If you keep assiduous track of who's following you, your count has probably dropped and I am among the missing. This does not mean I'm not interested in your blog. Quite the contrary. I have simply moved about 100 blogs previously being "followed" onto my blog list to the right, so that anyone checking out this site will be more easily aware of yours, too. My categories are: Atheist, Feminist, Political, Spiritual/Philosophy, Neurodiversity, and just general Favorites.
If you think your blog belongs in a category other than where it is now, let me know and I'll move you.
If you haven't posted in months & months, I've left you where you were for the time being.
Happy reading / writing.
Click Here to Read More..
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 26, 2010
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The commandment that comes with an asterisk
Something occurs to me, reading headlines about teabag wingnuts and their consistently outrageous claims about President Obama.
These allegations are obviously lies. Sure, some of these people are truly around the bend -- especially those who have access to little more than a keyboard, and dutifully forward the wacky reforwarded e-mails they get from equally confused, pathetic people such as themselves. They sometimes don't know better, by virtue of insufficient education, low IQ, and/or social insulation. Sometimes they do know better, deep down, but it's easier to remain ignorant.
But then you have the people who promulgate this garbage.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Other Victims of the Right-wing Hate Machine
This report from the Southern Poverty Law Center was the last thing I read before going to bed late last night, and it popped out at me first thing this morning.
One excerpt in particular struck me:
April 4, 2009
Three Pittsburgh police officers — Paul Sciullo III, Stephen Mayhle and Eric Kelly — are fatally shot and a fourth, Timothy McManaway, is wounded after responding to a domestic dispute at the home of Richard Andrew Poplawski, who had posted his racist and anti-Semitic views on white supremacist websites. In one post, Poplawski talks about wanting a white supremacist tattoo. He also reportedly tells a friend that America is controlled by a cabal of Jews, that U.S. troops may soon be directed against American citizens, and that he fears a ban on guns was coming. Poplawski later allegedly tells investigators that he fired extra bullets into the bodies of two of the officers "just to make sure they were dead" and says he "thought I got that one, too" when told that the fourth officer survived. More law enforcement officers are killed during the incident than in any other single act of violence by a domestic political extremist since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Here's the thing: I frequent a local message forum. It's a mixed bag of media veterans, minor celebrities, entrepreneurs, low-level politicians, stay-at-home moms, retired people, and just regular workin' folk.
Oh, and law enforcement. Mustn't forget the LEO's. There are at least four in our group, perhaps two to three more who don't post as frequently. We have a moderator for all LE-related topics; one who's sort of a philosopher and a brilliant writer; and then, well, we've got two other guys.
The moderator and the writer, I've met. Both relatively young, both married (neither for the first time); both have children. One actually has a child less than a year old. Their genuine dedication to their families and their jobs, and by extension, to the rest of us, can't be doubted. I have a lot of respect for both of them. Overall, their political leanings are conservative. I don't think it's possible to be effective in law enforcement unless you've got that mindset: The rules are made to be followed, if the law isn't respected all you get is anarchy, you can't be soft on crime, etc. etc.
However, the thing I sense about the moderator and the writer is their essential humanity and kindness. Neither of these guys is a bully. They may be cynics, but they have enough broad experience in the world to understand that "bad guys" come in all stripes and a measure of impartiality includes the notion that not even someone you think of as "respectable" is immune to sliding toward the dark side, under the right circumstances.
Now the other two guys, the ones I haven't met, are both prolific posters. I realize that the forum is an outlet of sorts. The writer has a better one: He actually gets paid to submit columns (under a pseudonym) to the newspaper, and he's earned accolades just in the year he's been doing it. We feel like he's "ours" and we're proud of him. But these other two specialize only in snarky one-liners and opinions that often come very close to hate speech.
This isn't a big city, so every one of these guys has worked the area I call home. What strikes me is, the latter two most assuredly harbor a lot of the "us vs. them" mindset that trickles down from the alleged minds of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly - the idea that only whites really have it together; that minorities are more prone to drug use and crime; that we need a strong military-style government in charge and it should be based on very conservative Christian values.
What inspired me to even write this was a clip someone posted featuring Glenn Beck speaking to Ron Paul about the whole "one world government/Federal Reserve at the center of everything/they're taking over and no one is doing anything about it" trip. And just as predictable as clockwork, one of our one-line LE pundits chimes in with something along the lines of "Yes I know the country's going to hell in a handbasket, but what do you want us to do about it?"
This guy, based on his huge number of posts, clearly believes that white male Republicans who listen to Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly are the key to preserving the status quo, and that everybody else (liberals, feminists and non-whites who don't know their place) are determinedly chipping away at it.
Looking more closely at his posted response, the two components that leap out at me are "us" and "do about it."
That brought me back to the excerpt that I started this with. Richard Poplawski is a classic right-wing extremist wingnut who also sees the world in terms of "us vs. them" and "do something about it."
And "do something," he did. As a result, three police officers are dead and one wounded. The guy with the gun was not "from the projects." He did not match the profile of any of the usual suspects that my LE acquaintances grumble about on a regular basis. He was, in fact, if you want to be kind about it, a white working stiff upholding his second-amendment rights. Just like so many of those who pepper the online paper here in town with their dubious wisdom. So many of them see white conservatives as working hand in hand with law enforcement against a common "enemy." "If you're not for us, you're against us," is the underlying theme.
So who came for Richard Poplawski's guns? Surprise! It wasn't President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow. It was three guys who, if inclined, would quite likely have been posting on our forum about how "guvmint" is looking to unleash the anarchists and dismantle the beloved traditional hierarchies that made this country great.
And I wonder if the LE guys who post anonymously with such swagger are considering any of this. If they see the glaring logical fallacy in their views.
The side they so ardently support could one day be the death of them. Literally.
. Click Here to Read More..
One excerpt in particular struck me:
April 4, 2009
Three Pittsburgh police officers — Paul Sciullo III, Stephen Mayhle and Eric Kelly — are fatally shot and a fourth, Timothy McManaway, is wounded after responding to a domestic dispute at the home of Richard Andrew Poplawski, who had posted his racist and anti-Semitic views on white supremacist websites. In one post, Poplawski talks about wanting a white supremacist tattoo. He also reportedly tells a friend that America is controlled by a cabal of Jews, that U.S. troops may soon be directed against American citizens, and that he fears a ban on guns was coming. Poplawski later allegedly tells investigators that he fired extra bullets into the bodies of two of the officers "just to make sure they were dead" and says he "thought I got that one, too" when told that the fourth officer survived. More law enforcement officers are killed during the incident than in any other single act of violence by a domestic political extremist since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Here's the thing: I frequent a local message forum. It's a mixed bag of media veterans, minor celebrities, entrepreneurs, low-level politicians, stay-at-home moms, retired people, and just regular workin' folk.
Oh, and law enforcement. Mustn't forget the LEO's. There are at least four in our group, perhaps two to three more who don't post as frequently. We have a moderator for all LE-related topics; one who's sort of a philosopher and a brilliant writer; and then, well, we've got two other guys.
The moderator and the writer, I've met. Both relatively young, both married (neither for the first time); both have children. One actually has a child less than a year old. Their genuine dedication to their families and their jobs, and by extension, to the rest of us, can't be doubted. I have a lot of respect for both of them. Overall, their political leanings are conservative. I don't think it's possible to be effective in law enforcement unless you've got that mindset: The rules are made to be followed, if the law isn't respected all you get is anarchy, you can't be soft on crime, etc. etc.
However, the thing I sense about the moderator and the writer is their essential humanity and kindness. Neither of these guys is a bully. They may be cynics, but they have enough broad experience in the world to understand that "bad guys" come in all stripes and a measure of impartiality includes the notion that not even someone you think of as "respectable" is immune to sliding toward the dark side, under the right circumstances.
Now the other two guys, the ones I haven't met, are both prolific posters. I realize that the forum is an outlet of sorts. The writer has a better one: He actually gets paid to submit columns (under a pseudonym) to the newspaper, and he's earned accolades just in the year he's been doing it. We feel like he's "ours" and we're proud of him. But these other two specialize only in snarky one-liners and opinions that often come very close to hate speech.
This isn't a big city, so every one of these guys has worked the area I call home. What strikes me is, the latter two most assuredly harbor a lot of the "us vs. them" mindset that trickles down from the alleged minds of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly - the idea that only whites really have it together; that minorities are more prone to drug use and crime; that we need a strong military-style government in charge and it should be based on very conservative Christian values.
What inspired me to even write this was a clip someone posted featuring Glenn Beck speaking to Ron Paul about the whole "one world government/Federal Reserve at the center of everything/they're taking over and no one is doing anything about it" trip. And just as predictable as clockwork, one of our one-line LE pundits chimes in with something along the lines of "Yes I know the country's going to hell in a handbasket, but what do you want us to do about it?"
This guy, based on his huge number of posts, clearly believes that white male Republicans who listen to Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly are the key to preserving the status quo, and that everybody else (liberals, feminists and non-whites who don't know their place) are determinedly chipping away at it.
Looking more closely at his posted response, the two components that leap out at me are "us" and "do about it."
That brought me back to the excerpt that I started this with. Richard Poplawski is a classic right-wing extremist wingnut who also sees the world in terms of "us vs. them" and "do something about it."
And "do something," he did. As a result, three police officers are dead and one wounded. The guy with the gun was not "from the projects." He did not match the profile of any of the usual suspects that my LE acquaintances grumble about on a regular basis. He was, in fact, if you want to be kind about it, a white working stiff upholding his second-amendment rights. Just like so many of those who pepper the online paper here in town with their dubious wisdom. So many of them see white conservatives as working hand in hand with law enforcement against a common "enemy." "If you're not for us, you're against us," is the underlying theme.
So who came for Richard Poplawski's guns? Surprise! It wasn't President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Rachel Maddow. It was three guys who, if inclined, would quite likely have been posting on our forum about how "guvmint" is looking to unleash the anarchists and dismantle the beloved traditional hierarchies that made this country great.
And I wonder if the LE guys who post anonymously with such swagger are considering any of this. If they see the glaring logical fallacy in their views.
The side they so ardently support could one day be the death of them. Literally.
. Click Here to Read More..
Saturday, June 06, 2009
You Can't Pigeonhole What's Personal
I suspect I'm not alone in keeping a running list of potential book titles in my head. One of those, which perhaps one day I'll actually write and publish, is called It's Always Personal. There's no such thing as "wholly objective" politics or ideology. The convictions that often turn into far-reaching public policy come from the personal experiences of one individual, who perchance connects with others who share similar experiences. When these people and their common bond find themselves in "the right place at the right time," you can end up with new paths in history.
My little thesis gets a boost from this article in the New York Times, comparing Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor with the sitting 18-year veteran Clarence Thomas. Two minority Catholics, not too far apart in age, whose worldviews are at distant poles.
So what's personal? Experience and temperament.
Mr. Thomas learned he could rely only on himself. His father left when he was a toddler. A few years later, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents, dumping his possessions in grocery bags and sending him out the front door, he wrote in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son.”
Ms. Sotomayor also grew up without a father; hers died of heart problems when she was 9. But her mother was a sustaining force, supporting the family by working as a nurse. In a recent speech, Judge Sotomayor recalled her mother and grandmother chatting and chopping ingredients for dinner. “I can’t describe to you the warmth of that moment for a child,” she said.
And what if these two histories were reversed? Isolate little Sonia from nurturing family connections, and put young Clarence in a warmer, more close-knit and positive-thinking family, and what would you get?
We'll obviously never know. I suspect that with such an upbringing, Sotomayor would still have carved a niche for herself, still identifying with the underdog and championing their rights -- if not at Princeton, then perhaps among less prestigious, more subversive company. And Mr. Thomas may have gained the confidence to push forward and join those elite "insiders" who so intimidated and frustrated him at Yale, rather than hanging back and feeling permanently isolated from everything he really wanted.
It is as pointless to speculate about something that will never be, as it is to dismiss such factors and expect any individual to "put aside" their personal experience when called to the bench. Neither Sotomayor nor Thomas wears blinders that render them incapable of seeing the other side of an argument. Both are highly intelligent and idealistic.
In the final analysis, both are human. No one can expect anything more or less. Click Here to Read More..
My little thesis gets a boost from this article in the New York Times, comparing Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor with the sitting 18-year veteran Clarence Thomas. Two minority Catholics, not too far apart in age, whose worldviews are at distant poles.
So what's personal? Experience and temperament.
Mr. Thomas learned he could rely only on himself. His father left when he was a toddler. A few years later, his mother sent him to live with his grandparents, dumping his possessions in grocery bags and sending him out the front door, he wrote in his autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son.”
Ms. Sotomayor also grew up without a father; hers died of heart problems when she was 9. But her mother was a sustaining force, supporting the family by working as a nurse. In a recent speech, Judge Sotomayor recalled her mother and grandmother chatting and chopping ingredients for dinner. “I can’t describe to you the warmth of that moment for a child,” she said.
And what if these two histories were reversed? Isolate little Sonia from nurturing family connections, and put young Clarence in a warmer, more close-knit and positive-thinking family, and what would you get?
We'll obviously never know. I suspect that with such an upbringing, Sotomayor would still have carved a niche for herself, still identifying with the underdog and championing their rights -- if not at Princeton, then perhaps among less prestigious, more subversive company. And Mr. Thomas may have gained the confidence to push forward and join those elite "insiders" who so intimidated and frustrated him at Yale, rather than hanging back and feeling permanently isolated from everything he really wanted.
It is as pointless to speculate about something that will never be, as it is to dismiss such factors and expect any individual to "put aside" their personal experience when called to the bench. Neither Sotomayor nor Thomas wears blinders that render them incapable of seeing the other side of an argument. Both are highly intelligent and idealistic.
In the final analysis, both are human. No one can expect anything more or less. Click Here to Read More..
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Making Lists, Killing Time
Confession: I'm killing time to avoid having to confront the painful reality of tax preparation. And that's all I have to say about that.
As for the lists, I have subdivided my blog list into categories, mainly because the list was getting unwieldy. Some of the categories are pretty easy, especially "Atheist Blogs," because a great many have the "A" word in the title or the "scarlet letter" prominently featured.
I originally had two separate categories in mind for "liberal" blogs and "political" blogs, but truthfully, you're not going to find any "Townhall"-style bloggers featured here, so for me, "liberal" and "political" are a tad redundant.
Skeptic/atheist/freethinker that I am, I still attend a Unitarian Universalist church, as I've mentioned here and there; it's an adventure to sort out objective reality from wonder (or "woo-woo," as our minister calls it). Yesterday's "unknown" is today's science and the same undoubtedly holds true now, for the most part. Yet, there are still questions about how we grow our worldview, and anyone who takes on this challenge full-time deserves recognition, which is why the "Religion/Philosophy" list is separate.
The feminist blog list is small, and I am in the process of remedying that.
As for the rest, a number of my favorites fall into several categories all at once, or offer an unblinking and unintimidated view of the author's everyday life, which I find irresistible and often inspirational. We are, indeed, all in this together and blogging helps provide great reassurance of that. There are a few expert blogs in here, as well as irreverent humor -- in all cases, you'll find an abundance of talent and great writing.
If you're a blog author and you want to persuade me to move your blog to another list, drop a line. Meanwhile, enjoy and have a good rest of the weekend. Click Here to Read More..
As for the lists, I have subdivided my blog list into categories, mainly because the list was getting unwieldy. Some of the categories are pretty easy, especially "Atheist Blogs," because a great many have the "A" word in the title or the "scarlet letter" prominently featured.
I originally had two separate categories in mind for "liberal" blogs and "political" blogs, but truthfully, you're not going to find any "Townhall"-style bloggers featured here, so for me, "liberal" and "political" are a tad redundant.
Skeptic/atheist/freethinker that I am, I still attend a Unitarian Universalist church, as I've mentioned here and there; it's an adventure to sort out objective reality from wonder (or "woo-woo," as our minister calls it). Yesterday's "unknown" is today's science and the same undoubtedly holds true now, for the most part. Yet, there are still questions about how we grow our worldview, and anyone who takes on this challenge full-time deserves recognition, which is why the "Religion/Philosophy" list is separate.
The feminist blog list is small, and I am in the process of remedying that.
As for the rest, a number of my favorites fall into several categories all at once, or offer an unblinking and unintimidated view of the author's everyday life, which I find irresistible and often inspirational. We are, indeed, all in this together and blogging helps provide great reassurance of that. There are a few expert blogs in here, as well as irreverent humor -- in all cases, you'll find an abundance of talent and great writing.
If you're a blog author and you want to persuade me to move your blog to another list, drop a line. Meanwhile, enjoy and have a good rest of the weekend. Click Here to Read More..
Friday, December 19, 2008
Now I Wonder
I was reading yet another article about the trend wherein some doctors and pharmacists won't prescribe or fill prescriptions for contraceptives because of their religious beliefs. I guess I was idly thinking how glad I was never to have been victimized that way ... and then I remembered something.
Back in 2003 I went permanent as an employee at a large company that had excellent health benefits. We had insurance through a large company that offered prescriptions by mail at a discount.
My primary care physician gave me my first full physical in years and asked me a lot of questions. One of the things I answered yes to was breast pain. As a remedy, he recommended low-dose estrogen oral contraceptives.
I'd used the pill only once before that, during the year following childbirth by C-section and gallbladder surgery that came soon after. It seemed to me that getting pregnant would be particularly dangerous during that year, so I went on the pill, but gave it up after repeatedly forgetting to take it daily. Fortunately, I didn't get pregnant, but had not considered ever using it again. However, the breast pain was fairly severe, so I followed my doctor's recommendation.
I ordered the prescription through the insurer and stayed on it for about 2 years. I suppose it did help the breast pain to an extent; it didn't make much difference in my cycles, other than enabling me to know exactly when they would start each month.
But I ran into trouble repeatedly with the pharmacy-by-mail folks. I would send in my payment ahead of time, and then the medicine would not arrive. On at least 4 different occasions, I would have to get on the phone with the insurance company and explain that although I had paid for the prescription, the medicine was failing to arrive on time. Disrupting the 28-day cycle threw everything off and of course, I had to worry about becoming pregnant even with a backup method. Ultimately, I left that job and the benefits that went with it, and haven't bothered to go back on the pill. I'm 50 now and figure menopause is bound to hit sooner than later...
But it wasn't until this evening, reflecting on this news topic, that I began to wonder if my missing birth control pills were due to something more sinister than bureaucratic incompetence. Was someone deliberately "neglecting" to fill my prescription? Or were they perhaps setting my order aside or on the bottom of the pile, to give the impression that they were technically taking care of it but letting it lapse long enough to increase the chances of my becoming pregnant?
My current job has just begun offering pharmacy-by-mail, but with a different insurance company. I haven't considered going back on the pill -- my current doctor would probably discourage it simply because my pre-menopausal symptoms benefit more from topical progesterone than estrogen -- but if I ever did deal with one of these mail-order pharmacies again, I'd be much more aggressive in insisting that my order be fulfilled to my standards.
Click Here to Read More..Wednesday, November 26, 2008
This is New! Yeah -- It is!
My local online-only news site offers the absolute best and worst of grass-roots opinion. Never mind people having to give their real names when they send in a "letter to the editor." Never mind spelling, grammar or logical coherency. If you want boring stuff like that, read the New York Times.
One erudite soul wrote in to express the opinion that Barack Obama is "scary," by virtue of the fact that he appears in his press conferences behind a podium that carries the label "Office of the President-elect."
To this guy, it's all part of that grand conspiracy to take over the world. The man and his minions of secret Marxist satanists. How dare the guy actually prepare for the most important office in the world, which he's going to be assuming in less than 2 months?
No, he should be more like his predecessor, who did NO advance preparation for his office. Or none that any of us knew about. It was actually all done for him, by his handlers, who had been preparing for January 20, 2001 since approximately June of 1974.
Next time I show up early to a meeting, or make an effort to be prepared for anything important, I'll also be ready with an apology for my arrogance and Marxist-Satanist leanings. Click Here to Read More..
One erudite soul wrote in to express the opinion that Barack Obama is "scary," by virtue of the fact that he appears in his press conferences behind a podium that carries the label "Office of the President-elect."
To this guy, it's all part of that grand conspiracy to take over the world. The man and his minions of secret Marxist satanists. How dare the guy actually prepare for the most important office in the world, which he's going to be assuming in less than 2 months?
No, he should be more like his predecessor, who did NO advance preparation for his office. Or none that any of us knew about. It was actually all done for him, by his handlers, who had been preparing for January 20, 2001 since approximately June of 1974.
Next time I show up early to a meeting, or make an effort to be prepared for anything important, I'll also be ready with an apology for my arrogance and Marxist-Satanist leanings. Click Here to Read More..
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Steeplejacking!
Time to put back that Amazon widget and stick this one up there...
In their new book Steeplejacking United Church of Christ Ministers John Dorhauer and Sheldon Culver describe the organized efforts of the religious right to silence the members of the religious left within mainline Protestant churches.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy was founded in 1981 by conservative Democrats who realized that liberal elements in the mainline Protestant churches had been among the most powerful opponents of hawkish American foreign policy. Over the years, the Institute has been very successful in turning the flocks of liberal pastors against them.
More on this... Click Here to Read More..Friday, November 14, 2008
Randomosity
I've been both busy AND blocked, to the point that I haven't even had time to sit down and check in with all the blogs on my list. Typically, I comment way more than I post, but in the last week, that has fallen off. Still, I find myself reading various things online and thinking it would make a good topic for a post if only I had the time.
So, here I'll just toss a few out, hope one or two sticks to the wall, and then perhaps come back this weekend and and expand.
1. Blame it on (the) Moon
This article from 3 months back fascinated me when I was directed to it this morning. It had always struck me, however vaguely, that while in the early 1970s, Rev. Moon was viewed as nothing but another potentially dangerous cult leader, all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, he was the owner of a respectable conservative newspaper, The Washington Times, and no one was sounding alarm bells about him anymore. In view of Jim Jones and David Koresh, to name but two, it did seem odd that Reverend Moon was no longer the focus of suspicion and distrust. This should help clear it up quite nicely, for anyone else who might have wondered about it.
2. Just move it to "fiction," already.
Some online friends of mine are having yet another debate about what the creation story in Genesis really said, really meant, etc. One person pointed out the passage in which Adam and Eve, having eaten from the tree of knowledge, covered their nakedness and then tried to hide from God. God came looking for them, and this person pointed out how silly that was -- what, his omniscience failed all of a sudden? He couldn't see behind a rock or a tree?
I just don't get why people debate the bible at all. How much simpler our lives would be to just say "Ah, some primitive type trying to make sense out of life's mysteries. An interesting take...flawed...I mean, look at the terrible plot devices and stilted dialogue. But kind of quaint to read. Now what were we talking about before? Oh, yeah...what we're going to do this weekend..."
Well, lunch hour is rapidly drawing to a close, so I'll post more as I think of them. I'm very, very glad it's Friday. Click Here to Read More..
So, here I'll just toss a few out, hope one or two sticks to the wall, and then perhaps come back this weekend and and expand.
1. Blame it on (the) Moon
This article from 3 months back fascinated me when I was directed to it this morning. It had always struck me, however vaguely, that while in the early 1970s, Rev. Moon was viewed as nothing but another potentially dangerous cult leader, all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, he was the owner of a respectable conservative newspaper, The Washington Times, and no one was sounding alarm bells about him anymore. In view of Jim Jones and David Koresh, to name but two, it did seem odd that Reverend Moon was no longer the focus of suspicion and distrust. This should help clear it up quite nicely, for anyone else who might have wondered about it.
2. Just move it to "fiction," already.
Some online friends of mine are having yet another debate about what the creation story in Genesis really said, really meant, etc. One person pointed out the passage in which Adam and Eve, having eaten from the tree of knowledge, covered their nakedness and then tried to hide from God. God came looking for them, and this person pointed out how silly that was -- what, his omniscience failed all of a sudden? He couldn't see behind a rock or a tree?
I just don't get why people debate the bible at all. How much simpler our lives would be to just say "Ah, some primitive type trying to make sense out of life's mysteries. An interesting take...flawed...I mean, look at the terrible plot devices and stilted dialogue. But kind of quaint to read. Now what were we talking about before? Oh, yeah...what we're going to do this weekend..."
Well, lunch hour is rapidly drawing to a close, so I'll post more as I think of them. I'm very, very glad it's Friday. Click Here to Read More..
Thursday, October 23, 2008
He's Honest. You Gotta Give Him That.
Like many others in the 1990s, I thought of Alan Greenspan as some sort of financial guru. It wasn't my area, really (still isn't, probably never will be), but he was one person for whom I was willing to put aside my core liberal inclinations and go with the free-market flow. It seemed to be working, at least for me ... I had a steady job and was getting along well enough; there seemed abundant, limitless hope for the economy of the future. I had plenty of other stuff to worry about besides macroeconomics.
Well, now the macro has, um, trickled down here to us micro types; it's all falling to pieces (though, knock wood, I remain employed and expect to continue that way), and Mr. Greenspan has had to come crawling out of his peaceful retirement and eat crow up on Capitol Hill.
I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him. He's not a smug, smirking, insensitive jerkwad like Phil Gramm, who seems to think anybody who isn't mindlessly happy continuing the status quo unto infinity is merely a "whiner."
No, Alan Greenspan came clean. He said, in effect, "I was wrong." And this is how he said it:
Greenspan called this
"a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works."
I mean, dayum, that is elegant! He not only admits to being wrong about housing prices, the banking industry, the credit system and deregulation, he basically says he was wrong about EVERYTHING.
And at the age of ! 82 !, he's -- dare I say the word? -- articulate.
My family of origin had a few stock sayings. One of them was "Let's face it..."
Another was "He's honest. You gotta give him that."
I'll give it to him.
What the hell. Click Here to Read More..
Well, now the macro has, um, trickled down here to us micro types; it's all falling to pieces (though, knock wood, I remain employed and expect to continue that way), and Mr. Greenspan has had to come crawling out of his peaceful retirement and eat crow up on Capitol Hill.
I don't hate the guy, or even dislike him. He's not a smug, smirking, insensitive jerkwad like Phil Gramm, who seems to think anybody who isn't mindlessly happy continuing the status quo unto infinity is merely a "whiner."
No, Alan Greenspan came clean. He said, in effect, "I was wrong." And this is how he said it:
Greenspan called this
"a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works."
I mean, dayum, that is elegant! He not only admits to being wrong about housing prices, the banking industry, the credit system and deregulation, he basically says he was wrong about EVERYTHING.
And at the age of ! 82 !, he's -- dare I say the word? -- articulate.
My family of origin had a few stock sayings. One of them was "Let's face it..."
Another was "He's honest. You gotta give him that."
I'll give it to him.
What the hell. Click Here to Read More..
Sunday, October 05, 2008
The other day I sent an e-mail to nearly everyone I know, advising them of the shenanigans in the current election cycle -- polling places being relocated without warning, voters being dropped from the registration rolls, etc.
In my neighborhood, the Urban League has been a familiar presence at our meetings, warning residents of the importance, not only of registering to vote, but of VERIFYING their registration status and polling place. Reed Braden, in his blog, provided a useful link. That's what prompted me to send my e-blast, and the responses have been rather interesting.
Many of the folks on my list do not live in a neighborhood like mine. They will send back responses such as "I've been registered to vote since I was 18, and I voted in the primaries...no problem here." But not far from where I live, a friend was on the local news the day of the primaries, talking about how he had arrived at his nearby elementary school, only to be told that the polling place was now about 2 miles away. No problem for him, because he had time and wheels. But there are plenty of people near me who are quite elderly, unable to drive, depending on either public transportation or friends to get them to the polling place. They get up early, put on their best clothes, and make a day of it. When the polling place is moved somewhere else, or the friendly lady at the table "just can't seem to find" their name anywhere, it's devastating.
Another friend of mine wrote back that voters have "legal recourse" when they feel their rights have been infringed upon. All well and good, but again, when you're in your 80s and your locomotion and communication skills have deteriorated, it can be a lot of trouble to locate the right phone number to call answer the myriad questions sure to be asked.
That's the story on enrollment and polling places. BUT...
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...
It's out there, folks. The right to vote is under attack. Be vigilant.
Whoops, I need to tweak my codes. There is nothing else beyond this point! Click Here to Read More..
In my neighborhood, the Urban League has been a familiar presence at our meetings, warning residents of the importance, not only of registering to vote, but of VERIFYING their registration status and polling place. Reed Braden, in his blog, provided a useful link. That's what prompted me to send my e-blast, and the responses have been rather interesting.
Many of the folks on my list do not live in a neighborhood like mine. They will send back responses such as "I've been registered to vote since I was 18, and I voted in the primaries...no problem here." But not far from where I live, a friend was on the local news the day of the primaries, talking about how he had arrived at his nearby elementary school, only to be told that the polling place was now about 2 miles away. No problem for him, because he had time and wheels. But there are plenty of people near me who are quite elderly, unable to drive, depending on either public transportation or friends to get them to the polling place. They get up early, put on their best clothes, and make a day of it. When the polling place is moved somewhere else, or the friendly lady at the table "just can't seem to find" their name anywhere, it's devastating.
Another friend of mine wrote back that voters have "legal recourse" when they feel their rights have been infringed upon. All well and good, but again, when you're in your 80s and your locomotion and communication skills have deteriorated, it can be a lot of trouble to locate the right phone number to call answer the myriad questions sure to be asked.
That's the story on enrollment and polling places. BUT...
Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...
It's out there, folks. The right to vote is under attack. Be vigilant.
Whoops, I need to tweak my codes. There is nothing else beyond this point! Click Here to Read More..
Friday, October 03, 2008
Hope this doesn't disappoint anybody...
...but I will not be offering a play-by-play on last night's VP debate.
I will leave that to this guy, who has done a brilliant job time and again of summing up my impressions of this presidential race and a hell of a lot more.
My one and only comment: Joe Biden is my new crush.
Whoops, I need to tweak my codes. There is nothing else beyond this point! Click Here to Read More..
I will leave that to this guy, who has done a brilliant job time and again of summing up my impressions of this presidential race and a hell of a lot more.
My one and only comment: Joe Biden is my new crush.
Whoops, I need to tweak my codes. There is nothing else beyond this point! Click Here to Read More..
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Debate - I
Hoping this one will end up published rather than saved as a draft...
I took my time and watched the debate videos on CNN, armed with a pad to keep score and jot notes. By my reckoning, Obama came out ahead, and this is how my reckoning worked:
I gave points in a candidate's favor if they answered the question directly. In many cases, neither one did, or it took awhile to steer them that way. The most difficult question was the one that asked which program expense they might be willing to sacrifice in the wake of the massive Wall Street bailout. Jim Lehrer had to ask that one at least three times before either candidate managed to come close to addressing it. Obama was the first to do so.
McCain spent a great deal of time reminiscing. He talked about World War II, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, and it was clear, at least to me, that he felt these Republicans of the past had all the answers. That was McCain's biggest problem, though not the only one.
Many observations have been made that McCain, known as a hot-head, was much cooler under fire than Obama this time around, and I agree. Obama got irritated, and he stammered more than a little. However, he did a good job of countering many of the specious claims and statistics with which McCain arrived well-armed. McCain cut Obama off in mid-sentence many more times than Obama cut McCain off, but Obama used this well one time when McCain seemed to be getting up a head of steam with percentages. That was very appropriate -- had Obama just stood silently and taken this, it would have made him look unnecessarily weak.
McCain knows more about Iraq and Russia than Obama. Obama knows more about Afghanistan and Pakistan than McCain.
Obama approached his statements from more of a technical POV than McCain, who went more for a folksy, populist approach -- no surprise there.
There were plenty of verbal gaffes. Obama started off saying "if the economy recovers," but caught himself immediately afterward and amended this to "if and when." McCain talked about an economic recovery package, intermixing "has" with "has to have."
McCain went more for slogans and sound bites, such as "this ... is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning," and "We came to change government but government changed us."
Obama seemed to stumble on names such as "Jim" when he was clearly addressing John. I think he threw a "Tom" in there at one point. Another example of his tendency to get flustered during this debate, which I hope he'll have more under control the next time. However, he did a much better job at pronouncing "Ahmedinijad" than McCain.
Then Obama used some really unfortunate phraseology. He expressed a desire for the average American to have more money, and one of the things he wanted to make more affordable was for them to "fill up on this gas that is killing them." Um... I think he meant that the price is killing us, not the gas itself. Everybody knows what he meant, but that never stopped people who make a living twisting someone's words.
I gave a candidate points if they vocalized what I was thinking at the moment. McCain claimed he'd veto every spending bill. My thought was, "Really? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Obama countered (though not immediately, as he should have) that McCain was proposing to cut the Federal budget with a hatchet, when a scalpel would be more appropriate.
McCain's general focus was on national defense. Obama's was much more on the economy, with a particular emphasis on health care. He used the word "crushed" three different times to refer to the effect that the economy is having on average Americans. McCain once again went back to the military when he got specific about economic reforms, vowing to eliminate cost-plus contracts.
McCain again showed a bit of geographical fuzziness, including Afghanistan in "the region," when referring to Iraq.
McCain put forth an odd idea, which I would expect Obama to go after the next time they meet. Finding fault with the United Nations, he seemed to be saying that the traditional Allied nations (US, Great Britain, France) should form something that sounds like a mini-UN to put economic pressure on Iran, North Korea and other such "rogue states," thereby doing an end run around Russia and China. The idea may have some merit, but proposing it at this early point seems unwise.
This is by no means a neutral, unbiased critique -- I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning. But back in 1980, as Carter faced off against Reagan, I had to give Reagan the points in the debate, even though the thought of a Reagan presidency was (and still is) my worst nightmare. Reagan communicated more clearly and was easier to follow. This time, McCain probably did better in "form," but Obama walked away with substance.
I'll still be glad when all of this is over, but it's still fun to follow. Click Here to Read More..
I took my time and watched the debate videos on CNN, armed with a pad to keep score and jot notes. By my reckoning, Obama came out ahead, and this is how my reckoning worked:
I gave points in a candidate's favor if they answered the question directly. In many cases, neither one did, or it took awhile to steer them that way. The most difficult question was the one that asked which program expense they might be willing to sacrifice in the wake of the massive Wall Street bailout. Jim Lehrer had to ask that one at least three times before either candidate managed to come close to addressing it. Obama was the first to do so.
McCain spent a great deal of time reminiscing. He talked about World War II, Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan, and it was clear, at least to me, that he felt these Republicans of the past had all the answers. That was McCain's biggest problem, though not the only one.
Many observations have been made that McCain, known as a hot-head, was much cooler under fire than Obama this time around, and I agree. Obama got irritated, and he stammered more than a little. However, he did a good job of countering many of the specious claims and statistics with which McCain arrived well-armed. McCain cut Obama off in mid-sentence many more times than Obama cut McCain off, but Obama used this well one time when McCain seemed to be getting up a head of steam with percentages. That was very appropriate -- had Obama just stood silently and taken this, it would have made him look unnecessarily weak.
McCain knows more about Iraq and Russia than Obama. Obama knows more about Afghanistan and Pakistan than McCain.
Obama approached his statements from more of a technical POV than McCain, who went more for a folksy, populist approach -- no surprise there.
There were plenty of verbal gaffes. Obama started off saying "if the economy recovers," but caught himself immediately afterward and amended this to "if and when." McCain talked about an economic recovery package, intermixing "has" with "has to have."
McCain went more for slogans and sound bites, such as "this ... is not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning," and "We came to change government but government changed us."
Obama seemed to stumble on names such as "Jim" when he was clearly addressing John. I think he threw a "Tom" in there at one point. Another example of his tendency to get flustered during this debate, which I hope he'll have more under control the next time. However, he did a much better job at pronouncing "Ahmedinijad" than McCain.
Then Obama used some really unfortunate phraseology. He expressed a desire for the average American to have more money, and one of the things he wanted to make more affordable was for them to "fill up on this gas that is killing them." Um... I think he meant that the price is killing us, not the gas itself. Everybody knows what he meant, but that never stopped people who make a living twisting someone's words.
I gave a candidate points if they vocalized what I was thinking at the moment. McCain claimed he'd veto every spending bill. My thought was, "Really? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Obama countered (though not immediately, as he should have) that McCain was proposing to cut the Federal budget with a hatchet, when a scalpel would be more appropriate.
McCain's general focus was on national defense. Obama's was much more on the economy, with a particular emphasis on health care. He used the word "crushed" three different times to refer to the effect that the economy is having on average Americans. McCain once again went back to the military when he got specific about economic reforms, vowing to eliminate cost-plus contracts.
McCain again showed a bit of geographical fuzziness, including Afghanistan in "the region," when referring to Iraq.
McCain put forth an odd idea, which I would expect Obama to go after the next time they meet. Finding fault with the United Nations, he seemed to be saying that the traditional Allied nations (US, Great Britain, France) should form something that sounds like a mini-UN to put economic pressure on Iran, North Korea and other such "rogue states," thereby doing an end run around Russia and China. The idea may have some merit, but proposing it at this early point seems unwise.
This is by no means a neutral, unbiased critique -- I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning. But back in 1980, as Carter faced off against Reagan, I had to give Reagan the points in the debate, even though the thought of a Reagan presidency was (and still is) my worst nightmare. Reagan communicated more clearly and was easier to follow. This time, McCain probably did better in "form," but Obama walked away with substance.
I'll still be glad when all of this is over, but it's still fun to follow. Click Here to Read More..
Monday, September 15, 2008
How Silly - - Letting FACTS Get in the Way
As I begin writing, it is 7:54 pm.
At 7:52, I Googled "Saddam Hussein Came to Power."
The infoplease.com entry was one ahead of Wiki, so I took the snippet below from there.
Saddam was BORN in 1937, but cannot be said to have assumed any sort of power or fame until about 1968 at the very earliest.
He became president of Iraq 11 years after that. It wasn't until the early 1980s that the general public (that is, the ones who really paid any attention to international news) ever heard his name. For the average American, this didn't happen until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
I think we can all agree on the above.
So WHY are so many induhviduals convinced that Barack Hussein Obama (born in 1961) was named after a Muslim dictator?
Can we get some reality here?
The time is now...
7:58pm.
All of that is by way of demonstrating that it took 2 minutes to FIND the information and 4 minutes to POST it. And a few more minutes to find all my typos and fix 'em, but still!
FACTUAL INFORMATION is just as easy to find as bullshit.
Better for you, too.
---
Biography
Saddam Hussein
Iraqi political leader
Born: 4/28/1937
Birthplace: Tikrit, Iraq
Hussein was raised in the farming village of Tikrit by his widowed mother. He joined the Ba'ath Socialist party in 1957 and was soon involved in an assassination attempt against the prime minister. The attempt failed but Hussein escaped. Sentenced to death, he fled to Egypt where he continued his education and his political involvement, entering law school in Cairo in 1962.
In 1963, after the Ba'ath party came to power, he returned to Baghdad where he continued his law studies and increased his involvement in the party's activities. The Ba'ath regime was short-lived and without its protection Hussein went into hiding, though he was eventually tracked down and imprisoned for several years.
He escaped from prison and continued his underground activities, playing a significant role in the 1968 revolution that brought the Ba'ath party in to lasting power. As vice president, Hussein wielded considerable power in the government noted for political repression and human rights violations. He also led efforts to modernize the country and develop its weak economy and oil resources. When President Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr resigned in 1979, citing poor health, Hussein became president. Within a month, rivals in the Ba'ath party, accused of plotting a coup, were executed. Click Here to Read More..
At 7:52, I Googled "Saddam Hussein Came to Power."
The infoplease.com entry was one ahead of Wiki, so I took the snippet below from there.
Saddam was BORN in 1937, but cannot be said to have assumed any sort of power or fame until about 1968 at the very earliest.
He became president of Iraq 11 years after that. It wasn't until the early 1980s that the general public (that is, the ones who really paid any attention to international news) ever heard his name. For the average American, this didn't happen until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
I think we can all agree on the above.
So WHY are so many induhviduals convinced that Barack Hussein Obama (born in 1961) was named after a Muslim dictator?
Can we get some reality here?
The time is now...
7:58pm.
All of that is by way of demonstrating that it took 2 minutes to FIND the information and 4 minutes to POST it. And a few more minutes to find all my typos and fix 'em, but still!
FACTUAL INFORMATION is just as easy to find as bullshit.
Better for you, too.
---
Biography
Saddam Hussein
Iraqi political leader
Born: 4/28/1937
Birthplace: Tikrit, Iraq
Hussein was raised in the farming village of Tikrit by his widowed mother. He joined the Ba'ath Socialist party in 1957 and was soon involved in an assassination attempt against the prime minister. The attempt failed but Hussein escaped. Sentenced to death, he fled to Egypt where he continued his education and his political involvement, entering law school in Cairo in 1962.
In 1963, after the Ba'ath party came to power, he returned to Baghdad where he continued his law studies and increased his involvement in the party's activities. The Ba'ath regime was short-lived and without its protection Hussein went into hiding, though he was eventually tracked down and imprisoned for several years.
He escaped from prison and continued his underground activities, playing a significant role in the 1968 revolution that brought the Ba'ath party in to lasting power. As vice president, Hussein wielded considerable power in the government noted for political repression and human rights violations. He also led efforts to modernize the country and develop its weak economy and oil resources. When President Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr resigned in 1979, citing poor health, Hussein became president. Within a month, rivals in the Ba'ath party, accused of plotting a coup, were executed. Click Here to Read More..
Thursday, July 24, 2008
There's This Guy
He's a single dad, apparently not at all well-off financially, and he's in my neighborhood. Talking to him briefly, he seemed like the sort of person who might feel comfortable at my church. Since this is a small city and people tend to know who's who, even when someone's been here a short time, I mentioned him to one of the ladies I went to the Florida church conference with.
Sure 'nough, she knew him. She knew all about him. She warned me to keep a distance.
According to her, he had come to church a few times and brought his child. He had raised a huge fuss with the religious education people because they offered his child a snack, as is customary. It was the opinion of my church friend that the guy was borderline abusive toward his child.
From her observation, it wasn't the fact that the child had a food allergy or dietary restriction of any kind -- it was because the food wasn't home made -- it was store-bought and therefore had ingredients that came from factories or non-union corporations, where workers are exploited, etc.
It's not clear whether he notified the staff beforehand that no snacks were allowed; my impression is that he landed on them with both feet, as though the idea of giving kids snacks is so "out there" he couldn't believe it.
Now, I know perfectly well that N.D. (Neighborhood Dad) is hardly alone in his ideology. But here in this li'l corner of the world, he's more alone than he would be in, say, Seattle or Portland or some parts of New England. Not only is this very much the South, but our neighborhood isn't exactly known for its vegan population! I recycle, vote Democrat and attend a liberal church and I'm sure some people around here would consider me kind of fringe-y, despite my otherwise conventional ways.
At this evening's neighborhood meeting, N.D. and the youngun were on hand. We discussed an upcoming outdoor event and one of the organizers said "We'll have a crew there ahead of time to spray for mosquitoes so we won't all suffer." N.D. spoke up as if on cue, asking if she was talking about bug repellent or bug killer. "I don't like poisons," he said. A perfectly admirable sentiment, but again, this is the kind of place where people drive cars that rolled off the line when Iaccocca was actually president of Chrysler; they dump motor oil down the sewers and throw old pork bones out in the yard for the "dawg." Most of the folks 'round here would agree that "the only good bug is a dead one." I wager that N.D.'s anti-poison stance is the first such thing many people in the room had ever heard.
Finally, the meeting adjourned and we were invited to collect our food to either eat on-site or take home. They had box lunches which were probably either fried chicken or BBQ, and grilled chicken salads in plastic clamshell boxes (along with cookies & chips). N.D. steered his child out the door quickly; when someone invited him to at least take a salad, he informed them that he was vegetarian, and left. I heard someone say, "Well, what's the big deal? You get a salad, throw out the meat and eat the rest." Again, these are people who believe that to be fussy about food is to reject God's bounty -- which is why so many are obese, hypertense, and/or diabetic.
So what we've got here is two very different cultures trying to speak to each other. I see N.D. as someone who strives to make a political statement at every possible opportunity. I'm not sure he's looking to "convert" others to his way of thinking, but he holds his worldview so very sacred that he will not compromise one iota, ever, and feels compelled to spell it out whenever the question arises. On the other side you've got your basic salt-of-the-earth people who believe that if something was good enough for their great-grandparents it's good enough for them and their great-grandchildren.
And of course, there's me in the middle, Ms. Go Along to Get Along. I see the validity of both sides. I love the environment; hate the mass-production consumer culture we're in, yet understand that when you don't have a lot of money, you tend to buy cheap stuff and settle for convenience over principle.
Being in the middle has been the story of my life. Click Here to Read More..
Sure 'nough, she knew him. She knew all about him. She warned me to keep a distance.
According to her, he had come to church a few times and brought his child. He had raised a huge fuss with the religious education people because they offered his child a snack, as is customary. It was the opinion of my church friend that the guy was borderline abusive toward his child.
From her observation, it wasn't the fact that the child had a food allergy or dietary restriction of any kind -- it was because the food wasn't home made -- it was store-bought and therefore had ingredients that came from factories or non-union corporations, where workers are exploited, etc.
It's not clear whether he notified the staff beforehand that no snacks were allowed; my impression is that he landed on them with both feet, as though the idea of giving kids snacks is so "out there" he couldn't believe it.
Now, I know perfectly well that N.D. (Neighborhood Dad) is hardly alone in his ideology. But here in this li'l corner of the world, he's more alone than he would be in, say, Seattle or Portland or some parts of New England. Not only is this very much the South, but our neighborhood isn't exactly known for its vegan population! I recycle, vote Democrat and attend a liberal church and I'm sure some people around here would consider me kind of fringe-y, despite my otherwise conventional ways.
At this evening's neighborhood meeting, N.D. and the youngun were on hand. We discussed an upcoming outdoor event and one of the organizers said "We'll have a crew there ahead of time to spray for mosquitoes so we won't all suffer." N.D. spoke up as if on cue, asking if she was talking about bug repellent or bug killer. "I don't like poisons," he said. A perfectly admirable sentiment, but again, this is the kind of place where people drive cars that rolled off the line when Iaccocca was actually president of Chrysler; they dump motor oil down the sewers and throw old pork bones out in the yard for the "dawg." Most of the folks 'round here would agree that "the only good bug is a dead one." I wager that N.D.'s anti-poison stance is the first such thing many people in the room had ever heard.
Finally, the meeting adjourned and we were invited to collect our food to either eat on-site or take home. They had box lunches which were probably either fried chicken or BBQ, and grilled chicken salads in plastic clamshell boxes (along with cookies & chips). N.D. steered his child out the door quickly; when someone invited him to at least take a salad, he informed them that he was vegetarian, and left. I heard someone say, "Well, what's the big deal? You get a salad, throw out the meat and eat the rest." Again, these are people who believe that to be fussy about food is to reject God's bounty -- which is why so many are obese, hypertense, and/or diabetic.
So what we've got here is two very different cultures trying to speak to each other. I see N.D. as someone who strives to make a political statement at every possible opportunity. I'm not sure he's looking to "convert" others to his way of thinking, but he holds his worldview so very sacred that he will not compromise one iota, ever, and feels compelled to spell it out whenever the question arises. On the other side you've got your basic salt-of-the-earth people who believe that if something was good enough for their great-grandparents it's good enough for them and their great-grandchildren.
And of course, there's me in the middle, Ms. Go Along to Get Along. I see the validity of both sides. I love the environment; hate the mass-production consumer culture we're in, yet understand that when you don't have a lot of money, you tend to buy cheap stuff and settle for convenience over principle.
Being in the middle has been the story of my life. Click Here to Read More..
Monday, July 07, 2008
Integrity. I Haz It.
One of the traits I admire least about myself is wishy-washiness. I have plenty of strong opinions, but am often not willing to really stand behind them.
The local online group I frequent has one member named "Elizabeth." People either love her or hate her. She has been castigated, reviled, and compared to the Shelly Long character on "Cheers" - kind of snooty and pompous in some of the opinions she expresses. There's also a rather sharp division among this group between the liberals and the conservatives, and she has lined up time and again with the conservatives, all the while disclaiming any particular ideology. Some of her remarks have cut too close to the bone for forgiveness in the case of several other members. Elizabeth apparently sensed this because she went and created her own forum. One of the first people she contacted and invited to join was me, and this made me feel really strange because as far as I knew, I hadn't extended the hand of friendship to her. I remained noncommittal ("Gee, I'm so busy, I can't imagine when I might find time," etc.), but she was rather persistent, so I went and checked out the site, registered with a username and posted a few comments. A few others from the original forum have been active there. With all of this, Elizabeth has also maintained a presence on the original site. A few weeks ago I went head-to-head with one of the more reactionary personalities on there, who answered a straightforward question with sarcasm. Elizabeth spoke up in her insistent fashion and I thanked her publicly for defending me.
But recently, I shared lunch with two of the members that Elizabeth provoked the most hostility in. I admitted that I'd participated in her site, and realized I felt guilty, ashamed and uncomfortable about this because I genuinely care about the two people I was sitting there with, and overall had little or no regard for Elizabeth. So what was it that compelled me to accept her invitation in the first place? Basic wimpiness is the answer I come up with. I guess I like forums. Hers isn't terribly different from the one she spun off and there's really, truly no reason for me to be there.
Fortunately, a major news story broke a few days ago and when I read her take on it, it reaffirmed most emphatically how WRONG it would be for me to continue having any association with her whatsoever. Talk about wanting to take a shower -- hoo-wee, especially after my weekend in Ft. Lauderdale, getting back in touch with my liberal self. I did, in fact, take a shower, because I read her post first thing in the morning over coffee. I curtailed my usual perusal of news sites for the sole purpose of going onto my profile page and deleting my membership. No comments or anything; I just got out once and for all.
And then reached for the soap. Click Here to Read More..
The local online group I frequent has one member named "Elizabeth." People either love her or hate her. She has been castigated, reviled, and compared to the Shelly Long character on "Cheers" - kind of snooty and pompous in some of the opinions she expresses. There's also a rather sharp division among this group between the liberals and the conservatives, and she has lined up time and again with the conservatives, all the while disclaiming any particular ideology. Some of her remarks have cut too close to the bone for forgiveness in the case of several other members. Elizabeth apparently sensed this because she went and created her own forum. One of the first people she contacted and invited to join was me, and this made me feel really strange because as far as I knew, I hadn't extended the hand of friendship to her. I remained noncommittal ("Gee, I'm so busy, I can't imagine when I might find time," etc.), but she was rather persistent, so I went and checked out the site, registered with a username and posted a few comments. A few others from the original forum have been active there. With all of this, Elizabeth has also maintained a presence on the original site. A few weeks ago I went head-to-head with one of the more reactionary personalities on there, who answered a straightforward question with sarcasm. Elizabeth spoke up in her insistent fashion and I thanked her publicly for defending me.
But recently, I shared lunch with two of the members that Elizabeth provoked the most hostility in. I admitted that I'd participated in her site, and realized I felt guilty, ashamed and uncomfortable about this because I genuinely care about the two people I was sitting there with, and overall had little or no regard for Elizabeth. So what was it that compelled me to accept her invitation in the first place? Basic wimpiness is the answer I come up with. I guess I like forums. Hers isn't terribly different from the one she spun off and there's really, truly no reason for me to be there.
Fortunately, a major news story broke a few days ago and when I read her take on it, it reaffirmed most emphatically how WRONG it would be for me to continue having any association with her whatsoever. Talk about wanting to take a shower -- hoo-wee, especially after my weekend in Ft. Lauderdale, getting back in touch with my liberal self. I did, in fact, take a shower, because I read her post first thing in the morning over coffee. I curtailed my usual perusal of news sites for the sole purpose of going onto my profile page and deleting my membership. No comments or anything; I just got out once and for all.
And then reached for the soap. Click Here to Read More..
Sunday, June 29, 2008
OK, I got inspired. It happens sometimes.
I attended a church conference this past weekend. This humanist attends church and this was the first time I'd gone to General Assembly. It's something everyone in our denomination ought to do at least once -- kind of like making the pilgrimage to Mecca...now if THAT isn't a warped little analogy!!
It was exhausting but there were a number of very profound moments. I half expected to find myself surrounded by ideological extremists ... and quite possibly 5 or 10 years ago, it would have seemed that way. The political shift that's occurring now just continues to build momentum like a tsunami, whereas previously it was just random gusts blowing over the water. And so, the feminists, the environmentalists, the BGLQT and everybody else who sees an urgent need for a massive overhaul of our society now seem a lot more mainstream to me.
I've mainly stayed in the moderate-to-left group most of my life, but truth be told, I have nary an edgy bone in my body. I've strayed to the right a couple of times, but I now realize that the years I spent in the evangelical Christian realm were akin to time put in by an investigative reporter looking for the inside scoop.
One of the many things I like about this group I'm in now is that they're a WYSIWYG bunch, and they are more likely than any other kind of people to reach out to other generations. We had a bridging ceremony, in which high school age kids were welcomed into the adult community. The Good Asian Drivers were among the featured performers, and if you ever longed for a dash of pure glacier water right in the face to wake you up to what's in people's heads RIGHT NOW, you must check them out.. I have a choice here -- I can give in to the urge to feel "old," to say I'm past the point of being able to relate to 20-somethings, and in doing so become old overnight, or I can put the brakes on the age thing and drink it in until it makes a real difference in my life. Which brings me to another little factoid: Of the 8 people from my church on this jaunt, I was the youngest ... and quite possibly the one most in need of growing down a bit.
Then there was Van Jones. Check out his message. He didn't say one thing in his lecture last night that didn't resonate with me -- especially in the last couple of years that I've been working with my neighborhood association. The far right's rapidly dying paradigm -- the Strict Father model -- doesn't help anyone. It doesn't work. The world around me now -- not just me, but the whole world, all of life, the life I read about on cnn.com every day -- feels like a plant that hasn't been watered lately and is on the brink of turning yellow and dry and folding in on itself.
This political crystallization has been working in me for the past six years -- this weekend helped speed the process. Click Here to Read More..
It was exhausting but there were a number of very profound moments. I half expected to find myself surrounded by ideological extremists ... and quite possibly 5 or 10 years ago, it would have seemed that way. The political shift that's occurring now just continues to build momentum like a tsunami, whereas previously it was just random gusts blowing over the water. And so, the feminists, the environmentalists, the BGLQT and everybody else who sees an urgent need for a massive overhaul of our society now seem a lot more mainstream to me.
I've mainly stayed in the moderate-to-left group most of my life, but truth be told, I have nary an edgy bone in my body. I've strayed to the right a couple of times, but I now realize that the years I spent in the evangelical Christian realm were akin to time put in by an investigative reporter looking for the inside scoop.
One of the many things I like about this group I'm in now is that they're a WYSIWYG bunch, and they are more likely than any other kind of people to reach out to other generations. We had a bridging ceremony, in which high school age kids were welcomed into the adult community. The Good Asian Drivers were among the featured performers, and if you ever longed for a dash of pure glacier water right in the face to wake you up to what's in people's heads RIGHT NOW, you must check them out.. I have a choice here -- I can give in to the urge to feel "old," to say I'm past the point of being able to relate to 20-somethings, and in doing so become old overnight, or I can put the brakes on the age thing and drink it in until it makes a real difference in my life. Which brings me to another little factoid: Of the 8 people from my church on this jaunt, I was the youngest ... and quite possibly the one most in need of growing down a bit.
Then there was Van Jones. Check out his message. He didn't say one thing in his lecture last night that didn't resonate with me -- especially in the last couple of years that I've been working with my neighborhood association. The far right's rapidly dying paradigm -- the Strict Father model -- doesn't help anyone. It doesn't work. The world around me now -- not just me, but the whole world, all of life, the life I read about on cnn.com every day -- feels like a plant that hasn't been watered lately and is on the brink of turning yellow and dry and folding in on itself.
This political crystallization has been working in me for the past six years -- this weekend helped speed the process. Click Here to Read More..
Sunday, June 01, 2008
"G" - It's the New "F"
I love how people just dismiss the whole notion of "government," turning it into a dirty word.
"Government schools"..."government health"...
Today on a local message board (heavily populated by law-enforcement folks) there was a post about a state-wide Criminal Injury Compensation Fund that is a resource of last resort for victims of crimes who cannot pay for medical care, funeral or burial costs or who are not covered by insurance. Ironically, about 20% of the recipients of the funds have criminal records - but the people who run the fund clarify that the cases in which funds are received are unrelated to the previous cases. So, if you are a convicted felon and have served out your sentence, and then, for example, five years later you are walking down the street and are struck by a hit and run driver and are destitute, you can apply for funds.
First, the local paper runs this silly article, where the facts are spelled out, but the headline is written to make it sound to the casual reader as though convicts are standing with their arms extended through the bars, waiting for a handout. That is not the case at all, and the person who posted it knows that perfectly well ... but the next person, another LE dude, responds with:
Government at work.
Now, these people who claim to hate "government" so much, and bandy it about as though it were a 4-letter word, are they really thinking?
What do they want?
Do they want NO government?
These are law-enforcement officers, aka "public servants."
Would they prefer private militia? Vigilante groups?
Probably.
I already know how they feel about the public schools. In this neck of the woods, about a quarter of school-age kids are either home schooled or go to private schools that the parents can't afford without taking out a second mortgage or getting a second job or being sponsored in some way.
Anyone whose home base is the North, the Northeast, or the West Coast can get an incredible eye-opening experience by observing the workings of education in the south. It's like no other place in this country. Education as it is is quite substandard in many places, wracked by continual conflict about whether or not to teach evolution. Wally attended a local public high school for a year. The 10 commandments were on the walls of many classrooms; preachers came in to give lectures, and one of his teachers routinely filled class time by showing videotapes of her preacher's sermons. My son complained to the principal after he left the area, knowing better than to rock the boat during the school year.
But back to this "government" thing. Yes, absolutely, there are a lot of problems with government programs, but this has not always been the case. People who grumble about FDR and the New Deal weren't even alive during his administration! They have had decades to reap the benefits, but then they stand back and dismiss "government" as though it were some sort of hippie fad! Public entities can be mismanaged just as much as private ones. A good program, whatever it may be, requires leadership and a dedication to serving the customer. To just say "Oh, government, phooey" does not address the problem.
Click Here to Read More..
"Government schools"..."government health"...
Today on a local message board (heavily populated by law-enforcement folks) there was a post about a state-wide Criminal Injury Compensation Fund that is a resource of last resort for victims of crimes who cannot pay for medical care, funeral or burial costs or who are not covered by insurance. Ironically, about 20% of the recipients of the funds have criminal records - but the people who run the fund clarify that the cases in which funds are received are unrelated to the previous cases. So, if you are a convicted felon and have served out your sentence, and then, for example, five years later you are walking down the street and are struck by a hit and run driver and are destitute, you can apply for funds.
First, the local paper runs this silly article, where the facts are spelled out, but the headline is written to make it sound to the casual reader as though convicts are standing with their arms extended through the bars, waiting for a handout. That is not the case at all, and the person who posted it knows that perfectly well ... but the next person, another LE dude, responds with:
Government at work.
Now, these people who claim to hate "government" so much, and bandy it about as though it were a 4-letter word, are they really thinking?
What do they want?
Do they want NO government?
These are law-enforcement officers, aka "public servants."
Would they prefer private militia? Vigilante groups?
Probably.
I already know how they feel about the public schools. In this neck of the woods, about a quarter of school-age kids are either home schooled or go to private schools that the parents can't afford without taking out a second mortgage or getting a second job or being sponsored in some way.
Anyone whose home base is the North, the Northeast, or the West Coast can get an incredible eye-opening experience by observing the workings of education in the south. It's like no other place in this country. Education as it is is quite substandard in many places, wracked by continual conflict about whether or not to teach evolution. Wally attended a local public high school for a year. The 10 commandments were on the walls of many classrooms; preachers came in to give lectures, and one of his teachers routinely filled class time by showing videotapes of her preacher's sermons. My son complained to the principal after he left the area, knowing better than to rock the boat during the school year.
But back to this "government" thing. Yes, absolutely, there are a lot of problems with government programs, but this has not always been the case. People who grumble about FDR and the New Deal weren't even alive during his administration! They have had decades to reap the benefits, but then they stand back and dismiss "government" as though it were some sort of hippie fad! Public entities can be mismanaged just as much as private ones. A good program, whatever it may be, requires leadership and a dedication to serving the customer. To just say "Oh, government, phooey" does not address the problem.
Click Here to Read More..
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Fading away
No, not me. I'm talking about two entities that are being pre-mourned by conservative pundits.
The first is persons of European descent (i.e. white people).
Pat Buchanan says:
Maybe there's a reason for this, Jimbo!! Maybe people are starting to wise up; they realize it's all we can do to keep ourselves going, and our own lives on track, without staying up even later to try getting laws passed that would keep a certain group of people on a lower social tier.
If Dobson were a divorced man, or someone who had personally experienced some of the issues that gay or unmarried people do every day, he might not be so quick to throw around the we's and us's. Being a white male heterosexual married man works for him. And so he assumes that the structure with which he is most familiar and comfortable should work for everyone.
The first is persons of European descent (i.e. white people).
Pat Buchanan says:
"Recent reports suggest God has another end in store for us.
An Augusta, Ga., group, The National Policy Institute, has meshed the figures on fertility rates with the continents and races on Planet Earth -- to visualize what the world will look like in 2060.
In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world's population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent.
More arresting is that the white population is shrinking not only in relative but in real terms. Two hundred million white people, one in every six on earth -- a number equal to the entire population of France, Britain, Holland and Germany -- will vanish by 2060.
The Caucasian race is going the way of the Mohicans.
Sixty-two percent of Americans told Pew we should do more to protect our way of life. Three-fourths of Americans wanted more restrictions on immigration. Yet all three presidential candidates voted amnesty for the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens.
Hopefully, the peoples of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, who are about to inherit the earth as we pass away, will treat us better than our ancestors treated them in the five centuries that Western Man ruled the world.
Otherwise, we all go out with a bang.
I love the USA; I do believe English should be our official language, and I do believe that people should go through established legal channels to become citizens. I am also concerned that Islam is morphing into a horrible, primitive, murderous belief system, when it didn't start out that way. I think if the PM (you know who I mean) came back, he'd look at his descendants and give them a Cosby-esque talking-to. It's class and worldview that concern me, not the color of people's skin.
What strikes me most about this little screed is that Buchanan takes it for granted that this "fading away" of the white race is a terrible thing -- because it pertains to the group that HE identifies with! Can you imagine if black people or Asian people were facing a similar crisis of numbers -- would Buchanan be lamenting their existence? Well, maybe... "Where ever will we find people to run our convenience stores???"
Then you've got good ol' Dr. Dobson, writing this in 2003:
It is with great concern that I share with you our considered belief that the institution of marriage is about to descend into a state of turmoil unlike any other in human history. The homosexual activist movement, which has achieved virtually every goal and objective it set out to accomplish more than 50 years ago, is poised to administer a devastating and potentially fatal blow to the traditional family. And sadly, there is hardly a politician who has the courage to utter a word of alarm or protest in response. Indeed, there are very few Christians in positions of responsibility who are willing to use their influence to help combat it.
Researchers have been warning about this looming cultural storm for the past decade. The most prominent among them, sociologists David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead at Rutgers University, conducted a longitudinal study of the family between 1960 and 1999, and concluded that the institution of marriage appeared to be dying.There is accumulating evidence now that they were right. A handful of power-obsessed judges is determined to impose the homosexual agenda on the nation and thereby change forever the legal definition of marriage.
The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other western nations cannot be overstated. For millennia, traditional marriage has been celebrated by every culture on earth as the cornerstone of society. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, no-fault divorce laws, radical feminism and a sweeping sexual revolution combined here in the United States to rip open the fabric of the family. They left it shaken and wounded. It was a growing apprehension about this situation that led me to resign from my academic position in 1977 and start a fledgling new organization called Focus on the Family. In the 26 years since, we have been working tirelessly to bolster and preserve traditional marriage and parenthood. There have been times of hope and times of despair during this struggle, but overall, the family has been steadily losing ground. Now, the institution of marriage is on the ropes and western civilization itself appears to hang in the balance.
~
Maybe there's a reason for this, Jimbo!! Maybe people are starting to wise up; they realize it's all we can do to keep ourselves going, and our own lives on track, without staying up even later to try getting laws passed that would keep a certain group of people on a lower social tier.
If Dobson were a divorced man, or someone who had personally experienced some of the issues that gay or unmarried people do every day, he might not be so quick to throw around the we's and us's. Being a white male heterosexual married man works for him. And so he assumes that the structure with which he is most familiar and comfortable should work for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
