group heaped upon themselves, they should have focused more on closing out games.
7. Los Angeles Lakers: Before “The Decision” last summer, the Lakers had a stronghold as my 30th favorite team. I think that Phil Jackson values his opinions far too highly and that Kobe Bryant is a (talented) jerk. I’m tired of seeing them at the top.
6. Boston Celtics: It somewhat pains me to have to put them here because I like Ray Allen and Doc Rivers so much, but the three-headed monster of awful (Rondo, Pierce, and Garnett) forces me to hate this team. That said, I’m rooting for them in this series against Miami.
5. Atlanta Hawks: It’s nothing against the organization, the front office, or any of the players. I just don’t like the way they play. They run far too many isolation plays. They seem like a team built to lose in the second round.
4. Dallas Mavericks: They’ve been close enough to the top that it wouldn’t be THAT awful to see them eventually reach the pinnacle. I think this may be their best shot. Mark Cuban needs to tone down his “Cubanness” a bit.
3.
2. Memphis Grizzlies: There is something absolutely charming about this team. Quite honestly, they don’t seem like they should be as good as they are, but they continue to find ways to win. Plus, everyone likes a good underdog story.
1. Chicago Bulls: If you were expecting any other team at the top of this list, you’re even crazier than me. I love my Bulls. I love the defensive tenacity this team has played with the entire season, the sense of purpose that Tom Thibodeau has instilled in each player, and the play of their (likely) MVP, Derrick Rose. While the play of Carlos Boozer has been maddening at times, the team has done a good job of negating the most troubling components of his play.
Regarding the Death of Osama bin Laden
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to be an intelligence analyst or foreign affairs expert, so take my opinions accordingly.
Unless you have lived under a rock much like Osama bin Laden himself the last decade (HI-YO!), you have probably heard the news that American forces have killed the noted terrorist and spokesmodel for hirsute fashion. I have seen countless posts on Facebook and Twitter concerning his death, and unfortunately many of the posts fall somewhere between ignorant and uninformed. While I have no intention of dissecting these individual posts or starting anything with their authors, I will touch upon some of the common themes I found.
Erroneous Point #1: Osama bin Laden was omnipotent and omnipresent.
I’m not even going to insert any Saddam Hussein body double jokes here. The fact of the matter was that bin Laden was the face of a powerful and radical terrorist organization. He was not the president, premier, or prime minister of the nation of Terror, nor any other nation for that matter. He had no seat in the governments of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, North Korea, or any other nation that we feel falls in our ideological firing range. He was not the head of OPEC. He was one man.
Erroneous Point #2: The death of bin Laden is going to lead to some sort of utopian society.
The world was not a perfect place before September 11, 2001. It is even less perfect on May 2, 2011. There are a number of factors for this, and it would be asinine to even attempt to place the blame for the world’s problems on one individual. The death of one man is not going to lead to heaven on earth (though, if Belinda Carlisle is to be believed, Heaven is a Place on Earth). It is not going to lead to all the troops going home immediately. It is not going to bring gas back down to under $2 a gallon. It is not going to fix the economy or bring jobs to those looking for it. It was a significant and largely symbolic victory in an ideological war, but if you think that nobody is going to step up and assume his authority, you are a bit naïve. If anything, it is potentially proof of a return to competence by U.S. intelligence. The world still needs a whole lot of fixing. This was not some sort of wide-covering bandage.
Erroneous Point #3: The death of bin Laden is an elaborate ruse to lead to feelings of goodwill for the Obama Administration.
There are those out there who seriously apparently believe this was a hoax. They probably believe the moon landing was staged and that WWE superstar Kane was played by a different man after unmasking. These thoughts are ridiculous, but I will play along for just one moment and counter with this: EVEN IF there is the potential for you to be right, we are still a good 18 months away from reelection. That is the equivalent to me taking a shower for a date many hours in advance when I know there is the potential to get quite sweaty and dirty. I wouldn’t do it.
Erroneous Point #4: “Muslims” will get their revenge on us.
I am not going to take a long time on this one. Anyone who truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists are beyond hope. You are a moron, and I am not wasting any more time on you.
What I found most troubling is the volume of people openly celebrating the death of another person. Believe me, I know that bin Laden was one bad man. I understand that. If I was directly affected by the 9/11 attacks, I might feel differently. However, with him having no direct affect on my life, I cannot in good conscience celebrate the end of another man’s life. I am more than happy that this puts an end to his actions, but I cannot and will not celebrate his death. I will not join any Facebook pages “liking” “The Guy Who Killed bin Laden”. Call me unpatriotic if you will. It sickens me that there are those who both praise God for this death and take pleasure of bin Laden spending an eternity “burning in hell.” The hypocrisy in those statements is disgusting.
So, where do we go from here? Back to business as usual. I am going to take the bold step and assume that none of my readers either a) worked under bin Laden or b) were tasked with capturing and/or killing him. Therefore, nothing has really changed for us. We still have our lives, our jobs, our families, our goals, and our dreams. Keep working on improving those things, and maybe we will move closer to that perfect world that many erroneously believe bin Laden’s death will bring.
Unless you have lived under a rock much like Osama bin Laden himself the last decade (HI-YO!), you have probably heard the news that American forces have killed the noted terrorist and spokesmodel for hirsute fashion. I have seen countless posts on Facebook and Twitter concerning his death, and unfortunately many of the posts fall somewhere between ignorant and uninformed. While I have no intention of dissecting these individual posts or starting anything with their authors, I will touch upon some of the common themes I found.
Erroneous Point #1: Osama bin Laden was omnipotent and omnipresent.
I’m not even going to insert any Saddam Hussein body double jokes here. The fact of the matter was that bin Laden was the face of a powerful and radical terrorist organization. He was not the president, premier, or prime minister of the nation of Terror, nor any other nation for that matter. He had no seat in the governments of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, North Korea, or any other nation that we feel falls in our ideological firing range. He was not the head of OPEC. He was one man.
Erroneous Point #2: The death of bin Laden is going to lead to some sort of utopian society.
The world was not a perfect place before September 11, 2001. It is even less perfect on May 2, 2011. There are a number of factors for this, and it would be asinine to even attempt to place the blame for the world’s problems on one individual. The death of one man is not going to lead to heaven on earth (though, if Belinda Carlisle is to be believed, Heaven is a Place on Earth). It is not going to lead to all the troops going home immediately. It is not going to bring gas back down to under $2 a gallon. It is not going to fix the economy or bring jobs to those looking for it. It was a significant and largely symbolic victory in an ideological war, but if you think that nobody is going to step up and assume his authority, you are a bit naïve. If anything, it is potentially proof of a return to competence by U.S. intelligence. The world still needs a whole lot of fixing. This was not some sort of wide-covering bandage.
Erroneous Point #3: The death of bin Laden is an elaborate ruse to lead to feelings of goodwill for the Obama Administration.
There are those out there who seriously apparently believe this was a hoax. They probably believe the moon landing was staged and that WWE superstar Kane was played by a different man after unmasking. These thoughts are ridiculous, but I will play along for just one moment and counter with this: EVEN IF there is the potential for you to be right, we are still a good 18 months away from reelection. That is the equivalent to me taking a shower for a date many hours in advance when I know there is the potential to get quite sweaty and dirty. I wouldn’t do it.
Erroneous Point #4: “Muslims” will get their revenge on us.
I am not going to take a long time on this one. Anyone who truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists are beyond hope. You are a moron, and I am not wasting any more time on you.
What I found most troubling is the volume of people openly celebrating the death of another person. Believe me, I know that bin Laden was one bad man. I understand that. If I was directly affected by the 9/11 attacks, I might feel differently. However, with him having no direct affect on my life, I cannot in good conscience celebrate the end of another man’s life. I am more than happy that this puts an end to his actions, but I cannot and will not celebrate his death. I will not join any Facebook pages “liking” “The Guy Who Killed bin Laden”. Call me unpatriotic if you will. It sickens me that there are those who both praise God for this death and take pleasure of bin Laden spending an eternity “burning in hell.” The hypocrisy in those statements is disgusting.
So, where do we go from here? Back to business as usual. I am going to take the bold step and assume that none of my readers either a) worked under bin Laden or b) were tasked with capturing and/or killing him. Therefore, nothing has really changed for us. We still have our lives, our jobs, our families, our goals, and our dreams. Keep working on improving those things, and maybe we will move closer to that perfect world that many erroneously believe bin Laden’s death will bring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)