HOW FREAKIN' CUTE IS THIS?!?!
Friday, December 21, 2007
Religious fundamentalism and the Constitution
My friend, Leah the Lawyer, posed an interesting question with regard to the religion, the threat we currently face, and how the Founding Fathers (FF) might have faced the question. Here's a bit of what she wrote...
On a tangential note, is there a policy difference in thinking of radical islam as a strategic threat as opposed to a threat to our way of life? i mean...can we think of radical islam as a threat to the lives of people rather than a wholesale assault on the idea of america? i know that the radicals want to destroy us--not just our lives and property (well, maybe they'll keep our property) but also our ideas. but, have they? i mean have they even come close to hurting our ideas? just a thought or two...i'll expand in a later post, i think.
"I was wondering the other day, as I drove around, what would Thomas Jefferson think about the War on Terror. What would our Founding Fathers think, if they were presented with the knowledge that religious fundamentalists who had no qualms about sending themselves, their wives, or even their children, into battle armed to a T in order implement a suicide bombing."I revisited my plan for this post Friday night. I was flipping through my Thomas Jefferson reader while I was kicking it at work and I re-read his first inaugural speech. I came across a quote that sort of summed it up for me. He said
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."I think that's the crap shoot right there. That's the whole ballgame...we are asked every day to put aside the process (the Constitutional processes) and trust President Bush. Stop asking questions about Gonzalez, trust me. Stop asking questions about how I manage the war prisons, trust me. I think that TJ would be more alarmed about the manner in which we have decided to prosecute this war than the threat itself. I say this because I believe that the FF's and their contemporaries were living through a time of extreme religious intolerance and violence. The Age of Reason saw the end (essentially) of the modernization of Christianity. Even at the time of the constitutional convention there were instances of religious extremism in America--it was one of the factors that brought about the end of the Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, I believe that TJ would see the war on terror as a more potent threat to our survival than the threat of radical islam.
On a tangential note, is there a policy difference in thinking of radical islam as a strategic threat as opposed to a threat to our way of life? i mean...can we think of radical islam as a threat to the lives of people rather than a wholesale assault on the idea of america? i know that the radicals want to destroy us--not just our lives and property (well, maybe they'll keep our property) but also our ideas. but, have they? i mean have they even come close to hurting our ideas? just a thought or two...i'll expand in a later post, i think.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
exasperation...
ford
jack daniels
enterprise
branson tractors
rocky boots
fox sports
wrangler
the US Army
bud light
dickies
big tex (?)
these are just a few of the companies/organizations with whom mike vick should have had endorsement deals. apparently, they aren't shy about benefiting from animal cruelty for the entertainment of the masses--they have ad space on the nationally broadcast bull riding competitions.
this is what they say. *shrug*
jack daniels
enterprise
branson tractors
rocky boots
fox sports
wrangler
the US Army
bud light
dickies
big tex (?)
these are just a few of the companies/organizations with whom mike vick should have had endorsement deals. apparently, they aren't shy about benefiting from animal cruelty for the entertainment of the masses--they have ad space on the nationally broadcast bull riding competitions.
this is what they say. *shrug*
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
power
it occurred to me the other day that while all of the presidential hopefuls (with the possible exception of mccain) continue to have a field day bashing the president for his handling of the war, none of them (with the exception of paul & kuccinich) have recanted themselves of the power that the president now wields. none of them have said that they would open the doors of gitmo to the international community. to my knowledge, none of them have promised to submit themselves to the scrutiny of the congress in the event a declaration of war is needed. i don't specifically recall any of them saying they would never utilize the kind of unilateral measures used by the current administration (with the obvious caveat that we are not in immediate danger, of course).
did you know that ron paul has raised more money than john mccain? the mccain campaign is almost broke. the paul campaign raised over 5 million dollars in the 3Q. i don't think that the media is liberal so much as it simply suffers from group think. it just looks liberal now because part of the current group think is everything bush does is bad. i remember not being able to watch the news without hearing about that blue dress in the 90's. *shrug* just thought i would throw that out there. by the way, i learned that tidbit about ron paul on the Air America website. who says liberals can't report good stories?
did you know that ron paul has raised more money than john mccain? the mccain campaign is almost broke. the paul campaign raised over 5 million dollars in the 3Q. i don't think that the media is liberal so much as it simply suffers from group think. it just looks liberal now because part of the current group think is everything bush does is bad. i remember not being able to watch the news without hearing about that blue dress in the 90's. *shrug* just thought i would throw that out there. by the way, i learned that tidbit about ron paul on the Air America website. who says liberals can't report good stories?
our constitution
yesterday, i was talking to my friend, leah the lawyer. somehow we got onto the constitution and it's current state, and she made some compelling observations. i've always been a staunch defendant of the constitution and the bill of rights (all of the rights, not just the ones i like), but we really got to talking about the structure of the constitution and what that has meant for our society over the past 30 years or so.
take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*
take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?
take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. there we go.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)
i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?
take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*
take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?
take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. there we go.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)
i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
two things that annoy me...
recently, i've been pondering two things that we should stop doing right now.
the first thing that we must do is stop looking for human hypocrisy in order to invalidate human ideas. what i mean is the trend (not even a little bit new by the way--just perfected) of attacking the person presenting the idea rather than understanding the idea itself on its own merits. i was listening to the sean hannity radio show again the other day, and he was almost giddy with delight about a report he had put together about environmentalists. not about environmentalism, but about environmentalists. he made allusions to some people who talked about carbon footprints or global warming or something along those lines but flew around the world in private jets rather than flying commercial. but, it doesn't stop there. i haven't listened in a long time, but i'm sure that commentators on air america radio are having a field day with the recent spate of republican elected officials having sex scandals. party of family values? i think not. anyway, rather than taking these cases on individual basis, both sides are guilty of making sweeping judgments about (in this case) all people who call themselves environmentalists, but also about the ideas espoused by those same people.
i think this is patently different than questioning someone's motive--say, in the case of profit or power. this is saying because you flew on a private jet all environmentalists are nuts and, oh by the way, your ideas are bullshit. i think that it's important to know who is talking to you and for whom they work. it's important to understand you have to understand the money trail for particular think tanks, authors, lobbyists and talking heads in general. but, it is something entirely different to reduce the substance of someone's ideas to character issues.
the other thing that annoys and is closely related is the manner in which many arguments are framed. i caught the tail end of the neil/neal boortz broadcast one day last week, and i was struck by the absurdity of what he was saying. he was talking about why the consumer tax would never be passed, and he was talking to someone that had called in to the show. anyway, he was saying that the reason we would never see the consumer tax enacted was because liberals in government don't want to give up the power they have over the population. the argument being that the manipulation of the tax code to induce certain behaviors is an intoxicating power to liberals--only. the thing that is preposterous isn't the obviousness of that incredulous lie. the thing that is preposterous is that instead of focusing on revamping the idea, you subvert the concept of the marketplace of ideas (where ideas "compete" with one another, and, as the theory goes, the best idea "wins"). rather than allowing the idea to flourish on its own, you focus on the acquisition of power in order to force your idea down the collective throat of america. you also subvert part of that evolutionary process...the process where ideas come into contact with different philosophies and are changed for the better.
i feel that i've lost my train of thought here...i'll refine and extend these arguments in posts to come. nodnod
the first thing that we must do is stop looking for human hypocrisy in order to invalidate human ideas. what i mean is the trend (not even a little bit new by the way--just perfected) of attacking the person presenting the idea rather than understanding the idea itself on its own merits. i was listening to the sean hannity radio show again the other day, and he was almost giddy with delight about a report he had put together about environmentalists. not about environmentalism, but about environmentalists. he made allusions to some people who talked about carbon footprints or global warming or something along those lines but flew around the world in private jets rather than flying commercial. but, it doesn't stop there. i haven't listened in a long time, but i'm sure that commentators on air america radio are having a field day with the recent spate of republican elected officials having sex scandals. party of family values? i think not. anyway, rather than taking these cases on individual basis, both sides are guilty of making sweeping judgments about (in this case) all people who call themselves environmentalists, but also about the ideas espoused by those same people.
i think this is patently different than questioning someone's motive--say, in the case of profit or power. this is saying because you flew on a private jet all environmentalists are nuts and, oh by the way, your ideas are bullshit. i think that it's important to know who is talking to you and for whom they work. it's important to understand you have to understand the money trail for particular think tanks, authors, lobbyists and talking heads in general. but, it is something entirely different to reduce the substance of someone's ideas to character issues.
the other thing that annoys and is closely related is the manner in which many arguments are framed. i caught the tail end of the neil/neal boortz broadcast one day last week, and i was struck by the absurdity of what he was saying. he was talking about why the consumer tax would never be passed, and he was talking to someone that had called in to the show. anyway, he was saying that the reason we would never see the consumer tax enacted was because liberals in government don't want to give up the power they have over the population. the argument being that the manipulation of the tax code to induce certain behaviors is an intoxicating power to liberals--only. the thing that is preposterous isn't the obviousness of that incredulous lie. the thing that is preposterous is that instead of focusing on revamping the idea, you subvert the concept of the marketplace of ideas (where ideas "compete" with one another, and, as the theory goes, the best idea "wins"). rather than allowing the idea to flourish on its own, you focus on the acquisition of power in order to force your idea down the collective throat of america. you also subvert part of that evolutionary process...the process where ideas come into contact with different philosophies and are changed for the better.
i feel that i've lost my train of thought here...i'll refine and extend these arguments in posts to come. nodnod
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
redemption
redemption is a powerful word and is a powerful concept. i have a question about it tonight though. can redemption exist in a society that has nearly perfected the storage and access of information? i mean forgive and forget is a phrase that meant something in the past. think about the things we do for a minute. we're inundated right now with video clips and photos and sound bites of princess diana on this, the ten year anniversary of her death. her kids see her on tv or on the front pages of newspapers on a very regular basis. what must it be like to be bombarded with images of your mother constantly? we used to be ABLE to forget. i never thought it would be a luxury to be able to forget something or someone. photos will fade with time. you can even forget the sound of someone's voice with time. can you ever get to a place of peace or do you just become desensitized?
what does that mean for people in the public (most notably, most recently, michael vick) who screw up? can they ever redeem themselves in the public eye when anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? jail in america is not meant to be therapeutic. we don't send people to jail here to cure them of addictions or compulsions. we don't send people to jail to give them an opportunity to better their lives. it is pure punishment. but, i thought that part of the deal with punishment is that once you do suffer the consequences of your actions that was it. you're done. your slate is wiped clean (except that you can't vote, can't get a decent job, don't have much of a shot to get into college unless you lie on your application...but set all of that aside), and you start again.
wait, i'm mixing topics. i don't want to talk about the penal code in america and how we treat those who transgress against us. i want to talk about the persistence of information and what that does to us.
um, right...splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? this line of thought started weeks ago when the vick story broke, but it really applies to anyone who (for whatever reason) draws a great deal of media attention to themselves--actor, athlete, politician, whatever. there are some things that are unforgivable, sure. lying about the reasons for starting a war. that's unforgivable. i don't mean to be...disingenuous? is that the word i want? i guess...i don't mean to denigrate the things that dumb celebrities do by comparing them to what i think the bush administration did. i don't mean that. i just mean we should collectively apply some perspective.
*sigh* off track again.
i just would like for us to take a minute and think about what it means that a person can't leave the past in the past. what does it mean for the concept of redemption when a person literally cannot ever again enjoy the luxury of simply forgetting the dumb shit they did in the past? i think that it means we leave the idea of redemption behind and shift to the control of information and who has access to it. recently, walmart was burned for editing it's own wikipedia entries. not that they don't have the right to edit factual content about them in a public forum. they had walmart employees posing as unaffiliated denizens of the net leaving positive remarks on their wikipedia entry (to combat the thousands of negative rants that had been posted). instead of seeking to REDEEM themselves in the public eye, they simply go about trying to change information. they (and others like them) are stuck in this absolutely EVIL catch22 situation--they can't redeem themselves because of the persistence of information (perhaps justified in this case), but if they're caught pursuing the one avenue left open--the manipulation of information--then they are vilified as a corrupt entity.
how often do we see this on talking head shows on TV? i heard some shit the other day on the sean hannity radio show that almost made me total the car. i don't think that i am misrepresenting his position when i say that sean hannity is a STAUNCH supporter of the bush administration...and, it's policies, including the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected (not proven, suspected) terrorists or those linked to terroism. we can quibble over what he meant by the word 'torture,' but he did say it. i actually listen to his show more than i should. so, bear all of that in mind. he's talking on the radio the other day about the soon to be ex-senator craig because apparently, the police release a tape of his interrogation. hannity talks about the ALLEGED (his words) crime despite the fact that craig plead guilty in a court of law. hannity says, and i quote, "i'm uncomfortable with the aggressiveness of the interrogation..." implying that the senator was bullied into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit? obviously, the officer conducting the interrogation was standing far too close for comfort. how ridiculous is it for hannity to sincerely make this argument when his record on related issues is clearly right-wing? hell, his stance helps define the right-wing.
i say all of that to make this point. there isn't the possibility of redemption in this case. there is no possibility that craig is going to come out and say, "yep. i did it. i'll pay the fine and do some community service. what i do in my bedroom is my business. butt out." there's no way he is going to admit that he did anything wrong because that is yielding in the battle to control information or at least the perception of information--which is what hannity was doing a fine job of on his radio show on that almost fateful day. they are waging word-war over our perception of the facts.
so, true spiritual transformation and redemption or cynical (and not even a little bit subtle) manipulation of the public's perception of factual information. *shrug* who can say?
what does that mean for people in the public (most notably, most recently, michael vick) who screw up? can they ever redeem themselves in the public eye when anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? jail in america is not meant to be therapeutic. we don't send people to jail here to cure them of addictions or compulsions. we don't send people to jail to give them an opportunity to better their lives. it is pure punishment. but, i thought that part of the deal with punishment is that once you do suffer the consequences of your actions that was it. you're done. your slate is wiped clean (except that you can't vote, can't get a decent job, don't have much of a shot to get into college unless you lie on your application...but set all of that aside), and you start again.
wait, i'm mixing topics. i don't want to talk about the penal code in america and how we treat those who transgress against us. i want to talk about the persistence of information and what that does to us.
um, right...splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? this line of thought started weeks ago when the vick story broke, but it really applies to anyone who (for whatever reason) draws a great deal of media attention to themselves--actor, athlete, politician, whatever. there are some things that are unforgivable, sure. lying about the reasons for starting a war. that's unforgivable. i don't mean to be...disingenuous? is that the word i want? i guess...i don't mean to denigrate the things that dumb celebrities do by comparing them to what i think the bush administration did. i don't mean that. i just mean we should collectively apply some perspective.
*sigh* off track again.
i just would like for us to take a minute and think about what it means that a person can't leave the past in the past. what does it mean for the concept of redemption when a person literally cannot ever again enjoy the luxury of simply forgetting the dumb shit they did in the past? i think that it means we leave the idea of redemption behind and shift to the control of information and who has access to it. recently, walmart was burned for editing it's own wikipedia entries. not that they don't have the right to edit factual content about them in a public forum. they had walmart employees posing as unaffiliated denizens of the net leaving positive remarks on their wikipedia entry (to combat the thousands of negative rants that had been posted). instead of seeking to REDEEM themselves in the public eye, they simply go about trying to change information. they (and others like them) are stuck in this absolutely EVIL catch22 situation--they can't redeem themselves because of the persistence of information (perhaps justified in this case), but if they're caught pursuing the one avenue left open--the manipulation of information--then they are vilified as a corrupt entity.
how often do we see this on talking head shows on TV? i heard some shit the other day on the sean hannity radio show that almost made me total the car. i don't think that i am misrepresenting his position when i say that sean hannity is a STAUNCH supporter of the bush administration...and, it's policies, including the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected (not proven, suspected) terrorists or those linked to terroism. we can quibble over what he meant by the word 'torture,' but he did say it. i actually listen to his show more than i should. so, bear all of that in mind. he's talking on the radio the other day about the soon to be ex-senator craig because apparently, the police release a tape of his interrogation. hannity talks about the ALLEGED (his words) crime despite the fact that craig plead guilty in a court of law. hannity says, and i quote, "i'm uncomfortable with the aggressiveness of the interrogation..." implying that the senator was bullied into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit? obviously, the officer conducting the interrogation was standing far too close for comfort. how ridiculous is it for hannity to sincerely make this argument when his record on related issues is clearly right-wing? hell, his stance helps define the right-wing.
i say all of that to make this point. there isn't the possibility of redemption in this case. there is no possibility that craig is going to come out and say, "yep. i did it. i'll pay the fine and do some community service. what i do in my bedroom is my business. butt out." there's no way he is going to admit that he did anything wrong because that is yielding in the battle to control information or at least the perception of information--which is what hannity was doing a fine job of on his radio show on that almost fateful day. they are waging word-war over our perception of the facts.
so, true spiritual transformation and redemption or cynical (and not even a little bit subtle) manipulation of the public's perception of factual information. *shrug* who can say?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
on the nature of love...
or, at least the expression thereof.
i've never understood, and understand even less now, why the greatest expression of love that most men can muster is the willingness to beat people up and/or shoot at people? or why other people seem to think that is an admirable sentiment? i don't know. it's part of a larger question that i touched on with my post on violence as a tool of instruction. violence and the willingness to do violence as a admirable quality. *shrug* you know, of course, i would defend my life and the lives of my wife and child, but i don't go around crowing about my ability to do so. nor, do i hold that up as the shining example of my love for my family. i mean, in a lot of ways, that's like bragging about graduating from high school, or not having a prison record, or taking care of your kids (yes, i am channeling chris rock and i am proud of it). crack fiends in jail graduate from high school. so what? the same holds true for defending your family or your home or whatever. of course you would defend your home. do you want a cookie? if you want to be a father then you have to show up every single day and pull your weight. i mean, love is washing your kids diapers (without using kitchen gloves by the way--how much of a stud am i?). love is apologizing for losing your patience with him at three in the morning. love is the details of life not the grand gestures. to be honest, grand gestures are easy. they're so easy they've become cliche. they've become so cliche that if i go into a flower shop to buy flowers on a day that isn't a holiday, i can bet money on the clerk asking me what i did. i mean, they are nice, don't get me wrong. coming home with a new toy for the baby or flowers for the wife. yeah, that stuff is nice and you should do that every once in awhile. that may be what your child remembers, but it isn't how you prove your love, and your child will understand that when they become parents--the way i did. thanks pops. 'preciate ya, ma. i am beginning to understand the lifelong dedication it takes to raise kids and have a successful family.
i've never understood, and understand even less now, why the greatest expression of love that most men can muster is the willingness to beat people up and/or shoot at people? or why other people seem to think that is an admirable sentiment? i don't know. it's part of a larger question that i touched on with my post on violence as a tool of instruction. violence and the willingness to do violence as a admirable quality. *shrug* you know, of course, i would defend my life and the lives of my wife and child, but i don't go around crowing about my ability to do so. nor, do i hold that up as the shining example of my love for my family. i mean, in a lot of ways, that's like bragging about graduating from high school, or not having a prison record, or taking care of your kids (yes, i am channeling chris rock and i am proud of it). crack fiends in jail graduate from high school. so what? the same holds true for defending your family or your home or whatever. of course you would defend your home. do you want a cookie? if you want to be a father then you have to show up every single day and pull your weight. i mean, love is washing your kids diapers (without using kitchen gloves by the way--how much of a stud am i?). love is apologizing for losing your patience with him at three in the morning. love is the details of life not the grand gestures. to be honest, grand gestures are easy. they're so easy they've become cliche. they've become so cliche that if i go into a flower shop to buy flowers on a day that isn't a holiday, i can bet money on the clerk asking me what i did. i mean, they are nice, don't get me wrong. coming home with a new toy for the baby or flowers for the wife. yeah, that stuff is nice and you should do that every once in awhile. that may be what your child remembers, but it isn't how you prove your love, and your child will understand that when they become parents--the way i did. thanks pops. 'preciate ya, ma. i am beginning to understand the lifelong dedication it takes to raise kids and have a successful family.
Monday, August 13, 2007
dichotomies...
spare the rod, spoil the child. why does it have to mean whupping the shit out of your kid? why can't it just mean, "be disciplined, be steadfast?" you don't have to hit your kids to get your point across and believe it or not, more often than not, it just gets in the way of the lesson you're trying to impart. violence should be reserved for expressions of rage (be it passionate or cold-blooded)--violence should not be used as a tool of instruction. at least, not in the general case...if your field of exploration is a naturally violent one then violence has a place as an instructional tool (soldiers, pirates, ninja warriors, etc.).
and, on the other hand, why can't parents BE the damn parents? why can't they look at their child and say, "you know what, i understand that you're upset. you're going to have to get over it." i'm pretty sure that i say that to elijah every single day. i say it because i'm the parent, and i set the boundaries that govern his life. i engage elijah in the decisions that create his day, in as much as i can--he's one and a half. it is something that we will do more of as he becomes older and can understand reason. but, that engagement comes with the caveat that you have proven and continue to prove that you can handle that kind of responsibility. i mean, i think that it is just as bad and wrongheaded to be a dictator in a child's life as it is to give them too much freedom. being a parent is like constantly walking a tightrope that you can't see. parenting is a constant process of letting go.
being a good parent isn't about a system or a book (though i will be the first to admit that books and systems and lots and lots and lots of advice is helpful). i think being a good parent is absolutely the same as being in a good relationship. it's about honesty, trust and communication. it's about understanding who YOU are before you try to understand the anyone else. it's about understanding that you'll never be able to hold them as close as you do on the day that they're born, and you have to be ok with that.
and, on the other hand, why can't parents BE the damn parents? why can't they look at their child and say, "you know what, i understand that you're upset. you're going to have to get over it." i'm pretty sure that i say that to elijah every single day. i say it because i'm the parent, and i set the boundaries that govern his life. i engage elijah in the decisions that create his day, in as much as i can--he's one and a half. it is something that we will do more of as he becomes older and can understand reason. but, that engagement comes with the caveat that you have proven and continue to prove that you can handle that kind of responsibility. i mean, i think that it is just as bad and wrongheaded to be a dictator in a child's life as it is to give them too much freedom. being a parent is like constantly walking a tightrope that you can't see. parenting is a constant process of letting go.
being a good parent isn't about a system or a book (though i will be the first to admit that books and systems and lots and lots and lots of advice is helpful). i think being a good parent is absolutely the same as being in a good relationship. it's about honesty, trust and communication. it's about understanding who YOU are before you try to understand the anyone else. it's about understanding that you'll never be able to hold them as close as you do on the day that they're born, and you have to be ok with that.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
My little man...
the other day i was outside of a restaurant with elijah--he'd been freaking out because he didn't understand that he couldn't have the french fries from another table. to be honest, i don't understand why we can't have them either, but there you have it. anyway, i was outside with him and this elderly couple walk by and the wife says, "oh what a pretty boy!" she looks at me and says, "oh, i'm sorry. i meant what a handsome boy. we don't call little boys pretty." she smiles and goes on her way. that's happened a lot...i guess i shouldn't be puzzled by it--i find that 7 years later, i'm still astounded by how different the world outside of warren wilson is. it never would have ever occurred to me to care whether or not someone called my son beautiful, pretty, handsome or whatever.
erin and i were talking about gender issues and identity today. i was saying that i never really know what to say to people when they say something like, "oh, he's just being a boy." elijah is incredibly sensitive to our moods and our attitudes. i can't help but think that he would easily pick up behavioral double standards. being an ass isn't acceptable, i don't care what your gender is. but, it frightens me to think about how far this attitude and double standard can push our tolerance. i don't know. maybe i'm complicating the issue, but i don't think that a lot of people really think about what casual words like that mean to a brand new mind. elijah is like an antenna hooked up to an amplifier. he takes what we say and do, distills it, and incorporates it into himself. he's even begun to mimic the way i stand at rest. how can i not pay more attention to how we approach gender identity? at what point does biology end and socialization begin?
like i said, maybe i'm overthinking the issue, but it is something that i worry about.
erin and i were talking about gender issues and identity today. i was saying that i never really know what to say to people when they say something like, "oh, he's just being a boy." elijah is incredibly sensitive to our moods and our attitudes. i can't help but think that he would easily pick up behavioral double standards. being an ass isn't acceptable, i don't care what your gender is. but, it frightens me to think about how far this attitude and double standard can push our tolerance. i don't know. maybe i'm complicating the issue, but i don't think that a lot of people really think about what casual words like that mean to a brand new mind. elijah is like an antenna hooked up to an amplifier. he takes what we say and do, distills it, and incorporates it into himself. he's even begun to mimic the way i stand at rest. how can i not pay more attention to how we approach gender identity? at what point does biology end and socialization begin?
like i said, maybe i'm overthinking the issue, but it is something that i worry about.
every week...
over the past few days there have been four articles in our local newspaper about the rising sea level. the article made one argument that i found compelling. it doesn't really matter why the seas are rising or why the climate is changing. what's most important to our (humanity--the Earth will be fine. freshwater marshes will become saltwater marshes but we'll starve) short term survival is that it IS changing. there aren't any policy changes we can make in the near term that will affect climate in the next 50 years or so (at least, i wouldn't think, i'm no expert), so why are we in such a bind over green taxes and fuel efficiency and the like? right now, it just doesn't matter. at the very least, the changes underfoot now are inevitable. we've missed the tipping point in terms of talking about reversing climate change or the rising seas. those things are happening and will run their full course--we should be talking now about how we're going to adapt to those changes.
the two biggest obstacles to our finding balance with the environment is population growth/movement and the exportation of pollution. i've talked about population as a social and economic issue before in an earlier post, but (as with all human activity) there is an environmental component as well. in countries that progressed through demographic transition, the populations are relatively stable. the birth rate and the death rate (barring significant social upheaval) are equal. now, take a country like mexico that seems to be stuck in a cycle of poverty and skyrocketing birth rates. not only does the mass exodus of mexican citizens to the north ameliorate a lot of social/economic problems, but also, mexico (or any 3rd world country with population mobility) as an entity will never have to face issues of inherent carrying capacity and population stability.
our half-assed policies with regard to pollution control will simply turn pollution into a commodity. any regional policy that attempts to control pollution will simply move that polluting process to a less regulated area. i mean...that seems pretty straightforward, right? how is it possible to have a pollution control policy that isn't world-wide? how can you turn down kyoto in favor of regional pollution credits and lukewarm tax incentives?...
i've been "working" on this entry for awhile now. i think that i'll go ahead and publish it--it's never going to be perfect. *chuckle*
...to be continued.
the two biggest obstacles to our finding balance with the environment is population growth/movement and the exportation of pollution. i've talked about population as a social and economic issue before in an earlier post, but (as with all human activity) there is an environmental component as well. in countries that progressed through demographic transition, the populations are relatively stable. the birth rate and the death rate (barring significant social upheaval) are equal. now, take a country like mexico that seems to be stuck in a cycle of poverty and skyrocketing birth rates. not only does the mass exodus of mexican citizens to the north ameliorate a lot of social/economic problems, but also, mexico (or any 3rd world country with population mobility) as an entity will never have to face issues of inherent carrying capacity and population stability.
our half-assed policies with regard to pollution control will simply turn pollution into a commodity. any regional policy that attempts to control pollution will simply move that polluting process to a less regulated area. i mean...that seems pretty straightforward, right? how is it possible to have a pollution control policy that isn't world-wide? how can you turn down kyoto in favor of regional pollution credits and lukewarm tax incentives?...
i've been "working" on this entry for awhile now. i think that i'll go ahead and publish it--it's never going to be perfect. *chuckle*
...to be continued.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
*chuckle*
another elijah list...
1) oftentimes, elijah will disguise the fact that he wants to bite your finger by kissing your finger 2-4 times. woe to the unwary bearer of the finger for the hunter hunts.
2) elijah still cannot tell time despite my best efforts.
3) elijah is much more amenable to my fatherly dictums if i am holding a cookie. in fact, it is required.
4) elijah has slept through a fire alarm. i find this dangerous yet admirable.
5) elijah will not apologize for taking up WAY more than his fair share of space in bed. as a matter of fact, he thinks you should be grateful for the opportunity to smell his night farts.
6) elijah will never apologize for his night farts.
7) elijah believes that if you are not vigilant then everything that follows is YOUR fault.
8) "uh-oh" covers anything and excuses everything.
9) elijah's eating habits rivals those of european aristocracy.
10) i don't think that elijah enjoys a ruckus as much as he enjoys seeing us run frantically.
*chuckle*
1) oftentimes, elijah will disguise the fact that he wants to bite your finger by kissing your finger 2-4 times. woe to the unwary bearer of the finger for the hunter hunts.
2) elijah still cannot tell time despite my best efforts.
3) elijah is much more amenable to my fatherly dictums if i am holding a cookie. in fact, it is required.
4) elijah has slept through a fire alarm. i find this dangerous yet admirable.
5) elijah will not apologize for taking up WAY more than his fair share of space in bed. as a matter of fact, he thinks you should be grateful for the opportunity to smell his night farts.
6) elijah will never apologize for his night farts.
7) elijah believes that if you are not vigilant then everything that follows is YOUR fault.
8) "uh-oh" covers anything and excuses everything.
9) elijah's eating habits rivals those of european aristocracy.
10) i don't think that elijah enjoys a ruckus as much as he enjoys seeing us run frantically.
*chuckle*
Friday, June 29, 2007
froggie
i have come to the realization that parenthood is a process of letting go. letting go of future plans that made SO MUCH sense a few months ago...letting go of anger and disappointment when things go another direction...letting go of righteousness and replacing it with a budding wisdom.
my son is growing up. i mean...of course, he's growing up. that sounds stupid to say out loud, but it's just that it's happening so fast. elijah is growing up. it's almost like trying to hold sand with a sieve. you're powerless to stop this little entity from growing and becoming, but you want so desperately to hold on to what you have now. you want so much to just slow things down so that you can enjoy the child you have before you're faced with the child to come. elijah IS growing up.
today was erin's play group day, and there are always goodies in the kitchen when she gets back and today was no exception. i crow over finding chocolate chip cookies on the counter and, unthinkingly, grab one. erin clears her throat and i look at her. she looks down. i look down to find the little guy standing there, staring at me, waiting patiently for his share of my cookie that is his by right. i look down and he says, "hi," with his hand outstretched. i can deny him nothing. he wanders off munching HIS share of my cookie in search of the elusive blue ball, and i think to myself, "where did this little fella come from?" i look at him and i see the infant that was and the child that is becoming...things move on but it has always been my experience that time did you the courtesy of moving slowly so that you forgot what once was even as you leave it behind.
months and months ago, there was once a toy named, aptly, froggie. froggie was not special, but he did make elijah laugh on long car trips. one day, erin was out with our rachel (and her maya rose) when froggie was lost to us. elijah hardly noticed but erin called me in tears. at the time, i didn't really get it. he's got plenty of toys and, hey, he didn't notice. but, it was important to erin so it was important to me.
froggie was a corporeal embodiment. froggie was elijah's infancy. froggie was just a little piece of the infant that was and preserving him was important to us...it allowed us to hold that infant close while the toddler was learning to climb kitchen cabinets and take off his diaper. :p
i miss that frog.
my son is growing up. i mean...of course, he's growing up. that sounds stupid to say out loud, but it's just that it's happening so fast. elijah is growing up. it's almost like trying to hold sand with a sieve. you're powerless to stop this little entity from growing and becoming, but you want so desperately to hold on to what you have now. you want so much to just slow things down so that you can enjoy the child you have before you're faced with the child to come. elijah IS growing up.
today was erin's play group day, and there are always goodies in the kitchen when she gets back and today was no exception. i crow over finding chocolate chip cookies on the counter and, unthinkingly, grab one. erin clears her throat and i look at her. she looks down. i look down to find the little guy standing there, staring at me, waiting patiently for his share of my cookie that is his by right. i look down and he says, "hi," with his hand outstretched. i can deny him nothing. he wanders off munching HIS share of my cookie in search of the elusive blue ball, and i think to myself, "where did this little fella come from?" i look at him and i see the infant that was and the child that is becoming...things move on but it has always been my experience that time did you the courtesy of moving slowly so that you forgot what once was even as you leave it behind.
months and months ago, there was once a toy named, aptly, froggie. froggie was not special, but he did make elijah laugh on long car trips. one day, erin was out with our rachel (and her maya rose) when froggie was lost to us. elijah hardly noticed but erin called me in tears. at the time, i didn't really get it. he's got plenty of toys and, hey, he didn't notice. but, it was important to erin so it was important to me.
froggie was a corporeal embodiment. froggie was elijah's infancy. froggie was just a little piece of the infant that was and preserving him was important to us...it allowed us to hold that infant close while the toddler was learning to climb kitchen cabinets and take off his diaper. :p
i miss that frog.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
common sense on immigration policy
we don't have a bit of it.
i can't really glean a great deal of actual information from the recent blathering about the new immigration bill. most talking heads spend all of their time whining about how bad it is without actually going into details. i don't have the energy to actually find the bill on the net to read it--i'm sure that i can predict what's in it. let's see, my guess is there is a section on dealing with the illegal aliens in the country now. prol'ly a combination of the two extreme positions in america now--some sort of slow forgiveness process with some punitive tax paying and whatnot. then an entire section about increasing the size of the border patrol, some money thrown at the fence idea...just a smorgsaborg of ideas and half-formed bits of policy. ultimately, we'll end up throwing billions of dollars at the situation and end up an unstable dynamic equilibrium that will last another 10 years or so and then we'll have the same "discussion" again.
ultimately, i believe that most folks are trying to deny the essential nature of our system here. the disparity in standard of living between our country and mexico is so large that for all intents and purposes we can regard mexico as a third world country. i don't understand how some of the smartest people in the world could look at a deal like NAFTA and NOT understand what it meant for our two economies. mexico always had a comparative advantage over us in terms of inexpensive labor, and we absolutely exacerbated the situation with NAFTA. with the passing of NAFTA, unfortunately for mexico, labor became a fungible commodity. i mean...that's all they had. a few years ago...well, the last presidential election, the huge economic issue was the outsourcing of jobs to mexico and other places, but primarily mexico. now, i think we are witnessing the logical economic progression given our relative economic positions. it only stands to reason that instead of staying in mexico and working for local wages at jobs that were originally american, those that can leave their homes and make their way north will do so.
we can talk all day long about punishing employers that utilize illegals, or expanding and modernizing guess worker programs, or expanding ICE and letting them arrest busloads of illegals and sending them home but we will NOT come one step closer to solving the immigration problem because we refuse to recognize the economic imbalance that creates the immigration pressure in the first place. *shrug* in a lot of ways, it is just as ignorant as our approach to drug policies in this country. putting addicts in jail is not solving the problem, and we just don't seem to be willing to face that. in order to create a situation where the population centers of our two countries are relatively stable, we must redress the economic imbalance between our countries.
technology transfers, infrastructure, significant financial investment in mexico...everyone benefits from a stronger, more economically independent mexico. population centers will stabilize, manufactored goods will become cheaper, soybeans will compete with poppy as a cash crop, peace and harmony will spread throughout the land. tra-la-la-la. i don't know. it seems that we need to take a step back and acknowledge the breadth and width of the problem and the accompanying breadth and width of the solution. this is something that is 10 or 15 years down the road, but i believe that the dividends are immeasurable and go far beyond the obvious economic benefits.
we'll see...
i can't really glean a great deal of actual information from the recent blathering about the new immigration bill. most talking heads spend all of their time whining about how bad it is without actually going into details. i don't have the energy to actually find the bill on the net to read it--i'm sure that i can predict what's in it. let's see, my guess is there is a section on dealing with the illegal aliens in the country now. prol'ly a combination of the two extreme positions in america now--some sort of slow forgiveness process with some punitive tax paying and whatnot. then an entire section about increasing the size of the border patrol, some money thrown at the fence idea...just a smorgsaborg of ideas and half-formed bits of policy. ultimately, we'll end up throwing billions of dollars at the situation and end up an unstable dynamic equilibrium that will last another 10 years or so and then we'll have the same "discussion" again.
ultimately, i believe that most folks are trying to deny the essential nature of our system here. the disparity in standard of living between our country and mexico is so large that for all intents and purposes we can regard mexico as a third world country. i don't understand how some of the smartest people in the world could look at a deal like NAFTA and NOT understand what it meant for our two economies. mexico always had a comparative advantage over us in terms of inexpensive labor, and we absolutely exacerbated the situation with NAFTA. with the passing of NAFTA, unfortunately for mexico, labor became a fungible commodity. i mean...that's all they had. a few years ago...well, the last presidential election, the huge economic issue was the outsourcing of jobs to mexico and other places, but primarily mexico. now, i think we are witnessing the logical economic progression given our relative economic positions. it only stands to reason that instead of staying in mexico and working for local wages at jobs that were originally american, those that can leave their homes and make their way north will do so.
we can talk all day long about punishing employers that utilize illegals, or expanding and modernizing guess worker programs, or expanding ICE and letting them arrest busloads of illegals and sending them home but we will NOT come one step closer to solving the immigration problem because we refuse to recognize the economic imbalance that creates the immigration pressure in the first place. *shrug* in a lot of ways, it is just as ignorant as our approach to drug policies in this country. putting addicts in jail is not solving the problem, and we just don't seem to be willing to face that. in order to create a situation where the population centers of our two countries are relatively stable, we must redress the economic imbalance between our countries.
technology transfers, infrastructure, significant financial investment in mexico...everyone benefits from a stronger, more economically independent mexico. population centers will stabilize, manufactored goods will become cheaper, soybeans will compete with poppy as a cash crop, peace and harmony will spread throughout the land. tra-la-la-la. i don't know. it seems that we need to take a step back and acknowledge the breadth and width of the problem and the accompanying breadth and width of the solution. this is something that is 10 or 15 years down the road, but i believe that the dividends are immeasurable and go far beyond the obvious economic benefits.
we'll see...
Friday, May 25, 2007
non sequitur
i'm going to paraphrase this next little bit because that will make it funnier and also sadder.
so, i'm watching hardball with chris matthews this evening (5/25) while 'm putting elijah down for bedtime. the topic of the day was the two new (ha) books criticizing hillary clinton. so, here goes the conversation.
rep. loudmouth1: "i don't even know why we're talking about this. there isn't anything new in either of these two books. the authors released them because h.c. is leading in the polls."
rep. loudmouth2: "i know all of that is true, but it should be a topic of discussion because she is a bad, bad person with a terrible marriage."
dem. loudmouth1: "ok, fine. that may be true, i don't know. if you want to make it about marriage though, let's do that. h.c. has been married once. the top 3 GOP candidates have 8 marriages between them. what say you to that rep. loudmouth2?"
rep. loudmouth2: "the clintons' immorality led to sept. 11."
all other loudmouths: shocked silence
it would really be nice if i was making that up, wouldn't it?
so, i'm watching hardball with chris matthews this evening (5/25) while 'm putting elijah down for bedtime. the topic of the day was the two new (ha) books criticizing hillary clinton. so, here goes the conversation.
rep. loudmouth1: "i don't even know why we're talking about this. there isn't anything new in either of these two books. the authors released them because h.c. is leading in the polls."
rep. loudmouth2: "i know all of that is true, but it should be a topic of discussion because she is a bad, bad person with a terrible marriage."
dem. loudmouth1: "ok, fine. that may be true, i don't know. if you want to make it about marriage though, let's do that. h.c. has been married once. the top 3 GOP candidates have 8 marriages between them. what say you to that rep. loudmouth2?"
rep. loudmouth2: "the clintons' immorality led to sept. 11."
all other loudmouths: shocked silence
it would really be nice if i was making that up, wouldn't it?
Monday, May 21, 2007
i've learned quite a bit about my son this week. i think in the future, i will come to love this time in our lives together. i will come to cherish it. i mean vacation time. time when i can leave work behind and just sort of stop and really invest time in enjoying what i have. my beautiful wife and child. i'm young in terms of my work career, but i really do believe that for myself i can see my wildest dreams come true in their smiles. everything i ever wanted to do, everything i ever wanted to be...just knowing that my son is flourishing and i am, in part, responsible for that.
anyway, what i've learned thus far about my son.
1) elijah's teeth are, indeed, quite sharp, and no, i cannot "take it."
2) without provocation, elijah will break your glasses while glaring defiantly and screaming, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
3) elijah cannot tell time and therefore does not care that it is just half past the butt-crack of dawn.
4) when given the choice between playing with an unbreakable plastic toy and playing with the very expensive, very breakable window coverings in the condo...you can guess the rest.
5) elijah is always positive that your glass of delicious ice cold water is better than his sippie cup. there is nothing you can do to convince him otherwise.
6) elijah will never apologize for sticking his pasta & tofu covered fingers into your glass of delicious ice cold water. in fact, he will glare defiantly at you and scream "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
7) elijah must have your straw. if you do not give it to him, there will be consequences.
8) elijah's motto has become "ask for forgiveness rather than permission."
9) i believe that elijah takes the phrase "bad baby" as praise from a wimpy liberal for "staying the course." (<- i think that phrase has become as infamous as hilary's "vast right wing conspiracy" snippet)
10) elijah believes that i should appreciate the fact that he deigns to backwash into my glass of delicious cold water. he will never apologize for this blessing.
*smile* i love being a father. i can honestly say that should i put aside all the other ambitions of my life, i would rest easy knowing that i am raising (will raise) a sweet boy who will grow into a good man.
anyway, what i've learned thus far about my son.
1) elijah's teeth are, indeed, quite sharp, and no, i cannot "take it."
2) without provocation, elijah will break your glasses while glaring defiantly and screaming, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
3) elijah cannot tell time and therefore does not care that it is just half past the butt-crack of dawn.
4) when given the choice between playing with an unbreakable plastic toy and playing with the very expensive, very breakable window coverings in the condo...you can guess the rest.
5) elijah is always positive that your glass of delicious ice cold water is better than his sippie cup. there is nothing you can do to convince him otherwise.
6) elijah will never apologize for sticking his pasta & tofu covered fingers into your glass of delicious ice cold water. in fact, he will glare defiantly at you and scream "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"
7) elijah must have your straw. if you do not give it to him, there will be consequences.
8) elijah's motto has become "ask for forgiveness rather than permission."
9) i believe that elijah takes the phrase "bad baby" as praise from a wimpy liberal for "staying the course." (<- i think that phrase has become as infamous as hilary's "vast right wing conspiracy" snippet)
10) elijah believes that i should appreciate the fact that he deigns to backwash into my glass of delicious cold water. he will never apologize for this blessing.
*smile* i love being a father. i can honestly say that should i put aside all the other ambitions of my life, i would rest easy knowing that i am raising (will raise) a sweet boy who will grow into a good man.
Friday, May 4, 2007
republican presidential candidate debates
ok, so yeah. i watched the debate the other night. *shrug* it was a lot like the democratic debate...no one really wanted to say anything that would separate them from the pack in a significant way. there was a great deal of agreeing and backslapping and whatnot. it was the first time i had the opportunity though to listen to folks like rudy guiliani (sp?) articulate some ideas. he was the only person in the debate that seemed to have a nuanced stance on abortion. there weren't really any original or even slightly interesting ideas on how to deal with iraq. most of them spent the bulk of their time saying what went wrong (like, duh) and how if they had been running things they wouldn't have done it that way (*gag*). again, not much different from what the dems had to say on iraq, but at least there were a couple of individuals who didn't mind cutting loose on their colleagues. i really got tired of the ronald reagan love fest that was unfolding on the stage. *GAG* again, i understand that they are pandering to their audience, and i didn't really expect much substance from them--but, geez. reagan this and reagan that.
one thing i found surprising was the considerable talk about flat/fair taxes. taxes based on consumption rather than an income tax. *shrug* that would put a lot mom & pop tax firms out of business...a lot of software designers would go hungry. um, i have not really read a lot about the so-called consumption tax. as a matter of theory though, i wonder about the inherent ... is unfairness the right word...of such a tax. i understand that low wage earners would take home a larger paycheck, but a larger portion of their disposable income would be taken up by the consumption tax as opposed to someone making a higher wage...perhaps someone with a higher savings rate versus their overall income and consumption rate. i mean the saving grace for low income earners now is the number of deductions they can take or simply being exempt from taxation altogether. i don't really see how you can mimic something like that at the cash register. i mean...would devise a system to pay back taxes to low wage earners on a quarterly basis? the point is if you're already living hand to mouth you are prol'ly not paying a lot in taxes and the extra you take home will not offset the extra you now have to pay the register. it won't do any good to get that money back on a quarterly basis because you are having trouble affording basic necessities NOW. i've not yet heard anyone address issues like that...i'm all for pay as you go though. i think you would have to do something like that if you switched income streams from something fairly predictable to something based on our consumption habits. i would shop a LOT less.
i'm watching fist of fury while i'm typing this, and i just have to say that bruce is a bad, bad man.
i saw three educated adult males indicate that they did not believe in evolution. it was at that point that i stopped taking any of them seriously.
ok, i actually have to work tonight, so later.
peace
one thing i found surprising was the considerable talk about flat/fair taxes. taxes based on consumption rather than an income tax. *shrug* that would put a lot mom & pop tax firms out of business...a lot of software designers would go hungry. um, i have not really read a lot about the so-called consumption tax. as a matter of theory though, i wonder about the inherent ... is unfairness the right word...of such a tax. i understand that low wage earners would take home a larger paycheck, but a larger portion of their disposable income would be taken up by the consumption tax as opposed to someone making a higher wage...perhaps someone with a higher savings rate versus their overall income and consumption rate. i mean the saving grace for low income earners now is the number of deductions they can take or simply being exempt from taxation altogether. i don't really see how you can mimic something like that at the cash register. i mean...would devise a system to pay back taxes to low wage earners on a quarterly basis? the point is if you're already living hand to mouth you are prol'ly not paying a lot in taxes and the extra you take home will not offset the extra you now have to pay the register. it won't do any good to get that money back on a quarterly basis because you are having trouble affording basic necessities NOW. i've not yet heard anyone address issues like that...i'm all for pay as you go though. i think you would have to do something like that if you switched income streams from something fairly predictable to something based on our consumption habits. i would shop a LOT less.
i'm watching fist of fury while i'm typing this, and i just have to say that bruce is a bad, bad man.
i saw three educated adult males indicate that they did not believe in evolution. it was at that point that i stopped taking any of them seriously.
ok, i actually have to work tonight, so later.
peace
Monday, April 30, 2007
i really don't like it when people stand in the entrance way to buildings and smoke cigarettes. i went into a convenience store the other day, and at the other entrance a worker was standing OUTSIDE, holding the door OPEN, and letting all of the smoke come in. i didn't know what made me angrier...that this person was standing in the entrance with the door open and smoking or that this person was such by-damned idiot that they thought that standing halfway out of the door would make a difference. i mean, if you're going to be a jackass and smoke with the door open, just come in and smoke behind the register.
i think that is the longest rant i've had on smoking without dropping the f-bomb. it was a close thing there for a moment.
i think that is the longest rant i've had on smoking without dropping the f-bomb. it was a close thing there for a moment.
SUVs and the like...
i had THE most surreal...today, i saw a Lincoln Navigator (or one of them...they all look alike nowadays) with a bob marley sticker on the back with a quote from "redemption song." i almost fell out of the car. i mean...isn't that just the most incongruous...? i just thought that was weird, i thought i was back on the campus of warren wilson for a bit there. ooooo, burn!
anyway, that's not what i was thinking about. i was thinking earlier today that perhaps all of the folks who wanted to make the SUV the whipping boy of the "environmentalist" movement might have made a mistake. yes, i would agree that they are wasteful and generally unsightly. you sacrifice efficiency for safety (in some regards), but i've always thought that a little common sense and a german car were just as safe as tank-like SUV. *shrug* so, yeah. the SUV's were a logical choice to be the poster boy for all that is un-green. but, automobiles aren't the problem. they never really have been.
now, don't get me wrong. i'm an environmentalist. i recycle as naturally as breathing. i buy most everything i can from second-hand shops. i'm a bona fide, degree-holder from warren wilson. but, SUVs aren't the problem.
first, let me say that if you are an environmentalist they way i am an environmentalist then you know that the real problem is entire notion of free market capitalism and private property as first espoused by john locke in the second treatise of government. he postulated there that property is the combination of man's reason/work and nature. he goes further to argue that nature that is not combined with man's reason/work is utterly wasted. no major thinker in the western political discourse has placed a great deal of value on pristine nature. well, ok. that might be an overstatement of the truth, but you get what i mean. i only say this to point out that TRUE environmentalism is the last viable RADICAL critique of free market capitalism. radical in the sense that environmentalism is antithetical to free market capitalism. everything else has failed for one reason or another. at least, failed in the attempt capture the imagination of the western world and incorporate the civic traditions of the western world into it's machinations. we can list some of the more spectacular failures in world history - mercantilism, colonialism, national socialism, communism, fascism...the -ism's just keep coming and democracy keeps KNOCKING 'em out of the park. i tell ya what folks, you just can't beat democracy. which, ultimately, is fine by me. i understand that there are some things that democracy just won't be able to do. we will never see a time when we can, by logical argument, extend the notion of natural rights to the ecosystem in the same manner that they have been "extended" to animals. you are never going to convince the average blog reader that an ecosystem has the same natural rights you and i do - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ok, i'm fine with that...i wouldn't want to write any of the essays to make that argument anyway. but, we can do some things to make the free market more tenable to the non-human tenants of this planet.
having said that, within the framework of the free market, the real problem is scale. well, a combination of scale and lifestyle (fueled by economies). here, scale = population. i would go so far as to say that population is truly the source of our environmental degradation.
it's getting late, so i'll write more on this topic later as thoughts develop...i apologize for any grammatical mistakes. i'm publishing WITHOUT PROOFREADING!!!! aiieeee!
anyway, that's not what i was thinking about. i was thinking earlier today that perhaps all of the folks who wanted to make the SUV the whipping boy of the "environmentalist" movement might have made a mistake. yes, i would agree that they are wasteful and generally unsightly. you sacrifice efficiency for safety (in some regards), but i've always thought that a little common sense and a german car were just as safe as tank-like SUV. *shrug* so, yeah. the SUV's were a logical choice to be the poster boy for all that is un-green. but, automobiles aren't the problem. they never really have been.
now, don't get me wrong. i'm an environmentalist. i recycle as naturally as breathing. i buy most everything i can from second-hand shops. i'm a bona fide, degree-holder from warren wilson. but, SUVs aren't the problem.
first, let me say that if you are an environmentalist they way i am an environmentalist then you know that the real problem is entire notion of free market capitalism and private property as first espoused by john locke in the second treatise of government. he postulated there that property is the combination of man's reason/work and nature. he goes further to argue that nature that is not combined with man's reason/work is utterly wasted. no major thinker in the western political discourse has placed a great deal of value on pristine nature. well, ok. that might be an overstatement of the truth, but you get what i mean. i only say this to point out that TRUE environmentalism is the last viable RADICAL critique of free market capitalism. radical in the sense that environmentalism is antithetical to free market capitalism. everything else has failed for one reason or another. at least, failed in the attempt capture the imagination of the western world and incorporate the civic traditions of the western world into it's machinations. we can list some of the more spectacular failures in world history - mercantilism, colonialism, national socialism, communism, fascism...the -ism's just keep coming and democracy keeps KNOCKING 'em out of the park. i tell ya what folks, you just can't beat democracy. which, ultimately, is fine by me. i understand that there are some things that democracy just won't be able to do. we will never see a time when we can, by logical argument, extend the notion of natural rights to the ecosystem in the same manner that they have been "extended" to animals. you are never going to convince the average blog reader that an ecosystem has the same natural rights you and i do - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ok, i'm fine with that...i wouldn't want to write any of the essays to make that argument anyway. but, we can do some things to make the free market more tenable to the non-human tenants of this planet.
having said that, within the framework of the free market, the real problem is scale. well, a combination of scale and lifestyle (fueled by economies). here, scale = population. i would go so far as to say that population is truly the source of our environmental degradation.
it's getting late, so i'll write more on this topic later as thoughts develop...i apologize for any grammatical mistakes. i'm publishing WITHOUT PROOFREADING!!!! aiieeee!
Saturday, April 28, 2007
all things great and small
well, folks. it's been awhile since i wrote a post. i take that back. i write blog posts all the time. it's just a rare event that i actually take the time type what i was thinking. i spend a lot of time shouting at the radio (i listen to conservative talk radio more than i prol'ly should) and scaring other drivers. i often wonder if i would be as good in a live debate on the radio as i am in the car. stray thought.
so, i watched the democratic presidential candidates debate the other day (i shall refer to them as the D8). for the most part, it was the sort of rhetoric i was expecting. most of the candidates shied away from saying anything to terribly controversial or even slightly different from their counterparts...i suppose no one wanted to risk being an actual individual. *shrug* i didn't think that hilary clinton seemed the least bit sincere at any moment during the debate. not even a little bit. i thought that barack obama actually looked like a rank amateur--along with bill richardson. as a matter of fact, if this had been my first exposure to obama i would have been asking what the big deal about the guy was. richardson did say a few things with which i agreed or at least applauded him for saying. sticking up for the second amendment despite the very recent tragedy in virginia i thought was..well, brave--but only in the sense that he risked political backlash to say something he thought was important. generally though, he looked incredibly unpracticed.
john edwards was sappy and forgettable. chris dodd -- who? joe biden...i like his attitude. his mannerisms make you think that he is forthright and a straight talker. i don't know him well enough to know if that is just an image projection or the unvarnished truth. but, like the others, there was more persona and style than substance.
i tell ya...the guy that i really liked on that dais was dennis kucinich. he seemed like an honest to God democrat. something that has been absolutely missing from the policitical scene for far too long. i generally agreed with all of his major policy positions that were touched on during the debate. there is something wrong with his website though. i wanted to do a little more research on where he stood on other domestic issues...no luck though. to my recollection, he was the only person on the dais to make the case for attacking global terrorism in a more fundamental and wholistic manner than has been tried thus far.
to me his position on global terrorism seemed to acknowledge that people are people. by in large, our politics and political morality are formed by the material conditions of the lives we lead. so, it only stands to reason that if you are born under the shadow of violence, live with violence, rely upon violence as the means to solve all your problems and hold your life together--you might have a slight inclination to strap bombs to your body and blow up buses. it's just speculation on my part...i think it might have some merit. in any event, there isn't anything in the republican bluster that acknowledges that fact--the material conditions of our lives MAY have SOMETHING to do with who we become as we grow older. if you want to attack problems like global terrorism at their root, you MUST change the conditions under which these people are molded. don't get me wrong. there are evil people in the world. people who were born evil and will create mayhem and carnage as naturally as breathing. i understand that if you cannot isolate those people then they will never leave you a choice that doesn't include violence.
but, it seems to me that kucinich, more than anyone else on that dais, understands that in order to create a lasting peace. a peace that is meaningful and doesn't rely on the presence of violence, you have to attack root causes: extreme and pervasive poverty, lawlessness, genocide, pandemic-like disease...one of the few things clinton (bill) did that i am proud of was he attacked these so-called "soft" economic issues. putting more cops on the street, affordable daycare, tax credits for continuing education or re-education...it was these things as much as loose accounting practices and internet pseudo-companies that led to the incredible expansion of the economy in the late 90's. much like clinton, kucinich understands that the only real solution to the problems we see in the world must include a comprehensive approach to solving these supposedly unconnected issues.
i mean...perhaps the single greatest piece of foreign policy ever developed by this country was the marshall plan. after WWII, without firing a single shot the US created democracies and "democracy-friendly" (even i can't say that without a little bit of a sneer) nation-states around the globe. i know that we prol'ly don't have the economic might and will to create another marshall plan for the 21st century, but with strong international support i believe we can come awfully close. otherwise, we just keep killing terrorists as they pop up. if we go that route, though, the limiting factor will become the birth rate of nations where we are currently warring. if we kill more than can be born, then we've got a fighting chance. hmph.
yeah, kucinich is a good choice.
on a completely different note...i've been writing with the movie "school of rock" playing in the background. you know you're a dad when you're watching a kid movie and you feel yourself start to cry because all of the kids are succeeding at something together. little fellas playing music.
peace.
so, i watched the democratic presidential candidates debate the other day (i shall refer to them as the D8). for the most part, it was the sort of rhetoric i was expecting. most of the candidates shied away from saying anything to terribly controversial or even slightly different from their counterparts...i suppose no one wanted to risk being an actual individual. *shrug* i didn't think that hilary clinton seemed the least bit sincere at any moment during the debate. not even a little bit. i thought that barack obama actually looked like a rank amateur--along with bill richardson. as a matter of fact, if this had been my first exposure to obama i would have been asking what the big deal about the guy was. richardson did say a few things with which i agreed or at least applauded him for saying. sticking up for the second amendment despite the very recent tragedy in virginia i thought was..well, brave--but only in the sense that he risked political backlash to say something he thought was important. generally though, he looked incredibly unpracticed.
john edwards was sappy and forgettable. chris dodd -- who? joe biden...i like his attitude. his mannerisms make you think that he is forthright and a straight talker. i don't know him well enough to know if that is just an image projection or the unvarnished truth. but, like the others, there was more persona and style than substance.
i tell ya...the guy that i really liked on that dais was dennis kucinich. he seemed like an honest to God democrat. something that has been absolutely missing from the policitical scene for far too long. i generally agreed with all of his major policy positions that were touched on during the debate. there is something wrong with his website though. i wanted to do a little more research on where he stood on other domestic issues...no luck though. to my recollection, he was the only person on the dais to make the case for attacking global terrorism in a more fundamental and wholistic manner than has been tried thus far.
to me his position on global terrorism seemed to acknowledge that people are people. by in large, our politics and political morality are formed by the material conditions of the lives we lead. so, it only stands to reason that if you are born under the shadow of violence, live with violence, rely upon violence as the means to solve all your problems and hold your life together--you might have a slight inclination to strap bombs to your body and blow up buses. it's just speculation on my part...i think it might have some merit. in any event, there isn't anything in the republican bluster that acknowledges that fact--the material conditions of our lives MAY have SOMETHING to do with who we become as we grow older. if you want to attack problems like global terrorism at their root, you MUST change the conditions under which these people are molded. don't get me wrong. there are evil people in the world. people who were born evil and will create mayhem and carnage as naturally as breathing. i understand that if you cannot isolate those people then they will never leave you a choice that doesn't include violence.
but, it seems to me that kucinich, more than anyone else on that dais, understands that in order to create a lasting peace. a peace that is meaningful and doesn't rely on the presence of violence, you have to attack root causes: extreme and pervasive poverty, lawlessness, genocide, pandemic-like disease...one of the few things clinton (bill) did that i am proud of was he attacked these so-called "soft" economic issues. putting more cops on the street, affordable daycare, tax credits for continuing education or re-education...it was these things as much as loose accounting practices and internet pseudo-companies that led to the incredible expansion of the economy in the late 90's. much like clinton, kucinich understands that the only real solution to the problems we see in the world must include a comprehensive approach to solving these supposedly unconnected issues.
i mean...perhaps the single greatest piece of foreign policy ever developed by this country was the marshall plan. after WWII, without firing a single shot the US created democracies and "democracy-friendly" (even i can't say that without a little bit of a sneer) nation-states around the globe. i know that we prol'ly don't have the economic might and will to create another marshall plan for the 21st century, but with strong international support i believe we can come awfully close. otherwise, we just keep killing terrorists as they pop up. if we go that route, though, the limiting factor will become the birth rate of nations where we are currently warring. if we kill more than can be born, then we've got a fighting chance. hmph.
yeah, kucinich is a good choice.
on a completely different note...i've been writing with the movie "school of rock" playing in the background. you know you're a dad when you're watching a kid movie and you feel yourself start to cry because all of the kids are succeeding at something together. little fellas playing music.
peace.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
i think that we've become almost scarily good at crusading in this country. i'm watching the news tonight in my hotel room in cold-ass boston, ma and i see that don imus has been dropped by NBC and that the charges against the duke lacrosse players have been dropped. i know that i shouldn't do it, but i cruised the 24 hour news stations to see if ANYONE sees the irony or the lesson in those two stories. surprisingly enough, the only station to have a commentator that said what i was thinking was on fox news. at least the commentator was a former democratic strategist though.
i mean, yeah. if imus had called me or someone i loved names on national television, i would have been ticked off. but, i think that its a pretty fair stretch to go from name calling to racist, sexist and just generally being a WHITE man on tv that doesn't know when to shut up. and then we get the crusaders up in arms - al sharpton and jesse jackson (though he seemed ominously quiet this time around, didn't he?) and that crowd. i mean, really. has anyone seen MTV lately? or BET? has anyone seen BET's After Dark program lately? are you kidding me? i saw a commentator on television screaming that imus and his comments clearly showed the slow and steady decline of american morality. i guess this woman (and i could believe this of her) never heard big daddy kane rap about pimpin' and how it ain't really that easy.
i don't know. i'm not trying to defend what he said, and i'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished in some way for it. the one thing that we continue to forget about free speech is that oftentimes there are real consequences for opening your mouth and then sticking your foot in it. personally, i thought the two week suspension (hopefully without pay, though i doubt he would have noticed) was more than sufficient. it just seems that more and more often you see examples of media-types and talking heads JUMPING to conclusions about situations and are more often than not WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. case in point, duke lacrosse. 'nuff said, right?
whatever.
i don't mean to make an argument based on scale. you know what i mean, right? i don't mean to say that since imus didn't drop the n-bomb, it's ok and we should just get over it. imus isn't as bad as rap music, so we should just get over it and move on. i'm not saying anything like that. what am i'm saying is that we should practice a little battlefield triage here. we still have war raging in the middle east. we still have ever burgeoning national debt that threatens to consume all in cloud of economic stagnation. we still have utterly moronic and CRAZY people that want take all the corn in the US and stuff it into SUVs and trucks (GOD, don't get me started on ethanol and biodiesel) . we have a President and attorney general who politicize the law and its execution, do it in broad daylight, and then try (and seemingly succeed) to set the terms under which they will deign to be questioned about it. but, imus said nappy-headed ho's on national tv and radio so let's flood the news outlets with that AND the fact that the photographer is the real father of anna nicole's baby.
oh, ok. that makes sense.
i mean, yeah. if imus had called me or someone i loved names on national television, i would have been ticked off. but, i think that its a pretty fair stretch to go from name calling to racist, sexist and just generally being a WHITE man on tv that doesn't know when to shut up. and then we get the crusaders up in arms - al sharpton and jesse jackson (though he seemed ominously quiet this time around, didn't he?) and that crowd. i mean, really. has anyone seen MTV lately? or BET? has anyone seen BET's After Dark program lately? are you kidding me? i saw a commentator on television screaming that imus and his comments clearly showed the slow and steady decline of american morality. i guess this woman (and i could believe this of her) never heard big daddy kane rap about pimpin' and how it ain't really that easy.
i don't know. i'm not trying to defend what he said, and i'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished in some way for it. the one thing that we continue to forget about free speech is that oftentimes there are real consequences for opening your mouth and then sticking your foot in it. personally, i thought the two week suspension (hopefully without pay, though i doubt he would have noticed) was more than sufficient. it just seems that more and more often you see examples of media-types and talking heads JUMPING to conclusions about situations and are more often than not WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. case in point, duke lacrosse. 'nuff said, right?
whatever.
i don't mean to make an argument based on scale. you know what i mean, right? i don't mean to say that since imus didn't drop the n-bomb, it's ok and we should just get over it. imus isn't as bad as rap music, so we should just get over it and move on. i'm not saying anything like that. what am i'm saying is that we should practice a little battlefield triage here. we still have war raging in the middle east. we still have ever burgeoning national debt that threatens to consume all in cloud of economic stagnation. we still have utterly moronic and CRAZY people that want take all the corn in the US and stuff it into SUVs and trucks (GOD, don't get me started on ethanol and biodiesel) . we have a President and attorney general who politicize the law and its execution, do it in broad daylight, and then try (and seemingly succeed) to set the terms under which they will deign to be questioned about it. but, imus said nappy-headed ho's on national tv and radio so let's flood the news outlets with that AND the fact that the photographer is the real father of anna nicole's baby.
oh, ok. that makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
