Eleven years ago at about this time of year I was in the MTC. Yeah, I wouldn't exactly recommend going into the MTC for Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Kwaanza and Hanukkah, but being there for that time of year definitely had its up sides. We had mad firesides with all sorts of General Authorities. It was actually pretty cool.
At one of those firesides I heard a song that has stuck with me ever since, even though I have not heard it again. The tune was unforgetable, as were some of the passages of text. The problem was, I could never remember enough of the text to try looking the song up.
And then it hit me today while walking down the hall at work. I was humming the tune, and inserting the words as I knew them, when the tumblers of memory clicked in and I could remember a whole phrase: ". . . some children see him almond eyed."
I ran to my computer, and with the help of my faithful friend Google, found the text to this wonderful and stirring, but neglected Christmas song. I am overjoyed to have found it again, and wanted to share it with anyone who cares to read this blog.
Some Children See Him
Some children see Him lily white,
the baby Jesus born this night.
Some children see Him lily white,
with tresses soft and fair.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
The Lord of heav'n to earth come down.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
with dark and heavy hair.
Some children see Him almond-eyed,
this Savior whom we kneel beside.
Some children see Him almond-eyed,
with skin of yellow hue.
Some children see Him dark as they,
sweet Mary's Son to whom we pray.
Some children see him dark as they,
and, ah! they love Him, too!
The children in each different place
will see the baby Jesus' face
like theirs, but bright with heavenly grace,
and filled with holy light.
O lay aside each earthly thing
and with thy heart as offering,
come worship now the infant King.
'Tis love that's born tonight!
After I found it I did some snooping around, and discovered that there are a lot of different versions of this song. I recommend going to Itunes and finding a copy to listen to yourself. It is, after all, one of the most Christian Christmas songs I have ever heard. I hope it sticks in your mind and heart, too.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thank You, Jesus
There wasn't room for you in the inn. When you were a child your life was threatened. You lived a life of poverty in an enslaved society. You never knew fame without also knowing derision and scorn. You worked miracles and were accused of being possessed. You taught peace and were rewarded with violence. You healed the sick, the lame, the blind, yet you were tortured to death. You felt the burdens and anguish of the entirety of humanity, and still gave us a way to escape our suffering through yours. You died on the cross, and yet you live.
You saved us all. You are the greatest gift we have ever been given. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you for showing us a more perfect way to live. Thank you for opening the gates of heaven to let us in. Thank you for carrying our burdens and lifting our hearts.
We didn't deserve you. We never will. Thank you for loving us anyway. Thank you for being our Lord, our Redeemer, and our Friend. Thank you or giving us Christmas, but more importantly, thank you for giving us Easter.
You saved us all. You are the greatest gift we have ever been given. Thank you, Jesus. Thank you for showing us a more perfect way to live. Thank you for opening the gates of heaven to let us in. Thank you for carrying our burdens and lifting our hearts.
We didn't deserve you. We never will. Thank you for loving us anyway. Thank you for being our Lord, our Redeemer, and our Friend. Thank you or giving us Christmas, but more importantly, thank you for giving us Easter.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
In the News
So I am a word nerd. I like words, languages, linguistics, novels, limericks, etymology, you name it. An outshoot of this nerdery is that I am rarely confronted with a word I don't know the meaning of, or one that I cannot at least guess the meaning of from its relatives and components.
Imagine my annoyance then, when the news of this Madoff Ponzi Scheme broke. If you haven't heard about it, some guy named Madoff (pronounced Made-off, which is an irony I can't stop reveling in) stole billions (yes, with a b - which makes my teeth hurt) of investor dollars over the past decade or so. I am not so annoyed with the story itself as I am with the fact that I had no idea what a Ponzi scheme is.
That fact by itself is not so annoying. If someone came up to me and started talking in Polish, I would have virtually no idea what any of their words meant. This is due to the simple fact that I don't speak Polish. It would be completely normal for me to ask for an interpretation. What annoys me about the whole Ponzi thing is that, as the reporters were talking about the details of the story, not one of them deigned to explain what a Ponzi scheme is. They just chattered on as if what they were talking about were common knowledge, like they were discussing bread or socks.
I don't like to not know things that are common knowledge, since not knowing common knowledge seems to indicate being substandard in some way. I can't stand being substandard, especially with words. So I looked up the meaning of the term from the source of all truth: wikipedia. Here it is, in case you are interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_schemes
Now that I know, I am once again at peace with the world. But not knowing made my drive home from Fort Collins decidedly. . . annoying.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Rampant Snobbery
OK, so I drive a lot for my job. Mostly to Wyoming and Fort Collins. This gives me a lot of time to do two things: think and listen to NPR. Most of the time, those two pursuits are complimentary. Sometimes, however, my thinking gets all bothered by NPR. Those times produce rants like this one:
I was listening today to a report about milk, of all things. And no, it was not related in any way to the new movie about the openly gay politician played by Sean Penn. It was about actual milk, as in from cows and other mammals. It seems some elderly woman with a very shaky 'On Golden Pond'-esque voice has written a book about the history of milk through the ages, and she had been invited as a guest on All Things Considered.
I have no problem with her writing a book about the history of milk. It is not a book I am going to read, but I am sure there is some bibliophile out there somewhere who is just dying to find out what the Assyrians or Huns did with their dairy products. I mean, this lady is more than entitled to write a book about the history of Velcro or yodeling for all I care.
What bothered me was this: she is a milk snob. She was talking, without even the slightest hint of sarcasm, about the 'zest' and 'depth' of milk, and about qualitative differences between the milk of cows raised on too much corn, vs. pure grass and hay. She claimed that grass and hay fed cows produce milk that is 'thicker and more full-bodied.' She also went so far as to dispute the value of the 'organic' label, and stated that she will only drink milk that has been produced by free-ranging, grass and hay fed cows, whose grass and hay was free of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. It was snobbery writ large, and over milk of all things.
Now I like milk as much as the next guy. I love the stuff. I even admit to a modicum of milk snobbery myself. I will not drink skim milk, and the closer to whole the better I like it. There is also this ultra-high-heated sterilized milk that is like hitting your tongue with the nasty stick. I don't drink that either. But that is as far as I can go. I feel silly about not drinking skim milk. I don't understand how this lady can be so picky and so hyper selective without having at least some sense of her own looniness and oddity. She is an odd duck, but is unaware of it. Her intense interest in milk is laughable, yet she is not laughing. She doesn't get it.
I think this is true of all snobs, and I think that is why snobs tend to seek each other out. Snobbery is an abnormality. It is weird. Wine snobs, Jazz snobs, ballet snobs, BBQ snobs, and even milk snobs are just plain goofy. It is odd to be so selective and judgmental about something mundane and trivial. So, rather than hang out with the normal crowd and feel weird, the snobs hang out with other snobs, so they can feel normal and can have someone else to talk with about the 'smokiness' and 'sultriness' of a jazz saxophonist, or about the 'zest' and 'depth of creaminess' of milk.
Snobbery is an artifact of societal luxury. If you are starving, you will eat just about anything, including frogs and snails. Hence the vast majority of French cuisine that traces its origins to the French peasantry. None of those old Gauls cared at all about the 'pep' or 'earthiness' of their meals. They were starving, and snails were easy to catch. Only later on did people start to try to become appreciative and selective about these necessities. The same is true for milk, wine, cheese, bread, cars, sub-atomic particles, opera singers, nebulae, poems, philosophy, and just about anything else you can snob about.
There is a place for everything, and just about anything that exists has a function and a purpose. When we begin to over analyse something beyond the scope of its purpose we have entered, not into the realm of refinement and culture, but into the realm of silliness and snobbery. Lets stop treating snobbery as a virtue, and start admitting that an abnormal interest in something like milk is, at very least, abnormal. Not bad or good, just odd, like Donald Trumps hair, or Australian animals.
I was listening today to a report about milk, of all things. And no, it was not related in any way to the new movie about the openly gay politician played by Sean Penn. It was about actual milk, as in from cows and other mammals. It seems some elderly woman with a very shaky 'On Golden Pond'-esque voice has written a book about the history of milk through the ages, and she had been invited as a guest on All Things Considered.
I have no problem with her writing a book about the history of milk. It is not a book I am going to read, but I am sure there is some bibliophile out there somewhere who is just dying to find out what the Assyrians or Huns did with their dairy products. I mean, this lady is more than entitled to write a book about the history of Velcro or yodeling for all I care.
What bothered me was this: she is a milk snob. She was talking, without even the slightest hint of sarcasm, about the 'zest' and 'depth' of milk, and about qualitative differences between the milk of cows raised on too much corn, vs. pure grass and hay. She claimed that grass and hay fed cows produce milk that is 'thicker and more full-bodied.' She also went so far as to dispute the value of the 'organic' label, and stated that she will only drink milk that has been produced by free-ranging, grass and hay fed cows, whose grass and hay was free of pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers. It was snobbery writ large, and over milk of all things.
Now I like milk as much as the next guy. I love the stuff. I even admit to a modicum of milk snobbery myself. I will not drink skim milk, and the closer to whole the better I like it. There is also this ultra-high-heated sterilized milk that is like hitting your tongue with the nasty stick. I don't drink that either. But that is as far as I can go. I feel silly about not drinking skim milk. I don't understand how this lady can be so picky and so hyper selective without having at least some sense of her own looniness and oddity. She is an odd duck, but is unaware of it. Her intense interest in milk is laughable, yet she is not laughing. She doesn't get it.
I think this is true of all snobs, and I think that is why snobs tend to seek each other out. Snobbery is an abnormality. It is weird. Wine snobs, Jazz snobs, ballet snobs, BBQ snobs, and even milk snobs are just plain goofy. It is odd to be so selective and judgmental about something mundane and trivial. So, rather than hang out with the normal crowd and feel weird, the snobs hang out with other snobs, so they can feel normal and can have someone else to talk with about the 'smokiness' and 'sultriness' of a jazz saxophonist, or about the 'zest' and 'depth of creaminess' of milk.
Snobbery is an artifact of societal luxury. If you are starving, you will eat just about anything, including frogs and snails. Hence the vast majority of French cuisine that traces its origins to the French peasantry. None of those old Gauls cared at all about the 'pep' or 'earthiness' of their meals. They were starving, and snails were easy to catch. Only later on did people start to try to become appreciative and selective about these necessities. The same is true for milk, wine, cheese, bread, cars, sub-atomic particles, opera singers, nebulae, poems, philosophy, and just about anything else you can snob about.
There is a place for everything, and just about anything that exists has a function and a purpose. When we begin to over analyse something beyond the scope of its purpose we have entered, not into the realm of refinement and culture, but into the realm of silliness and snobbery. Lets stop treating snobbery as a virtue, and start admitting that an abnormal interest in something like milk is, at very least, abnormal. Not bad or good, just odd, like Donald Trumps hair, or Australian animals.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Nero's Playing the Fiddle
I tried and tried to keep this rant to myself, but if I don't get it out before I go home, my poor dear wife is going to have to listen to me go on about it for hours.
The burr under my saddle is the whole auto industry bail-out debacle. I was listening to the news yesterday as they reported that the deal failed because the wizards at the United Auto Workers labor union refused to take immediate pay cuts down to the levels of their counterparts at plants from Toyota and Honda.
Are they serious? Let me get this straight: your company is within weeks of complete financial ruin, and has come to the United States Government (aka the American Tax Payers) to beg for a handout so it can survive another month or two. You come with only one convincing argument as to why you should be allowed to live: your employees would lose their jobs if you don't get help, and that loss of jobs would be bad for the economy at large. You come from an organization that has been mismanaged, lacks direction and vision, and builds pathetically crappy cars (except the Corvette, or course). You come essentially to beg for your survival.
What, in that scenario, could possibly allow you to think that YOU get to insist on any terms whatsoever? Beggers cannot, after all, be choosers.
And yet that is exactly what they are trying to do. The bosses at the UAW refused to accept any kind of lowering of pay or benefits for their workers until 2011. In other words, until 3 years after GM has closed its doors or declared bankruptcy! How does this make sense to anyone?
It seems to me that the UAW should have been grateful for any kind of help, as long as their workers could keep their jobs. Instead, the stubbornness and thick-headedness of the union bosses has essentially ensured that the jobs and futures of all their workers are now virtually guaranteed to be at risk.
Sure, GM has other options beside the bail-out. THere is always bankruptcy. But why on earth would the UAW prefer for their employer to go bankrupt? I am no lawyer, but I know enough about bankruptcy to know that a judge has the power to redefine contracts and obligations. That means a judge could, without even letting the UAW folks take a seat at the table, decide that GM only owes its workers 50% of the benefits they were enjoying, and drastically reduced wages for a dramatically reduced work force. A judge could do that.
I mean, I may be wrong here, but how is that preferable to taking a pay cut but keeping your job? This kind of lack of ability to compromise is precisely what killed the American auto industry in the first place. The unions do not care for the workers. They are a political party, and adhere to their party line, even when it does not serve the interests of their constituents. The UAW may have just killed GM.
If that is the case, then mayber GM needs to die, so that the membership of the UAW can finally wake up and see that their Union made them all unemployed and destitute, rather than improving their conditions, as unions are intended to do. Maybe if GM dies, the UAW will be killed allong side of it. Based on the last few actions of the UAW, it seems like that would be good riddance indeed.
The burr under my saddle is the whole auto industry bail-out debacle. I was listening to the news yesterday as they reported that the deal failed because the wizards at the United Auto Workers labor union refused to take immediate pay cuts down to the levels of their counterparts at plants from Toyota and Honda.
Are they serious? Let me get this straight: your company is within weeks of complete financial ruin, and has come to the United States Government (aka the American Tax Payers) to beg for a handout so it can survive another month or two. You come with only one convincing argument as to why you should be allowed to live: your employees would lose their jobs if you don't get help, and that loss of jobs would be bad for the economy at large. You come from an organization that has been mismanaged, lacks direction and vision, and builds pathetically crappy cars (except the Corvette, or course). You come essentially to beg for your survival.
What, in that scenario, could possibly allow you to think that YOU get to insist on any terms whatsoever? Beggers cannot, after all, be choosers.
And yet that is exactly what they are trying to do. The bosses at the UAW refused to accept any kind of lowering of pay or benefits for their workers until 2011. In other words, until 3 years after GM has closed its doors or declared bankruptcy! How does this make sense to anyone?
It seems to me that the UAW should have been grateful for any kind of help, as long as their workers could keep their jobs. Instead, the stubbornness and thick-headedness of the union bosses has essentially ensured that the jobs and futures of all their workers are now virtually guaranteed to be at risk.
Sure, GM has other options beside the bail-out. THere is always bankruptcy. But why on earth would the UAW prefer for their employer to go bankrupt? I am no lawyer, but I know enough about bankruptcy to know that a judge has the power to redefine contracts and obligations. That means a judge could, without even letting the UAW folks take a seat at the table, decide that GM only owes its workers 50% of the benefits they were enjoying, and drastically reduced wages for a dramatically reduced work force. A judge could do that.
I mean, I may be wrong here, but how is that preferable to taking a pay cut but keeping your job? This kind of lack of ability to compromise is precisely what killed the American auto industry in the first place. The unions do not care for the workers. They are a political party, and adhere to their party line, even when it does not serve the interests of their constituents. The UAW may have just killed GM.
If that is the case, then mayber GM needs to die, so that the membership of the UAW can finally wake up and see that their Union made them all unemployed and destitute, rather than improving their conditions, as unions are intended to do. Maybe if GM dies, the UAW will be killed allong side of it. Based on the last few actions of the UAW, it seems like that would be good riddance indeed.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Something Clever
I swear, I have ideas for writing on my blog ALL THE TIME, but then when I have time to write, I can't think of anything. It is like situational writer's block.
I figured it has been a while since I posted last, so I should show at least some sign of life, lest the blogosphere Search and Rescue be sent out after me.
OK, so here is what I am gonna write about - or rant about. My family.
As a general rule, my family is fantastic. I love all of my siblings, ex, half, step, inlaw and otherwise. Well, maybe not so much loving the ex-step-siblings, but I digress. Sometimes my older brother and I don't see eye to eye, but other than that, it is pretty much smooth familial sailing.
It was great to celebrate Thanksgiving with all of them (minus my big brother, who was in Chicago). We got to see our brand new nephew Koven (or Garbonzo, as he will be known to the world) and we got to spend some quality time with the folks. We would have liked more time with Jon and Chandelle and the nieces, but at least we got to see them all and celebrate the holiday together.
Somewhere in all that turkey laden bliss something completely messed up happened, and I am having a hard time fitting it into my head. While we were all celebrating our togetherness, someone snuck into the guest room and stole $80 from us! I mean, who does that? And on Thanksgiving of all days!
Of course, it pissed us off and hurt us. Its not like we have money to burn, and we spent over $200 on that Thanksgiving already. But what really cheeses me is the fact that, in my life, my family has stolen more from me than strangers have.
Let me be clear here: I don't know who took the $80. I can't even imagine who might have done it. All I know is that it was taken at a time when only family could have taken it, so deductive reasoning leaves no alternatives.
But if you go back 10 years or so, the person stealing from me was my step brother, Dusty. I mean, sure the guy is obviously mentally unstable and possibly disabled. But he stole a whole bunch of stuff from me, which he then pawned. I can only assume that he bought Meth with the money. He was not the brightest light on the Christmas tree. Yeah, it made me mad, and I no longer trusted him with 2 cents, but it was expected from him. At least I got my climbing gear back. The worst part is, that hoser has never even been man enough to apologize.
OK, so what is the point of all of this? I guess the point is that I expect better from my family. Maybe I am naive to do so, but there it is. I was not surprised when Dusty stole my stuff. He was an idiot and had impulse control issues. But nobody in my family now is an idiot. I just can't make sense of it. What could drive a decent, normal person to hurt someone they love like that? What kind of greed and selfishness could motivate someone to hurt someone else in such a callous way? It makes no sense to me. Not in my family.
And yet: yes, in my family.
I figured it has been a while since I posted last, so I should show at least some sign of life, lest the blogosphere Search and Rescue be sent out after me.
OK, so here is what I am gonna write about - or rant about. My family.
As a general rule, my family is fantastic. I love all of my siblings, ex, half, step, inlaw and otherwise. Well, maybe not so much loving the ex-step-siblings, but I digress. Sometimes my older brother and I don't see eye to eye, but other than that, it is pretty much smooth familial sailing.
It was great to celebrate Thanksgiving with all of them (minus my big brother, who was in Chicago). We got to see our brand new nephew Koven (or Garbonzo, as he will be known to the world) and we got to spend some quality time with the folks. We would have liked more time with Jon and Chandelle and the nieces, but at least we got to see them all and celebrate the holiday together.
Somewhere in all that turkey laden bliss something completely messed up happened, and I am having a hard time fitting it into my head. While we were all celebrating our togetherness, someone snuck into the guest room and stole $80 from us! I mean, who does that? And on Thanksgiving of all days!
Of course, it pissed us off and hurt us. Its not like we have money to burn, and we spent over $200 on that Thanksgiving already. But what really cheeses me is the fact that, in my life, my family has stolen more from me than strangers have.
Let me be clear here: I don't know who took the $80. I can't even imagine who might have done it. All I know is that it was taken at a time when only family could have taken it, so deductive reasoning leaves no alternatives.
But if you go back 10 years or so, the person stealing from me was my step brother, Dusty. I mean, sure the guy is obviously mentally unstable and possibly disabled. But he stole a whole bunch of stuff from me, which he then pawned. I can only assume that he bought Meth with the money. He was not the brightest light on the Christmas tree. Yeah, it made me mad, and I no longer trusted him with 2 cents, but it was expected from him. At least I got my climbing gear back. The worst part is, that hoser has never even been man enough to apologize.
OK, so what is the point of all of this? I guess the point is that I expect better from my family. Maybe I am naive to do so, but there it is. I was not surprised when Dusty stole my stuff. He was an idiot and had impulse control issues. But nobody in my family now is an idiot. I just can't make sense of it. What could drive a decent, normal person to hurt someone they love like that? What kind of greed and selfishness could motivate someone to hurt someone else in such a callous way? It makes no sense to me. Not in my family.
And yet: yes, in my family.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tough Day at Work
Generally speaking, I love my job. I really do. It is a great thing to be involved in helping people improve their lives, end harmful patterns, and grow into their best (or at least better) selves. It can be immensely gratifying.
And then there are days like today, which are just tough. I am working with a girl right now who has had a rough life, and who has made a lot of mistakes. She is a fantastic girl, but she keeps repeating destructive patterns that are not moving her life towards anything but even more pain.
When I have clients like that, for whom change is so desperately needed, but for whom change also seems so impossibly distant, it is a challenge not only for my mind but also for my heart.
I try to keep my therapeutic distance, and I am succesful msot of the time, but even then I ache for my clients who hurt like she does. It is so hard for me to remain a therapist and avoid the temptation to become a friend. My job is to help her gain insight and create new patterns to replace the old ones, not to commiserate with her and give her a shoulder to cry on.
Therapy is often a game of patience and restraint, and NOT following the urge to give comfort and solace. I have to remember what my role is, and what it is NOT. On days like today, that distinction is hard to recognize and even harder to adhere to. I think I succeeded, but it was hard on me. It is tough to be a professional helper, and to not feel like you are helping as much as you might. It is hard to see a girl who is struggling so much with her own (largely) self created sorrows, and not jump in and try to save her. My job is to help her learn to save herself, not prevent her from learning by taking away her challenges. But precisely that difference is a very, very difficult line to walk.
And then I have to buck up and be upbeat for my next client, and I have 10 minutes in which to make the turn.
And then there are days like today, which are just tough. I am working with a girl right now who has had a rough life, and who has made a lot of mistakes. She is a fantastic girl, but she keeps repeating destructive patterns that are not moving her life towards anything but even more pain.
When I have clients like that, for whom change is so desperately needed, but for whom change also seems so impossibly distant, it is a challenge not only for my mind but also for my heart.
I try to keep my therapeutic distance, and I am succesful msot of the time, but even then I ache for my clients who hurt like she does. It is so hard for me to remain a therapist and avoid the temptation to become a friend. My job is to help her gain insight and create new patterns to replace the old ones, not to commiserate with her and give her a shoulder to cry on.
And then I have to buck up and be upbeat for my next client, and I have 10 minutes in which to make the turn.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Of Dreams and Vindication
I was going to write this post earlier today, but that would have been too premature even for me. Now, though, CNN has officially projected that our next president will be Barack Hussein Obama, and I just wanted to share some of my thoughts on that idea.
For the first time in my life, I can actually say that I believe in the age-old adage that anyone can be anything in America. I have heard it ever since I was a boy, but I have always seen too much evidence that there are far too many things in our country that far too many people simply could not realistically aspire to. I wanted to believe it, but could not. Yet now I sit here, knowing that the next president of the United States will be a black man. Even more surprising, I am not surprised. It feels right, and feels natural.
I am very proud to be an American right now. Not because Barack Obama is president, but because Barack Obama had a chance to become president in the first place. 40 years ago, when he was a young boy, there was no chance for him to ever aspire so high. 200 years ago, he would have legally been considered only 3/5 of a person. He was born into a world where people of his skin color were systematically and brutally repressed. In the year he was born, the idea of a black president would have been so ridiculous as to be laughable. The idea of a black mayor or governor was cause for outrage and protest. And then came a difficult, sometimes violent process of change. A million men and women marched on Washington. Rosa kept her seat. Martin had a dream.
But the dream was deferred. For a long time it seemed as though the dream would wither on the vine. A new glass ceiling seemed to slide into place, and it seemed to me that the fantastic and gifted Americans of color would be allowed only so much success, only a select few glimpses of their true potential. The 60s and 70 rolled by, and progress towards racial equality only progressed in fits and starts. The year I was born, America was overwhelmingly racist. If you would have asked me when I graduated high school if I thought I would ever live to see a black president, I would have told you that I would hope so, but didn't think it would ever happen.
And yet today it did happen. I have no idea what kind of president Barack Obama will be. Maybe a terrible one, maybe the best since Lincoln. Time will tell. What I am grateful for and proud of is that a black man has risen to the highest office of the most powerful nation in the world. I am also proud that the American people, both black and white, are starting to fulfill the dream that Dr. King spoke of. His dream was not a dream for black people, but a dream for an America where men are judged 'not for the color of their skin, but for the content of their character.'
This election was, I think, proof that we are finally making real progress towards that dream. God bless America. God blessed America.
For the first time in my life, I can actually say that I believe in the age-old adage that anyone can be anything in America. I have heard it ever since I was a boy, but I have always seen too much evidence that there are far too many things in our country that far too many people simply could not realistically aspire to. I wanted to believe it, but could not. Yet now I sit here, knowing that the next president of the United States will be a black man. Even more surprising, I am not surprised. It feels right, and feels natural.
I am very proud to be an American right now. Not because Barack Obama is president, but because Barack Obama had a chance to become president in the first place. 40 years ago, when he was a young boy, there was no chance for him to ever aspire so high. 200 years ago, he would have legally been considered only 3/5 of a person. He was born into a world where people of his skin color were systematically and brutally repressed. In the year he was born, the idea of a black president would have been so ridiculous as to be laughable. The idea of a black mayor or governor was cause for outrage and protest. And then came a difficult, sometimes violent process of change. A million men and women marched on Washington. Rosa kept her seat. Martin had a dream.
But the dream was deferred. For a long time it seemed as though the dream would wither on the vine. A new glass ceiling seemed to slide into place, and it seemed to me that the fantastic and gifted Americans of color would be allowed only so much success, only a select few glimpses of their true potential. The 60s and 70 rolled by, and progress towards racial equality only progressed in fits and starts. The year I was born, America was overwhelmingly racist. If you would have asked me when I graduated high school if I thought I would ever live to see a black president, I would have told you that I would hope so, but didn't think it would ever happen.
And yet today it did happen. I have no idea what kind of president Barack Obama will be. Maybe a terrible one, maybe the best since Lincoln. Time will tell. What I am grateful for and proud of is that a black man has risen to the highest office of the most powerful nation in the world. I am also proud that the American people, both black and white, are starting to fulfill the dream that Dr. King spoke of. His dream was not a dream for black people, but a dream for an America where men are judged 'not for the color of their skin, but for the content of their character.'
This election was, I think, proof that we are finally making real progress towards that dream. God bless America. God blessed America.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
No Party for Me
Since the election is just one week away, I figured I should get in my last politico-minded post before I shift gears to making fun of the new president (Obama by a killing, I predict. I also predict that when McCain sees that he has lost Pennsylvania and Ohio, whatever is growing inside his left cheek will finally break out like in that scene from Alien.)
OK, so here is really why I am writing this post. I know who I am voting for, but it is not who I want to vote for. The truth is, I don't have anyone I really want to vote for. A good buddy of mine is going to write in Mickey Mouse. I sometimes feel the same way. In this election, I feel like I am choosing between two people I dislike, and going with the one I dislike least. How is that an ideal society?
I admit, that the person I dislike most is a whole lot more disliked than the lesser dislikee. In other words, it is not a close race in my mind. However, it is still a sad commentary on the state of affairs in American politics that the system as it exists today, forces me to pick between the lesser of two evils. (see some of my previous political rants)
Thinking about this has lead me to try to define exactly what my politics are, since I am clearly not a Republican, and neither can I identify with the Democrats. I have friends who are Libertarians, and I think they are nut-jobs. So what am I, exactly?
I have decided to label myself as a Bleeding-Heart-Moderate-Conservative. BHMC, if you will. Sounds like a carcinogen, or a preservative, or likely both. Here is what being a BHMC means: I am a proponent of governmental assistance against poverty, but also against high corporate taxation. I am green but I feel greenness is best accomplished by private companies being able to develop competing technologies without government assistance. I am anti-abortion, but I don't believe it is correct to legislate morality. On that same note, I am for the traditional definition of family, but I don't think the government should tell two consenting adults what kind of relationships they can and cannot have. I support the death penalty for criminals who have no chance of parole. I am pro gun ownership, but would like to see tighter regulation. I am tired of America being the world police, but I am in favor of us stepping up our humanitarian aid to other countries. I think it should be illegal for politicians to accept money from anyone, period. They should all be paid out of a central pot and be answerable to their constituents only. If anyone wants to make a donation to a politician, they have to donate to the central fund.
Essentially, I don't have a political party. I am too much in the middle. I don't even agree with the Independent party enough to join. So I will have to decide on the lesser of two evils on Nov 4th. It makes me sad. I can just hope that my less-repugnant choice turns out to be only half as lame as our president from the last 8 years.
OK, so here is really why I am writing this post. I know who I am voting for, but it is not who I want to vote for. The truth is, I don't have anyone I really want to vote for. A good buddy of mine is going to write in Mickey Mouse. I sometimes feel the same way. In this election, I feel like I am choosing between two people I dislike, and going with the one I dislike least. How is that an ideal society?
I admit, that the person I dislike most is a whole lot more disliked than the lesser dislikee. In other words, it is not a close race in my mind. However, it is still a sad commentary on the state of affairs in American politics that the system as it exists today, forces me to pick between the lesser of two evils. (see some of my previous political rants)
Thinking about this has lead me to try to define exactly what my politics are, since I am clearly not a Republican, and neither can I identify with the Democrats. I have friends who are Libertarians, and I think they are nut-jobs. So what am I, exactly?
I have decided to label myself as a Bleeding-Heart-Moderate-Conservative. BHMC, if you will. Sounds like a carcinogen, or a preservative, or likely both. Here is what being a BHMC means: I am a proponent of governmental assistance against poverty, but also against high corporate taxation. I am green but I feel greenness is best accomplished by private companies being able to develop competing technologies without government assistance. I am anti-abortion, but I don't believe it is correct to legislate morality. On that same note, I am for the traditional definition of family, but I don't think the government should tell two consenting adults what kind of relationships they can and cannot have. I support the death penalty for criminals who have no chance of parole. I am pro gun ownership, but would like to see tighter regulation. I am tired of America being the world police, but I am in favor of us stepping up our humanitarian aid to other countries. I think it should be illegal for politicians to accept money from anyone, period. They should all be paid out of a central pot and be answerable to their constituents only. If anyone wants to make a donation to a politician, they have to donate to the central fund.
Essentially, I don't have a political party. I am too much in the middle. I don't even agree with the Independent party enough to join. So I will have to decide on the lesser of two evils on Nov 4th. It makes me sad. I can just hope that my less-repugnant choice turns out to be only half as lame as our president from the last 8 years.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Something Positive for a Change
I know it is uncharacteristic of me to put up a post that is not me complaining about the state of the world, but that is exactly what I am doing. I saw something today that I thought was really awesome, and I wanted to put that admiration into words.
I was watching the Today Show, and hearing all about missing babies that may or may not still be alive, about elections and financial crises, and all of the fun stuff of the day. And then, right before I had to take off to work, they ran a color piece on some guy from Sweden (I think) who has invented and built a real-live functioning jet pack which he used today to fly across the English Channel.
He lit his four little jet engines inside a plane flying over France, then dove out of the plane, extended the folded wings strapped to his back, and then flew to England. The only thing he used to steer the plane was his own body.
It wasn't very spectacular or dramatic to watch, just a guy in a white suit strapped beneath a wing. But it was very impressive just the same. I love that this guy even had the idea to try something like this, let alone the tenacity and drive to see it through. It was exploration and achievement for the sake of exploration and achievement, which is always refreshing and uplifting to me.
In a time when people are talking about manned missions to Mars, it seems like a flight across the English Channel has anti-climactic written all over it. But really, this guy is a pioneer, and did something no one has ever done before at tremendous risk to his own life.
It makes me hope for a day when I might be able to strap on my wingpack and fly off to work or wherever, landing on my own two feet, chaining my jet to the waiting bike-rack, and then flying home when I am done. Not a bad thing to imagine at all.
I was watching the Today Show, and hearing all about missing babies that may or may not still be alive, about elections and financial crises, and all of the fun stuff of the day. And then, right before I had to take off to work, they ran a color piece on some guy from Sweden (I think) who has invented and built a real-live functioning jet pack which he used today to fly across the English Channel.
He lit his four little jet engines inside a plane flying over France, then dove out of the plane, extended the folded wings strapped to his back, and then flew to England. The only thing he used to steer the plane was his own body.
It wasn't very spectacular or dramatic to watch, just a guy in a white suit strapped beneath a wing. But it was very impressive just the same. I love that this guy even had the idea to try something like this, let alone the tenacity and drive to see it through. It was exploration and achievement for the sake of exploration and achievement, which is always refreshing and uplifting to me.
In a time when people are talking about manned missions to Mars, it seems like a flight across the English Channel has anti-climactic written all over it. But really, this guy is a pioneer, and did something no one has ever done before at tremendous risk to his own life.
It makes me hope for a day when I might be able to strap on my wingpack and fly off to work or wherever, landing on my own two feet, chaining my jet to the waiting bike-rack, and then flying home when I am done. Not a bad thing to imagine at all.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The American Nightmare
or: At What Price Prosperity?
I apologize right from the start for the content of this rant. I realize that my harping on the economic status of the country is getting old by now. Frankly, I wish I had something else to rant about, but there is nothing more salient than the economy at the moment, and that is really saying something when the leader of the free world is going to be decided in less than two months.
I have been listening to NPR a lot lately. I like their coverage of the economic crisis. They have intelligent and qualified guests on who talk about the topics of interest of the day. Today, they had a panel on the planned Federal bail-out of these large investment banks that is going to cost tax payers trillions of dollars. It was interesting stuff, and caused me to panic just a little. But mostly is caused me to think about something that never ceases to fascinate me about the American People.
We have this style of life that is the envy of the world. At least that is what we tell ourselves. We have this promise, called the American Dream, that anyone who has a little creativity and a lot of dedication can really make something for themselves. We are a nation of home-owners, avidly in love with suburbia. We are consumers of products from dairy to SUVs and everything in between. We have a distinct culture of comfort and ease, as attested by our drive-through everything and our willingness to sacrifice taste and quality for speed and convenience (see: microwaveble pizza).
We have happilly embraced this lifestyle, and are often proud of it. We call ourselves innovative, imagine ourselves to be the people who have it all figured out. This is what fascinates me: if we have it all figured out, how come no one is copying us? Sure, they watch our movies and listen to our music, but the rest of the world is not restructuring its social systems to be more like ours. People are buying American soft drinks, but they are not buying the American Lifestyle.
I think that is because we are not nearly as great as we think we are. Sometimes we are downright pathetic. In our eagerness to have more and more stuff, we place enormous debt burdens upon ourselves, so that we can barely enjoy our lives. How is that superior to the European countries, where the only debts that are common are car payments and rent? They take lavish, four week long vacations to exotic places, and can afford to because they do not, like many Americans, feel the need to buy a lawnmower/tractor/espresso machine on credit. Americans can barely afford to travel to Grandma's for Thanksgiving because we tend to live inches away from complete financial ruin, in the pursuit of having more stuff, bigger houses, nicer cars.
The truth is, we are miserable. We do not have even close to the highest standard of living in the world, and no one wants to be like us. Sure America is a great place to live, but only people in third-world countries see moving to America as a step up. People living in Europe see a move to America as a lateral move, with some advantages but also plenty of losses. I have seen this first hand.
We are not the land of milk and honey. The American dream often rots on the vine, and very many Americans never reach the kind of personal prosperity and happiness as is common in much less powerful European nations. That is not to say that I am disatisfied. I am happy here. I have just also had the chance to see that I would be just as happy in many other places, and that my happiness is not due to American society.
We pay a very high price in terms of human cost for our style of living. Too high a price. In our need for a McMansion and a Family Fortress SUV, we burden ourselves with more debt than we can pay. We allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we can afford a home that is ridiculously beyond our means, simply because we can afford the payments for the next three years until the rate changes. These things are inherently unhealthy, unsatisfying, and unsafe. Those are hardly the makings of a dream.
I apologize right from the start for the content of this rant. I realize that my harping on the economic status of the country is getting old by now. Frankly, I wish I had something else to rant about, but there is nothing more salient than the economy at the moment, and that is really saying something when the leader of the free world is going to be decided in less than two months.
I have been listening to NPR a lot lately. I like their coverage of the economic crisis. They have intelligent and qualified guests on who talk about the topics of interest of the day. Today, they had a panel on the planned Federal bail-out of these large investment banks that is going to cost tax payers trillions of dollars. It was interesting stuff, and caused me to panic just a little. But mostly is caused me to think about something that never ceases to fascinate me about the American People.
We have this style of life that is the envy of the world. At least that is what we tell ourselves. We have this promise, called the American Dream, that anyone who has a little creativity and a lot of dedication can really make something for themselves. We are a nation of home-owners, avidly in love with suburbia. We are consumers of products from dairy to SUVs and everything in between. We have a distinct culture of comfort and ease, as attested by our drive-through everything and our willingness to sacrifice taste and quality for speed and convenience (see: microwaveble pizza).
We have happilly embraced this lifestyle, and are often proud of it. We call ourselves innovative, imagine ourselves to be the people who have it all figured out. This is what fascinates me: if we have it all figured out, how come no one is copying us? Sure, they watch our movies and listen to our music, but the rest of the world is not restructuring its social systems to be more like ours. People are buying American soft drinks, but they are not buying the American Lifestyle.
I think that is because we are not nearly as great as we think we are. Sometimes we are downright pathetic. In our eagerness to have more and more stuff, we place enormous debt burdens upon ourselves, so that we can barely enjoy our lives. How is that superior to the European countries, where the only debts that are common are car payments and rent? They take lavish, four week long vacations to exotic places, and can afford to because they do not, like many Americans, feel the need to buy a lawnmower/tractor/espresso machine on credit. Americans can barely afford to travel to Grandma's for Thanksgiving because we tend to live inches away from complete financial ruin, in the pursuit of having more stuff, bigger houses, nicer cars.
The truth is, we are miserable. We do not have even close to the highest standard of living in the world, and no one wants to be like us. Sure America is a great place to live, but only people in third-world countries see moving to America as a step up. People living in Europe see a move to America as a lateral move, with some advantages but also plenty of losses. I have seen this first hand.
We are not the land of milk and honey. The American dream often rots on the vine, and very many Americans never reach the kind of personal prosperity and happiness as is common in much less powerful European nations. That is not to say that I am disatisfied. I am happy here. I have just also had the chance to see that I would be just as happy in many other places, and that my happiness is not due to American society.
We pay a very high price in terms of human cost for our style of living. Too high a price. In our need for a McMansion and a Family Fortress SUV, we burden ourselves with more debt than we can pay. We allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking we can afford a home that is ridiculously beyond our means, simply because we can afford the payments for the next three years until the rate changes. These things are inherently unhealthy, unsatisfying, and unsafe. Those are hardly the makings of a dream.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
30
This weekend was my birthday. Or rather, Monday was my birthday. Now I am mourning the death of my twenties, and trying to fit being 30 years old in the same mind that still prefers X-Men to the Wall Street Journal. Its weird, having this adult body wrapped around my persistently child-like mind. I still look for animals in clouds and try to find the ends of rainbows. How can I also be 30?
Before I launch into that introspection, I must say that I have a seriously awesome family. A whole bunch of them spent the weekend at our place, turning our DINK household into an instant orphanage, or at least that is what it felt like. Kiddies all over the place, of all ages and sizes. It was so nice to have the house full of activity and sound, and to always have someone to throw into the bean-bag. (Dana only gets mad when I throw her anywhere) Mom, Chandelle, the Three Nieceketeers, Will and Becky with Naomi, and Bob (for about 10 hours) all came and crashed in our place. It was awesome. I was honored that they all took the 10 hour drive over the mountains to celebrate with me. Jesse, Wendy, Crystal, Jed and Jon weren't able to make it, but the all called to give me birthday wishes, anyway.
Yeah, it was pretty sweet. I felt really special and loved. I have a good family, I think. They even stuck it out when some of them started to feel sick, to make sure they could celebrate my 30th with me. That made me feel really good, and a little guilty at the same time.
Now for the introspection: I am actually really happy that I have managed to retain as much of my childishness as I have. If I were given a chance to chose, I definitely would pick childish over adultish. Childhood is the realm of fantasy and innocence, the kingdom of hope and wonder. It is the place that adults lose and forever yearn for. It is the playground of the soul, and the classroom of the imagination. Childhood is the place where dancing for joy is as normal as laughter, and where smiling is contagious. Childhood is where humanity is pure and lovely. Its loss is a universal tragedy.
So yeah, I am very glad that I have retained a healthy sliver of my childishness. If that means I will never feel completely at home in my aging body, I will take that as proof that I still have at least one foot in Never Never Land.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Someone please explain this to me. . .
So I am a new home owner, and a proud one at that. Even digging around in my back yard and making expensive home improvements, the whole nine yards. Part of that new home ownership is new mortgage ownership, which I am less pround of, but which seems to be unavoidable.
Mortgate is a simple enough deal, right? Borrow a good percentage of a million dollars with the promise you will pay it back with an even larger percentage of a million dollars, and move in to your little slice of the American dream. Fail to pay it off, and your little slice is foreclosed on, and you lose your home and possibly everything else of value you own.
Easy concept, on the surface. But then they throw all sorts of twists into the bargain, like adjustable rates and sub-prime interest. These things are at best, bad business practices designed to dupe people into buying homes they cannot really afford, and at worst are little more than sanctioned corporate fraud.
But the banks in our country did this stuff anyway. Hooray for capitalism! Lets trick hundreds of thousands of people into buying dream homes they can't really afford, then yank the carpet out from under them and make them both bankrupt AND homeless! As long as the banks make money, right?
Wrong, as it turns out. It seems that all of these people who bought homes they could not afford ended up actually not being able to afford the homes. Imagine that. So there was no money for them to pay. All of a sudden the debt that was in the hands of hundreds of thousands of simple American families was transferred back to the banks that issued the fradulent loans. So the banks LOST money on the deal. Seems fair to me, right?
So please explain this to me - why on earth is the United States Government bailing these banks out? The banks made ridiculous, evil, greedy decisions and prayed on the trust and naivete of the populace and got burned for it. So why on earth should the government save them?
How many of the people who defaulted on their loans, who made their own little greedy, piss poor decisions have been bailed out by Uncle Sam? At my last count, that number was 0. So please explain this to me - the government will pay BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to bail out a bank, but I, a citizen, could not, EVER, expect them to pay 250,000 of those same dollars to bail me out. On what planet does THAT crap make sense?
Oh, and here is the fecal icing on that vomit-cake: the geniouses who tanked the US housing industry and drove Fanny-Mae and Freddy Mac straight into the ground have both been fired. I heard on NPR today that they are both getting severance packages worth millions of dollars. Sounds fair, doesn't it? I mean, if I completely ruined the financial future of my family, and burried us up to our hairlines in debt, I should deserve a payout of at least a few hundred grand, right?
Wrong, once again. All of it is nothing but wrong.
Mortgate is a simple enough deal, right? Borrow a good percentage of a million dollars with the promise you will pay it back with an even larger percentage of a million dollars, and move in to your little slice of the American dream. Fail to pay it off, and your little slice is foreclosed on, and you lose your home and possibly everything else of value you own.
Easy concept, on the surface. But then they throw all sorts of twists into the bargain, like adjustable rates and sub-prime interest. These things are at best, bad business practices designed to dupe people into buying homes they cannot really afford, and at worst are little more than sanctioned corporate fraud.
But the banks in our country did this stuff anyway. Hooray for capitalism! Lets trick hundreds of thousands of people into buying dream homes they can't really afford, then yank the carpet out from under them and make them both bankrupt AND homeless! As long as the banks make money, right?
Wrong, as it turns out. It seems that all of these people who bought homes they could not afford ended up actually not being able to afford the homes. Imagine that. So there was no money for them to pay. All of a sudden the debt that was in the hands of hundreds of thousands of simple American families was transferred back to the banks that issued the fradulent loans. So the banks LOST money on the deal. Seems fair to me, right?
So please explain this to me - why on earth is the United States Government bailing these banks out? The banks made ridiculous, evil, greedy decisions and prayed on the trust and naivete of the populace and got burned for it. So why on earth should the government save them?
How many of the people who defaulted on their loans, who made their own little greedy, piss poor decisions have been bailed out by Uncle Sam? At my last count, that number was 0. So please explain this to me - the government will pay BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to bail out a bank, but I, a citizen, could not, EVER, expect them to pay 250,000 of those same dollars to bail me out. On what planet does THAT crap make sense?
Oh, and here is the fecal icing on that vomit-cake: the geniouses who tanked the US housing industry and drove Fanny-Mae and Freddy Mac straight into the ground have both been fired. I heard on NPR today that they are both getting severance packages worth millions of dollars. Sounds fair, doesn't it? I mean, if I completely ruined the financial future of my family, and burried us up to our hairlines in debt, I should deserve a payout of at least a few hundred grand, right?
Wrong, once again. All of it is nothing but wrong.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Go Utes and other random stuff
Between laying retaining wall stones and pounding road-base flat with my Whacker, I took some time to watch the Utes game today. Lets just say, my guys are awesome! I loved watching them hand Michigan a thrashing. True, they only really played in the first half, and then checked out for some reason in the second, but they still held on to win over the winningest program in NCAA history, so that counts for something. I am thrilled that we still live in the mountain west, so we can still see Utah games on TV occasionally.
The other thing I want to talk about is my gripe. Dana and I just watched the movie Untraceable. Its a suspense thriller ala 'Seven', but without the good writing. And that is precisely my gripe. I cannot stand it when an otherwise intelligent movie uses stupid tactics or has people do asinine things to move the plot forward. In this movie, the savvy, super intelligent lead character is hot on the trail of some super-hacker/sociopath when he hijacks her car's computer through her OnStar system. Lights go out, engine kills, the whole nine yards. Mysteriously, the manual door lock is also put out of commission, so she has to break a window to get out.
Alright, up to this point the movie had been good. I actually felt a feeling of suspense. They had me. But then they turned Ms. Savvy von Detectivesky into a complete fool in one move. So she is out of her car making a call on an emergancy phone when suddenly the lights and all come back on in her car. Being the tough cop, she draws her weapon (which I can understand) and then walks back to her car (which, due to the car's vulnerability to electronic hyjinx seems like a very bad idea every way I look at it). She opens the door, the cab lights come on, and our plucky protagonist slides into the seat, looking for all the world like she is going to bo by some milk and bread. SHE DOES NOT CHECK THE BACK SEAT!!!
So, predictably, the bad guy rises up as soon as she puts the car in drive. He tasers her, which is his MO, and then drags her off to do unspeakable things to her, blah blah blah.
It completely ruined the movie for me. That is just lazy writing, right there. How am I supposed to feel compassion and interest in a protagonist who suddenly becomes stupid enough to win herself a Darwin award? Grrr.
Anyway, that is all. Carry On.
The other thing I want to talk about is my gripe. Dana and I just watched the movie Untraceable. Its a suspense thriller ala 'Seven', but without the good writing. And that is precisely my gripe. I cannot stand it when an otherwise intelligent movie uses stupid tactics or has people do asinine things to move the plot forward. In this movie, the savvy, super intelligent lead character is hot on the trail of some super-hacker/sociopath when he hijacks her car's computer through her OnStar system. Lights go out, engine kills, the whole nine yards. Mysteriously, the manual door lock is also put out of commission, so she has to break a window to get out.
Alright, up to this point the movie had been good. I actually felt a feeling of suspense. They had me. But then they turned Ms. Savvy von Detectivesky into a complete fool in one move. So she is out of her car making a call on an emergancy phone when suddenly the lights and all come back on in her car. Being the tough cop, she draws her weapon (which I can understand) and then walks back to her car (which, due to the car's vulnerability to electronic hyjinx seems like a very bad idea every way I look at it). She opens the door, the cab lights come on, and our plucky protagonist slides into the seat, looking for all the world like she is going to bo by some milk and bread. SHE DOES NOT CHECK THE BACK SEAT!!!
So, predictably, the bad guy rises up as soon as she puts the car in drive. He tasers her, which is his MO, and then drags her off to do unspeakable things to her, blah blah blah.
It completely ruined the movie for me. That is just lazy writing, right there. How am I supposed to feel compassion and interest in a protagonist who suddenly becomes stupid enough to win herself a Darwin award? Grrr.
Anyway, that is all. Carry On.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The DNC, or as I like to call it. . .
. . .the Destroy Normal Cities.
So the DNC, or (Democratic National Convention, if you are so inclined) is in town. Denver, that is. It used to be a normal little city, but all of a sudden we have riot police wearing black uniforms and carrying shields all over the place. You can't go to a park anywhere near downtown without seeing a cop somewhere around. We have all sorts of cops right now. Cops on foot, cops on horses, cops with tasers, cops with assault rifles, cops with tear gas grenade launchers, cops standing on cars, and then we still have your run of the mill cops in doughnut shops.
Where do all these police come from? I am sure there are a few towns in the midwest somewhere that are in a complete state of anarchy because their peace-keepers have all come to Denver for the week. The thing that gets me is, no matter how hard I strain my noodle about this, I just can't make sense of it.
Why on earth should a political party get to hijack an otherwise peaceful metropolis just so they can celebrate themselves? How is it justifyable that any group of people should be able to lay claim to millions of dollars of tax-payer money and cause traffic jams and civil unrest just to pat itself on the back? It makes no sense to me.
I am trying to imagine what would happen if all the mormons in America got together for a convention. Would the government give us millions of dollars to help fund our little shin-dig? I doubt it. What if we caused enough civil unrest that people showed up to protest us? Would uncle Sam lend us hundreds of his bravest and finest? More likely they would show up to arrest us for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. What if we caused major traffic snarls? Would they love us and put us on TV non-stop? More likely they would fine us millions of dollars.
So why are the parties so special? What do they do beyond polarize the nation and maintain their own power? I mean seriously, both parties exist merely to maintain their own existence. They do no real good for anyone. Right now, the Democrats are doing serious harm to Denver.
And why? So Barack can tell the world that he is going to run for President? Umm. . . didn't he already do that? And wouldn't an appearance on the Tonight Show do the job better anyway, with less riot gear? Its bonkers, if you ask me.
And then there is the money issue. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going down the drain for this little bash. I heard it estimated that the dems are going to drop 20 million on alcohol alone while they are here. Are you kidding me? 20 million dollars for our already ineffectual representatives to become even LESS lucid? Are we serious here? Isn't there an orphanage somewhere that needs clothes for the kiddies? Isn't there at least one homeless person in this country who could use a leg up? Do we honestly have nothing better to do with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS than to throw a party for people, so they can feel good about themselves and spend a week making ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE OR CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY!!!
OK, my blood pressure is getting dangerously high, so I am signing off. Plus, I have 200 traffic jams and a legion of police to navigate before I get home.
So the DNC, or (Democratic National Convention, if you are so inclined) is in town. Denver, that is. It used to be a normal little city, but all of a sudden we have riot police wearing black uniforms and carrying shields all over the place. You can't go to a park anywhere near downtown without seeing a cop somewhere around. We have all sorts of cops right now. Cops on foot, cops on horses, cops with tasers, cops with assault rifles, cops with tear gas grenade launchers, cops standing on cars, and then we still have your run of the mill cops in doughnut shops.
Where do all these police come from? I am sure there are a few towns in the midwest somewhere that are in a complete state of anarchy because their peace-keepers have all come to Denver for the week. The thing that gets me is, no matter how hard I strain my noodle about this, I just can't make sense of it.
Why on earth should a political party get to hijack an otherwise peaceful metropolis just so they can celebrate themselves? How is it justifyable that any group of people should be able to lay claim to millions of dollars of tax-payer money and cause traffic jams and civil unrest just to pat itself on the back? It makes no sense to me.
I am trying to imagine what would happen if all the mormons in America got together for a convention. Would the government give us millions of dollars to help fund our little shin-dig? I doubt it. What if we caused enough civil unrest that people showed up to protest us? Would uncle Sam lend us hundreds of his bravest and finest? More likely they would show up to arrest us for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. What if we caused major traffic snarls? Would they love us and put us on TV non-stop? More likely they would fine us millions of dollars.
So why are the parties so special? What do they do beyond polarize the nation and maintain their own power? I mean seriously, both parties exist merely to maintain their own existence. They do no real good for anyone. Right now, the Democrats are doing serious harm to Denver.
And why? So Barack can tell the world that he is going to run for President? Umm. . . didn't he already do that? And wouldn't an appearance on the Tonight Show do the job better anyway, with less riot gear? Its bonkers, if you ask me.
And then there is the money issue. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going down the drain for this little bash. I heard it estimated that the dems are going to drop 20 million on alcohol alone while they are here. Are you kidding me? 20 million dollars for our already ineffectual representatives to become even LESS lucid? Are we serious here? Isn't there an orphanage somewhere that needs clothes for the kiddies? Isn't there at least one homeless person in this country who could use a leg up? Do we honestly have nothing better to do with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS than to throw a party for people, so they can feel good about themselves and spend a week making ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE OR CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY!!!
OK, my blood pressure is getting dangerously high, so I am signing off. Plus, I have 200 traffic jams and a legion of police to navigate before I get home.
Friday, August 8, 2008
USA! USA! USA!
Just wanted to mention again that I am jazzed for the Olympics. That is all. Carry on.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Shameless Self-Promotion
No, that is not what I am going to rant about. Rather, it is what I am about to do.
Not promoting myself, per se, but rather promoting what I do.
This blog is all about adoption. Just because it is an 8 letter word, doesn't mean it is a bad as two 4 letter words put together. Why are people so afraid of it?
Dana and I were watching TV last night, and Dana was jumping between two programs. One of them was the Baby Borrowers: Lessons Learned. It was like After the Catch from Discovery Channel, but without the good editing or wit.
Anyway, Dana has been following this show off and on. The premise is they take a bunch of teenage couples and throw them into parenting situations with babies of different ages, from newborns to teenagers, and even the elderly. The whole idea is that, once they see what raising a kid is like, they will be less likely to have one of their own until they are ready.
My jury is still out about the soundness of the idea, but whatever. The thing that I noticed about this whole program, which centered on the concept of teen pregnancy, was that adoption was mentioned only once, and it came out in the same sentence as abortion. It was like this: "When you found out that you were pregnant, did you ever think of other options, like adoption or abortion?"
Give me a break! Adoption is giving a child the best of all possible worlds. Abortion is giving a child no world at all. How are these two things similar?
Alright, I know I am biased, since I am an adoption worker, but it makes me sick that this whole television program about teen pregnancy did not mention adoption more often. It was like it is a foregone conclusion that a pregnant teenager has to keep her baby, even if it is the very worst thing for her and her child. I will never ever understand that thinking. A teenager who is having sex is being irresponsible. Keeping the child is just one further irresponsible thing.
Many people will not agree with me, and I understand that. Many people think a teenage mother should have to raise her child so that she learns to deal with the consequences of her actions. But isn't putting an entire human life at risk a bit of a hefty price for an object lesson? I think it is.
The reality of adoption is that the young girls and young women who place their children for adoption are being infinitely more responsible and less selfish than the majority of girls who keep their babies. Those who place are using the love they feel for their child to motivate them to give the child the kind of home it deserves, where the child can grow into its ultimate potential. Placing a child for adoption is the single hardest thing that any of the birthmoms I have worked with have ever done. Yet they do it in the best interests of the child. Where is the selfishness in that? The mothers are involved in finding a good, strong family for their baby. Where is the irresponsibility in that?
The world I guess just does not understand adoption. Either that, or most of the world is too selfish to see the world through the eyes of a birth-mom. Once the baby is born, the story is no longer about the mom. Mom can fend for herself. When the baby is born, the story has to be about what is best for the child.
One other argument is that single moms can be great moms. Absolutely. However, before you make that argument against adoption again, ask yourself two questions: If I could go back in time and be raised by a single mother, would I want to? and If I had a child right now, would I ever, ever give it to a 16 year old girl to raise? If you answer no to either of those questions, then you, like me, are probably a bigger fan of adoption than you thought you were.
It took me a while before I truly saw the beauty and power of adoption. Now that I know, I wish the whole world knew. Most of all, I wish that the miracle of adoption would never again be mentioned in the same sentence as the tragedy of abortion.
Not promoting myself, per se, but rather promoting what I do.
This blog is all about adoption. Just because it is an 8 letter word, doesn't mean it is a bad as two 4 letter words put together. Why are people so afraid of it?
Dana and I were watching TV last night, and Dana was jumping between two programs. One of them was the Baby Borrowers: Lessons Learned. It was like After the Catch from Discovery Channel, but without the good editing or wit.
Anyway, Dana has been following this show off and on. The premise is they take a bunch of teenage couples and throw them into parenting situations with babies of different ages, from newborns to teenagers, and even the elderly. The whole idea is that, once they see what raising a kid is like, they will be less likely to have one of their own until they are ready.
My jury is still out about the soundness of the idea, but whatever. The thing that I noticed about this whole program, which centered on the concept of teen pregnancy, was that adoption was mentioned only once, and it came out in the same sentence as abortion. It was like this: "When you found out that you were pregnant, did you ever think of other options, like adoption or abortion?"
Give me a break! Adoption is giving a child the best of all possible worlds. Abortion is giving a child no world at all. How are these two things similar?
Alright, I know I am biased, since I am an adoption worker, but it makes me sick that this whole television program about teen pregnancy did not mention adoption more often. It was like it is a foregone conclusion that a pregnant teenager has to keep her baby, even if it is the very worst thing for her and her child. I will never ever understand that thinking. A teenager who is having sex is being irresponsible. Keeping the child is just one further irresponsible thing.
Many people will not agree with me, and I understand that. Many people think a teenage mother should have to raise her child so that she learns to deal with the consequences of her actions. But isn't putting an entire human life at risk a bit of a hefty price for an object lesson? I think it is.
The reality of adoption is that the young girls and young women who place their children for adoption are being infinitely more responsible and less selfish than the majority of girls who keep their babies. Those who place are using the love they feel for their child to motivate them to give the child the kind of home it deserves, where the child can grow into its ultimate potential. Placing a child for adoption is the single hardest thing that any of the birthmoms I have worked with have ever done. Yet they do it in the best interests of the child. Where is the selfishness in that? The mothers are involved in finding a good, strong family for their baby. Where is the irresponsibility in that?
The world I guess just does not understand adoption. Either that, or most of the world is too selfish to see the world through the eyes of a birth-mom. Once the baby is born, the story is no longer about the mom. Mom can fend for herself. When the baby is born, the story has to be about what is best for the child.
One other argument is that single moms can be great moms. Absolutely. However, before you make that argument against adoption again, ask yourself two questions: If I could go back in time and be raised by a single mother, would I want to? and If I had a child right now, would I ever, ever give it to a 16 year old girl to raise? If you answer no to either of those questions, then you, like me, are probably a bigger fan of adoption than you thought you were.
It took me a while before I truly saw the beauty and power of adoption. Now that I know, I wish the whole world knew. Most of all, I wish that the miracle of adoption would never again be mentioned in the same sentence as the tragedy of abortion.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
No, my Blog Template is Not a Statement About My Politics
. . . but I am going green. Or greenER. Lets call it yellow.
So I was just reading over some of my last posts (vanity, you know) and I realized something - white print on a black background looks cool at first, but after a while it starts messing with your eyes. As I tend to be long-winded (or long-blogged), this really started to bug the crap out of me after one or two entries.
So, this is a thanks to people for putting up with the harsh (albeit awesome-looking) color scheme without complaining. Hopefully the new duds will be easier on the eyes.
And because I feel a lot like ranting today, here's a two-fer. Umm. . . lets pick: Yuppy Greenness.
Its a term I invented myself. 5 seconds ago. Let me explain - no, no, there is too much. Let me sum up: Yuppy Greens are people who like to pretend they are green, but are unwilling to change their lifestyle in significant ways. These are the housewives who drive 20 miles in their Ford Monstrosity, V8, 400 horsepower land-mover, while drinking over-priced imported coffee in a disposable cup, to buy the cute little, popular, curly 'eco-friendly' compact flourescent light bulbs at Wal-Mart, and who then go home and proceed to leave the lights on in every room in the house all night because it helps them feel safe.
Yuppy Greens are the bane of actual greens, who are taking pains to reduce their carbon footprint, shop with cloth shopping bags, separate their own recyclables, and once in a rare while actually go out and enjoy the environment. Yuppy Greens have made eco-conscious behavior a trend. The latest fad, like skinny pants. Their hearts aren't in it, but they like 'seeming' to be green.
The cold hard truth is that Americans don't want to be green. We don't like to ride our bicycles. Bikes are for junior high kids. We don't even like driving scooters or small cars. We like big, powerful things. We don't do terribly well in the planning department, because everything has been 'convenienced' so that we don't have to think ahead. We don't have to bring bags to the store, because the store has bags for us. We don't have to bring refillable mugs, because the store has cups for us. We don't have to use anything durable and reusable, because a disposable one will be provided for us.
Going green in a meaningful way will mean a complete shift in the way we think about our world, most importantly the way we think about our usage of energy. The wastefullness that is stuck in my craw right now has to do with the inefficiency of cars. Cars are horribly wasteful, even hybrids and electric cars. Here is what I mean -
My car weighs 4435 pounds empty. I weigh in at roughly 230, depending on if I am hungry or not. When I am in the car, the whole package weighs 4665. So, when I am driving around, using up .037 gallons per mile, the weight of the vehicle is only 5% me. Only 5 percent! That makes me want to hit Elmo! (OK, so a lot of things make me want to hit Elmo, including Elmo himself, but that is another rant)
So lets do a little math here. Recently I am paying $4 a gallon for gas. Ok, so 5% of that $4 goes to moving me. That works out to be roughly 20 cents a gallon is spent on MYSELF, while $3.80 is spent on MY CAR. I am paying 19 times more to move the thing that should be moving me than I am paying to move myself! That is so backwards!
Sure, the 2 tons of steel keep me safe. That is the usual argument used. Safety. Well, I don't buy it. If all the cars out their weigh, lets say, 400 pounds, like a typical ATV. Well, if I only have less than 1000 pounds of vehicle and driver careening my way, I don't need 2 tons of steel to keep me safe, then, do I? No. I need more along the line of - hey! - 400 pounds of steel!
Its the same phenomenon of two people running into each-other. If they are both going full steam, they will wipe out and scrape their knees or whatever. However, since their bodies are roughly similar in mass, they don't do any terrible damage to one-another. They mostly bounce off each-other since the transfer of energy is so close to even.
Alright, so we should be able to transfer that same concept to vehicles, right? If we all drove light cars, there would be no extra safety concern. Crashes would still be lethal as a function of velocity, but no more than they are right now.
OK, so what I am getting at here is I want a light-weight, stable, elementally protected people mover that does not out-weigh me by more than 2 tons. I would go for one that just outweighed me by 100%. How cool would that be: a car that I would dead-lift. I would be all over that. "Hey honey, could you hold the car up while I change the tire?" That would be sweet!
I know people are working on this exact idea, but I never hear about it unless I go looking for it. I hear all about the Honda Metropolitan, which gets over 100 mpg. But its a scooter, and I can't drive it over 30 mph. I want a stable, climate controlled vehicle that has four wheels and is not a death-trap at high speeds. Most of all, I want to pay to move myself around, not pay to move my self-mover around.
So I was just reading over some of my last posts (vanity, you know) and I realized something - white print on a black background looks cool at first, but after a while it starts messing with your eyes. As I tend to be long-winded (or long-blogged), this really started to bug the crap out of me after one or two entries.
So, this is a thanks to people for putting up with the harsh (albeit awesome-looking) color scheme without complaining. Hopefully the new duds will be easier on the eyes.
And because I feel a lot like ranting today, here's a two-fer. Umm. . . lets pick: Yuppy Greenness.
Its a term I invented myself. 5 seconds ago. Let me explain - no, no, there is too much. Let me sum up: Yuppy Greens are people who like to pretend they are green, but are unwilling to change their lifestyle in significant ways. These are the housewives who drive 20 miles in their Ford Monstrosity, V8, 400 horsepower land-mover, while drinking over-priced imported coffee in a disposable cup, to buy the cute little, popular, curly 'eco-friendly' compact flourescent light bulbs at Wal-Mart, and who then go home and proceed to leave the lights on in every room in the house all night because it helps them feel safe.
Yuppy Greens are the bane of actual greens, who are taking pains to reduce their carbon footprint, shop with cloth shopping bags, separate their own recyclables, and once in a rare while actually go out and enjoy the environment. Yuppy Greens have made eco-conscious behavior a trend. The latest fad, like skinny pants. Their hearts aren't in it, but they like 'seeming' to be green.
The cold hard truth is that Americans don't want to be green. We don't like to ride our bicycles. Bikes are for junior high kids. We don't even like driving scooters or small cars. We like big, powerful things. We don't do terribly well in the planning department, because everything has been 'convenienced' so that we don't have to think ahead. We don't have to bring bags to the store, because the store has bags for us. We don't have to bring refillable mugs, because the store has cups for us. We don't have to use anything durable and reusable, because a disposable one will be provided for us.
Going green in a meaningful way will mean a complete shift in the way we think about our world, most importantly the way we think about our usage of energy. The wastefullness that is stuck in my craw right now has to do with the inefficiency of cars. Cars are horribly wasteful, even hybrids and electric cars. Here is what I mean -
My car weighs 4435 pounds empty. I weigh in at roughly 230, depending on if I am hungry or not. When I am in the car, the whole package weighs 4665. So, when I am driving around, using up .037 gallons per mile, the weight of the vehicle is only 5% me. Only 5 percent! That makes me want to hit Elmo! (OK, so a lot of things make me want to hit Elmo, including Elmo himself, but that is another rant)
So lets do a little math here. Recently I am paying $4 a gallon for gas. Ok, so 5% of that $4 goes to moving me. That works out to be roughly 20 cents a gallon is spent on MYSELF, while $3.80 is spent on MY CAR. I am paying 19 times more to move the thing that should be moving me than I am paying to move myself! That is so backwards!
Sure, the 2 tons of steel keep me safe. That is the usual argument used. Safety. Well, I don't buy it. If all the cars out their weigh, lets say, 400 pounds, like a typical ATV. Well, if I only have less than 1000 pounds of vehicle and driver careening my way, I don't need 2 tons of steel to keep me safe, then, do I? No. I need more along the line of - hey! - 400 pounds of steel!
Its the same phenomenon of two people running into each-other. If they are both going full steam, they will wipe out and scrape their knees or whatever. However, since their bodies are roughly similar in mass, they don't do any terrible damage to one-another. They mostly bounce off each-other since the transfer of energy is so close to even.
Alright, so we should be able to transfer that same concept to vehicles, right? If we all drove light cars, there would be no extra safety concern. Crashes would still be lethal as a function of velocity, but no more than they are right now.
OK, so what I am getting at here is I want a light-weight, stable, elementally protected people mover that does not out-weigh me by more than 2 tons. I would go for one that just outweighed me by 100%. How cool would that be: a car that I would dead-lift. I would be all over that. "Hey honey, could you hold the car up while I change the tire?" That would be sweet!
I know people are working on this exact idea, but I never hear about it unless I go looking for it. I hear all about the Honda Metropolitan, which gets over 100 mpg. But its a scooter, and I can't drive it over 30 mph. I want a stable, climate controlled vehicle that has four wheels and is not a death-trap at high speeds. Most of all, I want to pay to move myself around, not pay to move my self-mover around.
Olympics and Other Strenuous Nonsense
OK, so the Olympics are coming up. I am very excited. I was a volunteer at the 2002 winter olympics, and it kinda got in my blood. Plus, America wins the medal count every time, so I have good reason to be optimistic.
The fact that the Olympics, or the 'Limpics' as I call them (Sometimes just 'Limpees' for short) are in China this go-round just makes things that much more interesting. By interesting I mean rant-worthy.
Cut to the rant: I am somewhat more familliar with the vagaries of communism than your average American. I happen to be married to a recovering communist. Due to this familiarity, I have come to learn that a communist government is a system that exists virtually exclusively to perpetuate itself, at the cost of its own people. Now, as I re-read what I just wrote, I realise that this could basically describe any political system, but communism perpetuates itself at an especially high cost to the prosperity and liberties of its people, and then keeps its people from complaining about the cost. In my book, a system that disallows dissidence is a weak system. The ability to abide dissent is proof of an internally strong, justified government.
What does this have to do with the Limpees? Well, China is trying to play its whole Two Systems foolery to the full-out extent. They invite the whole world to come and play, then they get angry when the world wants to play according to its own rules. You can't seriously invite American atheletes into China and expect them to stop thinking like Americans, can you?
Obviously, that is precisely what China is doing. Check out just this one story, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/beijing/2008-08-06-cheek-visa-revoked_N.htm
For those of you too hurried or lazy to read the article, the gyst is this: Joey Cheek, a winter olympian, was going to go to China to support his warmer-climate-cohorts, but the Chinese denied him a visa. Why? Because he is a cofounder of the ideological group Team Darfur, which is a group of 100+ olympians who have declared their support for Darfur and, by extension, their opposition to the Sudanese government. Well, China doesn't like this, since they are buddy-buddy with Sudan (that's were they get their oil. Why does everyone go stupid for oil? Oil is the devil's blood, me thinks). So the Chinese government turns around and denies Joey a visa to even enter their country. Give me a break. If they would have just let him in he would not have made such a stink and would have likely gone mostly un-noticed, but now he is showing up in major publications, such as this blog and USA Today.
Anyway, I love what the US Olympic team turned around and did on the same day as Joey was denied his visa. They named Lopez Lomong the banner carrier, who himself is a Darfur refugee! Take THAT communist censorship! There is no way the Chinese would risk the embarassment (then again, they might. . .) of shipping our FLAG BEARER home, so this man, this living, breathing proof of the attrocities going on in Darfur, is going to be on billions of televisions as he walks beneath the Stars and Stripes in opening and closing ceremonies. I am laughing myself to the hiccups over here! I love poetic justice like this. Nowhere like the Olympics do countries get such an open stage to express themselves. It is completely sweet that China is not getting its way in trying to make this a non-issue. Bravo to the US Olympic team for picking a man who represents so well what America is (or should be) about - a place where people are free to pursue their dreams regardless of their background, and where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisals.
I predicted months ago that the Chinese Olympics would be fraught with protests, especially people protesting Chinese foreign policies like the annexation of Tibet and the friendly relationship with Sudan. With all of the world tuning in, how could the strong passions of so many people possibly NOT be expressed. I hope everything goes peacefully and that the games are a success, but I also hope they are a failure. I hope they are a failure for Communist China's attempt to invite the world to honor them, but in turn to dishonor the world by disallowing the world's oppinions.
Sorry, China. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The fact that the Olympics, or the 'Limpics' as I call them (Sometimes just 'Limpees' for short) are in China this go-round just makes things that much more interesting. By interesting I mean rant-worthy.
Cut to the rant: I am somewhat more familliar with the vagaries of communism than your average American. I happen to be married to a recovering communist. Due to this familiarity, I have come to learn that a communist government is a system that exists virtually exclusively to perpetuate itself, at the cost of its own people. Now, as I re-read what I just wrote, I realise that this could basically describe any political system, but communism perpetuates itself at an especially high cost to the prosperity and liberties of its people, and then keeps its people from complaining about the cost. In my book, a system that disallows dissidence is a weak system. The ability to abide dissent is proof of an internally strong, justified government.
What does this have to do with the Limpees? Well, China is trying to play its whole Two Systems foolery to the full-out extent. They invite the whole world to come and play, then they get angry when the world wants to play according to its own rules. You can't seriously invite American atheletes into China and expect them to stop thinking like Americans, can you?
Obviously, that is precisely what China is doing. Check out just this one story, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/beijing/2008-08-06-cheek-visa-revoked_N.htm
For those of you too hurried or lazy to read the article, the gyst is this: Joey Cheek, a winter olympian, was going to go to China to support his warmer-climate-cohorts, but the Chinese denied him a visa. Why? Because he is a cofounder of the ideological group Team Darfur, which is a group of 100+ olympians who have declared their support for Darfur and, by extension, their opposition to the Sudanese government. Well, China doesn't like this, since they are buddy-buddy with Sudan (that's were they get their oil. Why does everyone go stupid for oil? Oil is the devil's blood, me thinks). So the Chinese government turns around and denies Joey a visa to even enter their country. Give me a break. If they would have just let him in he would not have made such a stink and would have likely gone mostly un-noticed, but now he is showing up in major publications, such as this blog and USA Today.
Anyway, I love what the US Olympic team turned around and did on the same day as Joey was denied his visa. They named Lopez Lomong the banner carrier, who himself is a Darfur refugee! Take THAT communist censorship! There is no way the Chinese would risk the embarassment (then again, they might. . .) of shipping our FLAG BEARER home, so this man, this living, breathing proof of the attrocities going on in Darfur, is going to be on billions of televisions as he walks beneath the Stars and Stripes in opening and closing ceremonies. I am laughing myself to the hiccups over here! I love poetic justice like this. Nowhere like the Olympics do countries get such an open stage to express themselves. It is completely sweet that China is not getting its way in trying to make this a non-issue. Bravo to the US Olympic team for picking a man who represents so well what America is (or should be) about - a place where people are free to pursue their dreams regardless of their background, and where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisals.
I predicted months ago that the Chinese Olympics would be fraught with protests, especially people protesting Chinese foreign policies like the annexation of Tibet and the friendly relationship with Sudan. With all of the world tuning in, how could the strong passions of so many people possibly NOT be expressed. I hope everything goes peacefully and that the games are a success, but I also hope they are a failure. I hope they are a failure for Communist China's attempt to invite the world to honor them, but in turn to dishonor the world by disallowing the world's oppinions.
Sorry, China. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh S***!
OK, so I know you must have seen this video. Also all over the place. I actually really like it, and I was touched by it. Not like I cried or anything. . . that was just alergies.
Its a good video, no? Touching and all of that. Good tear-jerker stuff for shows like The View and The Today Show.
Well, this video has got me thinking. You know that somewhere in the vast expanses of human stupidity, somebody is watching that video and thinking to themselves: Yeah! I think I should get a wild predatory animal and raise it, too! Then I could be a YouTube all-star!
Yeah, umm: no. I predict that in 5 years we are going to be seeing a whole new set of YouTube videos with titles like: Grizzly Bear Loves Previous Owners. . . To Death. or maybe: Pets Gone Wild: Cougar Maims Couple.
I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but that is just the way people are. Someone is going to see this video, remember a childhood dream they had of owning their very own Bengal Tiger, and they are going to go on the black market and buy one. After a few years of fun, the cute fuzzy tiger will start eating neighborhood dogs, and they will have to release it to the wild. Then, remembering Christian the Friendly Lion, they are going to head back to the wilds of Burma, and trek through the jungle for a few days trying to find their long-lost friend. When they finally find him, they are going to just stand there while he approaches, maybe slap their thighs and say "come here, boy!" or something else in baby-talk, until the tiger gets right up to them, gives them a look that is a mix of expressions between "are you nuts" and "I wonder if you taste like chicken" then takes a lazy swat at them, killing them instantly, then carrying them off to a tree to be eaten as a midnight snack.
I mean seriously folks, these are WILD animals. You never know what a big cat is going to do. You never even know what a siamese cat is going to do, for that matter. Don't we remember Siegfried and Roy? That tiger just got excited and almost killed the only master it had ever known, and had never hunted a day in its life.
I think these two guys are very lucky. Lucky to have had such a wonderful experience raising a lion cub, but most of all, lucky to be alive after finding Christian again.
I think I will stick to dogs. And rabbits.
Its a good video, no? Touching and all of that. Good tear-jerker stuff for shows like The View and The Today Show.
Well, this video has got me thinking. You know that somewhere in the vast expanses of human stupidity, somebody is watching that video and thinking to themselves: Yeah! I think I should get a wild predatory animal and raise it, too! Then I could be a YouTube all-star!
Yeah, umm: no. I predict that in 5 years we are going to be seeing a whole new set of YouTube videos with titles like: Grizzly Bear Loves Previous Owners. . . To Death. or maybe: Pets Gone Wild: Cougar Maims Couple.
I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but that is just the way people are. Someone is going to see this video, remember a childhood dream they had of owning their very own Bengal Tiger, and they are going to go on the black market and buy one. After a few years of fun, the cute fuzzy tiger will start eating neighborhood dogs, and they will have to release it to the wild. Then, remembering Christian the Friendly Lion, they are going to head back to the wilds of Burma, and trek through the jungle for a few days trying to find their long-lost friend. When they finally find him, they are going to just stand there while he approaches, maybe slap their thighs and say "come here, boy!" or something else in baby-talk, until the tiger gets right up to them, gives them a look that is a mix of expressions between "are you nuts" and "I wonder if you taste like chicken" then takes a lazy swat at them, killing them instantly, then carrying them off to a tree to be eaten as a midnight snack.
I mean seriously folks, these are WILD animals. You never know what a big cat is going to do. You never even know what a siamese cat is going to do, for that matter. Don't we remember Siegfried and Roy? That tiger just got excited and almost killed the only master it had ever known, and had never hunted a day in its life.
I think these two guys are very lucky. Lucky to have had such a wonderful experience raising a lion cub, but most of all, lucky to be alive after finding Christian again.
I think I will stick to dogs. And rabbits.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Back from the Dead
So here I am again, brought back from blogger death by the only two things that could have resurrected me: an actual request from an actual reader, and the fact that I have something I am proud to post.
Second things first: you have probably seen this already, since it is everywhere right now, but just in case you have not, take a look at the new Jib Jab video:
Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!
I laughed my can off! The only thing that even gets close to the farcical nature of the presidential election is a farcical video. This one is a keeper. Loved it.
Here is something else I love, I have become a devoted fan:
I think this guy is a genius, not to mention the funniest man on the internet. I have not yet seen an episode that I could only watch once. Too funny.
OK, down to the gripe. Global Warming, please get out of the way of other problems we can change, if you don't mind.
Alright, some people are going to think I want the environment to die, or that I hate living things. Not at all. I happen to be a living thing. I don't dislike the environment at all (unless we are talking about the social environment of waiting in line for the bathroom at a major sports stadium). My problem is that Global Warming is hogging up nearly the whole political stage right now. This bothers me to no end. Why, do you ask? Alright, I'll tell you.
WE CAN'T DO A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!! Of course we can all reduce our carbon footprints, use less fossil fuels, recycle more, eat more spinach, and give more hugs. Sure. But what we cannot do is remove the carbon we have already emitted. It is not the carbon of the future that is causing the problems of today. It is the carbon already in the air. In other words, if (big IF) global warming is a reality, then all we can do is try to reduce our future carbon output, and hold on for dear life while the repercussions of our past carbon output work their mischief in the atmosphere, bringing acid rain, rising ocean temperatures, shrinking ice caps and a new career for Al Gore.
We have no way of removing the emissions from the past from the atmosphere, and it seems to me that a lot is being done to explore alternative energy sources. So, aren't we doing exactly what we should be doing? Does it help anyone at all if the world pees its pants over something that has been in the process of building for 15o years? I can't see that it does.
Rather, I think global warming mania is a safe and popular topic for politicians to obscure the real problems of society that they could (and should) have addressed years ago. Social security? Bankrupt. Health Care? A luxury. Economy? Shot to crap. Security? Anyone's guess. Housing market? Abysmal. These are the things that politicians can fix, but as long as global warming hogs the spotlight, the suits on capital hill aren't feeling as much pressure to fix the societal ills they were hired to fix in the first place.
What a sham! No wonder Republicans and Democrats, who can't even agree on the direction of up, both got on the band-wagon on this one. It keeps them both from having to actually come up with solutions to the problems that lie in their control. Instead, they just chant the Global Warming chant, pretend that ANYONE has a viable solution to this, and get away with driving the country into the ground and not doing anything to fix it. As long as they say the pretty global warming magic words, people are duped into thinking the politicos are actually doing something to help us.
Well I don't buy it. I don't buy the whole global warming premise in the first place. Humans just aren't that powerful. Two volcanic eruptions from the last decade put out more methane and carbonic compounds by mass into the atmosphere than all of humanity's pollution from all time, including the cooking fires of the cave men. Plus, methane has 4 times the green-house gas effect of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. No body talks about this crap, because it is heresy to the Church of Global Warming. In fact, I just read a study in Discover Magazine that states that the cattle in the world produce roughly as much methane gas as the cars in the world produce carbonic compounds. Hard to believe, but there are a lot of cows in the lonely places of the globe. So think of that - the cows produce as much methane as the cars produce CO2, and methane has 4 times the greenhouse effect as CO2. Doesn't that make cows to blame for the problem? Doesn't that make cows 4 times more detrimental to the environment than people?
I dunno what the solution is, but I know one thing - the first step to a solution is killing a whole bunch of those bovines. Steak, anyone?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Stupor Tuesday
The American political system is screwed up. Completely mental. Particularly the circus that is the Primary Election and especially today, which I call Stupor Tuesday. There are a few points about the American presidential election that have been especially annoying lately. Here they are:
1 - The fact that we have primary elections in the first place.
2- The incessant and tainted polling system that surrounds all of our elections.
3- The over-estimation of Presidential power
4- Political Parties and false division.
Lets look at these points. I won't get into too much detail, since I am sure I could write a volume on each point, but I just want to explain why I am bothered so much by each of these individual things.
#1 - Why on earth do we need multiple pre-elections before an election? Personally, I think the whole idea is insulting. It is almost as if the establishment believes the American people are incapable of choosing between 3 or 4 people, so the political parties (in their magnanimity and selflessness) whittle down the choices to just two options. Heaven knows the choice between A or B is enormously simpler than the choice between A or B or C or D. Nobody in the general population can be trusted to be smart enough to pick a president from more than 2 choices!
Give me a break. If I went to a restaurant and the waiter told me to chose one side of the menu, I would laugh at him. If he then told me to narrow down my choices to just one dish from either side, I would likely get up and leave. If, however, the cooks got together and chose just two entrees to offer me, I would never have gone to that restaurant in the first place. That is precisely what the primary elections do. I think it is messed up. I am completely capable (as are almost all people) of looking at a menu and deciding what I want from a multiplicity of choices. I am also capable of looking at a multiplicity of candidates from all across the spectrum and choosing the one that I want. I do not need my options to be reduced to A or B. Often, the candidate that I like the most does not even win the primary, so I end up having to chose between 2 people I dislike equally, as in the election between George W. and Al Gore (or the Loser and the Snoozer, as I liked to call them). In that election I threw my vote away. I wrote Mickey Mouse on the ballot and voted for him. I had to, because the candidates I was actually excited about did not make it through the primary elections. That is fundamentally messed up, and we deserve better as a people.
#2 Polls of any kind dealing with election results should be completely illegal. My apologies to Dan Jones and other pollsters, but I think you are damaging our democracy. Of course, inquiring minds want to know how an election is running over the course of a day. I get that. People are curious. However, that is not the only role that polls have. Over a race as protracted and complicated as a presidential campaign, public opinion changes over time. Polls that come out claim to merely reflect those changes, but in reality they influence opinion as much as they report it. I spoke once with Dan Jones himself (I took a Poly Sci class from him, and even worked for him for over a year) and he told me that he was concerned about that effect so much, that he once considered closing shop because of it. He was seriously concerned that he was influencing elections by telling people what the results were likely to be before the election was over.
When you are watching poll results, you have an interest in the election. If you have not yet voted (and maybe would not have voted) and you see that your candidate is performing poorly, you are more likely to rush out and vote. That is one scenario. The other, more damaging one, is when you are completely in love with the policies and personality of a candidate, but that person is performing miserably in the polls. Because you think that person has no chance to win, you give your vote to someone else. However, if there were no polls, you would not have changed your vote. Repeat that process millions of times, and elections can end drastically differently. They would reflect what people actually wanted, rather than our human tendency to cheer for the winning team.
#3 The President writes no laws, votes on no laws, funds no laws, defends no laws, and amends no laws. The office has much power, and is in charge of the military, sure. However, the President can have all the policy wishes in the world he wants, and still not get anything done if Congress opposes him. Remember Bill Clinton? How many of his more liberal ideas were quashed by a conservative Congress? It happens all the time. Why then, when the President can only affect change with the cooperation of more than 300 individuals, do we care so much about Presidential policy stances? I think the only reason candidates evoke their policies is to draw a line in the sand, so that people can know where they stand, and what makes them different. I wish they would just say that, rather than making grand claims about what they will change when they get into office. Maybe this is a little thing, but I would much prefer a candidate who says "I think that global warming is a problem" over one that says "If elected, I will stop greenhouse emissions by 2008" because the first is an honest statement of belief, and the second is a vain promise that is nearly impossible to keep in the best of circumstances.
#4 I hate political parties. I think George Washington was right to oppose them at the very beginning, and I oppose them still today. We do not need them. They falsely divide the country between right and left, when most of us are somewhere in the middle. The parties exist for one thing only: gain power and keep power. They have no other motive. In order to keep power, they have to be enemies. If the parties were to merge, there would be no party at all, and people would vote for individuals based on merit. The parties don't want that. They want people to pick a side and stay loyal to that side, so that the sides stay strong. They are like superpowers: they are only defined by their enemy, and only required because the other exists.
America is not really that divided. We are a fairly homogenous people when it comes to politics. We all like free speech, and pretty much are fond of our constitution. We like the free economy and the American dream. We like our cars, our unique style of living, and we like being Americans. You will not see a politician in America arguing for something that is blatantly un-American, such as abolishing the 1st amendment or taxation without representation. At least, that politician would never be taken seriously except for by radical whack-jobs. Instead, the parties draw lines down things that are less crucial, and more divisive, like abortion or same-sex-marriage. Either way that debate goes, America is still America. The parties only want us to feel like we have to pick a side. They want us to feel like something crucial is at stake if the other guys win. What a crock of crap. Even if the other guys win, in 10 years the power will shift back, and the dance will continue. Its a complete con. I think political parties should be unconstitutional. I think persons running for office should all share funding from a communal pool, along with whatever funds they are capable of raising themselves. I think that each election should be a contest of ideas vs. ideas, and not donkeys vs. elephants. We don't need the parties. They need us. I say we should toss them and never let them come back. That way, we might some day see a President who appeals to the largest majority in the country: the moderates. What a day that would be, when the President could be both conservative about family values, but Liberal about health care.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Tribute
Heaven just got a little richer at the expense of mortality. We lost President Hinckley last night. What an enormous loss.
When Dana told me the news, I was not shocked, but was certainly sad. His health has been failing, and the cubicles of Church employees have been buzzing with whispers about him for the last few weeks. He was, after all, 97 years old. Many have said that he was simply not the same since his wife died.
What I loved most about President Hinckley was his humanity. He laughed at himself. He told us to be less rigid and more understanding. He was inclusive, forgiving, tollerant and kind. He told us to stand up for what we believe in, but also to make room for others to stand up as well. He lead the Church I love to greater things than anyone would have dared dream. He was a great man, a spiritual giant, and a true Prophet of God.
I am sorry for the rest of us, but I am happy for him. If ever a soul deserved Heaven, it was him. He spent his entire life in service to others. At an age when most men are sitting in retirement homes watching television, he was traveling the world, building up the church, and lifting hearts and inspiring millions of people. He never slowed down, and worked until 2 days before his death. That kind of dedication is marvelous no matter what the cause, and that kind of dedication to God is especially beautiful.
I love that he was a simple man. Smart but not arrogant, witty but not mean, firm but not harsh. He was such a great leader. He inspired me to live a better life every time I heard him speak. He made me want to be my best self. He showed me the way. He helped me stay close to God. In short, he was a prophet.
I will miss hearing him at General Conference. I will miss his short direct sentences and his little jokes at his own expense. I will miss his clear guidance. I will miss his full lower lip and his non-existant upper one, as they form the words of the Gospel and testify of Christ. I will miss his moving testimony, and his obvious love for the saints. I will miss him.
Heaven is a richer place today for having Gordon B. Hinckley return there. In his quiet, dutiful and unassuming way, he was a hero. He always will be.
God be with you 'til we meet again.
When Dana told me the news, I was not shocked, but was certainly sad. His health has been failing, and the cubicles of Church employees have been buzzing with whispers about him for the last few weeks. He was, after all, 97 years old. Many have said that he was simply not the same since his wife died.
What I loved most about President Hinckley was his humanity. He laughed at himself. He told us to be less rigid and more understanding. He was inclusive, forgiving, tollerant and kind. He told us to stand up for what we believe in, but also to make room for others to stand up as well. He lead the Church I love to greater things than anyone would have dared dream. He was a great man, a spiritual giant, and a true Prophet of God.
I am sorry for the rest of us, but I am happy for him. If ever a soul deserved Heaven, it was him. He spent his entire life in service to others. At an age when most men are sitting in retirement homes watching television, he was traveling the world, building up the church, and lifting hearts and inspiring millions of people. He never slowed down, and worked until 2 days before his death. That kind of dedication is marvelous no matter what the cause, and that kind of dedication to God is especially beautiful.
I love that he was a simple man. Smart but not arrogant, witty but not mean, firm but not harsh. He was such a great leader. He inspired me to live a better life every time I heard him speak. He made me want to be my best self. He showed me the way. He helped me stay close to God. In short, he was a prophet.
I will miss hearing him at General Conference. I will miss his short direct sentences and his little jokes at his own expense. I will miss his clear guidance. I will miss his full lower lip and his non-existant upper one, as they form the words of the Gospel and testify of Christ. I will miss his moving testimony, and his obvious love for the saints. I will miss him.
Heaven is a richer place today for having Gordon B. Hinckley return there. In his quiet, dutiful and unassuming way, he was a hero. He always will be.
God be with you 'til we meet again.
Friday, January 11, 2008
A Bit About Compasses
I tried to resist for a while, but then when an opportunity presented itself, I gave in and went to watch The Golden Compass. I had heard so much rumbling about this alleged atheist film, written by a man who -gasp!- creates a world where God dies. (Heck I dunno. . .Nietzsche anyone? Why is this a big deal every time someone writes it?) I heard the books were written as an answer to C.S. Lewis' masterful and delightful Chronicles of Narnia series, which are a thinly veiled allegory of Christianity.
I have no beef with anyone writing a book about atheism. I have no problem with them writing a book about atheism as a tit-for-tat to another book about Christianity. Similar things have been done in both directions, like the Invictus poem, which was then countered by a Christian version which I think was called "Pilot of My Soul" or something like that.
Suffice it to say, I find no earth-shattering threat in such a book. I don't even find a china shattering threat. However, I am also somewhat selective of which ideas are supported by my money, and I am not exactly thrilled to financially empower an idea with which I do not agree. This film and book are precisely such an idea.
I got around this scruple by getting free tickets to the theater. Problem solved, and I could settle my curiosity about this thing without funding it at the same time. The movie I payed for was I am Legend. -Fan.Friggin.Tastic- but that is a post for another time maybe.
Golden Compass looks really good in the previews. I guess that is what previews are for. Unfortunately however, the previews were much better than the movie itself. This movie fell flat on its mildly intelligent face almost from the very beginning. I have not read the books, so I cannot speak for them, but the movie was insipid and uninspired. There were a few parts that were decent. I like the idea of having your soul be an animal that accompanies you everywhere you go. You would never be lonely, then. I also like the idea of the talking polar bears who wear armor. The bears had a really cool fight scene (it was. . .erm. . .jaw-dropping, you might say). But that is where the praise has to end, more is the pity.
The cadence of the film was incredibly rushed. We were launched into this story about some little girl who can read compasses before we even know enough about her to care about her, and that is the pace of the whole show. The character development is non-existent. The plot is also loose and vague. For unexplained reasons, only this little girl can read this magic compass that tells only the truth (which poses some major philosophical questions about situations when there are more than one truth, but I digress). The fact that she can know is somehow a threat to the big, bad church. Why that is a threat is also unexplained, except it has something to do with a substance called Dust, which is also unexplained, but which you could imagine as a sort of life-force.
The big, bad church is kidnapping kids. They want to separate the kiddies from their animal-souls. Why? Wish I could tell you. Also unexplained. Another unexplained point is why little-miss-compass-queen feels she is up to the task of saving said kiddies from their prison in the frozen North. She makes a promise to rescue her little buddy, but she herself is an orphan with 0 resources to mount an escape. Not letting that stop her, she tries anyway.
The part of the movie that bothers me the most is the air-cowboy. Some people call him Maurice (wee-whew). Little-compass-queen lands in this rough-neck northern town where she knows literally no one. She has a random conversation lasting maybe 20 sentences with this old cowboy, and somehow in that time earns the man's undying devotion. Why? Also unexplained. The only even slightly nice or impressive thing the compass has done to this point is told the little girl where the bear's armor is. She tells the bear (who is an alcoholic outcast in the town) where the armor is, and then he, too seems to owe her his life.
It is all too convenient, all too contrived. Even for an allegory. There were brief glimpses of a possible sub-text. There were some obvious corollaries between things in the story and real-world groups or ideas, however these corollaries were so strained and comical as to lose their potential power. A church that wants to tear the souls away from children to make them more teachable? Please. How about a church who consumes the souls of children to give them power or something. Much better.
The only thing I really liked about this movie was Nicole Kidman's character. This role was so effortless, I think it was not really acting, but just her being herself. You see, I have this suspicion that she is really a horrendous beast of a woman, who happens to look fantastic.
In the end, I left the movie feeling two things: disappointed that the ideas behind the movie were too weak to have any power in movie form, and thankful to C.S. Lewis for writing the Chronicles of Narnia with such clarity and power. One ironic thing I saw: the preview for the next Narnia movie played before the movie started. Sweet.
I have no beef with anyone writing a book about atheism. I have no problem with them writing a book about atheism as a tit-for-tat to another book about Christianity. Similar things have been done in both directions, like the Invictus poem, which was then countered by a Christian version which I think was called "Pilot of My Soul" or something like that.
Suffice it to say, I find no earth-shattering threat in such a book. I don't even find a china shattering threat. However, I am also somewhat selective of which ideas are supported by my money, and I am not exactly thrilled to financially empower an idea with which I do not agree. This film and book are precisely such an idea.
I got around this scruple by getting free tickets to the theater. Problem solved, and I could settle my curiosity about this thing without funding it at the same time. The movie I payed for was I am Legend. -Fan.Friggin.Tastic- but that is a post for another time maybe.
Golden Compass looks really good in the previews. I guess that is what previews are for. Unfortunately however, the previews were much better than the movie itself. This movie fell flat on its mildly intelligent face almost from the very beginning. I have not read the books, so I cannot speak for them, but the movie was insipid and uninspired. There were a few parts that were decent. I like the idea of having your soul be an animal that accompanies you everywhere you go. You would never be lonely, then. I also like the idea of the talking polar bears who wear armor. The bears had a really cool fight scene (it was. . .erm. . .jaw-dropping, you might say). But that is where the praise has to end, more is the pity.
The cadence of the film was incredibly rushed. We were launched into this story about some little girl who can read compasses before we even know enough about her to care about her, and that is the pace of the whole show. The character development is non-existent. The plot is also loose and vague. For unexplained reasons, only this little girl can read this magic compass that tells only the truth (which poses some major philosophical questions about situations when there are more than one truth, but I digress). The fact that she can know is somehow a threat to the big, bad church. Why that is a threat is also unexplained, except it has something to do with a substance called Dust, which is also unexplained, but which you could imagine as a sort of life-force.
The big, bad church is kidnapping kids. They want to separate the kiddies from their animal-souls. Why? Wish I could tell you. Also unexplained. Another unexplained point is why little-miss-compass-queen feels she is up to the task of saving said kiddies from their prison in the frozen North. She makes a promise to rescue her little buddy, but she herself is an orphan with 0 resources to mount an escape. Not letting that stop her, she tries anyway.
The part of the movie that bothers me the most is the air-cowboy. Some people call him Maurice (wee-whew). Little-compass-queen lands in this rough-neck northern town where she knows literally no one. She has a random conversation lasting maybe 20 sentences with this old cowboy, and somehow in that time earns the man's undying devotion. Why? Also unexplained. The only even slightly nice or impressive thing the compass has done to this point is told the little girl where the bear's armor is. She tells the bear (who is an alcoholic outcast in the town) where the armor is, and then he, too seems to owe her his life.
It is all too convenient, all too contrived. Even for an allegory. There were brief glimpses of a possible sub-text. There were some obvious corollaries between things in the story and real-world groups or ideas, however these corollaries were so strained and comical as to lose their potential power. A church that wants to tear the souls away from children to make them more teachable? Please. How about a church who consumes the souls of children to give them power or something. Much better.
The only thing I really liked about this movie was Nicole Kidman's character. This role was so effortless, I think it was not really acting, but just her being herself. You see, I have this suspicion that she is really a horrendous beast of a woman, who happens to look fantastic.
In the end, I left the movie feeling two things: disappointed that the ideas behind the movie were too weak to have any power in movie form, and thankful to C.S. Lewis for writing the Chronicles of Narnia with such clarity and power. One ironic thing I saw: the preview for the next Narnia movie played before the movie started. Sweet.
Friday, January 4, 2008
A Bit on Politics
I intentionally avoided watching the Iowa caucus results yesterday, but I could not avoid hearing about them this morning. Truth be told, I am pleased with the surprising results. Hilary in 3rd place makes me happy. I was starting to feel like an outsider for finding her untrustworthy, unappealing, and utterly undesirable as President. What could she possibly hope to bring to the table? She can't even control her own house-hold, or her husband. How could she possibly hope to control the entire country?
I was thrilled that Obama did so well. His policies may not be completely what I am looking for, but then again, I have never been sure why people care so much about the empty promises presidential candidates make. Nothing a president wants to get done can happen without Congress and the Senate. The president writes no bills, and can't even go to war for two months without congress approving it. I hear all these big promises the candidates are making (like getting rid of the IRS. What a joke) and I ask myself: with what congress? Which senators are you going to kill off so that you can fill their seats with your puppets? In the end, it is all so much hot air. Politics in America is too complicated for any one person, even the President, to create change on their own.
What I like about Obama is his charisma. He is young, he is intelligent, he is well spoken. I would be proud to call him my President, and I think he is a person the world would respect. After having a mediocre bumpkin rancher in the Oval Office for 8 years, lord knows we need someone respectable in the office. At least someone who has a mastery of the English language. I can't tell you how often I have felt embarassed by Dubbya when I have been traveling abroad, especially in Europe. The Europeans have a history of not liking American politics much, but they have generally respected our President. They completely respected Clinton and Reagan, for example. Dubbya, however, they revile. He is an international laughing-stock and a liability for the country.
So hurray for Obama. I hope he pulls it off, and gets the Democratic nomination. At least he will present me with an attractive option.
I hope my other option is Mitt Romney. I really like the guy. I have met him. One of the smartest, most well-spoken, talented leaders I have ever seen. I worked as a volunteer for the Olympics in 2002, and he single-handedly turned that fiasco into one of the best olympics in modern history. He is also a man I would be proud to have as president. Again, people fault him for changing his official stance on abortion and gay rights, but he will not, as President, be able to change any of those things himself. Those changes are up to the senate and the Supreme Court. Even if the President appoints 5 new justices to the court in his term, those justices still are the ones who will decide the legality of abortion, not the president.
I was sad to see that Mitt got 10,000 less votes in Iowa. I hope that he has something else up his sleeve, since Huckabee threatens to just be more of the same in the Bush ilk. I read that his main supporters are gun clubs, home-school families, and Christian fundamentalists. In other words, the extreem right. The same people who refuse to allow Romney to be a Christian even though he ends his prayers with the words: in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. These are not the people I want chosing my next president. I don't want fundamental anything chosing my president. I want main-stream, popular America chosing my president. I want a president who can and will appeal to both sides of the nation.
We will see what New Hampshire brings. I hope Romney can rally more voters, and I also hope that Huckabee will be shown to be the light-weight dreamer that he seems to be. If all politicians are full of hot-air, then Huckabee could be the Re/Max balloon.
OK, I am gonna calm down, and get back into my own work-a-day life. No matter who wins the election, America will still be the best place on earth to live, still have the best people, still be my home. I just hope I won't have to be embarassed about my president for another 4 years.
I was thrilled that Obama did so well. His policies may not be completely what I am looking for, but then again, I have never been sure why people care so much about the empty promises presidential candidates make. Nothing a president wants to get done can happen without Congress and the Senate. The president writes no bills, and can't even go to war for two months without congress approving it. I hear all these big promises the candidates are making (like getting rid of the IRS. What a joke) and I ask myself: with what congress? Which senators are you going to kill off so that you can fill their seats with your puppets? In the end, it is all so much hot air. Politics in America is too complicated for any one person, even the President, to create change on their own.
What I like about Obama is his charisma. He is young, he is intelligent, he is well spoken. I would be proud to call him my President, and I think he is a person the world would respect. After having a mediocre bumpkin rancher in the Oval Office for 8 years, lord knows we need someone respectable in the office. At least someone who has a mastery of the English language. I can't tell you how often I have felt embarassed by Dubbya when I have been traveling abroad, especially in Europe. The Europeans have a history of not liking American politics much, but they have generally respected our President. They completely respected Clinton and Reagan, for example. Dubbya, however, they revile. He is an international laughing-stock and a liability for the country.
So hurray for Obama. I hope he pulls it off, and gets the Democratic nomination. At least he will present me with an attractive option.
I hope my other option is Mitt Romney. I really like the guy. I have met him. One of the smartest, most well-spoken, talented leaders I have ever seen. I worked as a volunteer for the Olympics in 2002, and he single-handedly turned that fiasco into one of the best olympics in modern history. He is also a man I would be proud to have as president. Again, people fault him for changing his official stance on abortion and gay rights, but he will not, as President, be able to change any of those things himself. Those changes are up to the senate and the Supreme Court. Even if the President appoints 5 new justices to the court in his term, those justices still are the ones who will decide the legality of abortion, not the president.
I was sad to see that Mitt got 10,000 less votes in Iowa. I hope that he has something else up his sleeve, since Huckabee threatens to just be more of the same in the Bush ilk. I read that his main supporters are gun clubs, home-school families, and Christian fundamentalists. In other words, the extreem right. The same people who refuse to allow Romney to be a Christian even though he ends his prayers with the words: in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. These are not the people I want chosing my next president. I don't want fundamental anything chosing my president. I want main-stream, popular America chosing my president. I want a president who can and will appeal to both sides of the nation.
We will see what New Hampshire brings. I hope Romney can rally more voters, and I also hope that Huckabee will be shown to be the light-weight dreamer that he seems to be. If all politicians are full of hot-air, then Huckabee could be the Re/Max balloon.
OK, I am gonna calm down, and get back into my own work-a-day life. No matter who wins the election, America will still be the best place on earth to live, still have the best people, still be my home. I just hope I won't have to be embarassed about my president for another 4 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)