Make sure that you watch the whole thing, especially the background, and see if you can pick out the not so subtle symbolism.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
Make sure that you watch the whole thing, especially the background, and see if you can pick out the not so subtle symbolism.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Menacing Mud Flaps of Mayhem
Above is a picture of my car after an 18 wheeler lost a retred that flew across the highway into high speed traffic. There is over $1000 worth of damage in the form of dents, scratches, and broken pieces. Not to mention that I had my entire family in the car while the huge chunk of rubber was hurdling across the highway, sending drivers skidding in every direction.
This is not the first time that I have had the displeasure of dealing with the fallout from big rigs on the highway. Below is a picture of one of my previous cars after I was forced onto an uneven breakdown lane at high speed, lost control, spun out and hit the guard rail.
And although multiple people were injured in these accidents, with loads of witnesses, neither of these truckers was found.
My friend Tom swears that when he is Ruler of the World, trains will once again be the preferred method of mass transporting and big rigs will be banned from all but short distances. And while he may not get my support for ruler of everything, he does have my vote for future head of the US Department of Transportation.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Subtle as a Clown on Fire
This blog post is a message to all of those out there in the US who have lost the ability to convey any form of subtly whatsoever. So in the spirit of blunt language that leaves nothing to the imagination, I would like to formally ask everyone who doesn’t know the art of subtly to go fuck themselves.
Please let me explain.
Over the last decade or so America has been experiencing a time of wealth not seen for several generations. We are living in the time of abundance, where things are cheap and life is good for most people. This has created a society that thrives on whatever is new, the best, and, above all else, as showy as possible. Women wearing clothes that were once the fabric of art nouveau couches from the 1960s, men have labels so large that they might as well be price tags, we now believe that we are only the sum of our sums.
The only possible path from where we are now is embarrassment (see the fallout from the fashions of the 1970s) or clothing that flashes your net worth across your chest. So let me suggest a couple of ground rules for you to remember before purchasing anything new.
If a shirt looks like it could be hiding a 3D Magic Eye image, don’t buy it.
If the label is large enough to contain a storyline, don’t buy it.
If a shirt is cleverer than you, don’t buy it.
If something is leather covered and disposable, don’t buy it.
If you are considering designer clothes for someone or something that can’t read the label, don’t buy it.
And last but certainly not least:
Do not advertise on your ass unless you are actually selling your ass.
Breaking any of these rules will make you the major form of ridicule five years from now. Just think back to all of those people smiling like jackasses in striped polyester suits or bellbottoms with 12” cuffs and realize that will be you in a couple years if you keep this shit up.
Please let me explain.
Over the last decade or so America has been experiencing a time of wealth not seen for several generations. We are living in the time of abundance, where things are cheap and life is good for most people. This has created a society that thrives on whatever is new, the best, and, above all else, as showy as possible. Women wearing clothes that were once the fabric of art nouveau couches from the 1960s, men have labels so large that they might as well be price tags, we now believe that we are only the sum of our sums.
The only possible path from where we are now is embarrassment (see the fallout from the fashions of the 1970s) or clothing that flashes your net worth across your chest. So let me suggest a couple of ground rules for you to remember before purchasing anything new.
If a shirt looks like it could be hiding a 3D Magic Eye image, don’t buy it.
If the label is large enough to contain a storyline, don’t buy it.
If a shirt is cleverer than you, don’t buy it.
If something is leather covered and disposable, don’t buy it.
If you are considering designer clothes for someone or something that can’t read the label, don’t buy it.
And last but certainly not least:
Do not advertise on your ass unless you are actually selling your ass.
Breaking any of these rules will make you the major form of ridicule five years from now. Just think back to all of those people smiling like jackasses in striped polyester suits or bellbottoms with 12” cuffs and realize that will be you in a couple years if you keep this shit up.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monty Python launches YouTube Channel
Monty Python has launched a YouTube channel. And although the page features a slew of clips from the show, most noteworthy is its featured video, which blames users for "ripping" the show off.
"For three years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them on YouTube," it says on the Monty Python YouTube page. "Now the tables are turned. It's time for us to take matters into our own hands.
"We know who you are, we know where you live and we could come after you in ways too horrible to tell. But being the extraordinarily nice chaps we are, we've figured a better way to get our own back: We've launched our own Monty Python channel on YouTube.
The post claims Monty Python has put an end to "those crap quality videos" that have been posted across YouTube and will start delivering "HQ videos" from the "vault."
All videos posted on the Monty Python channel will be free to view, but the show doesn't want viewers to watch the free shows and do nothing. Instead, it asks for something in return.
"None of your driveling, mindless comments," Monty Python wrote on its YouTube page. "Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies and TV shows, and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years."
So far, the Monty Python page features 24 videos, but more clips are promised in the future.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=MONTY+PYTHON&x=0&y=0
"For three years you YouTubers have been ripping us off, taking tens of thousands of our videos and putting them on YouTube," it says on the Monty Python YouTube page. "Now the tables are turned. It's time for us to take matters into our own hands.
"We know who you are, we know where you live and we could come after you in ways too horrible to tell. But being the extraordinarily nice chaps we are, we've figured a better way to get our own back: We've launched our own Monty Python channel on YouTube.
The post claims Monty Python has put an end to "those crap quality videos" that have been posted across YouTube and will start delivering "HQ videos" from the "vault."
All videos posted on the Monty Python channel will be free to view, but the show doesn't want viewers to watch the free shows and do nothing. Instead, it asks for something in return.
"None of your driveling, mindless comments," Monty Python wrote on its YouTube page. "Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies and TV shows, and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years."
So far, the Monty Python page features 24 videos, but more clips are promised in the future.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=MONTY+PYTHON&x=0&y=0
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Entry for November 15, 2008
Unhappy People Watch Lots More TV
Jeanna Bryner - Senior Writer - LiveScience.com
Unhappy people glue themselves to the television 30 percent more than happy people.
The finding, announced on Thursday, comes from a survey of nearly 30,000 American adults conducted between 1975 and 2006 as part of the General Social Survey.
While happy people reported watching an average of 19 hours of television per week, unhappy people reported 25 hours a week. The results held even after taking into account education, income, age and marital status.
In addition, happy individuals were more socially active, attended more religious services, voted more and read a newspaper more often than their less-chipper counterparts.
The researchers are not sure, though, whether unhappiness leads to more television-watching or more viewing leads to unhappiness.
In fact, people say they like watching television: Past research has shown that when people watch television they enjoy it. In these studies, participants reported that on a scale from 0 (dislike) to 10 (greatly enjoy), TV-watching was nearly an 8.
But perhaps the high from watching television doesn't last.
"These conflicting data suggest that TV may provide viewers with short-run pleasure, but at the expense of long-term malaise," said researcher John Robinson, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, College Park.
In this scenario, even the happiest campers could turn into Debbie-downers if they continue to stare at the boob-tube. The researchers suggest that over time, television-viewing could push out other activities that do have more lasting benefits. Exercise and sex come to mind, as do parties and other forms of socialization known to have psychological benefits.
Or, maybe television is simply a refuge for people who are already unhappy.
"TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it," Robinson and UM colleague Steven Martin write in the December issue of the journal Social Indicators Research.
They add, "Furthermore, chronic unhappiness can be socially and personally debilitating and can interfere with work and most social and personal activities, but even the unhappiest people can click a remote and be passively entertained by a TV."
The researchers say follow-up studies are needed to tease out the relationship between television and happiness.
Jeanna Bryner - Senior Writer - LiveScience.com
Unhappy people glue themselves to the television 30 percent more than happy people.
The finding, announced on Thursday, comes from a survey of nearly 30,000 American adults conducted between 1975 and 2006 as part of the General Social Survey.
While happy people reported watching an average of 19 hours of television per week, unhappy people reported 25 hours a week. The results held even after taking into account education, income, age and marital status.
In addition, happy individuals were more socially active, attended more religious services, voted more and read a newspaper more often than their less-chipper counterparts.
The researchers are not sure, though, whether unhappiness leads to more television-watching or more viewing leads to unhappiness.
In fact, people say they like watching television: Past research has shown that when people watch television they enjoy it. In these studies, participants reported that on a scale from 0 (dislike) to 10 (greatly enjoy), TV-watching was nearly an 8.
But perhaps the high from watching television doesn't last.
"These conflicting data suggest that TV may provide viewers with short-run pleasure, but at the expense of long-term malaise," said researcher John Robinson, a sociologist at the University of Maryland, College Park.
In this scenario, even the happiest campers could turn into Debbie-downers if they continue to stare at the boob-tube. The researchers suggest that over time, television-viewing could push out other activities that do have more lasting benefits. Exercise and sex come to mind, as do parties and other forms of socialization known to have psychological benefits.
Or, maybe television is simply a refuge for people who are already unhappy.
"TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it," Robinson and UM colleague Steven Martin write in the December issue of the journal Social Indicators Research.
They add, "Furthermore, chronic unhappiness can be socially and personally debilitating and can interfere with work and most social and personal activities, but even the unhappiest people can click a remote and be passively entertained by a TV."
The researchers say follow-up studies are needed to tease out the relationship between television and happiness.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Walking With God
I once met God while I was walking through the woods. I said, “There are a lot of people looking for you”.
“Yeah,” he said, “I’ve been here the whole time.”
“Really, I mean, there are some vague images of you, but nothing that we would consider to be definite or absolute.”
“Oh, that’s because I’m not always visible to those who don’t venture this far”.
“I see” I said.
“You know, we are one in the same, you and I. We have the same history, come from the same place, and are brothers.”
“Wow, I always wondered, but it’s not like you were around to answer questions. We all would like to spend some time talking to you.”
“I think that I’m ready to see the world and answer any questions that you might have”.
So God and I walked out of the woods, hand in hand, and it was there that we happened upon our first group of nonbelievers. Some screamed, most ran, and a few who were faithful stood there in awe. Eventually a small child came forward and approached God. Innocently she reached up to take his free hand and he took it in hers.
After a few minutes of us all staring and basking in God’s’ presence, I asked the little girl what she thought of Him. She smiled and looked up into his large face and said, “My Grandmother always said that you existed, but no one believed her. Now I can go back and tell her that Bigfoot is real”.
It was then that I realized my mistake.
“Yeah,” he said, “I’ve been here the whole time.”
“Really, I mean, there are some vague images of you, but nothing that we would consider to be definite or absolute.”
“Oh, that’s because I’m not always visible to those who don’t venture this far”.
“I see” I said.
“You know, we are one in the same, you and I. We have the same history, come from the same place, and are brothers.”
“Wow, I always wondered, but it’s not like you were around to answer questions. We all would like to spend some time talking to you.”
“I think that I’m ready to see the world and answer any questions that you might have”.
So God and I walked out of the woods, hand in hand, and it was there that we happened upon our first group of nonbelievers. Some screamed, most ran, and a few who were faithful stood there in awe. Eventually a small child came forward and approached God. Innocently she reached up to take his free hand and he took it in hers.
After a few minutes of us all staring and basking in God’s’ presence, I asked the little girl what she thought of Him. She smiled and looked up into his large face and said, “My Grandmother always said that you existed, but no one believed her. Now I can go back and tell her that Bigfoot is real”.
It was then that I realized my mistake.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Atlas Knows That He Will Fail
Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor - Norman Mailer
No man is comfortable with himself in relation to his responsibility. Our role models are stoic men of few words and unfaltering action: as all men are expected to quietly lead ourselves to the slaughter for the good of others. If we are allowed to live through our lives, it is only to be silent and strong role models for the next generation.
Unfortunately I am not a simple man and have the same expected weight to carry as my forefathers. This has led to my realization that martyrdom, no matter how romantic, is no way to live a life.
That being said, inflicting pain on others is something for up which I will not stand. If given the choice between self-sacrifice and harming others, I will obviously offer myself up for vicarious atonement. I am not a brave in any way, and recoil at the thought of being recognized for such an action, but see it as the only real choice.
This is not an affirmation of weakness laced with anger or silent rage for my gender. Instead, I plea for patience for those of us who must deal with someone like me, who has an equally conflicting situationally-driven paranoid endurance and a desire for simplistic character. I wish that reality gave those of us with strong backs less to carry, but evolution always proves that we have them for a reason.
So I accept my position, but only on the terms that everyone understands that it is mostly unrealistic and I will occasionally fail.
No man is comfortable with himself in relation to his responsibility. Our role models are stoic men of few words and unfaltering action: as all men are expected to quietly lead ourselves to the slaughter for the good of others. If we are allowed to live through our lives, it is only to be silent and strong role models for the next generation.
Unfortunately I am not a simple man and have the same expected weight to carry as my forefathers. This has led to my realization that martyrdom, no matter how romantic, is no way to live a life.
That being said, inflicting pain on others is something for up which I will not stand. If given the choice between self-sacrifice and harming others, I will obviously offer myself up for vicarious atonement. I am not a brave in any way, and recoil at the thought of being recognized for such an action, but see it as the only real choice.
This is not an affirmation of weakness laced with anger or silent rage for my gender. Instead, I plea for patience for those of us who must deal with someone like me, who has an equally conflicting situationally-driven paranoid endurance and a desire for simplistic character. I wish that reality gave those of us with strong backs less to carry, but evolution always proves that we have them for a reason.
So I accept my position, but only on the terms that everyone understands that it is mostly unrealistic and I will occasionally fail.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
and then the dust settled...
"This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America." - President Barack Obama
So now what?
Feel free to rearrange these in the order that you believe that they should. Here is the quick jot list for the next four years:
End the War in Iraq
Rebuild our aged national infrastructure
Put education back as a high priority
Push a national science mandate
Find a way to make healthcare available or affordable for all
Fix our international reputation
Complete the War in Afghanistan
Move towards energy independence
Reverse the slide of our dollar
Stop selling ourselves to China
Repair the damage and find a balance with the environment
Shore up our borders
Deal with the threat of terrorism in a realistic way
Pick one and get to work.
Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America." - President Barack Obama
So now what?
Feel free to rearrange these in the order that you believe that they should. Here is the quick jot list for the next four years:
End the War in Iraq
Rebuild our aged national infrastructure
Put education back as a high priority
Push a national science mandate
Find a way to make healthcare available or affordable for all
Fix our international reputation
Complete the War in Afghanistan
Move towards energy independence
Reverse the slide of our dollar
Stop selling ourselves to China
Repair the damage and find a balance with the environment
Shore up our borders
Deal with the threat of terrorism in a realistic way
Pick one and get to work.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Changing of the Guard
In 1969, Elisabeth Kübler released a book called "On Death and Dying" that described the Kübler-Ross model of five discrete stages by which people deal with grief. The stages are have since been expanded to seven and include: Shock and Disbelief, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Guilt, Depression, and Acceptance and Hope. They are not only applicable to individual grief, but to groups as a whole. We can see a living example of this right now in the Republican Party.
At first they were Shocked by the Democrats ability to stay competitive in the 2008 presidential race. Disbelief raised its head when the market slumped. Shortly there after Denial set in and they couldn’t believe that there was a chance that they may actually lose power.
We are now at the stage of Anger. The far right, neoconservative side of the Republican Party is about to be put to bed and they refuse to go quietly. Like a child who is doing everything that they can to stay up, they’ve resorted to name calling, tantrum, lies, and threats all to hold on just a little longer.
For the moderate conservative side of the party, the side that has been ignored in lieu of Christian Fundamentalist, big government through an ever ballooning military, and strong authoritarian leanings by a select group of powerful individuals, this is their opportunity to reclaim their party.
And this is where Bargaining comes in. They can keep their party strong as long as they talk to the old neoconservative mouth pieces, that are currently stuck in anger and daily trotting out how the other side is represented by the antichrist or how the left getting power is a sign of some apocalyptic communist doom, and make them feel Guilt for taking your party down that path, losing their conservative ways, and selling-out to shameful neoconservative ideals.
This reality check will indeed send some of them into Depression. Losing power is hard, especially when it was unchecked for so long. Undoubtedly some will not let go of the depression or guilt and revert to anger once again. Ostracize these people for holding your party back. Recovering your party is not too far off, but you will need the corporation of everyone to reach a general Acceptance. With luck, you can rebuild the Republican Party on a conservative platform that is not controlled by religious special-interests or neoconservative ideologues.
And as a liberal, I welcome them back. Our country works best on balance. The liberal side needs the conservative side so that the country does not pendulum too far to the left. Our strength comes from the wobble between the two sides of moderate. It is with that moderation and balance in mind that we can all Hope for a better tomorrow.
At first they were Shocked by the Democrats ability to stay competitive in the 2008 presidential race. Disbelief raised its head when the market slumped. Shortly there after Denial set in and they couldn’t believe that there was a chance that they may actually lose power.
We are now at the stage of Anger. The far right, neoconservative side of the Republican Party is about to be put to bed and they refuse to go quietly. Like a child who is doing everything that they can to stay up, they’ve resorted to name calling, tantrum, lies, and threats all to hold on just a little longer.
For the moderate conservative side of the party, the side that has been ignored in lieu of Christian Fundamentalist, big government through an ever ballooning military, and strong authoritarian leanings by a select group of powerful individuals, this is their opportunity to reclaim their party.
And this is where Bargaining comes in. They can keep their party strong as long as they talk to the old neoconservative mouth pieces, that are currently stuck in anger and daily trotting out how the other side is represented by the antichrist or how the left getting power is a sign of some apocalyptic communist doom, and make them feel Guilt for taking your party down that path, losing their conservative ways, and selling-out to shameful neoconservative ideals.
This reality check will indeed send some of them into Depression. Losing power is hard, especially when it was unchecked for so long. Undoubtedly some will not let go of the depression or guilt and revert to anger once again. Ostracize these people for holding your party back. Recovering your party is not too far off, but you will need the corporation of everyone to reach a general Acceptance. With luck, you can rebuild the Republican Party on a conservative platform that is not controlled by religious special-interests or neoconservative ideologues.
And as a liberal, I welcome them back. Our country works best on balance. The liberal side needs the conservative side so that the country does not pendulum too far to the left. Our strength comes from the wobble between the two sides of moderate. It is with that moderation and balance in mind that we can all Hope for a better tomorrow.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Our Country Needs a Steady Hand, Not a Maverick
We have a faltering economy, two ongoing wars, tenuous relations with several heavily armed countries, massive public educational missteps, rapidly increasing fuel prices, skyrocketing debt, and an environmental problem that requires our best mind and I all I hear from our media heads is that our country wants someone with whom we can have a beer with. If I hear this intellectually infantile declaration one more time, I may lose it.
I want someone who, by direct comparison, makes me look like I have a mental handicap. I want our next president to speak twelve languages, do quantum physics in their head, and knows my needs better than I do. Moreover, I want someone who doesn’t have time to sit down and have a beer with me while I empty my picayune mind.
Barring that, I’ll settle for someone who is a careful and deliberate intellectual - someone who is not erratic in his decisions, doesn’t make decisions on the fly, and has the ability to say that he is wrong when he has obviously messed up. Our country wants a leader that represents the best of who and what we are. We deserve an intellectual who doesn’t run the country like he’s constantly seeking a perpetually one-party rule. And we need the best of us to lead us once again.
I want someone who, by direct comparison, makes me look like I have a mental handicap. I want our next president to speak twelve languages, do quantum physics in their head, and knows my needs better than I do. Moreover, I want someone who doesn’t have time to sit down and have a beer with me while I empty my picayune mind.
Barring that, I’ll settle for someone who is a careful and deliberate intellectual - someone who is not erratic in his decisions, doesn’t make decisions on the fly, and has the ability to say that he is wrong when he has obviously messed up. Our country wants a leader that represents the best of who and what we are. We deserve an intellectual who doesn’t run the country like he’s constantly seeking a perpetually one-party rule. And we need the best of us to lead us once again.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Herb's Salad
Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. And although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods, and snacks. The findings, reported in the Dec. 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups.
People don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data shows that it is easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables. And the problem compounds when you realize that it is easier to overeat on junk food because it tastes good and because eaters often must consume a greater volume in order to feel satisfied. Still, even those who consume twice as much in junk food calories are still spending far less than healthy eaters.
If you only have a couple dollars to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar; not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods. This is why I thought that I would make an appeal for one of the greatest staples of the American diet.
We as Americans love our salads. We have taken what has been a side dish around the world and created so many variations that a salad is now the standard at almost ever restaurant and dining room in America. I have recently rediscovered my love of salads and had forgotten how flexible they are. Each night we cut up any vegetables in the garden or fridge and dump them all into one bowl. This has led to what is generally known as our house Garbage Salad.
The latest incarnation of our daily dinner salad is the Herb’s Salad. It is your basic Garbage Salad with whole herbs from the garden thrown in on top. It is amazing what full leaves of basil, oregano, thyme, cilantro, parsley, and beet leaves (very tasty) can add to the smell and flavor of the salad. Our salads are now at the point where they don’t need a dressing.
Pictured below is the salad from last night. It is a combination of banana peppers, cucumber, tomato, red and orange peppers, whole basil leaves, red onions, cilantro leaves, white onions, oregano leaves, beat leaves, avocado, and two kinds of lettuce. The total effect is one of a large course with the meal. Moreover, a salad like this can be coupled with just about any amount of meat to make a complete meal.
The best part of the salad pictured above is that its total price was $6.89 and fed five people (along with the main course of chicken). The reason it was so cheap is because a healthy portion of it was grown, in pots, on our back porch. The total cost of soil, pots, seeds or plants, and water is estimated at $21.55. Almost a hundred salads (or other sides, snacks, or ingredients to other items) can be harvested from that original investment.
So as the cost of healthy foods increases, we need to learn to offset it while still maintaining a nourishing and wholesome diet. Supplementing expensive healthy food with something as versatile as a salad is not only a wise idea, it may be the best idea while still staying relatively cheap. Good food doesn’t need to be a treated as a luxury - no matter how good it may be.
People don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data shows that it is easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables. And the problem compounds when you realize that it is easier to overeat on junk food because it tastes good and because eaters often must consume a greater volume in order to feel satisfied. Still, even those who consume twice as much in junk food calories are still spending far less than healthy eaters.
If you only have a couple dollars to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar; not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods. This is why I thought that I would make an appeal for one of the greatest staples of the American diet.
We as Americans love our salads. We have taken what has been a side dish around the world and created so many variations that a salad is now the standard at almost ever restaurant and dining room in America. I have recently rediscovered my love of salads and had forgotten how flexible they are. Each night we cut up any vegetables in the garden or fridge and dump them all into one bowl. This has led to what is generally known as our house Garbage Salad.
The latest incarnation of our daily dinner salad is the Herb’s Salad. It is your basic Garbage Salad with whole herbs from the garden thrown in on top. It is amazing what full leaves of basil, oregano, thyme, cilantro, parsley, and beet leaves (very tasty) can add to the smell and flavor of the salad. Our salads are now at the point where they don’t need a dressing.
Pictured below is the salad from last night. It is a combination of banana peppers, cucumber, tomato, red and orange peppers, whole basil leaves, red onions, cilantro leaves, white onions, oregano leaves, beat leaves, avocado, and two kinds of lettuce. The total effect is one of a large course with the meal. Moreover, a salad like this can be coupled with just about any amount of meat to make a complete meal.
The best part of the salad pictured above is that its total price was $6.89 and fed five people (along with the main course of chicken). The reason it was so cheap is because a healthy portion of it was grown, in pots, on our back porch. The total cost of soil, pots, seeds or plants, and water is estimated at $21.55. Almost a hundred salads (or other sides, snacks, or ingredients to other items) can be harvested from that original investment.
So as the cost of healthy foods increases, we need to learn to offset it while still maintaining a nourishing and wholesome diet. Supplementing expensive healthy food with something as versatile as a salad is not only a wise idea, it may be the best idea while still staying relatively cheap. Good food doesn’t need to be a treated as a luxury - no matter how good it may be.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
It Was a Dark and Stormy Nightmare
I love my son, but I fear for his life. This isn’t a rational fear, but its persistent, overwhelming, and it happens to all parents. You see, children are born with no fear what-so-ever. You save their lives hundreds of times a day, rearrange your life to keep them safe, and imagine an infinite number of ways in which harm can come to them. These thoughts can eventually metastasize into nervous idiosyncrasies that can easily manifest themselves and create overprotective parents.
With me, the fear haunts my dreams. I do what I can to suppress it, but the fear has a way of sneaking through. Below is a dream that I had several nights ago. It’s horrific and I apologize ahead of time, but feel the need to share so that I will not have this dream again.
* * *
I was cold and lifeless before he was, still in my thoughts and emotions, and silently accepting of the situation on some level deeper than I should have. I always assumed that he would die before me, things in my life just happened that way. He was my first son and the last of my hope. Hope for myself, nothing else. I had failed at everything in life and he was to be my salvation - proof that I was something. So as I looked down at his lifeless body, wondering how something so fragile could ever really have a chance, I knew that my own life had also just ended.
It had started seven months before on my wife’s birthday as the best present possible in the worst possible wrapping. He was 8 pounds 4 ounces, 19 inches long, and was born at 9:57AM Eastern Standard Time. They took him immediately, fluid in his lungs, and he stayed in the hospital for almost a week. She stayed by him while I tried to keep the family and friends away. When he finally emerged from the hospital a week later, he was healthy and normal.
His small body, dead and still perfect, lodged in my head as I crawled into the tub. She had left for her parents; family would heal her. I told myself that I would feel no pain, but I didn’t care. A friend who I trusted would find me in a couple hours and tell the story. Everyone would claim that they saw it coming and did nothing. Vague admissions to pardon my actions, but all meant to bolster the pain. I now wished the pain would come, but knew it wouldn’t. I was already dead.
The months ahead of him were normal in every way. Fawning family, sycophantic friends, and random well-wishers - all stealing his time for their own. I was a good father and did everything that I could to make his time here perfect. For a while I thought that my life was renewed, like some sort of forgiveness of past sins. He learned to smile, roll over, and laugh all while looking at me. My confidence grew with each of his victories and I was a better person than I have ever been before.
They took his body away immediately. Standard operating procedure when an infant is involved. You just can’t trust parents not to kill their children. This was no different. He was bagged, zipped, and carried out by someone who tried not to say anything. My wife sobbed and I stood there like an idiot. Arrangements were hastily made, she left shortly after, and we barely exchanged words. Both of us were dumb, but I remained motionless in her fury to keep moving.
He had been learning how to stand - pulling himself up on anything or anyone within reach. Food was his latest hobby and he never failed to get most of it in his mouth. He smiled a lot and people told him that he was beautiful. He was, he knew it, and it showed. Confidence would have never been a problem for him. I’m sure that all parents think that their baby is above average, but I really believed it.
My decision to kill myself had been automatic - I had no choice in the matter. I would always remember his smile and the cold way that it distorted once I realized that he was dead. It would haunt me until I died, so there was no use in prolonging the inevitable. I waited for her to leave, took several more phone calls, and made sure that someone was coming to check on me. Business as usual, just punching the clock and doing my job.
It was the stereotypical morning that you always hear about. Movement, shuffling, and quiet sounds emanated from his crib. I rose to catch him before he could get grumpy, but this time it was different. The sounds had come from my head, during their usual time, and I had got up in expectation of a smile and our practiced morning. Later they would call it Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - I knew that you wanted something sexier, but life doesn’t work that way. He died by himself, hours before me, and was a better person. I would like to tell you that I looked as beautiful as I lay in the tub, that my smile equaled his, and that I would be missed as much, but I know better. He was the best of me and I was just finishing what he had started.
With me, the fear haunts my dreams. I do what I can to suppress it, but the fear has a way of sneaking through. Below is a dream that I had several nights ago. It’s horrific and I apologize ahead of time, but feel the need to share so that I will not have this dream again.
I was cold and lifeless before he was, still in my thoughts and emotions, and silently accepting of the situation on some level deeper than I should have. I always assumed that he would die before me, things in my life just happened that way. He was my first son and the last of my hope. Hope for myself, nothing else. I had failed at everything in life and he was to be my salvation - proof that I was something. So as I looked down at his lifeless body, wondering how something so fragile could ever really have a chance, I knew that my own life had also just ended.
It had started seven months before on my wife’s birthday as the best present possible in the worst possible wrapping. He was 8 pounds 4 ounces, 19 inches long, and was born at 9:57AM Eastern Standard Time. They took him immediately, fluid in his lungs, and he stayed in the hospital for almost a week. She stayed by him while I tried to keep the family and friends away. When he finally emerged from the hospital a week later, he was healthy and normal.
His small body, dead and still perfect, lodged in my head as I crawled into the tub. She had left for her parents; family would heal her. I told myself that I would feel no pain, but I didn’t care. A friend who I trusted would find me in a couple hours and tell the story. Everyone would claim that they saw it coming and did nothing. Vague admissions to pardon my actions, but all meant to bolster the pain. I now wished the pain would come, but knew it wouldn’t. I was already dead.
The months ahead of him were normal in every way. Fawning family, sycophantic friends, and random well-wishers - all stealing his time for their own. I was a good father and did everything that I could to make his time here perfect. For a while I thought that my life was renewed, like some sort of forgiveness of past sins. He learned to smile, roll over, and laugh all while looking at me. My confidence grew with each of his victories and I was a better person than I have ever been before.
They took his body away immediately. Standard operating procedure when an infant is involved. You just can’t trust parents not to kill their children. This was no different. He was bagged, zipped, and carried out by someone who tried not to say anything. My wife sobbed and I stood there like an idiot. Arrangements were hastily made, she left shortly after, and we barely exchanged words. Both of us were dumb, but I remained motionless in her fury to keep moving.
He had been learning how to stand - pulling himself up on anything or anyone within reach. Food was his latest hobby and he never failed to get most of it in his mouth. He smiled a lot and people told him that he was beautiful. He was, he knew it, and it showed. Confidence would have never been a problem for him. I’m sure that all parents think that their baby is above average, but I really believed it.
My decision to kill myself had been automatic - I had no choice in the matter. I would always remember his smile and the cold way that it distorted once I realized that he was dead. It would haunt me until I died, so there was no use in prolonging the inevitable. I waited for her to leave, took several more phone calls, and made sure that someone was coming to check on me. Business as usual, just punching the clock and doing my job.
It was the stereotypical morning that you always hear about. Movement, shuffling, and quiet sounds emanated from his crib. I rose to catch him before he could get grumpy, but this time it was different. The sounds had come from my head, during their usual time, and I had got up in expectation of a smile and our practiced morning. Later they would call it Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - I knew that you wanted something sexier, but life doesn’t work that way. He died by himself, hours before me, and was a better person. I would like to tell you that I looked as beautiful as I lay in the tub, that my smile equaled his, and that I would be missed as much, but I know better. He was the best of me and I was just finishing what he had started.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Can a Republican Vote for Obama?
With all the current political happenings, we now have daily examples of people switching from the Republican candidate to the Democratic candidate because “Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all” (Bacevich, The American Conservative). Over the last several days Christopher Buckley, writer and son of the famed National Review conservative William F. Buckley, announced that, “for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November” (thedailybeast.com). While the heavy-hitting conservative Wick Allison, editor-in-chief of D Magazine, said, "My party has slipped its moorings. It’s time for a true pragmatist to lead the country” adding “Barack Obama strikes a chord with me like no political figure since Ronald Reagan” (dmagazine.com).
So yes, you can be a Republican and vote for a Democrat. This is especially true when one side is represented by “a Great Communicator in the mold of Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leader who can inspire Americans to work together on the problems of the 21st Century” (Jeffrey Hart, former Nixon and Reagan speech writer, rebublicansforobama.com) and the other is, according Bill Kristol, founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, running "a pathetic campaign" (youtube.com). Or, to paraphrase Douglas W. Kmiec, Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, sometimes you just have to switch parties to vote for the better candidate (slate.com).
But why? Why would a red-blooded conservative living in the US of A want to vote for Obama? Well, don’t do it because David Brooks, conservative columnist and pundit, formerly of National Review, called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer” (nationalreview.com) or that Joshua Trevino, co-founder of RedState, said, "Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it” (joshuatrevino.com), and don’t vote for Obama because people like David Friedman, the son of late conservative icon and Nobel economist Milton Friedman, have endorsed him (davidfriedman.blogspot.com), or even because Christopher Hitchens says to vote for Obama because “McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace” (slate.com).
Don’t even vote for Obama because Andrew Sullivan, author of The Conservative Soul, says that Obama “could transcend” (theatlantic.com) our problems, or because Frances Fukuyama, one of the key founders of the Reagan Doctrine, agree that "Obama is the only one of the candidates who can escape the polarization" (smh.com.au) and find real solutions. And don’t vote for Obama because Larry Hunter, supply-side economist who helped is credited with writing the Republicans' 1994 Contract With America, said "I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama for president" (thedailynews.com).
Instead, vote for Obama because in your heart, you know he’s right.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
Bacevich, A. (2008) The Right Choice?: The conservative case for Barack Obama. The American Conservative. March 24, 2008.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/05/thoughts-on-obama.html
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDgxNDJjYWQyN2MwNmIyYTc4ZmEyMzM0MmU1MmNiNGM=
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/565
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/
www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-end-of-history--and-back-again/2008/05/26/1211653939213.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMegXF5UJW8
So yes, you can be a Republican and vote for a Democrat. This is especially true when one side is represented by “a Great Communicator in the mold of Reagan, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt, a leader who can inspire Americans to work together on the problems of the 21st Century” (Jeffrey Hart, former Nixon and Reagan speech writer, rebublicansforobama.com) and the other is, according Bill Kristol, founder and editor of the political magazine The Weekly Standard and regular commentator on the Fox News Channel, running "a pathetic campaign" (youtube.com). Or, to paraphrase Douglas W. Kmiec, Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, sometimes you just have to switch parties to vote for the better candidate (slate.com).
But why? Why would a red-blooded conservative living in the US of A want to vote for Obama? Well, don’t do it because David Brooks, conservative columnist and pundit, formerly of National Review, called Sarah Palin a "fatal cancer” (nationalreview.com) or that Joshua Trevino, co-founder of RedState, said, "Do I believe in John McCain? Not as much as I used to. Do I believe in Sarah Palin? Despite my early enthusiasm for her, now not at all. Do I believe in the national Republican Party? Not in the slightest -- even though I see no meaningful alternative to it” (joshuatrevino.com), and don’t vote for Obama because people like David Friedman, the son of late conservative icon and Nobel economist Milton Friedman, have endorsed him (davidfriedman.blogspot.com), or even because Christopher Hitchens says to vote for Obama because “McCain lacks the character and temperament to be president. And Palin is simply a disgrace” (slate.com).
Don’t even vote for Obama because Andrew Sullivan, author of The Conservative Soul, says that Obama “could transcend” (theatlantic.com) our problems, or because Frances Fukuyama, one of the key founders of the Reagan Doctrine, agree that "Obama is the only one of the candidates who can escape the polarization" (smh.com.au) and find real solutions. And don’t vote for Obama because Larry Hunter, supply-side economist who helped is credited with writing the Republicans' 1994 Contract With America, said "I am enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama for president" (thedailynews.com).
Instead, vote for Obama because in your heart, you know he’s right.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
Bacevich, A. (2008) The Right Choice?: The conservative case for Barack Obama. The American Conservative. March 24, 2008.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2008/05/thoughts-on-obama.html
http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Core+Pages&type=gen&mod=Core+Pages&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDgxNDJjYWQyN2MwNmIyYTc4ZmEyMzM0MmU1MmNiNGM=
http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/565
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx
http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/
www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-end-of-history--and-back-again/2008/05/26/1211653939213.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/07/16/2008-07-16_im_a_lifelong_conservative_activist_and_.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMegXF5UJW8
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Our Current Wars, Explained
I have been looking for an analogy for our ongoing wars that cuts through the buzz words and talking points of our politicians and media. The best that I can come up with is a couple of boys fighting during recess.
On one side we have a popular instigator who thinks that someone is doing something that he doesn’t like (say, flirting with his girlfriend). So the instigator confronts the guy who has flirted with his girlfriend and punches him in the face. Believing that he’s proved his point, he walks off and accuses another boy of the same thing, ignoring most of his friends who say that this newly accused boy didn’t actually flirt with the instigators girlfriend, and instead sides with the one or two people who think that they heard a rumor that he did. Once they are fighting, the girlfriend shows up and tells everyone that the newly accused flirter never actually flirted with her and that it was original boy who is now back on his feet and brushing himself off that did it alone.
But instead of stopping the fight, the instigator decides that this guy who he is now fighting with is a jerk and needs to be taught a lesson anyway. And besides, if he walks away in the middle of this fight, this newly accused boy will just want a rematch. He says so as loudly as possible for all to hear. The cheers of, “Fight! Fight!” drowns out the larger group of people who are complaining to each other. The two boys roll around on the floor, punching each other, and knocking over a couple of younger kids, hurting them in the process.
The yells of “Fight! Fight!” give the instigator a surge of energy and he starts doing better. During all of this, more and more people, and who were originally cheering for the guy who instigated the fight, start to turn against him because they realize that he shouldn’t have started it in the first place and is now continuing it for a bad reason. Moreover, a couple people in the crowd are now beginning to realize that the instigator is a complete jerk and that they should see if the guy wrongly accused needs some help in avenging this uncalled for fight (besides, they never liked him in the first place). The few people who want to see the fight continue, turn on anyone who says that it should stop by saying, “But he’s winning now! His surge is working!” Unhappy that there is still a fight going on, but thinking that it might be over soon anyway, most people just watch the fight and say, “this better be over soon. I’m really tired of having to watch this”.
So the fight will continue until one boy wins, they are separated by an authority figure, or until they run out of time. In the end, the accuser will be angry and see the instigator as a jerk with whom he needs to get even with. The instigator will still have to deal with the original boy who flirted with his girlfriend. And girlfriend will probably leave the instigator while he tries to rebuild his reputation to the entire school. People will take cheap shots at him because they believe that he deserves it for his past action. And the instigator will have little to no support in the school for a long time while he tries to rebuild his heavily tarnished reputation.
On one side we have a popular instigator who thinks that someone is doing something that he doesn’t like (say, flirting with his girlfriend). So the instigator confronts the guy who has flirted with his girlfriend and punches him in the face. Believing that he’s proved his point, he walks off and accuses another boy of the same thing, ignoring most of his friends who say that this newly accused boy didn’t actually flirt with the instigators girlfriend, and instead sides with the one or two people who think that they heard a rumor that he did. Once they are fighting, the girlfriend shows up and tells everyone that the newly accused flirter never actually flirted with her and that it was original boy who is now back on his feet and brushing himself off that did it alone.
But instead of stopping the fight, the instigator decides that this guy who he is now fighting with is a jerk and needs to be taught a lesson anyway. And besides, if he walks away in the middle of this fight, this newly accused boy will just want a rematch. He says so as loudly as possible for all to hear. The cheers of, “Fight! Fight!” drowns out the larger group of people who are complaining to each other. The two boys roll around on the floor, punching each other, and knocking over a couple of younger kids, hurting them in the process.
The yells of “Fight! Fight!” give the instigator a surge of energy and he starts doing better. During all of this, more and more people, and who were originally cheering for the guy who instigated the fight, start to turn against him because they realize that he shouldn’t have started it in the first place and is now continuing it for a bad reason. Moreover, a couple people in the crowd are now beginning to realize that the instigator is a complete jerk and that they should see if the guy wrongly accused needs some help in avenging this uncalled for fight (besides, they never liked him in the first place). The few people who want to see the fight continue, turn on anyone who says that it should stop by saying, “But he’s winning now! His surge is working!” Unhappy that there is still a fight going on, but thinking that it might be over soon anyway, most people just watch the fight and say, “this better be over soon. I’m really tired of having to watch this”.
So the fight will continue until one boy wins, they are separated by an authority figure, or until they run out of time. In the end, the accuser will be angry and see the instigator as a jerk with whom he needs to get even with. The instigator will still have to deal with the original boy who flirted with his girlfriend. And girlfriend will probably leave the instigator while he tries to rebuild his reputation to the entire school. People will take cheap shots at him because they believe that he deserves it for his past action. And the instigator will have little to no support in the school for a long time while he tries to rebuild his heavily tarnished reputation.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
How Assassinations Begin
At a recent rally in Lakeville, Minnesota, John McCain was openly booed for suggesting that Barack Obama is a “decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States”. Along with boos came the ferocious anger of many in the crowd. “Traitor,” “terrorist,” “treason,” “liar,” and “off with his head” all shot back at McCain, triggered by his outlandish suggestion that his opponent is a decent person.
This recent attempt to calm down a raucous rally comes after a week in which Sarah Palin suggested that Obama had been “palling around with terrorists” and the campaign’s political operatives and supporters have been encouraged to increase the hard line attacks. Both McCain and Palin have gone to great lengths lately to paint their opponent as someone who will lead the country into Socialism, and they have been encouraging their supporters to take the election personally by using inflammatory words from the stage. This latest outburst from one of the Republican candidate’s crowds is the second time in which someone has called for the death of the Democratic candidate. And this is hardly surprising considering that both McCain and Palin have spent the last couple of weeks fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry towards Obama.
It all started as the country came to grips with the reality of John McCain’s surprise pick for potential Vice President. Over time, the voting public realized that she was an extremely inexperienced, Christian extremist from Alaska, a state with .22% of the national population, and could easily be a heartbeat away from a position that could be occupied by a 72 year-old cancer survivor. So as the poll numbers started to collapse for the Republican ticket, the bitter and negative rhetoric has increased. Many of the Republican’s events consist of what John Weaver, John McCain's former top strategist, called “angry mobs”. He continued to explain his position on Anderson Cooper’s 360: “And we saw it to a considerable degree during the rescue package legislation. There is a free-floating sort of whipping-around anger that could really lead to some violence. And I think we're not far from that.”
And when John Lewis, the civil rights leader who became nationally known after his prominent role on the Selma to Montgomery marches, when police beat the nonviolently marching Lewis mercilessly in public, leaving head wounds that are still visible today and who is now the senator from Georgia’s 5th district, released a statement this Saturday that McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse” he too was echoing a growing major concern of many Americans.
In this statement he refers to the negative tone of the current Republican presidential campaign and states that it reminds him of the hateful atmosphere that segregationist Gov. George Wallace fostered in Alabama in the 1960s. “George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Lewis. “Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.”
So with November 4th quickly approaching and John McCain’s campaign still losing ground to Barack Obama, we can expect that the Republican campaign will do everything possible to attempt to paint their adversary as unfit to lead. Whether or not that language is laced with not-to-subtle hate speech, comparing him to our enemies, and building him up as a scary black man, has yet to be decided. But one thing is still certain: if their campaigns continue with their current level of inflammatory words, you can expect that our first black president may not be our president for very long.
This recent attempt to calm down a raucous rally comes after a week in which Sarah Palin suggested that Obama had been “palling around with terrorists” and the campaign’s political operatives and supporters have been encouraged to increase the hard line attacks. Both McCain and Palin have gone to great lengths lately to paint their opponent as someone who will lead the country into Socialism, and they have been encouraging their supporters to take the election personally by using inflammatory words from the stage. This latest outburst from one of the Republican candidate’s crowds is the second time in which someone has called for the death of the Democratic candidate. And this is hardly surprising considering that both McCain and Palin have spent the last couple of weeks fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry towards Obama.
It all started as the country came to grips with the reality of John McCain’s surprise pick for potential Vice President. Over time, the voting public realized that she was an extremely inexperienced, Christian extremist from Alaska, a state with .22% of the national population, and could easily be a heartbeat away from a position that could be occupied by a 72 year-old cancer survivor. So as the poll numbers started to collapse for the Republican ticket, the bitter and negative rhetoric has increased. Many of the Republican’s events consist of what John Weaver, John McCain's former top strategist, called “angry mobs”. He continued to explain his position on Anderson Cooper’s 360: “And we saw it to a considerable degree during the rescue package legislation. There is a free-floating sort of whipping-around anger that could really lead to some violence. And I think we're not far from that.”
And when John Lewis, the civil rights leader who became nationally known after his prominent role on the Selma to Montgomery marches, when police beat the nonviolently marching Lewis mercilessly in public, leaving head wounds that are still visible today and who is now the senator from Georgia’s 5th district, released a statement this Saturday that McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were “sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse” he too was echoing a growing major concern of many Americans.
In this statement he refers to the negative tone of the current Republican presidential campaign and states that it reminds him of the hateful atmosphere that segregationist Gov. George Wallace fostered in Alabama in the 1960s. “George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights,” said Lewis. “Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.”
So with November 4th quickly approaching and John McCain’s campaign still losing ground to Barack Obama, we can expect that the Republican campaign will do everything possible to attempt to paint their adversary as unfit to lead. Whether or not that language is laced with not-to-subtle hate speech, comparing him to our enemies, and building him up as a scary black man, has yet to be decided. But one thing is still certain: if their campaigns continue with their current level of inflammatory words, you can expect that our first black president may not be our president for very long.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Old Hand
My hands are very old. They predate me by centuries. To look at them is to look at history, yet they still perform every function that I ask of them. They are good hands and I trust them to do anything.
My hands are not smart. It took them an eon to learn just two grips, the ability to rotate, club, throw, and several millennia for us to understand how they work. They were recognizable when the continents drifted toward their present positions, yet they are older still. They predate flowers and birds, fish with lungs, and when cells originally learned to come together. In their simplest of forms, they existed as matter congealed into the cosmos, but they were still recognizable to those who could see their potential.
My hands were there, as the universe first expanded into being, old already.
My hands are not smart. It took them an eon to learn just two grips, the ability to rotate, club, throw, and several millennia for us to understand how they work. They were recognizable when the continents drifted toward their present positions, yet they are older still. They predate flowers and birds, fish with lungs, and when cells originally learned to come together. In their simplest of forms, they existed as matter congealed into the cosmos, but they were still recognizable to those who could see their potential.
My hands were there, as the universe first expanded into being, old already.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
And God Said, Ruin It for Everyone
This last Sunday 33 Evangelical pastors defied a federal law that prohibits U.S. clergy from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. The Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. told worshipers that the Barack Obama’s positions on abortion and gay partnerships are "in direct opposition to God's truth as He has revealed it in the Scriptures." The Reverend believes that he as has a constitutional right to advise his congregation how to vote. In between sermons the he told the Washington Post, "The point that the IRS says you can't do it, I'm saying you're wrong." Almost ever election there are members of the extreme religious right who come out in defiance of the code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office".
I don’t understand why a religious person in a position of power would exchange their historic religious authority for a fleeting promise of political power, to the detriment of their churches. Moreover, by entering into a relationship between the state, they are sacrificing the direction of their faith to a government organization. Anytime a private sector is institutionalized, the government gets to control the direction of the newly acquired entity. So our system is set up to protect religions from being turned into government organizations. This keeps them free to choose their own direction, beliefs, and faith. The payment for this is that they must stay free and clear from "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office" (1954 tax code amendment).
What bothers me more about this situation is that there are people in this country so willing to give the government power over the direction of their most sacred beliefs. Sure I’m post-theological, not religions, atheist, or whatever you want to label me, but the mere fact that we have American citizens so uneducated in their government that they would willingly give up their freedoms is extraordinarily disturbing to me. I don’t know of anyone who would be so enthusiastically accepting of the government telling them how to speak in their own home, instructing them what to watch on TV, or how to vote. Yet, these same people would seem elated to mix their deepest held beliefs with a government who would only seek to use that faith to their own means. It is a frighteningly moronic and almost not worth our time to protect their faith, but I know that my own freedom of belief is the same as theirs. These 33 ultra-right wing Evangelical pastors threatened all of our freedoms with their actions. And that is something for which I cannot stand.
I don’t understand why a religious person in a position of power would exchange their historic religious authority for a fleeting promise of political power, to the detriment of their churches. Moreover, by entering into a relationship between the state, they are sacrificing the direction of their faith to a government organization. Anytime a private sector is institutionalized, the government gets to control the direction of the newly acquired entity. So our system is set up to protect religions from being turned into government organizations. This keeps them free to choose their own direction, beliefs, and faith. The payment for this is that they must stay free and clear from "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office" (1954 tax code amendment).
What bothers me more about this situation is that there are people in this country so willing to give the government power over the direction of their most sacred beliefs. Sure I’m post-theological, not religions, atheist, or whatever you want to label me, but the mere fact that we have American citizens so uneducated in their government that they would willingly give up their freedoms is extraordinarily disturbing to me. I don’t know of anyone who would be so enthusiastically accepting of the government telling them how to speak in their own home, instructing them what to watch on TV, or how to vote. Yet, these same people would seem elated to mix their deepest held beliefs with a government who would only seek to use that faith to their own means. It is a frighteningly moronic and almost not worth our time to protect their faith, but I know that my own freedom of belief is the same as theirs. These 33 ultra-right wing Evangelical pastors threatened all of our freedoms with their actions. And that is something for which I cannot stand.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Here Lies Misinformation
Misinformation - to give false or misleading information to. (dictionary.com)
Lie - an inaccurate or false statement. (dictionary.com)
Misinformation sounds more professional, more grown-up, so maybe that is why those in the political world try to use it. A lie is something that children do. Children lie, adults give misinformation. Misinformation is more complex, it involves nuance and delicately - something a child could never understand. So to better understand the subtle differences between a lie and misinformation, I’ve prepared the following example:
Example of Misinformation:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Example of a Lie:
“I did not eat the last cookie”
Example of Misinformation:
“Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is an imminent threat to the United States”
Example of a Lie:
“I don’t know who broke your vase. Maybe it was Johnny”
Example of Misinformation:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
Example of a Lie:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
So when someone tells you that what they told you was misinformation, you’ll now know the difference.
Lie - an inaccurate or false statement. (dictionary.com)
Misinformation sounds more professional, more grown-up, so maybe that is why those in the political world try to use it. A lie is something that children do. Children lie, adults give misinformation. Misinformation is more complex, it involves nuance and delicately - something a child could never understand. So to better understand the subtle differences between a lie and misinformation, I’ve prepared the following example:
Example of Misinformation:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”
Example of a Lie:
“I did not eat the last cookie”
Example of Misinformation:
“Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is an imminent threat to the United States”
Example of a Lie:
“I don’t know who broke your vase. Maybe it was Johnny”
Example of Misinformation:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
Example of a Lie:
“I didn’t lie, I just gave misinformation”
So when someone tells you that what they told you was misinformation, you’ll now know the difference.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
You’re Not Helping the Stereotype
We live in a predominately black neighborhood in the rural south. True, I have not lived here that long, but it has been long enough to see that some people really seem to relish living up to certain stereotypes. Whether is it the people with large trucks with the word “Redneck” plastered across the back or the mid-twentyish mother, adorned with “bling” being trailed by 6 poorly dressed kids as she talks to someone on her cell phone, these people really do exist.
What I currently find interesting is the dynamic between the Old South and the New South. The Old South had clearly defines roles that people played into. Whereas, this New South harbors those same stereotypes and then overcompensates in the opposite direction. Case in point, there are two people living on our street that fit the exact New South/Old South stereotypes.
One is an older gentleman named John (all the names have been changed because they know where I live). John is black, approaching 60 hard-lived years of age, and can tell you stories about picking cotton and the Klan. Mitchell is a young black man in his late 20’s who drives a very nice car, speaks in a forced Midwestern Weatherman accent, and only tends to talk to white people. He attends a white church, votes Republican, and works very hard in a menial job to maintain a lifestyle far outside of his reach. Both of these individuals live on the same street, have about the same financial situation, and are related in some way that I have yet to figure out. The thing that separates them is where they believe that they belong.
My mother loves to tell a story about John, who, after being paid for some yard work, did a little dance and proclaimed with all honest and excitement, “I’m going to get me some chicken feet!” Embarrassing as that was, Mitchell does the same every day when he lives the New South stereotypes. I expect to see him sitting on his front porch in black socks and sandals reading a Jane Austen novel.
John grew up in an environment where he was put in his place. Revolution is hard, especially when you are outnumbered. Mitchell grew up seeing people like John as an example of their own past and rebelled by creating a contradictory stereotype.
It was only after seeing these two people that I realized that we all can all fall victim of creating our own bad stereotype when we try to compensate for who we are most afraid of becoming. For example, have you ever wondered why the middle or lower class (strictly financially speaking) would ever vote Republican? I mean, it doesn’t take much common sense to realize that the Republicans are only going to cut taxes for individuals making over $250,000 a year. Those making less than that will end up paying the difference (there is an equal argument against certain people voting Democrat, but the Republican is a much easier example for what I’m trying to prove).
The Democrats out there immediately think that the person making under $250,000 AND voting Republican is dumb. They are an idiot who does not understand politics and is falling on the sword for people who wouldn’t even talk to them if they met them on the street. This is a huge misnomer that Democrats make (again, there is a similar argument for Democrats) about Republicans. What they fail to realize is that people vote who they think that they are or who they want to be.
Let me repeat that because it is important. These individuals, who only stand to be hurt by their actions, do so because they see it as an investment in a group that they will some day be a part of, or mistakenly think that they are a part of now. A fair number of these people live in places where have never been exposed to, or have only seen rare glimpses of, their target group of individuals.
Just like the people who vote who they think they are or want to be, the redneck compensates with his truck so that there is no question that he is indeed rural and not urban, the woman with the kids wants to appear to be young, virile, and not over-the-hill, and the two gentlemen from my street want to be seen as not belonging to the same shared history. We are all guilty of wanting to be perceived in certain ways, but we cannot let those desires turn us into stereotypes.
What I currently find interesting is the dynamic between the Old South and the New South. The Old South had clearly defines roles that people played into. Whereas, this New South harbors those same stereotypes and then overcompensates in the opposite direction. Case in point, there are two people living on our street that fit the exact New South/Old South stereotypes.
One is an older gentleman named John (all the names have been changed because they know where I live). John is black, approaching 60 hard-lived years of age, and can tell you stories about picking cotton and the Klan. Mitchell is a young black man in his late 20’s who drives a very nice car, speaks in a forced Midwestern Weatherman accent, and only tends to talk to white people. He attends a white church, votes Republican, and works very hard in a menial job to maintain a lifestyle far outside of his reach. Both of these individuals live on the same street, have about the same financial situation, and are related in some way that I have yet to figure out. The thing that separates them is where they believe that they belong.
My mother loves to tell a story about John, who, after being paid for some yard work, did a little dance and proclaimed with all honest and excitement, “I’m going to get me some chicken feet!” Embarrassing as that was, Mitchell does the same every day when he lives the New South stereotypes. I expect to see him sitting on his front porch in black socks and sandals reading a Jane Austen novel.
John grew up in an environment where he was put in his place. Revolution is hard, especially when you are outnumbered. Mitchell grew up seeing people like John as an example of their own past and rebelled by creating a contradictory stereotype.
It was only after seeing these two people that I realized that we all can all fall victim of creating our own bad stereotype when we try to compensate for who we are most afraid of becoming. For example, have you ever wondered why the middle or lower class (strictly financially speaking) would ever vote Republican? I mean, it doesn’t take much common sense to realize that the Republicans are only going to cut taxes for individuals making over $250,000 a year. Those making less than that will end up paying the difference (there is an equal argument against certain people voting Democrat, but the Republican is a much easier example for what I’m trying to prove).
The Democrats out there immediately think that the person making under $250,000 AND voting Republican is dumb. They are an idiot who does not understand politics and is falling on the sword for people who wouldn’t even talk to them if they met them on the street. This is a huge misnomer that Democrats make (again, there is a similar argument for Democrats) about Republicans. What they fail to realize is that people vote who they think that they are or who they want to be.
Let me repeat that because it is important. These individuals, who only stand to be hurt by their actions, do so because they see it as an investment in a group that they will some day be a part of, or mistakenly think that they are a part of now. A fair number of these people live in places where have never been exposed to, or have only seen rare glimpses of, their target group of individuals.
Just like the people who vote who they think they are or want to be, the redneck compensates with his truck so that there is no question that he is indeed rural and not urban, the woman with the kids wants to appear to be young, virile, and not over-the-hill, and the two gentlemen from my street want to be seen as not belonging to the same shared history. We are all guilty of wanting to be perceived in certain ways, but we cannot let those desires turn us into stereotypes.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Very Cool Story from Space.com
Mysterious New 'Dark Flow' Discovered in Space
By Clara Moskowitz
posted: 23 September 2008
As if the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy weren't vexing enough, another baffling cosmic puzzle has been discovered.
Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe. Astronomers are calling the phenomenon "dark flow."
The stuff that's pulling this matter must be outside the observable universe, researchers conclude.
When scientists talk about the observable universe, they don't just mean as far out as the eye, or even the most powerful telescope, can see. In fact there's a fundamental limit to how much of the universe we could ever observe, no matter how advanced our visual instruments. The universe is thought to have formed about 13.7 billion years ago. So even if light started travelling toward us immediately after the Big Bang, the farthest it could ever get is 13.7 billion light-years in distance. There may be parts of the universe that are farther away (we can't know how big the whole universe is), but we can't see farther than light could travel over the entire age of the universe.
Mysterious motions
Scientists discovered the flow by studying some of the largest structures in the cosmos: giant clusters of galaxies. These clusters are conglomerations of about a thousand galaxies, as well as very hot gas which emits X-rays. By observing the interaction of the X-rays with the cosmic microwave background (CMB), which is leftover radiation from the Big Bang, scientists can study the movement of clusters.
The X-rays scatter photons in the CMB, shifting its temperature in an effect known as the kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect. This effect had not been observed as a result of galaxy clusters before, but a team of researchers led by Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., found it when they studied a huge catalogue of 700 clusters, reaching out up to 6 billion light-years, or half the universe away. They compared this catalogue to the map of the CMB taken by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite.
They discovered that the clusters were moving nearly 2 million mph (3.2 million kph) toward a region in the sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela. This motion is different from the outward expansion of the universe (which is accelerated by the force called dark energy).
"We found a very significant velocity, and furthermore, this velocity does not decrease with distance, as far as we can measure," Kashlinsky told SPACE.com. "The matter in the observable universe just cannot produce the flow we measure."
Inflationary bubble
The scientists deduced that whatever is driving the movements of the clusters must lie beyond the known universe.
A theory called inflation posits that the universe we see is just a small bubble of space-time that got rapidly expanded after the Big Bang. There could be other parts of the cosmos beyond this bubble that we cannot see.
In these regions, space-time might be very different, and likely doesn't contain stars and galaxies (which only formed because of the particular density pattern of mass in our bubble). It could include giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe. These structures are what researchers suspect are tugging on the galaxy clusters, causing the dark flow.
"The structures responsible for this motion have been pushed so far away by inflation, I would guesstimate they may be hundreds of billions of light years away, that we cannot see even with the deepest telescopes because the light emitted there could not have reached us in the age of the universe," Kashlinsky said in a telephone interview. "Most likely to create such a coherent flow they would have to be some very strange structures, maybe some warped space time. But this is just pure speculation."
Surprising find
Though inflation theory forecasts many odd facets of the distant universe, not
many scientists predicted the dark flow.
"It was greatly surprising to us and I suspect to everyone else," Kashlinsky said. "For some particular models of inflation you would expect these kinds of structures, and there were some suggestions in the literature that were not taken seriously I think until now."
The discovery could help scientists probe what happened to the universe before inflation, and what's going on in those inaccessible realms we cannot see.
The researchers detail their findings in the Oct. 20 issue of the journal Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
