The Prose-fessional

Chicago in February

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:55:00 +0000

To confirm the rumors that I am completely insane, yes, I am abandoning the high-60s-and-sunny weather of Phoenix to move to Chicago Feb. 1 -- the Midwestern city of urban blizzards and some of the world's best pizza and hot dogs. I'm moving specifically to the Rogers Park neighborhood, which should shed some light on the mystery as to why I'm suddenly following so many Rogers Park bloggers.

There will be a future blog post reflecting on my two and half years in Arizona, why I'm executing this crazy relocation and what I hope to accomplish in the Windy City. Until then, I give you Robert Johnson.

5 Realities of the 'New Economy' for Gen Y

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:01:00 +0000

In early December, the federal unemployment rate is 10 percent, and everyone is really happy about it.

Why? Because that’s actually an improvement from last month’s 10.2 percent. And, the U.S. economy lost only 11,000 jobs, meaning there might actually be growth next month. I need a kazoo, a pointy hat and a strong spirit, pronto. Mazel tov!

Seriously, though, can you imagine that anyone would ever welcome 10 percent unemployment? I know that I’m celebrating – rejoicing in that fact that I’m still employed and have the time/means to even write this post. I’ve come to several conclusions during this recession, conclusions that I think will stay true through the recovery, whenever it happens. Forgive me for being cynical (or realistic), but the economy is, indeed, a “new” one – if not necessarily a fun one. For the 20-something Gen Yers like me who are trying to launch careers right now, we had better be ready for a battle.

Here are five realities of the "new economy" for Gen Y workers:

Job security/career stability is a myth. We will always be looking for work. We’re the generation that changed college majors more than anyone before us. Why wouldn’t we also frequently change our careers? Similarly, employers operate much more fluidly than they used to. Loyalty is a myth. As I have witnessed, at most business-world jobs in “at-will” employment states, any day you walk into work could be your last – and they don’t even need a reason to let you go. That’s why everyone needs a backup plan … or two.
We’re competing with people across the world in the most cutthroat job market ever. Even for jobs located in the U.S., a talented candidate in India or China is just as likely to land the position as we Yanks are. This is especially true in science and tech fields.
We probably won’t make as much as our parents did. This one’s tough to swallow, but it’s true. Adjusted for inflation, the earning potential of Gen Y is less than that of the Baby Boomers. This is because the U.S. is no longer the undisputed global superpower and economic banner-carrier. Instead, our nation's collective short-sightedness has led to constantly playing catch-up with the rest of the world. The domestic economy has been so significantly affected by this recession that we may never see “boom times” again. We might see good times or OK times, but the days of a $50,000-a-year job to any idiot college graduate who wants one are over – for good. If you’re in a hotbed field, such as health care, engineering, or information technology, you might think you’re impervious to this trend. But even if the salaries in your field are on the rise, so is the pool of qualified work candidates. The science-heavy professions are the most globally competitive. As for me, the two careers I’ve considered since I was in elementary school – law and journalism – have seen plummeting salaries and decreasing numbers of jobs this decade. Great.
We need to save – and perhaps in nontraditional ways. In the Great Depression, adults learned to support families by saving everything. They often fed their families on $.50 a day. Yes, that was here in the good ole U.S. of A. Those times also predated the days of pensions, 401(k)s, or even that unicorn known as Social Security. For many people who began their careers in the Depression, retirement was never an option. I’m not saying that our straits are as dire as theirs because statistics say otherwise. But I do understand the value of $1 more now than I ever have in my life, even if the dollar is anemic compared to gold and other currency. Want some ways to save? Drive less (i.e. buy less gas). Go out to eat less and cook in more. Invest in equity (tangible items), not consumables (cocktails).
To be overqualified is to be qualified. To be qualified is to be underqualified. To be underqualified is to be broke. A twist on the “to be on time is to be late” mantra, this saying will ring true for us as we try to compete. We thought college admissions and scholarship competitions were ruthless? We haven’t seen anything yet. I’m already kicking myself for not becoming fluent in Spanish, a language that is being spoken more and more by U.S. residents who have more and more of a presence in nearly every market. Likewise, I’m kicking myself for not taking a few more classes in undergrad to finish a business degree to go along with my English one. But the good news for me is that I know I'll have an opportunity to further my education; I just don’t know when I’m going to do it or, more importantly, how I’m going to pay for it.

These might seem like gloomy realizations, but I think they might be good in the long run. If I think back to two and half years ago, when I received my bachelor's degree, I must have had some delusion that once I had a summa cum laude degree piece of paper in hand that somehow everything else in my professional life would just fall into place. Au contraire. The real work is just beginning, and it's going to be a struggle the whole way.

Public Prayer Debate Literally Hits Home

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:12:00 +0000

A small town in Ohio that I happen to be very familiar with is wrestling with whether or not to open city council meetings with prayer.

Council representatives in Shelby, Ohio – my born-and-raised hometown – are mulling over an ordinance that would open each council meeting with an invocation from local clergy. Of course, in this small town of fewer than 10,000 people, there aren’t any non-Christian clergy. Though proponents of the legislation say it welcomes leaders of multiple faiths, dissenters say otherwise.

There is some disagreement among lawyers as to whether the ordinance would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law establishing a religion ...”). But one councilwoman, who happens to be my mother, opposes the ordinance not on constitutional grounds but on practical and ethical grounds. She says the ordinance is unnecessary. Click here for more on this.

Way to go, Mom. I'm proud of her for being a voice for the minority on this issue. Of course, to avoid being a simple naysayer, Councilwoman Carlisle is proposing alternative legislation. She's told me she'll send it to me, so I will see if it's fit to post in this space.

The Problem with 'Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin'

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:06:00 +0000

During my freshman year of college, I was introduced to the aphorism “love the sinner, hate the sin,” a mantra that I’ve heard predominantly from evangelicals and fundamentalists. It’s a saying that I have never quite understood, and it was almost always used in the context of homosexuality – as in, “Jesus said to love everyone, but the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. So, we should say we love homosexuals even though we don’t condone their behavior and want to prevent it.”

First of all, using the word “hate” in a guiding principle about how to treat people is disturbing on its own. I’m not trying to be overly PC, but I really can’t think of a single instance in the Bible where Jesus, God, Paul, Moses or anyone else relevant instructed us to “hate” anything. But “love the sinner, hate the sin,” is at least an attempt to show ambivalence – that you condone and support a person but do not condone and support their actions.
The adage breaks down, however, when referring to gay people because to hate what gays do is to hate who they are.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” connotes that it’s good to take action to change the sinner. After all, if you hate the actions of someone you truly love, why wouldn’t you do something to try to get the person to change their behavior? There are numerous groups who, under the guise of “ministering” to homosexuals, attempt to heal them of their sins. ( I could name a couple off the top of my head, but I don’t want to give these groups any search-engine boost.) It’s a rehab for people “addicted” to those of the same gender.

Regardless of what these groups claim about preaching love and having successful converts, what they really do is disturb the psyches of people who are completely normal. The “healers” call on the Lord to take apart, brick by brick, the essence of the afflicted human beings. The so-called successes of pray-the-gay-away treatments are really just executed repressions, which can lead to lives of latent (or overt) confusion and unhappiness.

As for the general gay population, there are some who do go to a Christian church and practice faith, despite the fact that even the most liberal churches have not stricken the verses condemning homosexuality from Scripture. But these worshippers are still in the minority. Most of my gay friends and relatives have no desire to set foot in a church. It is ingrained in their minds that the Church hates them (oops, we’re supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner, right?). When you tell people that you love them but you don’t love the fact that they sleep with who they sleep with, there’s no way that they’re going to believe you love them! And, most gays don’t believe Christians love them. No matter how many times I’ve tried to intimate that “my progressive, mainline Protestant church is different; everyone is welcome here,” the fact is that everyone really isn’t welcome until the doctrine, ethos and theology say that they are.

All of that leads me to the pressing issue: Some churches and denominations – the ones that don’t have hard-line stances on homosexuality or have decided to relax their hard-line stances – are weighing whether or not openly gay people should be able to serve in ministry. Can someone lead a church, lead other followers of Christ, and be perpetually and intentionally committing what several verses in the Bible say is wrong? The Episcopal Church says yes – and it’s splitting in half because of it. The ELCA, which I have grown up in, doesn’t want to say anything at all, fearing that exact same split. The denomination would prefer to close its eyes and have the issue fade away. But as the organization’s leaders gather for its churchwide assembly in Minneapolis this month, something is going to get decided (either openly gay pastors will be able to be ordained or they won't). Yet the impasse will not disappear.

The Lutheran church could face a schism just a radical as the Episcopal church, which is why I suspect Lutheran leaders will choose not to change the status quo (the current gay-pastor celibacy agreement). To stick with the status quo is to opt for a much smaller schism – and to adopt a de facto alignment with “love the sinner, hate the sin.” After all, if it’s a sin for pastors, it’s a sin for everyone else.

I’ve been a Christian and a Lutheran all of my life, and I still am. I have believed that Scripture offers us the best conduit into what Jesus and God have called us to do in this world. But if the Bible really wants me to love the sinner and hate the sin, well, maybe the Bible’s wrong. How’s that for an end line?

Ohio Speak

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:30:00 +0000

Upon a recent weeklong visit to my home state of Ohio, I was able to reacquaint myself with some fun, old colloquialisms and abandon the new ones I've learned in the past two years. For example, I found myself slipping back into "pop" instead of "soda." I referred to all roads by simply the number instead of westernizing it by adding an article ("the") in front of the number. "The 71" doesn't sound right, but "the 51" is second nature to me.

I also spent time in both Columbus and Cleveland on the trip and remembered a phenomenon that I was fascinated with in college. Though the two cities are merely 140 miles apart, people from both places sound just a little different.

Columbus, I would say, is completely accent-neutral. Most people born in central Ohio, at least in the non-rural parts, grow up speaking as TV anchors are taught to speak. There may be some who will fight me on this, but I disagree. I heard my fair share of twang and rural drawl when I lived in Columbus, but it was probably from people who emigrated from the rolling, Appalachian hills of southeast Ohio (or worse, locales even farther south).

Cleveland, on the other hand, is distinctly more nasally and northern. Though it shares Midwestern colloquialisms with Columbus (i.e. "you guys," "gonna," "wanna," "pop" and -- my favorite -- "sweeper" to mean "vacuum cleaner"), there are some clear differences. "Bagel" sounds more like "begel." Suburban road "Bagley Road" is often pronounced "Begley Road." You don't turn the lights "on" in Cleveland, you turn them "aaan." To a certain extent, I lump some of the Toledo area, Sandusky and pretty much everyone in Ohio who lives within 20 miles of Lake Erie into this category.

I feel more confident making this claim after seeing this map and quiz from PBS called, "Do You Speak American"? If you'll notice, the line between a northern accent and a "midland" accent runs right through northern Ohio and probably in the vicinity of where I grew up -- exactly between Cleveland and Columbus and about 40-50 miles south of Lake Erie. Take the quiz yourself. I did OK, missing three. Apparently, I have no concept of what a western accent sounds like, even though I live in Arizona.

So, what do I sound like? I think I sound more like I'm from Columbus/central Ohio than from Cleveland/lakefront/northern Ohio. I can pull off the northern stuff pretty well, but to be honest, I'm faking it. I actually find the Cleveland accent a little more fun; it's got more of a uniqueness to it than what I grew up with. But if I ever, for some strange reason, have a TV audition, I might be better off to speak my native "general American."

What do you speak?

3-Minute Fiction

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:00:00 +0000

I decided to participate in the "three-minute fiction" contest as part of "All Things Considered" on NPR. Because the program received more than 3,000 sbumissions, the blog is probably the only place it will get published.

The Cyclist's Wife

A few hundred meters on the Champs Elysees from the finish line, Andre's furious cycling cadence encountered an unexpected hiccup. His foot inexplicably slipped from the pedal, he somehow lost his balance and went hurtling toward the pavement. Amelie watched streetside as her husband plummeted, seemingly in slow motion, to the asphalt. Like an anvil crashing on a piano, the sound of Andre's head hitting the street throbbed in her ears. His cycle swerved uncontrollably toward the shins of spectators who leaped to dodge it before it teetered to the concrete. Also rolling from the scene was Andre's helmet, which had cracked and fallen off his head. He lay there silent, likely bloodied, and possibly dead.

Amelie shrieked, “Dear, no!” Other cyclists raced by toward the finish and obstructed her view. Andre had been in contention to finish in the top 10 for the first time in his career. It was unquestionably his greatest performance in the most prestigious cycling event in the world. Yet on the brink of completing the final stage, he fell without reason in one of the straightest stretches of the tour.

The cacophonous melee of the final stage reduced to concerned murmurs as Andre needed immediate medical attention. Some cyclists slowed out of sportsmanship. A teammate fully stopped to offer assistance to the medics. Amelie, cornered on the other side of the street, pushed aside other onlookers and nearly darted into oncoming bike traffic before police stopped her.

“That's my husband! Dear God, that's my husband! Let me pass!” But the officer restrained her. Meanwhile, an ambulance sped up the side of the street, its siren wailing. What should have been a symbolic victory chime for her husband's career was the tone of a lifeline.

The police officer radioed to the first responders that the wife is with him and she wants to see him. A medic responded that the cyclist is unconscious and needs to go to a hospital. The officer quickly escorts Amelie to a side street and drives her to the hospital. Meanwhile, much of the crowd huddles in prayer for the unresponsive cyclist as he's lifted onto an ambulance gurney and driven away.

At the hospital, a doctor meets Amelie as she races past triage, inquiring, “Where is he? Where is my husband?”

“He's stable,” the doctor said. “He's sustained a nasty head injury, and he's only partially conscious. We're monitoring him, but you can see him soon.”

Only partially relieved, Amelie waited for nearly an hour, the most interminable stretch of time in her life. Then nurses summoned her to Andre's room. Bandages covered his head and numerous cuts. He did not respond when she spoke to him. She sat by his bed, gripping his hand and praying for movement.

Hours later, with Amelie still at his side, Andre began moving his legs on the bed in the rhythmic cadence of pedaling, first slowly and then at a moderate pace.

“Love, are you awake? Love? Andre?”

He said nothing. He just kept moving his legs, propelling an invisible cycle. Amelie shouted for a nurse. Finally, Andre's eyes slid open and he stopped pedaling the bed sheets. Amelie froze as emotion started to overcome her.

After a groan and a few unintelligible mumbles, Andre asked her, “What happened, love? Did I finish?”

Amelie paused with uncertainty. Her grip on his hand tightened. She looked into his squinting eyes and managed a half-smile as a tear glided down her cheek.

“You just did.”

"Always Looking Up: The Adventures of an Incurable Optimist"

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:24:00 +0000

After voting in November of last year in New York, Michael J. Fox was asked by an exit poller which presidential candidate he voted for. Fox peeled away his jacket to reveal a T-shirt declaring “Barack to the Future.”

This mini-anecdote was worth a chuckle, and many others were worth full-blown laughs, scowls or goosebumps. This, in a nutshell, is my reaction to Michael J.Fox’s “Always Looking Up: The Adventures of an Incurable Optimist,” which I just finished this weekend. This book was Fox’s second go-round at a memoir, first releasing “Lucky Man” in 2000 shortly after he departed his TV show, “Spin City.” I had stayed clear of reading of any Fox’s writing, or even really investigating his Parkinson’s foundation, for sophomoric reasons, mainly that I didn’t want my image of him to change. After reading this book, that image has changed for the better.
Fox – or maybe more accurately, Marty McFly – was the kind of hero that almost every young boy has. Sure, I had my sports heroes, too, but Fox’s character in the “Back to the Future” trilogy (my favorite movies of all time) was so charismatic, so funny, so full of energy that I couldn’t wait to grow up and travel through time in a DeLorean myself. Of course, as I grew a little older, I started to appreciate his other work by watching “Spin City,” reruns of “Family Ties,” “The Secret of My Success” and other films I enjoy. In everything, Fox was electric. His engaging personality and charm was something that I wanted to develop in myself. When I learned Fox had Parkinson’s Disease, I didn’t really understand what that meant. Suddenly, I realized that Fox had grown as I had grown. He wasn’t the swagger-filled teenager he had portrayed in the past; he was sick. As for me, all I knew about Parkinson’s disease was that it made you shake. I thought that uncontrollable tremors made life unbearable. As Fox slowly trickled away from TV and movie spotlight, I assumed it was because he simply couldn’t act anymore. It was a bit discouraging, so I just didn’t think about him anymore.

It turns out that spending more time with his four children and wife were about as important to his decision to walk away from “Spin City” as the disease. And he didn’t completely walk away from his career, either. He’s made numerous appearances on several TV shows, most recently “Rescue Me” and, in the past, “Scrubs” and “Boston Legal.” But he spent much of that time galvanizing one of the most active foundations to fund medical research in the world. He lobbied extensively – and in a bipartisan way (though he’s admittedly liberal) – for candidates who supported embryonic stem-cell research for its role in thwarting Parkinson’s and other degenerative illnesses. Lastly, he has a value for his family that I share and hope to mirror one day.

As a writer, Fox is talented. For someone who left his Canadian high school in the 11th grade, he has the vocabulary of a pedagogue, yet he mixes it nicely with the accessible diction and syntax that the average reader can appreciate. Though I considered the ghostwriting possibility, I must say that voice is so clear, so him (at least so his screen characters) that either Fox recruited the best ghostwriter in the world, or he penned most every word.

The TV special coming up this week (10 p.m. EDT, 9 p.m. CDT on ABC) has the potential be laden with pathos and melodrama, but I will still watch. Stories of people overcoming and embracing adversity never get old to me. Michael J. Fox is once again my hero, and though he is always looking up, I’m always looking up to him.

Music Musings

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 04:35:00 +0000

The Prose-fessional’s personal blogging hiatus – OK, more like full-blown neglect – is finally over, thanks to the addition of a brand-new Dell Inspiron 1545, to replace my old … Dell Inspiron 5150. The old lappy served me well, taking me through four years of college and two years of young adulthood, but doing anything on it recently (as in the past six months) has been so infuriating that I haven’t had any desire to sit at it long enough to pen a decent blog entry. I haven’t sent Inspiron 1.0 into full retirement, though, as I need to lift droves of files from there and onto Inspiron 2.0 – and as soon as 1.0 allows me to correct its registry error and load Windows, I will do that.

But I don’t want to waste my first blog entry in nearly five months on the minutiae involving my new laptop. Instead, I’ve decided to write about swine flu (just kidding). Instead, I’ve decided to share a personal revelation I encountered this weekend while singing badly at church: I love music.

I had to step back from my life for a second to realize this, but music has a perpetual role in my life these days. For one, I cannot make it through an average day without my iPod. Whether it’s at work or the gym, the only two activities I can count on doing most every day, I need a soundtrack to keep me going or I lose motivation and focus. But that’s just the listening component of music. I also have realized that I love performing music, even if it is performed badly. Last weekend I joined a handful of friends for karaoke, belting out everything from Bon Jovi to Frank Sinatra to Kanye West. I’m sure I looked like a jackass, strutting around on a white berber carpet of a living room as if I were on stage playing to thousands, but in a strange way, that “performance” was liberating. And jackass or not, it was fun.

As I mentioned above, I help lead hymns and psalms at my church every couple of weeks – as a “cantor.” Though the pastor always thanks me for my “service,” I think I’m the one receiving the benefit. When singing, I have to concentrate on the words of the hymns, when to breathe, when to cut off words, how much to project my voice. Sometimes I have to read music because I’m signing a tune I’m not familiar with. All of this allows me to concentrate on performing and, at least for a while, not be bogged down with the other uncertainties in my life that stress me out.

As I was driving away from church, I realized that until I moved to Phoenix, I had regularly been involved with musical endeavors. In elementary and middle school, I played the piano. In middle and high school, I played the trumpet in the band. In college, I was involved in theater and regularly went out to clubs with friends. These days, even though I’m blasting MP3s constantly, there still may not be enough music in my life. I’m subjecting myself to music but not really interacting with it much.

Therefore, I think I’m going to have my trumpet shipped out to me from Ohio, even though I haven’t played it in nearly six years. I’m going to investigate piano lessons at a local community college. Maybe I’ll pick up a completely new instrument (guitar?). Who knew that years ago, when I was complaining about required band rehearsals or mandatory piano practice time, that down the road I would yearn for those experiences again?

Technorati Tags: Christianity,Music,Self-Reflection

How a Blatant Act of Racism Will Lead to a (Without Question) Spirited Game of Connect Four

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:32:00 +0000

I've decided that sometimes it's anger that spurs me fastest to action.

The Sunday after Thanksgiving, I was spending my first day back in the warm weather of Phoenix and decided to go for a jog in Indian School Park before heading to work out at my gym. As I began my run, I noticed that droves of people were filing into the lobby of the office building to which my gym is connected. (My gym, by the way, is less than 100 yards from my apartment complex.) A news truck was parked outside. Surely, some kind of event was going on, but on a Sunday morning?

After I trotted around the neighborhood for a few miles, I returned to the front door of my gym, and the queue had grown much longer, now wrapping around the building. As I opened the front door, I asked the receptionist what was going on outside, and she informed me that the Mayor of Phoenix and local radio station 101.5 (or 101-5 Jamz, "Blazin' the Valley's Hits in Hip-Hop") were hosting a toy drive, giving out thousands of toys that morning. After thinking about how cool that was, I proceeded to work out.

An hour or so later, the line is even longer, and I should note that the people in the line are predominantly Latino or black. I'm walking home when a green Mustang, AZ plates, pulls up beside me. The driver rolls down his window, and I take out my iPod earphones to hear what he's saying.

"Hey, what's going on with all the people over there?"

"Oh, it's a toy drive. They're giving out lots of free toys to kids this morning."

"Oh, OK. Looking at who was in line, I thought they were giving out welfare checks or fried chicken or something."

I was too incensed to restrain my knee-jerk reaction. "Dude, that's kind of racist." Why I even softened the blow with "kind of" I don't know.

At this point the Mustang has gone from slow idle to complete stop. "Hey! What do you care? You're just a white dude. How does it affect you?"

"I'm just saying it's not OK to say things like that." I could have engaged further, but it occurred to me the guy might have a gun. Arizona is a CCW state.

"You got a problem?" I think if I'd taken him on, he would've gotten out of his car and swung at me.

"No, no man. Listen I'll tell you what. I'm going to go make a couple of toy donations -- one from me and one from you, just to show that for everyone out there like you, there are some people who care." AZ Mustang probably missed the end of my "situation defuser," as he floored it out of there. I was thankful, too, because I was right outside my complex and didn't really want this Klansman wannabe to see where I lived.

So, there I was, furious. Furious that someone would think it was acceptable to approach a random stranger on the street and make a tasteless, insensitive and downright racist comment. My first thought was, "This is what I get for living in a red state." I don't really think that, though, because I've met numerous Arizonans, even diehard social conservative ones, who don't harbor prejudice like this moron does.

The first thing I did was call the studio at 101.5 and ask them how I could help. The DJ told me the toy drive that was happening outside of my apartment was pretty much closed for donations. However, if I really wanted to help, I should head over to Tempe's Arizona Mills mall in the next week and make a donation to a their "Jam the Bus" drive -- basically where a DJ camps out in a school bus in the mall parking lot 24/7 for an entire week, taking donations.

To the mall is exactly where I went. Two days later, I made the trek to Arizona Mills and headed to KB Toys, where I bought a Spongebob stuffed animal and DVD (that's "from" the Trent Lott I had the pleasure of meeting) and the board game Connect Four -- definitely a relic of my childhood that I wanted to pass on to future generations. As I stepped up to the DJ to hand in my toys, I introduced myself and he opened the bag and saw Connect Four.

"Aw, dude! Connect Four! Now that's taking it old school!"

On my way home, I tune into 101.5 to hear them "live and on location" at the Arizona Mills toy bus. The DJ -- who, by the way, goes by "Strawberry" because of his red hair, I'm guessing -- starts giving shout outs to recent toy donors.

"We had back-to-back Johns ... I have to hand it to the second John. He kept it old school and brought Connect Four." Though the intrinsic value of helping out a kid at Christmas is more than enough for me, I do enjoy that I got a shout out on a Phoenix hip-hop radio station.

My point in sharing this story is that it's weird how things work out, how unsolicited conflict can result in something positive. But it only results in something positive if we want it to. Honestly, I should have been donating to a toy drive even without AZ Mustang's bigotry. But like most people, I can be drawn to action when I'm angry. Here's hoping that we can use our anger this holiday season -- at the world, the economy, our families, our spouses, our co-workers, our bosses -- to do something good for someone else.

Welcome Aboard

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:37:00 +0000

2008 has been the year of planes. Saturday was a particularly hellish day in that year, a day I would love to relive, but I just can't do it without violating my one-profanity-per-post rule. If you're really curious about it, just call me. It's a good excuse for us to catch up.

Anyway, I think 2008 has been so plane-laden is because it's been my first full year living a plane ride's distance away from my family. Over all of these flights, I have all but memorized the flight attendant pre-flight spiel. In the spirit of creativity, I decided to have some fun with it -- poetically speaking.

Please remove the safety card instructions
from the seat in front of you and tear
them up, shredding yours first before assisting
another passenger.
Smoking is the escape-path lighting;
during takeoff and landing, please place
the mask low across your waist
and breathe normally.
The law prohibits emergency exits
and inflatable seat cushions.
The Transportation Security Administration
has raised the terror alert to green.
Liquids, gels and aerosols must be contained
in a bag a stranger gave you.
Please report suspicious behavior
to a flight attendant, who is here
to service you and, in the event of a water landing,
disable the lavatory smoke detector.

If you've got some more to add, feel free to do so by commenting. I, of course, will compile the additions and take credit.

Yes We Can: Obama Makes History

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:44:00 +0000

This post seems about a week late, but I decided not to post my immediate reactions after Obama was elected because I thought it would serve me well to let history process in my head for a few days.

In my parents' lifetimes, they have witnessed a balance of tragedy and triumph in America -- mostly because they lived through the '60s. Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, Beatles playing the Ed Sullivan Show and reinventing popular music, Rosa Parks: triumphs. Kennedys' assassinations, King assassination: tragedies. Of course, myriad other landmarks occurred in the 20th century -- they experienced them and I only read about in my Social Studies textbooks.

By contrast, my lifetime seems to be clouded with several more tragedies than triumphs, chief among the disastrous moments being 9/11. Then there's Columbine, Oklahoma City, Virgina Tech, and numerous other huge moments that did nothing but make me question the decency of humanity. True, the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, but I was only 4 years old, and I really don't remember it. As I reflect, it's hard for me to come up with too many American historical triumphs.

Nov. 4, 2008: triumph. For America and for the world.

I've said before that I intended to vote for Barack Obama, and I did -- proudly. But when I did, I never really thought about the historical significance of what I was doing. I did it because I agree with him on the issues, because I generally trust his temperment and judgment, and because I felt it was really important to send a message to the hubristic Republican Party that I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore. The fact that Obama is biracial, a person of color and a minority never really resonated with me.

Then, as the networks started calling states on election night and projecting that Obama was about to win the presidency, the gravitas of the situation was starting to hit me: America was about to elect its first minority and first African-American to its highest office. Standing around at the downtown Phoenix Wyndham Hotel, a few miles away from John McCain's concession speech at the exclusive Biltmore resort, I started to feel it. Some people around me were cheering, some stood proudly and solemnly silent, and a middle-aged black woman started weeping openly and hugging everyone around her.

History was happening. And it was amazing.

I watched as Obama took the stage in front of hundreds of thousands in Chicago, and I listened to the words of a man who, to many right now, is already one of the greatest American heroes. I felt his words echoing across the entire nation, from the streets of Harlem to the cornfields of Ohio and the desert mountains of Arizona. He declared that change had come to America -- and even I had thought for months that the whole "change" schtick was a little over the top and heavy on the ambiguity. But after witnessing that moment, I realized it isn't, and here's why:

It's hard for me as a white man who grew up in a homogenous community (God love it, it's my home, but it's whiter than fresh fluorescent light bulb) to understand wholly the signifcance. America enslaved African-Americans for centuries. Our Supreme Court upheld Jim Crow laws and Plessy v. Ferguson -- the "separate but equal" doctrine. Poll taxes, literacy taxes and voter discrimination targeted African-Americans and excluded them from the democratic process. The travesties of the United States' ascriptive cultural framework go on and on, constantly clashing with the notion that "all are created equal."

To make matters recent, I had a friend tell me about how when visiting her grandparents' house in Mississippi in the early '90s (that's right, the '90s), the Klu Klux Klan burnt crosses on their lawn. I remember talking to a few black friends in college who said, "We're realistic. America is too racist to elect a black man to be president. It will never happen." I remember teaching and tutoring minority students who explicitly expressed that they thought their only chance for success in life was to be dribbling a ball or rapping a lyric. With one election day -- and a memorable campaign -- these people in my life, who have faced latent and overt discrimination every day when I felt none, became swelled with hope. You know what? I'm swelled with hope, too. Barack Obama, a biracial kid from Hawai'i whose mother received food stamps, got an education, served his community and became the president of the United States. Anything is possible.

In closing, as much as we want to say that it isn't about race, it most certainly is. This nation has much racial (as well as other types) of healing to conquer. We haven't done it yet. But a week ago tonight, we as a nation took a huge step.

Not a single Obama policy has yet to be fulfilled, but that prideful feeling inside of millions of Americans rings out. Change has come to America. Yes we can.

Post-Debate, Final Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:38:00 +0000

Both candidates are speaking with the town hall attendees now. I officially love C-SPAN's coverage of this stuff, which means that I just crossed over from political follower to political junkie. I'm sure the talking heads are rambling on the other networks now. Camera is giving some very close shots of the Obamas, but I don't see the McCains anywhere. Have they left? Where are they? All I see is the Obama post-game charisma.

Ah, yes, the McCains have left, says C-SPAN. The Obamas decided to hang around a little longer, and the cameras will stay on them as long as they're there.

While I'm still in the moment, let me give my take. Though I'm still definitely voting for Obama because I agree with him on policy, I have to give it to McCain for really coming off the mat tonight. I think I could divide this debate into four quarters. The first was a near draw. The second, a near draw with a slight edge to Obama. The third was decisively Obama. But the fourth was all McCain. As I said earlier, if the issue stayed too much on the economy, McCain was toast. But as the topics shifted to foreign policy, particularly military strategy, McCain took over.

That takeover is a sharp contrast to the first debate, where Obama ran roughshod through the foreign policy topics and really held his own. McCain seemed a little more apt to discuss these topics in the town-hall setting. The real turning point, though, was that I saw Obama flustered this evening when everything shifted off domestic policy. If I had to guess, I would say he just lost his focus and got tired. Isn't he the young candidate, though? McCain got stronger as this thing went along.

OK, time to pick a winner, right? Well, you can probably guess that I'm giving this one to McCain, not on issues but on presentation and strategy. He did everything he had to do tonight, and he did it without saying the words "Ayers, Wright or Rezko." Apparently, he's leaving all of that to Sarah Palin. Obama just couldn't seal the deal tonight. He was close, but he couldn't finish him off.

The race is alive and well, although we'll have to see what the ratings were and how the polls fluctuate, if they do at all. The truth is, though, that the economy is a buzzsaw issue, so even if McCain gets a debate bump from his strong foreign policy performance tonight, there are weeks of bad economy ahead of us before the election. You know what that means.

The real winner tonight is C-SPAN. They earned another viewer.

10:35

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:30:00 +0000

Internet question: What don't you know, and how will you learn it?

Obama goes first and, again, says something very pleasant about his wife. He discusses how the presidency is full of the unexpected and that he's fortunate to have had a tremendous education to prepare him. He closes on a message of fundamental change. OK ending. He pulled it together after a really rough patch.

McCain gets last word: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know." What I don't know is what the unexpected is. He goes to a personal story, just like Obama did. He's said, "I know what it's like ..." about four times. He's displaying some strong leadership here and ends with the "country first" tagline. The camera even slightly zoomed in on him.

Official debate is over, but let's watch the post-debate interactions. I hope C-SPAN shows more than the other networks do.

10:30

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:25:00 +0000

Audience question: What happens if Iran attacks Israel, would we wait for the U.N. Security Council to approve military action?

McCain comes over and pats the question-asker, a former Navy man, on the shoulder. Nice touch. He comes out very firm against Iran and accuses Obama of wanting to sit down without any preconditions. This came out in the first debate and some new info has come out about what Henry Kissinger said. We'll see how Obama reacts. For the second time, McCain says, "We cannot allow a second Holocaust."

Obama: We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. At least he can say nuclear correctly (hmmm hmmm...Palin, Bush). He says that we shouldn't provide veto power to the U.N. but we should exhaust diplomacy. He also mentions enacting global economic sanctions, something we can do if we get Europe's cooperation, and discusses Iran will have to reconsider their "cost-benefit" analysis. Obama is coming back a little bit here, at least with voters like me who generally agree with him.

10:24

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:18:00 +0000

What helps Obama here is that most Americans still have the perception that the war in Iraq is a failure. McCain, of course, adamantly opposes this.

Internet question: How do we deal with Russia?

McCain calls Putin K-G-B, which sounds very much like the first debate. He isn't saying anything he hasn't said before. Obama has get ready to play here. McCain has had about seven minutes of uninterrupted face time. "It will not be a reignition of the Cold War."

Obama seems rattled. I don't know if I've ever seen him like this. The conviction in his voice is trailing. Is he tired? "We've got to anticipate some of these problems ... ahead of time." That statement brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. Obama makes a good point about being proactive instead of being reactive, using the classic phrase "muddle through." He pulls it together ... sort of.

Brokaw: Russia is an evil empire, yes or no?

Obama: Not a yes or no. Yes, they're a threat. Not a very clear response.

McCain: Maybe. It depends on how we respond. He seems much more at ease.

10:17

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:08:00 +0000

The next question comes about the Pakistani border; however, it was painfully clear (and funny) that the woman didn't write that question.

I think Obama is generally strong on this issue, but it's hard for me to listen, knowing that these question cards are so thoroughly scrutinized by the debate commission and the campaigns. Obama reiterates that he wants to hunt and kill bin Laden.

McCain waxes poetic on Teddy Roosevelt and the "speak softly" adage. Then he claims Obama has announced that he wants to attack Pakistan. I don't think Obama has ever said this. Brokaw should allow him a rebuttal. If not, go to factcheck.org some time after this and check it out.

Other than that distortion, it appears that both of these men somewhat agree on this strategy. The only difference, of course, is allocation of resources between Iraq and other conflicts -- it hasn't been addressed.

Obama demands a rebuttal, which he needed to do. Brokaw allows it, but McCain will get the last word. It's starting to get chippy here. Obama just said McCain's philosophy is "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" and before that, McCain interrupted Obama to say "thank you, very much" when Obama jested that McCain was calm and rational and Obama was volatile.

McCain is pretty much speaking directly to Obama. Wow! Now things are getting interesting! This could be the turning point. Now McCain is saying that he "knows how to get bin Laden and I'll do it. But I'm not going to telegraph my punches."

I was ready to bury McCain's canidacy about 15 minutes ago, but Obama is letting him come back.

10:08

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:59:00 +0000

Just what the doctor ordered for McCain: a question on foreign policy. Though the question asked how our economy affects our national security, McCain has gotten to his experience. He calls Obama wrong on Iraq, the surge and Russia.

Obama comes back strong on Iraq, though, going right to the point that Obama never supported the conflict in the first place. We've heard all of this before.

Similar to McCain's strategy on addressing health care, Obama goes right to spending when talking about war. If we stick with McCain's ideas, Obama says, we will continue to spend billions a month in Iraq.

Brokaw: Asks Obama to contrast an Obama doctrine with a McCain doctrine in using force.

Obama is bumbling around on this question. He's trying to make the point that moral issues are a big component of when to intervene militarily. However, he's not looking as polished as he did earlier.

McCain slams Obama for ever supporting a timetable for withdrawal. He reiterates again that he will bring troops home in victory and Obama will bring them home in defeat. It's one of McCain's strongest talking points. Unfortunately for him, most people have heard this before, also, and it hasn't boosted him -- at least not since the GOP convention.

McCain is sticking to the game plan. If Obama doesn't get a rebuttal on this, it might sway a few people.

9:58

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:55:00 +0000

Brokaw: "Health care is a right, a privilege or a responsibility?"

McCain says responsibility. I would agree if he would express that we all have a responsibility to quit smoking, drinking and doing drugs. But he doesn't. Instead he goes back to the burden on small business.

Obama says right. He brings up his grandmother dying of cancer. He also gets specific on his plan and debunks myths about whether or not people will have to give up their choice of doctors. He sounds very Clinton-esque here, and it's working. He is absolutely slaughtering McCain on this issue. It isn't even close. However, he is going way over on time. McCain was doing this earlier.

If foreign policy doesn't come up soon, it's a good night and good luck for Johnny Mac.

9:54

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:48:00 +0000

McCain has me reminscing about Ciara's 2004 hit "Goodies," and McCain believes they should stay in the jar. That's why he voted against the 23 bills -- to avoid the pork. He's also going to appease Brokaw by sticking with the time constraints.

Question on health care: Should it be treated as a commodity?

Obama -- Co-pays and deductibles crush family budgets. Obama's tone is a little more soothing and less fired up here. He sounds a little cooler than he did earlier. This is the even-keel Obama that so many love. He does a nice job a laying out his plan and then, in his view, debunks the myths of McCain's $5,000 health care tax credit. He brings up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's fear of the McCain plan. Solid answer.

McCain -- Suggests putting health records online and then suggests establishing community health centers, which we already have. He comes after Obama for saying that "government will do this, government will do that ..." I disagree with McCain on the issue here, so I admit it's hard to stay impartial, but essentially, McCain is saying "Yes, health care is a commodity." In his defense, this is a loaded question.

9:47

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:43:00 +0000

Audience question brings up the environment. McCain shows how he and Lieberman opposed the Bush administration. Point scored.

However, he loses the point by coming to nuclear energy as a way to combat climate change, totally ignoring the horrible effects on the environment that nuclear meltdowns can have.

Obama spins this from a "challenge" to an "opportunity" and points out that being an energy-leader can create millions of jobs for America. He goes back to the development of the computer and how government scientists develop it. He also focuses on truly green sources of energy: solar and wind. Then, tries to pin down McCain on double-speak, voting 23 times against nuclear energy.

Obama's eye contact is fantastic with the crowd here. His history as a lecturer here is helping him, but then again ... I like lecturers. This will turn some people off.

9:42

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:35:00 +0000

Discussion period ... Obama brings up how he disagrees with McCain's spending freez, using the "scalpel-versus-hatchet" analogy for cutting spending.

McCain comes out strong on Obama's tax policies, saying they're like nailing jello to the wall. Then he goes into details on his tax plan, which sounds similar to Bush's.

Obama wants to respond, but Brokaw won't let him per say. Brokaw introduces a new question on Social Security and Medicare, amending it.

Obama: "I think the Straight Talk Express lost a wheel on that last one." McCain smiled. Obama reiterates that 95 percent of people -- everyone making less than $250,000 a year -- will receive a tax break. However, Obama didn't say too much about Social Security, Medicare or entitlement programs. He's playing catch-up.

McCain: "I'll answer the question." Sharp attack from McCain, who just called out Obama for not taking on his own party enough. McCain then pointed out that he has, and thankfully, he didn't mention "Miss Congeniality in the Senate" again. This is probably the best answer from McCain. He looks passionate but also informed and confident. Obama cannot be playing catchup.

9:33

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:28:00 +0000

McCain responds to an Internet question from a Depression-era woman on how Americans have to sacrifice. McCain says government has to cut programs but isn't specific.

McCain takes a shot at Obama for asking for an "overhead projector." These jokes are not working. He then discusses "shoving earmarks in the middle of the night." This is probably his weakest response, as he just contradicted himself by re-visiting health care. He knew he didn't address it fully in his last answer.

Obama comes out with a perspective on 9/11 and Bush's imploring the American people "to go out and shop." He notes some specifics about increasing service -- Peace Corps etc. Great answer from Obama.

The full body shots of McCain make him look old and rigid whereas Obama looks smooth, polished and relaxed. I personally don't think that's a fair assessment of leadership, but some viewers will pick up on that -- at least subconsciously. Side note: I didn't know McCain was a lefty.

9:28

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:24:00 +0000

Brokaw asks what sacrifices we'll have to make now that so much government spending is tied up. McCain goes first to scaling back "entitlement" programs (welfare) and then gets to energy and health care. He doesn't say anything specific about health care, though, which will only help Obama's campaign nail him on that issue in future ads.

"We can do them all at once, and we have to."

McCain is going way over on time and Obama knows it. Obama concedes that we have to prioritize. He puts alternative energy at No. 1 and shows the national security implications. He put health care at No. 2 and education at No. 3.

McCain had zinged Obama on earmarks, citing a planetarium in Chicago. Obama goes on the defensive for a second and then comes back to McCain's supported renewal of the Bush taxes. Strong discussion from Obama.

9:23

noreply@blogger.com (John Carlisle) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:19:00 +0000

Audience: "Why should we trust either of you or either of your parties when you're both responsible for this mess?"

Obama tries to empathize but it doesn't work really well, in my view. He does, however, redeem himself by pointing out that Clinton's presidency left a budget surplus that quickly eroded under Bush.

McCain comes back to pointing out he's been a consistent reformer. He's touting his bipartisan voting record. "Let's look at our records as well as our rhetoric." Then, McCain rattles off a few conservative "watchdog" organizations and calls them impartial. Not true.

It seems that McCain is getting more time here?