While reading yet another screed online where President Obama is either a socialist or trying to establish a socialist nation, I considered the disjointed reasoning behind said screed and others like it I've endured. I recognized that a large part of the efforts to derail Obama's proposals have centered on emotional symbols, especially when corroborating facts are thin. The most powerful symbolism is often the simplest: the names we use to label people.
The epithet of "socialist" has been thrown around freely by Limbaugh conservatives and the Tea Party set, like a magic tar that should stain the president and scare the rest of us back into line. The mere mention of the most vile leftist monikers -- socialist, Marxist, communist -- fans the wildfire of irrational anger and fear, and the mob mentality at so many town hall meetings on health care reform is a logical result of the baiting language that has been used.
Some folks on the left have their own f-word -- fascist -- that they throw around like a rhetorical gold MasterCard. Most use it the same way as the right use socialist, with a there-I-said-it certainty and nothing else to back it.
It's easy to push someone's buttons and motivate opposition. But what gets built this way? When we can't listen to the ideas in a proposed course of action because one or both sides are substituting inflammatory language for reasoned debate, nothing meaningful can be accomplished. With the great problems of our time, we can't settle for a grade-school playground level of discourse.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Judge: Ky. Can't Legislate Dependence on God - ABC News
It's been a week where there's been a little rolling back of old mindsets in Kentucky. Earlier in the week, a bill was prefiled to remove the 19th century section of oaths of office vowing not to engage in duels. No joke; my wife took that oath when renewing as a Notary Public. Yesterday, a circuit judge's ruling struck down 2006 law forcing the state Office of Homeland Security to propagandize (the term that best fits here) that "the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God." The law mandated such references in training materials and on the plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort. I can't make this up. A link to the ABC article follows.
Judge: Ky. Can't Legislate Dependence on God - ABC News
Shared via AddThis
Judge: Ky. Can't Legislate Dependence on God - ABC News
Shared via AddThis
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Agitators and Our Country
Something to keep in mind as our country celebrates its birth once again: We've been through a period of time where speaking out against authority/establishment has been heavily frowned upon, with hints of treason sprinkled in. I've come across a piece by Jim Hightower, national radio commentator and author of Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow that suggested quite the opposite.
According to Hightower, "the Powers That Be detest you -- you ... you ... 'agitator!' They spit the term out as a pejorative to brand anyone who dares to challenge the established order. . . . [T]he message is that America would be a fine country if only we could get rid of those pesky troublemakers who get the hoi polloi agitated about one thing or another. Bovine excrement. Were it not for agitators, we wouldn't even have an America. The Fourth of July would be just another hot day, we'd be singing 'God Save the Queen,' and our government officials would be wearing white-powdered wigs. Agitators created America, and it's their feisty spirit and outright rebelliousness that we celebrate on our national holiday."
Individual liberty is celebrated on the 4th of July, but we should regard it as a work in progress. Our history shows it to be so. Hightower stated that while the Founding Fathers were most definitely agitators, "they didn't actually create much democracy. In the first presidential election, only 4 percent of the people were even eligible to vote. No women allowed, no African Americans, no American Indians and no one who was landless. So, on the Fourth, it's neither the documents of democracy that we celebrate nor the authors of the documents. Rather, it's the intervening two-plus centuries of ordinary American agitators who have struggled mightily against formidable odds to democratize those documents."
Hightower and I seem to share a mistrust of Establishment expectations. He said, "The Powers That Be -- especially America's overarching corporate and political forces (often the same) -- give lip service to democracy, but tend toward plutocracy, autocracy and kleptocracy. They prefer (and often demand) that We the People be passive consumers of their economic and political policies. Don't rock the boat, stay in your place, go along to get along." That sounds a lot like Ari Fleischer's "watch what you say" admonition during the W years. Actually, the confluence of corporate and political demand for passivity (joined by demands of the religious right, it should be noted) was a mark of W's time in office, weighing on the chest of individual liberty like a gorilla.
The powerful in our society may make it uncomfortable (or worse) to dissent. So it is vital to realize that it was agitators that created our country, and agitators continue to form a more perfect Union and better allow for the pursuit of happiness. Hightower's closing remark was "when the establishment derisively assails you as an agitator, remember this: The agitator is the center post in the washing machine that gets the dirt out."
According to Hightower, "the Powers That Be detest you -- you ... you ... 'agitator!' They spit the term out as a pejorative to brand anyone who dares to challenge the established order. . . . [T]he message is that America would be a fine country if only we could get rid of those pesky troublemakers who get the hoi polloi agitated about one thing or another. Bovine excrement. Were it not for agitators, we wouldn't even have an America. The Fourth of July would be just another hot day, we'd be singing 'God Save the Queen,' and our government officials would be wearing white-powdered wigs. Agitators created America, and it's their feisty spirit and outright rebelliousness that we celebrate on our national holiday."
Individual liberty is celebrated on the 4th of July, but we should regard it as a work in progress. Our history shows it to be so. Hightower stated that while the Founding Fathers were most definitely agitators, "they didn't actually create much democracy. In the first presidential election, only 4 percent of the people were even eligible to vote. No women allowed, no African Americans, no American Indians and no one who was landless. So, on the Fourth, it's neither the documents of democracy that we celebrate nor the authors of the documents. Rather, it's the intervening two-plus centuries of ordinary American agitators who have struggled mightily against formidable odds to democratize those documents."
Hightower and I seem to share a mistrust of Establishment expectations. He said, "The Powers That Be -- especially America's overarching corporate and political forces (often the same) -- give lip service to democracy, but tend toward plutocracy, autocracy and kleptocracy. They prefer (and often demand) that We the People be passive consumers of their economic and political policies. Don't rock the boat, stay in your place, go along to get along." That sounds a lot like Ari Fleischer's "watch what you say" admonition during the W years. Actually, the confluence of corporate and political demand for passivity (joined by demands of the religious right, it should be noted) was a mark of W's time in office, weighing on the chest of individual liberty like a gorilla.
The powerful in our society may make it uncomfortable (or worse) to dissent. So it is vital to realize that it was agitators that created our country, and agitators continue to form a more perfect Union and better allow for the pursuit of happiness. Hightower's closing remark was "when the establishment derisively assails you as an agitator, remember this: The agitator is the center post in the washing machine that gets the dirt out."
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Mitch Albom's Sportwriter's Take on Racial Equality
This column by Mitch Albom contains profound observations on racial equality that I had to excerpt and share here. Taken from the op/ed page of the Park City Daily News, Bowling Green KY, November 12, 2008:
“[F]rom the start of the presidential campaign, I’ve been less concerned with Barack Obama than some of my countrymen. There were many white voters who were hesitant about a black president. Some were painfully blunt. . . . Others, who didn’t want to appear so racist, embraced labels like ‘radical’ or ‘terrorist.’ But it stemmed from the same part of human nature: We distrust that which is different.
“Well, one thing you get accustomed to as a white sportswriter is ‘that which is different.’ You get accustomed talking to black Americans doing better than you financially, being better known, more widely respected. You get accustomed to black coaches making trades, black executives returning your phone calls – or not. The music you hear is often not your music. The slang in the locker room is often not your slang. In the case of Latino or Japanese players, it may not even be your language.
“But you know what? You do your job. Everyone else does his or her job. And pretty soon all that stuff fades to the background.
“I remember a scene in the football movie Brian’s Song, where Gale Sayers is called into the coach’s office. He is nervous. What has he done wrong? They tell him they are thinking of rooming him with a white man, Brian Piccolo. ‘That’s all?’ he says. ‘You had me worried. I thought this was something really.’ ‘This is something really,’ a coach says. At the time depicted – 1965 – it was something ‘really.’ But it isn’t anymore. And of the two attitudes, Sayers’ is the one to admire. The one that says ‘That’s it?’ The one that says this is only as big a deal as you choose to make it. . . .
“Look, nobody’s being Pollyannaish here. Racism did not die Tuesday. But the first step is dismantling prejudice is taking it out of the system. You room a black football player with a white one, you haven’t eliminated everyone who hates it. But you have eliminated the idea that they’re right."
“[F]rom the start of the presidential campaign, I’ve been less concerned with Barack Obama than some of my countrymen. There were many white voters who were hesitant about a black president. Some were painfully blunt. . . . Others, who didn’t want to appear so racist, embraced labels like ‘radical’ or ‘terrorist.’ But it stemmed from the same part of human nature: We distrust that which is different.
“Well, one thing you get accustomed to as a white sportswriter is ‘that which is different.’ You get accustomed talking to black Americans doing better than you financially, being better known, more widely respected. You get accustomed to black coaches making trades, black executives returning your phone calls – or not. The music you hear is often not your music. The slang in the locker room is often not your slang. In the case of Latino or Japanese players, it may not even be your language.
“But you know what? You do your job. Everyone else does his or her job. And pretty soon all that stuff fades to the background.
“I remember a scene in the football movie Brian’s Song, where Gale Sayers is called into the coach’s office. He is nervous. What has he done wrong? They tell him they are thinking of rooming him with a white man, Brian Piccolo. ‘That’s all?’ he says. ‘You had me worried. I thought this was something really.’ ‘This is something really,’ a coach says. At the time depicted – 1965 – it was something ‘really.’ But it isn’t anymore. And of the two attitudes, Sayers’ is the one to admire. The one that says ‘That’s it?’ The one that says this is only as big a deal as you choose to make it. . . .
“Look, nobody’s being Pollyannaish here. Racism did not die Tuesday. But the first step is dismantling prejudice is taking it out of the system. You room a black football player with a white one, you haven’t eliminated everyone who hates it. But you have eliminated the idea that they’re right."
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Bad Karma and the PRC
The concept of karma: believe in it or not, it opens the mind to consider the consequence of intent. Act in bad faith, and something bad will follow. Sharon Stone expressed an open question about whether the People's Republic of China has just suffered bad karma's effects with the earthquake disaster of two weeks ago. Her voiced opinion has resulted in a real-world consequence with a Chinese cinaplex giant vowing to ban her movies from their screens.
"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone stated in a Cannes Film Festival red-carpet interview with Hong Kong's Cable Entertainment News. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?"
To my mind, that's pretty pedestrian for a controversial statement. Folks are more up front -- okay, blunt -- in my neck of the woods. Still, Stone's "bad karma" statement pissed off the Chinese, particularly on the internet. Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless. Ng vowed not to show Sharon Stone movies in UME theaters, which has cineplexes in China's biggest urban movie markets.
I tend to act as if karma exists, but I'm not sold on its literal existence. After all, there are sharks like Ameriquest, the company who has been among the worst predatory subprime mortgage lenders in the U. S. Its owner Roland E. Arnall avoided the repercussions of his company's deceptive business conduct by being appointed ambassador to the Netherlands by President George W. Bush, at about the same time that Ameriquest settled for $325 million over predatory loan practices.
On the other hand, Arnall resigned his ambassador's post in February due to his son's ill health; less than a month later, Arnall was dead of cancer himself. Maybe I was a bit hasty . . .
"I'm not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don't think anyone should be unkind to anyone else," Stone stated in a Cannes Film Festival red-carpet interview with Hong Kong's Cable Entertainment News. "And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?"
To my mind, that's pretty pedestrian for a controversial statement. Folks are more up front -- okay, blunt -- in my neck of the woods. Still, Stone's "bad karma" statement pissed off the Chinese, particularly on the internet. Ng See-Yuen, founder of the UME Cineplex chain and the chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Filmmakers, called Stone's comments "inappropriate," adding that actors should not bring personal politics to comments about a natural disaster that has left five million Chinese homeless. Ng vowed not to show Sharon Stone movies in UME theaters, which has cineplexes in China's biggest urban movie markets.
I tend to act as if karma exists, but I'm not sold on its literal existence. After all, there are sharks like Ameriquest, the company who has been among the worst predatory subprime mortgage lenders in the U. S. Its owner Roland E. Arnall avoided the repercussions of his company's deceptive business conduct by being appointed ambassador to the Netherlands by President George W. Bush, at about the same time that Ameriquest settled for $325 million over predatory loan practices.
On the other hand, Arnall resigned his ambassador's post in February due to his son's ill health; less than a month later, Arnall was dead of cancer himself. Maybe I was a bit hasty . . .
Monday, May 19, 2008
Food For Thought, Oil and Terror Edition
I just heard Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) on Letterman, while talking about the war on terror, Iraq, and related matters, say that the price of oil was $24 a barrel in 2002 when the justification for war in Iraq was being pushed by President Bush.
$24 a barrel. One year after the 9/11 attacks.
And look at it now. Over $100 a barrel higher as of this writing.
Yep, that sure worked out, didn't it. Diverting resources out of Afghanistan, which was safe harbor to those who attacked us, and into Iraq, which was uninvolved in 9/11, sure kept the "terror premium" of oil down. I don't see a Texan or Okie being elected president anytime soon.
$24 a barrel. One year after the 9/11 attacks.
And look at it now. Over $100 a barrel higher as of this writing.
Yep, that sure worked out, didn't it. Diverting resources out of Afghanistan, which was safe harbor to those who attacked us, and into Iraq, which was uninvolved in 9/11, sure kept the "terror premium" of oil down. I don't see a Texan or Okie being elected president anytime soon.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sudanese Sauce for the Political Goose
Here's a political story refreshingly without the reflexive knee-jerk opposition between sides. Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential candidate John McCain and heiress to a nine-figure beer distributor fortune, has sold some $2 million of investments related to Sudan. John McCain has called for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership in light of the genocide in the Darfur region, and the Associated Press pointed out that mutual fund investments held by Cindy McCain included companies that do business with Sudan.
Cindy McCain has repeatedly stated she will not reveal her income tax records publicly, even if her husband is elected president. But give her points for transparency here, for when previously disclosed investments in American Funds Europacific Growth fund and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income fund proved to incorporate companies doing business with Sudan, Cindy McCain quickly sold her investment in both funds.
Since John McCain has publicly criticized China for its dealings with Sudan -- "There is only one reason China has opposed sanctions to pressure Sudan to stop the killing in Darfur: China needs Sudan's oil" -- having investments that are even indirectly connected with Sudan would appear highly hypocritical.
Lest anyone think this is political sinning on the right, four presidential candidates had to divest of Sudan-related holdings last year: Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Sam Brownback and Rudy Giuliani. Brownback also wrote 44 governors to urge them to divest their employee pension funds from businesses linked to Sudan. Guess it all goes to show how difficult it can be to invest wealthy sums of money without inadvertently lining some tyrant's pockets.
So, it's nice to see a political story where figures from both major parties agree on the proper course of action. Maybe our political landscape isn't irreversibly toxic.
Cindy McCain has repeatedly stated she will not reveal her income tax records publicly, even if her husband is elected president. But give her points for transparency here, for when previously disclosed investments in American Funds Europacific Growth fund and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income fund proved to incorporate companies doing business with Sudan, Cindy McCain quickly sold her investment in both funds.
Since John McCain has publicly criticized China for its dealings with Sudan -- "There is only one reason China has opposed sanctions to pressure Sudan to stop the killing in Darfur: China needs Sudan's oil" -- having investments that are even indirectly connected with Sudan would appear highly hypocritical.
Lest anyone think this is political sinning on the right, four presidential candidates had to divest of Sudan-related holdings last year: Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Sam Brownback and Rudy Giuliani. Brownback also wrote 44 governors to urge them to divest their employee pension funds from businesses linked to Sudan. Guess it all goes to show how difficult it can be to invest wealthy sums of money without inadvertently lining some tyrant's pockets.
So, it's nice to see a political story where figures from both major parties agree on the proper course of action. Maybe our political landscape isn't irreversibly toxic.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
This And That News Items
Some end-of-month observations:
Today is the fifth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. White House press secretary Dana Perino acknowledged that the Administration has "paid a price" over that banner. Gee, ya think? Five years and 4,000+ U.S. military deaths after Bush announced "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" beneath that "Mission Accomplished" banner . . . there's just no way to spin that into anything positive.
Tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer. Unfortunately, in nearby Bowling Green, a cult that calls itself a church will be coming to picket a fallen soldier. Yep, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas -- a group I have written about in this blog -- will protest outside the funeral of Sgt. Adam Kohlhaas who was killed in his third tour of duty. This fruitcake brigade led by "Rev." Fred Phelps uses signs such as "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags" to show their stated belief that God is punishing America's supposed tolerance for homosexuality by killing American soldiers. Perhaps some folks should extend their prayers tomorrow for Phelps and his ilk, for they are about as close to Christian belief as the Taliban is to Islam.
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice David Souter told a conference of judges that a visit he made to Gettysburg changed his view of difficult cases. Admitting he once wondered why he had to resolve a case, Souter said he found an answer after going with his law clerks and secretaries to the battlefield where the Civil War changed course. He mentioned a desperate bayonet charge by a commander at the end of the Union line which ultimately stopped a Confederate charge, observing "It seems a fair assessment that one of the pivots of American history was at that place, at that moment." About deciding difficult cases, Souter summed up, "I could not ever again, under any circumstance, say it is unfair that I have to do this."
And what in the hell do we make of the out-of-left-field emerging scandal with Roger Clemons and Mindy McCready? Rocket met Mindy when she was 15 and they had a 10-year relationship which included him sending bundles of money to her and (she says) giving her a different high hard one than he gave batters from the mound. Just when you think you've heard it all . . .
Today is the fifth anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. White House press secretary Dana Perino acknowledged that the Administration has "paid a price" over that banner. Gee, ya think? Five years and 4,000+ U.S. military deaths after Bush announced "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" beneath that "Mission Accomplished" banner . . . there's just no way to spin that into anything positive.
Tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer. Unfortunately, in nearby Bowling Green, a cult that calls itself a church will be coming to picket a fallen soldier. Yep, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas -- a group I have written about in this blog -- will protest outside the funeral of Sgt. Adam Kohlhaas who was killed in his third tour of duty. This fruitcake brigade led by "Rev." Fred Phelps uses signs such as "Thank God for IEDs" and "God Hates Fags" to show their stated belief that God is punishing America's supposed tolerance for homosexuality by killing American soldiers. Perhaps some folks should extend their prayers tomorrow for Phelps and his ilk, for they are about as close to Christian belief as the Taliban is to Islam.
Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice David Souter told a conference of judges that a visit he made to Gettysburg changed his view of difficult cases. Admitting he once wondered why he had to resolve a case, Souter said he found an answer after going with his law clerks and secretaries to the battlefield where the Civil War changed course. He mentioned a desperate bayonet charge by a commander at the end of the Union line which ultimately stopped a Confederate charge, observing "It seems a fair assessment that one of the pivots of American history was at that place, at that moment." About deciding difficult cases, Souter summed up, "I could not ever again, under any circumstance, say it is unfair that I have to do this."
And what in the hell do we make of the out-of-left-field emerging scandal with Roger Clemons and Mindy McCready? Rocket met Mindy when she was 15 and they had a 10-year relationship which included him sending bundles of money to her and (she says) giving her a different high hard one than he gave batters from the mound. Just when you think you've heard it all . . .
Monday, March 31, 2008
Whizz Kids in Washington
Your tax dollars at work . . . According to the New York Times, President Bush is persisting in his nomination of Steven Bradbury to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department. Bradbury is so toxic on both sides of the aisle -- in a lower job at Justice, he signed off on two secret legal memos authorizing waterboarding at detention camps -- that he's already been rejected twice by the Senate. Yet Bush, who said in December that a president has to have "a sound set of principles from which [he] will not deviate," stubbornly clings to the Bradbury nomination.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate has responded by halting all controversial nominations until Bush drops Bradbury's. Even though this means, according to Politico.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the National Labor Relations Board do not have enough members to do their jobs; many federal judgeships are vacant; and the Council of Economic Advisers is in singular tense.
Bush has dug in his heels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions over the holidays so Bush could not make Bradbury a recess appointment like he did with (now former) UN Ambassador Bolton.
How high on the tree can we pee, guys?
The Democratic leadership in the Senate has responded by halting all controversial nominations until Bush drops Bradbury's. Even though this means, according to Politico.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the National Labor Relations Board do not have enough members to do their jobs; many federal judgeships are vacant; and the Council of Economic Advisers is in singular tense.
Bush has dug in his heels. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid kept the Senate in pro forma sessions over the holidays so Bush could not make Bradbury a recess appointment like he did with (now former) UN Ambassador Bolton.
How high on the tree can we pee, guys?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
These Are the Impulses Which Must Be Fought
The following (in italics) is an excerpt from news stories about President Bush's March 8 radio address on why he vetoed a bill barring the CIA from waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques:
Bush, who used his weekly radio address to announce the veto, said the program had helped stop plots against a Marine camp in Djibouti and the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and plans to fly passenger planes into a Los Angeles tower or London's Heathrow Airport and city buildings. "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland," the president said.
"I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack," Bush said in a statement.
This was my response which appeared as a letter to the editor in the Daily News, Bowling Green KY on March 21:
Even in our hyperpartisan political climate, only the most strident Bush supporters could not be sickened by the president's veto of a bill that would ban the CIA from using torture techniques such as waterboarding. In his March 8 radio address, Bush hid behind the term "lawful" to describe the CIA enhanced interrogation program and continued to claim the widely discredited plot to fly planes into a Los Angeles tower as one of the program's successes.
The presidency that pressured the CIA to produce intelligence findings that supported an invasion into Iraq cannot be trusted when its attorney general calls waterboarding legal, nor can its claims of foiled terrorist plots be taken at face value. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated that he knows of no terrorist attack disrupted by the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods. He added, "I do know that coercive interrogations can lead detainees to provide false information in order to make the interrogation stop."
The Daily News endorsed waterboarding "in a time of war" on March 11, and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg characterized U. S. use of waterboarding as a few well-spent minutes. These are the impulses which must be fought. Even if the information obtained is factual, we forfeit our moral standing in the world by sub-human treatment of detainees and create more monsters than we may catch.
Bush, who used his weekly radio address to announce the veto, said the program had helped stop plots against a Marine camp in Djibouti and the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, and plans to fly passenger planes into a Los Angeles tower or London's Heathrow Airport and city buildings. "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaida and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland," the president said.
"I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack," Bush said in a statement.
This was my response which appeared as a letter to the editor in the Daily News, Bowling Green KY on March 21:
Even in our hyperpartisan political climate, only the most strident Bush supporters could not be sickened by the president's veto of a bill that would ban the CIA from using torture techniques such as waterboarding. In his March 8 radio address, Bush hid behind the term "lawful" to describe the CIA enhanced interrogation program and continued to claim the widely discredited plot to fly planes into a Los Angeles tower as one of the program's successes.
The presidency that pressured the CIA to produce intelligence findings that supported an invasion into Iraq cannot be trusted when its attorney general calls waterboarding legal, nor can its claims of foiled terrorist plots be taken at face value. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated that he knows of no terrorist attack disrupted by the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods. He added, "I do know that coercive interrogations can lead detainees to provide false information in order to make the interrogation stop."
The Daily News endorsed waterboarding "in a time of war" on March 11, and syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg characterized U. S. use of waterboarding as a few well-spent minutes. These are the impulses which must be fought. Even if the information obtained is factual, we forfeit our moral standing in the world by sub-human treatment of detainees and create more monsters than we may catch.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Shut Up and Sing?
I was sitting at the computer reading about President Bush calling for greater power in both wiretapping and reading e-mails while also watching the Dixie Chicks on Austin City Limits. I thought of how the Chicks were run over a few years ago for Natalie Maines' comment in London during the run-up to the Iraq invasion. So many in our society condemned them (a few made death threats against them) for expressing an opposition to the President's war in Iraq that most of us feel now, and yet the Chicks are still held in low regard by many who were once rabid fans.
I don't know to what extent this phenomenon is related to a desire among music fans to not hear "political" messages from artists at live performances. A similar thing happened to Linda Ronstadt when she expressed a favorable opinion of Michael Moore onstage and concertgoers walked out. That incident also happened during the height of public sentiment for the Iraq war, so that sentiment could be a factor. Yet the Dixie Chicks lost their spot on the popular music pedestal even after popular opinion turned strongly against the Iraq war.
Personally, I feel the Bush Administration has exceeded politics and conducted itself in a constitutionally dangerous manner, usurping power for the executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism. Having said that, I don't want to hear a political lecture every time I go see a concert - yet the Dixie Chicks have been steamrollered for one comment and not given the benefit of re-acceptance when the public changed its view.
I don't know to what extent this phenomenon is related to a desire among music fans to not hear "political" messages from artists at live performances. A similar thing happened to Linda Ronstadt when she expressed a favorable opinion of Michael Moore onstage and concertgoers walked out. That incident also happened during the height of public sentiment for the Iraq war, so that sentiment could be a factor. Yet the Dixie Chicks lost their spot on the popular music pedestal even after popular opinion turned strongly against the Iraq war.
Personally, I feel the Bush Administration has exceeded politics and conducted itself in a constitutionally dangerous manner, usurping power for the executive branch in the name of fighting terrorism. Having said that, I don't want to hear a political lecture every time I go see a concert - yet the Dixie Chicks have been steamrollered for one comment and not given the benefit of re-acceptance when the public changed its view.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Grisham on Political Manipulation
Former lawyer, former state legislator, and current mega-selling author John Grisham recently shared his opinion with the Associated Press of how the Democrats have been outmaneuvered by Republicans in elections. "I think what the Republicans have done in past elections is brilliant . . . they've convinced a lot of people to vote for them against their own economic self-interest, and they've done that by skillfully manipulating a handful of social issues, primarily abortion and gay rights and sometimes gun control," he said. "And the Republicans have used those to scare a lot of people into voting for Republican candidates. It's skillful manipulation."
Lest you think the hard-boiled legal/political author is full of hubris, Grisham also threw water on his own literary importance, stating "I'm not sure where that line goes between literature and popular fiction. I can assure you I don't take myself serious enough to think I'm writing literary fiction and stuff that's going to be remembered in 50 years. I'm not going to be here in 50 years; I don't care if I'm remembered or not. It's pure entertainment." He believes he's an entertainer, not a Faulkner or Joyce. But at $9 million earned last year, he's obviously compelling to contemporary readers.
Lest you think the hard-boiled legal/political author is full of hubris, Grisham also threw water on his own literary importance, stating "I'm not sure where that line goes between literature and popular fiction. I can assure you I don't take myself serious enough to think I'm writing literary fiction and stuff that's going to be remembered in 50 years. I'm not going to be here in 50 years; I don't care if I'm remembered or not. It's pure entertainment." He believes he's an entertainer, not a Faulkner or Joyce. But at $9 million earned last year, he's obviously compelling to contemporary readers.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Clicking Off the Next Year
What's in a number? Why should it matter that a new year is about to click into place on the calendar? Physically, nothing much will be different about January 1, 2008 than it was on December 31, 2007. The rising and setting of both sun and tide will work the same, and the air quality will not be measurably clearer or duller on either side of the man-made dividing line between years on the calendar.
Basically, what change there is from 2007 to 2008 is what we make it out to be, which is to say how we perceive the world, ourselves, our prospects. That will also affect what we do with the world around us according to what we perceive. Aside from the occasional reflexive shying away from things with the number 13, I have never been much on numerology. So it is my opinion that what the end of one number sequence and the start of the next brings is hope. The start of 2008 will bring hope to the minds of many -- that this is when one's life can become better, easier, wealthier, healthier, fill-in-your-desired-outcome-in-the-blank-er.
While I may throw cold water on numerology (and new year's resolutions, by the way), I do not disregard the value of new beginnings, fresh starts, the ritual hitting of the reset button. Sometimes the existence of the ritual is just the extra push we may need to shed inertia and undertake new effort.
So Happy New Year, everyone. Let's look forward, even if it's just for the hell of it, because it sure beats standing still.
Basically, what change there is from 2007 to 2008 is what we make it out to be, which is to say how we perceive the world, ourselves, our prospects. That will also affect what we do with the world around us according to what we perceive. Aside from the occasional reflexive shying away from things with the number 13, I have never been much on numerology. So it is my opinion that what the end of one number sequence and the start of the next brings is hope. The start of 2008 will bring hope to the minds of many -- that this is when one's life can become better, easier, wealthier, healthier, fill-in-your-desired-outcome-in-the-blank-er.
While I may throw cold water on numerology (and new year's resolutions, by the way), I do not disregard the value of new beginnings, fresh starts, the ritual hitting of the reset button. Sometimes the existence of the ritual is just the extra push we may need to shed inertia and undertake new effort.
So Happy New Year, everyone. Let's look forward, even if it's just for the hell of it, because it sure beats standing still.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Today's Quote on Fiscal Irresponsibility (or Hypocrisy)
"It is extraordinary that the president would request an 11 percent increase for the Department of Defense, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion of emergency funding for the war while asserting that a 4.7 percent increase for domestic programs is fiscally irresponsible" -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D- WV), chairman of Senate Appropriations Committee
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
News Weirdness for Today
Some days the weirdness of people just comes to the fore. This, apparently, is one of those days. Here's what today's news brought to my attention.
A fellow named Timothy Elliott won $1 million dollars on a scratch ticket; he's already received the first $50,000 annual installment of his prize. One problem: he's on five years probation for a January 2006 bank robbery in Cape Cod, and one of the conditions of his probation was no gambling -- including purchasing lottery tickets or being in establishments where lottery games are played. He goes before a judge December 7.
My wife heard Paul Harvey talk about someone burglarizing a shop named Everything Amish. He stole a big screen TV. Um, does this sound like a very un-Amish product to anyone else?
She also heard of a man in Aiken, South Carolina who went to the bank to open a new account. He handed the teller a $1 million bill. Hmmm. Seems the last place you want to go to pass off a bill in a non-existent denomination would be someplace where money is exchanged and transferred -- like, I don't know, a bank. He was arrested for disorderly conduct (he cussed the bank tellers when they refused his deposit) and two counts of forgery (he'd earlier bought cigarettes with a forged check).
Finally, I read of Richard Roberts speaking at a chapel at Oral Roberts University, where he told his student audience that he resigned as ORU president because God told him on Thanksgiving to do so the next day. "Every ounce of my flesh said 'no'" said Roberts, but he said he listened to the divine intervention after praying about it with his wife and his father Oral Roberts.
And so it goes.
A fellow named Timothy Elliott won $1 million dollars on a scratch ticket; he's already received the first $50,000 annual installment of his prize. One problem: he's on five years probation for a January 2006 bank robbery in Cape Cod, and one of the conditions of his probation was no gambling -- including purchasing lottery tickets or being in establishments where lottery games are played. He goes before a judge December 7.
My wife heard Paul Harvey talk about someone burglarizing a shop named Everything Amish. He stole a big screen TV. Um, does this sound like a very un-Amish product to anyone else?
She also heard of a man in Aiken, South Carolina who went to the bank to open a new account. He handed the teller a $1 million bill. Hmmm. Seems the last place you want to go to pass off a bill in a non-existent denomination would be someplace where money is exchanged and transferred -- like, I don't know, a bank. He was arrested for disorderly conduct (he cussed the bank tellers when they refused his deposit) and two counts of forgery (he'd earlier bought cigarettes with a forged check).
Finally, I read of Richard Roberts speaking at a chapel at Oral Roberts University, where he told his student audience that he resigned as ORU president because God told him on Thanksgiving to do so the next day. "Every ounce of my flesh said 'no'" said Roberts, but he said he listened to the divine intervention after praying about it with his wife and his father Oral Roberts.
And so it goes.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
We Are Not At War
It's the pat answer, the four word phrase that is the other side of the coin from "9/11." It is the verbal mechanism meant to put critics of the president's war in Iraq on the defensive, George W.'s trump card whenever our liberties are eroded, our domestic priorities shoved aside, our basic decency closeted in favor of "enhanced interrogation" methodology.
He smiles into the crowd or the camera, and with the air of an explanation of the obvious to a small child he says "We are at war."
No, Mr. President, YOU are at war -- you and your cadre of Cheneys and Rumsfelds. If WE were at war, we would have been asked to sacrifice, to give of ourselves materially and emotionally as we have in wars past. Certainly we would have had more asked of us by you than to continue shopping. Shopping!
The devil is in the details, and a close look at your conduct of this "war" shows no real commitment of your soul, no summoning of the soul of America -- just a half-hearted deployment of military resources and a concentration of power in the executive branch to stifle debate and dissent. What motivated you to go to war in Iraq has still never been revealed. It certainly wasn't the noble-sounding fiction of WMDs under Saddam Hussein's control.
If this were really "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation," as you put it in your address to the nation on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there would not be a higher priority given to continued consumer spending to keep economic numbers up than to sacrifice for the greater good. Give up basics like "the greatest generation" did with nylons in the '40s? Heavens, that would be bad for business! Just wave a flag on your porch, watch Fox News, and be scared when we want you to go along with the next shenanegans - that's all we ask of you.
This country is better than you've asked it to be, Mr. Bush. The lip service you've paid to war betrays the shaky rationale behind the Iraq misadventure, which continues to bleed the real war front in Afghanistan dry, not to mention domestic issues like, say, the SCHIP program. You may have fooled the country into invading Iraq, but you can't lead it in a war on terror if, instead of asking for its help, you continuously try and scare it to death. Oh, and tell it to keep going to the malls.
He smiles into the crowd or the camera, and with the air of an explanation of the obvious to a small child he says "We are at war."
No, Mr. President, YOU are at war -- you and your cadre of Cheneys and Rumsfelds. If WE were at war, we would have been asked to sacrifice, to give of ourselves materially and emotionally as we have in wars past. Certainly we would have had more asked of us by you than to continue shopping. Shopping!
The devil is in the details, and a close look at your conduct of this "war" shows no real commitment of your soul, no summoning of the soul of America -- just a half-hearted deployment of military resources and a concentration of power in the executive branch to stifle debate and dissent. What motivated you to go to war in Iraq has still never been revealed. It certainly wasn't the noble-sounding fiction of WMDs under Saddam Hussein's control.
If this were really "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation," as you put it in your address to the nation on the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there would not be a higher priority given to continued consumer spending to keep economic numbers up than to sacrifice for the greater good. Give up basics like "the greatest generation" did with nylons in the '40s? Heavens, that would be bad for business! Just wave a flag on your porch, watch Fox News, and be scared when we want you to go along with the next shenanegans - that's all we ask of you.
This country is better than you've asked it to be, Mr. Bush. The lip service you've paid to war betrays the shaky rationale behind the Iraq misadventure, which continues to bleed the real war front in Afghanistan dry, not to mention domestic issues like, say, the SCHIP program. You may have fooled the country into invading Iraq, but you can't lead it in a war on terror if, instead of asking for its help, you continuously try and scare it to death. Oh, and tell it to keep going to the malls.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Philip Pullman, Boogeyman Du Jour
I got one of "those" e-mails over the weekend. You know, the alarmist ones circulated by either well-meaning or propagandistic Christian e-mailers about the latest horrible threat to all things Christian. This one is about a new movie The Golden Compass, set for December release and starring Nicole Kidman. The Golden Compass is the movie adaptation of the first book in the His Dark Materials trilogy written by children's author Philip Pullman.
The e-mail (with errors included) states that Pullman is "a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies ... hates C. S. Lewis's Chronical's of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side." It continues with "The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please." The alarm culminates with Pullman and the movie-makers "hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie ... then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven."
So competing for our Halloween fright, we have an accusation of a plot by an atheist author and the "liberal Hollywood elite" to infiltrate the minds of American youth with a major studio movie that has a supposed anti-God subtext, released just in time for Christmas. How many buttons can you push at one time?
A Google search of Philip Pullman reveals the literary success of His Dark Materials (information that my bookaholic wife already knew). The protagonist of His Dark Materials is Lyra, who encounters witches, armored bears, an ominous church called the Magisterium, and travel between parallel worlds. The Golden Compass (U.S. title, original British title Northern Lights) won the Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in 1995; The Amber Spyglass, the third book, was awarded both the 2001 Whitbread Prize for best children's book and the Whitbread Book of the Year in January 2002, the first children's book ever to receive that award. His Dark Materials achieved popular acclaim in 2003, and Pullman shared the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award for children's literature in 2005.
That search also turned up a New Yorker magazine article from December 26, 2005 with an interesting, deft insight into Pullman's avowed atheism. In it, Pullman is giving a speech at an English university and relates to a tombstone of a turn-of-the-nineteenth-century woman who, according to the inscription, "shone with superior Lustre and Effect in the great School of Morals, the THEATRE." Amid chuckles at the thought, Pullman insisted such a notion of the theater wasn't ironic -- “We learn from Macbeth’s fate that killing is horrible for the killer as well as victim,” he said, then read a passage from Jane Austen's “Emma” where the heroine is mortified when Mr. Knightley reproaches her for mocking the babbling Miss Bates. Pullman said scripture need not be consulted, for “we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction.” The New Yorker also quoted Pullman from an unnamed newspaper column that “‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.”
Such a School of Morals, Pullman continued in his university speech, is inherently ambiguous, dynamic, and democratic -- a “conversation.” Opposed to this ideal is theocracy, which demonstrates “the tendency of human beings to gather power to themselves in the name of something that may not be questioned.” Interestingly, Pullman put Khomeini's Iran and the explicitly atheist Soviet Union together as examples of theocracy. He stated that man's impulse toward theocracy will defeat the School of Morals in the end, then continued “But that doesn’t mean we should give up and surrender. . . . I think we should act as if. I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. . . . We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding. We should act as if life were going to win. . . . That’s what I think they do, in the School of Morals."
Perhaps Philip Pullman is a boogeyman to some, much like J. K. Rowling became when Harry Potter books got wildly popular and the narrow minded among us thought it all a glorification of witchcraft. But I'd rather believe in Pullman's "as ifs" than Rick Santorum's "thou shalt nots" any day. In a far-too-often cynical world, that spirit of resilient optimism slogging through life's mysteries is sorely needed.
The e-mail (with errors included) states that Pullman is "a proud atheist who belongs to secular humanist societies ... hates C. S. Lewis's Chronical's of Narnia and has written a trilogy to show the other side." It continues with "The movie has been dumbed down to fool kids and their parents in the hope that they will buy his trilogy where in the end the children kill God and everyone can do as they please." The alarm culminates with Pullman and the movie-makers "hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie ... then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven."
So competing for our Halloween fright, we have an accusation of a plot by an atheist author and the "liberal Hollywood elite" to infiltrate the minds of American youth with a major studio movie that has a supposed anti-God subtext, released just in time for Christmas. How many buttons can you push at one time?
A Google search of Philip Pullman reveals the literary success of His Dark Materials (information that my bookaholic wife already knew). The protagonist of His Dark Materials is Lyra, who encounters witches, armored bears, an ominous church called the Magisterium, and travel between parallel worlds. The Golden Compass (U.S. title, original British title Northern Lights) won the Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in 1995; The Amber Spyglass, the third book, was awarded both the 2001 Whitbread Prize for best children's book and the Whitbread Book of the Year in January 2002, the first children's book ever to receive that award. His Dark Materials achieved popular acclaim in 2003, and Pullman shared the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award for children's literature in 2005.
That search also turned up a New Yorker magazine article from December 26, 2005 with an interesting, deft insight into Pullman's avowed atheism. In it, Pullman is giving a speech at an English university and relates to a tombstone of a turn-of-the-nineteenth-century woman who, according to the inscription, "shone with superior Lustre and Effect in the great School of Morals, the THEATRE." Amid chuckles at the thought, Pullman insisted such a notion of the theater wasn't ironic -- “We learn from Macbeth’s fate that killing is horrible for the killer as well as victim,” he said, then read a passage from Jane Austen's “Emma” where the heroine is mortified when Mr. Knightley reproaches her for mocking the babbling Miss Bates. Pullman said scripture need not be consulted, for “we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction.” The New Yorker also quoted Pullman from an unnamed newspaper column that “‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.”
Such a School of Morals, Pullman continued in his university speech, is inherently ambiguous, dynamic, and democratic -- a “conversation.” Opposed to this ideal is theocracy, which demonstrates “the tendency of human beings to gather power to themselves in the name of something that may not be questioned.” Interestingly, Pullman put Khomeini's Iran and the explicitly atheist Soviet Union together as examples of theocracy. He stated that man's impulse toward theocracy will defeat the School of Morals in the end, then continued “But that doesn’t mean we should give up and surrender. . . . I think we should act as if. I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. . . . We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding. We should act as if life were going to win. . . . That’s what I think they do, in the School of Morals."
Perhaps Philip Pullman is a boogeyman to some, much like J. K. Rowling became when Harry Potter books got wildly popular and the narrow minded among us thought it all a glorification of witchcraft. But I'd rather believe in Pullman's "as ifs" than Rick Santorum's "thou shalt nots" any day. In a far-too-often cynical world, that spirit of resilient optimism slogging through life's mysteries is sorely needed.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Majoring in Minors
There was a saying I encountered around the time I was in college or perhaps in my first office job afterward: majoring in minors and minoring in majors. One can call up a lot of forest-for-the-trees sorts of analogies to this phrase, but the point is a warning of getting lost in the trivial at the expense of what's important.
I thought about this as I looked at the bells and whistles bloggers use to decorate their sites. From You-Tube-ish video clips to elaborate webpage templates, there's probably an embarrassingly large amount of what's possible on a blog layout that I don't know about. I notice, however, that when I read other people's blogs I gravitate toward those which have compelling content, however it is displayed, as opposed to those emphasizing an entertaining visual effect.
Obviously, "majoring in minors" can refer to wide swaths of human endeavor, be it personal, social, business, or political. And this is not to mention mixing those areas -- for example, how much focus on self-interest would be "majoring in minors" when compared to the good of society, or how much emphasis on governmental and/or political power would so qualify relative to the rights of the individual.
The realities of our household lifestyle, particularly its limitations, tend to focus attention away from typical middle-class social norms of entertainment. We don't entertain, nor do we socialize away from our jobs or our individual entrepreneurial activities (music for me, handcrafting for my wife). Also, we choose to find ways to utilize resources in a more frugal manner and practice as much self-sufficiency as we can develop. Suffice it to say that the latest exploits of the Kentucky Wildcats basketball team are not as central to my life as they once were.
So it is that my humble blog here is relatively basic in layout. If I could not express an idea worthy of interest to the reader, I would shut the blog down before I'd cover things up with eye candy. This is a vehicle for my expression, not a competition with the elite of the blogosphere, and what I say is more important than how pretty it could look.
I thought about this as I looked at the bells and whistles bloggers use to decorate their sites. From You-Tube-ish video clips to elaborate webpage templates, there's probably an embarrassingly large amount of what's possible on a blog layout that I don't know about. I notice, however, that when I read other people's blogs I gravitate toward those which have compelling content, however it is displayed, as opposed to those emphasizing an entertaining visual effect.
Obviously, "majoring in minors" can refer to wide swaths of human endeavor, be it personal, social, business, or political. And this is not to mention mixing those areas -- for example, how much focus on self-interest would be "majoring in minors" when compared to the good of society, or how much emphasis on governmental and/or political power would so qualify relative to the rights of the individual.
The realities of our household lifestyle, particularly its limitations, tend to focus attention away from typical middle-class social norms of entertainment. We don't entertain, nor do we socialize away from our jobs or our individual entrepreneurial activities (music for me, handcrafting for my wife). Also, we choose to find ways to utilize resources in a more frugal manner and practice as much self-sufficiency as we can develop. Suffice it to say that the latest exploits of the Kentucky Wildcats basketball team are not as central to my life as they once were.
So it is that my humble blog here is relatively basic in layout. If I could not express an idea worthy of interest to the reader, I would shut the blog down before I'd cover things up with eye candy. This is a vehicle for my expression, not a competition with the elite of the blogosphere, and what I say is more important than how pretty it could look.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Work Comp at the Stripper Pole
I read this morning that a woman in Indiana has been awarded worker's compensation for an injury she sustained while performing her job . . . as an exotic dancer.
Quick question: how many people knew that worker's comp covered exotic dance businesses? Not many I'd wager, or this would not be national news.
This morning's report is actually the Indiana Court of Appeals upholding the award to Angela Hobson, who injured herself while dancing on the pole at Shangri-La West club in Fort Wayne on December 20, 2001. Hobson underwent surgery for a herniated disc in her cervical spine, according to court records. The court ordered the state Worker's Compensation Board to determine if she was entitled to double compensation, due to Shangri-La letting its workman's comp insurance lapse.
Marginalize or demonize the exotic dance business if you will. But business is business, and an injury on that job is just as deserving of worker's compensation as an injury in a warehouse or mine. The only difference? Thanks to our culture, it just makes news.
Quick question: how many people knew that worker's comp covered exotic dance businesses? Not many I'd wager, or this would not be national news.
This morning's report is actually the Indiana Court of Appeals upholding the award to Angela Hobson, who injured herself while dancing on the pole at Shangri-La West club in Fort Wayne on December 20, 2001. Hobson underwent surgery for a herniated disc in her cervical spine, according to court records. The court ordered the state Worker's Compensation Board to determine if she was entitled to double compensation, due to Shangri-La letting its workman's comp insurance lapse.
Marginalize or demonize the exotic dance business if you will. But business is business, and an injury on that job is just as deserving of worker's compensation as an injury in a warehouse or mine. The only difference? Thanks to our culture, it just makes news.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Got Nothing to Say?
What to do when you want to say something but you can't put your finger on anything to say? Sounds like blogging and songwriting are not too dissimilar in that respect. Many don't want to make the effort to say something if there's nothing particularly important to say. On the other hand, having nothing to say doesn't get in the way of a great many who go right out and say it; in fact, saying nothing has been done entertainingly at times in both the written and musical media (and if you want to see it elevated to a real art form, look no further than politics).
If there's an answer to the above question, I guess it's this: when in doubt, ponder. It may seem like pointless noodling before you get into it, but it gets your mind's wheels moving, and the destination you didn't see when you were mentally parked may present itself while in motion.
I fear pointless or fruitless action, which may explain why I've always been a procrastinator. This world of limited spare time tends to reinforce that behavior in me. There are times to risk the discomfort, break the familiar pattern, and discover what's lurking in the mind. What you find to say may be important, or it may discover the rock underneath which something important lies waiting to be uncovered.
If there's an answer to the above question, I guess it's this: when in doubt, ponder. It may seem like pointless noodling before you get into it, but it gets your mind's wheels moving, and the destination you didn't see when you were mentally parked may present itself while in motion.
I fear pointless or fruitless action, which may explain why I've always been a procrastinator. This world of limited spare time tends to reinforce that behavior in me. There are times to risk the discomfort, break the familiar pattern, and discover what's lurking in the mind. What you find to say may be important, or it may discover the rock underneath which something important lies waiting to be uncovered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
