Why do we tolerate this...

I cannot believe the kinds of violence we are seeing in the world today. I was reading through news headlines this afternoon when one jumped out at me: Man Beaten to Death While Trying to Protect His Son.

In this story, a 7-year old boy playing soccer (English football) in England accidentally kicked his ball into a neighbor's yard. When the neighbor refused to return the ball and began picking on the child, the father intervened in an attempt to protect the little boy. What ensued was not only horrific, but intolerable.

A group of people at the neighbor's house ganged up on and attacked this man with a samurai sword, a cricket bat, and golf clubs. They stabbed him, knocked him down, and then proceeded to continually smash his head with the cricket bat and golf clubs - all while his 7-year old son watched in horror.

The man's wife tried to come to his rescue but was knocked down and held back from helping her husband.

In the end, the man died, and a 14-year old girl and a 60-year old grandmother are among those who were arrested in the assault. The police are attempting to identify the other members who participated in the violent attack.

The question I have is this: Why do we tolerate such behavior in our societies? This isn't just senseless violence, this is rage and evil coming from the neighbor next door. Unfortunately, the people involved will likely receive relatively minor sentences for this ridiculous crime while this 7-year old boy, his widowed mother, and his 12-year old sister (who did not witness the attack) will all be forced to live for the rest of their lives without a father, husband, and provider for the family. The lives of at least 3 people have been literally destroyed because of this attack, and it's simply unacceptable to tolerate this sort of behavior by issuing slaps on the wrist to the attackers. (20 years in prison would be "slap on the wrist" when considering the violent nature of and tragic results of this crime affecting generations of this man's family.)

I don't know what has happened to our societies today where violence, perversion, and other forms of evil behavior are not only tolerated, but are glamorized and publicized in our media and in our entertainment.

When will we realize that our weakened moral standards for what our children see on television and in movies is having a very tangible and measurable effect on our societies? When will we realize that the rise in perversions and molestations is directly related to the proliferation of pornographic materials in our homes? When will we realize that we tolerate these kinds of crimes by tolerating the propaganda and material that leads to this sort of behavior?

We're always sad to see something like this occur, but we do nothing to stop it from happening again. Instead, we "innocently" turn on CSI and go watch "There will be blood" at the movies and somehow fail to realize that we are supporting and embracing the very things that are driving our society towards violence and immorality.

You may wonder why these people committed a crime like this. I wonder why we tolerate it by spending our time and resources supporting the garbage that promotes and glamorizes this behavior.

Something has to change...

The GOP Race: Romney vs. McCain

I'm from Arizona, and I have voted for John McCain as a U.S. Senator in the past. I respect Mr. McCain, but I'm not going to vote for him in the presidential election for several reasons: (1) I don't agree with his left-leaning positions on immigration, (2) I don't think he has the Executive experience to lead that branch of our government, (3) I know he doesn't have the economic knowledge and experience we need to help save our economy, and (4) I have serious concerns that his health would deteriorate over the next 8 years in today's hectic and fast-paced world.

I'm voting for Mitt Romney because I think he has the right view on conservative principles, he has the obvious experience in the professional sector, he has plenty of experience as an Executive (both in the business world and in politics), and I think he has that intangible "it" that makes him truly Presidential. He speaks well, he looks great on TV, and he has a presence that reminds me of Reagan.

One final thought...if - as the press and exit polls have made evident - John McCain benefits from Independent voters in NH and Democrat voters who can't vote for Obama in Michigan, why would conservative Republican voters want him as their representative?

The Ultimate Steal

In case you hadn't heard, Microsoft is making their "ultimate" Microsoft Office package available to full-time students with a ".edu" e-mail address for just $60.

I was a bit skeptical when I first heard about this, but after researching this out, I ordered and received my copy. It's a great deal that you can't find anywhere else - even at your University bookstore.

When you pay your $60, you receive by e-mail a license for the product and then you can either (1) download the software directly from Microsoft's web site or (2) choose to have a DVD sent to your house. (Having the DVD sent to your house costs an additional $12, but I think it's worth it.)

This is a legitimate offer directly from Microsoft, but it only runs through April 30th. You get the following programs as part of the "Ultimate" package:

• Access 2007
• Accounting Express 2007
• Excel 2007
• InfoPath 2007
• Groove 2007
• OneNote 2007
• Outlook 2007 with Business Contact Manager
• PowerPoint 2007
• Publisher 2007
• Word 2007

If you want to learn more about what's in the Ultimate package, visit Microsoft's site at this link: Microsoft Office Ultimate 2007

You may be wondering why I care to share this information. Well, if you click on one of my banner ads and then buy the product, I get $1.00 for your purchase. I see this as a win-win situation where you get a really great deal on legitimate software that you'll use every day in school or at work, and I get $1.00 for helping tell you about this deal. If you have questions, leave a comment or e-mail me (dailyjules@gmail.com).

This package includes more than any other Office package MSFT offers. Check it out by clicking on the banner below:



Thank you for visiting my site. If you decide to purchase the package, please click on one of my banner ads so I get credit for the sale.

Biased Against Romney...

I'm shocked by the amazing bias against Mitt Romney in the popular press. From the sounds of things, you'd think that Michigan's primary elections tomorrow will decide whether Romney can even stay in the race for another week. CNN called his "loss" in NH "devastating", and even FOX News has indicated that Mitt is "struggling" to stay in the race and that Michigan is a "do-or-die" primary for him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the objective of the GOP primaries was to win the most delegates. If that's true, then it seems that a logical barometer of a candidate's likelihood of success is to look at how many delegates they've won to this point. Let's see....

Mitt Romney has 30 delegates following his first-place finish in WY and his second place finishes in NH and IA.

Mike Huckabee is in a distant second place with 21 delegates following his win in IA and his third place finishes in WY and NH.

John McCain - who the press seems to be heavily favoring - is in a very distant third place with just 10 delegates following a narrow win in NH, a second place finish in WY, and a fourth place finish in IA.

So, Mitt Romney currently has 50% more delegates than the second place candidate, who isn't expected to place first or second in Michigan, and has 3 times the number of delegates who are in McCain's camp. Even if Romney were to place second in MI and pick up about 10 delegates, he'd still be in first place after another strong finish that the press would undoubtedly characterize as "devastating" or "crushing".

After watching all of the GOP debates so far, it's very clear that Mitt Romney is the most qualified, knowledgeable, eloquent, and stately candidate on stage. He has more experience as a chief executive than any other candidate, and he's proven that he can be successful in every venue imaginable. I don't want a 75- or 80-year old man with no fiscal knowledge running our country in tomorrow's fast-paced world, and I don't want to elect a closet Democrat (Huckabee) to represent the Republican party for the next 8 years.

A word to the wise...stop listening to the popular press and start listening to the candidates.

The GOP Nomination...How's it Going?

Well, it's been several months since I've posted on this site, but I've been actively following the campaigns of all Republican candidates. Though I was fairly confident that I'd be supporting Mitt Romney early on, my determination to support him has been solidified as I watch the debates and see the various candidates.

Mitt Romney has the experience, a clean personal and professional background, and he has the charisma and charm needed to serve as our country's leader for the next 8 years.

John McCain is a little too left-leaning with some of his policies, including taxes, and I can't imagine him aging well in the White House. Do we really want an 80-year old curmudgeon running the country?

Rudy Giuliani is a nice guy and a strong leader, but his views on abortion, gun control, and other social issues that are important to me eliminate him as a viable candidate in my mind.

Fred Thompson is a straight shooter and can be fun to listen to, but I'm unimpressed by his experience and his record in Congress. This isn't a movie about being the president; we need someone who has the experience of being a real Chief Executive.

Mike Huckabee is an interesting candidate who I respect. Like Romney, he has experience as a governor, but unlike Romney, he does not have experience running corporations as an executive or serving for a large international organization like the Sale Lake Olympics that Romney saved. Also, Huckabee's stance on taxes, immigration, and some other important issues are questionable at best. I think he's eloquent and intelligent, but he doesn't have the national campaign needed to win the nomination.

There should be no doubt to anyone watching the debates or listening to each candidate's positions that Mitt Romney is the man for the job. His experience, his stance on important conservative issues, and his personal and professional backgrounds all check out. He's the most intelligent and well-spoken candidate on the stage, and he has that special intangible quality that makes him truly Presidential.

Although the media has tried to characterize his second place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire as devastating, he has won more votes and more delegates than any other candidate to this point. If the people of our great country would stop listening to the pundits in the media who are largely rooting for a weak Republican candidate, they'd see that Romney is in position to win and that he's the most viable candidate in a general election.

Next week will be very telling, but it's time that we start to seriously consider who we really want representing the Republican party for the next 8 years.

The problem with multiple wives...

When Mitt Romney first announced his candidacy for the White House, some news outlets wondered (and some still do) how Americans would react to the notion of a Mormon president running the country. Among the concerns and misconceptions about members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) is the issue of polygamy. The ironic thing about this concern is the following:

First, Mormons do not practice polygamy. The practice, which was adopted on a very limited basis, has not been part of the Mormon church since 1890. (Just to help with the math, that was 117 years ago!) Any member of the church found to be practicing or even approving of polygamous relationships is excommunicated. There is a zero tolerance policy.

Second, if one is concerned with the moral issues of men having multiple wives, why aren't we as outraged or shocked by the likes of Rudy Giuliani who is currently married to his fourth wife? I know that divorce is sometimes necessary and better for all involved, but you'd think that the odds of a man unknowingly falling into at least 3 non-salvageable relationships would be pretty slim. After all, how many people do you know that are on their fourth marriage? (I wonder what the odds are that this fourth marriage will be "the one"...)
CBS.com: The Women in Giuliani's Life

As an outside observer looking at the campaigns for these two men, this is what I see:

Mitt Romney has five sons who are all actively campaigning for their Dad. He is often shown in the arms of his large family spending time and playing with his grandchildren and children. Mitt's wife, Ann, has her own web site (http://www.annromney.com/) and is a successful mother and grandmother. She appears to be a sincere and genuine person who has battled a debilitating disease (M.S.) and who obviously knows what family values are.

In Mayor Giuliani's camp, we have a man who has more wives than children. None of Mr. Giuliani's children (or ex-wives) is actively campaigning for him. In fact, his only son Andrew went on national TV and appeared to campaign against his father. (ABC.com: Andrew Giuliani Dishes on Problems with Dad ) You won't see any web site from Giuliani's current wife espousing family values or highlighting her successes as a mother or grandmother for obvious reasons...she was his mistress before she was his wife, and she and Rudy Giuliani have no children together.

My intention in writing this piece is not so much to criticize Mayor Giuliani as it is to point out how ridiculous it is to be concerned about a Mormon running for President because of a limited practice that was abolished 117 years ago when we're not more concerned about another candidate who doesn't practice monogamy today, who lacks the support of his own children, and who has the potential to make Bill Clinton look like a devoted husband and father.

I agree with all those who think the issue of multiple wives is important when selecting a presidential candidate. I just think they're all worried about the wrong man.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks...

How many times have you seen or listened to a sports analyst on a talk show who thinks a team or a player should have done something differently? The term Monday Morning Quarterback (or Armchair Quarterback) refers to all the fans, analysts, and other people who aren’t involved with the actual game who spend the following day criticizing and attacking the coaches, players, and referees for the plays they called, the throws they made (or didn’t make), the strategies they used, and the ultimate outcomes of their actions.

The funny thing about Monday Morning Quarterbacks is that they’re always right. They deftly identify and discuss every flaw and weakness in a team’s or player’s approach, and some misguided viewers or listeners might be wishing these analysts and talk show hosts had been coaching their favorite team or taking the snaps the night before. What people tend to forget is this: it’s easy to criticize and dissect a performance or a decision after the fact, and all discussions about a prior performance are subject to what is known as “outcome bias”. That is, our perception of whether a decision was right or not is always influenced by our knowledge of the actual outcome. It takes no leadership, very little critical thinking, and no foresight to prove a decision as being “wrong” when one has the negative outcome as proof. Unless a team’s or player’s performance was perfect (and let’s face it, they never are), then coming up with criticism is extremely easy.

A perfect example comes from the American League Championship Series in 2003. The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees were playing a decisive Game 7 at Yankee Stadium to see which team would advance to the World Series. Pedro Martinez had pitched 7 dominant innings and held a 5-2 lead heading into the 8th inning. After getting the first out quickly and then giving up back-to-back hits (one that should have been caught by the center fielder) that closed the gap to 5-3, the Red Sox manager – Grady Little – walked to the mound to speak with his pitcher. After speaking with Martinez, Little decided to leave him in the game. – The next two batters doubled, and the game was quickly tied at 5 runs apiece. Little took a second trip to the mound and replaced Martinez with a relief pitcher. The Red Sox went on to lose the game in 11 innings, and Grady Little was vilified in the Boston and national media as a poor manager because he didn’t take Pedro Martinez out when he first visited the mound.

Looking back on the situation, it’s easy to criticize Grady Little’s decision – now that we’ve seen the results. But don’t forget that we are subject to this “outcome bias”. Pedro Martinez had thrown 104 pitches in the game to that point, and he (a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher) told Little he could get the next two outs. Grady Little had 2 relievers ready in the bullpen, but you’ll never see their bronze busts in Cooperstown.

The truth is, Grady Little did what most managers would have done in that situation. (If you’re thinking that I’m wrong…then you may be forgetting that you too are subject to this “outcome bias”!) Pedro Martinez was the team’s best pitcher, and the odds of him getting 2 more outs after having thrown 104 pitches were probably just as good as a journeyman relief pitcher doing the same after coming out of the bullpen.

The sad and irrational thing about this story is that Grady Little’s contract was not renewed based largely on this decision, his laudable success with the Red Sox has largely been forgotten, his time in Boston will be forever remembered for one negative outcome, and every commentator or fan who openly criticizes his decision is accepted as a genius. The most ironic thing about this example is that another manager – the Cubs’ Lou Piniella – was just criticized this week for taking his star pitcher out of a game too early in a similar situation. (Piniella Pulls Zambrano Too Early)

As I pointed out before, this “Armchair Quarterbacking” takes no leadership, no foresight (only hindsight…and we all know how good that is), involves no risk, and can’t be wrong. In short, it’s easy and almost cowardly to openly criticize and attack the person having to make a critical decision under pressure once the results have been made manifest.

Since this thought piece has gone on long enough, I’ll make my point and close for the day. Consider the following:

What if Game 7 of the ALCS was analogous to some important moments in our country’s recent history? Wouldn’t President Bush be playing the role of Grady Little? Perhaps some executive decisions have been as unsuccessful as leaving Pedro Martinez in to face 2 more batters. Certainly there have been others that have fared better. (After all, Grady Little must have done some things right to get the Red Sox into Game 7!) It's easy to identify those people who are the Monday Morning Quarterbacks that criticize every decision, highlight the negative outcomes, ignore the positive ones, and brashly proclaim that they would have done things differently.

I’m not saying that I would have made all the same decisions that President Bush has made over the past 7 years, but I’m also not claiming to have any idea of the enormous pressures, stresses, and information asymmetry problems that a Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States must deal with. (I make enough of my own mistakes within my little sphere of influence!) What I am saying is this: “I don’t know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes. Nobody knows, and anyone who says they would have acted differently or would have made different choices is heavily influenced by the luxury of knowing the actual outcomes.”

So, if you’re ever caught thinking that a 45-year old sports analyst might make a better quarterback for your favorite team, imagine that same skinny talk show host suited up in pads and a helmet and lining up on a football field against today’s best athletes. How much better do you really think he’d fare?