About Me

Name: gilroy man
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Blog Roll

 

On Golf

On golf

 

I played my weekly round of golf today. The more I play, I realize how many nice people there are out there.

 

Today, my fellow golfers were Ken and Terry. Ken is from New York, outspoken but a nice guy. Terry was more reserved, with a well placed joke or comment here and there. And they were both great to play golf with.

 

Since they hadn't played the course before, I clued them in that some of the yardage markers were wrong. They reciprocated by giving me swing tips. Ken told me that I don't swear enough when I hit bad shots! Don't worry, he made up for it on his bad shots.

 

Last week, my friend Harry and I played with Han and Peter. Han was hilarious, cracking jokes at every turn and encouraging us to hit second shots since we were waiting for the group ahead of us anyway.

 

I've been in the San Jose area for over six months, and have yet to run into a rude golfer. Some are good players, many are not, but all are out there to have fun. And I really appreciate the sportsmanship and good courtesy that golf provides. No rules lawyers or corporate types here - they must all play on the expensive courses.

 

It's important to meet nice people, particularly when we are bombarded with negative images by the media every day. I don't watch the news anymore because I don't need to hear about every rape, murder, and robbery that happens in the world. I'd much rather hear real stories from real people, rather than manufactured crises and chimera epidemics. The worlds always on the brink of disaster, until you go out and meet the real people on the ground.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

9/1/07

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Marriage

On Marriage

 

Being one of the last holdouts, almost all of my friends are married now. When I analyze it, some of the marriages are happy and some are not. And it's an interesting dichotomy.

 

The unhappy ones talk of lowered expectations and how it doesn't change your life. How their spouse changed after they had kids. The happy ones, by contrast, talk about how it's the best thing that's ever happened to them and how grateful and lucky they are to have found the love of their life. So it seems that marriage does change your life - if you marry the right person.

 

And how do you marry the right person?

 

1) Don’t settle. Don't get married because you're afraid of being single. If you have to think about the decision too much and keep asking friends for advice, it's the wrong choice.

2) Spend lots of time with your prospective mate before you marry. Make sure you know them in and out before you marry them. The last thing you want to do is be surprised.

3) Have a sense of humor. If you can't laugh about life with your spouse, you'll have a long life of misery.

4) Understand that there may be one flesh, but there's always two heads. Don't expect to get your way all the time.

5) Maybe it's just my perception, but the good marriages seem to be people with common values but opposite personalities. One spouse seems to complement the other, filling in strengths for the other persons weaknesses.

6) Which leads me to my next point. There needs to be a desire to improve yourself. If you don't want to be a better person, how can your spouse make you a better person? It starts with you. If you can't make your own life better when you're single, your spouse won't be able to help either.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/30/07

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Patient Privacy and Useless Regulations

Patient privacy and other useless regulations

 

A couple of years ago, I went with my aunt to update her living trust. One of the items in question was HIPAA regulations and patient privacy. We had to update the trust so that my two sisters and I could get information about my aunt if she is hospitalized.

 

The thing is, you have to bring the whole damn trust with you to the hospital to prove it. Or my aunt had better have that card in her purse that shows that she allows us access to her medical information. Otherwise they won't tell us anything.

 

I can't figure out who they're trying to protect. What's the harm if you're children or siblings or nephews and nieces find out that you're in the hospital? What secret information do they want to protect? Which disease they have? What treatment options are offered?

 

Fact is, there's no groundswell of populist support for protecting our "privacy". What's really going on is the medical profession covering their collective hind ends. Because the less information you have, the fewer malpractice lawsuits can be filed. And by the time you get any information about why your loved one passed away, all the medical personnel will have their stories straight and their testimony in sync.

 

On the corporate front, it's the same thing with Sarbanes Oxley regulations. We went through all these hoops to secure financial data and segregate it on private subnets and DMZs and make sure only a few accounts can even log on to the servers.

 

Now, none of this protects you from the most common form of information theft from companies - inside or terminated employees taking data and selling it to competitors. But companies aren't really concerned about losing data. It's all about procedures to protect them from legal action.

 

Andrew Vander Dussen

8/27/07

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The lessons of the English Civil War

The lessons of the English Civil War

 

            When Parliament went to war with King Charles II of England, it was the culmination of decades of resentment against the Stuart monarchy. The resentment came primarily from 2 forces. One was the well known protestant pressure of the Puritans against the Anglican church. The less well known cause was the gentry, newly wealthy from overseas ventures, pushing for a seat at the table of power.

            The rhetoric from Parliament and the gentry was poisonous and vile, using a broad brush to paint Charles II with anything that would incite the populace against the monarchy. And incite the public it did – bringing in religious zealots like Oliver Cromwell into the fray. And once Cromwell’s army was ready, it defeated every royalist army it faced, as well as other armies in Scotland and Ireland.  

            When all the King’s armies had been defeated and his plots had failed, Parliament had to decide what to do with him. Given their list of complaints and crimes they had compiled against the King, you’d think they would have been ready to execute him. But they were not – they were for compromise and a negotiated settlement. This infuriated both Cromwell and the army, who responded by purging Parliament, putting the King on trial, and executing him.

            Parliament was finally exposed for what it was. Not a force for freedom – they had no interest in the peasants or modern democracy in any sense of the word. Not a force for the law or justice – they could care less about everyone who died in the Civil War. No, they were simply craven opportunists who manufactured outrage against the King to leverage themselves into power. And they didn’t care who or what they used to get power, the peasants, religion, the army, all were just tools to be manipulated. Once in power, they were quite happy to stay with the status quo and work with the King again, regardless of what he had done. Since the army was no longer needed, Parliament contemptuously withheld their pay and tried to disband them.

            Seen in this light, the outrage of Cromwell and the army is justified. Thousands dead, property destroyed, and for what? Just to rearrange the relations between Parliament and the King? Small wonder that Cromwell threw the whole lot out and seized power.

            Like spoiled children who ate too much candy, Parliament pointed the finger at Cromwell as the source of all that went wrong in the Civil War. But the responsibility was theirs for inciting revolution, and they bear the responsibility for what the revolution turned into. If all they wanted was a negotiated settlement with the King, they shouldn’t have waged years of war to achieve that.

            What lessons can we draw to today? For one thing, the Democrats hysterical rhetoric against Bush and the Iraq war is eerily familiar. The Democrats played the “get out of Iraq” card right up until they seized control of Congress, after which they backed off and started to negotiate with the President. As it turns out, they could care less about the cost of the war, or the injured and dead soldiers. They just leveraged those things to get a piece of the action, and they are satisfied with that. The talk of impeachment and abuse of power has died down too, in inverse relation to the Democrats increasing share of pork barrel legislation.

            We are not, as the English were, on the verge of civil war. But we are in an era of hysterical charges, smear campaigns, and the utilization of public outrage to gain power. The modern media is ready to incite the public for any false drama it can generate, be it bird flu to SARS to contaminated food. And who can forget the stories of looting and rape and pillaging from Katrina, later proved to be false? Those who stir the forces of revolution should take care, lest they find themselves pushed aside by the zealots they produced, and consumed by the hysteria they generated.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »