What a year! Personally, nothing much changed, and yet I feel I'm on the verge of something. Like a lot of people, I'm walking gingerly through each day and trying to stay calm through all the national and international issues we're facing.
My accomplishments:
I write in this blog on a moderately regular basis
I've cleared out a lot of the extra 'stuff' in my house
I've made some cards for people
I liked listening to the conversations Oprah had with Eckhart Tolle about his book, A New Earth.
What I'd like for 2009
I'd like to PRACTICE PEACE IN THOUGHT WORD AND DEED (my motto), read more, learn how to be creative with all my craft supplies, express myself through art, make this blog more interesting to look at, be a better blog writer, take more pictures, learn how to use Photoshop Elements, meditate daily, become more fit by doing Yoga, eat better, do all the right medical/dental things (eek!), get a financial cushion, stay focused and productive, learn how to keep practicing and not give up, and be the truest expression of myself.
I'll mostly focus on the motto though. What does it mean to PRACTICE PEACE IN THOUGHT WORD AND DEED? Essentially it means to follow the principles in A New Earth and the Four Agreements. Easy Schmeezy, right? And it means to be more proactive about creating a peaceful world.
Positive Affirmation for 2009
In 2009 the governments and political leaders of the world will discover peaceful ways to resolve conflict, the members of the world community will distribute life-saving resources to all areas of the globe without judgement, individuals with power and wealth will not abuse their good fortune and the efforts of their hard work, we'll all learn to value and respect each other's differences and individual journeys through this life, and everyone will know they're loved.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO US ALL!
P.S. By the way - in its original form, this post was about three times as long and it didn't say much more than what I just wrote. I think that should count as an accomplishment for 2008!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Official Announcement about Gaza and Israel
Official Announcement from Vicksterville -
Israel must immediately halt the aerial bombardment of Gaza and normalize relations with Gaza and Hamas.
Hamas must immediately recognize the Israeli right of existence and stop its guerilla tactics to oppose Israel.
Both Israelis and Palestinians and supporters of both sides must immediately take the high road and start from this moment forward with a clean slate. We accept that, in the past, each side has been wronged; both are at fault and both are victims.
A lasting resolution for the conflict will be immediately agreed to by all members of the world community. The resolution is that no one will try to WIN, everyone will RESPECT their fellow man, woman, and child. And each side will recognize each individual's VALUE in our shared journey. We will treat our neighbors as we wish to be treated.
This is the official position of Vicksterville.
Make it so.
Israel must immediately halt the aerial bombardment of Gaza and normalize relations with Gaza and Hamas.
Hamas must immediately recognize the Israeli right of existence and stop its guerilla tactics to oppose Israel.
Both Israelis and Palestinians and supporters of both sides must immediately take the high road and start from this moment forward with a clean slate. We accept that, in the past, each side has been wronged; both are at fault and both are victims.
A lasting resolution for the conflict will be immediately agreed to by all members of the world community. The resolution is that no one will try to WIN, everyone will RESPECT their fellow man, woman, and child. And each side will recognize each individual's VALUE in our shared journey. We will treat our neighbors as we wish to be treated.
This is the official position of Vicksterville.
Make it so.
PRACTICE PEACE, IN THOUGHT WORD AND DEED
My motto for 2009.
Yay! After mulling it over for a few days, it popped into my head ready to go. I love it!
It has multiple levels.
Of course there's the obvious Peace in the sense that we need World Peace. I'm reminded to find alternative methods to resolve conflicts and be courageous enough to face the enemy without a weapon.
On an individual level, there's the violence I do to myself when I practice negative thinking. A peaceful mind opens up my life to new joy, easier communication, happier relationships, and all manner of good things.
And on another individual level, there's the violence I do to myself when I react negatively to people around me. When I am peaceful and content with my place in this space (I could use that as next year's motto - know my place in space! hmmm), I don't feel threatened, and I'm not affected by people's negative energy, and I don't feel the need to express "I was wronged", or to defend myself.
Overall, I think its a perfect motto for my year. I'm quite pleased.
My 2008 motto was hard. It had too many parts. (I'll review it on Wednesday).
My 2007 motto was short and sweet and although i'm still not great at it, I'd say I'm measureably better than I was in 2006. (Again, reviewed on Wednesday).
In addition to my motto (which is primary) - there are some things I'd like to focus on that are repeats from every other year...create a financial cushion, read more books, express creativity, go to the dentist (periodontist at this point), pay more attention to the Eckhart Tolle books (et al).
This is all for now. More on this tomorrow. (oh goody, right?)
Yay! After mulling it over for a few days, it popped into my head ready to go. I love it!
It has multiple levels.
Of course there's the obvious Peace in the sense that we need World Peace. I'm reminded to find alternative methods to resolve conflicts and be courageous enough to face the enemy without a weapon.
On an individual level, there's the violence I do to myself when I practice negative thinking. A peaceful mind opens up my life to new joy, easier communication, happier relationships, and all manner of good things.
And on another individual level, there's the violence I do to myself when I react negatively to people around me. When I am peaceful and content with my place in this space (I could use that as next year's motto - know my place in space! hmmm), I don't feel threatened, and I'm not affected by people's negative energy, and I don't feel the need to express "I was wronged", or to defend myself.
Overall, I think its a perfect motto for my year. I'm quite pleased.
My 2008 motto was hard. It had too many parts. (I'll review it on Wednesday).
My 2007 motto was short and sweet and although i'm still not great at it, I'd say I'm measureably better than I was in 2006. (Again, reviewed on Wednesday).
In addition to my motto (which is primary) - there are some things I'd like to focus on that are repeats from every other year...create a financial cushion, read more books, express creativity, go to the dentist (periodontist at this point), pay more attention to the Eckhart Tolle books (et al).
This is all for now. More on this tomorrow. (oh goody, right?)
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Nonviolence
In the last couple weeks I've been thinking about changing the world through nonviolence. I watched Whale Wars and wondered if the Sea Shepard tactics are correct. I watched Babylon 5 and many of the speeches in the show made me think about how we respond to overwhelming physical/technological power. And, I've been thinking about my own physical reactions to frustrations and other negative emotions.
And now, the Israelis are bombing Gaza. It started yesterday and has continued today. So far, the total dead in Gaza are 296. The reason they're bombing? Because back in November Hamas broke the cease fire by sending rockets into Israel. There have been 6 Israelis killed.
I don't like this at all. Israel has had my sympathy, but I'm getting leery now. They have overwhelming force on their side, and in the last 40 years has violence yet solved the problem? When will they stop responding to violence with violence? It just isn't working. Israelis need to find a better way. I'm sorry they're in this situation. I suspect I'd feel enraged myself. If they could think with a clearer head - not one shrouded in emotional jumbles - they might realize that they're using the same tactics that have never, ever worked before. Its not doing any good. This just isn't helping.
"There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause that I would kill for."
Mahatma Gandhi
Its a courageous thing to stand up to violence and not respond in kind; to accept that you might be killed, but you will not kill in response. We have many soldiers who are courageous in battle, we need more soldiers who will be courageous in peace. Including myself.
And now, the Israelis are bombing Gaza. It started yesterday and has continued today. So far, the total dead in Gaza are 296. The reason they're bombing? Because back in November Hamas broke the cease fire by sending rockets into Israel. There have been 6 Israelis killed.
I don't like this at all. Israel has had my sympathy, but I'm getting leery now. They have overwhelming force on their side, and in the last 40 years has violence yet solved the problem? When will they stop responding to violence with violence? It just isn't working. Israelis need to find a better way. I'm sorry they're in this situation. I suspect I'd feel enraged myself. If they could think with a clearer head - not one shrouded in emotional jumbles - they might realize that they're using the same tactics that have never, ever worked before. Its not doing any good. This just isn't helping.
"There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single cause that I would kill for."
Mahatma Gandhi
Its a courageous thing to stand up to violence and not respond in kind; to accept that you might be killed, but you will not kill in response. We have many soldiers who are courageous in battle, we need more soldiers who will be courageous in peace. Including myself.
Babylon 5 - The Long Goodbye
I'm done with Babylon 5. I didn't watch the 5th season except the last two episodes. So, there were three goodbye episodes. One at the end of season 4 that showed what happened over the next 1, 100, and 1000 years. The second goodbye episode was the penultimate episode of season 5 which showed Sheridan and DeLenn leaving Babylon 5 and showed what happened to Doctor, Garibaldi, et al. The third goodbye was the original Season 4 finale, moved to the series finale once they were picked up for the fifth season, where Sheridan dies 20 years after surviving Z'ha'dum. That's three hours of goodbyes! Sheesh. I was moved. It was stirring. But, it was long. I always appreciated the end of Babylon 5 episodes because they really put a period on the story. They always had one last scene that made things clear or showed the result of the story. I liked that. So, I can't begrudge them a long goodbye. I wish, for their sake and mine, that there hadn't been so much uncertainty related to the production and the actors. I would have liked to see the 5 year story without adjustments. Its still thought of as a five year story - and maybe it could have been. But, to me, its a four year story. (Of course I'm not bothering to rewatch the season 5 episodes - I'll leave them for another snow season.) I thought the acting was superb by everyone involved, but particularly by the actors portraying Ivanova, G'Kar, and Mollari. And it was a good story. It fit in perfectly for the last couple weeks of lots of snow, days off, and nothing else on TV that looked very good.
Babylon 5 - Season Four
Okay - I finished Season 4. It got better. I didn't think I'd like the Garibaldi thing - and it was kind of goofy, but it ended pretty quickly after it was revealed what happened.
I'm frustrated by the unfortunate parallels to our real news media and the distortion of history and the media pundits who define our days for posterity.
Until I watched it again, I'd forgotten what happened to Ivanova. I knew she wasn't in Season 5, but I couldn't remember what happened to her, and I now know why. She just sort of faded away. For such a great character and a good actress, she kind of just left. No drama or discussion about it. It was too hurried and thrown together. I guess that storyline must have been sacrificed to the fact that they didn't know if they were getting a Season 5. Anyway - it would have been nice to see Ivanova and Marcus together. They could have made a dynamic couple. Sad. Very sad. In fact, I think they had more chemistry (at least friendly chemistry) than Sheridan and DeLenn.
And now, I watched about 1/2 of the first episode of Season 5. Yes, this was a bad season as I recall. They got rid of all the storylines so quickly in Season 4 that there's nothing left. I don't like Elizabeth Lochley so far. Then, again, maybe its because she's new. I'll keep trying to watch Season 5. But, I also might give it a rest for a few days.
Another result of rushing the story several times in the series is that suddenly people came out of the woodwork to tell the true story of what was going on instead of everything being discovered. All along, DeLenn kept giving a bit more of the story here and there. That's kind of lame, but I'll assume it was the production schedule that caused the problem, not the storytelling.
UPDATE: I just found this on Wikipedia. It makes me sad. If only Claudia Christian had stayed...
"Departure from Babylon 5
Amid the confusion over whether the show would get picked up for a fifth season, Claudia Christian declined to renew her contract, and did not appear in the fifth season. She was still able to appear in the final episode, as that episode was originally filmed as the finale of the fourth season and was moved forward. Ivanova did not appear in the episode that was created to serve as a new finale for season four.
Susan Ivanova on The Babylon Project, an external wiki
This departure necessitated substantial changes to the fifth season of Babylon 5. A planned episode title, "The Very Long Night of Susan Ivanova," was reused as "The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari," though the episodes did not share a plot. Furthermore, a planned romantic relationship between Ivanova and the telepath Byron that would have continued her pattern of tragic relationships was changed to be a romance between Lyta Alexander and Byron, which in turn precipitated the events of the Telepath War. A new character, Elizabeth Lochley, was created to take Ivanova's narrative role as commander of the station.
In the Season 5 episode A View from the Gallery, two maintenance workers discuss Ivanova's sudden departure. They speculate on the reasons she left, mentioning contract and pay disputes, before finally concluding that they will not ever know the true story."
I'm frustrated by the unfortunate parallels to our real news media and the distortion of history and the media pundits who define our days for posterity.
Until I watched it again, I'd forgotten what happened to Ivanova. I knew she wasn't in Season 5, but I couldn't remember what happened to her, and I now know why. She just sort of faded away. For such a great character and a good actress, she kind of just left. No drama or discussion about it. It was too hurried and thrown together. I guess that storyline must have been sacrificed to the fact that they didn't know if they were getting a Season 5. Anyway - it would have been nice to see Ivanova and Marcus together. They could have made a dynamic couple. Sad. Very sad. In fact, I think they had more chemistry (at least friendly chemistry) than Sheridan and DeLenn.
And now, I watched about 1/2 of the first episode of Season 5. Yes, this was a bad season as I recall. They got rid of all the storylines so quickly in Season 4 that there's nothing left. I don't like Elizabeth Lochley so far. Then, again, maybe its because she's new. I'll keep trying to watch Season 5. But, I also might give it a rest for a few days.
Another result of rushing the story several times in the series is that suddenly people came out of the woodwork to tell the true story of what was going on instead of everything being discovered. All along, DeLenn kept giving a bit more of the story here and there. That's kind of lame, but I'll assume it was the production schedule that caused the problem, not the storytelling.
UPDATE: I just found this on Wikipedia. It makes me sad. If only Claudia Christian had stayed...
"Departure from Babylon 5
Amid the confusion over whether the show would get picked up for a fifth season, Claudia Christian declined to renew her contract, and did not appear in the fifth season. She was still able to appear in the final episode, as that episode was originally filmed as the finale of the fourth season and was moved forward. Ivanova did not appear in the episode that was created to serve as a new finale for season four.
Susan Ivanova on The Babylon Project, an external wiki
This departure necessitated substantial changes to the fifth season of Babylon 5. A planned episode title, "The Very Long Night of Susan Ivanova," was reused as "The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari," though the episodes did not share a plot. Furthermore, a planned romantic relationship between Ivanova and the telepath Byron that would have continued her pattern of tragic relationships was changed to be a romance between Lyta Alexander and Byron, which in turn precipitated the events of the Telepath War. A new character, Elizabeth Lochley, was created to take Ivanova's narrative role as commander of the station.
In the Season 5 episode A View from the Gallery, two maintenance workers discuss Ivanova's sudden departure. They speculate on the reasons she left, mentioning contract and pay disputes, before finally concluding that they will not ever know the true story."
Panhandlers
I wish everyone had enough money to eat, take care of their physical and mental health, have a home and an education. When they don't, should I give to the charities or to the panhandlers or expect the government to fix things?
1. As a citizen of this country; this community, I want everyone who lives in the community with me to have food, healthcare, education, and a home. I think its so important to the success of our country, that I want my taxes to be used to make sure everyone has what they need.
2. Since not everyone agrees with me about the role of government in helping people less fortunate (and as a result, less money than we need is allocated to helping), I think charities play a role in taking care of people who fall between the cracks. The people who work at or volunteer at the charities learn what works for different people from first hand experience.
3. In the event that a person doesn't have access to funds, or doesn't choose to avail themselves of what's offered, they might start panhandling.
A. Panhandlers might not use the money for what is in their best interest in the long run. On the other hand, is it fair of me to make judgements about how other people should (or deserve to) use their own money? On the first hand, the panhandlers I see look like they use this as a job - they seem to have start and stop times, and I read and article once that said they're driven in from outlying areas in a van by some group or organizer who then takes a percentage of what the people collect.
B. The charities have programs in place that help a person with the essential of life - food and shelter. They also counsel people to help them get out of their current situation. On the other hand, sometimes that help comes with strings attached. While some people say that Beggers can't be Choosers, other people would say that a gift shouldn't be given with expectations or strings. Whether we're in need of help or not, we're all humans with value and dignity.
Here are three articles from the paper that describe the arguments for and against giving money to panhandlers.
December 12, 2008 Oregonian: Spare some change? Put it in the right hands.
December 19, 2008 Oregonian: Panhandlers - What's the right answer?
December 28, 2008 Oregonian: Give a handout to a homeless person? Your call.
1. As a citizen of this country; this community, I want everyone who lives in the community with me to have food, healthcare, education, and a home. I think its so important to the success of our country, that I want my taxes to be used to make sure everyone has what they need.
2. Since not everyone agrees with me about the role of government in helping people less fortunate (and as a result, less money than we need is allocated to helping), I think charities play a role in taking care of people who fall between the cracks. The people who work at or volunteer at the charities learn what works for different people from first hand experience.
3. In the event that a person doesn't have access to funds, or doesn't choose to avail themselves of what's offered, they might start panhandling.
A. Panhandlers might not use the money for what is in their best interest in the long run. On the other hand, is it fair of me to make judgements about how other people should (or deserve to) use their own money? On the first hand, the panhandlers I see look like they use this as a job - they seem to have start and stop times, and I read and article once that said they're driven in from outlying areas in a van by some group or organizer who then takes a percentage of what the people collect.
B. The charities have programs in place that help a person with the essential of life - food and shelter. They also counsel people to help them get out of their current situation. On the other hand, sometimes that help comes with strings attached. While some people say that Beggers can't be Choosers, other people would say that a gift shouldn't be given with expectations or strings. Whether we're in need of help or not, we're all humans with value and dignity.
Here are three articles from the paper that describe the arguments for and against giving money to panhandlers.
December 12, 2008 Oregonian: Spare some change? Put it in the right hands.
December 19, 2008 Oregonian: Panhandlers - What's the right answer?
December 28, 2008 Oregonian: Give a handout to a homeless person? Your call.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Babylon 5 - Season Four
I'm only about 8 episodes into season four, and sadly, I see why I didn't remember that Babylon 5 was a great show. I'm not interested in the drama they're developing after the conclusion of the Shadow War. I'm not sure this shouldn't have been a 3 year story instead of a 5 year story. I reserve the right to change my mind as I continue watching!!!
The Shadow War's conclusion was both cool and lame at the same time.
"You'll come with us?" "We won't be alone?"
Really? Suddenly they're frightened children waiting for their mommy and daddy? Strange. And a little anti-climactic.
But, okay.
And then, practically the day after the war is over - the galactic war of all time - President Clark decides the hero of the galactic war and everyone on B5 is a danger to him. And the rest of the Earth Dome people go along with it? THAT is crazy! And kind of stupid and ridiculous. That's why i've lost interest today. Oh, I'll watch it to the end. But, I'm feeling skeptical. Again, I reserve the right to be wrong.
The Shadow War's conclusion was both cool and lame at the same time.
"You'll come with us?" "We won't be alone?"
Really? Suddenly they're frightened children waiting for their mommy and daddy? Strange. And a little anti-climactic.
But, okay.
And then, practically the day after the war is over - the galactic war of all time - President Clark decides the hero of the galactic war and everyone on B5 is a danger to him. And the rest of the Earth Dome people go along with it? THAT is crazy! And kind of stupid and ridiculous. That's why i've lost interest today. Oh, I'll watch it to the end. But, I'm feeling skeptical. Again, I reserve the right to be wrong.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Babylon 5 - Season Three
I'm pretty sure I started watching this show in Season Three - the episode called 'Walkabout'.
I don't know how I managed to have a clue what was going on - I missed nearly three seasons of important backstory.
I like this season a lot. I completely immersed myself and watched hours at a time.
I noticed the end theme music changed from Season Two.
Lyta pushes her face forward and purses her lips to show she's doing her telepathy thing.
I got a few chills seeing Sinclair. For whatever reason he left the show, the completion of his story made sense and it seems to have had a good outcome for the actor. Its pretty clear the character he presented and the character Bruce Boxleitner is giving us are emotionally completely different even though, in the original story, there was probably only supposed to be Sinclair throughout.
i can see why I had wrong ideas about the Vorlon and Londo Mollari before. I didn't even know their complete story.
Now, I'm off to Season Four. I have a four day vacation, I'm not likely driving until Saturday or Sunday, and two more Seasons left!
I don't know how I managed to have a clue what was going on - I missed nearly three seasons of important backstory.
I like this season a lot. I completely immersed myself and watched hours at a time.
I noticed the end theme music changed from Season Two.
Lyta pushes her face forward and purses her lips to show she's doing her telepathy thing.
I got a few chills seeing Sinclair. For whatever reason he left the show, the completion of his story made sense and it seems to have had a good outcome for the actor. Its pretty clear the character he presented and the character Bruce Boxleitner is giving us are emotionally completely different even though, in the original story, there was probably only supposed to be Sinclair throughout.
i can see why I had wrong ideas about the Vorlon and Londo Mollari before. I didn't even know their complete story.
Now, I'm off to Season Four. I have a four day vacation, I'm not likely driving until Saturday or Sunday, and two more Seasons left!
Snow
Under normal circumstances, I'd be driving north this morning for my Christmas celebration. This year, I'm staying home because of snowy road conditions. I'm not a snow driver. I'm fine with not being a snow driver. The Portland, Oregon area sees snow so rarely it hardly seems worth the effort and money to buy snow tires or learn how to put chains on, or buy a gas guzzling four wheel drive car. If we do have snow it lasts about a day or two and then it goes away and we move on. In that case, it seems almost a sin not to take advantage of the forced 'slow down' and enjoy a snow day or two. My current job allows me to work from home, for which I'm very grateful.
The longer I'm away from snow driving - the less comfortable I am with the idea. I've had to drive in snow and ice in the past and been okay with it. Mostly, though, I was already at work and had to get home, or in one case I had a job that required a lot of driving and that year it was icy for a couple weeks. I don't actively choose to drive in snow or ice - I don't travel and I don't ski and I wouldn't live in a house up a steep hill. Strangely, even though it rarely snows, snow and ice play a part in the decisions I make about where I live. I don't want to live in a place where I have to think about buying snow tires, chains, or have 4 wheel drive. I don't want a job that requires my daily presence and is suseptible to bad weather driving conditions.
Many years ago I lived about 3 miles from work. It started snowing and I stayed at the office until I was let go. By the time we left there was a big snowstorm outside. There was a small hill I normally went down to get home and I decided I was too scared to drive down that hill so I went around it. Making that decision cost me about 5 hours. The office let us go at 3 pm and I didn't get home until 8 pm.
Another year and another job, I made a point to move close to my office. Wouldn't you know - the whole time I worked there we didn't have any snow events.
The longer I'm away from snow driving - the less comfortable I am with the idea. I've had to drive in snow and ice in the past and been okay with it. Mostly, though, I was already at work and had to get home, or in one case I had a job that required a lot of driving and that year it was icy for a couple weeks. I don't actively choose to drive in snow or ice - I don't travel and I don't ski and I wouldn't live in a house up a steep hill. Strangely, even though it rarely snows, snow and ice play a part in the decisions I make about where I live. I don't want to live in a place where I have to think about buying snow tires, chains, or have 4 wheel drive. I don't want a job that requires my daily presence and is suseptible to bad weather driving conditions.
Many years ago I lived about 3 miles from work. It started snowing and I stayed at the office until I was let go. By the time we left there was a big snowstorm outside. There was a small hill I normally went down to get home and I decided I was too scared to drive down that hill so I went around it. Making that decision cost me about 5 hours. The office let us go at 3 pm and I didn't get home until 8 pm.
Another year and another job, I made a point to move close to my office. Wouldn't you know - the whole time I worked there we didn't have any snow events.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Another commercial I don't like!
This commercial stars Jillian Barbieri for Nutri-System.
She says "I know I'm not your average girl - I love sports" A football is tossed to her and she catches it. "How many girls could do that?"
Grrr...
1) a lot of girls like sports. Enough I'd say, that its a huge generalization to say that, on average, girls don't like sports. Girls participate and are enthusiastic supporters of all kinds of sporting events at all ages throughout their lives. If liking sports is a characteristic that Jillian Barbieri thinks makes her something out of the ordinary, I'd say she has an old-fashioned view of women in America.
2) She was standing in a studio and someone tossed her a ball from about three feet away. I'm pretty sure most girls would catch the ball.
This commercial bugs me every time I see it!!!
She says "I know I'm not your average girl - I love sports" A football is tossed to her and she catches it. "How many girls could do that?"
Grrr...
1) a lot of girls like sports. Enough I'd say, that its a huge generalization to say that, on average, girls don't like sports. Girls participate and are enthusiastic supporters of all kinds of sporting events at all ages throughout their lives. If liking sports is a characteristic that Jillian Barbieri thinks makes her something out of the ordinary, I'd say she has an old-fashioned view of women in America.
2) She was standing in a studio and someone tossed her a ball from about three feet away. I'm pretty sure most girls would catch the ball.
This commercial bugs me every time I see it!!!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Today's Snow Picture
The pool at my apartment complex. Don't managers of apartment complexes usually bring the deck furniture inside when they close the pool? HA! I'm glad I saw this before the snow was disturbed. Its a fun picture.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Winter Pictures
I went out twice today to take winter pictures. None of them stood out to me as spectacular. At least I've documented the winter of 2008.
I find people walking on a snowy day to be very friendly. Or is it that I'm more friendly. I had a wonderful conversation today with a gentleman from the Phillipines who works in Oregon three months at a time and then three months in China. His wife and two small children are back in the Phillipines. He's hoping to be back home on a flight tomorrow. I hope that turns out okay for him. Anyway - the reason it was a nice conversation is because we spoke about the different cultures he's experienced and his travels.
Later in the day I spoke with a gal named Stephanie who's taking care of her friend's cat while he spends his Christmas vacation in Hawaii!
Here are some of my pictures from the day.
Babylon 5: Season Two
If you enjoy science fiction, sagas, good DVD marathons, heroes and villains, corruption and intrigue, and good guys with a spiritual bent, you should watch the Babylon 5 series. I'm enjoying it. Don't read any of this post, though - 'cause there are spoilers!!
I just learned a lot in the second season! I definitely didn't start watching in the second season. Maybe the third? In any event, all this additional information makes the show much more enjoyable.
I didn't realize G'Kar was so beleaguered. I feel so sorry for him trying to save his people. He has honor and integrity and desire for goodness. I was right to have a crush on him the first time I watched this show.
Londo and the Centauri's are much worse than I knew. I originally thought he was the bad guy with a heart of gold that wasn't really dangerous. Clearly, he is dangerous.
I've gotten used to Delenn with her half humanness. I'm sorry to see Talia Winters go. It was quite abrupt. Did she and Ivanova have something going on, or was that kind of innocent?
Kosh was great. Is he gone, now? And I'm still not entirely sure if he's a Vorlon or the last of the First Ones who lives with the Vorlons.
At the end of this season, there are lots of good questions to be answered. I know the war is with the Shadows, and I know Londo gets to be Emperor sometime, and that Sheridan and Delenn are married and Sheridan becomes President, and that Babylon 5 breaks with Earth Dome, and Lyta Alexander comes back full time, and Garibaldi does something on Mars, and G'Kar becomes a huge spiritual leader. And I know Melissa Gilbert comes on as Sheridan's wife for an episode (and I think that might have been the time I started watching Babylon 5 - I was a Little House on the Prairie fan!)
That's about all I remember. I wonder how much of it will be different now that I understand more of the backstory?
It really did feel like a reset season. Too bad Michael O'Hare didn't work out for whatever reason.
There are two things about this show that remind me of Doctor Who...1) the first season lead leaves after one year, and 2) the end credit theme music. I always think I'm about to hear the Doctor Who theme. Weird.
I'm going straight into Season Three now. Man, these winter storms have been great for my Babylon 5 marathon!!
I just learned a lot in the second season! I definitely didn't start watching in the second season. Maybe the third? In any event, all this additional information makes the show much more enjoyable.
I didn't realize G'Kar was so beleaguered. I feel so sorry for him trying to save his people. He has honor and integrity and desire for goodness. I was right to have a crush on him the first time I watched this show.
Londo and the Centauri's are much worse than I knew. I originally thought he was the bad guy with a heart of gold that wasn't really dangerous. Clearly, he is dangerous.
I've gotten used to Delenn with her half humanness. I'm sorry to see Talia Winters go. It was quite abrupt. Did she and Ivanova have something going on, or was that kind of innocent?
Kosh was great. Is he gone, now? And I'm still not entirely sure if he's a Vorlon or the last of the First Ones who lives with the Vorlons.
At the end of this season, there are lots of good questions to be answered. I know the war is with the Shadows, and I know Londo gets to be Emperor sometime, and that Sheridan and Delenn are married and Sheridan becomes President, and that Babylon 5 breaks with Earth Dome, and Lyta Alexander comes back full time, and Garibaldi does something on Mars, and G'Kar becomes a huge spiritual leader. And I know Melissa Gilbert comes on as Sheridan's wife for an episode (and I think that might have been the time I started watching Babylon 5 - I was a Little House on the Prairie fan!)
That's about all I remember. I wonder how much of it will be different now that I understand more of the backstory?
It really did feel like a reset season. Too bad Michael O'Hare didn't work out for whatever reason.
There are two things about this show that remind me of Doctor Who...1) the first season lead leaves after one year, and 2) the end credit theme music. I always think I'm about to hear the Doctor Who theme. Weird.
I'm going straight into Season Three now. Man, these winter storms have been great for my Babylon 5 marathon!!
"I'll let you listen to me walk"
Okay - that struck me as funny. I'm watching the neverending coverage of our winter storm. A young male reporter was on top of Sylvan hill describing the layer of ice that's developed on the snow. So, he put the microphone near his feet, said "I'll let you listen to me walk", and walked - we heard the crunch, crunch, crunch of the ice breaking through to compact snow.
That's funny!
Yes, the coverage has been neverending. All day yesterday. Starting again very early this morning.
I don't mind too much because I've got other things to watch on television or things to do with the weather info on in the background. I'm just grateful (very grateful!)I have electric power, a place to call home, food in the refrigerator, Fred Meyer within walking distance, and I can work from home. I'm very lucky.
I tried to take pictures last night but they didn't turn out - it was still snowing so I must have had the aperture set incorrectly 'cause all I can see are circles of white, the snowflakes. Its not snowing right now so I'm going to try again this morning.
That's funny!
Yes, the coverage has been neverending. All day yesterday. Starting again very early this morning.
I don't mind too much because I've got other things to watch on television or things to do with the weather info on in the background. I'm just grateful (very grateful!)I have electric power, a place to call home, food in the refrigerator, Fred Meyer within walking distance, and I can work from home. I'm very lucky.
I tried to take pictures last night but they didn't turn out - it was still snowing so I must have had the aperture set incorrectly 'cause all I can see are circles of white, the snowflakes. Its not snowing right now so I'm going to try again this morning.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Whale Wars
Just watched the season finale of Whale Wars on Animal Planet.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society sends their ship, the Steve Irwin, to Antarctica 'enforcing' international law banning whaling in the sanctuary area. The Japanese take advantage of a loophole in the law that says they can kill up to X number of whales for scientific research, but they can't waste any part of the whale so the Japanese have a canning operation on one of their ships for the 'extra' whale meat.
Three areas of discussion: a) the film, b) the crew, c) the mission.
a. The Film - There were way too many summaries of what we saw just three minutes earlier. There wasn't enough drama I guess - and yet, I still have questions about how everything worked.
b. The Crew - I think everyone except the captain and the guy under him were sincere. They genuinely want to make a difference and care about the whales. It looks to me like there's a more permanent group of the crew and the temporary group. The temporary group are enthusiastic, but it must also be something of a lark for them so they're game for anything. The more permanent group are interested in helping make this a success.
As far as the captain and his assistant (the guy who broke his thumb)...well, I just don't think I'd click with them if we ever met. There's something about both of them that rubbed me the wrong way.
I also thought it was odd that they even bother calling the captain "Captain". I mean he's no Captain Stubing - HA! Naw...I just think if someone is going to use a military term, then they should be acting military. And the captain didn't seem very military to me. He stayed in his cabin most of the time. That guy who should be captain is the one from the Netherlands with the girlfriend on board. He seemed to have a lot on the ball and cares about the whales. Maybe the captain has just been in the game so long he doesn't have the energy to act as excited as the newbies all the time. It could be just the contrast. The people on the ship seem to respect him a lot and they certainly know him better than i do.
c. The Mission - saving whales is a good thing, but is it more important than pursuing nonviolent change? That's the real question I think. What are you willing to give up to save someone (or somewhale) else? And what about your own soul (assuming everyone's soul is damaged by negative and violent behavior)? Is that worth damaging?
I think the right answer is nonviolence is the most important thing. If only people could be galvanized to work together toward one common goal. Everyone could stand in front of the whaling ship (or rather in boats in front of the whaling ship) and the whaling ship would have to do the violence. Would anyone be willing to give up their lives in that manner? Why is it easy to see giving up life in the course of violence, but not so easy to envision it in the course of acting nonviolently?
So, I applaud the people's enthusisam and sincerity and willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the whales. But, I can't condone their actions.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society sends their ship, the Steve Irwin, to Antarctica 'enforcing' international law banning whaling in the sanctuary area. The Japanese take advantage of a loophole in the law that says they can kill up to X number of whales for scientific research, but they can't waste any part of the whale so the Japanese have a canning operation on one of their ships for the 'extra' whale meat.
Three areas of discussion: a) the film, b) the crew, c) the mission.
a. The Film - There were way too many summaries of what we saw just three minutes earlier. There wasn't enough drama I guess - and yet, I still have questions about how everything worked.
b. The Crew - I think everyone except the captain and the guy under him were sincere. They genuinely want to make a difference and care about the whales. It looks to me like there's a more permanent group of the crew and the temporary group. The temporary group are enthusiastic, but it must also be something of a lark for them so they're game for anything. The more permanent group are interested in helping make this a success.
As far as the captain and his assistant (the guy who broke his thumb)...well, I just don't think I'd click with them if we ever met. There's something about both of them that rubbed me the wrong way.
I also thought it was odd that they even bother calling the captain "Captain". I mean he's no Captain Stubing - HA! Naw...I just think if someone is going to use a military term, then they should be acting military. And the captain didn't seem very military to me. He stayed in his cabin most of the time. That guy who should be captain is the one from the Netherlands with the girlfriend on board. He seemed to have a lot on the ball and cares about the whales. Maybe the captain has just been in the game so long he doesn't have the energy to act as excited as the newbies all the time. It could be just the contrast. The people on the ship seem to respect him a lot and they certainly know him better than i do.
c. The Mission - saving whales is a good thing, but is it more important than pursuing nonviolent change? That's the real question I think. What are you willing to give up to save someone (or somewhale) else? And what about your own soul (assuming everyone's soul is damaged by negative and violent behavior)? Is that worth damaging?
I think the right answer is nonviolence is the most important thing. If only people could be galvanized to work together toward one common goal. Everyone could stand in front of the whaling ship (or rather in boats in front of the whaling ship) and the whaling ship would have to do the violence. Would anyone be willing to give up their lives in that manner? Why is it easy to see giving up life in the course of violence, but not so easy to envision it in the course of acting nonviolently?
So, I applaud the people's enthusisam and sincerity and willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the whales. But, I can't condone their actions.
Caroline Kennedy in the Senate
Strange - there's negative reaction from traditional liberals to appointing Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat that she'd be vacating after confirmation to Secretary of State.
1. Caroline Kennedy is getting appointed only because of her last name.
2. CK doesn't have any experience. We didn't think Sarah Palin's experience was enough to qualify her to be the next VP, so why now a different standard for Caroline Kennedy?
3. Maybe Governors shouldn't appoint Senators (look at the Blagojevich problem in Illinois).
Here are my comments:
1. Being Senator is different than being Vice President - one is deliberative and one is executive. Each role has a different set of traits that are valuable. It doesn't make sense to compare the experience levels of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy as if they're applying for the same job.
2. What kind of experience is necessary for a job in the Senate? You need to have an opinion, an idea for how to affect change, the ability to communicate ideas, and a feel for appropriate compromise. Those are qualifications that can be innate - you don't have to have been in a particular job to become adept at those qualities - in fact, oftentimes, it doesn't help at all. There are many people in the Senate who are prominent in their state for reasons that don't have anything to do with experience in government. The original intent of the Senate was that it would be a modifying influence on the whims of the people (as represented via the House of Representatives). The Senate was assumed to be a more 'exclusive' club of aristocracy not subject to frequent elections, while the House was the rabble rousing populace clammoring for 'radical' ideas. In both cases, there isn't any one type of 'experience' that makes a person eligible.
3. If name recognition shouldn't count then what about all those people who are the sons, daughters, wives, or other family members of people with famous last names? I mean, really - George W Bush was not the first Bush in office. And neither was Al Gore the first Gore in office. Don't forget Clinton and the other Kennedy's. I don't think it should be an automatic that someone be considered for office because of their name only - but it shouldn't be a disqualifier either.
4. Caroline Kennedy has a history of advocating for education issues in the New York area. She's involved herself in issues and ideas - writing books about some of them. She comes from a family that cares about giving back. Its not as if she's been in an ivory tower her whole life.
5. What's wrong with letting the governor appoint the Senate replacement? The governor was elected by the majority of the people so its not as if the governor will make a selection that would be contrary to the people's wishes. And the replacement is only going to fulfill the current term. If they want to run again, they have to do it the old fashioned way. Haven't Senator's spouses filled in many times after the untimely death of a Senator? I just don't think this is a reasonable thing to bring up as an issue.
I wrote this blog because of the 'apoplectic' reaction on the Slate Political Gabfest this week.
I'm surprised by people's strong reaction about this. I think Caroline Kennedy would be an asset to the Senate. But, I have no information about other options and no stake in the outcome so whatever they do has a neutral effect on my life. (At least that what I think right now - what if the junior Senator from New York casts a crucial vote against my interests?!?!?!? - oh well, nothing to be done from here anyway)
1. Caroline Kennedy is getting appointed only because of her last name.
2. CK doesn't have any experience. We didn't think Sarah Palin's experience was enough to qualify her to be the next VP, so why now a different standard for Caroline Kennedy?
3. Maybe Governors shouldn't appoint Senators (look at the Blagojevich problem in Illinois).
Here are my comments:
1. Being Senator is different than being Vice President - one is deliberative and one is executive. Each role has a different set of traits that are valuable. It doesn't make sense to compare the experience levels of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy as if they're applying for the same job.
2. What kind of experience is necessary for a job in the Senate? You need to have an opinion, an idea for how to affect change, the ability to communicate ideas, and a feel for appropriate compromise. Those are qualifications that can be innate - you don't have to have been in a particular job to become adept at those qualities - in fact, oftentimes, it doesn't help at all. There are many people in the Senate who are prominent in their state for reasons that don't have anything to do with experience in government. The original intent of the Senate was that it would be a modifying influence on the whims of the people (as represented via the House of Representatives). The Senate was assumed to be a more 'exclusive' club of aristocracy not subject to frequent elections, while the House was the rabble rousing populace clammoring for 'radical' ideas. In both cases, there isn't any one type of 'experience' that makes a person eligible.
3. If name recognition shouldn't count then what about all those people who are the sons, daughters, wives, or other family members of people with famous last names? I mean, really - George W Bush was not the first Bush in office. And neither was Al Gore the first Gore in office. Don't forget Clinton and the other Kennedy's. I don't think it should be an automatic that someone be considered for office because of their name only - but it shouldn't be a disqualifier either.
4. Caroline Kennedy has a history of advocating for education issues in the New York area. She's involved herself in issues and ideas - writing books about some of them. She comes from a family that cares about giving back. Its not as if she's been in an ivory tower her whole life.
5. What's wrong with letting the governor appoint the Senate replacement? The governor was elected by the majority of the people so its not as if the governor will make a selection that would be contrary to the people's wishes. And the replacement is only going to fulfill the current term. If they want to run again, they have to do it the old fashioned way. Haven't Senator's spouses filled in many times after the untimely death of a Senator? I just don't think this is a reasonable thing to bring up as an issue.
I wrote this blog because of the 'apoplectic' reaction on the Slate Political Gabfest this week.
I'm surprised by people's strong reaction about this. I think Caroline Kennedy would be an asset to the Senate. But, I have no information about other options and no stake in the outcome so whatever they do has a neutral effect on my life. (At least that what I think right now - what if the junior Senator from New York casts a crucial vote against my interests?!?!?!? - oh well, nothing to be done from here anyway)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The first Obama decision I don't like...
AARGH -
I don't like this. I don't like it at all.
I don't like Rick Warren's ideas, and I don't like that either Obama is a more conservative Christian than I understdood, or he's proactively pacifying the conservative Christians.
UPDATE: After rereading the whole article, it seems the inauguration is pretty balanced. Obama's making a real effort to include ALL Americans in his presidency; the Conservative Christians are being represented. Sigh. So, I'll continue trusting Obama's intention and his vision of the 'finish line'.
UPDATE UPDATE 12/18/2008: I seem to be a little behind the times these days - apparently this selection of Warren has caused a lot of brouhaha already. I checked in at Huffington Post and The Nation and they're talking about it.
So, my question is this: which of my reactions is the correct reaction?
1. The original feeling that it was a huge mistake, or,
2. The second feeling that gives the benefit of the doubt to Barack Obama, or
3. My current feeling that maybe I shouldn't have let Obama off the hook so easily.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE 12/19/2008: The left is upset that Obama picked Warren for such a prominent role because of Warren's stand against gay marriage. The Conservative Christians are upset that Warren acepted an invitation from a pro-choice, pro stem cell research president.
I'm still disappointed by the choice because I don't like Rick Warren's philosophy as I noted in a recent blog entry, and his position on gay marriage is irritating.
In addition, I do wonder why Obama had to pick Rick Warren of all the preachers out there. Part of what makes Rick Warren offensive to me is the size of his church and the number of followers he has. I don't trust religious people who want to gather that many people into a church community. How effective can that community be when there are 25,000 members? And what is the benefit to being the head of such a church unless you're trying to gain power or notoriety? I wonder if Rick Warren can be characterized as 'nakedly ambitious'?
Barack Obama invited Rick Warren because he's the current popular face of the Christian right. Which makes it transparent as a way to pander to the Christian right. But, also meaningless because its a choice based on expediency and appearance rather than on truth and meaning.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if Barack Obama was the kind of Christian who doesn't find meaning in outward symbols of Christianity or religion, but rather meaning comes from a personal experience with God. If that's the case, then the benediction is just a ritual that gets followed. It doesn't mean anything.
And that's a whole different blog post - can a ritual that's followed but not believed have the same effect as believing in the ritual; is it a formality that has become meaningless over time and overuse, or by its very act, does the ritual create meaning and so even if you don't believe it, you're supporting it? Actions speak louder than words probably applies here. In that case, Barack Obama made a mistake in my opinion.
On the other hand, he has to govern a WHOLE nation.
Back to the first hand, he didn't have to pick Rick Warren, he could have picked a different Christian.
On the second hand again - but in order to send a message that he is going to govern with ALL Americans in mind, Barack Obama had to pick someone with views that opposed him anyway. Why not pick the popular one right now?
I guess I'm left with continuing to trust in Obama's vision of the finish line.
FINAL UPDATE 12/19/2008: Article from the Washington Post references Obama's response to the criticism about Rick Warren.
I'd also like to note that I recognize of all the decisions Obama could make that I don't like, this one is about perception rather than substance so it doesn't really deserve this much time and energy. But, I do think the main struggle in the world is between the spiritual and the physical (our goal is to combine those two features of humanity seamlessly - we're still a long way off). Which is why decisions about religion and spirituality and rituals and perception are so important and get a lot of attention. Spirituality is also something everyone lives with in their daily lives, either through its practice or its absence. So, its easy for people like me to spout off about! HA!
Barack Obama has selected the Rev. Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, a role that positions Mr. Warren to succeed Billy Graham as the nation’s pre-eminent minister and reflects the generational changes in the evangelical Christian movement.
I don't like this. I don't like it at all.
I don't like Rick Warren's ideas, and I don't like that either Obama is a more conservative Christian than I understdood, or he's proactively pacifying the conservative Christians.
UPDATE: After rereading the whole article, it seems the inauguration is pretty balanced. Obama's making a real effort to include ALL Americans in his presidency; the Conservative Christians are being represented. Sigh. So, I'll continue trusting Obama's intention and his vision of the 'finish line'.
UPDATE UPDATE 12/18/2008: I seem to be a little behind the times these days - apparently this selection of Warren has caused a lot of brouhaha already. I checked in at Huffington Post and The Nation and they're talking about it.
So, my question is this: which of my reactions is the correct reaction?
1. The original feeling that it was a huge mistake, or,
2. The second feeling that gives the benefit of the doubt to Barack Obama, or
3. My current feeling that maybe I shouldn't have let Obama off the hook so easily.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE 12/19/2008: The left is upset that Obama picked Warren for such a prominent role because of Warren's stand against gay marriage. The Conservative Christians are upset that Warren acepted an invitation from a pro-choice, pro stem cell research president.
I'm still disappointed by the choice because I don't like Rick Warren's philosophy as I noted in a recent blog entry, and his position on gay marriage is irritating.
In addition, I do wonder why Obama had to pick Rick Warren of all the preachers out there. Part of what makes Rick Warren offensive to me is the size of his church and the number of followers he has. I don't trust religious people who want to gather that many people into a church community. How effective can that community be when there are 25,000 members? And what is the benefit to being the head of such a church unless you're trying to gain power or notoriety? I wonder if Rick Warren can be characterized as 'nakedly ambitious'?
Barack Obama invited Rick Warren because he's the current popular face of the Christian right. Which makes it transparent as a way to pander to the Christian right. But, also meaningless because its a choice based on expediency and appearance rather than on truth and meaning.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind if Barack Obama was the kind of Christian who doesn't find meaning in outward symbols of Christianity or religion, but rather meaning comes from a personal experience with God. If that's the case, then the benediction is just a ritual that gets followed. It doesn't mean anything.
And that's a whole different blog post - can a ritual that's followed but not believed have the same effect as believing in the ritual; is it a formality that has become meaningless over time and overuse, or by its very act, does the ritual create meaning and so even if you don't believe it, you're supporting it? Actions speak louder than words probably applies here. In that case, Barack Obama made a mistake in my opinion.
On the other hand, he has to govern a WHOLE nation.
Back to the first hand, he didn't have to pick Rick Warren, he could have picked a different Christian.
On the second hand again - but in order to send a message that he is going to govern with ALL Americans in mind, Barack Obama had to pick someone with views that opposed him anyway. Why not pick the popular one right now?
I guess I'm left with continuing to trust in Obama's vision of the finish line.
FINAL UPDATE 12/19/2008: Article from the Washington Post references Obama's response to the criticism about Rick Warren.
I'd also like to note that I recognize of all the decisions Obama could make that I don't like, this one is about perception rather than substance so it doesn't really deserve this much time and energy. But, I do think the main struggle in the world is between the spiritual and the physical (our goal is to combine those two features of humanity seamlessly - we're still a long way off). Which is why decisions about religion and spirituality and rituals and perception are so important and get a lot of attention. Spirituality is also something everyone lives with in their daily lives, either through its practice or its absence. So, its easy for people like me to spout off about! HA!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
More extreme weather...
Okay - so last time I mentioned the weather I jinxed everything. I mocked the media for getting it wrong and then it started snowing and got icy and bitter cold.
So, I'm keeping my mouth shut except to say I really don't like driving in icy, winter roads. I'm hoping for a big warm front to move in next Tuesday/Wednesday that will continue through December 28. Everything can melt away like magic. And there's no question of ice.
So, I'm keeping my mouth shut except to say I really don't like driving in icy, winter roads. I'm hoping for a big warm front to move in next Tuesday/Wednesday that will continue through December 28. Everything can melt away like magic. And there's no question of ice.
Two more commercials I dislike...
1. The Macy's commercial where Jessica Simpson, Martha Stewart, Donald Trump, etc tell 'Virginia' there really is a Santa Claus. The commerical feels cold, hollow, and manipulative in its effort to invoke a spirit of warmth and magic. The words each of the stars say have no impact they don't lead to anything new or special.
I don't like the overuse of celebrity names in marketing. I understand having one or two special famous brands at the store - but they're throwing everybody in the mix and it seems crass. Of the celebrities they have, I only trust Martha Stewart.
That commercial makes me not like Macy's.
2. The Glade commercial where the housewife tries to pretend that Glade is more than what it is - an air freshener. She gets caught being a snob and everyone laughs. Ugh. According to this marketing scheme, nothing is good enough until it is beyond what you can afford and its totally cool to pretend something isn't what it is. In these economic times, it seems people should be proud of finding a product that does what its supposd to do at an affordable price. Or, maybe Glade is expensive for what it does and they're trying to imply its so good it could be a designer thing and is worth even more, so be glad you're only partly overpaying for it. Either way, I feel manipulated. And I don't like the message it sends about people's value and worth and that we have to lie in order for people to think we're okay.
Then, I don't like it even more when I see the same housewife do it again and again with different products. Grrrr!
On another note: do we still call people 'housewife'? Mostly I hear 'stay at home Mom'. But, in this commercial I can't tell if she has kids. What do we call women or men without children who don't work outside the home?
I don't like the overuse of celebrity names in marketing. I understand having one or two special famous brands at the store - but they're throwing everybody in the mix and it seems crass. Of the celebrities they have, I only trust Martha Stewart.
That commercial makes me not like Macy's.
2. The Glade commercial where the housewife tries to pretend that Glade is more than what it is - an air freshener. She gets caught being a snob and everyone laughs. Ugh. According to this marketing scheme, nothing is good enough until it is beyond what you can afford and its totally cool to pretend something isn't what it is. In these economic times, it seems people should be proud of finding a product that does what its supposd to do at an affordable price. Or, maybe Glade is expensive for what it does and they're trying to imply its so good it could be a designer thing and is worth even more, so be glad you're only partly overpaying for it. Either way, I feel manipulated. And I don't like the message it sends about people's value and worth and that we have to lie in order for people to think we're okay.
Then, I don't like it even more when I see the same housewife do it again and again with different products. Grrrr!
On another note: do we still call people 'housewife'? Mostly I hear 'stay at home Mom'. But, in this commercial I can't tell if she has kids. What do we call women or men without children who don't work outside the home?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Overused phrases I'm sick of
Two new phrases I've heard enough lately to notice...
'That being said...'
I first noticed this on "My House is Worth What?" But, lately, I've also seen it in print and on television. Too much. That being said, I say 'given that' a lot.
'sort of'
I hear print journalists, in particular, say this a lot when they're interviewed about a story. They get excited or something and everything is 'sort of' this and 'sort of' that. I've heard it on NPR and PRI and Slate Political Gabfest (I think). I love these journalists because they know the stories and I get a lot of context from them. I also realize they're talking about complicated issues without a script and they're used to writing instead of verbalizing the story. I don't think they even notice they're doing it. Its sort of bugging me!
Bonus overused word...
'czar'
I'm tired of hearing people from the media or government refer to an 'authority' or leader on some topic as the 'czar'. Czar? Car Czar? Drug Czar? Do we have to use words from Imperial Russia to describe someone? It really bugs me. I'd like to be the czar of overused phrases!
'That being said...'
I first noticed this on "My House is Worth What?" But, lately, I've also seen it in print and on television. Too much. That being said, I say 'given that' a lot.
'sort of'
I hear print journalists, in particular, say this a lot when they're interviewed about a story. They get excited or something and everything is 'sort of' this and 'sort of' that. I've heard it on NPR and PRI and Slate Political Gabfest (I think). I love these journalists because they know the stories and I get a lot of context from them. I also realize they're talking about complicated issues without a script and they're used to writing instead of verbalizing the story. I don't think they even notice they're doing it. Its sort of bugging me!
Bonus overused word...
'czar'
I'm tired of hearing people from the media or government refer to an 'authority' or leader on some topic as the 'czar'. Czar? Car Czar? Drug Czar? Do we have to use words from Imperial Russia to describe someone? It really bugs me. I'd like to be the czar of overused phrases!
Monday, December 15, 2008
George Bush
This weekend we saw why George Bush has been the worst President in the history of the United States of America.
Over the weekend, Bush went to Iraq for the last time as President. He had just started a press conference with the Prime Minister (?) when an Iraqi journalist stood up, threw a shoe at him, then threw the other shoe at him and shouts that he's a dog, or something.
Later, Martha Raddatz (ABC News) spoke to him. In that conversation this is what Bush said about the incident:
This is why George Bush has not made a good President. He doesn't even understand that it doesn't matter how he took it. He wasn't insulted, good for him. That's not the point. The point is someone is extremely upset at him and is trying to get him to understand something. He assumes the guy just wants to get on television. What an insult - he's assuming the man is like the reality TV people who will do anything just to be famous. He can't imagine what the guy's 'beef' is? He's purposely acting obtuse. He can't imagine that maybe the guy is upset about all the changes in his country over the last six years? Bush doesn't even have to characterize the changes, but not even acknowledge it? I don't know what his angle is by playing stupid. And "Somebody" will hear about it? Because Bush won't be bothered to listen to it. It has nothing to do with him. GRRRR...the man is infuriating.
Here is an article from Reuters that describes other MidEast reactions to the shoe insult.
Over the weekend, Bush went to Iraq for the last time as President. He had just started a press conference with the Prime Minister (?) when an Iraqi journalist stood up, threw a shoe at him, then threw the other shoe at him and shouts that he's a dog, or something.
Later, Martha Raddatz (ABC News) spoke to him. In that conversation this is what Bush said about the incident:
Raddatz: It's also considered a huge insult in this world, the sole of a shoe, throwing a shoe.
Bush: I guess. Look they were humiliated. The press corps, the rest of the Iraqi press corps was humiliated. These guys were just besides themselves about, they felt like he had disgraced their entire press corps and I frankly, I didn't view it as, I thought it was interesting, I thought it was unusual to have a guy throw his show at you. But I'm not insulted. I don't hold it against the government. I don't think the Iraqi press corps as a whole is terrible. And so, the guy wanted to get on TV and he did. I don't know what his beef is. But whatever it is I'm sure somebody will hear it.
This is why George Bush has not made a good President. He doesn't even understand that it doesn't matter how he took it. He wasn't insulted, good for him. That's not the point. The point is someone is extremely upset at him and is trying to get him to understand something. He assumes the guy just wants to get on television. What an insult - he's assuming the man is like the reality TV people who will do anything just to be famous. He can't imagine what the guy's 'beef' is? He's purposely acting obtuse. He can't imagine that maybe the guy is upset about all the changes in his country over the last six years? Bush doesn't even have to characterize the changes, but not even acknowledge it? I don't know what his angle is by playing stupid. And "Somebody" will hear about it? Because Bush won't be bothered to listen to it. It has nothing to do with him. GRRRR...the man is infuriating.
Here is an article from Reuters that describes other MidEast reactions to the shoe insult.
Babylon 5 - Season Two
I've watched four episodes of Season 2 and notice the difference.
1. I DO miss Michael O'Hare as Jeffrey Sinclair. I expect Bruce Boxleitner will grow on me, but for now it feels uncomfortable.
2. The mystery of Sinclair and why the Mimbari surrendered was answered too quickly and easily in episode 1; it was a one paragraph exposition from Lennier.
3. Ivanova had a reintroductory speech that summed up her character perfuntorily. It also wasn't exactly the character from Season 1. In Season 1 she had a nice balance of being a private person, but not obsessively so. In Season 2, so far, she's too open and normal and regular; they took away her complexity.
4. Delenn is half human now and I don't like it. I know she ends up with Sheridan and I don't like that - its too...? I don't know - but it bugs me. Also, it was clear at the end of the last episode of Season 1 she was the one with Sinclair in the other time. They should have changed the voice or something (they probably didn't have an opportunity). So, maybe that makes it clear that they intended Delenn to end up with the character in charge of Babylon 5, if not Sinclair, then Sheridan. Okay.
5. The special effects budget has gone way up.
6. I notice there's a new Na'Toth as well. I liked Caitlin Brown from Season 1.
So, I'll keep working through Season 2. But, so far I like Season 1 better!
1. I DO miss Michael O'Hare as Jeffrey Sinclair. I expect Bruce Boxleitner will grow on me, but for now it feels uncomfortable.
2. The mystery of Sinclair and why the Mimbari surrendered was answered too quickly and easily in episode 1; it was a one paragraph exposition from Lennier.
3. Ivanova had a reintroductory speech that summed up her character perfuntorily. It also wasn't exactly the character from Season 1. In Season 1 she had a nice balance of being a private person, but not obsessively so. In Season 2, so far, she's too open and normal and regular; they took away her complexity.
4. Delenn is half human now and I don't like it. I know she ends up with Sheridan and I don't like that - its too...? I don't know - but it bugs me. Also, it was clear at the end of the last episode of Season 1 she was the one with Sinclair in the other time. They should have changed the voice or something (they probably didn't have an opportunity). So, maybe that makes it clear that they intended Delenn to end up with the character in charge of Babylon 5, if not Sinclair, then Sheridan. Okay.
5. The special effects budget has gone way up.
6. I notice there's a new Na'Toth as well. I liked Caitlin Brown from Season 1.
So, I'll keep working through Season 2. But, so far I like Season 1 better!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Babylon 5
I'm rewatching Babylon 5 (an implied comment on the current television lineup).
I started watching Babylon 5 as it was aired back in the 90's in either season 2 or season 3. It was airing alongside Deep Space Nine and although I'll always enjoy Star Trek, and I'm a fan of DS9, I came close to enjoying Babylon 5 more as I slowly tried to figure out what I'd missed and get into the story as it was unfolding.
My recollection is that Season 5 didn't hold up as well for me.
I had a huge crush on G'Kar.
I've never seen any of the movies they made.
I saw the series was on sale for 1/2 price in the last couple weeks so I purchased the first four seasons.
I've got three more episodes of the first season that I think I'll finish up today.
I find myself antsy to find out why Sinclair leaves and how Sheridan comes in.
I had a recollection that people thought Michael O'Hare didn't work as Jeffrey Sinclair in Season 1, but I have to say I like him. His voice has a quality that reminds me of cheesy movies from the 60's or 70's. At the same time, his voice has a nice deep resonance that is soothing. Anyway - I've come to really enjoy him as Jeffrey Sinclair. I like the way he relates to all the other characters and the way he mixes the Jean Luc Picard and James T Kirk school of command. (And here, I have to give a shout out to Kathryn Janeway who was my favorite Star Trak captain and also a good mix of Picard and Kirk.)
I had forgotten how much I like Claudia Christian as Susan Ivanova. Since I'd never seen season 1 maybe I didn't get a chance to like her as much as I do right now. Or maybe I did and I forgot. In any event - she's a wonderful character; not without a sense of humor and not filled with so much angst she can't be touched (which I would find tiresome).
The other surprise is how little I've seen of G'Kar. I thought he was a major character all the way through, but I'd say he's been out of more episodes so far than he's been in. At least I know he'll develop a more prominent role later on.
I like DeLenn in this season as well. Before I only saw DeLenn after she was part human. I think I might like her better in this season. I'll see.
All the rest of the characters - Garibaldi, Talia, Fir, Lennier, Na'Toth - are good as well. Doctor Franklin is smug, as is par for the course in these kind of dramas. Ugh.
I think I'm getting a bit more backstory in this viewing that's enhancing my understanding.
I like that I haven't seen the show since the last episode of season 5, which I think was at least 10 years ago. I'm hoping when I get to the episodes I've seen, I'll still find them enjoyable.
I started watching Babylon 5 as it was aired back in the 90's in either season 2 or season 3. It was airing alongside Deep Space Nine and although I'll always enjoy Star Trek, and I'm a fan of DS9, I came close to enjoying Babylon 5 more as I slowly tried to figure out what I'd missed and get into the story as it was unfolding.
My recollection is that Season 5 didn't hold up as well for me.
I had a huge crush on G'Kar.
I've never seen any of the movies they made.
I saw the series was on sale for 1/2 price in the last couple weeks so I purchased the first four seasons.
I've got three more episodes of the first season that I think I'll finish up today.
I find myself antsy to find out why Sinclair leaves and how Sheridan comes in.
I had a recollection that people thought Michael O'Hare didn't work as Jeffrey Sinclair in Season 1, but I have to say I like him. His voice has a quality that reminds me of cheesy movies from the 60's or 70's. At the same time, his voice has a nice deep resonance that is soothing. Anyway - I've come to really enjoy him as Jeffrey Sinclair. I like the way he relates to all the other characters and the way he mixes the Jean Luc Picard and James T Kirk school of command. (And here, I have to give a shout out to Kathryn Janeway who was my favorite Star Trak captain and also a good mix of Picard and Kirk.)
I had forgotten how much I like Claudia Christian as Susan Ivanova. Since I'd never seen season 1 maybe I didn't get a chance to like her as much as I do right now. Or maybe I did and I forgot. In any event - she's a wonderful character; not without a sense of humor and not filled with so much angst she can't be touched (which I would find tiresome).
The other surprise is how little I've seen of G'Kar. I thought he was a major character all the way through, but I'd say he's been out of more episodes so far than he's been in. At least I know he'll develop a more prominent role later on.
I like DeLenn in this season as well. Before I only saw DeLenn after she was part human. I think I might like her better in this season. I'll see.
All the rest of the characters - Garibaldi, Talia, Fir, Lennier, Na'Toth - are good as well. Doctor Franklin is smug, as is par for the course in these kind of dramas. Ugh.
I think I'm getting a bit more backstory in this viewing that's enhancing my understanding.
I like that I haven't seen the show since the last episode of season 5, which I think was at least 10 years ago. I'm hoping when I get to the episodes I've seen, I'll still find them enjoyable.
Extreme Winter Weather
I'd like to make note that this weekend is the first 'we got it wrong' weekend of the Winter season. They had us all geared up for a big windy day on Friday afternoon with snow coming on Saturday or Sunday. This morning, they have reporters all over the area on Snow Watch, standing on bare pavement making small talk.
The weatherman says we'll still have snow, its just coming later than expected; Later on this morning.
We'll see. I get fooled by them all the time.
I don't mind a weatherman making a mistake and I'm proud of the city utilities making sure they're ready to go. I don't even mind the media being ready to report.
What I really (REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY) don't like is the local news media sending reporters all over the place and when the weather doesn't happen, they still report and check in as if something has happened. Way to garner trust, people. Grrrr...!
Not to mention my CBS Sunday Morning show is being preempted for no apparent good reason. What's wrong with 1 minute updates at the 1/2 hour until something does happen.
UPDATE: Soon after that post, it started snowing in the area. But, its less than three hours later and the road in front of my house is clear and wet.
The local news is doing the round the clock coverage though.
They expect that since the temps are going so low, we'll have icy streets tomorrow and for several days with new snow expected on Wed or Thurs.
I mean, really, didn't they have ice storms in the east last week? That's extreme winter weather. Anyway - for us, this is a big deal I guess.
In all honesty, I don't go anywhere when the weather is snowy or icy. It kinda scares me. I don't trust myself to have an accurate understanding of the dangers - its either worse than I think and I'm driving recklessly, or its better than I think and I'm exagerrating my caution. So, its best if I just stay home, which doesn't bother me anyway. And I don't live in an area that gets this kind of weather all that often so it shouldn't be such a hardship to stay home.
I don't know why people love their work so much that they're willing to put themselves in a situation where they could incur hundreds or thousands of dollars of damage, or even bodily harm, to get there. Why? Don't they realize most companies wouldn't give them that much consideration? Is it really worth it? The company isn't going to compensate you for damage to your car or person. Again, I live in an area where we don't have that much snow/ice weather so its different than Minnesota or Maine or something like that.
Can't the world just stop for a minute? What's so important about what everyone has to do that they can't put it off? (Doctors, utility workers, nurses, policepeople, and Fred Meyer clerks...THANK YOU!!)
The weatherman says we'll still have snow, its just coming later than expected; Later on this morning.
We'll see. I get fooled by them all the time.
I don't mind a weatherman making a mistake and I'm proud of the city utilities making sure they're ready to go. I don't even mind the media being ready to report.
What I really (REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY) don't like is the local news media sending reporters all over the place and when the weather doesn't happen, they still report and check in as if something has happened. Way to garner trust, people. Grrrr...!
Not to mention my CBS Sunday Morning show is being preempted for no apparent good reason. What's wrong with 1 minute updates at the 1/2 hour until something does happen.
UPDATE: Soon after that post, it started snowing in the area. But, its less than three hours later and the road in front of my house is clear and wet.
The local news is doing the round the clock coverage though.
They expect that since the temps are going so low, we'll have icy streets tomorrow and for several days with new snow expected on Wed or Thurs.
I mean, really, didn't they have ice storms in the east last week? That's extreme winter weather. Anyway - for us, this is a big deal I guess.
In all honesty, I don't go anywhere when the weather is snowy or icy. It kinda scares me. I don't trust myself to have an accurate understanding of the dangers - its either worse than I think and I'm driving recklessly, or its better than I think and I'm exagerrating my caution. So, its best if I just stay home, which doesn't bother me anyway. And I don't live in an area that gets this kind of weather all that often so it shouldn't be such a hardship to stay home.
I don't know why people love their work so much that they're willing to put themselves in a situation where they could incur hundreds or thousands of dollars of damage, or even bodily harm, to get there. Why? Don't they realize most companies wouldn't give them that much consideration? Is it really worth it? The company isn't going to compensate you for damage to your car or person. Again, I live in an area where we don't have that much snow/ice weather so its different than Minnesota or Maine or something like that.
Can't the world just stop for a minute? What's so important about what everyone has to do that they can't put it off? (Doctors, utility workers, nurses, policepeople, and Fred Meyer clerks...THANK YOU!!)
The Sunday Paper
Charles Krauthammer's headline (from December 12 Washington Post) in my paper this morning is "Forget Centrism - Obama will use mandate, money to refashion society"
In the article, Krauthammer points out that Obama is appointing centrists for the conoomic and foreign policy areas, not to be a pragmatist, but so he can stabilize those areas and proceed to refashion society like a community organizer would.
Good - that's what I voted for!
Although I sense Krauthammer's contempt for and dismissiveness of Obama, I suspect much of his assessment of Obama's larger plan is correct.
I disagree that Obama doesn't care about foreign policy or the economy. Krauthammer must not understand that the changes we want are IN foreign policy and the economy. I want a new way to look at the world and our neighbors that values respect and mutual understanding and cooperation.
From the column:
Nicholas Kristoff (from Thursday's NYT) talks about changing the Department of Agriculture. Factory farms are given precedence over family farms and supporting a broken business model is given priority over making sure Americans have enough healthy food to eat.
I like the idea of changing the Department. I agree. Some excerpts from the column:
That's it from the Sunday paper this week.
In the article, Krauthammer points out that Obama is appointing centrists for the conoomic and foreign policy areas, not to be a pragmatist, but so he can stabilize those areas and proceed to refashion society like a community organizer would.
Good - that's what I voted for!
Although I sense Krauthammer's contempt for and dismissiveness of Obama, I suspect much of his assessment of Obama's larger plan is correct.
I disagree that Obama doesn't care about foreign policy or the economy. Krauthammer must not understand that the changes we want are IN foreign policy and the economy. I want a new way to look at the world and our neighbors that values respect and mutual understanding and cooperation.
From the column:
"Barack Obama has garnered praise from center to right - and has highly irritated the left - with the centrism of his major appointments. Because Obama's own beliefs remain largely opaque, his sppointments have led to the conclusion that he intends to govern from the center.
Obama the centrist? I'm not so sure.
Take the foreign policy team: hillary Clinton, James Jones and Bush holdover Robert Gates. As centrist as you can get. But the choice was far less ideological than practical. Obama has no intention of being a foreign policy president. Unlike, say, Nixon or Reagan, he does not have aspirations abroad. He simply wants quiet on his eastern and western fronts so that he can proceed with what he really cares about - his domestic agenda.
Similarly, his senior economic team, the brilliant trio of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker: centrist, experienced and mainstram. But their principal task is to stabilize the financial system, a highly pragmatic task in which Obama has no particular ideological stake.
A functioning financial system is a necessary condition for a successful Obama presidency. As in foreign policy, Obama wants experts and veternas to manage and pacify universes in which he has little experience and less personal commitment. Their job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that obama can address his real ambivition: to effect a domestic transformation as grand and ambitious as Franklin Roosevelt's."
Nicholas Kristoff (from Thursday's NYT) talks about changing the Department of Agriculture. Factory farms are given precedence over family farms and supporting a broken business model is given priority over making sure Americans have enough healthy food to eat.
I like the idea of changing the Department. I agree. Some excerpts from the column:
"A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 perent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat.
Renaming the department would signal that Obama seeks to move away from a bankrupt structure of factory farming that squanders energy, exacerbates climate change and makes Americans unhalthy - all while sosting taxpayers billions of dollars.
'We're subsidizing the least healthy calories in the supermarket - high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soy oil - and we're doing very little for farmers trying to grow real food, ' notes Michael Pollan, author of such books as 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' and 'In Defense of Food.'
The Agriculture Department - and the agriculture committees in Congress - traditionally have been handed over to industrial farming intersts by Democrats and Republicans alike. The farm lobby uses that perch to inflict unhealthful food on American children in school lunch programs, exacerbating our national crisis with diabetes and obesity.
But let's be clear. The problem isn't farmers. Its the farm lobby - hijacked by industrial operators - and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it.
The Agriculture Department doesn't support rural towns...it bolsters industrial operations that have lobbying clout. The result is that family farms have to sell out to larger operators, undermining small towns.
Modern confinement operations are less like farms than like meat assembly lines. They are dazzlingly efficient in some ways, but they use vast amounts of grain, as well as low-level antibiotics to reduce infections - and the result is a public health threat from antibiotic-resistant infections.
An industrial farmer with 5,000 hogs produces as much waste as a town with 20,000 people. But while the town is required to have a sewage system, the industrial farm isn't.
An online petition at www.fooddemocracynow.org calls for a reformer pick for agriculture secretary - and names six terrific candidates."
That's it from the Sunday paper this week.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
If only...
It was 8 years ago today that Al Gore conceeded the Presidential election to George Bush after GB won the state of Florida by 537 votes (with help from the Supreme Court?)
Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote.
I wonder what our world would look like if Al Gore had been President.
Sigh.
The Day The Earth Stood Still
(I wanted to put two movie posters at the top of this entry - one from 1951 and one from 2008. But, I'm not sure what the rules are for that - so i didn't. I want to find a way to make the look of the entries more interesting.)
The original movie was heartwarming. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember enjoying it and liking the alien and feeling good about the movie.
I thought I'd like to see the remake that opened yesterday, but decided against it when I saw a television commercial that showed a government official saying to Keanu Reeves "Why have you come to our planet?" and he responded, "Your planet?"
I don't like that line. I really don't like it. I don't like what it represents.
Humans are made from materials on the Earth. If Humans are not of Earth - who would be? We are as much a part of Earth as every rock, tree, drop of water, and particle of air.
I realized the movie was going to be about humans as caretakers of Earth - as if we are not OF Earth.
In the original movie, the whole Earth would be vaporized if the people didn't stop using and threatening to use atomic weapons.
In this version, only humans should be vaporized because they aren't good caretakers of Earth.
That's fine. Its a message movie. And I suspect its a message I agree with - Preserve our planet!
But, its too obvious and predictable and I no longer care to see it.
The original movie was heartwarming. I can't remember where I saw it, but I remember enjoying it and liking the alien and feeling good about the movie.
I thought I'd like to see the remake that opened yesterday, but decided against it when I saw a television commercial that showed a government official saying to Keanu Reeves "Why have you come to our planet?" and he responded, "Your planet?"
I don't like that line. I really don't like it. I don't like what it represents.
Humans are made from materials on the Earth. If Humans are not of Earth - who would be? We are as much a part of Earth as every rock, tree, drop of water, and particle of air.
I realized the movie was going to be about humans as caretakers of Earth - as if we are not OF Earth.
In the original movie, the whole Earth would be vaporized if the people didn't stop using and threatening to use atomic weapons.
In this version, only humans should be vaporized because they aren't good caretakers of Earth.
That's fine. Its a message movie. And I suspect its a message I agree with - Preserve our planet!
But, its too obvious and predictable and I no longer care to see it.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Auto Bailout
Republican Senators have voted against the auto bailout.
Who do you believe?
The people who say a failure in the auto industry will have such devastating effects on unemployment and ripple throughout the economy that its not in the country's best interests to allow it to happen?
Or the people who feel the Big 3 auto makers hasve created the situation they find themselves in today (mismanagement) and its up to the free market to allow them to suffer the consequences.
It appears that the first group have won. There will be a bailout. So, that question has been answered.
The question is now in the details.
Senato Republicans were involved in the negotiations to get a bailout passed in the Senate (it passed in the House), but it all feel through when the UAW would not agree to match the pay rates of American workers at Honda, Toyota, etc with a specific date. The Republican Senators wanted it done in 2009 or 2010, but the union wouldn't agree to any specific date. That is a characterization of the issue based on a CNN interview with Repbulican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Reading between the lines, I think the union wanted to give rate concessions but they wanted them to take effect slowly over time. That's the union's way.
It makes sense to me. The Republican Senators want the American auto makers to pay the same amount of money for present workers as the foreign automakers are paying - who aren't unionized. According to Tom Coburn, the American automakers have a 60% disadvantage in total absorbed payroll costs.
Which tells me the American workers are paid about 130% of the foreign auto workers. ?? I don't know if that's accurate, but whatever. The point I want to make is that its unreasonable to ask the workers to take a huge pay cut immediately (even 2010 is practically immediate) when they've had a contract and created a financial lifestyle based on that contract. Can you imagine if suddenly nearly half of that income is gone? If you think there's a foreclosure problem now, this would just add to it.
And why should the workers take that huge a paycut when the top management staff aren't going to take the same percentage cut? (I don't know the details but I suspect that's true - I could be wrong though).
The Republicans are trying to bust the unions.
Update: David Brooks on The NewsHour said the reason the parties couldn't come to an agreement is because there wasn't any reason to; they knew the government was going to get the money to the automakers so they had no reason to compromise to make a deal.
That comment disappoints me because it implies the parties were never negotiating in good faith. How can I ever expect to formulate reasonable opinions about anything when I can't trust what I read. I have to be an 'insider' to really know. Or be cynical? No wonder people don't want to stay informed. We don't know the real facts so why bother trying to care? I hope I can figure a way out of that way of thinking.
Here is Obama's statement on Friday December 12, 2008.
"I am disappointed that the Senate could not reach agreement on a short-term plan for the auto industry. I share the frustration of so many about the decades of mismanagement in this industry that has helped deliver the current crisis. Those bad practices cannot be rewarded or continued. But I also know that millions of American jobs rely directly or indirectly on a viable auto industry, and that the beginnings of reform are at hand. The revival of our economy as a whole should not be a partisan issue. So I commend those in Congress as well as the Administration who tried valiantly to forge a compromise. My hope is that the Administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required."
Barack Obama is saying the right thing.
I still blame the Republican Senators because they're putting too much emphasis on busting the unions. Why don't they require as much concessions from the executives as they do the labor unions?
I guess I find it easier to be cynical about more right leaning people and ideas than left leaning people and ideas.
Sigh.
Who do you believe?
The people who say a failure in the auto industry will have such devastating effects on unemployment and ripple throughout the economy that its not in the country's best interests to allow it to happen?
Or the people who feel the Big 3 auto makers hasve created the situation they find themselves in today (mismanagement) and its up to the free market to allow them to suffer the consequences.
It appears that the first group have won. There will be a bailout. So, that question has been answered.
The question is now in the details.
Senato Republicans were involved in the negotiations to get a bailout passed in the Senate (it passed in the House), but it all feel through when the UAW would not agree to match the pay rates of American workers at Honda, Toyota, etc with a specific date. The Republican Senators wanted it done in 2009 or 2010, but the union wouldn't agree to any specific date. That is a characterization of the issue based on a CNN interview with Repbulican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.
Reading between the lines, I think the union wanted to give rate concessions but they wanted them to take effect slowly over time. That's the union's way.
It makes sense to me. The Republican Senators want the American auto makers to pay the same amount of money for present workers as the foreign automakers are paying - who aren't unionized. According to Tom Coburn, the American automakers have a 60% disadvantage in total absorbed payroll costs.
Which tells me the American workers are paid about 130% of the foreign auto workers. ?? I don't know if that's accurate, but whatever. The point I want to make is that its unreasonable to ask the workers to take a huge pay cut immediately (even 2010 is practically immediate) when they've had a contract and created a financial lifestyle based on that contract. Can you imagine if suddenly nearly half of that income is gone? If you think there's a foreclosure problem now, this would just add to it.
And why should the workers take that huge a paycut when the top management staff aren't going to take the same percentage cut? (I don't know the details but I suspect that's true - I could be wrong though).
The Republicans are trying to bust the unions.
Update: David Brooks on The NewsHour said the reason the parties couldn't come to an agreement is because there wasn't any reason to; they knew the government was going to get the money to the automakers so they had no reason to compromise to make a deal.
That comment disappoints me because it implies the parties were never negotiating in good faith. How can I ever expect to formulate reasonable opinions about anything when I can't trust what I read. I have to be an 'insider' to really know. Or be cynical? No wonder people don't want to stay informed. We don't know the real facts so why bother trying to care? I hope I can figure a way out of that way of thinking.
Here is Obama's statement on Friday December 12, 2008.
"I am disappointed that the Senate could not reach agreement on a short-term plan for the auto industry. I share the frustration of so many about the decades of mismanagement in this industry that has helped deliver the current crisis. Those bad practices cannot be rewarded or continued. But I also know that millions of American jobs rely directly or indirectly on a viable auto industry, and that the beginnings of reform are at hand. The revival of our economy as a whole should not be a partisan issue. So I commend those in Congress as well as the Administration who tried valiantly to forge a compromise. My hope is that the Administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required."
Barack Obama is saying the right thing.
I still blame the Republican Senators because they're putting too much emphasis on busting the unions. Why don't they require as much concessions from the executives as they do the labor unions?
I guess I find it easier to be cynical about more right leaning people and ideas than left leaning people and ideas.
Sigh.
So, now I sound stupid, crazy, four years early, or...
...or like I just woke up out of a sound sleep. HA HA!
Of course its not 12/12/12. But, I didn't even realize it until I thought how odd it was that we'd had TWO of those kind of days in the same year; first 08/08/08 and now this.
Sigh.
Oh well - it just gives me a chance to prove that any day is auspicious if you say it is. And besides, it was still 12:12 am on 12/12
Enjoy!
Of course its not 12/12/12. But, I didn't even realize it until I thought how odd it was that we'd had TWO of those kind of days in the same year; first 08/08/08 and now this.
Sigh.
Oh well - it just gives me a chance to prove that any day is auspicious if you say it is. And besides, it was still 12:12 am on 12/12
Enjoy!
Another Auspicious Day!
For me - the 12's rule!
It's 12/12/12 at 12:12 am
Cool!
(It didn't occur to me that this could happen tonight until I woke up and looked at my clock! That makes it even more auspicious!)
It's 12/12/12 at 12:12 am
Cool!
(It didn't occur to me that this could happen tonight until I woke up and looked at my clock! That makes it even more auspicious!)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tragedy
Its a tragic story.
My best wishes go out to the man who lost his wife, two daughters, and mother-in-law.
And my best wishes to the pilot. I imagine he'll be anguishing about everything that led up to the accident for a long time to come.
My hope is that a silver lining (is it okay to call it that?) will be that both will learn profound lessons about forgiveness. It seems to me they'll have to do so in order to go on with life. Its a great and valuable lesson to learn how to truly forgive not only others, but especially ourselves.
Bless them both.
My best wishes go out to the man who lost his wife, two daughters, and mother-in-law.
And my best wishes to the pilot. I imagine he'll be anguishing about everything that led up to the accident for a long time to come.
My hope is that a silver lining (is it okay to call it that?) will be that both will learn profound lessons about forgiveness. It seems to me they'll have to do so in order to go on with life. Its a great and valuable lesson to learn how to truly forgive not only others, but especially ourselves.
Bless them both.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tell Uh Vizh Uhn
The State of Television:
Few comedies
Serialized dramas (sad or immoral people, conspiracies, lies)
Crime procedurals
Rich people soaps
I'm a television watcher, but I find many of the shows right now are boring or irritating or a burden I no longer care about.
I'm happy to NOT be watching Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives this season.
I don't think the Jay Leno move to 10:00 pm every night is a good one for viewers of television. First, I'm not a Jay Leno fan. I'm not 'anti' Jay Leno, I just don't watch his show. I've tried a few times but I don't think his monologues are funny and I don't like his guest interviews. I think some of his street stuff is funny. But, not worth taking my time to watch.
And now he's going to be on 5 mights a week. Odd.
If I were Conan O'Brien I'd feel betrayed by NBC. Sure, he's getting the old Tonight Show spot, but with Jay Leno on earlier and presenting essentially the same show, he gets cut off at the knees.
Few comedies
Serialized dramas (sad or immoral people, conspiracies, lies)
Crime procedurals
Rich people soaps
I'm a television watcher, but I find many of the shows right now are boring or irritating or a burden I no longer care about.
I'm happy to NOT be watching Grey's Anatomy and Desperate Housewives this season.
I don't think the Jay Leno move to 10:00 pm every night is a good one for viewers of television. First, I'm not a Jay Leno fan. I'm not 'anti' Jay Leno, I just don't watch his show. I've tried a few times but I don't think his monologues are funny and I don't like his guest interviews. I think some of his street stuff is funny. But, not worth taking my time to watch.
And now he's going to be on 5 mights a week. Odd.
If I were Conan O'Brien I'd feel betrayed by NBC. Sure, he's getting the old Tonight Show spot, but with Jay Leno on earlier and presenting essentially the same show, he gets cut off at the knees.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Barack Obama on Meet The Press
Barack Obama was on Meet the Press today.
I am reassured, time and again, by Barack Obama. He is a leader. I liked everything he said during his interview with Tom Brokaw (his last interview as temporary host of Meet The Press).
Taxes, infrsstructure, national security, auto industry bailout, everything. Okay - so I'd like him to be more revolutionary, but its not possible and that's okay. He understands that he's the leader setting the tone. He doesn't allow himself to be tripped up by silly questions (does the auto industry deserve to be bailed out - deserve? Whether they deserve it or not isn't even relevant).
Barack Obama knows that he sets the tone in America - culturally and politically.
I have so much respect for him. I am hopeful for a brand new day.
I hope once he gets in office he won't be hamstrung by partisanship and politics from others. I get the feeling he won't allow it to happen.
Now that he won the election, I've allowed myself to be fully 'in the tank' for Obama. He is living up to my expectations. I hope it continues into his term as President.
I really wish him the best and send him good energy and want to help him put this country back on track. As he said in the interview, if the country continues to believe that 'greed is good' and asking 'what's in it for me', then nothing will change. We have to recognize that when the benefits of productivity are spread throughout the economy, everyone wins.
And, I'd like to go so far as to say that people who don't see that - people who continue to believe they got where they are on their very own and don't owe anyone anything and want to keep everything to themselves - well, those people live in fear and negative energy and should be ignored. We should not try to appease them, we should work around them until they see that they will benefit when everyone benefits. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers - that you do unto me.
Barack Obama understands that.
I am reassured, time and again, by Barack Obama. He is a leader. I liked everything he said during his interview with Tom Brokaw (his last interview as temporary host of Meet The Press).
Taxes, infrsstructure, national security, auto industry bailout, everything. Okay - so I'd like him to be more revolutionary, but its not possible and that's okay. He understands that he's the leader setting the tone. He doesn't allow himself to be tripped up by silly questions (does the auto industry deserve to be bailed out - deserve? Whether they deserve it or not isn't even relevant).
Barack Obama knows that he sets the tone in America - culturally and politically.
I have so much respect for him. I am hopeful for a brand new day.
I hope once he gets in office he won't be hamstrung by partisanship and politics from others. I get the feeling he won't allow it to happen.
Now that he won the election, I've allowed myself to be fully 'in the tank' for Obama. He is living up to my expectations. I hope it continues into his term as President.
I really wish him the best and send him good energy and want to help him put this country back on track. As he said in the interview, if the country continues to believe that 'greed is good' and asking 'what's in it for me', then nothing will change. We have to recognize that when the benefits of productivity are spread throughout the economy, everyone wins.
And, I'd like to go so far as to say that people who don't see that - people who continue to believe they got where they are on their very own and don't owe anyone anything and want to keep everything to themselves - well, those people live in fear and negative energy and should be ignored. We should not try to appease them, we should work around them until they see that they will benefit when everyone benefits. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers - that you do unto me.
Barack Obama understands that.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
The two loneliest people in the world sat next to each other and never knew it.
I like that sentence.
Its sad and probably true and hints at all kinds of possibilities that will never happen.
Its sad and probably true and hints at all kinds of possibilities that will never happen.
I don't want you to talk to me, I just want you to know I'm here
I like that sentence.
I like how confused and raw it is.
I like how confused and raw it is.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Final card
This morning it occurred to me that I have lots of embellishments and I have to remember I have them. I found the metallic circle stickers and put them on. Now the card feels complete. I used only 4 pieces of double-side tape to put it all together. I don't know if that's the right thing to do, but I've found that when I start adhering all the pieces of a card together, that's where I have problems - glue stick in particular smudges and gets all over everything. Ugh.
I don't want to belittle my efforts, but I do recognize the level of complexity is low. But, I did it on my own. Yay! I may make this the template for my Christmas/New Year cards.
UPDATE: Card was mailed, received and appreciated...though, to be honest, to get the reaction I wanted I had to dramatize the process for all I imagined it was worth. HA HA! And I'm sure the recipient noticed I needed the reaction and was kind enough to give it to me. Still, all in all, a huge personal and creative success!
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Revised Card
Okay - so here we are. My second attempt at the same card. It turns out I don't have a steady enough hand to free draw outlines. I took more time and used scratch paper to define the border on both the white card and the stamped card.
My instinct was to give up and use the card as it was. I don't think that instinct is helpful. The moral of the story is that practice makes perfect.
I think the card is missing something textural (I embossed the border of the stamped piece) - metal or fabric or something like that. I'm afraid to experiment at this point. I got the card to look relatively decent and not all mussed up. I'd like to leave well enough alone. Maybe when I'm better at 'creating' I'll feel more comfortable taking it a step further. As an 'artist' its important not to get too wrapped up in losing a piece. I remember that from when I took a ceramics class. You never can tell if the piece will break in the kiln.
I guess the difference is the kiln is out of my control. Whereas, taking time learning to make a card look less childish is in my control. Phew! Its tough trying to be crafty and creative!!
Card
I'm disappointed. I like my paper choices. I like the colors. I like the stamp. I like the design. I even like the corner punches. But, it needed more, so I embossed around the edges of the stamped piece and I put a color border around the white card. That's where it got sloppy.
Rick Warren on The Today Show
I'm becoming offended by The Today Show - yesterday was Karl Rove and today was Rick Warren.
Why Rick Warren?
Matt Lauer asked him if you have to be a good Christian in order to appreciate Christmas. He said Yes.
So, Matt Lauer was trying to give Rick Warren an opening to make Christianity inclusive. Instead, Rick Warren closed the door. Only Christians can appreciate Christmas.
Then he said that the world is a mess and there's no hope here so that's why we should pray to God for His will to be done on Earth.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
I'm going to find the video so I can make sure I've understood it correctly.
But, as of now - Rick Warren - ugh.
UPDATE: I transcribed this from the video on AOL: (by the way, on second listening, I dislike this interview even more)
Matt Lauer: Whether its braving long shopping lines or attending another party, the holidays can sometimes feel more like a burden than a celebration. So, how do you keep the holiday spirit alive? Rick Warren is the pastor of the Lake Forest California megachurch Saddleback and the author of the bestseller "The Purpose Driven Life". His new book is "The Purpose of Christmas". Rick, and you told me to call you Rick, Good Morning, nice to have you here.
Rick Warren: Good Morning. Thanks.
Matt Lauer: Its amazing, stress, people always talk about stress this time of year. Gotta spend money, gotta go to party. This is supposed to be the celebration of the birth of Jesus.
Rick Warren: Yeah, that's right Matt. The truth is we often get sidelined by all the other things. It is a celebration. That God sent Jesus to Earth to solve our biggest problem. But, uh, we often don't accept the gift. You know, if you gave me a Christmas gift, and you came over a year later and you said 'How'd you like my Christmas gift?'. And I go, 'well, I'm sure its great , but I didn't have time to open it. You'd be offended and I'd miss the blessing of it. And a lot of people go through Christmas and never open the gift - God's gift to us.
Matt Lauer: I don't want to sound like an angel here, and I've been carried away with the commercial side of the holidays just as much as anybody else. But, its almost as if at every cash register at every store across the country, you should have the title of your book that says in question form "What is the purpose of Christmas?" before you're allowed to charge something on your credit card.
Rick Warren: Yeah, well that's the reason I wrote the book. I think its for, I wrote it to be given to people to think about. Whether you're a skeptic or a seeker or a believer. Why do we do this thing? Why is history divided into AD and BC by this event? I mean even people who don't accept Jesus Christ, they still use 2008 as the reference point.
Matt Lauer: You bring up a good point, you say whether you're a skeptic, a cynic or a believer. Do you have to be a devout Christian to to get the true meaning of the holiday?
Rick Warren: Oh, well I think so. I think you have to understand that Jesus Christ came for your greatest benefit. It's like unwrapping the gift to him. The bottom line of Christmas is You matter to God. He made you, he loves you. And he sent Himself to Earth so we can know what he's like.
Matt Lauer: Alright, so people are listening to what you just said 'You matter to God'. And a lot of people, Rick, as you know, in this country right now are facing unemployment, they're facing foreclosure, they can't pay their bills, they won't be able to send their kids to college. And they say 'well, if I matter to God, why'd he put me in this situation?". How do you answer that to your 20,000 plus congregants.
Rick Warren: Sure, well we live on a broken planet - the fact is nothing works here, no relationship, no economy, uh, its been broken since the beginning. And that's why we pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" 'cause its done perfectly there. But, what we need to do at Christmas time is focus on people less fortunate than us too. Not just receiving God's gift of salvation, but also, saying 'How can I make a difference in someone else's life?'.
Matt Lauer: Tony Robbins who's the inspirational guru there has that same theory. He says 'If you're really feeling bad about your own straits, go help someone in worse straits.'
Rick Warren: Exactly. Absolutely. You see, most of the world would love to have our problems. They would love to be in debt. They don't have debt. They don't have any money in their pocket. And, if you're depressed, Christmas season is the season where people often get the blues get stressed out, suicide goes up. You need to do two things: turn to God and turn to somebody less fortunate than yourself.
Matt Lauer: One of the major complaints, as I've mentioned, you have 20,000 plus congregants at your church. What's the main complaint, what's the number one complaint you hear at this time of year?
Rick Warren: Trying to do too much in too little time. I mean we just say 'let's go write a card to everybody we've ever known, let's redecorate our house, let's buy a gift for everybody we've ever known, let's go to five extra parties' and we add all all this stuff in. Actually, you could celebrate it in a whole lot simpler way.
Matt Lauer: We're going to have you back on Christmas Day. I think we're actually going to talk more. And I know you want people to ask themselves two questions on Christmas and we'll talk about that. But, first, in advance happy holidays.
Rick Warren: Good, same to you."
So, Christmas he's back and Ann Curry will interview him for Dateline later this month.
I don't know where to begin describing how this interview irritated me.
First, I guess I should accept that The Today Show had such an overtly religious segment. Christianity is the dominant religion of our culture. Maybe they'll have other religions represented over the next weeks or so.
Next, I think in this country where we celebrate many different religious traditions, its unwise and uncharitable for religions to go on mainstream/secular television and exclude people outside of their faith. Rick Warren must know that many families who celebrate Christmas are not devout Christians. Yet, he insists that only devout Christians can get the true meaning of Christmas. He's ignoring the centuries of traditions surrounding Christmas that have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus - Christmas Tree, Santa Claus, et al. Those traditions celebrate the ideals of community and giving and sharing. They're traditions that predate Christmas. Historically, in winter, it becomes obvious that we all need each other and because we're not in the fields we have time to reflect. That was happening before Christianity. Its not an idea exclusive to Christianity. Christianity, piggy-backed on the Winter traditions and then redefined the point of the winter holidays. I don't have a problem with celebrating the birth of Jesus, but don't act like the rest of us don't, or can't, understand what Christmas is.
Rick Warren talks about how bad the Earth is. I reject that idea. I accept its his belief, but I categorically reject it. This is a beautiful planet and we're infinitely great human beings. I don't appreciate that he perpetuates an idea that the only good things that come out of this world are the ones we receive from God - we have no control or choice. We have control and we have choice - in fact, in Christianity, isn't that what God wants - to be chosen?
Rick Warren is talking about losing the meaning of Christmas because people buy too much and do too much and get caught up in the materialism, and yet he's trying to sell a book that he suggests be given as a gift - meaning, buy several for all your friends.
Rick Warren suggests that Christmas must be truly for Christians because otherwise why would the rest of the world use the birth of Jesus as the marking point for time - why is this 2008 instead of 5042? Well, first of all, that's ridiculous. Does he want everyone to use a different calendar? Would that be pracical? Could it be that this date is used because it was instituted by the Christian Emperors and Popes? And don't forget that many societies DON'T consider this 2008? They use 2008 for common usage but still recognize their own years - Chinese New Year? Tet? Mayan Calendar? Jewish New Year? Ever heard of those Rick Warren?
Okay - I'm done. I find him offensive. Oh well. He believes what he believes. I believe what I believe. Hopefully our people will live in harmony for eons to come.
Why Rick Warren?
Matt Lauer asked him if you have to be a good Christian in order to appreciate Christmas. He said Yes.
So, Matt Lauer was trying to give Rick Warren an opening to make Christianity inclusive. Instead, Rick Warren closed the door. Only Christians can appreciate Christmas.
Then he said that the world is a mess and there's no hope here so that's why we should pray to God for His will to be done on Earth.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.
I'm going to find the video so I can make sure I've understood it correctly.
But, as of now - Rick Warren - ugh.
UPDATE: I transcribed this from the video on AOL: (by the way, on second listening, I dislike this interview even more)
Matt Lauer: Whether its braving long shopping lines or attending another party, the holidays can sometimes feel more like a burden than a celebration. So, how do you keep the holiday spirit alive? Rick Warren is the pastor of the Lake Forest California megachurch Saddleback and the author of the bestseller "The Purpose Driven Life". His new book is "The Purpose of Christmas". Rick, and you told me to call you Rick, Good Morning, nice to have you here.
Rick Warren: Good Morning. Thanks.
Matt Lauer: Its amazing, stress, people always talk about stress this time of year. Gotta spend money, gotta go to party. This is supposed to be the celebration of the birth of Jesus.
Rick Warren: Yeah, that's right Matt. The truth is we often get sidelined by all the other things. It is a celebration. That God sent Jesus to Earth to solve our biggest problem. But, uh, we often don't accept the gift. You know, if you gave me a Christmas gift, and you came over a year later and you said 'How'd you like my Christmas gift?'. And I go, 'well, I'm sure its great , but I didn't have time to open it. You'd be offended and I'd miss the blessing of it. And a lot of people go through Christmas and never open the gift - God's gift to us.
Matt Lauer: I don't want to sound like an angel here, and I've been carried away with the commercial side of the holidays just as much as anybody else. But, its almost as if at every cash register at every store across the country, you should have the title of your book that says in question form "What is the purpose of Christmas?" before you're allowed to charge something on your credit card.
Rick Warren: Yeah, well that's the reason I wrote the book. I think its for, I wrote it to be given to people to think about. Whether you're a skeptic or a seeker or a believer. Why do we do this thing? Why is history divided into AD and BC by this event? I mean even people who don't accept Jesus Christ, they still use 2008 as the reference point.
Matt Lauer: You bring up a good point, you say whether you're a skeptic, a cynic or a believer. Do you have to be a devout Christian to to get the true meaning of the holiday?
Rick Warren: Oh, well I think so. I think you have to understand that Jesus Christ came for your greatest benefit. It's like unwrapping the gift to him. The bottom line of Christmas is You matter to God. He made you, he loves you. And he sent Himself to Earth so we can know what he's like.
Matt Lauer: Alright, so people are listening to what you just said 'You matter to God'. And a lot of people, Rick, as you know, in this country right now are facing unemployment, they're facing foreclosure, they can't pay their bills, they won't be able to send their kids to college. And they say 'well, if I matter to God, why'd he put me in this situation?". How do you answer that to your 20,000 plus congregants.
Rick Warren: Sure, well we live on a broken planet - the fact is nothing works here, no relationship, no economy, uh, its been broken since the beginning. And that's why we pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" 'cause its done perfectly there. But, what we need to do at Christmas time is focus on people less fortunate than us too. Not just receiving God's gift of salvation, but also, saying 'How can I make a difference in someone else's life?'.
Matt Lauer: Tony Robbins who's the inspirational guru there has that same theory. He says 'If you're really feeling bad about your own straits, go help someone in worse straits.'
Rick Warren: Exactly. Absolutely. You see, most of the world would love to have our problems. They would love to be in debt. They don't have debt. They don't have any money in their pocket. And, if you're depressed, Christmas season is the season where people often get the blues get stressed out, suicide goes up. You need to do two things: turn to God and turn to somebody less fortunate than yourself.
Matt Lauer: One of the major complaints, as I've mentioned, you have 20,000 plus congregants at your church. What's the main complaint, what's the number one complaint you hear at this time of year?
Rick Warren: Trying to do too much in too little time. I mean we just say 'let's go write a card to everybody we've ever known, let's redecorate our house, let's buy a gift for everybody we've ever known, let's go to five extra parties' and we add all all this stuff in. Actually, you could celebrate it in a whole lot simpler way.
Matt Lauer: We're going to have you back on Christmas Day. I think we're actually going to talk more. And I know you want people to ask themselves two questions on Christmas and we'll talk about that. But, first, in advance happy holidays.
Rick Warren: Good, same to you."
So, Christmas he's back and Ann Curry will interview him for Dateline later this month.
I don't know where to begin describing how this interview irritated me.
First, I guess I should accept that The Today Show had such an overtly religious segment. Christianity is the dominant religion of our culture. Maybe they'll have other religions represented over the next weeks or so.
Next, I think in this country where we celebrate many different religious traditions, its unwise and uncharitable for religions to go on mainstream/secular television and exclude people outside of their faith. Rick Warren must know that many families who celebrate Christmas are not devout Christians. Yet, he insists that only devout Christians can get the true meaning of Christmas. He's ignoring the centuries of traditions surrounding Christmas that have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus - Christmas Tree, Santa Claus, et al. Those traditions celebrate the ideals of community and giving and sharing. They're traditions that predate Christmas. Historically, in winter, it becomes obvious that we all need each other and because we're not in the fields we have time to reflect. That was happening before Christianity. Its not an idea exclusive to Christianity. Christianity, piggy-backed on the Winter traditions and then redefined the point of the winter holidays. I don't have a problem with celebrating the birth of Jesus, but don't act like the rest of us don't, or can't, understand what Christmas is.
Rick Warren talks about how bad the Earth is. I reject that idea. I accept its his belief, but I categorically reject it. This is a beautiful planet and we're infinitely great human beings. I don't appreciate that he perpetuates an idea that the only good things that come out of this world are the ones we receive from God - we have no control or choice. We have control and we have choice - in fact, in Christianity, isn't that what God wants - to be chosen?
Rick Warren is talking about losing the meaning of Christmas because people buy too much and do too much and get caught up in the materialism, and yet he's trying to sell a book that he suggests be given as a gift - meaning, buy several for all your friends.
Rick Warren suggests that Christmas must be truly for Christians because otherwise why would the rest of the world use the birth of Jesus as the marking point for time - why is this 2008 instead of 5042? Well, first of all, that's ridiculous. Does he want everyone to use a different calendar? Would that be pracical? Could it be that this date is used because it was instituted by the Christian Emperors and Popes? And don't forget that many societies DON'T consider this 2008? They use 2008 for common usage but still recognize their own years - Chinese New Year? Tet? Mayan Calendar? Jewish New Year? Ever heard of those Rick Warren?
Okay - I'm done. I find him offensive. Oh well. He believes what he believes. I believe what I believe. Hopefully our people will live in harmony for eons to come.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
News Media, Campbell Brown, Obama
Campbell Brown decided to chide Obama for his "dismissive" answer (her word) to a reporter's question yesterday after announcing Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. This is the article from Huffington Post.
Here's my problem with Campbell Brown's comment: she describes their primary campaign relationship as "She trashed him, saying he wasn't ready to be commander in chief. He trashed her, mocking her foreign policy experience as first lady"
Trash? I didn't like how Clinton went after Obama. I thought she went over the edge. But, Obama always said - from the very first - that Hillary was smart and he'd be glad to have her advice and counsel as President. Remember all those debates in 2007? He said it multiple times - and even in the three debates that were aired when it was just the two of them - he said it there too.
She says "Mr. President-elect, how it is that you completely mocked Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience just a few months ago and yet today you think there is no one more qualified than she to lead your foreign policy team?"
I don't think he ever 'completely mocked' her foreign policy experience.
So, she has framed the story her own way to make her larger point, which is if we can't trust that you were telling the truth in the campaign, how can we trust that you're telling the truth now - about anything? (Which, I might add, was a point Elisabeth Hasselbeck made on the View today.)
The media are enjoying exagerrating the discord between Obama and Clinton in the primaries so they can create a story today. Ridiculous.
I liked one person's comment on the story:
"The increasingly self-righteous tone of indignation that has become Campbell Brown's trademark is wearing thin. Obama was perfectly in bounds to deflect the reporter's question, as it was clearly asked with the hope of digging up a little dirt. Obama wasn't rude; he simply declined to engage, as is his right."
This little commentary is undermining her desire to be a constructive, effective journalist. The 'righteous indignation' card should be played sparingly and judiciously. Otherwise you might turn into Lou Dobbs.
Here's my problem with Campbell Brown's comment: she describes their primary campaign relationship as "She trashed him, saying he wasn't ready to be commander in chief. He trashed her, mocking her foreign policy experience as first lady"
Trash? I didn't like how Clinton went after Obama. I thought she went over the edge. But, Obama always said - from the very first - that Hillary was smart and he'd be glad to have her advice and counsel as President. Remember all those debates in 2007? He said it multiple times - and even in the three debates that were aired when it was just the two of them - he said it there too.
She says "Mr. President-elect, how it is that you completely mocked Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience just a few months ago and yet today you think there is no one more qualified than she to lead your foreign policy team?"
I don't think he ever 'completely mocked' her foreign policy experience.
So, she has framed the story her own way to make her larger point, which is if we can't trust that you were telling the truth in the campaign, how can we trust that you're telling the truth now - about anything? (Which, I might add, was a point Elisabeth Hasselbeck made on the View today.)
The media are enjoying exagerrating the discord between Obama and Clinton in the primaries so they can create a story today. Ridiculous.
I liked one person's comment on the story:
"The increasingly self-righteous tone of indignation that has become Campbell Brown's trademark is wearing thin. Obama was perfectly in bounds to deflect the reporter's question, as it was clearly asked with the hope of digging up a little dirt. Obama wasn't rude; he simply declined to engage, as is his right."
This little commentary is undermining her desire to be a constructive, effective journalist. The 'righteous indignation' card should be played sparingly and judiciously. Otherwise you might turn into Lou Dobbs.
A little rant...
My take is that Republicans and the news media are spinning the Obama picks as if they're a right-winger's dream team and vindicate all the Bush policies of the last 8 years - no change at all, in other words.
Don't these people understand English? Obama has been very clear that he has a new VISION about how things are done. That has never meant that a radical left wing agenda was in the offing. It has never meant that Obama just picks people and lets them run off and do their own thing.
It means that Obama is a LEADER who knows how to pick smart people, but who also knows his VISION is key to how the smart people implement plans and policies. That's why we voted for him.
Why is that so hard to understand?
People who may have behaved a particular way in the past are not necessarily going to behave the same way under a good leader.
My expectation is that Obama will work hard in the first year to get us out of this economic mess. He may not be as 'left' as I'd like, but I'd rather that he be responsible. While the economic crisis is working itself out, Obama will be mending fences around the world and return the US to a place of respect around the world.
Not only that, he'll be putting the pieces into place for an overhaul of our health care system and education programs and things like that. In the second year, he'll start implementing those plans.
I expect Obama will be a 'can do' president. Stuff will get done.
So, please stop 'spinning' reality so you can pretend to giggle in your sleeve (that's what it seems like the Karl Rove's etc are doing). You're just trying to jump on the bandwagon and rescue your reputation. And act like this is what you wanted all along.
And, by the way, why is Karl Rove even ON any show except FOXNews anyway? I saw him on the Today Show this morning. He's a has-been who proved that his political philosophy is destructive and ultimately responsible for the down slide of America in the last 8 years.
While I'm writing about ridiculous right-wing idiots I'd like to mention Elisabeth Hasselbeck because she makes me nuts. This morning on the View she criticized Obama for not saying the war in Iraq has been a success (in Barbara Walters interview with the Obamas). Are you eff'n kidding me? Success? Man - you're not thinking. I've discussed this before but it continues to irritate me.
1) If he doesn't think its a success, why should he say it just to appease you?
2) Elisabeth Hasselbeck's definition of success must be that one good thing happened in Iraq. She chooses to ignore all the crap things that happened. Not all of us live in her world. She's ridiculous and silly to continue believing that her definition is everyone's definition and then criticizing us when we don't agree with her. She wants to think Iraq is a success? Fine. Just accept that the rest of us don't necessarily agree. And there's the problem - this is explained to her over and over and over and over and over and she still brings it up. Is she thick?
Don't these people understand English? Obama has been very clear that he has a new VISION about how things are done. That has never meant that a radical left wing agenda was in the offing. It has never meant that Obama just picks people and lets them run off and do their own thing.
It means that Obama is a LEADER who knows how to pick smart people, but who also knows his VISION is key to how the smart people implement plans and policies. That's why we voted for him.
Why is that so hard to understand?
People who may have behaved a particular way in the past are not necessarily going to behave the same way under a good leader.
My expectation is that Obama will work hard in the first year to get us out of this economic mess. He may not be as 'left' as I'd like, but I'd rather that he be responsible. While the economic crisis is working itself out, Obama will be mending fences around the world and return the US to a place of respect around the world.
Not only that, he'll be putting the pieces into place for an overhaul of our health care system and education programs and things like that. In the second year, he'll start implementing those plans.
I expect Obama will be a 'can do' president. Stuff will get done.
So, please stop 'spinning' reality so you can pretend to giggle in your sleeve (that's what it seems like the Karl Rove's etc are doing). You're just trying to jump on the bandwagon and rescue your reputation. And act like this is what you wanted all along.
And, by the way, why is Karl Rove even ON any show except FOXNews anyway? I saw him on the Today Show this morning. He's a has-been who proved that his political philosophy is destructive and ultimately responsible for the down slide of America in the last 8 years.
While I'm writing about ridiculous right-wing idiots I'd like to mention Elisabeth Hasselbeck because she makes me nuts. This morning on the View she criticized Obama for not saying the war in Iraq has been a success (in Barbara Walters interview with the Obamas). Are you eff'n kidding me? Success? Man - you're not thinking. I've discussed this before but it continues to irritate me.
1) If he doesn't think its a success, why should he say it just to appease you?
2) Elisabeth Hasselbeck's definition of success must be that one good thing happened in Iraq. She chooses to ignore all the crap things that happened. Not all of us live in her world. She's ridiculous and silly to continue believing that her definition is everyone's definition and then criticizing us when we don't agree with her. She wants to think Iraq is a success? Fine. Just accept that the rest of us don't necessarily agree. And there's the problem - this is explained to her over and over and over and over and over and she still brings it up. Is she thick?
Britney Spears
Okay - I'm going to do it - put my two cents in about Britney Spears 'comeback'. Ugh. I'm not a big fan or anything, but I can't help but notice all the talk on the web.
She's getting mediocre reviews of her live performances of "Womanizer" in Germany, France , and Good Morning America.
My two cents is that the song is boring, the staging is mediocre, and the choreography is lacking energy. Any performer would look mediocre given the same song, staging, and choreography.
I'm not sure Britney should be judged by these performances. That's all.
She's getting mediocre reviews of her live performances of "Womanizer" in Germany, France , and Good Morning America.
My two cents is that the song is boring, the staging is mediocre, and the choreography is lacking energy. Any performer would look mediocre given the same song, staging, and choreography.
I'm not sure Britney should be judged by these performances. That's all.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Today's Question
What is innocence?
*****
in-no-cence /ˈɪnəsəns/[in-uh-suhns]
–noun
1. the quality or state of being innocent; freedom from sin or moral wrong.
2. freedom from legal or specific wrong; guiltlessness: The prisoner proved his innocence.
3. simplicity; absence of guile or cunning; naiveté.
4. lack of knowledge or understanding.
5. harmlessness; innocuousness.
6. chastity.
7. an innocent person or thing.
8. bluet (def. 1).
9. blue-eyed Mary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1300–50; ME < L innocentia. See innocent, -ence
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
*****
We lament the acts of terrorists and criminals who harm the 'innocent' because we see the victims as having no direct influence on the grievance the terrorists and criminals are acting on.
I wonder if its fair to call anyone innocent when our inaction can have as much influence as direct action?
Of course, the ultimate resolution to the question is moot if we find new ways to deal with grievances that don't involve violence. That's a given.
But, in the current context of terrorism and crime, should we create a narrative that includes offending the innocent as part of the crime? As the media describes the act, it is with sadness that the victim had nothing to do with the grievance.
I wonder if, maybe, we should take that out of the equation - we're all part of an interlocking story and by our indifference or inaction we influence how the pieces fit together. As a nation, we commonly dismiss grievances we judge to be trivial, or too complicated, or too far away. Does that make us culpable?
Again, I'm not condoing or supporting violent acts at all - I'm just asking if we should stop taking ourselves off the hook (by call ourselves innocent) when we become unwitting victims in someone else's struggle.
UPDATE from 11/29/2016 - I'm reading old posts I wrote - just for nostalgia's sake. This post was NOT written by me. I don't seem to have attributed it to anyone, but I can tell I didn't write it (all I did was copy the dictionary stuff). Those are my thoughts, but not my writing. I found something that someone else wrote, liked it, copied it here, and forgot to attribute it. Darn. I wonder what that person is writing now?
*****
in-no-cence /ˈɪnəsəns/[in-uh-suhns]
–noun
1. the quality or state of being innocent; freedom from sin or moral wrong.
2. freedom from legal or specific wrong; guiltlessness: The prisoner proved his innocence.
3. simplicity; absence of guile or cunning; naiveté.
4. lack of knowledge or understanding.
5. harmlessness; innocuousness.
6. chastity.
7. an innocent person or thing.
8. bluet (def. 1).
9. blue-eyed Mary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1300–50; ME < L innocentia. See innocent, -ence
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
*****
We lament the acts of terrorists and criminals who harm the 'innocent' because we see the victims as having no direct influence on the grievance the terrorists and criminals are acting on.
I wonder if its fair to call anyone innocent when our inaction can have as much influence as direct action?
Of course, the ultimate resolution to the question is moot if we find new ways to deal with grievances that don't involve violence. That's a given.
But, in the current context of terrorism and crime, should we create a narrative that includes offending the innocent as part of the crime? As the media describes the act, it is with sadness that the victim had nothing to do with the grievance.
I wonder if, maybe, we should take that out of the equation - we're all part of an interlocking story and by our indifference or inaction we influence how the pieces fit together. As a nation, we commonly dismiss grievances we judge to be trivial, or too complicated, or too far away. Does that make us culpable?
Again, I'm not condoing or supporting violent acts at all - I'm just asking if we should stop taking ourselves off the hook (by call ourselves innocent) when we become unwitting victims in someone else's struggle.
UPDATE from 11/29/2016 - I'm reading old posts I wrote - just for nostalgia's sake. This post was NOT written by me. I don't seem to have attributed it to anyone, but I can tell I didn't write it (all I did was copy the dictionary stuff). Those are my thoughts, but not my writing. I found something that someone else wrote, liked it, copied it here, and forgot to attribute it. Darn. I wonder what that person is writing now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)