Yet again, it has been a while since I've posted anything. Not too much this time, but something that has bothered me since I heard it.
President Obama said something recently, in his effort to shore up "bipartisan" support for the extension of the Bush-era middle-class tax cuts (I thought there were no middle-class tax cuts? I remember hearing long and loud that the Bush tax program was nothing more than breaks for rich buddies?), said something that was incorrect (well, to call it incorrect would be an understatement, but, it's what I'll have to go with).
The president of the United States, who, presumably, knows about the history of the United States (and that there aren't 57 of them), made the statement, "...this country was founded on compromise". While Obama was in school in Jakarta (ages 6-10), I understand that American history might not have been a major subject, but upon his return to the states, I would assume he would have learned that America was founded in the midst of war, not with hands reaching across a table in compromise.
"This country tends to move to the center" is something that i hear time and again. Or that the people want a centrist government. This statements are simply not true. There may have been a time when they were true, but that time is long past.
This country wants something other than what it has had, which is why election cycles seem to have a pendulum swing to them. For most of the late half of the 20th century, the Congress was owned by the Democrat party, regardless of the political affiliation of the president. For a nation that "likes the center", that is a rather consistent lean in one direction.
It seems that now that the Republicans have been able to mount a reasonable counter to what the Democrats have been working with/for for more than 50 years, suddenly, there's a desire to govern from the middle, and a tendency toward a "non-partisan moving forward".
This country was NOT founded on compromise. It was founded on conflict and disagreement over tyrannical rule by one who was out-of-touch with the people he governed. At the suggestion of compromise, the ruler's response was to send the military to try and quell the rebellion. Perhaps if the lessons of history could be better learned, political games might become less and less prevalent.
This idea of compromise ueber alles is a flawed one. It is impossible to make a decision if you are constantly seeking to compromise with others. Sometimes, an unpopular decision MUST be made, and followed through on. It's called leadership, and it is what we HAVE a representative form of government for. Yes, occasionally, giving something up for a gain that benefits the greater good is necessary, but that is no way to govern, no way to lead.
Rather than try to shed "labels" or partisanship, maybe what is needed is a little more basic respect. Compromise without respect is pointless.
You want a country with more compromise? Start by respecting that there may just be opinions and stances that you do not agree with, and dismissing them with insulting language may not be the best thing to do. Get rid of labels like "homophobe" applied to any who disagree with the idea of gay marriage, or "racist" applied to any who think that a uniform language in the country might be a better idea than police needing to be bilingual just to do their jobs.
Respect for opinions you might disagree with is the first step to compromise, and closer to what this country was founded upon. When the colonials were not given the respect of the king, they stood tall and earned it through force, not just in the Revolutionary War, but over the next half century.
These days, the idea of earning respect through force is somewhat absurd. But in some cases it almost seems necessary, since too many people have the attitude that ANY respect must be earned. I tend to speak on this topic (respect) a lot, and one lament that I have mentioned many times, is that the default for too many people is one of DISrespect. It seems people would sooner spit on someone as look at them. Add politics, and this amplifies.
Would it not be easier to start from a place of neutral respect? Imagine that everyone you see has a number floating above their heads. From the time you first see them up until the time you "encounter" them (speak to them, nod a hello, hold open a door, etc), what is that number? Is it a negative? Or a zero? You see them walk in your direction, and they stop to pick up and put back on the shelf, a can of soup that someone else dropped in the store. Does that number move at all upon seeing this? You see them almost trip over a small child, carelessly running across their path. Their face contorts in a mask of irritation, and they snarl to the parent about keeping their kid under control. What does this do to their number?
That was something of a tangent, but it is something to think about. If you want to meet someone halfway, do you first not have to respect at least some of what they do, represent, or are motivated by?
Sure, let's compromise. But let's find our respect, first, and learn that compromise is not what allowed these 57 states to be founded.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
The immigration blog...
I have seen is written, and heard it said that the immigration issue is not simply about the law, that it is a human issue, and one of love, acceptance, and recognition of our (as in Americans) own immigrant heritage.
Yes, this is a nation of immigrants, in that every American has immigration to this country in our heritage. But by the same token, this is a nation of laws, set down by "immigrants".
My forebears came to the US from Ireland and Italy (mostly. I have blood from most of Western Europe in my background).
They learned English (if they didn't already know it). But they also learned the American way of life. Yes, they held on to their own traditions, and interacted with "their own" people, but they also went outside of that comfort zone, and became American citizens, rather than "Irish-Americans", or "Italian-Americans".
Packages in stores were not changed wholesale to accommodate them. They either learned English, or shopped where they could get products in packages printed in their native languages. Unless they were in a store that catered to them specifically, they didn't expect the clerk to speak their language, and they most certainly did not get upset if the clerk couldn't speak their language.
They did not come to take advantage of a system that will provide assistance to them, they made their own way through hard work. And all along the way, they became Americans, both in legal status, and in tradition.
This seems to be lost on this new generation of immigrants.
The 80's were called the "me" decade, when selfishness was the order of the day. It seems that this "me" phenomenon has hit outside the US about 20 later than it did within.
Today's immigrants (primarily Latino) expect that the US will do all that is needed to accommodate them, regardless of weather or not the rules were followed. There seems to be a sense of selfish entitlement that this country owes them something because they made the trip to get here. And regrettably, there are many in this country who encourage this mentality, and enable the abusers, much as a friend might enable an addict by justifying their habit.
They cast aside the laws they find inconvenient, such as the ones governing how they enter the country to become citizens, and hold up those that allow them to ignore the legal way to immigrate to this nation, such as the 14th amendment (a totally separate blog post in itself). They demand protection under the law, after breaking the law first.
This seems to be a rather cynical way to take advantage of the legal system in this country, and too many people (almost entirely those of a liberal mindset) are willing to go along with it. It seems to be comparable to saying that the teenager who kills his parents should be shown mercy, because he is an orphan. There is too much looking at the effect, without first addressing the cause.
But too often, the idea is that "they are here now, and there are too many to deal with easily, so better to accommodate them than enforce the laws".
Many packages in stores are now in English and Spanish (occasionally I find French, but I chalk that up to product availability in Quebec). Calling customer service for many products/services has the option to press a number for English, and another for Spanish (what number would I press to speak to someone in Mandarin, Russian, Gaelic, or Swahili? What? That's not an option? Why only Spanish? That seems a little racist/elitist to me. But I digress). In some cases it is a requirement for getting a job to be able to speak Spanish.
While the United States has no "official language", English is the de facto language (odd, using a Latin phrase to make the distinction). This means that while it is not codified as such in law, English is the language that is "accepted" as being the one to use while interacting in the country. This is a distinction we share with the United Kingdom and Australia.
Wait, hold on a second. Stop the blog. Are you telling me in the United Kingdom, England, that English is not the official language?
Feel free to look it up. English is language that is simply accepted as the proper language to use, though it is not actually the "official", as set down in law, language to speak/read/write in England. As in the United Sates, where there are scattered laws establishing English as the official language in one region (or State in the US), there is no national law establishing English as the language to be spoken.
Back to the point at hand...
Not having English as the official language DOES NOT mean that any/all languages should be spoken here by all citizens, nor does it mean that an immigrant population gets to try and force THEIR language into a secondary role for interacting with people like the police.
The United States has always been described as a "melting pot". A place where people from all over the world could come and be welcomed into society. All that would be asked in return is a willingness on the part of the people who come here to assimilate into our society after joining it through the proper channels. This doesn't mean abandoning your heritage. This means embracing that you have come to a place that recognizes and celebrates our differences through recognizing and celebrating our similarities.
Too often lately (to stretch the "melting pot" metaphor), it seems as though there are some who wish to barge into our kitchen, mix their own ingredients, and add them to the pot, totally changing the final flavor to better suit them.
Simply accepting those who break the law to enter this country as citizens, and offering them all they ask for in terms of (especially financial) assistance is not an expression of love, it is foolhardiness. And while the two are very often indistinguishable from one another, the stability of a nation cannot depend upon either emotion or foolishness.
Yes, this is a nation of immigrants, in that every American has immigration to this country in our heritage. But by the same token, this is a nation of laws, set down by "immigrants".
My forebears came to the US from Ireland and Italy (mostly. I have blood from most of Western Europe in my background).
They learned English (if they didn't already know it). But they also learned the American way of life. Yes, they held on to their own traditions, and interacted with "their own" people, but they also went outside of that comfort zone, and became American citizens, rather than "Irish-Americans", or "Italian-Americans".
Packages in stores were not changed wholesale to accommodate them. They either learned English, or shopped where they could get products in packages printed in their native languages. Unless they were in a store that catered to them specifically, they didn't expect the clerk to speak their language, and they most certainly did not get upset if the clerk couldn't speak their language.
They did not come to take advantage of a system that will provide assistance to them, they made their own way through hard work. And all along the way, they became Americans, both in legal status, and in tradition.
This seems to be lost on this new generation of immigrants.
The 80's were called the "me" decade, when selfishness was the order of the day. It seems that this "me" phenomenon has hit outside the US about 20 later than it did within.
Today's immigrants (primarily Latino) expect that the US will do all that is needed to accommodate them, regardless of weather or not the rules were followed. There seems to be a sense of selfish entitlement that this country owes them something because they made the trip to get here. And regrettably, there are many in this country who encourage this mentality, and enable the abusers, much as a friend might enable an addict by justifying their habit.
They cast aside the laws they find inconvenient, such as the ones governing how they enter the country to become citizens, and hold up those that allow them to ignore the legal way to immigrate to this nation, such as the 14th amendment (a totally separate blog post in itself). They demand protection under the law, after breaking the law first.
This seems to be a rather cynical way to take advantage of the legal system in this country, and too many people (almost entirely those of a liberal mindset) are willing to go along with it. It seems to be comparable to saying that the teenager who kills his parents should be shown mercy, because he is an orphan. There is too much looking at the effect, without first addressing the cause.
But too often, the idea is that "they are here now, and there are too many to deal with easily, so better to accommodate them than enforce the laws".
Many packages in stores are now in English and Spanish (occasionally I find French, but I chalk that up to product availability in Quebec). Calling customer service for many products/services has the option to press a number for English, and another for Spanish (what number would I press to speak to someone in Mandarin, Russian, Gaelic, or Swahili? What? That's not an option? Why only Spanish? That seems a little racist/elitist to me. But I digress). In some cases it is a requirement for getting a job to be able to speak Spanish.
While the United States has no "official language", English is the de facto language (odd, using a Latin phrase to make the distinction). This means that while it is not codified as such in law, English is the language that is "accepted" as being the one to use while interacting in the country. This is a distinction we share with the United Kingdom and Australia.
Wait, hold on a second. Stop the blog. Are you telling me in the United Kingdom, England, that English is not the official language?
Feel free to look it up. English is language that is simply accepted as the proper language to use, though it is not actually the "official", as set down in law, language to speak/read/write in England. As in the United Sates, where there are scattered laws establishing English as the official language in one region (or State in the US), there is no national law establishing English as the language to be spoken.
Back to the point at hand...
Not having English as the official language DOES NOT mean that any/all languages should be spoken here by all citizens, nor does it mean that an immigrant population gets to try and force THEIR language into a secondary role for interacting with people like the police.
The United States has always been described as a "melting pot". A place where people from all over the world could come and be welcomed into society. All that would be asked in return is a willingness on the part of the people who come here to assimilate into our society after joining it through the proper channels. This doesn't mean abandoning your heritage. This means embracing that you have come to a place that recognizes and celebrates our differences through recognizing and celebrating our similarities.
Too often lately (to stretch the "melting pot" metaphor), it seems as though there are some who wish to barge into our kitchen, mix their own ingredients, and add them to the pot, totally changing the final flavor to better suit them.
Simply accepting those who break the law to enter this country as citizens, and offering them all they ask for in terms of (especially financial) assistance is not an expression of love, it is foolhardiness. And while the two are very often indistinguishable from one another, the stability of a nation cannot depend upon either emotion or foolishness.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Ahhh, Independence Day...
The great American summer holiday. In Spring, we've Easter. In Autumn, Halloween. In Winter we've Thanksgiving Day and Christmas.
In the Summer, we celebrate our Independence Day. Every July fourth, Americans break out the grills, the red white and blue, the frisbees, the sodas, beers, the hot dogs, burgers, steaks, and potato salad. Stores have mattress sales, patio furniture sales, pool supplies, car sales, and we all love watching people blow stuff up. Professionals light up the sky with fireworks, and amateurs keep emergency rooms busy with the same.
All to celebrate America's... what?
Many say birthday, but, to anyone who knows me, it should come as no surprise that I disagree, have my own opinion about it, and what I believe to be a reasonable argument as to why.
Look back in history. For many, I know this might involve dusting off the memory, or even *gasp* looking it up on-line or in an encyclopedia, or, if you don't want to go through all that, just read on.
On May 14, 1607, the Jamestown colony was established in Virginia, in what is now called Williamsburg. This was the first successful British colony on the mainland of the New World, and the first permanent settlement that would become a major factor in being able to establish the 13 colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States.
To me, this speaks of the birth of our nation. Following the whole birth metaphor, Britain would be the parent, and the Colonies (US) the child.
Fast forward from 1607 to the early 1700's. The colonies have grown into a child who started to resent the rules of its parent. By 1776, the Colonies have reached their surly teens, and started to rebel against the rules laid down by the parent. Britain said "my house, my rules", and Thomas Jefferson offered the words that allowed the surly teen to say, "Fine! I'm moving out!"
So as you grill the meat, eat the potatoes and slaw, and watch crap blow up, keep in mind that the United States isn't celebrating its birthday today, so much as telling off its parent.
And for at least 234 years, been able to get away with it without having to beg to move back in.
In the Summer, we celebrate our Independence Day. Every July fourth, Americans break out the grills, the red white and blue, the frisbees, the sodas, beers, the hot dogs, burgers, steaks, and potato salad. Stores have mattress sales, patio furniture sales, pool supplies, car sales, and we all love watching people blow stuff up. Professionals light up the sky with fireworks, and amateurs keep emergency rooms busy with the same.
All to celebrate America's... what?
Many say birthday, but, to anyone who knows me, it should come as no surprise that I disagree, have my own opinion about it, and what I believe to be a reasonable argument as to why.
Look back in history. For many, I know this might involve dusting off the memory, or even *gasp* looking it up on-line or in an encyclopedia, or, if you don't want to go through all that, just read on.
On May 14, 1607, the Jamestown colony was established in Virginia, in what is now called Williamsburg. This was the first successful British colony on the mainland of the New World, and the first permanent settlement that would become a major factor in being able to establish the 13 colonies that would become the first 13 of the United States.
To me, this speaks of the birth of our nation. Following the whole birth metaphor, Britain would be the parent, and the Colonies (US) the child.
Fast forward from 1607 to the early 1700's. The colonies have grown into a child who started to resent the rules of its parent. By 1776, the Colonies have reached their surly teens, and started to rebel against the rules laid down by the parent. Britain said "my house, my rules", and Thomas Jefferson offered the words that allowed the surly teen to say, "Fine! I'm moving out!"
So as you grill the meat, eat the potatoes and slaw, and watch crap blow up, keep in mind that the United States isn't celebrating its birthday today, so much as telling off its parent.
And for at least 234 years, been able to get away with it without having to beg to move back in.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Gracious grumbling...
Okay, so I have issues where my wife's father is concerned. Plain and simple, he's not my favorite person.
He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.
Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.
Let me explain how I make this distinction.
Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.
So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.
I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.
Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.
He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.
But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.
I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.
I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?
This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.
He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.
Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.
Let me explain how I make this distinction.
Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.
So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.
I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.
Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.
He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.
But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.
I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.
I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?
This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.
Friday, June 11, 2010
In defense (at least a little) of BP
Okay. So we have, what, about a billion gallons of oil streaming into the Gulf of Mexico, and threatening to follow currents, swing around Florida, and come up as far as North Carolina on the east coast.
The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).
Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.
Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.
This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.
So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.
Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.
Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.
A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".
Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.
Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.
Just a thought.
The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).
Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.
Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.
This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.
So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.
Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.
Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.
A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".
Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.
Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.
Just a thought.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Attitude check...
I have a friend on facebook who answered the profile question regarding political views as "the right ones", and his religious views as "not a big fan". He graduated JD Cum Laude, John Marshall Law School in 2000.
On September 11, he posted the following status/follow-up comment, due to the limitations of space allowed in facebook posts:
"XX is disturbed that some people may feel that his nuanced opinions on certain issues make him less of an American. I would remind these people that as an American Indian I am likely one of the only true Americans that they know.
As one of the few true Americans that most of my friends know, meaning that I am 1/8 American Indian, I would remind people that over 11,000,000 Indians have died as a direct result of colonization of our native lands. When you consider the death toll of 3,000 lives at WTC (which is horrible and inexcusable by any stretch) remember that no less... ... Read More3,666 Native Americans have died for every person that died in WTC. This of course is more than a similar event every day for a year. Just something to think about when you refuse to look for deeper truths and more meaningful lessons to be learned."
My response:
"And just how many "true Americans" died in internecine warfare during, and after the colonization of "their" land, not to mention from the time they themselves migrated from the Russian steppe, over an ice bridge, onto the North American continent?
I really don't care about how much "Native" American you are, to try to place things in that nonsensical a perspective is insulting."
Earlier in the day, he had a wall post about how his perception of many people's patriotism is "blindly following a flag, and stop questioning what's right", and how it seemed to be somehow connected to 9/11.
I followed up my comment above with the following:
"And I don't just mean the comment, but all your musings regarding patriotism.
To me, true patriotism means a Hell of a lot more than following a flag, and certainly more than trying to get people to question their own feelings on the matter with some holier-than-thou stance.
I do apologize if I seem to be taking a tone, but this self-important, "I'm too good to blindly follow" attitude that many of my generation have pisses me right the Hell off.
You want to eschew religion, patriotism, or any other belief system you like, by all means go ahead. That is your right. But don't you dare claim some moral superiority because of it.
Just as my belief in some things doesn't make me better than others, your disbelief of the same doesn't make you better than anyone else.
To forestall people attacking me, you certainly have a right to your opinion, and thank God for it. But if you are going to express it in a public forum, such as facebook, be prepared for other opinions to come at you."
Long story short, this person seems to be an individual who thinks that his opinion is just the pinnacle of all that is around him. He seems to be agnostic, having the opinion that once a person's soul gains heaven, they have no reason to be nice, ergo, Heaven is filled with a$$holes, whereas Hell is filled with people who are trying to be nice enough to get out of it.
Was I wrong to lay into this person as I did? Please note, the term friend is used in the context of facebook. This is not actually a person with whom I interact outside of that forum.
On September 11, he posted the following status/follow-up comment, due to the limitations of space allowed in facebook posts:
"XX is disturbed that some people may feel that his nuanced opinions on certain issues make him less of an American. I would remind these people that as an American Indian I am likely one of the only true Americans that they know.
As one of the few true Americans that most of my friends know, meaning that I am 1/8 American Indian, I would remind people that over 11,000,000 Indians have died as a direct result of colonization of our native lands. When you consider the death toll of 3,000 lives at WTC (which is horrible and inexcusable by any stretch) remember that no less... ... Read More3,666 Native Americans have died for every person that died in WTC. This of course is more than a similar event every day for a year. Just something to think about when you refuse to look for deeper truths and more meaningful lessons to be learned."
My response:
"And just how many "true Americans" died in internecine warfare during, and after the colonization of "their" land, not to mention from the time they themselves migrated from the Russian steppe, over an ice bridge, onto the North American continent?
I really don't care about how much "Native" American you are, to try to place things in that nonsensical a perspective is insulting."
Earlier in the day, he had a wall post about how his perception of many people's patriotism is "blindly following a flag, and stop questioning what's right", and how it seemed to be somehow connected to 9/11.
I followed up my comment above with the following:
"And I don't just mean the comment, but all your musings regarding patriotism.
To me, true patriotism means a Hell of a lot more than following a flag, and certainly more than trying to get people to question their own feelings on the matter with some holier-than-thou stance.
I do apologize if I seem to be taking a tone, but this self-important, "I'm too good to blindly follow" attitude that many of my generation have pisses me right the Hell off.
You want to eschew religion, patriotism, or any other belief system you like, by all means go ahead. That is your right. But don't you dare claim some moral superiority because of it.
Just as my belief in some things doesn't make me better than others, your disbelief of the same doesn't make you better than anyone else.
To forestall people attacking me, you certainly have a right to your opinion, and thank God for it. But if you are going to express it in a public forum, such as facebook, be prepared for other opinions to come at you."
Long story short, this person seems to be an individual who thinks that his opinion is just the pinnacle of all that is around him. He seems to be agnostic, having the opinion that once a person's soul gains heaven, they have no reason to be nice, ergo, Heaven is filled with a$$holes, whereas Hell is filled with people who are trying to be nice enough to get out of it.
Was I wrong to lay into this person as I did? Please note, the term friend is used in the context of facebook. This is not actually a person with whom I interact outside of that forum.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Racist Transformers? Or overly sensitive audience?
I have yet to see "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen". Make no mistake, I WILL see the movie. I have been a Transformers fan from the git go in the early 80s.
I have seen every episode of the old cartoon series, several from subsequent series (my opinion, none as good as the original), and many of the newest series, "Transformers Animated" (geared to the 8-11 age bracket. I watch with my kids).
The newest series deals with something the original never did, until the movie in 1986, and that is death. I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) that my kids understand the concept, and even seem to have a full understanding of the concept of having a soul, a topic touched upon in the series under the guise of each robot having a "spark" (When good-guy leader Optimus Prime thinks he has died, he asks those around him, "Is this the Well of Allsparks?"). The "spark" concept is one that was broached in previous series, notably the "Beast Wars" spin-off of the 90s, but it seems to be explored a little more thoroughly in the current series.
But I digress. The Transformers movie from a couple of years ago was fun for fans, and while not a cinematic masterpiece, an okay movie. It had the idea of a powerful artifact called the Allspark, and the presence of such a thing became the motivation for transformers on Earth, as opposed to the original story, which placed the transformers here 4 million years ago, and in some form of robotic stasis until the modern time.
This new approach has the transfomers (Autobot good guys and Decepticon bad guys) arriving on Earth as meteors and disguising themselves as vehicles to search for this lost artifact.
By the end of the first movie, the Decpticons are on the run, their leader deactivated and dumped into the ocean, and a message from Optimus Prime sent to space inviting other Autobots to join those who survived on Earth. Good guys win, human companion of the Autobots gets the girl, and a happy ending is achieved.
The second movie, subtitled "Revenge of the Fallen" (ROTF) adds new layers to the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, so whatever I say is based upon reviews that contain spoilers and what I know from the various comic books stories that have been written over the years. I haven't read them, but I have read enough about them to have a pretty decent idea as far as source material is concerned (any mistakes should be forgiven).
The title itself gives things away, and has double meaning. It refers to the fallen Decepticons from the first movie, specifically Decepticon leader, Megatron (dumped into the ocean), and it refers to an ancient transformer, said to be, depending upon who you speak to, the FIRST Decepticon (Each transformer wears an allegiance symbol. A red robotic face for the Autobots, and a purple one for the Decepticons. The Decepticon symbol bears a strong resemblance to the face of the Fallen). According to the comics, The Fallen is said to be the transformers equivalent of Judas, since he betrayed a dozen other transformers first built by the transformer machine-god Primus. His actual name has been lost to the sands of time, and he is simply referred to, because of his actions, The Fallen.
In the movie, The Fallen and several Decepticons have visited Earth in the distant past, terrifying ancient humans, presumably Aztecs, Incas and the like.
But again, I digress from my point.
This second movie introduces several new characters, both Autobot and Decepticon. Some are fan favorites, and others, while possessing names that fans will recall from older incarnations of the Transformers, are new. Two such characters are Skids and Mudflap, also known as the Autobot twins.
In the first movie, Optimus Prime explains how the transformers are able to speak English. They tapped into the world wide web, and presumably learned not only the language, but much about human cultures. In the Autobot Jazz, this came across as an easygoing character who enjoyed all that life had to offer when he wasn't fighting in a war (and sounded like a black man while doing so). In Autobot Ironhide this came across as a profound understanding and appreciation of weapons. Autobot Bumblebee was able to communicate using what could only be assumed to be a satellite radio hookup, since he had near instant access to any radio transmission he needed to get a point across.
Different personalities arose as a result of different focuses on the same available data.
Enter ROTF. Autobots Skids and Mudflap have been covered the most in the media, because they are "jive-talkin', gangsta robots" who represent "stereotypically racist" characters.
Robots who turn into Chevy vehicles. Are racist. Because they talk and act like a couple of buffoons, and with a certain inflection.
What in the world has happened to the "cultural sensitivity" in this country? Buffoonish robots who don't read and behave like a couple of hoodlums are "racist"?
Let's go over what I said a few moments ago. The characterizations are formed on these robots as a result of what they glean from the Internet. To say that there is no shortage of material that is offensive and "acceptable" there is an understatement. Virtually anything the Wayans brothers have ever done would be more than enough to form personalities and behaviors that would seem "racist" in anything other than a black man behaving like a buffoon.
And that's the problem.
It seems that racial stereotypes are acceptable, as long as they are coming from one person or another, but NOT from a white guy (or CG robot).
Maybe it is time for people to relax a little, and not worry about racial issues when they are perceived.
Or, apply that sensitivity to any and ALL instances of such insensitivity, especially when the source is one who SHOULD be offended by the crap he is calling funny.
So-called comedians like Chris Rock, who make a career out of making racially insensitive and downright insulting comments and calling it "comedy", do not help matters at all.
"Bruno" will be opening soon. Sasha Baron Cohen has made a movie in which he plays a flamboyantly gay man, and records people's reactions to him and his flamboyance. He did something similar with "Borat", and was sued many times for it. Now, he is targeting homosexuality, and doing so in a disgustingly vulgar manner.
Yet many critics love the movie. They think it is funny to see Cohen behaving outrageously and baiting people into situations that will embarrass them. They think that his antics as a homosexual and his vulgarity in speech and action are funny.
Yet the same time they offer praises for Cohen, they lambaste ROTF, complaining that there is vulgarity, potty humor, and stereotypical behavior. Such things, they say, don't belong in a "kids movie" like ROTF. Yet ROTF carries a PG-13 rating for that very reason.
PG-13 does NOT denote a kids movie, regardless of the subject matter or source material.
But the point is that characterizations performed by a "comedian" who makes a career out of making people feel/look foolish, even if he has to act as an over-the-top homosexual to do it, is funny. Having computer generated robots who have a legitimate story reason (though to my knowledge it is not addressed in the movie. Taking the previous explanation about the web, and extrapolating that new arrivals could conceivably find material on the web that is not considered offensive, one really doesn't need to think too hard to explain the "racist" behavior of the two new 'bots) for behaving as they do is enough to get all kinds of "anti-defamation" groups up in arms, is not, apparently, funny.
To say that there is a double standard at work would be an understatement.
Maybe it's time we re-evaluate just how important race and racial sensitivity really is. After all, we have Michelle Obama's "baby's daddy" elected to the highest executive office in the land. With credentials like that, I don't know how there can be so much concern for CG robots that are green and orange, one sporting a "gold tooth", and both talking and behaving like a white guy with his pants around his knees, a t-shirt that is 4 sizes too big, and a baseball hat cocked to the side, which is seemingly "racist".
I have seen every episode of the old cartoon series, several from subsequent series (my opinion, none as good as the original), and many of the newest series, "Transformers Animated" (geared to the 8-11 age bracket. I watch with my kids).
The newest series deals with something the original never did, until the movie in 1986, and that is death. I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) that my kids understand the concept, and even seem to have a full understanding of the concept of having a soul, a topic touched upon in the series under the guise of each robot having a "spark" (When good-guy leader Optimus Prime thinks he has died, he asks those around him, "Is this the Well of Allsparks?"). The "spark" concept is one that was broached in previous series, notably the "Beast Wars" spin-off of the 90s, but it seems to be explored a little more thoroughly in the current series.
But I digress. The Transformers movie from a couple of years ago was fun for fans, and while not a cinematic masterpiece, an okay movie. It had the idea of a powerful artifact called the Allspark, and the presence of such a thing became the motivation for transformers on Earth, as opposed to the original story, which placed the transformers here 4 million years ago, and in some form of robotic stasis until the modern time.
This new approach has the transfomers (Autobot good guys and Decepticon bad guys) arriving on Earth as meteors and disguising themselves as vehicles to search for this lost artifact.
By the end of the first movie, the Decpticons are on the run, their leader deactivated and dumped into the ocean, and a message from Optimus Prime sent to space inviting other Autobots to join those who survived on Earth. Good guys win, human companion of the Autobots gets the girl, and a happy ending is achieved.
The second movie, subtitled "Revenge of the Fallen" (ROTF) adds new layers to the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, so whatever I say is based upon reviews that contain spoilers and what I know from the various comic books stories that have been written over the years. I haven't read them, but I have read enough about them to have a pretty decent idea as far as source material is concerned (any mistakes should be forgiven).
The title itself gives things away, and has double meaning. It refers to the fallen Decepticons from the first movie, specifically Decepticon leader, Megatron (dumped into the ocean), and it refers to an ancient transformer, said to be, depending upon who you speak to, the FIRST Decepticon (Each transformer wears an allegiance symbol. A red robotic face for the Autobots, and a purple one for the Decepticons. The Decepticon symbol bears a strong resemblance to the face of the Fallen). According to the comics, The Fallen is said to be the transformers equivalent of Judas, since he betrayed a dozen other transformers first built by the transformer machine-god Primus. His actual name has been lost to the sands of time, and he is simply referred to, because of his actions, The Fallen.
In the movie, The Fallen and several Decepticons have visited Earth in the distant past, terrifying ancient humans, presumably Aztecs, Incas and the like.
But again, I digress from my point.
This second movie introduces several new characters, both Autobot and Decepticon. Some are fan favorites, and others, while possessing names that fans will recall from older incarnations of the Transformers, are new. Two such characters are Skids and Mudflap, also known as the Autobot twins.
In the first movie, Optimus Prime explains how the transformers are able to speak English. They tapped into the world wide web, and presumably learned not only the language, but much about human cultures. In the Autobot Jazz, this came across as an easygoing character who enjoyed all that life had to offer when he wasn't fighting in a war (and sounded like a black man while doing so). In Autobot Ironhide this came across as a profound understanding and appreciation of weapons. Autobot Bumblebee was able to communicate using what could only be assumed to be a satellite radio hookup, since he had near instant access to any radio transmission he needed to get a point across.
Different personalities arose as a result of different focuses on the same available data.
Enter ROTF. Autobots Skids and Mudflap have been covered the most in the media, because they are "jive-talkin', gangsta robots" who represent "stereotypically racist" characters.
Robots who turn into Chevy vehicles. Are racist. Because they talk and act like a couple of buffoons, and with a certain inflection.
What in the world has happened to the "cultural sensitivity" in this country? Buffoonish robots who don't read and behave like a couple of hoodlums are "racist"?
Let's go over what I said a few moments ago. The characterizations are formed on these robots as a result of what they glean from the Internet. To say that there is no shortage of material that is offensive and "acceptable" there is an understatement. Virtually anything the Wayans brothers have ever done would be more than enough to form personalities and behaviors that would seem "racist" in anything other than a black man behaving like a buffoon.
And that's the problem.
It seems that racial stereotypes are acceptable, as long as they are coming from one person or another, but NOT from a white guy (or CG robot).
Maybe it is time for people to relax a little, and not worry about racial issues when they are perceived.
Or, apply that sensitivity to any and ALL instances of such insensitivity, especially when the source is one who SHOULD be offended by the crap he is calling funny.
So-called comedians like Chris Rock, who make a career out of making racially insensitive and downright insulting comments and calling it "comedy", do not help matters at all.
"Bruno" will be opening soon. Sasha Baron Cohen has made a movie in which he plays a flamboyantly gay man, and records people's reactions to him and his flamboyance. He did something similar with "Borat", and was sued many times for it. Now, he is targeting homosexuality, and doing so in a disgustingly vulgar manner.
Yet many critics love the movie. They think it is funny to see Cohen behaving outrageously and baiting people into situations that will embarrass them. They think that his antics as a homosexual and his vulgarity in speech and action are funny.
Yet the same time they offer praises for Cohen, they lambaste ROTF, complaining that there is vulgarity, potty humor, and stereotypical behavior. Such things, they say, don't belong in a "kids movie" like ROTF. Yet ROTF carries a PG-13 rating for that very reason.
PG-13 does NOT denote a kids movie, regardless of the subject matter or source material.
But the point is that characterizations performed by a "comedian" who makes a career out of making people feel/look foolish, even if he has to act as an over-the-top homosexual to do it, is funny. Having computer generated robots who have a legitimate story reason (though to my knowledge it is not addressed in the movie. Taking the previous explanation about the web, and extrapolating that new arrivals could conceivably find material on the web that is not considered offensive, one really doesn't need to think too hard to explain the "racist" behavior of the two new 'bots) for behaving as they do is enough to get all kinds of "anti-defamation" groups up in arms, is not, apparently, funny.
To say that there is a double standard at work would be an understatement.
Maybe it's time we re-evaluate just how important race and racial sensitivity really is. After all, we have Michelle Obama's "baby's daddy" elected to the highest executive office in the land. With credentials like that, I don't know how there can be so much concern for CG robots that are green and orange, one sporting a "gold tooth", and both talking and behaving like a white guy with his pants around his knees, a t-shirt that is 4 sizes too big, and a baseball hat cocked to the side, which is seemingly "racist".
Friday, June 19, 2009
Haven't been feeling too witty...
Which is why there has not been much posting. Like any. For a while.
Kids are out of school, and the lovely June weather has felt more like early October with the cold and the rain. I can see my breath in front of my face at work. I thought we were in the midst of a GLOBAL warming cycle. I think I've ranted about this before, so I will simply reiterate: For any phenomenon to be GLOBAL, there cannot be such wildly local variances.
Anyway, kids are kids. They can drive one batty. Coop them up for a few days of their summer vacations because of the colder temps and rain, and that multiplies. Add a general lack of proper sleep for their supervising daddy, and you have frayed nerves, headaches all over the place, and all-around crankiness.
And that's just from Wyfster putting up with me (I kid. Really. My wife has been great, as always).
The lack of sleep comes from having lost one car to total structural breakdown. a few inches of play in the rear axle makes for sideways driving. Fun fun. Anyway, since we are to one car, this means that Wyfster gets home about the same time I should be clocking in at work. I told them the situation, and it's cool there, but this means I have been gettign into work later. Which means I have been working later. The past few days, I have been on the clock until the wee hours, one day just beating the birds chirping the morning by about a half-hour or so.
Wyfster looks forward to our vacations to Florida each year. It's one week to visit my dad, and take in the sun, sand, ocean, and other Florida treasures. I think I'm looking forward to this vacation more than I have any previous ones.
Don't get me wrong, I like my job. My co-workers are all on different shifts than mine, so I get along with them just fine, because I don't have to work with them for extended periods of time. I don't mind the work itself, and I like to think I'm good at it. Since my boss hasn't complained, I take that to be a good thing (especially since he has "overlooked" a couple of minor industrial accidents, and still wants me around. Seriously. A faulty overflow alarm led to my trying to put about 300 gallons of oil more into a 14,000 gallon outside tank than it could hold. The clean-up took a couple of hours, and my boss STILL likes me, and wants to keep me around. The company owner's reaction to the overflow was to chuckle and say "Well, we haven't done THAT in a while"). Seriously. I work for great people, and that can make all the difference in liking your job.
Having said all that, I really am looking forward to getting the Hell away from it all for a week.
I would prefer more time away, but I'll take what I can get. Maybe my witticism batteries will recharge, and I can keep this blog going.
Or at the very least, not snap at the cats for eating so loudly.
Did I mention I need a vacation?
Kids are out of school, and the lovely June weather has felt more like early October with the cold and the rain. I can see my breath in front of my face at work. I thought we were in the midst of a GLOBAL warming cycle. I think I've ranted about this before, so I will simply reiterate: For any phenomenon to be GLOBAL, there cannot be such wildly local variances.
Anyway, kids are kids. They can drive one batty. Coop them up for a few days of their summer vacations because of the colder temps and rain, and that multiplies. Add a general lack of proper sleep for their supervising daddy, and you have frayed nerves, headaches all over the place, and all-around crankiness.
And that's just from Wyfster putting up with me (I kid. Really. My wife has been great, as always).
The lack of sleep comes from having lost one car to total structural breakdown. a few inches of play in the rear axle makes for sideways driving. Fun fun. Anyway, since we are to one car, this means that Wyfster gets home about the same time I should be clocking in at work. I told them the situation, and it's cool there, but this means I have been gettign into work later. Which means I have been working later. The past few days, I have been on the clock until the wee hours, one day just beating the birds chirping the morning by about a half-hour or so.
Wyfster looks forward to our vacations to Florida each year. It's one week to visit my dad, and take in the sun, sand, ocean, and other Florida treasures. I think I'm looking forward to this vacation more than I have any previous ones.
Don't get me wrong, I like my job. My co-workers are all on different shifts than mine, so I get along with them just fine, because I don't have to work with them for extended periods of time. I don't mind the work itself, and I like to think I'm good at it. Since my boss hasn't complained, I take that to be a good thing (especially since he has "overlooked" a couple of minor industrial accidents, and still wants me around. Seriously. A faulty overflow alarm led to my trying to put about 300 gallons of oil more into a 14,000 gallon outside tank than it could hold. The clean-up took a couple of hours, and my boss STILL likes me, and wants to keep me around. The company owner's reaction to the overflow was to chuckle and say "Well, we haven't done THAT in a while"). Seriously. I work for great people, and that can make all the difference in liking your job.
Having said all that, I really am looking forward to getting the Hell away from it all for a week.
I would prefer more time away, but I'll take what I can get. Maybe my witticism batteries will recharge, and I can keep this blog going.
Or at the very least, not snap at the cats for eating so loudly.
Did I mention I need a vacation?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Gay men and beauty contestants...
unless noted by actual quotes, all statements are paraphrased from the actual comments
So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.
Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".
Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).
Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.
If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.
Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.
California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.
The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.
Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.
How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.
You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?
Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?
So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.
Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".
Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).
Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.
If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.
Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.
California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.
The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.
Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.
How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.
You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?
Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?
Monday, April 20, 2009
I really have a strange child...
My daughter, Sprout, in order to prevent me from eating the ears off her chocolate Easter Bunnies, has chomped all the ears off herself. Sort of the chocolate equivalent of "If I can't have them without worrying about them first, then NO ONE will!"
Problem is, I'm all talk when it comes to snarfing the ears off my kids' bunnies. Sally Forth I am not (read that comic for YEARS, and I just the other day got the double entendre in the name).
I'm more like Ted. And Sprout is becoming more and more like Hillary. We talk about subjects that are silly, while Wyfster (our Sally) sits in the background rolling her eyes. I'll give you an example.
I saw, for the first time the other day, a TV show on Spike TV called "Deadliest Warrior". The premise is simple. A group of 4 experts call in specialists in (mostly) archaic weapons and fighting styles. They take measurements of these weapons in use (speed of projectiles, force of a strike, penetration power, etc), add in information about the typical example of the specific warrior class (Samurai, Vikings, Apache warriors, etc) like height, weight, etc.
All this data is fed into a complex computer program that then takes the data, and runs 1000 simulations of a one-on-one combat between two of the warrior classes (Apache Warrior versus Roman Gladiator, for example), and after 1000 simulations, they indicate which warrior would emerge victorious (the Apache beat the Gladiator, BTW).
Sprout and I watched a couple of episodes, and actually debated on one (Viking versus Samurai). My daughter figured the Viking's larger frame and brute force would overcome the Samurai's slight build and speed. It was close, but the Samurai was victorious.
But the point is that my daughter formed an opinion regarding a hypothetical combat between two warriors who would never meet on the field of battle.
I'm not quite sure what this says about my 7-year-old daughter, or my skill (or lack thereof) as a parent. My daughter is sarcastic, yet respectful. Vicariously violent (through such things as this TV show, for instance), but gentle as any other little girl you can find. She's a fantastic student, yet suffers from a slight case of test anxiety, and worries if her scores are not perfect (though my wife and I are VERY careful to make sure to not put that kind of pressure on her).
I thought daughters weren't supposed to be such paradoxes until at least the pre-teen years.
What in the world did I do wrong (or right)? And what am I going to do when she gets to be totally unpredictable?
I can only hope that she remembers how much she likes spending time with daddy, and how much she likes talking with mommy, and her pre-teen and teen years are as abnormally easy as her infancy was.
Or else I could end up as more of a basket-case than I am already.
Problem is, I'm all talk when it comes to snarfing the ears off my kids' bunnies. Sally Forth I am not (read that comic for YEARS, and I just the other day got the double entendre in the name).
I'm more like Ted. And Sprout is becoming more and more like Hillary. We talk about subjects that are silly, while Wyfster (our Sally) sits in the background rolling her eyes. I'll give you an example.
I saw, for the first time the other day, a TV show on Spike TV called "Deadliest Warrior". The premise is simple. A group of 4 experts call in specialists in (mostly) archaic weapons and fighting styles. They take measurements of these weapons in use (speed of projectiles, force of a strike, penetration power, etc), add in information about the typical example of the specific warrior class (Samurai, Vikings, Apache warriors, etc) like height, weight, etc.
All this data is fed into a complex computer program that then takes the data, and runs 1000 simulations of a one-on-one combat between two of the warrior classes (Apache Warrior versus Roman Gladiator, for example), and after 1000 simulations, they indicate which warrior would emerge victorious (the Apache beat the Gladiator, BTW).
Sprout and I watched a couple of episodes, and actually debated on one (Viking versus Samurai). My daughter figured the Viking's larger frame and brute force would overcome the Samurai's slight build and speed. It was close, but the Samurai was victorious.
But the point is that my daughter formed an opinion regarding a hypothetical combat between two warriors who would never meet on the field of battle.
I'm not quite sure what this says about my 7-year-old daughter, or my skill (or lack thereof) as a parent. My daughter is sarcastic, yet respectful. Vicariously violent (through such things as this TV show, for instance), but gentle as any other little girl you can find. She's a fantastic student, yet suffers from a slight case of test anxiety, and worries if her scores are not perfect (though my wife and I are VERY careful to make sure to not put that kind of pressure on her).
I thought daughters weren't supposed to be such paradoxes until at least the pre-teen years.
What in the world did I do wrong (or right)? And what am I going to do when she gets to be totally unpredictable?
I can only hope that she remembers how much she likes spending time with daddy, and how much she likes talking with mommy, and her pre-teen and teen years are as abnormally easy as her infancy was.
Or else I could end up as more of a basket-case than I am already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)