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.
Friday, June 29, 2007
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
