As 2008 winds down, most everyone is looking ahead to next year. The parties on Wednesday night, the hangover on Thursday and then...Stark, cold reality. It's not all bad, of course. We have inauguration day to look forward to. And with that, the hope of an all-star cast of characters taking over Washington. Yes, things are in a shambles, but we are holding on because one man told us, "Yes, we can." We can, but we're kidding ourselves if we think it isn't going to take a lot of time, patience and true grit. And not just for president-elect Obama, but for each one of us. Because this time, it's personal in so many ways.
I'm anticipating a milestone birthday this week with mixed feelings. It isn't so much the number itself, but the time it represents. Did I waste these decades? Could I do something differently? It's difficult to not have regrets and yet...and yet...I'm still here. The other day, I read one resolution suggestion that has stuck in my head. It said that instead of asking "why" when bad things happen, we ask ourselves "how" to get past them. This year, rather than trying to hold myself to some impossible standards and feeling guilty when I don't achieve them, I'm going to just take a moment and ask, "how?"
It won't be easy and there will be days when I will forget, but I am promising myself to try. Because I'm just tired of sitting by and doing nothing. The last few years and in particular, this election, have made me realize that there is more to life than working out, eating right, calling your mother regularly and going to church. Those are all important components but what if, instead of merely tolerating another day, we tried to do something about it? Tried- really tried- to improve the circumstances we dislike the most? If each person would simply start the day with the idea that no matter what they do for a living, they are really working for themselves, productivity and outlook would improve. Most people give 99% of their best work over to their bosses, leaving that measly 1% to flicker and simper and dwindle and die each day. What if we gave our best to ourselves? What if we just took some time to really believe that our dreams still matter? Will always matter, whatever age one is?
Today I came back from a very peaceful Christmas with my family. Because of weather conditions, we stayed in my parents' home, the six of us and a dog, for three straight days. And it made me think about all the minutes, hours, days and weeks I spent with my parents and brother over the course of my childhood and early adulthood. Exactly what day did it all come to an end? It isn't written any place for posterity. There is no plaque on the wall to commemorate the date. It just all simply stopped one day. At first, I was sad about this but I now realize that the question isn't "why" or "when" it ended, the question is once again, "how." How to keep alive our family relationships. As it turns out, fate decided it for us, with very little planning or notice. Some of the activities were contrived, but mostly, it was all preordained.
In the morning, I arrived at work and the head of my department made a decision to confront me about the fact that I was an hour late. She did not ask me how my Christmas was or if my trip had gone smoothly. She just wanted to make a federal case out of the fact that I was not at work on time. This person considers herself to be a Christian, a good person. And yet...what could be so important about that one hour that she could not restrain herself, after my absence had been explained, from verbally attacking me and from abandoning her good will? Did she have any good will? Further, why should I even care?
We care because work has become so much of our lives that we can't discern between family and colleagues anymore. It's criminal that we see the people who pay us, more often than the people who love and support us emotionally. The system is sick and flawed. Again, why ask "why?" How to get out of this situation should be the only consideration.
There are any number of ways I could have confronted this person. I tried to stay calm and reasonable and I think I did a good job. But the bottom line is, that until others can embrace the idea of civility and respect for others, it is our job to be civil and respectful of ourselves. If that seems like a selfish notion, consider that if your spirit is broken and your morale is gone, you will have nothing left to give to others. It is for the greater good that one should look inside oneself and love what they see. This life is a gift and it is to be guarded, protected and nurtured at all costs. Silly, selfish bosses be damned!
In the end, I know that I am only one person- insignificant in the grand scheme of things. But if I don't try now, who will? It's easy to make excuses. Easy to berate oneself. It takes courage and honor to stand up and take positive action. To try to tackle the hard questions. And most of all, to be honest with oneself. "Why" doesn't matter. "Why" is the past. The future is "How."
Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Countdown to Inevitability
In a little more than 24 hours, America will have voted in a new president. Not a few Americans will be relieved to have it over. This election, unfortunately, devolved at some point into a 3-ring circus. Instead of talking about the issues, one candidate embarked on a campaign of "country first," then swiftly began the mud-slinging. Senator John McCain, whose once dignified personna was that of a military hero and a serious politician, became at once desperate and pathetic in his swan song bid for the presidency. He obviously thought he needed to sell out in order to be noticed. His advisors, the people whom he ostensibly hired to help him, have instead instructed him to do things he clearly was not comfortable doing. From selecting Alaska governor Sarah Palin as a running mate to allowing an unlicensed-plumber-turned-Republican-audience-plant to steal the spotlight at his rallies, none of what the McCain campaign has done has reflected favorably on McCain's "heroic" character.
McCain's people have called his oponent, Senator Barack Obama (in no particular order); a terrorist, a socialist, a Marxist, an elitist, un-American, anti-Israel, pro-Middle East, a Washington "insider," and of course, the old standby, inexperienced. Nevermind that Palin's credentials are thinner than that of any previous vice-presidential candidate. Nevermind that Obama stuck to McCain's original promise to run a dignified campaign. Obama has criticized McCain's policies and pointed out disparities in his record, but Obama's camp never once went the route of namecalling.
Sophomoric tactics may work in the short term, but people in general don't respond well to lies and negativity. We teach our children to treat others the way they'd like to be treated. Has McCain treated his opponent with respect? Has his behavior been worthy of a war hero? For that matter, does the McCain campaign REALLY believe that Palin would be what is best for this country? She has been coached, pampered, primped, dressed, rehearsed and coddled all the way. It is hard to discern what, if anything, is genuine about this person. She says she's passionate about helping children with special needs. Is that why she cut Special Olympics funding in Alaska by $100K? Is that why, until she had a Downs Syndrome baby, she never once criticized the Republican legacy of slashing spending for special needs people? Ronald Reagan practically made it a sport yet she never wastes an opportunity to invoke his name. It's just hard to believe that someone who has no trouble being ruthless, brutal and pointlessly nasty personally, could be a caring politician. And she never has stated exactly what she means when she says special needs children will have "a friend in the White House" if she and McCain are elected.
In fact, aside from a faulty health plan and some vague promises about the economy, the only thing that seems to excite McCain is more war. Never quitting. Sending more troops. As both he and Palin say at all of their rallies, they are interested in "winning" Iraq. But they never say what their definition of a win would be. At this point, both sides have lost. And it has nothing to do with ferreting out Osama bin Laden. McCain says he knows how to find bin Laden. Well, then, why hasn't he? He said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Well, why doesn't he? Because honestly, putting country first at this point would be asserting one's strongest talents to solve this country's problems. If McCain truly means what he says, he would save his money, concede defeat and focus on what he thinks he can handle. He clearly can't handle the running of this country. Evidence of that is the fact that he can't even handle his campaign.
Tomorrow night, God willing, truth will triumph and America will begin rebuilding itself. Right now, it is damaged and divided. But tomorrow night, perhaps hope will be on the horizon. God willing, we will take the steps to help ourselves- and each other- back to civility and change for the better.
McCain's people have called his oponent, Senator Barack Obama (in no particular order); a terrorist, a socialist, a Marxist, an elitist, un-American, anti-Israel, pro-Middle East, a Washington "insider," and of course, the old standby, inexperienced. Nevermind that Palin's credentials are thinner than that of any previous vice-presidential candidate. Nevermind that Obama stuck to McCain's original promise to run a dignified campaign. Obama has criticized McCain's policies and pointed out disparities in his record, but Obama's camp never once went the route of namecalling.
Sophomoric tactics may work in the short term, but people in general don't respond well to lies and negativity. We teach our children to treat others the way they'd like to be treated. Has McCain treated his opponent with respect? Has his behavior been worthy of a war hero? For that matter, does the McCain campaign REALLY believe that Palin would be what is best for this country? She has been coached, pampered, primped, dressed, rehearsed and coddled all the way. It is hard to discern what, if anything, is genuine about this person. She says she's passionate about helping children with special needs. Is that why she cut Special Olympics funding in Alaska by $100K? Is that why, until she had a Downs Syndrome baby, she never once criticized the Republican legacy of slashing spending for special needs people? Ronald Reagan practically made it a sport yet she never wastes an opportunity to invoke his name. It's just hard to believe that someone who has no trouble being ruthless, brutal and pointlessly nasty personally, could be a caring politician. And she never has stated exactly what she means when she says special needs children will have "a friend in the White House" if she and McCain are elected.
In fact, aside from a faulty health plan and some vague promises about the economy, the only thing that seems to excite McCain is more war. Never quitting. Sending more troops. As both he and Palin say at all of their rallies, they are interested in "winning" Iraq. But they never say what their definition of a win would be. At this point, both sides have lost. And it has nothing to do with ferreting out Osama bin Laden. McCain says he knows how to find bin Laden. Well, then, why hasn't he? He said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Well, why doesn't he? Because honestly, putting country first at this point would be asserting one's strongest talents to solve this country's problems. If McCain truly means what he says, he would save his money, concede defeat and focus on what he thinks he can handle. He clearly can't handle the running of this country. Evidence of that is the fact that he can't even handle his campaign.
Tomorrow night, God willing, truth will triumph and America will begin rebuilding itself. Right now, it is damaged and divided. But tomorrow night, perhaps hope will be on the horizon. God willing, we will take the steps to help ourselves- and each other- back to civility and change for the better.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Blurring the Line
Over the summer, the New York Times reported that the Catholic Archdiocese in Pennsylvania has banned Senator Joe Biden from receiving communion because of his pro-choice position. More recently, the Catholic Archdiocese in Denver has not only been vocally advising parishoners on how they should vote (via thinly veiled, continuous references delivered during homilies that have little or nothing to do with that day's readings) but also distributing pamphlets called "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" which is published by a group called Catholic Answers Action, based in California.
The Voter's Guide very explicitly instructs readers HOW to vote by outlining what they call the "five non-negotiables," which include abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual unions. Although this guide stops short of actually naming the candidates and describing their positions, it is obvious what the agenda is.
Nobody expects the church to take a liberal stance on this issue. And certainly, it is hard to imagine ANYONE who is 100% pro-abortion. The term pro-choice refers to people who believe that under individual circumstances, a family or a woman, is able to make the choice that best applies to that situation. That situation could be rape, it could be incest, it could be poverty or, per her doctor's instructions, it might even be the case that it is a decision which needs to be made to protect the life of the baby, the mother, or both. The point is, this is a CHOICE that is best left to the person in the situation and her doctor and God. No one has the right to say what is best for a person or people whom they don't even know. If one truly believes in God, then one can take comfort in the fact that it is for God to judge a person's actions, not others. That being said, people must enact laws which protect all life, including the unborn, and this has been done. If Roe v. Wade is repealed, abortion will not go away. It will continue, as it did before Roe v. Wade, under despicable, unsanitary conditions which will benefit no one. Many women who seek abortions do so out of desperation, as a last resort. It is shameful to heap further guilt and horror on these women by staking out clinics and harassing those who use them.
Certainly, it is good and right to peaceably protest abortion and pray for solutions. It would be a great world if rape and incest and poverty and horror could be erased from our landscape. But the Catholic Church, in objecting to abortion, has done nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Banning contraception, even for married couples, is wrong. No, contraceptives won't slow the rate of incest and rape but it would be a step in a responsible direction. The Church allows people with faulty hearts to take preventative steps such as medications and surgeries. It doesn't discourage or ban medical intervention in these cases, calling whatever happens "God's will." So why would it ban responsible contraceptive use? In this day and age, it is simply immoral to disallow poor couples contraception. It encourages people to have families they cannot manage or afford and it burdens the world's resources. Instead of only talking about abortion, the Church should take steps to ensure that people have access to proper health care and reproductive, responsible choice BEFORE it is too late. If and until that happens, there will continue to be abortions and other issues, such as capital punishment, war and other threats to human life will apparently take a back seat.
What would Jesus do? On election day, vote with your conscience, not your church.
The Voter's Guide very explicitly instructs readers HOW to vote by outlining what they call the "five non-negotiables," which include abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual unions. Although this guide stops short of actually naming the candidates and describing their positions, it is obvious what the agenda is.
Nobody expects the church to take a liberal stance on this issue. And certainly, it is hard to imagine ANYONE who is 100% pro-abortion. The term pro-choice refers to people who believe that under individual circumstances, a family or a woman, is able to make the choice that best applies to that situation. That situation could be rape, it could be incest, it could be poverty or, per her doctor's instructions, it might even be the case that it is a decision which needs to be made to protect the life of the baby, the mother, or both. The point is, this is a CHOICE that is best left to the person in the situation and her doctor and God. No one has the right to say what is best for a person or people whom they don't even know. If one truly believes in God, then one can take comfort in the fact that it is for God to judge a person's actions, not others. That being said, people must enact laws which protect all life, including the unborn, and this has been done. If Roe v. Wade is repealed, abortion will not go away. It will continue, as it did before Roe v. Wade, under despicable, unsanitary conditions which will benefit no one. Many women who seek abortions do so out of desperation, as a last resort. It is shameful to heap further guilt and horror on these women by staking out clinics and harassing those who use them.
Certainly, it is good and right to peaceably protest abortion and pray for solutions. It would be a great world if rape and incest and poverty and horror could be erased from our landscape. But the Catholic Church, in objecting to abortion, has done nothing to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Banning contraception, even for married couples, is wrong. No, contraceptives won't slow the rate of incest and rape but it would be a step in a responsible direction. The Church allows people with faulty hearts to take preventative steps such as medications and surgeries. It doesn't discourage or ban medical intervention in these cases, calling whatever happens "God's will." So why would it ban responsible contraceptive use? In this day and age, it is simply immoral to disallow poor couples contraception. It encourages people to have families they cannot manage or afford and it burdens the world's resources. Instead of only talking about abortion, the Church should take steps to ensure that people have access to proper health care and reproductive, responsible choice BEFORE it is too late. If and until that happens, there will continue to be abortions and other issues, such as capital punishment, war and other threats to human life will apparently take a back seat.
What would Jesus do? On election day, vote with your conscience, not your church.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Waiting Game
Here we are, two days away from the first presidential debate, and John McCain suddenly wants to "postpone" it because of the economic crisis. Barack Obama said no. Does McCain really think that he'll be so busy bailing out his buddies in Washington at 9 p.m. Friday that he just can't be bothered to face the people whom he wants to vote for him? Worse, does he think no one sees through these tiresome stall tactics?
Frankly, Americans should be enraged by the fact that this man's campaign, which claims to be so ultra patriotic, willfully dodges every single attempt to question him and running mate Sarah Palin. If their position is so solid, what is loathsome about discussing the fate of our nation, were it to be placed in their hands?
Yesterday was the first day since August 13 that McCain deigned to take questions from reporters and even then, it was only for seven minutes. Palin has yet to speak to the press, except in extremely controlled and rehearsed circumstances. It's to the point now where the press is deciding to boycott her, until she participates in the democratic process, of which the press is a part. The press exists to give us to the news, to describe the scene and ask the questions for those of us who cannot be there personally. So, in essence, the McCain campaign, by its silence, has made the decision to simply refuse to subject itself to the rightful scrutiny of the American people.
The very idea that a person could be so arrogant and presumptuous as to believe that he can be elected solely by aggressive public relations is insulting. It means that, once again, McCain believes he doesn't have to answer to anyone. Perhaps that is his definition of "maverick."
America has every right to consider fully who is going to be its next president. It has every right to weight ALL of the facts before casting its ballots. The inability to question a presidential candidate and his running mate in advance of an election borders very much on the "socialism" that McCain and company claim to hate.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure isn't putting "country first."
Frankly, Americans should be enraged by the fact that this man's campaign, which claims to be so ultra patriotic, willfully dodges every single attempt to question him and running mate Sarah Palin. If their position is so solid, what is loathsome about discussing the fate of our nation, were it to be placed in their hands?
Yesterday was the first day since August 13 that McCain deigned to take questions from reporters and even then, it was only for seven minutes. Palin has yet to speak to the press, except in extremely controlled and rehearsed circumstances. It's to the point now where the press is deciding to boycott her, until she participates in the democratic process, of which the press is a part. The press exists to give us to the news, to describe the scene and ask the questions for those of us who cannot be there personally. So, in essence, the McCain campaign, by its silence, has made the decision to simply refuse to subject itself to the rightful scrutiny of the American people.
The very idea that a person could be so arrogant and presumptuous as to believe that he can be elected solely by aggressive public relations is insulting. It means that, once again, McCain believes he doesn't have to answer to anyone. Perhaps that is his definition of "maverick."
America has every right to consider fully who is going to be its next president. It has every right to weight ALL of the facts before casting its ballots. The inability to question a presidential candidate and his running mate in advance of an election borders very much on the "socialism" that McCain and company claim to hate.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure isn't putting "country first."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Those Pesky Big Words
Question of the day: What is a "field dress"? People keep marveling over the fact that apparently, Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin can do something called a "field dress" to a moose. It sounds pretty awful, whatever it is (do they have to put on lipstick, too?), especially when there are so many hunting men and women who think it qualifies her as being "tough." The last time I checked, intestinal fortitude and true grit didn't require the ability to attack defenseless animals for sport.
If Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is an elitist, with his Harvard education and his correct use of the English language, then Palin seems to be the anti-elitist, with her backwoods jargon that most normal people can't understand. I personally don't know and don't care what a "field dress" is. What I do find puzzling, though, is how someone who claims to be "pro-life," as Palin so adamantly does, can so zealously and callously go out and kill, kill, kill wild animals. No doubt, her supporters will point to the Bible and try to rationalize it from a literal perspective, saying that God put these animals on earth solely for our disposal. But you know something? God also gave us more evolved brains (Oops! Evolution is another Palin no-no. She thinks we were just dropped here) than other creatures so that we could reason out our actions. He also gave us feelings and compassion, so that we could look to our fellow inhabitants of this earth as real, breathing companions. Sure, we are omnivores and crave meat from time to time. But that doesn't mean we are to be indifferent to the dignity of other animals. Those who so embrace hunting as "sport" seem to lack sensitivity. Someone who can get an adrenaline rush from shooting at wolves from the air is just plain sick. Does Sarah Palin actually feed her family everything she kills? I hope so. That would make this information somewhat more palatable.
I'm really becoming tired of hearing from people who accuse the "liberal media" of being so "mean" to Sarah Palin. It's rather the opposite in my view. The media has been shockingly and inappropriately hands-off in their dealings with her. If she were a man, there would be no question that she would be taken to task for her qualifications to the Nth degree. Instead, we are all to treat her with kid gloves because she's a woman and it would be sexist to do otherwise. Well, I'm a woman and I want the gloves to be taken off. Enough is enough with the simpering and tip toeing. Where is the toughness I keep hearing about? Showing up on Charlie Gibson is nothing. How about a meeting with Keith Olbermann? How about allowing the press to ask some real questions on behalf of the American people? Doesn't it bother anybody that she had to be sequestered and tutored before her interview with Gibson? And if she doesn't want her family to be discussed, if she truly wants privacy for her pregnant teenaged daughter, then why did she trot them all out on stage at the Republican National Convention? Why did she announce to the world that her daughter wasn't practicing abstinence? If this were Obama or Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden's kids who were pregnant, Republicans (and the media) would have been all over it. The difference is that Obama and Biden don't judge others that way and they don't tout themselves to be religious zealots for "family values." Republicans do. And now they don't want to have to taste their own medicine.
I may be an elitist (someone who has standards) and I don't know anything about moose field dresses or lipsticks on pigs but I do know when I smell an R-A-T.
If Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is an elitist, with his Harvard education and his correct use of the English language, then Palin seems to be the anti-elitist, with her backwoods jargon that most normal people can't understand. I personally don't know and don't care what a "field dress" is. What I do find puzzling, though, is how someone who claims to be "pro-life," as Palin so adamantly does, can so zealously and callously go out and kill, kill, kill wild animals. No doubt, her supporters will point to the Bible and try to rationalize it from a literal perspective, saying that God put these animals on earth solely for our disposal. But you know something? God also gave us more evolved brains (Oops! Evolution is another Palin no-no. She thinks we were just dropped here) than other creatures so that we could reason out our actions. He also gave us feelings and compassion, so that we could look to our fellow inhabitants of this earth as real, breathing companions. Sure, we are omnivores and crave meat from time to time. But that doesn't mean we are to be indifferent to the dignity of other animals. Those who so embrace hunting as "sport" seem to lack sensitivity. Someone who can get an adrenaline rush from shooting at wolves from the air is just plain sick. Does Sarah Palin actually feed her family everything she kills? I hope so. That would make this information somewhat more palatable.
I'm really becoming tired of hearing from people who accuse the "liberal media" of being so "mean" to Sarah Palin. It's rather the opposite in my view. The media has been shockingly and inappropriately hands-off in their dealings with her. If she were a man, there would be no question that she would be taken to task for her qualifications to the Nth degree. Instead, we are all to treat her with kid gloves because she's a woman and it would be sexist to do otherwise. Well, I'm a woman and I want the gloves to be taken off. Enough is enough with the simpering and tip toeing. Where is the toughness I keep hearing about? Showing up on Charlie Gibson is nothing. How about a meeting with Keith Olbermann? How about allowing the press to ask some real questions on behalf of the American people? Doesn't it bother anybody that she had to be sequestered and tutored before her interview with Gibson? And if she doesn't want her family to be discussed, if she truly wants privacy for her pregnant teenaged daughter, then why did she trot them all out on stage at the Republican National Convention? Why did she announce to the world that her daughter wasn't practicing abstinence? If this were Obama or Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden's kids who were pregnant, Republicans (and the media) would have been all over it. The difference is that Obama and Biden don't judge others that way and they don't tout themselves to be religious zealots for "family values." Republicans do. And now they don't want to have to taste their own medicine.
I may be an elitist (someone who has standards) and I don't know anything about moose field dresses or lipsticks on pigs but I do know when I smell an R-A-T.
Friday, September 5, 2008
A Call to Action
At first, it seemed that there were only "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" to worry about. Diappointed Hillary Clinton supporters alternatively said that they were victims of sexism, that Clinton was more qualified than Barack Obama, and that Obama effectively dismissed her. Despite what must have been a bitter blow, Clinton took the high road and in essence, realized that the issues of her party and this country took precedence over hurt feelings and wound licking. And so, she took the high road and did the right thing. On the night of her speech during last week's Democratic National Convention, she stood at the podium and America saw her as self-possessed and strong as she had ever been in her career. Most of all, they didn't see her for her gender. They saw her as a PERSON who cares more about other people in this country. In other words, she stood up for America.
The next night, Obama took the stage and spoke out for all of those who can't. He didn't just speak to African-Americans or women or anyone in particular. No, last Thursday, he spoke to every American citizen, and asked them for their trust. He asked for their support. And without sarcasm or cynicism, he outlined the ways he understands that not just the poor, but the middle-class of America has suffered. This country is in serious condition right now. Even the very wealthy are cutting back in their own way. For anyone who has been affected by aging parents or joblessness or health insurance rejection, it has begun to feel almost hopeless. Which is partly why this man has enviously been called a "rock star" and a "celebrity" by his opponent's campaign. He is bringing up a sore subject and addressing it, head on, and it's getting him noticed.
At some point, every voter needs to decide for him or herself which candidate is truly in a position to bring hope. Hope isn't always a solution but it is a start. The ability to motivate and inspire others are the hallmarks of a successful leader. Barack Obama has spent the better part of his career bridging the divides between us. The haves and the have-nots. In what has always been regarded as the richest and best country in the world, it is imperative that change come from within.
Senator John McCain's call for change is as recent as his speech last night. His life, and therefore, his experience, is almost twice as long as Obama's. So, he has had considerably more time than Obama to build his resume into a pillar of change. Yet, he has not. Certainly, his service to the U.S. military warrants respect. But the insistence that POW status somehow confirms a person's ability to lead a country makes no more sense than the idea that being a "hockey mom" readies someone for the vice presidency. Governor Sarah Palin and McCain are not evil people. They both seem confident of their abilities and they both will always have their accomplishments to stand on. But at this time, America cannot risk the type of hypocrisy and "change" that these two candidates propose. We cannot renew our standing in the world with a 20th century war veteran who, by his own admission, wants to "fight" for you. Or a short term governor with no foreign experience. In this global economy, America needs more. More diplomacy, more reasoned strategies and most of all, more studied compassion. Our allies must be treated with respect and our enemies must be understood. One cannot defeat that which one does not understand. This position does not signify weakness, either. Strength comes only from preparation. America was clearly unprepared for 9/11. And it is clearly unprepared for this economy. The environment will not rebound from the damage which has been wrought on it. More drilling is but a very short term solution and not even an immediate one. And what about healthcare, equal pay for equal work?
There is a mess to be fixed in this America. Barack Obama says it is fixable. He has worked on the fringes of society and helped many people find their way back to the American dream. Joe Biden has been in politics for 30+ years. Rather than be distrustful of that, all Americans should be heartened that in the future, with understanding and preparation, this country can regain its good standing in the world. At home, Americans may finally be able to stop being afraid. To stop hurting. And to start living again and participating in making this country, this world, a better place.
Watch the upcoming debates and really listen. This isn't about men vs. women. Or black vs. white. It's about what is best for all of America. You have a choice to make and it's the most important one you will ever make. For yourself, for your family and for EVERYONE's future.
The next night, Obama took the stage and spoke out for all of those who can't. He didn't just speak to African-Americans or women or anyone in particular. No, last Thursday, he spoke to every American citizen, and asked them for their trust. He asked for their support. And without sarcasm or cynicism, he outlined the ways he understands that not just the poor, but the middle-class of America has suffered. This country is in serious condition right now. Even the very wealthy are cutting back in their own way. For anyone who has been affected by aging parents or joblessness or health insurance rejection, it has begun to feel almost hopeless. Which is partly why this man has enviously been called a "rock star" and a "celebrity" by his opponent's campaign. He is bringing up a sore subject and addressing it, head on, and it's getting him noticed.
At some point, every voter needs to decide for him or herself which candidate is truly in a position to bring hope. Hope isn't always a solution but it is a start. The ability to motivate and inspire others are the hallmarks of a successful leader. Barack Obama has spent the better part of his career bridging the divides between us. The haves and the have-nots. In what has always been regarded as the richest and best country in the world, it is imperative that change come from within.
Senator John McCain's call for change is as recent as his speech last night. His life, and therefore, his experience, is almost twice as long as Obama's. So, he has had considerably more time than Obama to build his resume into a pillar of change. Yet, he has not. Certainly, his service to the U.S. military warrants respect. But the insistence that POW status somehow confirms a person's ability to lead a country makes no more sense than the idea that being a "hockey mom" readies someone for the vice presidency. Governor Sarah Palin and McCain are not evil people. They both seem confident of their abilities and they both will always have their accomplishments to stand on. But at this time, America cannot risk the type of hypocrisy and "change" that these two candidates propose. We cannot renew our standing in the world with a 20th century war veteran who, by his own admission, wants to "fight" for you. Or a short term governor with no foreign experience. In this global economy, America needs more. More diplomacy, more reasoned strategies and most of all, more studied compassion. Our allies must be treated with respect and our enemies must be understood. One cannot defeat that which one does not understand. This position does not signify weakness, either. Strength comes only from preparation. America was clearly unprepared for 9/11. And it is clearly unprepared for this economy. The environment will not rebound from the damage which has been wrought on it. More drilling is but a very short term solution and not even an immediate one. And what about healthcare, equal pay for equal work?
There is a mess to be fixed in this America. Barack Obama says it is fixable. He has worked on the fringes of society and helped many people find their way back to the American dream. Joe Biden has been in politics for 30+ years. Rather than be distrustful of that, all Americans should be heartened that in the future, with understanding and preparation, this country can regain its good standing in the world. At home, Americans may finally be able to stop being afraid. To stop hurting. And to start living again and participating in making this country, this world, a better place.
Watch the upcoming debates and really listen. This isn't about men vs. women. Or black vs. white. It's about what is best for all of America. You have a choice to make and it's the most important one you will ever make. For yourself, for your family and for EVERYONE's future.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Telluride Film Festival Report, 2008
My third turn at this serious film lover's paradise last weekend proved a bit different than the last two years. For one thing, there was an extra passholder line at the Chuck Jones theater. For another, there seemed to be more patrons and passholders than years past. Could be my imagination but it was disappointing to be locked out of a couple of the films I'd really wanted to see. That being said, I saw more movies than I didn't. Here's the overview:
The new Mike Leigh film, Happy-Go-Lucky was the first selection. The director was there to introduce it and admitted that despite the title, there would be dark elements to the story, which concerned a 30-year-old elementary school teacher in London named Poppy. She is perpetually cheery and giddy, seemingly never allowing anything or anyone to get her down. As Leigh warned ahead of time, a viewer would either love her or hate her, but one could not help but pay attention to her. I found her to be a bit grating initially but ultimately, I kind of admired her resilience. In the opening scene, someone steals her bicycle from outside a book store. She comes upon this realization slowly, as though she can’t fathom the idea of someone doing something like this to her and then laments briefly, “I didn’t even get a chance to say good bye.” In this way, she is endearingly childlike and serves as a reminder that I need to view the world with a little more innocence and compassion sometimes. During the course of the film, we become very familiar with her quirky, bohemian lifestyle and marvel at the fact that she can so seamlessly transcend grown-up problems simply by never getting too serious. Her caring, open manner allows her to deftly handle her stalker driving instructor, an angry student in her class and even her family’s attempts to force her to conform. If it comes into wide release (and I think it will), it’s definitely worthwhile.
By Saturday, everyone was in proper festival mode and journalist/writer/documentarian Richard Schickel, (who is probably in his 70s) received a special medallion for his contributions to cinema. There was a Q&A conducted by Gary Giddins, formerly of the Village Voice, during which Schickel discussed the film we would be seeing, You Must Remember This, a documentary spanning the early decades of Warner Bros. films. It is narrated by Clint Eastwood and goes for nearly two hours, covering everything from "The Jazz Singer" to "Casablanca." This was only a fraction of the entire film, which will be shown in parts on PBS in late September and will also be available on DVD next year. Schickel recommends that everyone see the PBS version as the DVD will inevitably be cut. As a side note, we thoroughly enjoyed Schickel's reflections on the movie industry of the last century and his remark on the subject: “Young people come up to me all the time and tell me they’ve never even seen a black and white film. What are they, f-ing idiots?! That is nothing to be proud of!” (My sentiments exactly!)
One really exceptional selection was an Austrian film called Revanche. The director, Gotz Spielmann was there to introduce it. He didn’t say much about it, so I was unprepared for how truly riveting it turned out to be. In the beginning, I was a bit turned off by the really graphic/violent sex (it concerns the life of a prostitute and her struggling, good hearted boyfriend who works at the brothel) but it quickly evolves into a suspenseful and engaging thriller. It is often said of movies of this particular genre that they are Hitchcockian and I am loathe to assign that sort of praise to most films but in this case, it is warranted. The boyfriend, Alex, wants desperately to sweep away his Ukrainian girlfriend to Spain and start a new life. The problem is, they don’t have any money, so he decides to knock off a bank. Things change very rapidly after that and he winds up having to stay with his farmer grandfather in the country. Scenery aside, this is a brilliantly filmed and directed movie which interestingly and convincingly weaves together the lives of five people in surprising ways. This was probably my most favorite film of the festival.
On Saturday evening, we elected to get scared and see the director’s cut of Zodiac, a film which was originally released last year but not very well received at the box office. It follows the true story of the hunt for the so-called Zodiac serial killer in California, over nearly three decades. Stars in the film include Jake Gyllenhal, Robert Downey, Jr., and Chloe Sevigney. Needless to say, it was extremely chilling and somewhat graphically violent. The director was supposed to be there but inexplicably was a no-show so we don’t know offhand what was different about this version but it was definitely well shot and written.
Another interesting selection was The Italian Straw Hat, a French silent film from 1928, which was preceded by Man-Bull Fight, an Italian short from 1907. The short was incredible from a number of perspectives. First, the comedy is so physical that it needs no sound or titling. It is simply a ridiculous seven minutes about a man who dons a pair of bull horns and creates havoc at a dinner party in a house and on the street, overthrowing everything in his way. There is some element of the Keystone Cops with a couple of police officers trying to stop him or at least slow him down, instead colliding with one another. The second interesting element was the quality of the film. It wasn’t in perfect condition and did not have the end (we’re left instead with a gang of matadors coming down the street to tame the beast) but it was fresh enough to really see the faces of the performers. The third element was really the street scenes behind the action. There was something fascinating about getting a good look at horse drawn carriages nonchalantly coming down the cobbled streets as well as the people on those streets and realizing that this was life 100 years ago.
The main film was entertaining enough but ran a bit long, even though it was only 90 minutes. The joke is revealed very early on and it doesn’t really require 90 minutes to tell. That being said, it was still a lot of fun to be frustrated and watch as a man on his wedding day accidentally destroys a married woman’s hat as she is out enjoying the afternoon with her lover…The lover and the woman take up residence at the man’s house and demand that he find an identical hat so as to preserve the woman’s honor…There are a number of sight gags, such as the uncle who has trouble hearing and therefore is unaware that anything is happening behind him and of course, the innocent bride who must wait for her groom at the altar, at the reception and ultimately, at home, while he searches for the hat.
A late screening of American Violet, which tells the true story of Dee Roberts, a young mother of four in the projects of a small Texas town who was selected for the help of the ACLU after she was unjustly imprisoned for selling drugs was enhanced by a special Q&A after the screening. Refusing to take a plea bargain, she goes up against the bigoted judicial system in Texas and ultimately prevails. Roberts is played by actress Nicole Behaire, who I am convinced will be nominated for an Academy Award after this is released. The Q&A following the film was emotional and terribly interesting as nearly the whole cast was present, in addition to the writer, Bill Haney, and the director, Tim Disney. The most exciting part was that Roberts and her children were all also in attendance and also answered questions from the audience. It will be very interesting to see what impact this has on the Texas town and its corrupt/vile D.A., who apparently is still working in that capacity there.
Also screened on Sunday was Flash of Genius, which stars Greg Kinnear in the true story of Robert Kearns, a professor/engineer/inventor who developed the intermittent windshield wiper in the late 1960’s and was ripped off by Ford. He lost his wife over his battle for rightful recognition and represented himself in the suit he filed against Ford but it took him 12 years to do it. American corporations have apparently always suffered from a total lack of ethics and responsibility and I’m hopeful that films like this will result in better treatment of artists and inventors. At the very least, people deserve to be credited for the work that they do. Sometimes, it’s really not about money. (Although Kearns ultimately did get several million dollars).
Mondays have generally been good at the festival, at least in my short experience. The festival generally TBA’s a number of popular films in an effort to help people get a final chance to see anything they’ve missed thus far. It’s also been the best way for ticket buyers to get in after the passholders and patrons have seen it all. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way this year. I had high hopes for a French film called I’ve Loved You So Long but despite several attempts to see it, the lines proved impossible, even on Monday, and we were turned away. I still recommend taking the ticket buyer route (as opposed to spending hundreds of dollars on a pass) but it does occasionally prove disadvantageous, as in this case.
In any case, after we were turned away, we did manage to see Laughing ‘Til It Hurts, a really rare collection of shorts unearthed by the Pordenone Festival. These come from archives from all around the world and included The Cook, with Buster Keaton and Fatty Arbuckle from 1918, Should Men Walk Home with a young Oliver Hardy (1927), and a number of others that were all thoroughly entertaining and in surprisingly good condition.
Later in the day, for the final Telluride film of the year, we saw the Norwegian O’Horten, a rather bizarre and disjointed story about a man (Odd Horten) who retires from being a train engineer (beautiful snowbound scenery as the high speed train glides from tunnel to tunnel) and is evidently very lonely and bored. He spends a lot of time smoking his pipe and just drifting from one improbable situation to another and there are some mildly amusing moments but it is mostly a bit sad and felt too long. I’m not quite sure what to take away from it but there were some moving moments.
There was no place to go for food after that, as Telluride rolls up its sidewalks at 10 p.m. or earlier. That being said, Monday was a gorgeous, sunny day with hints of fall in the air. Perhaps this melancholy ending was ultimately the best, most reflective conclusion to another inspiring and varied festival.
Obviously, there were many more films I didn’t see. In addition to I’ve Loved You So Long, I’d like to catch Everlasting Moments and Adam Resurrected, which stars Jeff Goldblum.
The new Mike Leigh film, Happy-Go-Lucky was the first selection. The director was there to introduce it and admitted that despite the title, there would be dark elements to the story, which concerned a 30-year-old elementary school teacher in London named Poppy. She is perpetually cheery and giddy, seemingly never allowing anything or anyone to get her down. As Leigh warned ahead of time, a viewer would either love her or hate her, but one could not help but pay attention to her. I found her to be a bit grating initially but ultimately, I kind of admired her resilience. In the opening scene, someone steals her bicycle from outside a book store. She comes upon this realization slowly, as though she can’t fathom the idea of someone doing something like this to her and then laments briefly, “I didn’t even get a chance to say good bye.” In this way, she is endearingly childlike and serves as a reminder that I need to view the world with a little more innocence and compassion sometimes. During the course of the film, we become very familiar with her quirky, bohemian lifestyle and marvel at the fact that she can so seamlessly transcend grown-up problems simply by never getting too serious. Her caring, open manner allows her to deftly handle her stalker driving instructor, an angry student in her class and even her family’s attempts to force her to conform. If it comes into wide release (and I think it will), it’s definitely worthwhile.
By Saturday, everyone was in proper festival mode and journalist/writer/documentarian Richard Schickel, (who is probably in his 70s) received a special medallion for his contributions to cinema. There was a Q&A conducted by Gary Giddins, formerly of the Village Voice, during which Schickel discussed the film we would be seeing, You Must Remember This, a documentary spanning the early decades of Warner Bros. films. It is narrated by Clint Eastwood and goes for nearly two hours, covering everything from "The Jazz Singer" to "Casablanca." This was only a fraction of the entire film, which will be shown in parts on PBS in late September and will also be available on DVD next year. Schickel recommends that everyone see the PBS version as the DVD will inevitably be cut. As a side note, we thoroughly enjoyed Schickel's reflections on the movie industry of the last century and his remark on the subject: “Young people come up to me all the time and tell me they’ve never even seen a black and white film. What are they, f-ing idiots?! That is nothing to be proud of!” (My sentiments exactly!)
One really exceptional selection was an Austrian film called Revanche. The director, Gotz Spielmann was there to introduce it. He didn’t say much about it, so I was unprepared for how truly riveting it turned out to be. In the beginning, I was a bit turned off by the really graphic/violent sex (it concerns the life of a prostitute and her struggling, good hearted boyfriend who works at the brothel) but it quickly evolves into a suspenseful and engaging thriller. It is often said of movies of this particular genre that they are Hitchcockian and I am loathe to assign that sort of praise to most films but in this case, it is warranted. The boyfriend, Alex, wants desperately to sweep away his Ukrainian girlfriend to Spain and start a new life. The problem is, they don’t have any money, so he decides to knock off a bank. Things change very rapidly after that and he winds up having to stay with his farmer grandfather in the country. Scenery aside, this is a brilliantly filmed and directed movie which interestingly and convincingly weaves together the lives of five people in surprising ways. This was probably my most favorite film of the festival.
On Saturday evening, we elected to get scared and see the director’s cut of Zodiac, a film which was originally released last year but not very well received at the box office. It follows the true story of the hunt for the so-called Zodiac serial killer in California, over nearly three decades. Stars in the film include Jake Gyllenhal, Robert Downey, Jr., and Chloe Sevigney. Needless to say, it was extremely chilling and somewhat graphically violent. The director was supposed to be there but inexplicably was a no-show so we don’t know offhand what was different about this version but it was definitely well shot and written.
Another interesting selection was The Italian Straw Hat, a French silent film from 1928, which was preceded by Man-Bull Fight, an Italian short from 1907. The short was incredible from a number of perspectives. First, the comedy is so physical that it needs no sound or titling. It is simply a ridiculous seven minutes about a man who dons a pair of bull horns and creates havoc at a dinner party in a house and on the street, overthrowing everything in his way. There is some element of the Keystone Cops with a couple of police officers trying to stop him or at least slow him down, instead colliding with one another. The second interesting element was the quality of the film. It wasn’t in perfect condition and did not have the end (we’re left instead with a gang of matadors coming down the street to tame the beast) but it was fresh enough to really see the faces of the performers. The third element was really the street scenes behind the action. There was something fascinating about getting a good look at horse drawn carriages nonchalantly coming down the cobbled streets as well as the people on those streets and realizing that this was life 100 years ago.
The main film was entertaining enough but ran a bit long, even though it was only 90 minutes. The joke is revealed very early on and it doesn’t really require 90 minutes to tell. That being said, it was still a lot of fun to be frustrated and watch as a man on his wedding day accidentally destroys a married woman’s hat as she is out enjoying the afternoon with her lover…The lover and the woman take up residence at the man’s house and demand that he find an identical hat so as to preserve the woman’s honor…There are a number of sight gags, such as the uncle who has trouble hearing and therefore is unaware that anything is happening behind him and of course, the innocent bride who must wait for her groom at the altar, at the reception and ultimately, at home, while he searches for the hat.
A late screening of American Violet, which tells the true story of Dee Roberts, a young mother of four in the projects of a small Texas town who was selected for the help of the ACLU after she was unjustly imprisoned for selling drugs was enhanced by a special Q&A after the screening. Refusing to take a plea bargain, she goes up against the bigoted judicial system in Texas and ultimately prevails. Roberts is played by actress Nicole Behaire, who I am convinced will be nominated for an Academy Award after this is released. The Q&A following the film was emotional and terribly interesting as nearly the whole cast was present, in addition to the writer, Bill Haney, and the director, Tim Disney. The most exciting part was that Roberts and her children were all also in attendance and also answered questions from the audience. It will be very interesting to see what impact this has on the Texas town and its corrupt/vile D.A., who apparently is still working in that capacity there.
Also screened on Sunday was Flash of Genius, which stars Greg Kinnear in the true story of Robert Kearns, a professor/engineer/inventor who developed the intermittent windshield wiper in the late 1960’s and was ripped off by Ford. He lost his wife over his battle for rightful recognition and represented himself in the suit he filed against Ford but it took him 12 years to do it. American corporations have apparently always suffered from a total lack of ethics and responsibility and I’m hopeful that films like this will result in better treatment of artists and inventors. At the very least, people deserve to be credited for the work that they do. Sometimes, it’s really not about money. (Although Kearns ultimately did get several million dollars).
Mondays have generally been good at the festival, at least in my short experience. The festival generally TBA’s a number of popular films in an effort to help people get a final chance to see anything they’ve missed thus far. It’s also been the best way for ticket buyers to get in after the passholders and patrons have seen it all. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way this year. I had high hopes for a French film called I’ve Loved You So Long but despite several attempts to see it, the lines proved impossible, even on Monday, and we were turned away. I still recommend taking the ticket buyer route (as opposed to spending hundreds of dollars on a pass) but it does occasionally prove disadvantageous, as in this case.
In any case, after we were turned away, we did manage to see Laughing ‘Til It Hurts, a really rare collection of shorts unearthed by the Pordenone Festival. These come from archives from all around the world and included The Cook, with Buster Keaton and Fatty Arbuckle from 1918, Should Men Walk Home with a young Oliver Hardy (1927), and a number of others that were all thoroughly entertaining and in surprisingly good condition.
Later in the day, for the final Telluride film of the year, we saw the Norwegian O’Horten, a rather bizarre and disjointed story about a man (Odd Horten) who retires from being a train engineer (beautiful snowbound scenery as the high speed train glides from tunnel to tunnel) and is evidently very lonely and bored. He spends a lot of time smoking his pipe and just drifting from one improbable situation to another and there are some mildly amusing moments but it is mostly a bit sad and felt too long. I’m not quite sure what to take away from it but there were some moving moments.
There was no place to go for food after that, as Telluride rolls up its sidewalks at 10 p.m. or earlier. That being said, Monday was a gorgeous, sunny day with hints of fall in the air. Perhaps this melancholy ending was ultimately the best, most reflective conclusion to another inspiring and varied festival.
Obviously, there were many more films I didn’t see. In addition to I’ve Loved You So Long, I’d like to catch Everlasting Moments and Adam Resurrected, which stars Jeff Goldblum.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Media's Demise is Everybody's Loss
Ever since the world of newspaper journalism began collapsing, I've been on the hunt for the next stage of media. I read all the media sites- journalismjobs.com, mediabistro.com, Poynter, etc. You would think that 15+ years of writing and editing for respected newspapers would bring me closer to the answers. But apparently, between Sam Zell's hatchet job on the Tribune Company and the general decline of newspaper readers in this country, we're sinking deeper and deeper into the conclusion that news as we've known it for more than a century, is over. Experts seem convinced that there will always be a need for journalists but what do we do in the mean time? To put it lightly, it's been a rough road since I left my last newspaper job in 2004...
The Web seems to be the next big medium. At least, that's what everyone has said. Yet, it doesn't matter if you are a star print reporter with killer Web skills...Potential employers may pay lip service to your news judgement and other abilities but can't spend more than $35K on your salary. The one Web site/newspaper which began making noise in the last year is Phil Anschutz's Examiner.com, which purports to be re-inventing the news wheel by having an edition in more than 60 cities. The plan is that each section (Politics, Health, Entertainment...) will have one content manager directing it and there will be national and local "examiners" covering the news in that specific section via blogging (although they don't like to call it that). The catch? The examiners are not reporters. They don't necessarily have any journalism background, although many are recently displaced reporters of local and nation repute. They don't even get paid because they're not technically employees of the Examiner. If their writing generates enough page views, THEN they get paid.
I went up for one of these content management positions at the Examiner. I felt really comfortable with my background and was heartened to learn that the pay scale was actually fair. Maybe even more than fair. But after only a couple of interviews I was mysteriously and abruptly dropped from the process. I couldn't figure it out until I Googled the people who would have been my supervisors. As it turns out, the education and experience level of most people who work for the Examiner is less than impressive. One guy with whom I interviewed has one year of community college experience. It doesn't make sense, until you stop to realize that in 2008, nobody is interested in accuracy, experience or education anymore. Blogs about nothing more than what someone ate for dinner that day or which party they attended have made plenty of people rich and even famous so why ask for more? The bar has moved down and people both post and accept whatever is published on Wikipedia as fact, so the trained, qualified copy editor has essentially become irrelevant. The question is, where are these bloggers and "examiners" getting their so-called news?? It appears that good old traditional sources, such as an AP feed are still being used. But even AP has sold out, to some degree, allowing for its information to be manipulated accordingly for each Web site client.
We've entered a sad time. A time when a presidential candidate can be besmirched for the level of his education. A time when "elitism" is a bad word. A time when businesses are so confident that worthless, baseless information sells that they are willing to gamble on inexperience and are unwilling to pay for experience. The world now turns on the whims of the lowest common denominator.
As long as people are more interested in the details of Paris Hilton's life, the media will continue this dumbing down process. More arts critics and news reporters will lose their jobs. And bit by bit, Americans will lose its collective intelligence. As it is, we have already discovered that most Americans are now distrustful of intellectualism. Some of our most important jobs- teaching, for example- are devalued by their paltry salaries. The same thing is happening in media. If you don't want to think about or even hear new ideas, if you only care about celebrity sightings and whether Oprah endorses a certain product, if you never question anything, well, this won't matter to you. For people like me, who still care about quality and accuracy, it hurts to be penalized for possessing integrity and ability. And it hurts to know that my fellow Americans no longer care about quality or accuracy. These same people may not realize it now, but the people they are hurting the most with their ignorance and apathy are none other than themselves.
The Web seems to be the next big medium. At least, that's what everyone has said. Yet, it doesn't matter if you are a star print reporter with killer Web skills...Potential employers may pay lip service to your news judgement and other abilities but can't spend more than $35K on your salary. The one Web site/newspaper which began making noise in the last year is Phil Anschutz's Examiner.com, which purports to be re-inventing the news wheel by having an edition in more than 60 cities. The plan is that each section (Politics, Health, Entertainment...) will have one content manager directing it and there will be national and local "examiners" covering the news in that specific section via blogging (although they don't like to call it that). The catch? The examiners are not reporters. They don't necessarily have any journalism background, although many are recently displaced reporters of local and nation repute. They don't even get paid because they're not technically employees of the Examiner. If their writing generates enough page views, THEN they get paid.
I went up for one of these content management positions at the Examiner. I felt really comfortable with my background and was heartened to learn that the pay scale was actually fair. Maybe even more than fair. But after only a couple of interviews I was mysteriously and abruptly dropped from the process. I couldn't figure it out until I Googled the people who would have been my supervisors. As it turns out, the education and experience level of most people who work for the Examiner is less than impressive. One guy with whom I interviewed has one year of community college experience. It doesn't make sense, until you stop to realize that in 2008, nobody is interested in accuracy, experience or education anymore. Blogs about nothing more than what someone ate for dinner that day or which party they attended have made plenty of people rich and even famous so why ask for more? The bar has moved down and people both post and accept whatever is published on Wikipedia as fact, so the trained, qualified copy editor has essentially become irrelevant. The question is, where are these bloggers and "examiners" getting their so-called news?? It appears that good old traditional sources, such as an AP feed are still being used. But even AP has sold out, to some degree, allowing for its information to be manipulated accordingly for each Web site client.
We've entered a sad time. A time when a presidential candidate can be besmirched for the level of his education. A time when "elitism" is a bad word. A time when businesses are so confident that worthless, baseless information sells that they are willing to gamble on inexperience and are unwilling to pay for experience. The world now turns on the whims of the lowest common denominator.
As long as people are more interested in the details of Paris Hilton's life, the media will continue this dumbing down process. More arts critics and news reporters will lose their jobs. And bit by bit, Americans will lose its collective intelligence. As it is, we have already discovered that most Americans are now distrustful of intellectualism. Some of our most important jobs- teaching, for example- are devalued by their paltry salaries. The same thing is happening in media. If you don't want to think about or even hear new ideas, if you only care about celebrity sightings and whether Oprah endorses a certain product, if you never question anything, well, this won't matter to you. For people like me, who still care about quality and accuracy, it hurts to be penalized for possessing integrity and ability. And it hurts to know that my fellow Americans no longer care about quality or accuracy. These same people may not realize it now, but the people they are hurting the most with their ignorance and apathy are none other than themselves.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
China: As Bad as Russia, Just Not as Smart
Is anyone else tired of the ruse that is Beijing? At first, it was just the whole notion that they would go to the lengths of changing little girls' passports in order to have them "legitimately" compete as 16-year-olds in the Olympics. As though anyone in- or out!- of the free world is incapable of recognizing a pre-adolescent in a leotard.
Then, there was the lip-synching debacle where at the last minute, one pretty little girl was presented to the world as the "singer" when actually, another one (deemed not as pretty by Chinese officials) was doing the singing.
And now, the New York Times reports that two elderly women in their 70s have been sentenced to labor camp for protesting in a government sanctioned protest area during the Olympics. Both women walk with canes and one of them is going blind. This is what is referred to as "re-education" by the Chinese government.
Frankly, China is not the only communist country that imposes such extreme standards on its citizens. But the Chinese, unlike others, seems completely oblivious to the fact that all of this is now happening on the world stage, with thousands of foreign journalists reporting on it. This is not to make light of the despicable actions of the former U.S.S.R. But it does point up to something interesting, in that the Chinese evidently believe they don't answer to anyone. In fact, they aren't even responsible for their own image.
China, in its bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, agreed to the rules and ostensibly understood that in this age of speedy technology, not many stones would be left unturned at the hands of so many journalists. So, why on earth would they make no attempt to loosen the rules for a few weeks or at least think twice before acting in front of millions of people? Instead, they have heedlessly flaunted their sloppiness and may even take pride in their obsession to "be the best."
It doesn't help matters that several other protesters, visible to the visiting media one day, have mysteriously disappeared the next.
Having the Olympics in Beijing was a big mistake. This government obviously doesn't deserve the money and glamour associated with being a host city. At the same time, perhaps increased publicity will convince the rest of the world that something needs to be done about China. There is simply no excuse for breaking the rules and treating people this way. And now we have the proof in prime time.
Then, there was the lip-synching debacle where at the last minute, one pretty little girl was presented to the world as the "singer" when actually, another one (deemed not as pretty by Chinese officials) was doing the singing.
And now, the New York Times reports that two elderly women in their 70s have been sentenced to labor camp for protesting in a government sanctioned protest area during the Olympics. Both women walk with canes and one of them is going blind. This is what is referred to as "re-education" by the Chinese government.
Frankly, China is not the only communist country that imposes such extreme standards on its citizens. But the Chinese, unlike others, seems completely oblivious to the fact that all of this is now happening on the world stage, with thousands of foreign journalists reporting on it. This is not to make light of the despicable actions of the former U.S.S.R. But it does point up to something interesting, in that the Chinese evidently believe they don't answer to anyone. In fact, they aren't even responsible for their own image.
China, in its bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, agreed to the rules and ostensibly understood that in this age of speedy technology, not many stones would be left unturned at the hands of so many journalists. So, why on earth would they make no attempt to loosen the rules for a few weeks or at least think twice before acting in front of millions of people? Instead, they have heedlessly flaunted their sloppiness and may even take pride in their obsession to "be the best."
It doesn't help matters that several other protesters, visible to the visiting media one day, have mysteriously disappeared the next.
Having the Olympics in Beijing was a big mistake. This government obviously doesn't deserve the money and glamour associated with being a host city. At the same time, perhaps increased publicity will convince the rest of the world that something needs to be done about China. There is simply no excuse for breaking the rules and treating people this way. And now we have the proof in prime time.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
New Age Hospitality Not So Much...
Remember when your parents had dinner parties? You would get dressed up, proudly serve appetizers and maybe even take a drink order or two if your dad was busy. Your mother spent days shopping for ingredients and cooking, baking and cleaning. Your dad stocked up at the liquor store. No expense was too grand, because GUESTS were coming!
There is a Polish saying, which says that when a guest in the house, God is in the house. In other words, treat this person as someone deserving of special treatment. Make him or her welcome in your home. My own parents continue to operate on this notion, as do their now grown children.
Increasingly, however, it seems that modern hosts are determined to exert the least effort possible in gathering people to their homes. "Party" used to mean that the person inviting you was going to provide food, drink and interesting company. Polite guests would generally bring along what was commonly referred to as the non-obligatory "host gift"- that is, a bottle of wine to augment the meal or perhaps a bouquet of flowers to brighten the room.
These days, invitations are issued via e-mail and usually, the party entails that the guests be responsible for their own food and/or drinks. Even in the most impoverished societies, people present a guest with the best they have, be it fresh milk from their one cow, freshly baked bread or even some homemade liquor they were saving for a special occasion. In these United States, financially comfortable people have no compunction about asking people to bring "whatever you want to drink," or even to provide all the courses ("potluck" is code for "bring your own everything." I've even been to parties where they don't have serving dishes!).
Is all this sheer laziness? Do these hosts think that people really prefer to buy and cook their own food and schlep it across town, when they could simply eat it in the comfort of their own homes? What's the alleged draw? So we can admire their new deck or suffer through their precocious 10-year-old's recitation of her tough school day? (Without little assignments to dole out hors d'oeuvres, the kids get bored really easily).
Miss Manners may still have all the answers but it seems as though people aren't listening. In this age of the iPod and online relationships, it seems that the concept of connection, in the form of politeness and protocol has all but vanished. The only parties deemed worthy of formal hospitality nowadays seem to be weddings and I'm sorry to say that this, too, probably has more to do with the laziness and greed that currently permeates our society. It says that the only time people are willing to host a gracious party is when there is the chance that the guests will pony up big presents. What happened to the collective enjoyment of good food, good wine and good company?
It's not too late to save what's left of American decorum. Throw a party soon and honor your guests by personalizing it and presenting them with all your best efforts. It doesn't have to be lavish. You don't have to present 10 courses. Just taking the time to care and connect with friends will mean so much to all of you in this plugged in, tuned out world.
There is a Polish saying, which says that when a guest in the house, God is in the house. In other words, treat this person as someone deserving of special treatment. Make him or her welcome in your home. My own parents continue to operate on this notion, as do their now grown children.
Increasingly, however, it seems that modern hosts are determined to exert the least effort possible in gathering people to their homes. "Party" used to mean that the person inviting you was going to provide food, drink and interesting company. Polite guests would generally bring along what was commonly referred to as the non-obligatory "host gift"- that is, a bottle of wine to augment the meal or perhaps a bouquet of flowers to brighten the room.
These days, invitations are issued via e-mail and usually, the party entails that the guests be responsible for their own food and/or drinks. Even in the most impoverished societies, people present a guest with the best they have, be it fresh milk from their one cow, freshly baked bread or even some homemade liquor they were saving for a special occasion. In these United States, financially comfortable people have no compunction about asking people to bring "whatever you want to drink," or even to provide all the courses ("potluck" is code for "bring your own everything." I've even been to parties where they don't have serving dishes!).
Is all this sheer laziness? Do these hosts think that people really prefer to buy and cook their own food and schlep it across town, when they could simply eat it in the comfort of their own homes? What's the alleged draw? So we can admire their new deck or suffer through their precocious 10-year-old's recitation of her tough school day? (Without little assignments to dole out hors d'oeuvres, the kids get bored really easily).
Miss Manners may still have all the answers but it seems as though people aren't listening. In this age of the iPod and online relationships, it seems that the concept of connection, in the form of politeness and protocol has all but vanished. The only parties deemed worthy of formal hospitality nowadays seem to be weddings and I'm sorry to say that this, too, probably has more to do with the laziness and greed that currently permeates our society. It says that the only time people are willing to host a gracious party is when there is the chance that the guests will pony up big presents. What happened to the collective enjoyment of good food, good wine and good company?
It's not too late to save what's left of American decorum. Throw a party soon and honor your guests by personalizing it and presenting them with all your best efforts. It doesn't have to be lavish. You don't have to present 10 courses. Just taking the time to care and connect with friends will mean so much to all of you in this plugged in, tuned out world.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Whole Body Imaging Exposes Loss of Freedom
Last week, the Chicago Tribune's Letters to the Editor section was abuzz with responses to the news that O'Hare International Airport is in the process of adding whole body imaging to their vast TSA arsenal. The indignities of air travel have grown ever worse since the "War on Terror" first began but apparently, in Chicago at least, the inmates are growing restless.
Several more airports are set to install the machines, which have "low dose" x-ray capabilities that see right through clothes, including underwear. The TSA says that the employees viewing the personal footage will be prevented from seeing any identifiable traits such as faces, but that is cold comfort to private citizens reluctant to be violated over and over, for the crime of wanting to visit Grandma this summer.
It is heartening to see an end to the apathy which began after 9-11, when it was mostly agreed that more airport security was necessary. But as the years go by, it seems that Americans are beginning to realize that there is apparently no end to the violations of privacy and decency that the administration is willing to inflict on law-abiding citizens in the name of security. Further, what are the health ramifications of being subjected to even low doses of radiation, particularly for young people? It will take decades before studies can be conducted on say, frequent fliers who allow themselves to be scanned on every trip.
Of course, the TSA says that it will offer traditional pat downs as an alternative to the whole body imaging but the selection process for both is so arbitrary that once again, ordinary citizens, not terrorists, will likely be the most inconvenienced.
Metal detection and other reasonable precautions to protect our safety is one thing. But this has gone too far. Americans need to take a stand, for their freedoms and for their own health and well-being. TSA personnel are often uneducated and unprepared to answer questions and most travelers are detained for asking questions anyway. With a bad economy and fewer people flying, the airlines can't afford to lose any more money. Body imaging is a bad idea and it will result in loss of income for the airlines, longer lines, more hassles, possible health risks and worst of all, the further leaking away of precious American freedom.
Several more airports are set to install the machines, which have "low dose" x-ray capabilities that see right through clothes, including underwear. The TSA says that the employees viewing the personal footage will be prevented from seeing any identifiable traits such as faces, but that is cold comfort to private citizens reluctant to be violated over and over, for the crime of wanting to visit Grandma this summer.
It is heartening to see an end to the apathy which began after 9-11, when it was mostly agreed that more airport security was necessary. But as the years go by, it seems that Americans are beginning to realize that there is apparently no end to the violations of privacy and decency that the administration is willing to inflict on law-abiding citizens in the name of security. Further, what are the health ramifications of being subjected to even low doses of radiation, particularly for young people? It will take decades before studies can be conducted on say, frequent fliers who allow themselves to be scanned on every trip.
Of course, the TSA says that it will offer traditional pat downs as an alternative to the whole body imaging but the selection process for both is so arbitrary that once again, ordinary citizens, not terrorists, will likely be the most inconvenienced.
Metal detection and other reasonable precautions to protect our safety is one thing. But this has gone too far. Americans need to take a stand, for their freedoms and for their own health and well-being. TSA personnel are often uneducated and unprepared to answer questions and most travelers are detained for asking questions anyway. With a bad economy and fewer people flying, the airlines can't afford to lose any more money. Body imaging is a bad idea and it will result in loss of income for the airlines, longer lines, more hassles, possible health risks and worst of all, the further leaking away of precious American freedom.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Has America Lost Its Way?
Americans don't like the word "socialization." The spectre of living in a communist-like society has been the crux of any argument against universal health care. Yet, most Americans have an expectation that whether they are rich or poor, the fire department will come to their home and put out a fire. Most Americans also enjoy, at least at one time or another, taking books out from the local library and many also either went to or are sending their own kids to public school. Somehow, America has evolved with the idea that these services are not "socialized." But in fact, they are. If you pay taxes, you are supporting all of these liberties, whether you ever utilize them or not. So, who is it among us who believes that health care is not a RIGHT, just like those other public services? Without healthy, productive citizens, a society cannot exist.
At a recent health care lecture at Denver's Regis University, former Washington Post reporter and universal health care advocate T. R. Reid presented his PBS Frontline documentary special, which sought out the various health care programs of several other countries, including Japan, Germany and Switzerland. In addition to concerns raised about higher taxes (yes, in exchange for "free" health care, people must support the system with taxes, but they seem to think it's worth it!), one student also expressed alarm over her mounting debt and said that new doctors require higher salaries in order to pay off debts of more than $100K after medical school. Although it is a legitimate concern, Reid pointed out that other countries also offer free higher education, thus freeing up doctors to focus exclusively on their obligations under the Hippocratic oath: the health and well-being of their patients.
In America, in the name of spending less money on taxes, our society compels college kids to rack up debt and become prisoners to their jobs after graduation. Increasingly, employers are reducing vacation benefits, maternity leave and sick days because they know they have most workers over a barrel. If 2008 America didn't put making a profit ahead of everything else in life, its citizens wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Who among us doesn't know someone whose life has been torn apart because of illness? Gone into debt in order to pay for surgery or chemotherapy or drugs that enable them to live? What if you lost your job? Who would pay for your blood pressure meds? Or take your kid to the doctor? Right now, thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy or worse, because they had the temerity to be sick in America. What kind of a morality is that?
Not all Americans have access to the best medicine in the world. Not even close. We throw poor sick people out on the street. Literally- in Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," video surveillance shows clearly the dropping off of two separate patients, still clad in hospital gowns, in the middle of the street. These patients had been at the University of Southern California Hospital. How could America, once the best in country in the world, treat its own this way? We're worried about illegal immigration? How about the illegality and complete indifference to the suferings of our own people????
Here's the bottom line: Making a crappy buck in no way justifies any of this. Unless you are in that 1-2% of super wealthy people, you are truly not getting a fair shake. Not in this country. Sure, we might have the best medical care but most people don't even get the chance to receive it. Why? Because insurance companies are big business. They don't care whether you live or die. If you get common afflictions like headaches or step throat routinely, indivudal coverage automatically goes up hundreds more dollars per month in premiums, rendering unaffordable for most working people. Even if the problem was minor, even if it was cured several years ago. Children are being REJECTED for having chronic ear infections! Mothers-to-be in Colorado are being denied maternity coverage if they've had one Caesarian section birth in the past... Sure, dignitaries and movie stars can get the best treatments, because they can afford to pay for them. It's the rest of us who are hurting and forced to put it on a charge card, if we're lucky enough to have one.
The lemmings of this country want to believe that we're still in an age where we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. It's not the same as it was 50+ years ago in America. It's simply not possible to LIVE here if you are a human being without money. A more "socialized" system will certainly encounter problems but I'd rather have a level playing field when it comes to our collective health than decry higher taxes and do nothing.
At a recent health care lecture at Denver's Regis University, former Washington Post reporter and universal health care advocate T. R. Reid presented his PBS Frontline documentary special, which sought out the various health care programs of several other countries, including Japan, Germany and Switzerland. In addition to concerns raised about higher taxes (yes, in exchange for "free" health care, people must support the system with taxes, but they seem to think it's worth it!), one student also expressed alarm over her mounting debt and said that new doctors require higher salaries in order to pay off debts of more than $100K after medical school. Although it is a legitimate concern, Reid pointed out that other countries also offer free higher education, thus freeing up doctors to focus exclusively on their obligations under the Hippocratic oath: the health and well-being of their patients.
In America, in the name of spending less money on taxes, our society compels college kids to rack up debt and become prisoners to their jobs after graduation. Increasingly, employers are reducing vacation benefits, maternity leave and sick days because they know they have most workers over a barrel. If 2008 America didn't put making a profit ahead of everything else in life, its citizens wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Who among us doesn't know someone whose life has been torn apart because of illness? Gone into debt in order to pay for surgery or chemotherapy or drugs that enable them to live? What if you lost your job? Who would pay for your blood pressure meds? Or take your kid to the doctor? Right now, thousands of people are filing for bankruptcy or worse, because they had the temerity to be sick in America. What kind of a morality is that?
Not all Americans have access to the best medicine in the world. Not even close. We throw poor sick people out on the street. Literally- in Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," video surveillance shows clearly the dropping off of two separate patients, still clad in hospital gowns, in the middle of the street. These patients had been at the University of Southern California Hospital. How could America, once the best in country in the world, treat its own this way? We're worried about illegal immigration? How about the illegality and complete indifference to the suferings of our own people????
Here's the bottom line: Making a crappy buck in no way justifies any of this. Unless you are in that 1-2% of super wealthy people, you are truly not getting a fair shake. Not in this country. Sure, we might have the best medical care but most people don't even get the chance to receive it. Why? Because insurance companies are big business. They don't care whether you live or die. If you get common afflictions like headaches or step throat routinely, indivudal coverage automatically goes up hundreds more dollars per month in premiums, rendering unaffordable for most working people. Even if the problem was minor, even if it was cured several years ago. Children are being REJECTED for having chronic ear infections! Mothers-to-be in Colorado are being denied maternity coverage if they've had one Caesarian section birth in the past... Sure, dignitaries and movie stars can get the best treatments, because they can afford to pay for them. It's the rest of us who are hurting and forced to put it on a charge card, if we're lucky enough to have one.
The lemmings of this country want to believe that we're still in an age where we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. It's not the same as it was 50+ years ago in America. It's simply not possible to LIVE here if you are a human being without money. A more "socialized" system will certainly encounter problems but I'd rather have a level playing field when it comes to our collective health than decry higher taxes and do nothing.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Divided, We Will Fall
Last week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in her bid for the White House. (Sort of).
Meanwhile, on thousands of chat boards and in conversations across America, a good chunk of Clinton's avowed 18 million supporters were adamently expressing their revised voting intentions. It seems that in lieu of Clinton, these people, most, if not all of them, registered Democrats, would rather vote for Republican nominee John McCain or worse, not at all, than cast a vote for the official Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama. What could possibly account for this hostility directed at a candidate whose platform is more or less identical to Clinton's? Certainly, there could be some Americans who woke up over the weekend to a completely changed philosophical outlook which now obliges them to switch party allegiances. But for the rest, it seems to be more than a question of the issues.
As the statistics bear out, older white women in particular have clung fiercely to the idea of a female president and refuse to accept anyone else as their candidate. They do not seem to be aware that this position actually demeans the significance of having a woman candidate in the first place. By basing one's support of a candidate solely on that person's sex, it removes whatever objectives, ideas and principles that that candidate had wanted Americans to consider when placing a vote. It renders moot the idea that women voters are exercising good judgement and free choice if their only criteria is that a female be elected to office.
Obviously, not all Clinton supporters are women who base their support on gender. But this idea that it is at once imperative to vote for a woman but absolutely not ok to throw support behind a black man of the same party after the woman candidate loses the nomination doesn't make any sense.
According to the chat boards, many of these Democrats don't really seem to have good reason for not supporting Obama in the wake of Clinton's defeat. Of those who posted comments, most cited his supposed lack of experience (does being a former first lady lend credibility in these people's eyes?), his "Muslim" background (as if a middle name has anything to do with one's religious affiliation or moral position), and of course, his "elitist" background and "un-patriotic" wife.
The term "elitist" has become a dirty word in modern day America. John Kerry's debates with George W. Bush went down in flames in 2003 not because Bush made any particularly salient remarks but because Kerry had the audacity to speak articulately, perhaps even using big words, and thus alienated Americans with his "inaccessibility." Instead of being suspicious of those more learned than ourselves, couldn't the American voter be inspired and encouraged by it? Wouldn't the most educated, trained, thoughtful and articulate person be the one you'd most like to have operate on you or prepare your taxes? What is there to distrust about a candidate- or anyone- who thinks that America can do better? Who studied and observed and learned from history and yes, perhaps even says things that you occcasionally don't understand? It is not "un-patriotic" to question things in this country and strive to make them better. It is loving, it is thoughtful and it is patriotic to care enough to speak up and do something about what is hurting America.
And so, a 48-year-old man with arguably short experience in the Senate is the official Democratic nominee. He is educated, but try not to hold that against him. He has an opinionated wife, but so did another candidate who became president in recent memory. And he is black. If this is your criteria for withholding support, then you probably wouldn't have been ready for a woman in office, anyway. If color is your sole criteria in lending your support, your actions are as misguided as those who would only consider a woman for president. Consider the issues. Consider the future. But don't let superficialities like color or gender stand in your way of making the the best, most thoughtful decision in November. You owe it to yourself, to your neighbors and to the candidates- all of them- who want to do what they think is best for this divided America.
Meanwhile, on thousands of chat boards and in conversations across America, a good chunk of Clinton's avowed 18 million supporters were adamently expressing their revised voting intentions. It seems that in lieu of Clinton, these people, most, if not all of them, registered Democrats, would rather vote for Republican nominee John McCain or worse, not at all, than cast a vote for the official Democratic nominee, Barrack Obama. What could possibly account for this hostility directed at a candidate whose platform is more or less identical to Clinton's? Certainly, there could be some Americans who woke up over the weekend to a completely changed philosophical outlook which now obliges them to switch party allegiances. But for the rest, it seems to be more than a question of the issues.
As the statistics bear out, older white women in particular have clung fiercely to the idea of a female president and refuse to accept anyone else as their candidate. They do not seem to be aware that this position actually demeans the significance of having a woman candidate in the first place. By basing one's support of a candidate solely on that person's sex, it removes whatever objectives, ideas and principles that that candidate had wanted Americans to consider when placing a vote. It renders moot the idea that women voters are exercising good judgement and free choice if their only criteria is that a female be elected to office.
Obviously, not all Clinton supporters are women who base their support on gender. But this idea that it is at once imperative to vote for a woman but absolutely not ok to throw support behind a black man of the same party after the woman candidate loses the nomination doesn't make any sense.
According to the chat boards, many of these Democrats don't really seem to have good reason for not supporting Obama in the wake of Clinton's defeat. Of those who posted comments, most cited his supposed lack of experience (does being a former first lady lend credibility in these people's eyes?), his "Muslim" background (as if a middle name has anything to do with one's religious affiliation or moral position), and of course, his "elitist" background and "un-patriotic" wife.
The term "elitist" has become a dirty word in modern day America. John Kerry's debates with George W. Bush went down in flames in 2003 not because Bush made any particularly salient remarks but because Kerry had the audacity to speak articulately, perhaps even using big words, and thus alienated Americans with his "inaccessibility." Instead of being suspicious of those more learned than ourselves, couldn't the American voter be inspired and encouraged by it? Wouldn't the most educated, trained, thoughtful and articulate person be the one you'd most like to have operate on you or prepare your taxes? What is there to distrust about a candidate- or anyone- who thinks that America can do better? Who studied and observed and learned from history and yes, perhaps even says things that you occcasionally don't understand? It is not "un-patriotic" to question things in this country and strive to make them better. It is loving, it is thoughtful and it is patriotic to care enough to speak up and do something about what is hurting America.
And so, a 48-year-old man with arguably short experience in the Senate is the official Democratic nominee. He is educated, but try not to hold that against him. He has an opinionated wife, but so did another candidate who became president in recent memory. And he is black. If this is your criteria for withholding support, then you probably wouldn't have been ready for a woman in office, anyway. If color is your sole criteria in lending your support, your actions are as misguided as those who would only consider a woman for president. Consider the issues. Consider the future. But don't let superficialities like color or gender stand in your way of making the the best, most thoughtful decision in November. You owe it to yourself, to your neighbors and to the candidates- all of them- who want to do what they think is best for this divided America.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Eight Years of Credit
A phone rings somewhere in the White House. GWB, trying to do a crossword puzzle, looks around for help but the phone keeps ringing. Irritated, he goes to answer it.
GWB: Yes? Hello?
Caller: Uh...Mr. President? Good evening. This is Jim, from Citibank. I'm calling because it looks like there has been some unusual activity on your account this month.
GWB: You people have been calling for a few years now. What could be the matter?
Caller: Well, sir, it seems that you continue to post highly suspicious activity on your Titanium Plus card and...
GWB (clearly flummoxed): Isn't Daddy paying the minimum due? I don't see why you have to bother me at home. I'm very busy, you know.
Caller: Of course, sir. We don't mean to trouble you. You and your family have been most excellent Citibank clients. It's just that, well, it's my job to investigate any sign of particularly active accounts. It's all for your protection.
GWB: My protection? I don't need protection. I know what's best for me and for this country. I talk directly to God, you know.
Caller: Um, ok. Yes, I mean, we don't mean to in any way imply that you're not in control. Of course you're in control. But if you would just allow me to...
GWB (becoming irritated): Come on! I'm missing "American Idol!" What do you want?
Caller: Well, sir. Again, there seems to be some unusual activity on your card. The problem is that you are very close to the limit and of course, we'd be happy to keep extending it. But I am obliged to ask you if you think you might be able to pay some of this down soon.
GWB: This is an outrage! My daddy is not going to be happy. I get to buy whatever I want, when I want.
Caller: Mr. President, please. We are not trying to censor your spending habits. This is a collaborative effort, between us and the client. I'm simply trying to get an idea of when we might expect something more than the minimum from you. Certainly, you'd like to pay this down and perhaps lower your interest, too?
GWB: Lower my interest?? My interest is with the American people!! I don't care about anything you're saying. This is crazy talk. You obviously are with the terrorists. The American people want me to keep spending. It's for their protection. It's for the past and the future of America. Are you all terrorists or something? I'll bet your boss is with Al-Qaeda. I'm switching to Chase.
Caller: Sir, I'm not a terrorist. I'm calling from Kansas. All I am trying to do is to ask you a few questions pertaining to your account.
GWB: Well, come on. What is it that you want?
Caller: Beyond trying to get down some of the trillion dollars that you've got on this card, we are also noticing recurring charges to something called Halliburton. Also, have you recently been in Falujah?
GWB (deep sigh): Ok, ok. You got me. Just please don't call Daddy. We can work this out. Do you take Mastercard?
GWB: Yes? Hello?
Caller: Uh...Mr. President? Good evening. This is Jim, from Citibank. I'm calling because it looks like there has been some unusual activity on your account this month.
GWB: You people have been calling for a few years now. What could be the matter?
Caller: Well, sir, it seems that you continue to post highly suspicious activity on your Titanium Plus card and...
GWB (clearly flummoxed): Isn't Daddy paying the minimum due? I don't see why you have to bother me at home. I'm very busy, you know.
Caller: Of course, sir. We don't mean to trouble you. You and your family have been most excellent Citibank clients. It's just that, well, it's my job to investigate any sign of particularly active accounts. It's all for your protection.
GWB: My protection? I don't need protection. I know what's best for me and for this country. I talk directly to God, you know.
Caller: Um, ok. Yes, I mean, we don't mean to in any way imply that you're not in control. Of course you're in control. But if you would just allow me to...
GWB (becoming irritated): Come on! I'm missing "American Idol!" What do you want?
Caller: Well, sir. Again, there seems to be some unusual activity on your card. The problem is that you are very close to the limit and of course, we'd be happy to keep extending it. But I am obliged to ask you if you think you might be able to pay some of this down soon.
GWB: This is an outrage! My daddy is not going to be happy. I get to buy whatever I want, when I want.
Caller: Mr. President, please. We are not trying to censor your spending habits. This is a collaborative effort, between us and the client. I'm simply trying to get an idea of when we might expect something more than the minimum from you. Certainly, you'd like to pay this down and perhaps lower your interest, too?
GWB: Lower my interest?? My interest is with the American people!! I don't care about anything you're saying. This is crazy talk. You obviously are with the terrorists. The American people want me to keep spending. It's for their protection. It's for the past and the future of America. Are you all terrorists or something? I'll bet your boss is with Al-Qaeda. I'm switching to Chase.
Caller: Sir, I'm not a terrorist. I'm calling from Kansas. All I am trying to do is to ask you a few questions pertaining to your account.
GWB: Well, come on. What is it that you want?
Caller: Beyond trying to get down some of the trillion dollars that you've got on this card, we are also noticing recurring charges to something called Halliburton. Also, have you recently been in Falujah?
GWB (deep sigh): Ok, ok. You got me. Just please don't call Daddy. We can work this out. Do you take Mastercard?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Silent Scream
Just across from a Whole Foods parking lot choked with cars this afternoon, a violent act was taking place. While hundreds of witnesses were present, no one cried out in protest. In fact, people were getting paid to commit it. This is not surprising, considering the hypocrisy that exists across this American landscape. Now that it's en vogue to spend $60 on organic wild berries and carry one's own shopping bag to the supermarket in a shiny, new Toyota Prius, it may appear that even the rich are becoming more selfless and aware, even to the extent of "going green." But the reality is that everyday, in every American city, nature is being destroyed before our very eyes, in the name of progress. The definition of progress has come to be nebulous. Certainly no one would argue with the idea that people need homes in which to raise their chicly small families. But does a city like Denver actually NEED another faux loft condo? Exactly how many more condos/McMansions/Chase branches/Restoration Hardwares does America require before it is sated?
Here in Colorado, the atrocity that was so nonchalantly being committed was one that you probably witness yourself, with increasing frequency. Perhaps you even stop to watch, finding it interesting and possibly a little sad, but again, that's progress, right? In the Cherry Creek North area of Denver, in front of all of those people trapped in their cars, a very tall pine tree was being bulldozed. Its height would suggest that it was at least 50 years old. For all that time, it had stood there, providing decoration and shelter and purifying the air and now, this afternoon, a bulldozer was hitting it, again and again, with malicious force, as a cat will play with its prey before finally snapping its neck.
Whatever your definition of progress, watching this magnificent example of nature be brought down was violent and sickening. But it's really only collatoral damage as America continues to pretend that its position is still the world dominator, filled with democracy, grand capitalism and productive pioneer citizens. Meanwhile, as we squander our natural resources, displace wildlife and happily accept another condo for the wealthy, 48 million people go uninsured. Unemployment continues to rise. And a war continues in Iraq.
An attitude of applied compassion and restraint would go a long way to begin solving these problems. Inside, many Americans are screaming. They are bankrupt and in debt and ill and alone in a system that has filled itself up with antiquated rhetoric and lies. America is in a mess of its own making and only its own people can now save it.
A tree is a seemingly insignificant thing to worry about with so much torment in the world. But if America is to begin somewhere, it must begin at home. It must take a cold, hard look at what is necessary in the name of progress and what is not. It must realize what we have become and make a plan for the future. It could and should care about everything on this soil and value it and find a way to strengthen it, not tear it down.
And it could all start with a tree.
Here in Colorado, the atrocity that was so nonchalantly being committed was one that you probably witness yourself, with increasing frequency. Perhaps you even stop to watch, finding it interesting and possibly a little sad, but again, that's progress, right? In the Cherry Creek North area of Denver, in front of all of those people trapped in their cars, a very tall pine tree was being bulldozed. Its height would suggest that it was at least 50 years old. For all that time, it had stood there, providing decoration and shelter and purifying the air and now, this afternoon, a bulldozer was hitting it, again and again, with malicious force, as a cat will play with its prey before finally snapping its neck.
Whatever your definition of progress, watching this magnificent example of nature be brought down was violent and sickening. But it's really only collatoral damage as America continues to pretend that its position is still the world dominator, filled with democracy, grand capitalism and productive pioneer citizens. Meanwhile, as we squander our natural resources, displace wildlife and happily accept another condo for the wealthy, 48 million people go uninsured. Unemployment continues to rise. And a war continues in Iraq.
An attitude of applied compassion and restraint would go a long way to begin solving these problems. Inside, many Americans are screaming. They are bankrupt and in debt and ill and alone in a system that has filled itself up with antiquated rhetoric and lies. America is in a mess of its own making and only its own people can now save it.
A tree is a seemingly insignificant thing to worry about with so much torment in the world. But if America is to begin somewhere, it must begin at home. It must take a cold, hard look at what is necessary in the name of progress and what is not. It must realize what we have become and make a plan for the future. It could and should care about everything on this soil and value it and find a way to strengthen it, not tear it down.
And it could all start with a tree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)