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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)