http://thejsmcafe.blogstream.com/

What's The Difference?

If I may be allowed for a moment, I would like to comment on a mildly alarming trend that seems to be overtaking our society to which I have been exposed to. First I would like to tell a brief story. I recently returned from a week long trip down in deep south Texas where I was visiting with family. While down there the question came up that myself and others living up north typically ask when down there. I asked several of my close relatives when they would make the big move and decide to come up and make new lives for themselves up here where income rates are substantially higher and where higher education and crime rates are prevalent and thats not even mentioning the sweltering heat that regularly reaches triple digits by mid-May.  For the first time in the years I have traveled down there, I received an answer that was both encouraging and thought provoking.  Several of my family down there are not only giving serious thought to the move but I also learned part of the reason for their apprehension in the past.  Their anxiety stemmed from the fear of being seen or thought of as "different".  

When this reason first reached my ears I was a little perplexed.  You see I have lived up north all my life and in that time I have never noted any examples of discrimination toward myself.  When I brought this to their attention they replied: "Its because you are used to it and you have been there your whole life, everyone will look at us differently."  I tried to reassure them that that wasn't the case, but it raised an interesting question in my own mind.

As we have embarked on the 21st century, why are so many in society still so fixated on separation and each others' differences instead of how we, as individauls are a like or brought together by similarities.  It seems to me that if people would focus more on what we have in common rather then over-analyze differences there would be fewer instances of violence and misunderstandings in society.  

But let me make it less broad.  I spoke the truth to my relatives when I stated that I had never felt personally threatened by discrimination.  However, what I failed to mention and, perhaps because I didn't make the connection at the time, is that I have, on several occasions felt like an outsider or outcast in my own environment, though I never felt that it was race-related.  My sense of isolation arose from my discomfort in large group settings and the uniqueness of my personality. 

Even among family and close friends I have experienced this feeling that I am viewed as different by others that often prevents me from fully embracing my role and comfort zone within groups.  I often shifted from clown to serious just hoping to find a position that would work and incorporate me more seamlessly into the groups. 

Recently, however, I begun to question myself for going to such lengths in order to change perceptions. I have recently been on the receiving end of jokes made at my expense that I found mildly amusing initially, until their frequency morphed into excessiveness.  Not one to take jokes too seriously I played a long or blew them off at first, however as the novelty wore off I began to show annoyance. On there own these jokes would appear harmless, politically incorrect, but harmless nonetheless.  I can't deny that had I felt more like one of the crowd these jabs would probably not have the growing effect that they do. 

I have to state that many of these individuals are decent, logical and well-rounded people who mean no harm in their ways, they simple cannot relate or empathize with the perceptions that some individuals face as being "somehow different."  It can be a challenging trial in making them understand, but it must be done, because everyone has the right to be an individual,without being pressured to conform or become a walking clone or cliche' of their age bracket or race just to "fit" a type. 

I mention this only to prove my point that too many of us today, including myself are guilty of finding flaw with others and expecting them to be like us instead of accepting that not everyone is a carbon copy be it financially, personally, racially, or physically.  We need to stop trying so hard to make every man and woman identify to our narrow standards and accept the fact that it is differences that makes this an exciting and unpredictable world.  You like different kinds of music, hobbies or politics? You do or don't drink? You like to read? Instead of raising an eye to the uniqueness of that friend, brother, sister, or cousin--just ask yourself, What's the difference? Does it really matter?

IMAGE:http://images.blogstream.com/i/userImages/34/34241_24213.jpg,67x100]]

-JSM

You can comment on this article by visiting my guestbook at thejsmcafe.blogstream.com

http://thejsmcafe.blogstream.com/

Top Ten QBs

1. P. Manning

2. T. Brady

3. C. Palmer

4. M. Hasselbeck

5. E. Manning

6. J. Delhomme

7. D. Bledsoe

8. D. McNabb

9. M. Bulger

10. D. Brees

Top Ten Potential:

K. Warner, D. Culpepper, J. Plummer, B. Roethlisberger, M. Brunell

http://thejsmcafe.blogstream.com/

	10 Things In Golf That Sound Dirty
	1. Look at the size of his putter. 2. Oh, dang, my shaft's all bent. 3. You really wacked the hell out of that sucker. 4. After 18 holes I can barely walk. 5. My hands are so sweaty I can't get a good grip. 6. Lift your head and spread your legs. 7. You have a nice stroke, but your follow through leaves a lot to be desired. 8. Just turn your back and drop it. 9. Hold up. I've got to wash my balls. 10. Damn, I missed the hole again

-Looking back and evaluating an historical moment in American History. A Presidential decision that would forever change the dynamics of the world as we know it. This article (from May/2005)marked the 60th Anniversary of President Truman's pivital decision to drop the bombs on Japanese cities that brought about the abrupt end to WWII. Sixty years later it is still widely debated, was this the decision the right one? You, the readers are left to decide. Here is a sizable portion of the article to go a long with that morning cup of java. Boldness Level: Strong

By. JSM
History 3822
May 2005

Truman and the Atomic Bomb Decision

President Truman’s decision to drop the Atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was both pivotal and monumental in terms of the effect it had not only on the citizens of Japan, but also on the future ways in which the United States would react and deal with foreign policy issues to come. There has been much speculation in the decades that have followed as to what ultimately led President Truman to make the decision that he made. What were his true motives in carrying out what seemed then and to many still seems like a drastic measure? No one except, perhaps Truman, himself knows the real reason, but there are certainly several indicators that would point toward numerous possibilities, some more legitimate and viable then others.

There is little doubt that tension was building between the two “super powers” of The United States and Soviet Union stemming from the Yalta Conference in which Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met to discuss the fate of Germany following its’ collapse and defeat in World War II. Already wary of each other the U.S and the Russia failed to reach a compromise on how to handle Germany, both had different visions on its’ fate and this among other ideological differences created a great divide among the two nation’s working relationship. With the war not yet over and Japan still combating, the Soviets and the U.S remained reluctant allies, however the union was strained and President Truman saw this and knew that eventually The U.S would have to deal with the Soviets one way or another so a message needed to be sent that the U.S meant business.

At what lengths was Truman willing to go in order to show the world and the Soviets, in particular the capabilities that the United States possessed. At what lengths would he go to carry out the nation’s objectives toward establishing a democratic globalization and preventing the potential spread of communism? The answer to that question has been a great debate in the years since Truman’s Atomic bomb decision. One viable reason for Truman to go with such a decision would be to send a clear and strong message to the Soviet Union and specifically to display to them what nuclear capabilities the U.S had and were capable of using in order to resolve a conflict with an opposing nation if need be. Truman, it was believed made the decision he did in order to awe and to warn the Soviet Union of the destruction in which The U.S was capable of unleashing if it felt threatened or attacked.

Truman’s rationalization could have propelled him to make the decision based on his need to display the United State’s advanced nuclear technology and superiority over that of the Soviets. Thus, providing the U.S with the leverage in future negotiations with Russia by instilling in them the images of destruction laid upon the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This too could be the fate of the Soviet Union is the message many believe was intended by the dropping of the Atomic bombs. Further evidence would support this theory that will be touched upon in a moment.

A second possibility for the decision also revolved around his growing concern and distrust with Soviet intervention. Truman feared that if the Russians intervened and went into Japan that they would take control and occupy the country. The U.S felt inclined to end the war as quickly as possible once Nazi Germany had been defeated as to prevent this scenario from becoming a reality. Truman knew that once Germany was toppled, the Russians would then focus there efforts on Japan. Truman’s motivations for a quick conclusion then escalated to the point that he was willing to do whatever is necessary in order to create a quick and decisive resolution in its war with Japan. The threat of Soviet occupation was too great to chance, Truman is believed to have felt.

Closely related to this theory is the theory that Truman felt this was the best and quickest resolution toward ending World War II. He believed that dropping the Atomic bombs, while devastating would in the end save more lives then by prolonging the war and allowing it to drag on into months and months until negotiations were finally reached. Truman, it was believed was greatly concerned with avoiding the allowance of the war to linger. He rationalized that more lives of both Americans and Japanese could be saved if he ended the war abruptly and decisively with the dropping of the bombs. He feared that this was the only way to assure that Japan would concede the war, once two of their major cities were left in ruin. Having seen the Japanese in their war tactics and Kamikaze suicide missions, he knew that their great pride and determinism would not allow them to concede defeat via conventional means. If Truman was going to end the war with Japan, he was going to have to be the aggressor and do it in one brief and sudden burst.

The issue of time seems to have played at least a partial role in the decision making process involved, if the two previous theories are valid in their content. Having seen the fall of Nazi Germany, there likely was increased pressure by the American public to seek a quick resolution in the war with Japan. Truman’s decision could be a result of his administration’s desire to bring about an end to the war in the quickest fashion possible in order to boost American public support and at the same time allow them to divorce their ties with the Soviet Union.

It was also believed that once Germany was defeated, it was just a matter of time before Japan fell as well. However, if Japan managed to fight on and keep the war at a stagnant level, it would only create scrutiny and impatience within the U.S. Thus, The Truman Administration saw the Atomic bomb as a quick and problem solving (or) preventing solution. End the war now and go home was a possible reason for the President’s historic action.

Your Take???

*Right Call?
*Bad Decision?
-send comments to thejsmcafe.blogstream.com (go to post comments under the heading:Guestbook, to send any feedback on this srticle or any other from this site.)

Nate Bauermeister
Freshman English 100
Essay Four
Andrew Bergquist

Stadium or No Stadium?

Why does the Minnesota Twins baseball team need a new stadium? That is what many Minnesotans are wondering. The Twins have been stuck in the Metrodome for 24 years and they deserve a new stadium, but some people do not want to bother paying taxes for a new stadium because they are just fine with the Metrodome. This has been a big debate for many years and the Minnesota legislature is still trying to make a decision.

There are many reasons why the Twins need a new stadium. The first reason for a new Twins stadium is that the Metrodome was built for football. The Metrodome has poor sight lines, that are angled towards the 50 yard line, which makes the Metrodome a great place to watch football, however for baseball the focal point is on the pitcher’s mound which makes the Metrodome not a good sight. Since the Twins play in a dome, the lighting is very bad. If a ball is hit up anywhere by the lights, you can’t find the ball.

Secondly, the Metrodome has a lack of quality seating. Most stadiums have an average of 25,000 seats that can be sold as season tickets (SaveTheMinnesotaTwins). Because of the Metrodome shape, the Twins only have 6,000 seats that can be considered good enough to be sold as season tickets (S.T.M.T.).

The third reason is the lack of suite revenue. The Minnesota Vikings own all the Metrodome’s private suites so they collect all the revenue, plus there are very few private suites (S.T.M.T.)

Lastly, the Twins do not receive any parking revenue from the Metrodome (S.T.M.T.). The Twins payroll right now is around 60 million dollars which ranks last in the MLB. This can be compared to the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers who spend double that on their payrolls each. (S.T.M.T.)

If the Twins build a new stadium, it will enable the team to have a higher payroll right around where most playoff teams are at now. If the Twins do not get a stadium soon, they could end up leaving Minnesota. If this happened, Minnesota would lose the attraction of major league baseball. Minnesota would also lose the tax money that teams have to pay when they compete against the Twins. An example would be if Derek Jeter and the Yankees come to Minnesota and play the Twins, he would have to pay some of his salary for Minnesota taxes. Minnesota would be losing a lot of money if the Twins left the state.

As a Minnesota Twins fan, I want a baseball team here and to enjoy my time in a great stadium watching my team. I would like to have an outdoor stadium so on nice summer days, I can enjoy the weather; I do not want to be stuck in a dome. There is no reason that there are 1,392 seats with obstructed views or only having 16 public restrooms (Twinsbaseball.com). If we, Minnesota build a new stadium, these issues would disappear.

There are also many reasons and concerns for not building a new Twins stadium. First, many Minnesotans do not want to pay the taxes for a new stadium. Many think their tax money should go to something that will benefit them. Others, who do not care about baseball, do not want to pay taxes because they do not care about sports. There is also a concern factor with a new stadium. If the Twins end up getting a new stadium, will they be more competitive? It is hard to say, but the good thing is the Twins salary cap would sky rocket so they could be more competitive. If someone doesn’t like baseball, a new stadium does nothing for them because they will not get anything out of it. It is true that they would not receive anything, but Minnesota would have a gorgeous new ballpark that could become a center of entertainment and be a high-quality family atmosphere.

Others are also worried about an outdoor stadium. If the Twins end up building an outdoor stadium, there are greater risks of game cancellation because of the cold and rain factor. If we kept the Metrodome, there would be no risk of cancellations. Many people are also worried about the economic impact a new stadium would make. Sports do not have any impact on the economy. Sports only have a 1/10th of one percent on the economy and that is overstating it (Tom Griffin).
The reason for the low percentage is most Minnesotans’ go to Minnesota sporting events. The money comes from the state. Sports are different than the Mall of America. Many people from different states even countries come to the mall because it is so popular. This brings in “new money” (Tom Griffin).

Lastly, many people are angry about that there will be no vote on a new stadium. They are bypassing the referendum law and just bringing the stadium idea to the state without any Minnesotans’ view. This makes many Minnesotans’ view on a new stadium very poor.

So do the Twins need a new stadium? In my opinion, I do think the Twins need a new stadium because personally I am sick of the Metrodome and I know many others who have my same view point. Taxes would not go up as much as people think they would and I am not bothered by how much we would have to pay. I think a new stadium is just the thing to bring a winning team to Minnesota and if we get a new stadium, more people will want to go. I hope the house passes the bill for a new stadium because that would be the right thing to do for sports in Minnesota.

Works Cited
-Griffin, Tom. Pro sport’s Impact on the Economy is Closer to a Bunt than a Home Run, but There May be Other Reasons to Keep Teams Swinging at Home. Jun. 1997.

-A Ballpark for Minnesota: Comparison to the HHH Metrodome. 2006
content=comparison.

-Why the Twins need a new ballpark