Truth is the New Blog

truthout.org should respect its mission.

2011-09-21T16:39:00.003-04:00

I just got an email from truthout.org with the subject "Message to Banks: Pay US Back." This caught my attention, so I opened up the email and the first thing I see is a "DONATE TODAY" button, encouraging me to give money to truthout.org. But nevermind that, I want to know about this bank business. So I scroll down and read the lead article which alludes to an accusation that banks have not paid back the bailouts we (well...Bush) gave them three years ago. Then the article goes on to say other ways the banks should repay us that aren't related to the bailout loans.

I know on good authority (LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, the Tarp Policy Director) that the bank loans are not only repaid but making a huge profit for the Government (~$20 billion). Kudos to the fat bankers in NYC. That said, I do not think the banks are off the hook. As the article suggests, banks should be helping with costs related to their near-meltdown including picking up the tab for policing vacant and foreclosed properties, reducing principle on more underwater mortgages, and spending some of their cash on new jobs rather than keeping it in reserves.

But enough about bank policy, this email angered me! The fact that truthout.org espouses a "truthful and transparent" media in the very same email that includes an incendiary and incorrect accusation which is clearly designed to raise money (DONATE TODAY) is pathetic. Don't stoop to the level of Fox news and manufacture headlines for your bottom line. Let's be truthful here. Too much to ask from one liberal to another?

Where do you news?

2011-08-26T10:57:00.003-04:00

Tells a lot about someone, and about how they (choose to?) see the world. My top 3 news sources:

1) Huffpost
2) WaPo
3) Facebook

Yours?

Some Sense from Fox News

2011-08-10T13:03:00.002-04:00

I was surprised and pleased to read today an anti-tea party opinion on the fox news website. Who would have thought?

CongressWasting $30 Million - per day! WTF.

2011-08-04T07:59:00.005-04:00

Imagine if you went to a store and bought a state of the art TV to be delivered tomorrow. Then the store owner took your money, gave it to someone else, and never delivered your TV. You're suddenly out thousands of dollars and have nothing to show for it. This is exactly how congress is treating our airline tax dollars, and we can't afford to tolerate it.

Probably the largest news story, and most embattled congressional debate of this year centered around the debt ceiling. Let's not forget that this conflict nearly took every single American into a economy of higher interest rates across the board. Do you want to pay more for your next car, TV or credit card bill? Me neither. Thank goodness our dedicated, hardworking Congress worked tirelessly to come to a compromise.

But they forgot one little thing before heading out to play on their swings for recess. Well - they forgot one big thing actually - $30 million a day in uncollected taxes. Wait, what? Yeah...I know. Congress left for vacation without passing a bill to continue to fund the FAA, which causes a few really big problems.

1) 4,000 FAA workers are furloughed until some kind of bill is passed.

2) $2.5 Billion dollars in airport construction is put on hold - meaning no one one those projects gets paid.

3) 70,000 contractors are laid of or furloughed because there is no money to pay them on those construction projects.

4) $30 million per day in tickets taxes are not allowed to be collected by the Government (but the airlines are still charging them!). It is estimated this will amount to $1 billion in lost revenue.

What kind of bullsh$t politicking is this? Everyone on the Hill spends weeks waxing poetically about saving our economy reducing our debt/income gap, but they leave $1 billion completely out of reach because they'd rather go play in their respective sandboxes than sit down and actually do their job. This is irresponsibility to the Nth degree, and none of us should stand for it.

Two Things are Back: A Recession, and This Blog

2011-07-31T13:22:00.005-04:00

At this point I'm probably just writing for myself, but I'm back to actually writing! Real quickly, I've spent the last year basically playing - having a great time acting/playing music and making a few bucks while at it. The arts life is fun, challenging to the ego and the pocketbook, and ultimately something that we all need in our life. To what extent it will overtake my life has yet to be determined - but I've been feeling lately that it's a bit of a selfish life and the notion of living only for my own artistic passions hasn't been sitting well. Can't I touch other people's lives a little more with the time I have on this planet?

Okay, with that out of the way, let's move on to today's topic: Double Dip Recession. It's kind of a strange name - as it sounds like we intentionally got ourselves into a recession again just like we would go back for another dip of delicious guacamole! All this term means is that our economy has dipped to recession level again.

How do we know? Several key factors: access to credit is still relatively low; in housing, we have more than 28% of all single family mortgages underwater; uneployment is still very high at 9.2%; inflation is hitting us hard on all levels of spending (even late night McDonald's is costing us more!); oil prices are still well above what we remember just a few years ago; and investments are yeilding less (please don't make me look at my 401k this year).

I can't help but think, however, that this is just the ying and yang of life. We as a country lived in relative opulence for a while - buying big homes with nearly no initial investment, creating a start up and burning through cash like it was going out of style (apparently it was), and enjoying lots of credit cards and mortgages that we really shouldn't have. Now, maybe it's just the universe, or kharma, or the gods of economic equality telling us to get back into shape.

This conversation will inevitably tie into the debt ceiling crisis going on in Washington this week. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, you'll be blaming someone on the hill for getting us into this and/or not being able to get us out. I largely blame the republicans for spending ridiculous amounts of money on two wars, not enforcing oversight in defense contracting, and purposefully allowing the bankers in New York to take a gamble with our economy. I blame the democrats for not looking ahead and making changes while they had both houses of congress and the White House in their control. Is health care reform really more important than economic reform? In hindsight, I would say no.

But the real blame is shared between congress, the white house and us. We as individuals overspent, overborrowed and underplanned. We ignored the fine print in adjustable rate mortgages. We ignored common sense when purchasing homes that were simply bigger than we needed. We lived for today, without thinking of the consequences. It's human nature to do this, and we'll probably do it again and again. Now the economy is correcting itself - and hopefully doing so with the thoughtful guidance of some smart people leading the way in Washington (Insert politician joke here).

The Pope - Media Player or Servant of the Church?

2010-04-09T14:55:00.006-04:00

Today, the Pope announced that he'll meet with more abuse victims. This comes on the same day that a letter signed by him is revealed to have stalled the defrocking of another child molester - Stephen Kiesle. In this letter, Ratzinger wrote that "the good of the universal church" needs to be considered before defrocking Kiesle. Seven years before this letter was written, Kiesle was arrested and pleaded no contest for tying up and molesting two boys. He wasn't defrocked for another two years after Ratzinger wrote this letter. Ratzinger's interpretation of "the good of the universal church" only seems to apply to the image of the church as an establishment...not its actual members.

In meeting with Abuse victims, is the Pope trying to save his image? Or is he really trying to nurture and care for his church? I want the latter to be true. I do. He's a very powerful person who can do a lot of good with the resources he has. However, he had decades to meet and pray with abuse victims, but never did so until the media started pointing out this exact problem - that he allowed a culture of half-tolerance for child abuse in the church, and worse, ignored its victims.

HRC - Chicken or Egg?

2010-04-09T10:38:00.005-04:00

I had a conversation last night with a relatively new fundraising person at HRC who works on major donors. Andrew Sullivan's name came up, as we were talking about people who do/don't support the organization. This HRCer was annoyed that people like Andrew and me don't give HRC any money, but we complain that that the organization can't get anything done. I tried to explain to him that most people don't want to give money to an organization that they already know to be wasteful and ineffective. I suggested that he and HRC first prove to people like us that they are being fiscally conservative and making an impact, and then ask us for money. Basically, show us what you can do with a little, and we'll make sure there's more (it's how most investor-funded businesses are started, and it works) His reply (as I remember it) was "something has to come first, the chicken or the egg." Imagine approaching an investment firm and saying that.

The Pope is Not a Bad Guy - a personal conversation

2010-04-02T15:33:00.003-04:00

You don't devote your life to Christ, and be elected by a bunch of other people who have devoted their life to christ, and still be a bad guy. I had a fascinating conversation with a close friend about this today. That friend was kind enough to let me publish our conversation - typos and all. Check it out:

Friend: okay chase you are pushing it!!! Lol I know the Pope scandal is a big deal but I think you are going over the top with the blatant Nazi references. it's like you're having fun with this

Me: well, the nazi reference wasn't mine...

Friend: I will not claim to know all there is to know about this, for sure, nor that the pope is not at fault.

Me: he was actually a memnber of the nazi party, and his personal preacher is trying to connect him with people who suffered under the nazi party

Friend: and did Ratzinger actually inflict any damage? wasn't he nazi youth? not okay, but not auschwitz

Friend: and I agree completely that comparing his suffering to the suffering of hte Jews is egregiously stupid

Me: I don't know if he killed or hurt anyone as a Nazi youth member. But he wore the uniform, and is, for better or worse, associated with the Nazi party. To try to claim a connection between media suffering and jews suffering in camps is ridiculous. I hope my tone doesn't sound like I'm having fun with it

Friend: oh sure

Me: I genuinely think the Pope is a bad person. I genuinely think he is a bad leader

Friend: okay well I disagree with you there, although I respect your right to feel that way remember that those were not the pope's words and I feel that while they were a poor choice of words on the priest's part, they seem to be blown out of proportion

Me: I genuinely think the Christ I got to know growing up would not want the Pope to be the leader of 8 billion Christians

Friend: what about the pope bothers you? I don't think he chose to be a member of the nazi youth. as for all of this scandal thing, I don't know enough about it to pass judgment

Me: no, it's not his nazi past that bothers me

Friend: but have you read any of his encyclicals? have you read his writings or anything good about him or just the bad stuff people are reporting?

Me: 1) he's out of touch with Catholics. Especially in regards to the sex abuse, he either deliberately or accidentally kept his head buried in the sand

Me: 2) he is staunchly homophobic. This doesn't effect me too much, except that his dogma empowers a lot of other people to keep people like me from coming out, from being honest, or from being a part of a church they want to be in

Friend: okay, that's the teachings of the church as a whole, not just the pope, so I think that issue is with Catholicism overall. not that it's okay, and yes he's a part of it, but any other pope would be the same at this point

Me: 3) He has repeatedly spoken against the use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS in Africa, saying that abstinence is the christian way to do it. Again, dogma is hurting real people, and hurting them in huge numbers

Friend: ah, yeah that's a sticky issue. again, not just him, but I know what you mean, he's the leader. Yeah I mean I’m not Catholic! and some of those are parts of the reasons why. I just am challening you, not because I"m mad, but because I want to have that discussion

Me: but this one is him specifically, because he has personally spoken publicly on the issue, and refused funding for safe sex campaigns in Africa that have been proven to work by non-christian organizations

Friend: ah I see

Me: i'm not mad either, and could never be mad at you!

Friend: :}

Me: but there are several tangible reasons why I don't like the Pope. it's not just a knee jerk reaction to the Catholic faith which he happens to lead. His own speeches and opinions are actually harmful to people

Friend: yeah I see. I know, it's hard for me because on the one hand I understand theologically why he feels certain ways. even if I don't agree, so I am not angry at him in the same way and I sort of understand the morally sticky situaton he is in, but I also agree with you taht there is bad crap coming out of it. yeah, I just think it's easy (not that you're doing this) but it's easy for a lot of people to just look at the press and turn him into a villain without taking a closer look at what he has done and that I get frustrated by

Me: I admit that I don't look at the good things he has done. a media problem anywhere, bad news is better news

Friend: right, and that's the case all the time, not just with this. here is an interesting article that my husband found and I want you to look at the stuff that's come directly from the pope

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html

you may not agree but it's an interesting poitn of view to consider. and one that I wasn't familiar with.

Friend: anywya thanks for discussing with me! :}

Me: reading the article now

Me: the writer seems to be saying, in the first half, that the victims should have gone to civil authorities. The fact is, they didn't. They went to the church and the church did nothing. One can't blame the victims for not going to civil authorities after religious authorities shunned them

I have trouble with religious leaders (clearly). On the one hand, how can the Pope be a bad guy? He's connected to Christ every day right?

Friend: it says the police and prosecurors ignored reports from victims, which implies that they DID go to civil authorieis

Me: my bad, it says that the church people should have gone to civil authorities

Me: so, my point would change - either way, the church did nothing. how can you turn your back to a crying child?

Me: I mean, the Pope should be a good guy right? He's devoted his life to teaching Christ's love (that was a big part of the speech he gave when he was first elected to the Papacy...connecting with Christ)

Friend: well, okay, the point of this article is to say that while everyone is blaming the pope, a lot of the blame should be placed on the diocesan authorities. I think he is not necessarily trying to address the idea of Benedict's guilt but is emphasizing the logical fallacies in the writer's piece (which, granted, may not necessarily relate to what you and I were discussing)

Me: so, I get frustrated when there is a lot of hatred, or passive ignoring of problems like HIV/AIDS, women's roles in the church, and child molesting priests

Friend: right but, the pope is an easy scapegoat

Me: he's in charge

Friend: and as the leader of the Catholic church, he can be connected to those things for sure

Me: he was literally in charge of addressing the child rape problems

before he was pope

Friend: I still feel like there is a lot of bureacracy there, it's not like things came directly to him. And again, I am not trying to argue his innocence, I am just saying that there are things that are issues with the church as a whole, or with diocesan problems that may not have been well dealt with that are getting translated into a criminialization of the pope

Me: I don't know how much he knew. But, if he didn't know what was going on, he wasn't effective in his position

Friend: okay, and that's a legitimate argument

Me: it wouldn't surprise me if we all find out that the people under him hid things from him to "protect" him

Friend: yes, me neither, which would be a problem, but not his fault

Me: unless he knew people were hiding it and accepted it

Friend: I just basically take issue with a lot of reporters that seem out to demonize him

the Catholic church gets hated on a lot and I understand the reasoning behind some of it

Me: frankly, they are the source of a LOT of hate.

Friend: a lot of churches are sources of a lot of hate, fundamentalist churches are oftn just as bad. not that that makes it okay!! But…

Me: yes, not just Catholics

Friend: and I truly believe that the pope, and the good catholics out there, are doing their best to work towards a loving and Christlike world and some of their tactics are not Christlike

Me: to your point, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I shouldn't be hating on the church so much....why spread more hatred?

Friend: which is not okay, but perhaps true! although Id o think it is legitimate to challenge things that are hurtful or bad, but I do think that we tend to spend a lot of time looking at the things that divide us and don't necessarily make the effort to find the good, or the commonalities

it isi a lot harder especially when the bad stuff can be so hurtful

Me: I definitely fall into that category. of course, it's also easy for people in the US to villainize the Pope because we don't have a personal connection with him

Friend: I think we all do. but anyway. here's hoping the Vatican, and we, can move forward in a good and loving direction towards justice and a future free of this kind of awfulness

Me: maybe the media has ignored him saying this, but what a statement it would be if he got up and said, "Children of Christ, I am sorry for your pain that any Church official has caused you. Abuse is unacceptable and I want to promise you that we are forcefully ridding our Church family of this problem." again, I probably don't hear the good stuff like that he says trying to actually read some of his recent letters/speeches now

Friend: yeah, I know he made a speech about it when he came to the US

Me: he's the first pope to ever meet with sex abuse victims, that's a huge wall to break down

Friend: I wish I could find the text of his speech, I just found this, which is Catholic News Service: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802072.htm

not exactly unbiased, but a start

Me: here's that speech: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_bishops-usa_en.html

Friend: good find

Friend: okay, so it's about two paragraphs of the whole thing. they're good of course, the question is, is it enough? but it's something

Me: so, in this speech, as well as in his recent letter to the Irish Bishops, he constantly says (paraphrase) "YOU need to have better relationships with your diocese...etc."

Friend: yeah, he's not talking about it as his job, but his job to shepherd them in doing it right

Me: it was especially noticeable in his letter to the Irish: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Friend: I don't think at this point that he's trying to pass it off

Me: he's trying to get them to do the right thing I think

Friend: yes

Me: but it seems like he's trying to do it without taking responsibility for leading them into doing it it seems he's saying "you should do this" instead of "I am going to make sure this doesn't happen anymore"

Friend: yeah, again, I'm not sure whether that is passing it off, or legitimately acknowledging that it's their job. i think some of that has to do with hierarchy and bureacracy

Me: maybe i'm too in love with Obama, who has made every problem a personal goal of his to change, lol

Friend: hahah I know. but I see whta you mean, too. we want to hear him make it more of a personal goal for him, himself. very interesting

I actually have to go now

The Pope is the Victim?

2010-04-02T14:27:00.002-04:00

'Ratzinger's personal preacher likened accusations against the pope and the Catholic church in the sex abuse scandal to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.' - you know...the same violence that Ratzinger inflicted as a member of the Nazi party. How shameful for the Pope or anyone around him to play the victim and try to identify with victims that actually suffered under his hand as a member of the Nazi party.

Any person with half a Christian heart knows that the victims are the children who suffered. If the Pope and his cronies would grow a pair and take charge of the problem, they might earn back some respect. But so far, what a disgraceful group of people over in Rome.

Why is he the Pope?

2010-04-01T16:50:00.000-04:00

Either the Pope lied and covered up sex abuse, or he failed in his job to rid the church of sex Abuse - a task for which he was specifically brought to Rome by JPII. The church claims that Ratzinger knew nothing about the alleged abuse reports when he Headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which begs the question - if he was not aware of the most critical issue facing his Church in centuries, an issue he was specifically tasked to resolve, why is he the Pope?

UPDATE: HuffPost highlights housing story as #1 story

2010-03-26T14:12:00.000-04:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

HuffPost Guilty of Negative Journalism When it Comes to Housing

2010-03-26T12:26:00.004-04:00

All week, the Huffington Post has been showcasing articles about the Administration's failure to provide loan modification programs for underwater borrowers. These articles have appeared at or near the top of the HuffPost homepage.

After months of negotiating with the banks and determining the amount of money needed, the Administration has announced (this morning) that they will be doing exactly what HuffPost has been criticizing them for not doing all week.

This is actually a pretty historic announcement. $14 billion dollars are being used to lower the principal amount owed on home loans. Considering that HuffPost was so vocal about the importance of this, even just yesterday...why is this story not appearing ANYWHERE on their homepage?

Are "Shockingly Sexy Novels," which currently appear on the homepage, more important than digging out of the housing crisis? No...this has nothing to do with newsworthiness. The Huffpost is not much better than all Journalism that came before it - in essence, a negative story with a clear enemy goes to page 1. A story about progress, even one that turns yesterday's page 1 enemy into a hero, gets buried.

Catholic Church: "Oh S#$%"

2010-03-25T14:45:00.002-04:00

The Vicar of Christ on Earth is directly responsible for hiding/ignoring child rape in the church. The Catholic Church has not seen a crisis like this in centuries.

I Heart Andrew Sullivan

2010-03-25T13:16:00.003-04:00

He disagrees with me on Dan Choi, but at least he published my dissent! It started a small wave of emails from his readers, so instead of writing any more myself, here's a link to the reader comments on Dan Choi and DADT

Dan Choi, Kathy Griffin, HRC, and the Face of DADT

2010-03-23T10:48:00.006-04:00

This is inspired by a facebook post I responded to earlier today. There have been a couple public developments in the fight against DADT. These two developments leave me frustrated.

Dan Choi has become a poster child of sorts. Most recently, he chained himself to the White House fence in crucifix position. I personally think that invoking Christ is not the way to win an argument on DADT, and chaining yourself to a fence is a cry for attention that doesn't actually achieve anything.

I feel that over-activism usually works against a worthy cause. Self righteously chaining yourself to a fence and making a spectacle makes it easy to dismiss the seriousness of DADT. This kind of behavior makes us look like the radical fringe that the right wing wants us to be. I am neither radical nor fringe, and most of the people at the SLDN Dinner this weekend are not either.

Another new development is the nomination of Kathy Griffin by HRC to be the spokesperson for the movement to repeal DADT. I actually love Kathy Griffin. She's bold, she's tells it like it is, and she's a great comedian! But she is not a soldier and she is not representative of the LGBT soldier.

Enlisting a loud mouth fag hag comedian to be the spokesperson for the repeal of DADT paints a picture of LGBT soldiers that is neither accurate, nor relatable to the opposition. Once again, HRC has shown that they are good at throwing parties with the popular people. When it comes to a serious discussion on serious change, they appear to be falling short. And as much as I love Kathy Griffin, I wish she would stick to what she is really good at - making me laugh.

Government is DOing

2010-03-23T08:38:00.004-04:00

I am already a supporter of the Obama administration. Though, I'm generally not a supporter of single party congressional power, as I think mixed government is the most fair way to rule.

Still, I can't help but be amazed at how much our government is actually getting DONE.

-We've finally grown a pair and are taking a strong stand in mideast talks between Israel and Palestine (I predict Hillary will be remembered for this more than many things).

-We have become a full partner with the Mexican government in the drug war.

-We have and continue to change the way banks are run and regulated.

-We are continually making affordable housing and foreclosure assistance available to Americans (thanks Mom!)

-The words "gay, domestic partner, and homosexual" have been spoken in positive light by the President on many occasions.

-There is a Senate Bill to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell

-And of course there's the Health Care Bill - the largest piece of legislation aimed at helping an under-served group of Americans since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To paraphrase Rachel Maddow from her show last night, today's government is not just increasing taxes slightly, signing off on a budget and making sure things keep running smoothly. Today's government, especially with regard to Health Care, is actually identifying and correcting large-scale inequalities that exist in America. They are doing their job and I'm very glad to see it.

Re-inventing the Mortgage

2010-03-21T21:37:00.003-04:00

Maybe it's my fever speaking through me right now, but after musings with a friend today, I really got thinking. Does anyone stay in/own their house for 30 years any more? I have only empirical data to back this up, but it seems to me that living in a home for a very extended amount of time is not as common as it was when 30 year fixed loans were created. In large cities or new developments where the housing boom flourished this year, it is easy to see that the turning over of property is much more frequent. Why then, are the instruments with which to buy property (mortgages) still only tailored to the long-term homeowner, when short term homeowners are becoming more common?

Obviously ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages) were an attempt to find common ground. This attempt was shortsighted to say the least.

There must be a way safe to reconcile the structure of the loan with the actual housing/living habits of the homeowner. I'm not a math wiz, so I haven't gotten that far yet...but let's keep pondering

Lenten Sacrifice

2010-02-18T22:59:00.002-05:00

Currently, I'm not a very religious person, and even when I was I never liked the idea of giving up something for Lent. Maybe I was too childish at the time, too selfish? Both were probably accurate, and I hope now that I am neither.

Though religion eludes me, I can understand and appreciate the meaning of Lent. Jesus, before beginning his ministry, spent 40 days in the desert fasting and praying - basically, getting ready to be the Messiah. The Christian Lenten tradition of sacrifice is supposed to be the modern Christian's way of acting like Christ did during these 40 days and getting closer to God.

Unfortunately, there is so much emphasis put on "sacrifice" today that the praying part of Christ's 40 days gets lost in Lent. When faced with two options - giving up carbs for 40 days or praying regularly and intently for 40 days - I suspect most people would say that option 1 is easier. I believe that this is why many Christians hold onto the sacrifice part of Lent, and ignore the prayer/introspection part of it. As most of us know, it's easier to close the pantry than look deeply into oneself. I can attest to the difficulty of the latter.

Even for the non religious types, Lent has a good lesson. Take time to spend with yourself. Look inside, challenge your beliefs and habits. Get yourself ready to be more passionate about something, or more open, or more aware of your own thoughts. I spend so much time focusing on external problems, that the internal ones can easily be ignored. I know I'm not alone in this.

Today's Fun/Crazy Story

2010-02-16T08:40:00.002-05:00

I went to buy Tylenol at the convenience store in my building because I'm starting to have some sinus and throat pain. The Chinese lady who runs the store stopped me and said, "no no no, I heal you. Natural, healthy living, werwy wewry healthy." She told me how she prays to god everyday because he lets her eat and drink healthy and she doesn't get sick. She proceeded to pull several powders and liquid droppers from the back of the store and made me some kind of herbal, holistic, magic potion healing tea. She said (and acted out) that I would drink this and then kick down the door on my way out because I feel so strong [imagine a little Chinese lady pretending to kick down a door, then posing like a body builder, arms in the air and flexing her biceps]. I am now drinking a $5 cup of tea that tastes like what I can only imagine the root of a lemon tree tastes like. Life is fun sometimes eh?

Connect

2010-02-15T08:48:00.003-05:00

I'm finally returning to my (mostly) daily writing. I've been interrupted with a series of events, which have given me lots of time to think, and hopefully some of those thoughts will translate to this blog.

Today's post is about relationships - not the romantic kind, but more about general friendly and familial relationships we develop throughout our lives. Let me start, however, by talking about death. When someone in our life dies, we all have different ways of dealing with it. A very close member of my family passed away recently, and I had my share of tears, public and private. The emotional and physical exhaustion of grief can become too much, however. Though I am still saddened by the void in my life, I turn to the more pragmatic side of me to mourn my grandmother and honor her life. I have been reflecting on what I have learned from this person who helped raise me? How has she made my life better, and how can I use the same methods to make other people's lives better?

Love. That's what Gigi was really good at. She never missed an opportunity to start a friendship with someone she met along the way. It didn't matter what circumstance brought you into her life - if you were her florist, a Baroness who lived down the road, an in-law new to the family, an overworked CEO she met at a party, a realtor showing the house next door, a stubborn grandkid - she made time for you. She put aside her busyness, masked her physical pain, and brought a disarming smile to every conversation so that you could feel comfortable and loved while you were with her.

I used to be a lot like her in this way. I remember as a kid being full of affection for others, walking up to strangers and saying, "hey, how ya doin?" I know exactly where this openness came from. Yet, somewhere along the way, with work, life, school, stress, insecurity, I lost a lot of that. I suspect I'm not alone here. It's easy for us to get bogged down in ourselves, and forget that we are surrounded by people all yearning (though they may not admit it) for the same thing we are - a connection.

Some people reading this are going to have a cynic's view - "I have enough friends already." Others are going to say, "yeah I'm totally with you - I'll start next week." Well, I just don't believe the cynic, and I don't know if next week will even come. So, connect today, right now. Literally, go on facebook, or pick up the phone and contact someone you normally wouldn't. If it doesn't somehow make you or them smile, then let me know and I'll change that.

Snow Does NOT Challenge Global Warming. I Repeat...

2010-02-09T15:02:00.002-05:00

The Washington Times ran an editorial thanking the snow gods for proving that global warming doesn't exist.

Is the Times totally mad? Yes. Well - pigheaded and stupid is more like it. Precipitation (moisture in the air) and Temperature (that thing that Al Gore says is rising) are completely different. We had a bunch of moisture coming up from the South recently, and because it's winter, that moisture turns into snow. If it were summer, it would be rain. Would the teabaggers be crying afoul then? Well - probably, and they'd be just as stupid. There's no link to Snowmageddon and Global Warming. Our winter has been roughly the same temperature as it was last year, just more precipitation.

Do facts mean anything over at the Times?

Ebbing

2010-02-08T15:40:00.001-05:00

I didn't write this, but please, may it encourage all 5 of you who read my blog to live today for today.

It begins slowly. A birthday forgotten, glasses misplaced, a letter lost, a bill unpaid, car keys which keep vanishing, rules of a poker game confused, a deadline missed, a phone call un-returrned or returned twice, a dinner date kept - on the wrong night; clothes mismatched, names forgotten, friends ignored, messages mixed up, words elusive, old jokes told and re-told again and again and again as if for the first time.

Little things. Unimportant individually. But together they send a cruel message.

The mind is going away. Slowly. And the body is not far behind.

Falling? How did I end up tush over heels in the bath tub? Or in the window well? Nothing bruised or broken. Certainly wasn’t dizziness – just an isolated incident. Ignore it.

Driving? Where did that VDOT truck come from? I’m sure it wasn’t there when I pulled out of the driveway. Fortunately, we have another vehicle – didn’t really need the truck and no one was hurt. But… a trip to Costco or Harris Teeter, once a quick jaunt…has now become a challenge. Any drive beyond the confines of Middleburg becomes a question: “Is this really necessary”? (Local merchants who charge three times the normal price for everything are delighted !)

Fix a leak, repair a broken valve…replace a ceiling light bulb…kneel to pull weeds, plant bulbs, drive the tractor …such simple things…. once the pride of

manhood… now difficult, often impossible. Where did those abilities go? How

did they vanish seemingly overnight?

Entertaining. We were the “party people”. Loved giving dinners for friends; cocktail parties for a hundred (or more); Christmas or New Years? Birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, welcome to the neighborhood? Come to our house! What fun they were, those parties of yesterday. Now even the thought of guests sends me spiraling. What to serve, who to invite, what flowers or favors or fun stuff can one produce when simply getting from the kitchen to the living room is a challenge? When living with pain becomes a daily reality.

“A” types don’t accept reality….they try to defy it. Until they can’t. How long can we pretend to ignore the creeping paralysis of mind and body? Push yourself, we say. Write that column, mow that lawn, attend that Benefit affair, call that friend, finish the project so long ignored, volunteer for the Church auction, and pray that no one notices those failing physical and mental frailities.

Find beauty in turning leaves and changing times. And bless those who make each day possible.

-AWB

Things are Changing

2010-02-03T22:14:00.004-05:00

There's plenty to write about this week. DADT is all over the news, and top military leaders are calling for its repeal. Who can argue with an order from the top?

We're currently in two wars, and 3 American soldiers were just killed by a roadside bomb in Pakistan. Are we going to find ourselves in a third war? Scary thought huh?

AIG executives, again, find a way to swindle tax payers into paying for their yachts. And Obama won't grow a pair and stand up to them, citing "contract obstacles."

One of my "local banks" was closed by the FDIC, and asset control is now assumed by another local bank. I moved my money without even knowing it.

What does this all amount to? Things are changing - a lot.

Union of the State

2010-01-28T09:20:00.003-05:00

Very cleverly, last night Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to start getting along. Moreoever, he told them to stop selfishly trying to advanced their careers, and start legislating FOR the people who elected them. He told the Democrats to stop being pansies (finally), and he told the Republicans to take some responsibility for legislating instead of blindly saying no to everything. Nobel words, and I hope he keeps his promise to constantly and publicly engage the Republican party to bring more cohesion across the aisle.

To paraphrase the President, there are some issues we just won't agree on, but we can agree on some basic things that all people deserve, like better access to doctors, a more stable economy, access to more jobs, and yes, equal rights for people who are willing to die for America. I can shoot a rifle as well or better than the other armsmen in the lanes next to me at Blue Ridge Arsenal, I go to the gym more than most of them, and I can run faster than most of them. Yet, I'm not allowed to save their ass from international threats while maintaining honesty with my peers. It's asinine (thanks a lot Clinton).

Obama made some good, direct suggestions for Congress. One of my favorites was getting rid of the capital gains tax for small businesses. Like DADT, it's about time. He also suggested some republican-like energy options (coal and offshore oil drilling). This was smart smart smart. If you want to bring cooperation across the aisle, then it has to come from both sides.

I would have liked him to speak more to the American people and say something like, "Dear Americans, your elected officials owe it to you to spend their time legislating and not campaigning. Call, email, write to them to tell them to start spending more time on the Hill and less time on Meet the Press."

The Senator from Wal Mart

2010-01-22T08:30:00.004-05:00

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns.

There is no way that my voice will or can be as powerful as the voice of a corporation when it comes to political support during elections. Why is a corporation being treated like an individual? The special interest money is going to start pouring in and elections will truly be different from now on. This is sad and wrong.

Balance Of Power, Remember That?

2010-01-21T07:50:00.003-05:00

I truly believe that Government is most responsible when multiple parties share power. When the White House, Senate and House or Representatives are all controlled by the same machine, what we have is a majority forcing their will on a minority. That is counter to the ideology of our system of Government, but moreover it's dangerous. Look what happened in California when a majority forced its will on a minority...

The fact that the Dems no longer have a super majority is a good thing. It means that they must work on legislation that appeals to everyone, not just an elite group of liberals.

A Quick Thought About Online Dating

2010-01-19T22:16:00.002-05:00

I've never been a fan of online dating. It seems artificial and impersonal to me. Even so, I had a thought this weekend while talking about dating websites with a friend. Many of us spend most of our daylight hours online. Therefore, doesn't meeting someone there sort of make sense?

It's like, if you spend a lot of time on the tennis court, you'll probably meet someone on the tennis court.

Maybe online dating says less about how we meet people and date, and more about how (or where) we spend most of our time.

Dream A Little

2010-01-18T22:21:00.005-05:00

Note - when I first started contemplating this post, I swear it had nothing to do with King's "I have a Dream Speech," but in hindsight that seems to apply as well, and is timely on MLK weekend.

Do you know someone with a Type A personality? Someone who goes by the numbers, makes decisions based on logic, evidence, facts, quantifiable data? Sure...we all know someone like this, or are that person ourselves. Type A's are not dreamers. They get stuff done, line ducks up, plan and react methodically. At different times in my life, I have vacillated between the two types. Playing the violin, though you might think is a dreamer's avocation, takes a very methodical discipline. There's nothing dreamy about sitting in a room for 3 hours playing the same 13 notes over and over and over again. Burying my head in books for 3.5 years getting a BA in English is where my type B really came out. It was a fun degree!

I don't mean to get too off topic, though. I want to talk about the necessity of dreaming. An example:

At work, we're going through a growth/change period of taking a look more closely at numbers, metrics, quantifiable goals, and the like. It's something that my company hasn't done to this degree before, and I have to admit there is a lot of comfort in knowing what the exact target is for a particular week, quarter, year, or individual. Spreadsheeting a job, or your life for that matter, makes it more accessible, tangible, and therefore controllable. Life is easier when you can define it.

On the flip side of things, I keep remembering how my company was created. My boss had an idea for something that didn't exist yet. He took out way too much personal debt, asked family and friends to believe in him and loan him money, and he created something that didn't really take off for a while. It eventually became an INC 500 company and now enjoys a good reputation within the software world. After 10 years of being in business, it is only now that we are implementing the Type A stuff. It wasn't spreadsheets, hard targets and data that got Capterra where it is today...it was essentially a bit of dreaming.

Now that the dream has proven itself more than fleeting, enter Type A. It's a good, worthy dream, so let's turn into work horses and make this dream a little more tangible. Some call this type of activity "growing up," or "being more serious." I would put forth that the true grown up stuff is recognizing the necessity of both the dream and the implementation. Recognizing that they each have their own time and role, neither of which less or more important than the other's.

A lot could be written here, but for brevity I'll just end with a thought. Even when you want to stick to the comfort of data and facts, don't forget to dream a bit - something good usually comes out of it.

Obama's Bank Fee - what are your thoughts?

2010-01-15T09:39:00.003-05:00

Obama is proposing a bank fee that is based on the size of a banks' balance sheet. Essentially, the more risk a bank takes on, the higher the "fee" will be.

First of all, it's a tax. Call a spade a spade. Secondly, it's misdirected. The administration seems to be saying that this fee is supposed to encourage banks not to shell out huge bonuses (many of which are given after the bank took taxpayer money). Punishing a bank for its leverage doesn't really address the problem of huge bonuses. Why not punish a bank for making bonuses after taking tarp money? Wouldn't that actually solve the problem President Obama trying to resolve?

In my mind the worst aspect of this fee is that it can be applied to banks who never took a dime of taxpayer money. This robin hooding is unfair. Banks who are successful, and don't rely on government bailouts, are being punished.

What are your thoughts?

The Bible is Not a F%#$ing Weapon

2010-01-13T23:08:00.005-05:00

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Wednesday that earthquake-ravaged Haiti has been "cursed" by a "pact to the devil."

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Just like that, Mr. Robertson permits the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because of a pact they apparently made with the devil. C'mon...this isn't a Disney movie Mr. Robertson. Your "pact" amounts to no more than them being born in a different location and of a different skin tone than you. Mr. Robertson, did the Archbishop of Haiti who perished in the earthquake also have a pact with the devil? Did the unborn and newly born children of Haiti also have a pact with the devil? Did the humanitarian workers, the average law abiding Hatians, even the petty thieves in Haiti, have a pact with the devil? No.

The idea that being Christian makes you an authority on Godliness is preposterous and completely out of line with the teaching of Jesus Christ. If I sound angry here it's because I am, and you should be too dear readers. Mr. Robertson, and millions of people like him, use God and the Bible to justify bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, white supremacist views. They use the bible to permit and excuse the annihilation of millions of people due to natural disasters (and I would argue unnatural deaths as well). These people are using your God to achieve hatred. Mr. Robertson and those like him are to Christianity what the Jihadists are to the religion of Islam - dangerous, hate-flled extremes.

If Mr. Robertson, or anyone else including you, wants to actually act like a Christian or a decent human being, then send money, thoughts, prayers, food, whatever you have, to Haiti. Any decent human being should be saying "how can I help?" not "they deserved it." Here's one way you can help:

To assist relief efforts: text "HAITI" to "90999" and $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross, charged to your cell phone bill. Or text "Yele" to 501501 and $5 will be donated to Wyclef Jean Charity. Seriously, it's a couple of dollars...you can afford it. They can't afford not to have it.

2009 mashup

2010-01-12T23:03:00.002-05:00

I know it's two weeks late, but for anyone who hasn't seen it!

no title for this one

2010-01-11T23:17:00.005-05:00

I watched a movie tonight called Conspiracy. It's a recreation of the Wannsee Conference of 1942 during which Hitler's "Final Solution" was agreed upon by SS and other Nazi leaders. There are many striking aspects to this film, and one which resonated with me was the lack of humanity and emotion in much of the dialogue about the Jewish people that were to be terminated. The Nazi leaders, probably out of fear for their own lives, had stuffed all emotion deep inside themselves, hiding it away, and were treating Jewish people like parts on an assembly line, or simple objects that had to be dealt with. There's no denying this is a horrible way to go about life - yet, I think to some extent we all still do it.

Please know, it is not my intention to trivialize the Holocaust here, but rather to pull some tangible lesson from an event that was so gross in concept and scale that comprehending it as a whole defies words.

There is a danger in pushing your human feelings so deep inside so that you cannot experience them. On a large and hard to imagine scale, as is horribly depicted in Conspiracy, you can forget that everyone on this earth is a human being, and that they have as much right to breath the air as you do. On a smaller and more identifiable scale, ignoring your emotions is dangerous because it makes you capable of treating other people in your life as if they have no humanity themselves. When you smother your own ability to feel, you also smother your ability to empathize. The result is that you disregard people as objects, doing and saying things to them without the ability to understand or care how it will affect them.

We've all done this, knowingly or not. And some of us continue, knowingly or not. Don't sit quietly and ignore a voice that is trying to bubble up from inside of you. Don't push away a thought, a conversation, or a person because you don't want to deal with a particular feeling. If you get too good at doing this, you'll end up hurting a lot more people than you're able to realize.

"Hi, I'm Joe. What do you do?"

2010-01-10T22:39:00.003-05:00

If you live in DC, you know how it goes...you meet someone for the first time, and the second question out of their mouth is "what do you do?"

Lately, I've been frustrated by this question. I actually love my job and love talking about to people about it (check out www.Capterra.com). However, when this question precedes nearly everything else in the conversation, it can seem like an interview question. I know I'm not alone in thinking that "what do you do?" can roughly be rephrased as, "can your job help me in some way?" or "is what you do cool enough for my attention?"

There are those who are genuinely interested in how you chose to spend a third of your day, but more often than not I sense that "what do you do" is more about who is asking than who is answering. I recently spent a week in Chicago, meeting a bunch of new people at several parties. Only twice (I counted) was I asked about my job. It was extremely refreshing to make new friends and not discuss or care about what we do for work.

Even when you have a job you love, there are many other ways to define yourself. This philosophy goes back to my post a few days ago about doing things that make you smile outside of a paycheck. Surely there's a lot more to you and your friends than what they do, so try ignoring that question next time you meet someone - I bet you'll have a much more interesting conversation.

What Makes You Smile?

2010-01-07T21:52:00.002-05:00

Before you had a job, before you worried about paying rent or building your resume or meeting a deadline, what did you do for fun? Did you play baseball? Video games? An instrument?

I ran cross country and played the violin. I try to do both of those things still, but don't always have time unfortunately. I find that when I'm not able to do both of those things with some regularity, I feel a little less happy. Part of that is probably the endorphins from running, but I think more of it is the freedom in being able to do something for myself - not for a paycheck, or for gaining experience, or any any other number of reasons we do things that aren't our first choice - but just for me.

Even when we do work, and have bills, and responsibilities we don't necessarily want, we still have the ability to do something for ourselves everyday. Turning off your morning alarm on your birthday, watching tv for a few extra minutes, eating food you like even if it's not in your diet. Be selfish, do something that is going to make you smile.

Gun Control

2010-01-06T22:14:00.002-05:00

It's not an easy topic to talk about, as we all have different relationships with guns. I grew up shooting paper targets at indoor ranges, and I've enjoyed picking it up again. I live in a city where my best friend has been held up in his own condo building. In this city, semi-automatic guns are legal and there are a lot of angry people here - that's a dangerous combination. As much as I want the government to leave everyone alone, I'm also scared that mean people have access to guns.

So which one wins out - fear or free rights?

Keep Learning

2010-01-05T19:46:00.002-05:00

I went to the Museum of Science and Industry today in Chitown and forgot how great it is to actually learn! It's a great museum if you get the chance to go (free on Tuesdays), but really any museum you pass by deserves entry. Someone (usually a lot of people) thought that whatever is in the museum was worth investing a lot of time and money...so it probably was - don't miss out on continuing to learn!

Saying Yes

2010-01-04T12:06:00.003-05:00

A close friend and great guy inspired me to write about "saying yes" and how empowering that can be. The word "no" comes so easily to us all...in first and second dates, in continuing new relationships, in the act of compromising (or not), in accepting responsibility at work, in opening yourself up to a new friend, and letting someone step in front of you in line at the supermarket - this list could go on.

Did you see that Jim Carey movie "Yes Man?" In it, Jim Carey was unable to say no to anything, and had a wild series of adventures, and a much more interesting life than anyone you or I probably know. I encourage you to start saying "yes" to more in your life. It's so easy to hide behind the word "no" but when yo do that you miss out on a new friend, a new memory, a good story to tell down the road, and who knows...even a new career or life partner.

Many of us can feel tied down by work, or family commitments, or social constraints, but saying "yes" is very freeing, and you should empower yourself to let go of your strings and start saying yes to things that would normally give you pause. I think that "saying yes" will be a recurring theme this year for me, so I hope it will be for you too.

Defining Marriage

2010-01-02T19:03:00.003-05:00

I don't want to talk about gay marriage rights here. Instead, I want to talk about how to define any marriage or relationship in the context of commitment, respect, support, patience, and other ingredients.

Some questions to start with: is a spell of verbal abuse any more tolerable than a cheating spouse? Is a sexless relationship any more tolerable than a relationship void of respect or love? Is an open relationship any more or less acceptable than secret infidelity?

I use two words in these questions very purposefully; tolerable and acceptable. Relationships, notably long-lasting marriages, are an exercise in tolerating things you prefer not to for the sake of commitment. Relationships are also defined by both participants and outsiders determining what is and is not acceptable - this is usually where people (myself included) tend to judge other relationships. Some people call these rules, some call them morals, and some call them mandates from God. These rules, if you will, are different for everyone.

For some, years of drug abuse is tolerable, while a regretful act of infidelity is not. For others, the sharing of finances and spending is more strictly regulated than promiscuity. Still, others have seemingly conventional rules yet have lost any feelings of love between the individuals.

In my limited relationship experience, my own idea of what is acceptable and tolerable leans heavily to the conventional side. But I know that what is right for me has two characteristics: it is only applicable to me and my life, and it may change over the course of my life. I haven't been with anyone for more than a couple years, so I don't know how more or less tolerable I'll be with someone after 20 years of marriage. I also know that my definition of a relationship is my own, and that hopefully helps me to be less judgmental of other relationships.

It seems strange to be writing about relationships considering I'm single...but having had a good bit of time pass since my last committed relationship allows me to look back at the big picture of things. Whatever your philosophy is, you need to define your unique relationship with your partner clearly. You also have to trust that he or she will honor that. This relationship defining moment isn't unique to the altar at your wedding, or your first DTR talk...people change throughout their whole lives, so relationships also change throughout their lives.

I must say thank you to two good friends and a bottle of 1800 for opening up this conversation over lunch earlier today. I'm sure it's a conversation that will continue...

Huffpost Rallying Cry for Banking Local May Leave us Crying

2010-01-01T12:50:00.005-05:00

This week, Arianna Huffington started a rallying cry for Americans to move their money out of big banks (JP Morgan/Chase, Citibank, BofA, and Wells Fargo) and into local banks. The reason for this is to reward local banks for being responsible by not taking tax payer money and not shelling out big bonuses despite failing balance sheets, and punish big banks for being irresponsible in doing the opposite.

Initial reports indicate that some Americans are listening to the media maven. Some, like me, will move money for better interest rates and better customer service (thank you USAA). Others, will do it simply because Arianna says it's a good idea.

The notion of rushing the national banks is very very scary. What would happen if JP Morgan lost 50% of its deposits? Lending would basically stop, they wouldn't be able to invest anymore, and wouldn't have the ability to continue to pay back the loans that taxpayers have given through stimulus funding. It's important to remember that the big banks are all paying back their loans on time with interest. Arianna seems intent on ruining the big banks, but surely her economics professors from Cambridge would be worrisome of such a dramatic rush on the banks that hold most of Americans' wealth and investments.

If we as a society have a problem with banks shelling out large bonuses (and we should have a problem with this!), then let's address that problem. Instead of taking our money away from national banks, let's take our votes away from the regulators who are not enforcing a seemingly fair ethical code on the entities they are funding. Does anyone truly think our economy can survive right now without these large financial institutions? Their infrastructure, their relationships with other lenders, loan servicers, and international banks allows them to do things that local banks simply can't. A large bank can afford to write down a mortgage to allow a homeowner to stay in their home...many local banks cannot afford something like this.

Another problem with the local bank rallying cry is that we don't have any evidence that local banks are more responsible or ethical than big banks. In fact, considering that local banks have less scrutiny by regulators as well as media, who's to say that they don't actually get away with more questionable activity when it comes to spending their customers' cash on bonuses or shaky investments? Story after story comes out of local banks closing because they gave out reckless loans. Is my money any safer at my local corner bank? There is no data to suggest that.

As an individual, you decided to put your money in XYZ bank. Before you decide to up and take it all out because HuffPost says so, how about looking at the finances of your banking institution. Are they paying back their tarp loan? Have you actually called or written to the bank and asked them to stop paying out big bonuses with your taxpayer-financed loan? This might be a good first step in getting the big banks to play a friendlier game. Is the alternative smaller bank going to treat you better and be more responsible with your money? Is there any net gain for you in switching? I'm not saying that moving local is the wrong decision for everyone, but it's a personal decision...not one to be made by a media giant.

12 months of learning

2009-12-29T00:34:00.002-05:00

Over the past 12 months, what have you learned? Here's a short and incomplete list of my lessons from 2009

-family, however you define that, is the most stable thing in your life
-surprises keep coming, so try to enjoy them
-it's easiest to see the good in people, but dangerous to ignore the bad in them
-your gut is never wrong, listen to it...especially when you don't want to
-try therapy. No really....I mean it
-don't take anyone for granted
-your words are powerful so be careful with them
-don't wait
-smile when you're down. It actually confuses your brain into thinking you are happy
-if you even think something is wrong, don't do it
-don't fear rejection. It's inevitable, and not the end of the world
-treat people well and you will smile more
-try a bunch of new things...you're bound to like one of them

Now how about your 12 months of learning? Please add to this list of lessons!

The Forest

2009-12-28T13:22:00.003-05:00

This is a prose poem I wrote for my family this year as their Christmas gift. I think it speaks to any close relationship, not just family.

....

‘Midst the earth stands a forest of trees. A grove, a clan, a family. Each stalk with its unique cloth of bark, its own voice of rustling leaves, its own markings of unique experience worn with pride, as if to say, "I am my own tree, not like the others, I am me."

Some of these arbors stand tall, marked with age from ...wind, scratches, broken limbs and faded gray flesh where lush brown bark once protected a warm center. Others stand in the shadow of the elders, sometimes looking up in reverence, sometimes away in defiance, always strong with purpose.

Then there are the seedlings, new to the forest, seemingly young and brittle, yet adapting and growing faster than any of those before them. All too easily a year becomes a decade, as if father time has secretly and tiredly let go his grip. The trees young and old look back fondly on those they loved, and heartbroken for those they didn't love enough.

This forest is full of stories. Stories of love, of failure, of mediocrity, of triumph, of simply getting by. Each of these stories has its own foliaged author, yet each story also belongs to the forest collectively. While each tree trunk stands apart - like a single boulder atop a mountain, or an owl stoic and silent in the sky - each trunk remains connected. The roots, the seeds, the soil, the water and the soul of the forest all hold on tightly together 'neath the surface.

Lest the trees forget they are a part of something bigger, life ever-changing reminds them of the invisible bonds that hold strong. A young tree is born into fertile soil, nourished by the roots of those that came before her. And the wooden elders sleep comfortably, knowing that, though limbs may fall, it is their foundation that provides a future.

These words do end, but the forest has a lasting story, in which the trees - sometimes tall and proud looking out across the horizon, sometimes scared and weak, taking respite in another's comforting shade - are all connected. Whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not, they are bound together, and their lives are better for it.

Back At It

2009-12-28T13:18:00.002-05:00

Man, it's been a while. With so little to talk about this year in politics...well - maybe not. But seriously, in my renewed appreciation for stability, some regular thoughts will hopefully entertain and challenge both you and me.

Dear Pam

2009-05-08T12:18:00.009-04:00

I recently responded to a letter by Pam Geller, a conservative blogger who has gotten a lot of press in the past year. If you know of anyone would like to read (or needs to read) some rational thought, please pass this on. My response is on top, with her Letter to America below:

Dear Pam,

I don't live in a library, and my head has not been buried in books my whole life. I am a student of living, of people, and of what I believe to be a pretty humanistic philosophy of doing what's right. I took the time to read your letter to America, so I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me.

Firstly, I don't believe in bank bailouts any more than you do. When it comes to money, I'm pretty much a free market conservative. Yes, I said it...conservative. I don't want the government to give my money away, and if they're going to use my money to make loans, I would like to know who the recipients are and what the repayment timetables are. But before we blame the big spending liberals for stealing our money, we should take a look at the policies of the last administration (after all, it was Bush who started this whole bailout business, remember?). Under President Bush, nearly a trillion dollars was spent in Iraq under the guise of protecting us from WMDs, which we know (and they knew) didn't exist. Among other things, our money went to torture - which the administration flatly lied to us about, and which violated the Geneva Convention. Our money also went to secret prisons, which no one ever told us about until a leak occurred. All of this was for an agenda across the ocean that really didn't pose a threat to the United States. And now you have the gall to criticize the federal reserve for giving out loans to try to stop the worst economic downturn on American soil in 65 years. Well Pam, I am scared too. I'm scared because the money I spent on torturing Iraqi bread vendors who provided false information just to stop the pain could have been used to give teachers higher salaries, or stimulate US jobs in technology and manufacturing, but instead has increased our national debt by 71%. I'm scared because some people think it's acceptable to hand a blank check over to a president who drank his way through college and wasn't actually elected by a majority, but the same trust is not given to a black man who has achieved more personal, intellectual, and professional success than most Americans, ever. Yes, I'm scared.

The "corrupted" process that you mention - the one in which judges allow gay men and women to legally wed - is no less corrupt than the institution of marriage that conservative christians insist on protecting. If straight people can lie before a priest, physically and emotionally abuse their spouses, commit adultery, enter into marriage for the wrong reasons, and then divorce 50% of the time, then please tell me how else one could possibly harm this institution? As far as the judges are concerned, our founding fathers created a division of power called checks and balances. They did this to ensure that no majority who wins control of one branch of the government can unfairly wield it's power to take rights away from any minority. The specific process you mention - called Judicial Review - was established in 1803, while Thomas Jefferson was President. There is absolutely nothing un-American or new about this process. The only reason you and others have a problem with it is that it is causing conflict with your religious beliefs, which I am certain are not supposed to have a place in the formation of laws and policies.

Regarding your discussion of Presidential qualifications, Kennedy was never a town mayor, never ran a dairy queen, and served in the Senate for less than a decade before being elected the youngest President ever. Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood actor. Politicians with established track records, like Nixon and the most recent Bush, turned out to have miserable presidencies and policies. You and I agree on one point for sure - that we aught to learn from history.

I want to address one final point. In your letter, you liken the holocaust to the democratic election of a President who is trying to rebuild an economic disaster that fell in his lap as a result of republican rule. You liken the holocaust - the persecution of minorities - to equal rights of citizens, regardless of race, sexuality, gender, or disability status (could any comparison be more absurd?). To suggest that the holocaust is anything like our lives today is an insult to the 11 million people who needlessly died at the hands of Nazi soldiers. It is an insult to the 1.5 million children who died in concentration camps, it is an insult to the true students of history, and it is an insult to me for having taken the time to read what you have to say.

Sincerely,
Chase Maggiano

*************

>
>
> Wake up America !!!
> by Pam Geller
>
> I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15
> books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I
> think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not
> believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a
> credit crisis. Yes, these exist but they are merely single
> facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a
> sharper focus.
>
> Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
> because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how
> people react to it.. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but
> there is something happening within our country that has been
> evolving for about 10 - 15 years. The pace has dramatically
> quickened in the past two.
>
> We demanded and then codified into law the requirement that
> our banks make massive loans to people whom we knew could never
> pay back? Why? We learned recently that the Federal Reserve,
> which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned"
> two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past
> few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the
> terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three
> times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this
> past September.
>
> Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms
> unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I
> thought this was a government of "We the People," who loaned our
> powers to our elected leaders.. Apparently not.
>
> We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-
> industrializing our economy. Why?
>
> We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our
> history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are
> exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and
> large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate.
> Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school
> boards continue to back mediocrity.. Why?
>
> We have now established the precedent of protesting every
> close election (now violently in California over a proposition
> that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain
> between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing
> possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred
> political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws
> that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
> Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system
> into a banana republic. To what purpose?
>
> Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in
> free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is
> on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as
> is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is
> worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am
> talking about.) The list is staggering in its length, breadth,
> and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with
> an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
> religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if
> they have the opportunity to do so.
>
> And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who
> has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big
> as Wasilla , Alaska .. All of his associations and alliances are
> with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and
> everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if
> not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his
> idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
> stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh,
> of course. The media would never play that for you over and over
> and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter
> and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)
>
> Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word:
> Change...radical change Why?
>
> I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children
> as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together,
> something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In
> my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines,
> push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and
> different power structure. Change is indeed coming And when it
> comes, you will never see the same nation again.
>
> And that is only the beginning.
>
> I thought I would never be able to experience what the
> ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times,
> the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the
> streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.
> What they did know was that he was associated with groups that
> shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
> disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through
> great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people
> were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and
> waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak
> out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into
> submission.
>
> And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled
> economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but
> surely he seized the controls of government power, department by
> department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The
> kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught
> what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it
> promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
> goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by
> indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care
> for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill
> pride once again in the country, across Europe , and across the
> world.
>
> He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he
> did this all in the name of justice and...change. And the people
> surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am
> exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in
> 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made
> fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the
> late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was
> not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a
> crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.
>
> Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured
> country in Europe . It was full of music, art, museums,
> hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six
> years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S..
> presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing
> others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents,
> and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of
> intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.
>
> As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional
> decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the
> objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me
> cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to
> me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am
> wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and ignore what is
> transpiring around me.
>
> Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish,
> naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to
> look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe -
> and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. But, I do not think I
> am.

talent

2008-12-19T09:56:00.000-05:00

Rick Warren?

2008-12-18T17:48:00.009-05:00

Rick Warren hates gays, women who chose choice, and probably a few other groups of people. But that's not the real problem with him. The problem is what he preaches - a philosophy that gives individuals and churches the authority (presumably from God) to meddle in other people's lives, take power in Government to wield it as God's power, and circumvent the law to enforce what they interpret as "God's law."

Check out his website. It's basically an eight point treatise on why the church should be in power rather than the government (as well as how it can accomplish this). Point number six, which covers the authority given to individuals by the church (to "take on" leadership) is really really troubling. Using the church to save the environment, fight disease and poverty, etc. is great. But using the church to enforce semantic based rules on people's lives, or enforce the saving of someone else's soul based on something they don't even believe in is completely at odds with everything our government stands for.

Can good things come out of religious people in the government? Absolutely. But Rick Warren preaches divine authorization and divine administration of people's lives. He is less than a step away from theocracy, and now Obama is inviting him to the steps of Capitol Hill. Can Obama justify this to his loyal following? Andrew Sullivan actually has a great suggestion. Personally, I hope Rick Warren gets booooed so loudly from the audience that no one can hear what he has to say.

Scared Christians Can't Say the Word "Gay"

2008-12-04T16:28:00.001-05:00

An article in the LA Times today says:

"Leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America said they took the extraordinary step to unify congregations and dioceses that had fled the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over issues of Scripture."

The issue is sexuality, not scripture. Why can't anyone say the word "gay?"

Congressional Whine

2008-12-03T11:49:00.002-05:00

Congress is angry that the Treasury Department doesn't have enough oversight over the use of the bailout money.

Well, congress approved what many called a 'blank check.' Now they're whining because they didn't have the foresight to realize the Bush Administration wouldn't properly spend taxpayer money.

Hey Congress, remember the last eight years??

HRC - Prom Queen, not Valedictorian

2008-12-01T14:21:00.007-05:00

HRC just released their Buyers Guide - a survey (loose term at best) of gay-friendly companies which social equality-minded people should patronize. BP and Chevron are both year-long Silver sponsors of HRC, and Shell is a Bronze sponsor. All 3 companies and their subsidiaries* are highlighted at the top of the guide with perfect scores. As part of their criteria for the scoring of companies, HRC includes the vague term "external practices." In other words...funding HRC happy hours, cocktail parties, yearbooks, popularity contests, pep rallies, etc... How much of the BP, Chevron, and Shell money went to fighting Prop 8 in California? Considering HRC spent only $3.4 million on Prop 8, I'm guessing the oil money didn't make it past the bar.

In 2006 (the most recent data I found) the HRC spent twice as much on "Membership Mobilization" (mail postage, phone calls, premium member events/galas) than they did on fighting Prop 8 this year. It's easy to see why HRC has become a non-factor in the civil rights movement.

*correction made from original post, where I thought the subsidiaries were actually competitors not receiving equal treatment.

White House Doctoring Iraq War History

2008-11-25T09:59:00.003-05:00

...and they're using the Web to do it!

Keep a close eye on the White House over the next several months. Most agree that we'll see a lot of new truths coming out.

2008-11-06T16:04:00.001-05:00

When a Constitution is used to strip a person of rights he already has, it is the Constitution, not the person, that is perverted.

Prop 8...Still a Chance?

2008-11-05T15:52:00.004-05:00

No on Prop 8 is not giving up.

Absentee and provisional ballots (about 3 million outstanding) have not been counted, and could possibly reverse the 400,000 majority currently in favor of prop 8. The Associated Press reports this as well.

Most under reported counties are redneck, so the chances are slim...but there is a chance.

An Expat Reaction

2008-11-05T12:27:00.003-05:00

A close friend of mine who spends 6 months out of the year abroad wrote this to me this morning.

Yours for a better America, where diplomacy is the first response and war is a last resort, where people sit down and talk to each other --and LISTEN --, where the religious right does not decide what is taught in schools or control people with a dogma of fear and hatred, and where the US President can actually speak in complete, cohesive, literate sentences!

Pitiful

2008-10-31T09:02:00.001-04:00

6 Days Left

2008-10-30T20:21:00.005-04:00

It's been a while, and boy oh boy is there a lot to write about over the past week (and coming week!).

The biggest frustration in my view this week comes from the Obama Campaign. According to Nielsen, 33.6 million people watched his infomercial (not me...I was busy playing pool). The 30 minute prime time spot cost Obama nearly $4 million.

This is the same man that originally promised to run a publicly funded campaign, then backed down from that promise. This is the same campaign that raised more than $272 million since January 2007 (twice as much as John McCain), and still has the balls to email me today saying they are stretched too thinly, "without a safety net," and need more of my money.

There is a lot I like about Obama, and I truly think he'll make better decisions than McCain. But backing down on his promise of public funding has set a nasty and expensive precedent for future candidates.

Obama not exactly helpful to small businesses

2008-10-17T15:37:00.003-04:00

On his website, Obama writes, "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will help small businesses by cutting health care costs, improving access to capital and investing in innovation and development." But in the majority of cases, this is just not true.

His "improving access to capital" promise is not applicable to many small businesses: "...citing IRS data, the campaign notes that "56.8% of total small business income is earned by businesses in the top two [tax] rates, which Barack Obama has pledged to raise." Full article here

In essence, since most small businesses fall into the top two tax rate brackets, most small businesses will be taxed more heavily than they are currently being taxed. The counter-argument is: "shouldn't business owners making $250,000+ per year be able to afford a little more tax?" The answer is "yes," if the business owner has no employees to pay.

Let's look at a small start-up business making $500k per year. If that start-up has 6 employees then we are now looking at 6 individuals sharing that 500k revenue. For the sake of argument, let's forget about business expenses and just consider all 500k revenue to be split evenly. Each employee would earn ~$83,000 per year, putting them well in Obama's "non taxed middle class," so they should see more money in their pocket, right? Wrong. If the business gets taxed higher, the tax expense is passed on to the employees so they may not see a salary raise in the next year, or they may find their benefits reduced, or they may have to start paying for parking. In this example, I'm being very generous in assuming that this start-up business has no expenses and no investors. Add those realistic factors into the mix and the small business which makes enough to pass the $250k threshold, but not enough to be considered a money pit, suffers even more.

Obama is good at the "us against them" pitch between classes, but his tax proposal would actually increase taxes on many small businesses which would force business owners to tighten up on salaries and benefits for the "us" part of his equation.

When Obama tells you he's going to reduce taxes on small businesses, be wary. His definition of "small business" is misleading to a great extent.

Obama's not allowed to lie either...

2008-10-17T15:34:00.000-04:00

McCain to Letterman: "I screwed up."

2008-10-17T10:02:00.003-04:00

McCain has been saying "I screwed up" since he was 20 years old. How about saying "I'm sorry?" I think Letterman and his audience would have appreciated an apology more than "I screwed up" followed by uncomfortable laughter. John McCain really doesn't see himself the way everyone else does...

Joe the Plumber

2008-10-16T15:29:00.003-04:00

...won't actually be hurt by Obama's plan. He's "not even close" to making that much money. Even if he becomes more successful than any other plumber in Ohio by making more than 250k a year, his taxes will increase by only 3%...cry me a river.

Acorn and Voter Fraud

2008-10-15T15:26:00.004-04:00

Here are the facts (after all, this blog is about truth!)

Acorn verifies the legitimacy of every registration its canvassers collect. If they can't authenticate the registration, or it's incomplete or questionable in other ways, they flag that form as problematic ("fraudulent", "incomplete", et cetera). They then hand in all registration forms, even the problematic ones, to elections officials, as they are required to do by law. In almost every case where you've heard about fraud by Acorn, it's because Acorn itself notified officials about the fraud that's been perpetrated on them by rogue canvassers. Most officials who run to the media screaming "Acorn is committing fraud" know all of the above but don't bother to share those facts with the media they've run to. None of this is about voter fraud. None of it. Where any fraud has occurred, it's voter registration fraud and has resulted in exactly zero fraudulent votes.

You'll hear that Donald Duck, Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Mickey Mouse and (new this year) the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team have all had fraudulent registrations submitted in their names. That's true. And we know this, why? Because Acorn told officials about it when they followed the law and turned in those registrations, flagged as fraudulent.

This Acorn "fraud" business is just a republican media scam. Don't believe me? Ask the Brits.

CNN Defends Palin! Or at least stops lying about her

2008-10-15T10:59:00.003-04:00

Good article about email rumors and how hard they are to combat.

The Truth About Obama's Tax Cuts

2008-10-13T23:19:00.016-04:00

I was asked by a self described Conservative Jeffersonian friend to respond and give voice to a Wall Street Journal Article on Obama's "sleight of hand" tax cuts. The article appears in WSJ's opinion section, and utilizes an Obama Tax Increase graphic from the American Enterprise Institute which discusses tax rates, but not tax credits which offset the tax rates under Obama's plan. The tax credits which are highlighted and deplored in the text of the opinion, but ignored in the AEI graphic, are not leftist policy as the WSJ suggests. (Tax credit is actually the crux of McCain's healthcare/tax solution).

The opinion criticizes Obama's plan, calling it a "clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%." Well, this is nothing new or clandestine. Obama has been very upfront about opposing tax cuts for the top 5% (who won't feel it in their everyday life), and providing more economic help to low income Americans. McCain, unfortunately, supports a healthcare tax credit which doesn't give enough to Average Joe, but provides tax cuts to the super wealthy which perpetuate the favors given to the top 5%. By comparison, Obama appears to be a Robin Hood-like figure. Is it welfare for the poor? Is it a tax credit, cut, or handout? Whatever verbiage you use, you cannot deny that Obama is making an effort to help those who need it. McCain's effort to help those who need it is lacking. Lacking in his rhetoric, in practice, and in the WSJ opinion piece. In fact, there is only one mention of John McCain's efforts to help normal Americans in the entire piece. I count seven different efforts on the part of Obama in this piece to help normal Americans.

So what's the point here? It's partially a political rant, but moreover, this is more evidence to be careful about what you read! Compare multiple sources, don't be afraid to question the writer/publisher, and be sure to educate yourself. Don't rely on others with their own agendas to educate you.

I Heart Rachel Maddow

2008-10-13T22:20:00.009-04:00

Tonight on Rachel Maddow's show, conservative David Frum criticized Maddow, essentially saying that the humor and sarcasm on her show is equivalent to the shouts and jeers of McCain's campaign supporters about Obama...the likes of "kill him," "he's a terrorist," etc.

Maddow had notes and questions for discussion of issues, not discussion of the tone and format of her own show. Nonetheless, she responded quickly and directly, saying that the tone and humor used in her show is a method of delivering news, but is in no way comparable to actual violent threats that are made by McCain supporters and which are left un-denounced by McCain during his rallies.

Personally, I have been more angry over the past couple months than I can ever remember as a result of what's going on in the news. Maddow's humor actually allows me smile on occasion in the face of ethical, political, and media failure, without forgetting that these failures are serious and cannot be sustained. Thank you Rachel for helping me not feel so alone in this ridiculous, maddening, and sometimes unbelievable time.

Outright Lie.

2008-10-13T10:31:00.004-04:00

Friday: A legislative investigator found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

Saturday: "I'm thankful that the report has shown that there was no illegal or unethical activity there" - Gov. Sarah Palin

WTF?

McCain's foot goes missing...is found in his mouth.

2008-10-13T10:10:00.004-04:00

This weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip" Obama's "you know what" in the final debate on Wednesday. Hmm...old white dude promises to publicly whip young black dude. Really?

Though McCain has dishonorably criticized Obama for being a Muslim, a Christian, and an Arab all at once, he's not stupid or racists enough to harken back to the days of slavery discipline when saying he'll "whip" Obama in the debate. It's just a lipstick on a pig figure of speech.

Even though McCain's not a bigot (really...I don't think he is), it's just not wise to say he'll "whip" his younger black opponent in public. Once again, McCain displays a Joe Biden-like quality of gaffing in his rhetoric.

My advice to McCain: slow down, breath, think, think again, revise your sentence, speak.

Debate

2008-10-08T09:29:00.003-04:00

During the second question, one thing really struck me - when not behind a podium, John McCain's age is more apparent than ever. Last night, millions of Americans saw him hunched over, walking and gesturing slowly. McCain's age and health have been pretty well ignored throughout this campaign, but I think last night's performance, coupled with Palin's increasing publicity, could bring these issues out.

Betty Boop Palin

2008-10-05T19:39:00.001-04:00

I'm in Disbelief

2008-10-03T11:22:00.002-04:00

Our economy is the worst it's been in 70 years, and we're fighting a war in Iraq, while contemplating re-starting another in Afghanistan. These are facts.

Last night, Sarah Palin very notably smiled her way through a vice presidential debate. At times she winked at the camera, and yes even laughed. Is her physical affect a true representation of her assessment of the health of our country? If so, she is more out of touch with her constituents than even I believed.

More on Fox News

2008-10-02T08:48:00.003-04:00

Thanks to John Bauman for posting this video on Facebook. Unanimous vote for Barack = "split" for Fox news.

If you hate Fox News, then pass this on to everyone you know.

Orwell's Internet

2008-09-29T08:06:00.002-04:00

Interesting story in Newsweek. Even though the Web lends a more democratic voice to Average Joe in developing countries, the regimes in power are actually using it in a big brother-like way to monitor and stifle speech and expression.

Debating the Truth

2008-09-26T22:52:00.002-04:00

For anyone who watched the debate tonight, one thing that stood out was Obama constantly saying, "that's simply not true." Let's keep our research hats on over the next few months and make sure we investigate for ourselves what the campaigns, media outlets, and bloggers are feeding us.

We are the only ones responsible for what we believe.

McCain Wins Debate! Wait...what?

2008-09-26T13:27:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, McCain wasn't even going to debate. Now his campaign is running ads that he wins the debate. I'm so confused...and so is the Washington Post

The Joker Meets the Decider

2008-09-26T11:20:00.003-04:00

The UK Perspective

2008-09-26T10:12:00.002-04:00

Check out comments on the debate debate from BBC's website. I'm glad to see that the usually biased BBC is not censoring comments. It's also a nice surprise to see a number of American blokes commenting.

I agree with Brandon Seyferth. If McCain thinks we should stop everything for the sake of the economy, then isn't it justly important to tell the American public how you're going to deal with today's crisis? Change the debate topic to the Economy, because as McCain has so dramatically pointed out, that is the most important issue this week.

How Web Rumors Spread, and How FOX News Snubbed Me.

2008-09-25T17:35:00.011-04:00

For the hell of it, I was perusing FOX News' website yesterday and saw that the second headline from the top on the homepage was Biden Dropping Out? Rumor Thrives on Internet. Naturally this got my attention.

As is expected, the first paragraph of the article completely debunks the rumor, saying, "It’s almost certainly just a case of the telephone game gone high-tech." Then the article goes on for 28 additional paragraphs to explore why the Obama campaign might have made this decision (but they didn't) and what would happen if they had made this decision (but they didn't). Essentially, a FOX News web editor used premium headline space, 29 paragraphs of copy, and hundreds of thousands of viewer impressions for a story that is entirely fictitious. Fortunately, the social web allows us to respond and comment on this kind of stuff so that the public isn't mislead. Oh wait, this is the socialist web we're talking about...

Okay this is where I get really angry. When I saw the article last night, I wrote a "comment" suggesting that the decision of Biden to drop out was clearly bogus and I asked FOX News to please vet their stories before printing rumors on top, front page headlines. This morning when I woke up, my comment did not appear, but several other pro-Republican comments did appear. I checked back in a few hours and there were a few moderate to left leaning comments, but most were still republican. My comment still did not appear. So I wrote another comment:

"This is a rumor. Rumor's are not true. If Biden were really going to be dropping out then McCain would be all over it. This is a bogus rumor from the far right, trying to stir up the Republican base because Obama's poll numbers are higher. Welcome to politics."

There is nothing "unlawful, threatening, libelous, or obscene" that would prevent my comment from being posted according to FOX News' editorial guidelines (unless you consider poor grammar libelous). In fact, I affirmed the article's headline. Yet, several hours later my comment is still not published. The site entreats, "FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion" but clearly this is a lie. Thank you FOX for knowingly spreading a rumor, and crushing any effort to hold up the truth.

Feed me your lies

2008-09-24T20:14:00.005-04:00

Let's hear 'em. Comment or send me the most outrageous lie you've told, been told, or heard told (anonymous is okay).

I'll start. When I was 13 and getting contact lenses for the first time, I spilled a little gas on my shoes while filling up my mom's gas tank on the way to my eye doctor appt. At the doctor's office, other people started to smell gas and I was too shy to speak up so the police and three fire trucks were called. Firefighters walked all over the office building with air sensors trying to find the gas leak and I nearly pissed myself worrying that their detectors would lead them to my shoe like some kind of divining rod for liars. The office was closed for the rest of the day.

McCain can't pat his head and rub his tummy at the same time

2008-09-24T15:15:00.005-04:00

McCain is postponing his campaign until congressional consensus is achieved on financial market legislation (likely by Monday). He is calling on the Obama camp to delay the first debate which is scheduled to be this Friday. He's apparently putting his country before himself.

Kudos Mr. Senator for deciding to help Americans only on the day that poll numbers have dropped you 9 points lower than Obama, your greatest deficit yet in the White House race. I suppose you would have put the country first when this crisis unmasked itself 10 days ago, had you known there was even a financial crisis going on. I suppose you would have put the country first when you rallied congress for deregulation of Lincoln Savings and Loan during the Keating explosion, had you known you would get caught.

McCain knows that most swing voters in America make their decision immediately after the first Presidential debate. He also knows that he is currently down in the polls significantly as a result of his inability to make sounds decisions regarding financial markets. He also knows that the financial markets are increasingly linked to foreign affairs, so this subject will come up in the debate on Friday.

In all fairness, McCain's move is bold and shows initiative. He appears sympathetic to the Nation by reigning in his own ambitions for the good of the country. But let's be honest here. McCain will go to Washington to rally congress to immediately pass this bill giving Bush and Paulson a blank check, unquestionable power, and no oversight. Bush wins, McCain appears bold, and Average Joe owes Congress $700 billion from his own pocketbook. Remember the Wizard of Oz? Bring him out from behind the curtain and suddenly he's not so benevolent.

I Love Arianna

2008-09-24T13:27:00.004-04:00

Last week I was very fortunate to hear Arianna Huffington speak at the Web2.0 conference in NYC. What I like most about her is her passion! She feels so strongly that media should represent the people, not preach to the people. She deplores misinformation in the media, and welcomes feedback on her own writing. The Huffington Post is always on the lookout for new writers so if any of you have an opinion, speak up!

Washington Times meets Starship Trooper?

2008-09-24T10:34:00.003-04:00

Has anyone seen the layout of the Washington Times Homepage? It looks like the control panel of a spaceship.

Pocket Google

2008-09-24T09:59:00.005-04:00

Google announced its new mobile phone software, ensuring that the money loving company can generate ad revenue anywhere in the world.

Well, not anywhere. The biggest downside of the new Google enabled phone is that it will only be released in markets where T-Mobile's 3G network is available. The software can't run on slower networks. The software is being released on T-Mobile's G1 phone.

The coolest thing about the software, built on the Android platform, is that it is open, so anyone with the know-how can create an application for use on the software. This isn't particularly new (thank you Apple) but it's certainly pushing the philosophy of openness out to the rest of the world.

truth-0-meter

2008-09-23T15:31:00.006-04:00

cool site

Truth is what you get other people to believe!

2008-09-23T09:04:00.007-04:00

Thank goodness for friends. I didn't know what I was going to write about today, but I opened up gmail to find that my friend Balika saw my blog and the idea of "truth" struck a chord with her. She sent me the text of an acceptance speech by Tommy Smothers at the Emmy Awards this past weekend:

Tommy Smothers, accepting an award commemorating the "Smothers Brothers" comedy hour, quickly turned to politics.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of speech aren't really important unless they're heard," Mr. Smothers says, clutching the Emmy and wearing a purple tie. "So the freedom of hearing is just about as important as the freedom of speaking. And it's hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only attainable through war." (Mild applause.) "And there's nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action." (Loud applause.) "So I dedicate this Emmy to all people who feel compelled to speak out, and not afraid to speak to power, and won't shut up, and refuse to be silenced."

He seemed to be about to leave the stage, then returned to the microphone to add "one last thought." The word truth exists in every language, he says, and adds: "Truth is what you get other people to believe."

Talk about drama...but of course, it is the Emmy's! Seriously though, his comments on freedom of expression and freedom of speech are noble, idealistic, and naturally I couldn't agree with him more. Problem is, he undercuts himself in that last line, "truth is what you get other people to believe." So essentially, we all have the freedom to say whatever we want (and with the Internet, we truly do!) and regardless of efficacy, those preachers, reporters, writers, bloggers, etc. who are more convincing will have their ideas rise to the top as truth?

I actually don't agree that truth is what you get other people to believe. Most people's beliefs are ingrained in them by the time they're adults, so you're not likely to change anyone's beliefs. Instead, I think truth is when you say something that most people agree with. Example: Barack Obama is a Muslim. 19% of rural Americans believe this statement is true. So in a town like Findlay Ohio, Barack Obama is a Muslim. " It's a fact, my dad told me so." But in Washington, DC, my own town, Barack Obama is clearly not a Muslim. I'm not suggesting that Washington holds the high ground on truth, but this just goes to show you that truth is what most people believe, and that truth looks very different depending on where you are.

Truth vs. the Web

2008-09-22T14:18:00.001-04:00

I like truth. I seek truth. Which is why I hate the web.

Well...that's not true, I don't hate the web. On the contrary, my job is the web. What I hate is how people are using the web. For instance, my uncle recently sent me an email about Barack Obama saluting the National Anthem. These are Barack's "words:"

"It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."

Clearly a vetted presidential candidate did not say this (it's actually a satire from blogger John Semmens).    Nonetheless, someone published this somewhere on the web, someone else linked to it or emailed it to a friend, and suddenly it's gospel. That's the problem with the web.  Information spreads SO quickly that it's taken as fact before it's validated.

So, a customer could write scathing remarks about you on blogs or discussion boards faster than you can debunk or respond to their complaint.  On the one hand, this empowers average joe to be a participant in society (writing about political candidates, writing about cable companies, writing about poor service at a coffee shop).  Empowerment is great!  Especially after tiresome decades of having news/information fed to us by large politically motivated media corporations.

Empowerment is also very very dangerous, in the case of my uncle who sends "news" around to his friends and family without verifying it.  For some examples, lookup the keywords "barack," "palin," "mccain."  Then check out the page count for any of the bogus looking posts to see just how many people are reading bogus information.  