Two things that caught my attention this week mixed in my head and formed some sort of strange clarity. The first was a comment made on 60 Minutes by Danish professor Dr. Christianson on why a recent study has named the Danes the happiest people on earth. When they asked if he could explain the study he sited the fact that Danes have expectations that are pretty modest and followed it up with, “You know, I was thinking about what if [sic] it was the opposite and Demark was number 20 and another country was number 1. I’m pretty sure that Danish Television would say, ‘Well, number 20 is not too bad. You know, it’s still in the top 25!’”
The other thing that caught my eye was Extreme Screamin’ Dill Pickle Pringles. Upon first notice I thought, “Why the hell do I need my potato chips to be ‘extreme’”? That was, until a dad wearing a NASCAR hat and a full orange camouflage getup in a grocery store said to his tracksuit-wearing 12 year old son, “No, get that Extreme one. It has more technology in it”. I recoiled, laughed, and looked around to make sure that someone else had heard it. Alas, it was the grocery store at 2pm on a Tuesday and I was the only one to hear the comment.
Meanwhile, somewhere in the dark recesses of my cortex the two things melded and I was forced to ask myself, “Is this why we are never truly happy?” Do we always need things to be bigger, faster, and (Mike help us) more extreme? If we are always chasing what is better, do we never enjoy what we have? Is there a way to end this vicious cycle?
Hmmm a thought problem, let’s step back and look at the differences. We know the US so let’s look back to the 60 Minutes segment to see if there was any information about the Danes that could point out some difference. A couple minutes later I found the corresponding website to the segment and read that all Danish education, through college, is free. They are paid to stay home and raise their children. They have universal healthcare, subsided childcare, and eldercare. There is next to no poverty class and the wealth is spread throughout the close-knit classes. Plus, they have a standard six weeks of vacation and still maintain a higher productivity level than the US. The drawback? They pay 50% taxes.
If countries were people, most of Europe would be in their middle age or slightly older. Africa, the Middle East, and most of South America would still be in their infant to preteen years. And the United States would be a teenager struggling to figure out who they are. I think that Oscar Wilde said it best when he quipped, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. “
So as we try to find out who we are here in the US, we constantly redefine what it means to be us. We work to make things bigger so they overshadow our personalities, we make things faster to distract ourselves from standing still, and we need things to be in a constant state of more extremeness because it helps us see ourselves as on the cutting edge and constantly new. That way, we will never really need to figure out who we are since the state of change doubles as an identity.
This inability to slow down and define ourselves (other than as ever-changing), has led to a self-centered culture where we will help only when it is either in our best interests or to help publicly define us as compassionate. Sure, there are certain individuals who do not fit this norm, but the vast majority do. We are a society that chases our own individual American Dreams and never an American Dream for all. Here in the US you either sink or swim on your own; and if you don’t like, your family’s financial standing will let you know how far you have to sink.
I guess that as we age as a country, we will learn to look to one another as assets. Maintaining a healthy life, a strong liberty, and an open pursuit of happiness for all individuals may give us all the chance to thrive, but the only way that we will all see that dream come true is if we care and help each other. If only we were old enough to forget that happiness doesn't come as a result of getting something we don't have, but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061222092845.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Out Foxed
This week, Fox Broadcasting Company appealed the 1.2 million dollar fine that was imposed on its 169 affiliates by the FCC for violating federal indecency laws. In its order, the FCC said that simply pixilizing female breasts and buttocks during a raunchy bachelor party scene in an April 2003 episode of the defunct reality program "Married to America" did not indemnify broadcasters from commission action.
All of this happened days after Fox and Friends anchor Juliet Huddy asked Colonel David Hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV for airing what she deemed to be “indecent”.
So there you have it, one part of the company fighting to show and say almost anything on TV while the other has commentators who openly suggest that those who support such uncensored indecency should be bombed.
Fox News, defending the world from the indecency that is Fox Broadcasting. …
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb23/0,4670,FoxTVFinesFCC,00.html
All of this happened days after Fox and Friends anchor Juliet Huddy asked Colonel David Hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV for airing what she deemed to be “indecent”.
So there you have it, one part of the company fighting to show and say almost anything on TV while the other has commentators who openly suggest that those who support such uncensored indecency should be bombed.
Fox News, defending the world from the indecency that is Fox Broadcasting. …
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb23/0,4670,FoxTVFinesFCC,00.html
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Entry for February 19, 2008
You thought all was quiet in the dead of the night,
But babies don’t wait for the first morning light.
They come when they want, their schedules their own.
And before you know it, you’re taking them home.
But babies don’t wait for the first morning light.
They come when they want, their schedules their own.
And before you know it, you’re taking them home.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Change
The word of the year is shaping up to be “Change." It’s being sold from the lips of politicians, in the latest music, and from the heads of sporting organizations. The reason for this is because America has lost most of our heroes. Where there were once sports giants, we see only drug and cheating scandals, the popular music that is being sold to us is so formulaic and stale that we look to top rated karaoke TV shows for new “artists," and our leading politicians have the respect and approval slightly better than a villain in a Dickens novel. Truth be told, the number of people we can still look up to is few.
Most of this is our own fault. There is nothing that the American public likes more than building people up only to knock them down. Think of a child creating a tower of blocks. He may construct them with absolute care and purpose, but in no time at all he will reemerge as a two foot tall Godzilla in Oshkosh overalls on a self-fulfilling mission for total tower destruction. We as a public are that child with our heroes.
So following our recent failed attempts at nation building and restructuring the world as we see it, we have decided to internalize the problem and create some new American Gods. We can see the beginning of them forming now. And the nominee for the leader of this change seems to be Obama. He is not another legacy, a case of nepotism, or simple repetition. What he represents is a break with what has become our slide towards mediocrity caused by our comfort and want for predictability.
In recent months Obama has shifted away from in-depth policy discussions in the debates to speaking only of Hope and Change through vague, yet extremely uplifting, generalities. His campaign seems to understand that we have become disgusted with wanting something so banal, pandering, and readily identifiable because we can no longer settle for sub-par idols. They know that we need a hero, someone to believe in again, and that above all else our country wants to hear, “And Now for Something Completely Different.” He is fulfilling these needs that by trumpeting change and backing it up with well publicized, yet no longer openly sold, ideas.
America wants a presidential election where the two candidates represent who we were and who we will become. We want a chance to prove that we are not our recent leaders, we are not religious fanatics hell-bent on Authoritarianism, we do not stand for self justified idiocy at home and aboard, and more than anything else, we are not George Bush.
This fall, I will be voting for Barack Obama because he represents the change that I want to see in America.
Most of this is our own fault. There is nothing that the American public likes more than building people up only to knock them down. Think of a child creating a tower of blocks. He may construct them with absolute care and purpose, but in no time at all he will reemerge as a two foot tall Godzilla in Oshkosh overalls on a self-fulfilling mission for total tower destruction. We as a public are that child with our heroes.
So following our recent failed attempts at nation building and restructuring the world as we see it, we have decided to internalize the problem and create some new American Gods. We can see the beginning of them forming now. And the nominee for the leader of this change seems to be Obama. He is not another legacy, a case of nepotism, or simple repetition. What he represents is a break with what has become our slide towards mediocrity caused by our comfort and want for predictability.
In recent months Obama has shifted away from in-depth policy discussions in the debates to speaking only of Hope and Change through vague, yet extremely uplifting, generalities. His campaign seems to understand that we have become disgusted with wanting something so banal, pandering, and readily identifiable because we can no longer settle for sub-par idols. They know that we need a hero, someone to believe in again, and that above all else our country wants to hear, “And Now for Something Completely Different.” He is fulfilling these needs that by trumpeting change and backing it up with well publicized, yet no longer openly sold, ideas.
America wants a presidential election where the two candidates represent who we were and who we will become. We want a chance to prove that we are not our recent leaders, we are not religious fanatics hell-bent on Authoritarianism, we do not stand for self justified idiocy at home and aboard, and more than anything else, we are not George Bush.
This fall, I will be voting for Barack Obama because he represents the change that I want to see in America.
In Defense of John McCain
We have all heard an election-load of John McCain bashing in the far Right Wing press lately. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the lesser infotainers are working feverously to make their listeners believe all sorts of things about McCain. They are going after him like a pack of starving dogs that have spotted fresh meat. Last week Limbaugh went as far as to say that a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican Party," and that "[he] can see possibly not voting for the Republican nominee".
You have to wonder if these people would have allowed Ronald Reagan to be nominated. After all, in his farewell address in 1989 Reagan talked about free trade and immigration when he said, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here." Or how about his famous line, “concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty” in reference to a sustained political majority? Does that sound like someone that Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter would have supported for president?
So why are they fighting so hard to keep McCain out? Is it that he is a moderate conservative by today’s standards? Is it because he is willing to step across the isle to make peace to ensure that legislation gets passed? Or is it because they don’t understand that putting the party above the needs of the country is what got them in this mess in the first place? Maybe it is because they are afraid of moderation and fear a country that no longer sees only red and blue.
After seeing the results on Super Tuesday, it is apparent that the public at large is no longer buying the message that these far right wing media personalities are presenting. The voters see McCain for what he is: a stereotypical old-school conservative who prides himself on honesty, being fiscally conservative in most cases, not being beholden to special interests, and with a resume that says, "been there, done that" instead of "found a way out and profited from it”.
The other fallout from Super Tuesday is that it is now apparent that the light on both mainstream Neoconservatives and Authoritarians is fading. Everywhere we look there are signs of desperation. Books such as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg wildly explain how all liberals are actually Nazis, Ann Coulter threatens to back Hillary Clinton, and the radio is abuzz with angry hosts bashing McCain for having moderate tendencies and occasionally agreeing with (gasp) the other side.
I for one welcome the change in Republican leadership. Too long has the far Right Wing Media held captive the party by making the public believe that the being a Republican means that you do what you are told and that victory must come at the cost of the nation. This week the voters chose McCain as the best chance for restoring both dignity and creditability to the Republican Party, let’s hope that the media catches up soon.
You have to wonder if these people would have allowed Ronald Reagan to be nominated. After all, in his farewell address in 1989 Reagan talked about free trade and immigration when he said, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here." Or how about his famous line, “concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty” in reference to a sustained political majority? Does that sound like someone that Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter would have supported for president?
So why are they fighting so hard to keep McCain out? Is it that he is a moderate conservative by today’s standards? Is it because he is willing to step across the isle to make peace to ensure that legislation gets passed? Or is it because they don’t understand that putting the party above the needs of the country is what got them in this mess in the first place? Maybe it is because they are afraid of moderation and fear a country that no longer sees only red and blue.
After seeing the results on Super Tuesday, it is apparent that the public at large is no longer buying the message that these far right wing media personalities are presenting. The voters see McCain for what he is: a stereotypical old-school conservative who prides himself on honesty, being fiscally conservative in most cases, not being beholden to special interests, and with a resume that says, "been there, done that" instead of "found a way out and profited from it”.
The other fallout from Super Tuesday is that it is now apparent that the light on both mainstream Neoconservatives and Authoritarians is fading. Everywhere we look there are signs of desperation. Books such as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg wildly explain how all liberals are actually Nazis, Ann Coulter threatens to back Hillary Clinton, and the radio is abuzz with angry hosts bashing McCain for having moderate tendencies and occasionally agreeing with (gasp) the other side.
I for one welcome the change in Republican leadership. Too long has the far Right Wing Media held captive the party by making the public believe that the being a Republican means that you do what you are told and that victory must come at the cost of the nation. This week the voters chose McCain as the best chance for restoring both dignity and creditability to the Republican Party, let’s hope that the media catches up soon.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My Editor
One of my best friends has turned into my editor, and this is a good thing. She corrects almost all of my blog posts, essays, publications, and important emails. I really don’t know what I would do without her. It’s strange to have one of your friends in a semi-professional role, but she seems to fit it well.
I will hand her my work and she will do an odd thing. There in front of me, she will transform from a normally effervescent little blonde girl into the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Rev. Maclean, from Norman Maclean classic semi-autobiographical, and world’s best fishing novella, A River Runs Through It. And I will end up standing there staring at me feet and waiting for a curt "good, now make it half as long" or similar criticism of whatever it was that I thought was at least passable.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to having an excellent editor in your professional life. After spending hours working on something that I think is witty or intelligent, she will read through it and, instead of commenting on its absolute brilliance, will say something along the lines of, “you missed one comma and a couple apostrophes”. To which I will glare at her and immediately troll for some sort of compliment. “So, what did you think?”
“It’s good,” she’ll say, “This third sentence doesn’t make any sense. Work on that.” Then I go back and make revisions. Honestly, I’m never sure how anything I write will be received because of her cool and businesslike manner.
She has recently decided to head back to school and pursue an MFA. I anticipate her becoming a world-class fiction writer and can only hope that she charges the same amount to review my work when that happens.
So if you have read any of my work (blogs, essays, newspaper articles, whatever’s…) thank Kate for helping me to make my jejune cerebration coherent. (And for usually stopping me from writing sentences like the previous one).
Disclaimer: This post was in no way edited by Kate. Sorry.
I will hand her my work and she will do an odd thing. There in front of me, she will transform from a normally effervescent little blonde girl into the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Rev. Maclean, from Norman Maclean classic semi-autobiographical, and world’s best fishing novella, A River Runs Through It. And I will end up standing there staring at me feet and waiting for a curt "good, now make it half as long" or similar criticism of whatever it was that I thought was at least passable.
There are, of course, some drawbacks to having an excellent editor in your professional life. After spending hours working on something that I think is witty or intelligent, she will read through it and, instead of commenting on its absolute brilliance, will say something along the lines of, “you missed one comma and a couple apostrophes”. To which I will glare at her and immediately troll for some sort of compliment. “So, what did you think?”
“It’s good,” she’ll say, “This third sentence doesn’t make any sense. Work on that.” Then I go back and make revisions. Honestly, I’m never sure how anything I write will be received because of her cool and businesslike manner.
She has recently decided to head back to school and pursue an MFA. I anticipate her becoming a world-class fiction writer and can only hope that she charges the same amount to review my work when that happens.
So if you have read any of my work (blogs, essays, newspaper articles, whatever’s…) thank Kate for helping me to make my jejune cerebration coherent. (And for usually stopping me from writing sentences like the previous one).
Disclaimer: This post was in no way edited by Kate. Sorry.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Welcome to Michigan, Please Lie to Us
Several weeks ago Mitt Romney won our Republican primary by blatantly misleading the people of Michigan. I can’t see how anyone living within our state borders believed him. It was put best by last weekend’s Wait, Wait... Don’t Tell Me on NPR:
During election time people get stupid and believe a) wildly unbelievable crap and b) that the president actually has the power to change most things.
The president is head of only one branch of the government. Sure, the Bush Administration has worked very hard to dissolve the other two branches, but they still exist and will remain. Moderation and balance will always be restored, but that is a different argument. So this leaves the President with the ability to make or stop wars, appoint individuals to political posts, and make appeals directly to the public for either support or condemnation of certain policies. Any serious changes must be approved in the Senate and pass through the Justice system. This check and balance assures, for the most part, that the president does not have nearly enough power to make and serious changes alone.
So during any election you are going to hear a bunch of election promises that are destine to be broken. These broken campaign promises lead to an overall apathy with voters, a stereotype of lying politicians, and, eventually, a lower voter turnout. Election promises in this country have been around since we have had elections and will always continue, but it is the seeing these promises as the BS that they are that quells their tide and ultimately defeats their pushers.
Mitt Romney promised the impossible to Michigan because he was under incredibly strong pressure to win this state. There is no way that the jobs that we have lost are coming back. The new plants have been built elsewhere, new employees have been trained, and profits have increased for the companies. There is no reason why these companies would ever move back. He knows this and we know this. So why, why did he do it?
Was it that our local inhabitants are so desperate to believe that there will be jobs coming back to Michigan that they are willing to set aside reality and believe these empty promises?
Have we lost so much hope in ourselves that fantasy presents itself as a viable alternative?
Or is it that he knew that we would rather be openly lied to then to have to deal with the reality of our current situation?
I am afraid that it is all three. So here, let me welcome all future political candidates to Michigan and remind them to please lie to us, because it’s obviously what we want to hear.
Governor Mitt Romney won Michigan, a state where his father was governor and where he promised the people he'd bring twenty billion dollars in subsidies, that he would bring back all the auto manufacturing jobs lost during the last few decades, and that he would spend his fortune to build a dome over the greater Detroit area so that they could grow palm trees. That's good and it worked but the big question is with three major primaries in three winners who are going to be the nominee. Given that every leading candidate is hated by a larger constituency than the one that supports him, we anticipate a brokered convention this summer with a nomination finally going to a signed eight by ten photo of Ronald Reagan hanging on a coat rack.
During election time people get stupid and believe a) wildly unbelievable crap and b) that the president actually has the power to change most things.
The president is head of only one branch of the government. Sure, the Bush Administration has worked very hard to dissolve the other two branches, but they still exist and will remain. Moderation and balance will always be restored, but that is a different argument. So this leaves the President with the ability to make or stop wars, appoint individuals to political posts, and make appeals directly to the public for either support or condemnation of certain policies. Any serious changes must be approved in the Senate and pass through the Justice system. This check and balance assures, for the most part, that the president does not have nearly enough power to make and serious changes alone.
So during any election you are going to hear a bunch of election promises that are destine to be broken. These broken campaign promises lead to an overall apathy with voters, a stereotype of lying politicians, and, eventually, a lower voter turnout. Election promises in this country have been around since we have had elections and will always continue, but it is the seeing these promises as the BS that they are that quells their tide and ultimately defeats their pushers.
Mitt Romney promised the impossible to Michigan because he was under incredibly strong pressure to win this state. There is no way that the jobs that we have lost are coming back. The new plants have been built elsewhere, new employees have been trained, and profits have increased for the companies. There is no reason why these companies would ever move back. He knows this and we know this. So why, why did he do it?
Was it that our local inhabitants are so desperate to believe that there will be jobs coming back to Michigan that they are willing to set aside reality and believe these empty promises?
Have we lost so much hope in ourselves that fantasy presents itself as a viable alternative?
Or is it that he knew that we would rather be openly lied to then to have to deal with the reality of our current situation?
I am afraid that it is all three. So here, let me welcome all future political candidates to Michigan and remind them to please lie to us, because it’s obviously what we want to hear.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Good Morning
I don’t sleep very much, maybe a couple of hours every night, and any more and I’m exhausted and worthless all day. It’s just the way that I am and I’m comfortable with it. During the time when everyone else sleeps, I usually read or write and that makes me happy. The other morning, while watching the sun rise over a fresh blanket of snow, I realized that most people will never know the quiet of the morning and how it is a constant balance of delicate silence and unlimited potential. It is that time, before the world wakes, that is mine. I covet it and it really is truly precious to me. I wish that I could share with each of you the serenity of the hours you waste asleep, but I’m sure you would all just extol the virtues of a good deep rest. So, for now, I get my time and hope that all of you wake rested and prepared for a new day.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Entry for January 23, 2008
On any given day the news is barely interesting enough to maintain someone’s interest for the shortest period of time. This is because everyday news pales in comparison to the average person’s life, is far less interesting, and rarely pertains directly to them. This leaves those in the news business trying all sorts of things in an attempt to grab the attention of viewers. No where is this more obvious than during an election season. Like eight-year-olds chasing a ball around a soccer field, organization is completely lost and the only objective is to frantically follow wherever the target may bounce.
This format only works to give fodder for the real bread and butter of the cable channel news networks. I will never quite understand the appeal of the talking heads of the infotainment world. It’s the same thing on almost all channels. A loud host talking far more they have coherent thoughts to support all to set up a fight between the in-your-face over 40 neoconservative talk show host yelling, pointing, and claiming that he’s right because everyone else is wrong while the liberal guest or co-host rolls his eyes and counters with some statement about “facts” before trailing off in exasperation once he has gotten in several shots about the conservatives view of reality and/or intelligence.
The conservative is either a pseudo-bad-ass who is against a world that won’t see reality and the liberal is someone who tries to talk over everyone, taking the moral and intellectual highroad, while simultaneously destroying his own argument. The same thing is on every channel, with the political bend coming from who the channel matches against whom and who has control over the mic.
What seems to further baffle me is that not only do these infotainers propagate the conservative and liberal stereotypes, normal people feel the need to carry on in their same vein -- as if they too need be that shallow, desperate, and one-dimensional in order to understand what it is that they are arguing. This may be the free world, but free thinking is usually in short supply.
All of this then roles back into the assault that the daily news does on our senses. The positions are assumed; the vague, leading, or horrible questions lobbed; and the waiting for any blood is sought so hungrily that everyone sits, salivating mouth in hand, waiting to be fed another morsel of mildly interesting that they can describe as the best tasting, most interesting thing that has ever been experienced. I, for one, find all of it unpalatable.
This format only works to give fodder for the real bread and butter of the cable channel news networks. I will never quite understand the appeal of the talking heads of the infotainment world. It’s the same thing on almost all channels. A loud host talking far more they have coherent thoughts to support all to set up a fight between the in-your-face over 40 neoconservative talk show host yelling, pointing, and claiming that he’s right because everyone else is wrong while the liberal guest or co-host rolls his eyes and counters with some statement about “facts” before trailing off in exasperation once he has gotten in several shots about the conservatives view of reality and/or intelligence.
The conservative is either a pseudo-bad-ass who is against a world that won’t see reality and the liberal is someone who tries to talk over everyone, taking the moral and intellectual highroad, while simultaneously destroying his own argument. The same thing is on every channel, with the political bend coming from who the channel matches against whom and who has control over the mic.
What seems to further baffle me is that not only do these infotainers propagate the conservative and liberal stereotypes, normal people feel the need to carry on in their same vein -- as if they too need be that shallow, desperate, and one-dimensional in order to understand what it is that they are arguing. This may be the free world, but free thinking is usually in short supply.
All of this then roles back into the assault that the daily news does on our senses. The positions are assumed; the vague, leading, or horrible questions lobbed; and the waiting for any blood is sought so hungrily that everyone sits, salivating mouth in hand, waiting to be fed another morsel of mildly interesting that they can describe as the best tasting, most interesting thing that has ever been experienced. I, for one, find all of it unpalatable.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Coffee Shop Inhabitants (add to me)
While sitting at a coffee shop I realized that there are several distinct personalities that tend to frequent this type of establishment. So I started the list below and it has since been added to by people more talented than I am. Please feel free to add to it:
The first and most obvious is the Loud Talker. This male, and it's usually a male, talks to everyone in a voice more properly suited for a canyon echo. All within ear shot cannot only hear the entire conversation that the Loud Talker is conducting, they've created an internal dialog with him over a) how they would respond to the other side of the conversation and b) all of the different ways in which they would like to tell him to shut up.
The next is the Living Room Dweller. Conducting business usually reserved for the privacy of ones own house on a work at home day, this model tends to spread out and claim all areas surrounding him. No topic is off limits, no conversation inappropriate, and no business accessory has been excluded from his table. This model is inclined to take off shoes, hoard all power outlets, and, somehow, make an entire fax machine materialize out of his bag.
There is always the 2+ Gaggle of Gossiping Girls who, no matter of what age will chitter on endlessly about the most inane things possible and increasing decibel and pitch. At some point their conversation we'll degrade into a high-speed squeaking with only an occasional comprehensible word about celebrity, personal hygiene, or shopping.
You can always identify the iPod Human because of the white wires leading from their dramatically places iPod directly to their down turned head. Occasionally this person will fumble with said iPod in a combination gesture to make sure that you see that they do indeed own an iPod and because they cannot find the right song to express the ambiguity of their contentment that they have a soundtrack to life and you must deal directly with people in your non-musical hell.
The Writer is there to be inspired to write. To let the pages flow in a rhythmic procession of nuance and substantiated prose while building to a crescendo of literary gold that can only be fueled on by caffeine and the knowledge that everyone is watching them write. They know that without the external stimulation through everyone's acknowledgment of the fact that they are indeed writing, the writer would be writing for nothing besides themselves.
The Regular is there like clockwork on a specific day at a specific time. He or she knows the name of every one of the proprietor's children, grandchildren, and pets, and will be the first to bring in any newspaper clipping containing mention of any of the above. The Regular's drink is always out on the counter before he or she steps into the establishment and, speaking in tones almost on par with the Loud Talker, ensures that everyone knows that he or she knows the owner and his or her family personally. This makes the Regular a more important customer than anyone else. On the day that the Regular doesn't show at the prescribed time, it is assumed that he or she has gotten into some horribly disfiguring accident and the coffee shop will expressly fold without his or her patronage.
If you are missing any of the current events magazines or newspapers from the rack, they are undoubtedly at the table of the Waspy Couple. This husband and wife, usually middle-aged, is easily spotted at the coffee shop after church on Sundays in their finest. They will calmly discuss the week's news over swapping each section of the paper, and not a visit to the coffee shop goes by without the husband asking the wife, at least once, to remind him to pencil in this or that auction or event into his calendar when he gets home. No topic is off limits or, like the Living-Room Dweller, inappropriately too private. Though they do not expel bank account numbers to the entire shop, they will make sure the whole place knows how much they donated to the trendiest charity last month.
The Student has decided that the school library, a room built with the sole purpose of allowing a student to have the resources, space, and comfort for optimal studying, is just not up to the standard of their educational needs and has sought out a busy coffee shop as a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, the Student will spend most of their time casting divisive glances and threatening sighs towards everyone else who dares to breathe too loudly in this public place. Not lasting long, the Student will give up and move to a new coffee shop every 30 minutes.
LAN Party Over Here! is almost always present in the form of several younger people, located within feet of each other, typing frantic messages to the person within arms reach. Also easily recognizable because of the occasional outbursts of synchronized laughing and occasionally laptop swapping. Expect this group to consume the largest amount of caffeinated beverages and make the biggest mess. Most coffee shop LAN Party Over Here! groups emanate from being outcast from one, if not all of the group members' parents' homes.
An uplifting member of the coffee shop culture is the Happy to be Breathing. They are overjoyed at everything. If the little old woman asks the little old man if he wants a prune spiced bran muffin, he will excitedly say, "Yes! I'd love a prune spiced bran muffin!" and after consuming said muffin he will wipe the saliva off the corners of his mouth with a hankie and proclaim, in as booming a voice as his shriveling vocal chords can manage, "That was the best prune spiced bran muffin I've ever had!"
The first and most obvious is the Loud Talker. This male, and it's usually a male, talks to everyone in a voice more properly suited for a canyon echo. All within ear shot cannot only hear the entire conversation that the Loud Talker is conducting, they've created an internal dialog with him over a) how they would respond to the other side of the conversation and b) all of the different ways in which they would like to tell him to shut up.
The next is the Living Room Dweller. Conducting business usually reserved for the privacy of ones own house on a work at home day, this model tends to spread out and claim all areas surrounding him. No topic is off limits, no conversation inappropriate, and no business accessory has been excluded from his table. This model is inclined to take off shoes, hoard all power outlets, and, somehow, make an entire fax machine materialize out of his bag.
There is always the 2+ Gaggle of Gossiping Girls who, no matter of what age will chitter on endlessly about the most inane things possible and increasing decibel and pitch. At some point their conversation we'll degrade into a high-speed squeaking with only an occasional comprehensible word about celebrity, personal hygiene, or shopping.
You can always identify the iPod Human because of the white wires leading from their dramatically places iPod directly to their down turned head. Occasionally this person will fumble with said iPod in a combination gesture to make sure that you see that they do indeed own an iPod and because they cannot find the right song to express the ambiguity of their contentment that they have a soundtrack to life and you must deal directly with people in your non-musical hell.
The Writer is there to be inspired to write. To let the pages flow in a rhythmic procession of nuance and substantiated prose while building to a crescendo of literary gold that can only be fueled on by caffeine and the knowledge that everyone is watching them write. They know that without the external stimulation through everyone's acknowledgment of the fact that they are indeed writing, the writer would be writing for nothing besides themselves.
The Regular is there like clockwork on a specific day at a specific time. He or she knows the name of every one of the proprietor's children, grandchildren, and pets, and will be the first to bring in any newspaper clipping containing mention of any of the above. The Regular's drink is always out on the counter before he or she steps into the establishment and, speaking in tones almost on par with the Loud Talker, ensures that everyone knows that he or she knows the owner and his or her family personally. This makes the Regular a more important customer than anyone else. On the day that the Regular doesn't show at the prescribed time, it is assumed that he or she has gotten into some horribly disfiguring accident and the coffee shop will expressly fold without his or her patronage.
If you are missing any of the current events magazines or newspapers from the rack, they are undoubtedly at the table of the Waspy Couple. This husband and wife, usually middle-aged, is easily spotted at the coffee shop after church on Sundays in their finest. They will calmly discuss the week's news over swapping each section of the paper, and not a visit to the coffee shop goes by without the husband asking the wife, at least once, to remind him to pencil in this or that auction or event into his calendar when he gets home. No topic is off limits or, like the Living-Room Dweller, inappropriately too private. Though they do not expel bank account numbers to the entire shop, they will make sure the whole place knows how much they donated to the trendiest charity last month.
The Student has decided that the school library, a room built with the sole purpose of allowing a student to have the resources, space, and comfort for optimal studying, is just not up to the standard of their educational needs and has sought out a busy coffee shop as a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, the Student will spend most of their time casting divisive glances and threatening sighs towards everyone else who dares to breathe too loudly in this public place. Not lasting long, the Student will give up and move to a new coffee shop every 30 minutes.
LAN Party Over Here! is almost always present in the form of several younger people, located within feet of each other, typing frantic messages to the person within arms reach. Also easily recognizable because of the occasional outbursts of synchronized laughing and occasionally laptop swapping. Expect this group to consume the largest amount of caffeinated beverages and make the biggest mess. Most coffee shop LAN Party Over Here! groups emanate from being outcast from one, if not all of the group members' parents' homes.
An uplifting member of the coffee shop culture is the Happy to be Breathing. They are overjoyed at everything. If the little old woman asks the little old man if he wants a prune spiced bran muffin, he will excitedly say, "Yes! I'd love a prune spiced bran muffin!" and after consuming said muffin he will wipe the saliva off the corners of his mouth with a hankie and proclaim, in as booming a voice as his shriveling vocal chords can manage, "That was the best prune spiced bran muffin I've ever had!"
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Baby Registry & Shower
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Incredible article from the Humanist
The Post-Theological Umbrella
by David Niose
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008
Surely one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States is its nontheistic character. Two relevant surveys provide compelling proof that Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity:
The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.
For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.
This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."
How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.
In fact, my friend's historical view of theology is accurate. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.
Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately. And that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.
It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.
It's also noteworthy that theology, once invented, had significant survival value as a human institution. That is, the religious rituals and beliefs of a clan or tribe became imbedded in its culture, helping to bind the in-group together and separate it from out-groups that had different beliefs and rituals. And as human organization and civilization changed, becoming more complex, theological concepts have been able to adapt and change as well, always serving numerous social and political purposes. This process continues even today.
From pre-theological to theological, the human species still faces another stage in its development. As it continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, the human animal finds that it is answering many of the deep questions that were once left to religious speculation--questions of universal origins, natural history, the development of life, and the explanation of natural phenomena. In fact, having filled many of the gaps in knowledge that were once explained by religion, and having confidence that the remaining gaps can be explained without religious superstition as well, some humans now conclude that the entire theological approach no longer has relevance. Such humans are reaching the post-theological stage.
From the standpoint of a humanist activist, it's important to recognize that the post-theological view is one that focuses on the big picture, not the singular issue of the existence or nonexistence of a divinity. In fact, the post-theological view can even acknowledge the psychological inclinations that are common in a still-theological society, where religious belief has traditionally been widespread. Since the vast majority of us grew up in households that were theological, we recognize that the transition from the theological mindset to the post-theological mindset isn't easily made, at a personal level or societal level.
Because of this recognition, and because the post-theological view is not one that must overtly attack the notion of God itself, the umbrella of post-theological identity can be a big one. As the 2001 ARIS survey showed, very few who were raised in our theologically inclined society will openly accept the "atheist" identity, even though over 13 percent will identify as not religious. But it's likely that many who aren't religious would gladly accept the term post-theological as a less threatening alternative.
In fact, one can even have a post-theological outlook while acknowledging a personal psychological tendency to sympathize with theistic notions. So long as one recognizes those notions for what they are--psychological leftovers from the recent past--one can associate with the post-theological movement without a feeling of inconsistency.
Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. To some who were raised in a religious environment, there can be a feeling that the concept of God, and even more specific concepts such as Jesus as the son of God and the Virgin Mary, are an integral part of one's being, making the direct rejection of them possible only for the most disciplined and rational.
But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post-theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary. If that's difficult to grasp, consider the following alternatives. It's relatively rare that one hears a typical American state: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself an atheist" because the label "atheist" is so scorned. But that same person saying: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself post-theological" might not be so hard to imagine.
The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13 percent, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.
David Niose, a lawyer in Massachusetts, is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists
by David Niose
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008
Surely one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States is its nontheistic character. Two relevant surveys provide compelling proof that Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity:
A University of Minnesota survey in 2006 found atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country.
An American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from 2001 indicates that over 13 percent of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1 percent identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist.
The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.
For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?
Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.
This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."
How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.
In fact, my friend's historical view of theology is accurate. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.
Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately. And that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.
It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.
It's also noteworthy that theology, once invented, had significant survival value as a human institution. That is, the religious rituals and beliefs of a clan or tribe became imbedded in its culture, helping to bind the in-group together and separate it from out-groups that had different beliefs and rituals. And as human organization and civilization changed, becoming more complex, theological concepts have been able to adapt and change as well, always serving numerous social and political purposes. This process continues even today.
From pre-theological to theological, the human species still faces another stage in its development. As it continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, the human animal finds that it is answering many of the deep questions that were once left to religious speculation--questions of universal origins, natural history, the development of life, and the explanation of natural phenomena. In fact, having filled many of the gaps in knowledge that were once explained by religion, and having confidence that the remaining gaps can be explained without religious superstition as well, some humans now conclude that the entire theological approach no longer has relevance. Such humans are reaching the post-theological stage.
From the standpoint of a humanist activist, it's important to recognize that the post-theological view is one that focuses on the big picture, not the singular issue of the existence or nonexistence of a divinity. In fact, the post-theological view can even acknowledge the psychological inclinations that are common in a still-theological society, where religious belief has traditionally been widespread. Since the vast majority of us grew up in households that were theological, we recognize that the transition from the theological mindset to the post-theological mindset isn't easily made, at a personal level or societal level.
Because of this recognition, and because the post-theological view is not one that must overtly attack the notion of God itself, the umbrella of post-theological identity can be a big one. As the 2001 ARIS survey showed, very few who were raised in our theologically inclined society will openly accept the "atheist" identity, even though over 13 percent will identify as not religious. But it's likely that many who aren't religious would gladly accept the term post-theological as a less threatening alternative.
In fact, one can even have a post-theological outlook while acknowledging a personal psychological tendency to sympathize with theistic notions. So long as one recognizes those notions for what they are--psychological leftovers from the recent past--one can associate with the post-theological movement without a feeling of inconsistency.
Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. To some who were raised in a religious environment, there can be a feeling that the concept of God, and even more specific concepts such as Jesus as the son of God and the Virgin Mary, are an integral part of one's being, making the direct rejection of them possible only for the most disciplined and rational.
But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post-theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary. If that's difficult to grasp, consider the following alternatives. It's relatively rare that one hears a typical American state: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself an atheist" because the label "atheist" is so scorned. But that same person saying: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself post-theological" might not be so hard to imagine.
The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13 percent, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.
David Niose, a lawyer in Massachusetts, is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Call Waiting
My cell phone is no more.
(In Monty Python/John Cleese voice):
It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet his maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If I hadn't put the battery back in it, it would be pushing up the daisies! Its electronic processes are now history! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil; run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-CELL PHONE!!
So if you have been waiting for a call from me, or have tried to reach me, I apologize. I know that I am still making up time from being sick, but I know no numbers as it has taken over responsibility for remembering that information.
I should get a new phone here in the next day or two and will immediately call all who have left messages. Until then please feel free to email, but understand that I am at my computer very little this week.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Entry for December 30, 2007
"Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration." - Charles Dickens
The thing about traveling is that, when you have finally returned, you are happy to just no longer be somewhere else. And no matter how short the trip may have been, there are always too many people to contact just to tell them that you’ve returned. Strangely, this number is usually higher than the amount of people who you originally told that you were leaving. So if you did not receive a personal message from me upon my arrival back at home this afternoon, I apologize. But frankly, I’m exhausted from my much needed trip away from life and could use some time to recover.
The thing about traveling is that, when you have finally returned, you are happy to just no longer be somewhere else. And no matter how short the trip may have been, there are always too many people to contact just to tell them that you’ve returned. Strangely, this number is usually higher than the amount of people who you originally told that you were leaving. So if you did not receive a personal message from me upon my arrival back at home this afternoon, I apologize. But frankly, I’m exhausted from my much needed trip away from life and could use some time to recover.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Home, Sick for the Holidays
I am spending this Christmas not feeling well and trying to hide from the world. If Santa is still looking for a last minute Christmas gift, please tell him to send soup.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Trapped Near My Inner Circle of Thought
I arrange all of my thoughts through the Loci method of linking them to memories of physical locations within my mind. Each day I rearrange the events and knowledge that I have gathered to fit within my memory palace. Add to this my never-ending ridiculous quest to manage simultaneous thought processes and you have a mind destine for trouble.
Every once in a while my brain crashes and my mental issues manifest as physical problems. When I was younger this did not happen that often, but now that I am older, rearranging more, and try to remember more intricate and deeper thoughts, it is happening with greater frequency. This causes me to completely withdraw from the world and spend countless hours and days rebuilding my mind.
So here I sit, slowly rebuilding my thoughts and trying to recall personal minutia as if it was I was the only person on earth to be entrusted with the knowledge of EFE, Kant's Theory of Judgment, or countless Shakespearean lines. My brain hurts and so my body hurts. I am tired, sick, and empty. I want to go home to my mind of several weeks ago, but it is gone. I know that in time I will rebuild it better and retain most everything. I also hope that someday I will be able to forego these collapses. Until then I’ll keep up my scorching hot balnea and work to stay focused.
Every once in a while my brain crashes and my mental issues manifest as physical problems. When I was younger this did not happen that often, but now that I am older, rearranging more, and try to remember more intricate and deeper thoughts, it is happening with greater frequency. This causes me to completely withdraw from the world and spend countless hours and days rebuilding my mind.
So here I sit, slowly rebuilding my thoughts and trying to recall personal minutia as if it was I was the only person on earth to be entrusted with the knowledge of EFE, Kant's Theory of Judgment, or countless Shakespearean lines. My brain hurts and so my body hurts. I am tired, sick, and empty. I want to go home to my mind of several weeks ago, but it is gone. I know that in time I will rebuild it better and retain most everything. I also hope that someday I will be able to forego these collapses. Until then I’ll keep up my scorching hot balnea and work to stay focused.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Who Are You?
Hello I am Professor, Consultant, and Occasional Bookstore Employee. Please feel free to call me Brian.
We’ve all been at some event where some random personal will saunter up, start a conversation, and immediately drop the question “So what do you do?”. My guess is that they think that it’s just a harmless question, but it never is. You know that your answer will be openly judged. If you say, “I’m a homemaker” or “I am the CEO of XYZ Company” the person will immediately fit you into their predefined social niches and deem you worthy of certain conversations. I see this more in the US than anywhere else, and no where else is it more obvious than in politics. Below is from the book Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway and it describes the employment social ladder perfectly:
We always seem to judge one another by the way that we earn a paycheck. And we do it in the smallest of ways. Think about how you introduce someone. Doesn’t it usually come out as something like, “This is Jim, and he works in Accounts Receivable at Schwab”? Jim could easily be an accomplished pianist, or the world record holder for dwarf juggling, or the father of sextuplets, but you would still introduce him as the Accounts Receivable Guy.
We even do it to ourselves. We introduce our job almost directly after our name. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Hey, the most important thing to me in life is my job and I would like to be defined by it, Thankyouverymuch.”
Why? Why do we do this?
And what is the alternative?
For a while I thought that there might be other conversational examples in similar countries, but remembering my time traveling and living abroad killed that notion. My Canadian friends and colleagues did the same, with the British either openly introduced themselves and their employment or following the proper British custom of not ever omitting anything personal. That phenomenon is described well In Kate Fox’s book Watching the English. She states that under no account should a British person volunteer their own name or ask a direct question to establish the identity of the person that they are you speaking to. Now I’ve had conversations like these with some British colleagues and it is painful. So this approach is also out do to, what I at least perceive to be, general rudeness. Not telling your life story upon meeting a new person is just fine, but you at least need to give the person enough information about your tastes, likes, and dislikes to kindle a conversation.
Surely most of us just work to live and do not live to work -- so let’s find a way to express that in our own introductions. And his is where I need your help. What is the alternative to announcing, or asking for, someone’s job title shortly after their name? How do you introduce yourself without immediately bringing up what you do to earn money so that you can live the rest of your life? Why do we feel the need to describe who we are by the work that we do?
We’ve all been at some event where some random personal will saunter up, start a conversation, and immediately drop the question “So what do you do?”. My guess is that they think that it’s just a harmless question, but it never is. You know that your answer will be openly judged. If you say, “I’m a homemaker” or “I am the CEO of XYZ Company” the person will immediately fit you into their predefined social niches and deem you worthy of certain conversations. I see this more in the US than anywhere else, and no where else is it more obvious than in politics. Below is from the book Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway and it describes the employment social ladder perfectly:
When I got to Washington I discovered that even among young people, being a good guy was not the key thing: The key thing was your position on the great Washington totem pole of status. Way up at the top of this pole is the president; way down at the bottom, below mildew, is the public. In between is an extremely complex hierarchy of government officials, journalists, lobbyists, lawyers, and other power players, holding thousands of minutely graduated status rankings differentiated by extremely subtle nuances that only Washingtonians are capable of grasping.
For example, Washingtonians know whether a person whose title is "Principal Assistant Deputy Undersecretary" is more or less important than a person whose title is "Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary," or "Principal Deputy to Deputy Assistant Secretary," or "Deputy to the Deputy Secretary," or "Principal Assistant Deputy Undersecretary," or "Chief of Staff to the Assistant Assistant Secretary." (All of these are real federal job titles.)
Everybody in Washington always seems to know exactly how much status everybody else has. I don’t know how they do it. Maybe they all get together in some secret location and sniff one another’s rear ends.
We always seem to judge one another by the way that we earn a paycheck. And we do it in the smallest of ways. Think about how you introduce someone. Doesn’t it usually come out as something like, “This is Jim, and he works in Accounts Receivable at Schwab”? Jim could easily be an accomplished pianist, or the world record holder for dwarf juggling, or the father of sextuplets, but you would still introduce him as the Accounts Receivable Guy.
We even do it to ourselves. We introduce our job almost directly after our name. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Hey, the most important thing to me in life is my job and I would like to be defined by it, Thankyouverymuch.”
Why? Why do we do this?
And what is the alternative?
For a while I thought that there might be other conversational examples in similar countries, but remembering my time traveling and living abroad killed that notion. My Canadian friends and colleagues did the same, with the British either openly introduced themselves and their employment or following the proper British custom of not ever omitting anything personal. That phenomenon is described well In Kate Fox’s book Watching the English. She states that under no account should a British person volunteer their own name or ask a direct question to establish the identity of the person that they are you speaking to. Now I’ve had conversations like these with some British colleagues and it is painful. So this approach is also out do to, what I at least perceive to be, general rudeness. Not telling your life story upon meeting a new person is just fine, but you at least need to give the person enough information about your tastes, likes, and dislikes to kindle a conversation.
Surely most of us just work to live and do not live to work -- so let’s find a way to express that in our own introductions. And his is where I need your help. What is the alternative to announcing, or asking for, someone’s job title shortly after their name? How do you introduce yourself without immediately bringing up what you do to earn money so that you can live the rest of your life? Why do we feel the need to describe who we are by the work that we do?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Peter Jackson to produce The Hobbit
NEW YORK - Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."
Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.
Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.
"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.
New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.
Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.
Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.
"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."
Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.
New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
