My dream ... it isn't creepy - is it?

I have always loved music, and singing.
We had all kinds of music in our house growing up. I can remember everything from Andy Williams to those sappy 101 Strings to my brother's Beach Boy albums. We had this one recording of Rhapsody in Blue that had all these women in bathing suits that matched in style but varied in color, standing basically waist deep in water holding these scarfs over their heads, the colors of which matched their bathing suits. I'm not sure what that had to do with Rhapsody in Blue - I guess the women were the "Rhapsody" and the water was the "blue" but I'm not sure - but I can remember listening to it over and over and studying each of the women on the cover of the album.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
I can remember riding in the car with my father, listening to Big Band music, thinking that's what adults did and that at some point in my life some internal switch would click and suddenly I'd stop liking rock and start preferring Big Band sounds. And because it seemed inevitable, I would go ahead and start listening to Big Band music on my own - Glenn Miller, Tommy Dorsey, Buddy Rich, Cab Callaway, Count Basie - while listening to Steppenwolf, Blood, Sweat and Tears, Chicago, Rare Earth ...
All of that gave me a rather eclectic taste in music - rock, country, jazz, blues, Big Band, symphonies, musicals. I have to admit I never cared much for opera, disco or techno stuff.
Anyway, in the eighth grade we started high school and I had an elective so I signed up for choir, and I loved it. I didn't tell anybody - especially not the guys I played ball with. I quit after a couple years to concentrate on who knows what, but as a senior I got back in the choir and the director heard me and said I should have never quit, that I belonged in choir.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It wasn't. At least I don't think so.
Anyway, I once had the opportunity to sing in a large choir that did the Hallelujah Chorus - which may have the greatest bass part ever written (well, maybe except for The Oak Ridge Boys' 'Elvira').
And then one day many years ago, I heard this:
The Roches' Hallelujah Chorus

I became enamored with the idea of doing The Hallelujah Chorus with three or four voices,  a capella. I just think it would be so cool to do, and I think it sounds really good.

Alas, it's been almost 30 years since I heard The Roches. And I've never been able to convince anyone to try this.

But there's always tomorrow.
Even as I write that, I realize it sounds creepy. It isn't.
 At least I don't think so.

World wide high tech paranoia

Maybe I'm paranoid.
But the other day, I took my laptop into my room and plugged in the wireless card and as it was loading up and getting a signal, it kind of freaked me out.
I mean, it was like realizing that 'they' can reach you where ever you. There are these air-fingers that you can't escape from. And while sure it's a communication technique, communication is a two-way street; if you can reach out and connect to "them" at will, are you sure "they" don't have the means to reach out and connect to you at "their" will?
Then I saw this story in Scientific American (here) that says "Printers can be hacked to catch on fire." Apparently, "Two researchers at Columbia University in New York say they've found a flaw in ordinary office printers that lets hackers hijack the devices to spy on users, spread malware and even force them to overheat to the point of catching fire."
I am well-known for arguing with my GPS. That I even have GPS is a little disturbing, because I assume if my GPS is connected to some system somewhere that can identify where I am at any given moment, my speed, and calculate my estimated time of arrival, then that same machine can report where I am, how fast I am going, and where I am going.
It's why I don't want OnStar. I recognize the benefits. I hear the commercials about people who have wrecks on deserted country roads or women who go into labor miles from the nearest hospital and by connecting with OnStar, you can talk to a real person who not only will send for help but will express empathy and humor while keeping you company or connecting you to a loved one while waiting for a resolution to the situation.
But the trade-off is ... you guessed it. OnStar also has the ability to determine where I am at any given moment.
It's not like I do anything that requires secrecy. Oh, maybe there was a time when I did (then again, maybe not). It's just that I don't like Big Brother having that kind of access to my life.
If I think about the fact that every key stroke on my computer can be recorded, every web site I visit noted - well, it's enough to understand those people you read about who put tin foil over all their windows, sit in the dark, and write in-decipherable formulas and sayings on the walls, floors, and ceilings of their hovels (they always live in hovels, don't they?).
I like my privacy. I like a little solitude. I'd be happy to find that gap in the cell phone coverage area where you don't get a signal and are therefore, as long as you stay in that exact spot, untraceable.
Or at least as untraceable as anyone can be in today's high-tech world.
Except that I go crazy when I don't have access to my cell phone.
It's a dilemma.

OK, I am paranoid.
I think paranoia can be instructive in the right doses. Paranoia is a skill.

Content of character, not color of skin

Years ago, at the tail end of the height of the Civil Rights movement and the end of legalized or forced segregation, the question came up as to how we'd know when equality had been achieved.
It was an interesting question then, and continues to a certain extent to be interesting even today. How do we know when the problems of the past are behind us? Particularly when the movement to resolve those problems becomes an industry until itself?
But I distinctly remember a wise old man (and since I was only 17 "old" could have been anyone over 25) saying something that stuck with me. He said - and I'm paraphrasing - "Equality won't be when anyone can get into a restaurant regardless of the color of his skin. Equality will be when anyone can get kicked out of a restaurant and no one will think it was because of the color of his skin."
The way I interpreted that statement was to mean that when someone legitimately does something that deserves censure but can't hide behind race as the reason for that censure but instead is held accountable for his actions, then we're there.
I thought of this the other day when the story popped about the booing of the First Lady, Michelle Obama, at a NASCAR race. The first thing I heard was commentators saying that was typical of NASCAR fans, booing Mrs. Obama because she was black.
Thankfully, I also heard people say that was ridiculous, that Mrs. Obama was booed because people were expressing displeasure at her politics (and, more directly, the politics of her husband).
First let me make it clear that I don't think it is appropriate to boo anybody, and I do think the office of the President deserves respect even if we don't like the politics of the man who occupies that office. And while the First Lady is a public figure, I believe the family of the president should be respected.
And I'm not stupid. I know racism still exists.
I also know for a white guy to talk about racism is just asking for trouble. As comedian Dennis Miller once said he was so race conscious that when he did his laundry, he was afraid to separate the whites from the colors.
Mrs. Obama once famously said America is a "mean, mean country" of which she never felt proud until her husband was nominated to run for President.
But we hear that this is a racist country. That, I would argue with.
After all, is there any country that has as many laws - in many cases redundant laws - that are designed to not just promote but attempt to ensure racial equality?
Yes, this country indulged in slavery. So did just about every other country in the world at one time or another. Now, just because "they" did it does not make it right that we did it. Slavery is immoral, and we should never cease to work to eradicate it where it still exists today.
But this country has done a pretty good job of working toward that eradication. Remember, it was something like 360,000 mostly white males who died in a war that was, according to popular thinking, all about ending slavery (I would argue that the War of Northern Aggression - otherwise known as the "civil war" - was about more than that) and defending that uniquely American idea that "all men are created equal."
And it was mostly white people that voted to pass things like the 13th and 14th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act.
According to the 2010 Census, blacks make up only 12.6 percent of the entire population of the United States. That means an awful lot of white people had to vote for Michele Obama's husband, Barack, for him to earn first the nomination of his party and then be elected President of the United States.
It's a great thing that a black man was elected President. Black kids need to see a black man who isn't famous because he can hit 70 home runs or sing and dance and doesn't call women "ho's" or cruise the streets at night looking for a fix.
Because white kids can look and see white men who also do every one of those things, too.
David Mamet, in his book "The Secret Knowledge," wrote: "is the American Government of today guilty of slavery? If so, are those African American members of the Government equally guilty? Or, are the American People alive today guilty? If so, which citizens? The Black as well as the White? Is the guilt heritable, or not? If so, then would not those (the great majority of) Americans whose ancestors did not arrive until after slavery be exempt from apology? Are the ancestors of the 300,000 white males who died to defeat slavery excepted from apology? If not, on what basis are the descendants of slaves entitled to it?"
Don't tell me this is a racist country.
Oh, there are racist people who live in this country. And those people and their attitudes are a source of continual opposition, not just by law but also by the increasing moral force of so many people in this country who have proven able to look past the color of a person's skin to judge on that person's actions or potential (not to mention how high they can jump or how fast they can run or how well they sing or act or dance or host TV shows).
That's why I believe those people at that NASCAR race did not boo Michelle Obama because she's black but because she represented a President whose policies many people don't agree with.
And that's a good thing - not that people don't agree with the President, but that they don't agree with the President because of the things he has done, not because of the color of his skin.
Without question, it was a huge step forward for this country to elect a black man to the highest political office in the land.
The next big step will be choosing to vote for or against a man or woman because of their politics, without anyone thinking it might be because of the color of their skin.

Penn State, the law, and moral obligation

This isn't going to be a terribly insightful blog. It won't tell you anything you haven't heard over and over.
But maybe we can't hear it enough.
Let's talk about the law.
One aspect of this horrible Penn State case is that it has created a conversation about obligation, as in, 'what is a citizen's responsibility under the law?'
It's a great question.
It's a great question because one of the inherent problems of 'law' is that it is best at telling us what people can't do, not what people can do or even should do.
Kind of like The Ten Commandments: Thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not lie, thou shall not commit adultery ... the law is there to point out the things that we might want to do, but that we should not do.
However, if you think nobody likes being told what not to do, try telling people what they ought to do.
Nobody likes being told what is the right thing to do, because right is subjective, nebulous, almost impossible for everyone to agree on - unless it's agreeing that it's right not to murder, lie, cheat, and steal.
And because we human beings don't like being reminded of what is the right thing to do, sometimes it looks like we've all convinced ourselves that maybe it just makes more sense to do nothing than to do something.
By that I mean we all know how so many of us have decided it's not worth it to get involved. If we see an uncomfortable situation, turn away. You've heard the stories of people getting mugged on crowded city streets but there being no witnesses; of the recent story of the little girl being run over repeatedly in China and no one stopping to help.
"Stay out of my business,'' is a common enough phrase.
Helping is messy. It means getting involved. And sometimes the law seems to work against getting involved. At best, it often requires taking time away from our own lives to be involved in the lives of either the victim or the criminal (as in testifying in court); at worst, it can mean being actively punished for doing what we though was right, as in being sued for "meddling" in someone else's business or even retaliation from the accused,  or friends and supporters of the accused.
Nobody likes a 'rat,' someone who tells on someone else. That's one of the earliest lessons of childhood relationships.
Plus, if we're honest, the rights of criminals sometimes seem more vigorously defended by the law than the victims or even just the rights of members of society in general to live in security.
I'm not suggesting the rights of the accused should not be protected; they should. But we all know of cases where those 'rights' have gone too far and the obviously guilty are set free on a legal technicality.
It's not easy, being free.
The problem is that while we're all so acutely aware of what's legal that we often forget what's moral; what we used to call moral law. Sometimes the law causes us to forget that every one of us has a moral obligation to protect the innocent, the victims, the defenseless, the abused.
Truthfully?
The Bible tells us the law  - even the law as laid out in The Bible - is only there to point out our shortcomings. It does not have the power to change us into 'good' people, moral people, people who do the right thing.
Simply put, the law can't make people do what is right. It can only discourage people from doing what is wrong.
Doing right has to come from somewhere else. It has to come from a change of heart, of attitude, of will.
Theologians would tell us that's what Jesus does for us. Jesus even made the radical statement that He came to abolish the law.
But at the very least, it requires us as individuals, every day, to resolve to be involved in the world outside of our own lives, to be aware, to 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.'
A good society doesn't make people good.
Good people make a society good.
And all the laws, all the restrictions, all the punishments, all the best-designed plans to build a "Great Society''  in the world won't change that.
As I said in the beginning, there's nothing new here, nothing terribly profound.
It's just something I needed to be reminded of.
Because if we learned anything from Penn State, it's that sometimes the sin of omission has consequences just as great as the sin of commission.
In other words, there is a cost to both not acting, or even to acting inadequately. And it's one that, as a society, we just can't afford to keep paying.

I can't leave this without going a little further into Jesus' saying he came to abolish the law. Part of what makes Christianity so difficult is that the Bible does not spell out what we need to do to please God, unlike other religions that tell us "pray this many times a day, give this much money, do this many good deeds" and we'll find favor with God. Christianity is of the heart, meaning we allow God to work within us to convict and convince us of what we should be doing. It's much more difficult, much more challenging, and yet - in the end - much more of a complete transformation because it changes us from within.
Until that happens, however, we need the law to tell us what not to do.
And we need the examples of good people all around us showing us a better way to live.

The myth of owning your own home

In one of the escalating protests between the "Occupy ... " whatever movement and government authority, I noticed one Occupier carrying a sign that said, "I will never own my own house."
Well, certainly not with that attitude!
I once felt that way, too. I remember thinking, "I'll never save enough money for an acceptable down-payment on a house." because common thinking was that you had to have 20 percent down to buy a house! Crazy, huh?
Anyway, I lucked into my first house because the people who owned it wanted to move out and allowed me to simply take over their note. Because the loan was privately held, it didn't require any money down. I think I assumed a note for something like $34,000.
I wonder if this Occupier would even consider buying a first house for $34,000?
Here's the thing, though. As I think back, I realize I've "owned" five houses, and yet not really ever owned one.
Because while my name was on the loan and I was responsible for the property, the truth is my houses have always been owned by whoever held the note - an individual, then any number of banks or mortgage companies.
Still, if I could buy a house based on what I was making working as a newspaper reporter, almost anyone with a regular job can afford a house - if they aren't trying to buy the Biltmore Estate.
Or a modest duplex in the suburbs.
Still, the underlying complaint from this Occupier was apparently the idea that was promulgated in the 1990s that it was the right of every human being - much less every American - to own their own home.
So pressure was put on banks and lenders to lend money willy-nilly (I've always wanted to use that phrase), regardless of whether people could really afford what they were buying or not. Hundreds of years of best practices when it comes to lending money were thrown out the door and suddenly lenders went out of their way to make sure people could get loans - even up to 125% of the value of what they were buying!
From worrying about saving to come up with enough money to put 10 or 20 percent down to suddenly being able to buy a house with nothing down to not just no money down but all other costs being built into the life of the loan -- it was incredible! And I should know, because I did it too.
So is there any wonder that the housing market bubbled and eventually burst? Plenty of us bought houses we really couldn't afford in the hope that somewhere in the next five years, before our interest only payments ballooned into some ridiculous interest rate that actually included paying principal.
But of course it was the fault of the banks and those evil mortgage lenders who duped us into borrowing more money than we could ever hope to pay back.
Isn't life great? There are no more "mistakes;" everything good is mine by entitlement while everything bad is somebody else's fault!
Here's the thing that really scares me, though.
With so many of those mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage companies, it means that the government actually holds the notes on many of our houses - and in many cases, the other loans are backed by the government as well.
One of the great historical attractions of the New World was the idea of owning land and property. Owning your own home was part of the American dream. And citizens owned the majority of the country - that is why we called it "private property" - making the government beholden to the citizenry.
Now, the government owns our houses and we the people end up paying the government for our shelter and land, which threatens to turn the system on its head. Instead of government being subservient to the citizens, we citizens are subservient to the government, which has the power to call our 'note' and take over our very homes!
That's scary - particularly when you include the new threat of "eminent domain" and the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling (Kelo v. New London) that essentially made it legal for local government to take away private property and turn it over to a private developer simply because that developer claimed he would generate more jobs and tax revenue. It's a battle that continues in many states across the nation.
For many the whole plan behind refinancing mortgages to save people's homes was to extend the life of the loan to up to 45 and 50 years. Does anybody expect to live in a house for 45 or 50 years anymore? Essentially, that means we're just renting from the government.
So the truth is, just like the above mentioned Occupier, I don't think I'll ever own my own home, either.
That's OK. Unlike the Occupier, I won't stop trying.
And if it doesn't happen, well, what the heck - I can always rent.
Or I guess I could even live in tent in a privately owned public park  in the middle of New York City.
But why would I want to?

Politically incorrect approach to picking the President.

I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why he continued to be an ardent supporter of the President, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
I again pointed out that it wasn't the role of Congress to support the President; that in fact it was part of the system of checks and balances that Congress should hold the President with some suspicion, just as the President should hold Congress with suspicion, and the American people should never forget to scrutinize the actions of both the President and Congress and do so with some suspicion. Inherently, the Founders understood there had a to be a system to stop one person or one group of people form having too much power, because power corrupts.
Eventually, because this particular supporter of the President couldn't give me something concrete on which to base his support - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told my Obama-supporting friend that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.

Simple but radical ideas we take for granted

Interesting to listen to soon-to-be-former Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi recently.
He gave a little reminder of basic civics lesson for a Republic.
State-wide elections - including governor - were Tuesday, Nov 8, in Mississippi. Barbour, who has done the maximum two terms and so isn't running again, told a crowd in Jackson something along the lines of "I don't care who you vote for - no, that's not right. Everyone knows I'm a Republican, so I do have a preference. But what I do want is for everyone, regardless of party, to get out and vote."
Then Barbour told an interesting story about his first election as governor.
"When I won, running against the incumbent, the incumbent got 10,000 more votes than he'd gotten in the previous election when he won,'' Barbour said.
Barbour went on to say that kind of turn-out was good for him, and for Mississippi. It showed participation, and gave him as the new governor a good indication of what his mandate for office was going to be.
Essentially, what Barbour reminded me of was that numbers of votes matter. If a candidate wins by an landslide, he can be sure he has an overwhelming support for his positions and platform. He can enter office with confidence.
Likewise, if he wins by a narrow margin - and there is a large turnout of voters - the elected official knows his constituency is somewhat divided and that should help guide him going forward.
We do not live in a Democracy, where every citizen votes on every law or amendment that comes up. Such a government is unwieldy and inefficient.
We live in a Republic.
- - - - -
It's easy to forget that our government really was one founded on ideas. Nothing like it - at least in terms of scope - had ever been tried before. Parts of it, yes; and maybe smaller versions of the bigger picture.
But for most of the world's history, the power of government either belonged to those who could take it and control the people being ruled, or it belonged to those who inherited (from someone who, somewhere in the past, had demonstrated the ability to take the power and hold on).
Then came this great idea hammered out by a variety of 'thinkers' back in the late 1700s. One of their most revolutionary ideas was to turn the idea of power in government upside down with the notion that power should rest not in institutions but in individuals. No nation had ever embraced human equality and God-given individual rights as fundamental to organizing the rule of law; never had a nation recognized the sovereignty of the citizen over that of the government.
Before this, all governments' power rested either in the "divine right of kings," or else the authority that comes from brute force against the people being ruled.
But in America, the individual has always mattered above all. Power is to reside in the individual, not the government - but individuals do temporarily, and with conditions and limitations, give power to the government for the purpose of maintaining social order, the public good, and national defense.
That's just one reason why the "group think" of socialism and communism and even many in this country considered "liberal" just doesn't work. When you become concerned about "groups" of people, you lose sight of individuals.
And by looking out for the rights of 'groups,' you inevitably cripple the individual, who becomes a nameless, faceless part of that group.
For example, there is nothing wrong with saying we're going to provide a certain level of income for widows or single mothers who are having trouble taking care of their children. That's a great idea, in general.
But when you start to look at the idea in carried out individually, you see that it has had the case of causing generations to believe that's the best standard of living they can hope for; the standard they even come to depend on. And so while the bigger "group" might be build up, individual parts of that group are crippled.
How else can you explain that the number of people in this country living below what we call the poverty level has actually increased since the government declared its "War on Poverty" in the 1960s? With all the trillions spend in aid and education, shouldn't we be seeing results in terms of fewer people in poverty?
But we don't.
And I've addressed the "group vs. the individual'' concept previously, here (and the sub-link inside that link).
This is why we should always have a healthy dose of skepticism about government, while realizing the form of our government remains the best man has been able to come up with.
It just needs a return to basics.
-----------
We keep hearing this concept of "justice'' in our politicians and protesters. Even so-called conservatives buy into ideas like "economic justice."
And while I'm all for justice when it comes to dealing with individuals, this country is not and never has been about "economic justice."
This country has always been about "economic opportunity."
-------------------------------
I recently had a conversation with an ardent supporter of President Obama. I asked him why, and he came back with "why not?"
That's not much of an answer, of course. We discussed it for awhile, and he told me that President Obama had not had any support from Congress. I pointed out that for two years, the President had a Democratically controlled Congress. He said even so, the President still didn't have support, that Obama's motto was not "Yes I Can!" but "Yes We Can!"
Eventually - and with great political incorrectness, I admit - I told him that in 1976, my first Presidential election, I voted for Jimmy Carter because Carter was from Georgia (as I was) and I really wanted to see a Georgian become President!
Even more than that, for years after (sometimes to this day) I still defend Carter.
So I absolutely understand when black Americans, or African-Americans, want to support President Obama. They rightfully take great pride in seeing someone who looks like them in the position of being the head of the government. I would expect no less.
However, that also doesn't work.
See, the point of self-government is not to be a venue to express love for the president. The point of self-government is to be able to work toward programs that can bring Americans together to get something good for the entire country.
For most of us, our self-government is limited to the act of voting.
So for the Constitutions' sake, let's not forget that.
It's one clear voice that politicians understand.

Roll ... er, Geaux Tigers!

Watching the LSU-Alabama game Saturday night reminded me of a story.
This was back in the 1980s, when Ray Perkins was head coach at Alabama.
Perkins' had an assistant coach named George Henshaw, a really good offensive line coach and offensive coordinator. There were some injuries on the offensive line, and Alabama had one of those non-conference creampuffs the Tide used to always schedule before playing someone really good like Tennessee or LSU. So Henshaw had used that game to rest an injured starter and give a start to a young player from Huntsville.
The Tide won the game, and afterward we asked Henshaw how the new guy had played. Henshaw was complimentary, which led the sportswriter from the players' home town to ask, "So, will he start again this week?"
Henshaw drew back, like he'd been shocked.
"Oh, no,'' Henshaw said. "This week, we're playing real men!"
For all the games that have been played this college football season, clearly Saturday's 9-6 game won in overtime by LSU over Alabama was a game played between "real men."
Which leads us to the question: what now?
Clearly it was a game that lived up to everything that makes the SEC the premier conference in college football: great defense, played by men whose only reason for being in college is to prepare them for the NFL.
The two offenses aren't bad either. Neither would get confused for, say Oklahoma State. But then, Oklahoma State's offense wouldn't even look like Oklahoma State if the Cowboys had to go against an SEC defense - which, if the season unfolds as it should, will be what happens in the BCS Championship Game in January.
Here's my personal delimma. I agree, right now, that LSU and Alabama appear to be the best two teams in college football. And when you look at the current BCS standings and see that the Tide only fell from second to third after the loss, it would appear the computers and voters agree.
But I also have always believed that if you can't win your own conference, you shouldn't be playing for the national championship.
What if LSU stumbles against Arkansas?
That brings up an interesting scenario: what if LSU loses to Arkansas? Then there will be three teams with one loss, all in the same division. The tie-breaker in the SEC will go way down to the list of criteria to the one that says the team that represents the Division will be the one ranked highest in the BCS standings - unless one of the other teams is within five spots of the highest ranked team and that lower-ranked team beat the higher-ranked team.
In other words, if LSU loses to Arkansas but remains ranked ahead of the Hogs but only by, say, three spots, then Arkansas goes.
And I'll let you go on to work out all the other possibilities (which seem endless).
Anyway, as much as this Alabama ex-patriot hates to say it, I'm for LSU from here on out.
See, I grew up on the loyalty of concentric circles. That is to say, I was always for anyone in my family first; my neighborhood second; my home town third; my region fourth; followed by my state, my part of the country, my country, my hemisphere .... and so on.
So I'm not one of those people who feels like its bad for my rival to lose. I'm proud of the fact that the last two BCS Championships and the last two Heisman Trophies belong to the state of Alabama.
Just as I'm proud of the fact that the last five BCS championships belong to the SEC, and I want that to continue.
By the same token, as much as I might think a rematch would be only right, it wouldn't be.
Besides, it's so much fun to watch the SEC beat up on the best the rest of college football has to offer.

That does lead to an interesting question, however.
What if Oklahoma State loses to Oklahoma, which could happen; and Stanford loses to Oregon, which could happen. Then there are a bunch of one-loss teams - including Alabama (remember, I don't count Boise or Houston; happy that they'll have undefeated seasons, but neither belongs in the BCS Championship game).
What if Oregon somehow moves back into the No. 2 spot? We've already seen LSU destroy Oregon, so no one wants to see that game again.
Actually, in that case, I'd like to see Boise get into the championship game and get destroyed by LSU, just to shut them up once and for all.

By the way, Boise State in the Big East? A Big East that is losing West Virginia (to the Big 12), Pittsburgh and Syracuse (to the ACC)?
I give Boise credit for trying to move up. I laugh the Big East that is so desperate to try to stay relevant it is willing to take a team from Idaho. Still, let's see what Boise does in the Little Big East.

Meanwhile - as much as it pains me to say it ...
Geaux Tigers.

Some folks like Jack Daniels; I like Charley - Game Day and Charley Daniels

There's a line in one of my favorite old Charley Daniel's songs that goes:
"You just go lay your hand on a Pittsburgh Steeler fan and I think you're gonna finally understand. ..."
It's a patriotic song about how we Americans love to fight among ourselves, but like battlin' brothers, when an outsider tries to jump in, we put our differences aside.
I hope that continues to be true.
But the point is that nothing captures the spirit of America like Game Day.
Not necessarily the ESPN Saturday morning pre-game show, but actual Game Day.
While there are still class distinctions inside a stadium - after all, there is no denying the difference between sitting on the last row overlooking the corner of an end zone from the upper deck and the luxury box overlooking the 50-yard line - the unifying factor is fandom.
As Daniels' also sang: "'Cause we'll all stick together, and you can take that to the bank. That's the cowboys and the hippies, and the rebels and the yanks!"
You see CEOs high-fiving line workers; Republicans agreeing with Democrats; the 1 percent (whoever they are) tailgating with the 99 percent; the 'haves' mixing equally with the 'have nots.'
And it crosses all boundaries.
I have a friend who was invited on a trip to South Korea where he was treated like royalty (he was there to give golf tips to one of the most successful executives in that golf-crazy country). He returned bearing far more gifts that he would ever have imagined, and wondered if he'd have a problem getting all these gifts through customs. Landing in Hawaii, he was wearing his Alabama baseball cap with the letter "A" on it. As he and his wife got to the customs' official, the official smiled, gave my friend and his wife a cursory check, and let them through. His final words? "Roll Tide."
Another friend was on a mission trip to visit mountain villages in the Andes, in Peru. He was up there among some native Peruvians, and got into a conversation with one of the natives who'd lived for generations in relative isolation way up in the mountains. The Peruvian found out my friend was from Georgia and got excited.
"Georgia?" the Peruvian said. "How 'bout them Dawgs!"
My friend was shocked and quite honestly didn't know what to say. The Peruvian was clearly disappointed and said, "Did I saw something wrong? What does "How 'bout them Dawgs mean?"
Turns out that years before, another missionary had been to this village and told this man that if he ever met someone from Georgia to greet him with, "How 'bout them Dawgs!" And this was the first chance this man had ever had to use it.
I don't know about the salvation of this Peruvian, but certainly he understood the Gospel of Southern Football.
Everyone has their story.
The Princess Bear is studying abroad. Now, she's very much a Southern Girl (as her blog "When in Brussels: European Adventure of a Girl Raised in the South suggests) and a huge Alabama fan. She has classes over there with kids from all over America and Europe, but not always from her school (she goes to Furman). Anyway, on one of her first days there she meets a girl from Tennessee. Now back here at home, they'd obviously not get along - the Alabama-Tennessee rival is legendary. But way over in Europe? Their common ground was SEC football, and it gave them both a sense of home.
You no doubt have your story of making a connection with someone, some where, over sports.
Oh, there are Americans who don't get it, who look down their noses at sports and sports fans, who somehow feel they are above such petty diversions.
I feel sorry for them.
On no day are Americans so divided as Game Day.
On no day are Americans as unified as Game Day.
And that's America.

Now, let's watch a little classic Charley Daniels:

Kustomer Kare at Krystal

I'm going to go ahead and reveal a deep dark secret.
I love the Krystal - those tiny little square burgers whose "meat" is cut thinner the average McDonald's coupon.
I grew up going to Krystal. I can remember when you could get a great breakfast a Krystal (scrambled eggs, grits, toast and juice), not to mention these killer cake donuts (plain, chocolate and vanilla icing). Once I came out of a doctors appointment in downtown Atlanta and went to a corner Krystal on Peachtree and soemthing like 16th Street (near a theatre where Alice Kooper used to play - and yes, that's "Kooper" with a "K") for a donut.
Doctors' appointments always stress me out, requiring comfort food. I sat at the corner of the counter and ordered three chocolate-covered cake donuts and a Coke. This beat-up, homeless-looking woman sat next to me and proceeded to tell me how wonderful she was sure my life was. I was 16 and not sure what her expectation of me was, so I bought three donuts for her. True charity - for me - began at Krystal!
I once won a Krystal-eating contest by downing something like 28 of those little burgers within the prescribed time line, beating the four other competitors at some long-forgotten friend's high school birthday party. I think I'd have eaten more, but they were all gone and I had the most of those empty square cartons they've always come in.
Oh, we made fun of Krystal. We laughingly called those burgers all kinds of names - "gut bombs" always seemed the most appropriate - but it didn't stop us from going on a regular basis.
What is it about a Krystal? Maybe the tiny cooked onions that permeated the beef and bread - aw, heck, let's be honest: if I was any kind of real connoisseur of food, I'd probably not be a Krystal lover. I don't know what it is that makes the little suckers so tasty, but they are.
However, I do find it amusing that for all the abuse Krystal's have taken over the years, you can now go to fancier restaurants and they serve tiny burgers they call "sliders" which are simply up-scale Krystals.
But this isn't really supposed to be about Krystals.
This is about my recent stop at a Krystal in Hattiesburg.
Just for the record, it's the one right off Highway 49, on the south side of I-59, on an access road that makes it hard to see if you don't know it's there.
I stopped in about 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon because I'd been in Jackson attending an event at which lunch was served but the lines were so long I didn't wait. Another of my sometimes unfortunate habits is that if I'm not hungry, I simply forget to eat - and then when I do get hungry, I am tempted to eat way too much.
So by the time I got hungry, I knew from past travels I was approaching the Krystal. I'd stopped there many times on my way from Birmingham to Baton Rouge or New Orleans for games and tournaments.
So here it was mid-afternoon, well after the lunch rush. In fact, they were out of sweet tea, which is key to the point of my story (if there even is one; even I'm beginning to wonder).
I went inside, placed my order with a rather bored looking girl behind the counter, and everything was normal.
But the manager was there. He greeted me when he saw me. While the girl behind the counter acted kind of bored, he jumped to fill my order. He quickly went about starting a new batch of iced tea.
Realizing it was going to take a few minutes, I said, "Hey, I'll just take a Diet Coke."
"Are you sure?" the manager said. "This will only take a few minutes."
"I know," I said. "But you can just give me a Diet Coke and I'll be on my way."
The counter girl went to get a small cup (which is what I ordered), and I heard the manager lean over and say, "Give him a large."
Now, that may not seem like a big deal. But for some reason, it really struck a chord with me.
Here was a restaurant that couldn't fill my order exactly as I wanted it, was scrambling to fill it for me in a timely manner, and when I made a change based on their not being able to fill my order, upgraded my order - so to speak - without even telling me or making a show of it.
That's called customer service.
I know increasing the size of a drink from small to large isn't that big a deal, and certainly didn't cost anyone a bunch of money. But I appreciated that the manager realized they were not able to fill my order exactly as I wanted and attempted to reward me for MY trouble.
Compare that to breakfast at the Hilton in Jackson where the wait staff was slow, got my friends' order wrong, didn't seem to care that it took too long to fill the order, and then when I went over to get a biscuit off the breakfast buffet because I was tired of waiting wanted to charge me $3.50 for one biscuit! (Although, I must admit, it was a very good biscuit.)
It's a sad state of affairs that the attitude of the manager of the Krystal in Hattiesburg screamed "we care about you and want to make you happy" while the Hilton was "why didn't you just order from the buffet to start with and save us all a lot of time and trouble."
It's nice to know that somewhere, you can still find a place that recognizes the customer doesn't have to come to your place of business and doesn't have to spend money in your establishment, so that when someone does walk in the door they want to make the customer feel like getting the order right - or making it right - matters.
Needless to say, I'll stop at that Krystal again.
But then, let's be honest.
I probably would have anyway.
Those are still the best little gut-bombs on the planet!