I'm not sure if it's meaningful to write about turning sixty, but since I am rapidly approaching that day I'm giving it some thought for the hell of it. After all, this is a time when everyone seems concerned about their legacy—Bush and Rumsfeld for example, and both are trying to rewrite history to attain a favorable view.
Alas, I don't have the luxury of living in the public eye. My secrets stay where they've been since they entered closet or can.
Of course, we're familiar with seeing our lives in terms of milestones: first steps, first date, first car, first war, whatever... After a while there aren't that many "firsts" anymore, as the initial excitement about fulfilling a life's promise turns to family, duty, work, honing one's skills, surviving tax time, etc., before life's last stages become too dilapidating to attribute any glorious accolades to.
"He remained sharp until the end," may be the best one can hope for.
However, right this moment it appears that sixty is a sweet spot from where one should be able to cast a mild glance backwards while at the same time eyeing the future without the kind of anxiety I felt for example at sixteen, when turning 21 equaled entering the promised land.
At sixty, being alive (something my father did not accomplish) is a success in itself from a very basic viewpoint. So far, so good. I'm breathing for all that it's worth. But there's still a road ahead, even if it's generally not regarded as long or promising as the one already traveled.
Yet, sixty isn't the beginning of the end, unless you believe it is.
To me, the number is representing an opportunity to take the pulse of my life. Life has to be about something. But everything, be they people, things, jobs, or money—to name a few—are elements outside of myself and prone to influences over which I can only pretend to have control.
I guess, what counts the most is, what have I learned, if anything?
Learning is an awkward process. It's based on failures and on finding ways to overcome them. As such it took me the greater part of my life to begin to appreciate failure as an indicator of progress. I've tormented myself on occasions, wallowed in regrets when things didn't turn out as I had hoped. And every time hindsight taught me that it had been for the better. That there were important lessons harvested from failure. Mistakes are a must and we should understand that, but few do in our reward-and-punish society. Without mistakes there's no analysis, no change of plan, no new direction. No improvement.
So, at sixty I can safely acknowledge that I've become pretty good a failing.
However, to avoid becoming too good at it I had to come up with a remedy. Finally I pondered upon a simple slogan which for me sums it up perfectly: Every decision, one of vision.
It sounds simple, but like all mantras just mumbling it is not enough. It takes effort to formulate a vision, but when it's decision time at least you have a tool in hand to measure its validity.
Making every decision one of vision is helping me understand where I'm going and it can even be the mechanism that helps me get there as I no longer have to concern myself with extraneous aspects and influences that lead me astray.
Unfortunately, I was only able to formulate this vehicle for my every day judgments a few years ago. Still, long enough to test it. I'd say that's my #1 insight.
Another thing I've been working on is a possible solution for a problem that we all seem to have: horrible time management. I don't mean the schedule you keep if you work for a boss. I'm talking about dividing your time between catching up with your tasks and accomplishing your goals.
I've noticed that we usually spend most of our time in the past, catching up with yesterdays' tasks, then put off accomplishing our goals because we've run out of time, energy, or are too drunk, to be motivated. We may even think that we've actually accomplished something. If you work for a boss that may be true, but you've done it in the service of another person or institution. You may not have helped accomplish anything for yourself. For that reason I'm a big proponent of building your own business, as it's all about tomorrow.
Now, it's not easy to start the day with dedicating time to your lofty ideals when you have pressing tasks waiting, but without allotting substantial time to realizing your dreams they will remain just that: dreams.
Contrary to popular belief, dreams are hard work. They need consistent attention if they are to become reality. To that end I try to dedicate a portion of my productive hours every day to accomplishing my goals.
Big deal, you may say, but until it entered my consciousness my activities were all over the place. Keep in mind that if you expect your dream to come true 100% that you probably can't accomplish that by dedicating 10% of your time to it. Still, 10% is better than nothing.
If I had to formulate my fantastic insight #2, it would sound something like this: Spend every day x% of your productive time catching up with ongoing tasks, then spend x% on accomplishing goals. Currently I am at 60/40 with my time. My aim is to switch those numbers around. If I can, that means I'm spending more time in the present than in the past.
Now, surely I must've learned something more in sixty years than that, and I have, so if you want more, here's #3:
"Always keep people wanting more."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
In reaction to "George Bush's new-fangled (liberal) Faith"
Today I stumbled over Paul Raushenbush's post at Beliefnet's Progressive Revival blog, titled "George Bush's (liberal) Faith."
In it Raushenbush (what's in a name...) states that in his opinion George Bush revealed that his approach to the bible, evolution and to other religions has more in common with liberal protestants than with his fundamentalist political amen corner, as was "made clear" in what he calls "a surprising ABC Nightline interview on Monday."
When asked if he thought the bible was literally true Bush answered: "You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'"
When asked if he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs Bush said: "I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
And when asked about creation and evolution Bush answered: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
Raushenbush elatedly wrote: "Check, check, check, - Oh, my God, George Bush and I have have the same world view!!!"
Holy Schmoly! Along with Pat Robertson, Michelle Malkin, Karl Rove, Shaun Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and other faux Christians forever trumpeting their smallish, boorish, hypocrite ideas about family, abortion, gays, and God, Raushenbush too can't live with the fact that Bush's set of religious values have nearly destroyed the economy, democracy, the environment, plus the lives of thousands of US soldiers and their families and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens in New Orleans, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He's leaving behind America as a severely broken and bankrupt stinking shit-hole on a hill—to paraphrase Reagan.
These are some of the reasons religious Americans voted for Obama, risking their Christian and Republican souls for some liberal ointment, perhaps seeing in Obama the Messiah they're always hoping for to put an end to thievery, greed, bribery, adultery, and all those other character traits Republican politicians and evangelical leaders are regularly being indicted for. Throughout history there have been terrible leaders and Bush's name can easily be added to a list that includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Idi Amin, and Mao Tse Tung, if only for alienating a very large segment of the nation and making the world a more dangerous place by being a poster boy for terrorist recruitment.
To Raushenbush that doesn't seem to matter as he continues with, "George Bush was trusted by a large segment of the Christian population because he publicly articulated a profound personal experience of God through Jesus Christ. This interview reveals that someone can have an authentic religious experience without the burdens of Biblical literalism, anti-science suspicions and Christian triumphalism."
That's it? Nothing about how that trust was betrayed? Rather, elation about the fact that in the end George The Merciless's religious experience was "profound." Is this guy for real? Who gives a flying fuck that Hitler went to church? Is that the religious right's ultimate standard by which a man's or woman's character is judged? Oh, I forgot, judging's up to the Almighty... Yet, I've never felt so judged by Republicans, even those among my friends, who project as much disdain as they can into uttering the label "Liberal" as during the last eight years (in which not a single Democrat was appointed by Bush and instead were singled out and ejected from many government posts, only to be replaced by Republican yes men and women—an action not unlike Hitler's reinheit-drive to rid Germany of the "impure").
But Raushenbush appears oblivious of any historical context and ultimately loses me when he states, "Contrary to popular belief, George Bush is no dummy," after first quoting the three above-referenced horrible, awkwardly-worded attempts by George The Theologist at forming complete sentences to do with his "faith." Raushenbush's jubilation at holding the same world view as George The Unrepentable (who at the end of his reign has begun appearing on TV in sheepskin, maybe hoping to erase all our negative memories) only shows what little evidence he needs to feel comforted by all those that engage in, support, vote for, and generally embrace discrimination, war, killing, and walk lock-step with the big corporations that control politics and thus our lives. No matter what myopic worldview George The Blind Bat has, Raushenbush, by comparing Bush to himself only gives validity to the idea that one does not have to be smart to be elected president if there are enough others lacking intelligence. Sadly, there are plenty and for 8 long years George The Decider was their Über-Dummy.
If the idea of an Almighty as one with sensibilities and reason was what many saw reflected in George Bush I'd proffer that as a mighty insult to the Almighty. As a result of having our own Gang of Four at the helm (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove) we have witnessed quite the opposite of everything commonly attributed to Jesus's teachings, and still Raushenbush goes back to crawl up the apparently cozy rectum of George The Warmonger who sarcastically (others might say "humbly") stated in his ABC interview that he's "just a simple president."
Sure. Someone you'd like to have a beer with. The Other Son of God. The Man with a Mission who wanted to be a Uniter but became a Divider by seeing himself as The Decider. The Chosen One who'd set the world straight on the path to Armageddon.
To his credit, Raushenbush finally had me laughing when he revealed himself as totally inadequate to grasp what the elections had wrought by saying, "Hopefully other political and religious figures on the right will follow suit. Governor Huckabee?"
Raushenbush, dude, the religious right got it royally wrong, and that includes that has-been Huckabee who'd sent gays straight to hell if he could! Except for you, no one's waiting for the televised remodeling of the collapsed Republican and religious right wedding cake. Certainly not redressed with some liberal sauce du jour. America finally woke up and grabbed power from the greedy grubby Republican and religious right dead-wrong hands. We're no longer interested in their or your misguided, juxtaposed, miserable, and entirely backward world views.
About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In it Raushenbush (what's in a name...) states that in his opinion George Bush revealed that his approach to the bible, evolution and to other religions has more in common with liberal protestants than with his fundamentalist political amen corner, as was "made clear" in what he calls "a surprising ABC Nightline interview on Monday."
When asked if he thought the bible was literally true Bush answered: "You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'"
When asked if he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs Bush said: "I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
And when asked about creation and evolution Bush answered: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
Raushenbush elatedly wrote: "Check, check, check, - Oh, my God, George Bush and I have have the same world view!!!"
Holy Schmoly! Along with Pat Robertson, Michelle Malkin, Karl Rove, Shaun Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and other faux Christians forever trumpeting their smallish, boorish, hypocrite ideas about family, abortion, gays, and God, Raushenbush too can't live with the fact that Bush's set of religious values have nearly destroyed the economy, democracy, the environment, plus the lives of thousands of US soldiers and their families and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens in New Orleans, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He's leaving behind America as a severely broken and bankrupt stinking shit-hole on a hill—to paraphrase Reagan.
These are some of the reasons religious Americans voted for Obama, risking their Christian and Republican souls for some liberal ointment, perhaps seeing in Obama the Messiah they're always hoping for to put an end to thievery, greed, bribery, adultery, and all those other character traits Republican politicians and evangelical leaders are regularly being indicted for. Throughout history there have been terrible leaders and Bush's name can easily be added to a list that includes Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Idi Amin, and Mao Tse Tung, if only for alienating a very large segment of the nation and making the world a more dangerous place by being a poster boy for terrorist recruitment.
To Raushenbush that doesn't seem to matter as he continues with, "George Bush was trusted by a large segment of the Christian population because he publicly articulated a profound personal experience of God through Jesus Christ. This interview reveals that someone can have an authentic religious experience without the burdens of Biblical literalism, anti-science suspicions and Christian triumphalism."
That's it? Nothing about how that trust was betrayed? Rather, elation about the fact that in the end George The Merciless's religious experience was "profound." Is this guy for real? Who gives a flying fuck that Hitler went to church? Is that the religious right's ultimate standard by which a man's or woman's character is judged? Oh, I forgot, judging's up to the Almighty... Yet, I've never felt so judged by Republicans, even those among my friends, who project as much disdain as they can into uttering the label "Liberal" as during the last eight years (in which not a single Democrat was appointed by Bush and instead were singled out and ejected from many government posts, only to be replaced by Republican yes men and women—an action not unlike Hitler's reinheit-drive to rid Germany of the "impure").
But Raushenbush appears oblivious of any historical context and ultimately loses me when he states, "Contrary to popular belief, George Bush is no dummy," after first quoting the three above-referenced horrible, awkwardly-worded attempts by George The Theologist at forming complete sentences to do with his "faith." Raushenbush's jubilation at holding the same world view as George The Unrepentable (who at the end of his reign has begun appearing on TV in sheepskin, maybe hoping to erase all our negative memories) only shows what little evidence he needs to feel comforted by all those that engage in, support, vote for, and generally embrace discrimination, war, killing, and walk lock-step with the big corporations that control politics and thus our lives. No matter what myopic worldview George The Blind Bat has, Raushenbush, by comparing Bush to himself only gives validity to the idea that one does not have to be smart to be elected president if there are enough others lacking intelligence. Sadly, there are plenty and for 8 long years George The Decider was their Über-Dummy.
If the idea of an Almighty as one with sensibilities and reason was what many saw reflected in George Bush I'd proffer that as a mighty insult to the Almighty. As a result of having our own Gang of Four at the helm (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove) we have witnessed quite the opposite of everything commonly attributed to Jesus's teachings, and still Raushenbush goes back to crawl up the apparently cozy rectum of George The Warmonger who sarcastically (others might say "humbly") stated in his ABC interview that he's "just a simple president."
Sure. Someone you'd like to have a beer with. The Other Son of God. The Man with a Mission who wanted to be a Uniter but became a Divider by seeing himself as The Decider. The Chosen One who'd set the world straight on the path to Armageddon.
To his credit, Raushenbush finally had me laughing when he revealed himself as totally inadequate to grasp what the elections had wrought by saying, "Hopefully other political and religious figures on the right will follow suit. Governor Huckabee?"
Raushenbush, dude, the religious right got it royally wrong, and that includes that has-been Huckabee who'd sent gays straight to hell if he could! Except for you, no one's waiting for the televised remodeling of the collapsed Republican and religious right wedding cake. Certainly not redressed with some liberal sauce du jour. America finally woke up and grabbed power from the greedy grubby Republican and religious right dead-wrong hands. We're no longer interested in their or your misguided, juxtaposed, miserable, and entirely backward world views.
About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Monday, December 8, 2008
Bush's Environmental Chief: There's "Not A Clean-Cut Division" Between Religion And Science
First, I'd say, consider the source. However, as these statements are dispensed as official news it pays to post a retort.
Ask yourself, if everything we know to be scientifically true today could fit in a book, would you not reference it like a good Christian does the Bible?
Now ask yourself, if someone today published a book based on quasi-historical assumptions, unexplainable events, would you suspend your disbelief and start trying to convince others that everything in the book is true, or would you label it entertainment or sci-fi?
There's no proof that burning bushes and snakes can talk, that seas can part or that anyone can walk on water (except maybe Chris Angel, a renowned trickster). So, what would happen today to anyone seriously claiming witness to such incredible incidents? What would happen if a long-awaited Messiah returned and had to resort to what may appear to many as illusions to convince us of his godly status?
You can belief anything you want, but it only proves you're gullible (I don't want to use stronger words) and lack the mental capacity to figure things out by using your rationale. We just had 8 years of that and it lead to nothing, and certainly not compassion, but rather near-totalianarism and gut-wrenching ineptness.
People have believed in the unexplained for thousands of years. I can't predict the future, but at some point I fathom science will have explained nearly everything, including why some people rationally insist on the irrational... To me, though, that just goes over my head.
About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Friday, November 28, 2008
Black Friday Stampede Kills Worker At Wal-Mart
Today, the news reports that a Wal-Mart employee has been trampled to death by shoppers smashing through the doors of a Long Island Wal-Mart the morning after Thanksgiving—commonly known as "Black Friday." The unidentified victim, employed as an overnight stock clerk, tried in vain to hold back a crowd of hundreds just after the Green Acres Mall store opened at 5 a.m.I have long been dismayed by mindless shoppers whose state of consciousness appears to be little more than that of preprogrammed buybots, often obstructing my aisle as they gaze uncomprehendingly at a box of cereal that's about as half-empty as the cranium cavities in which their discount options percolate in lieu of actual thoughts. As America's system of voracious capitalism teeters on the brink of collapse and presidential appointees pay ad-hoc homage to socialism by siphoning off hard-earned taxpayers' money by the billions to mismanaged monolithic mega corporations, the shopaholic masses know little better to do than to spend their quick-devaluing dollars on cheap "luxury" goods manufactured in friendly dictatorships with low wages that will soon fail, become outdated, or are carted off to self-storage facilities as closets, basements, and attics clutter with earlier acquired crap.
Wal-Mart, as one of the most predatory and anti-worker enterprises, has become a mecca for minions of susceptible lower-income earners, where they can exercise their lack of education, culture, and purpose by unloading shopping carts stocked with big brand boxes into their gas-guzzling SUVs, only to return hungry for the next sales event. Just as they can't see themselves as unfulfillable voids with a unsatisfiable appetite for soon useless stuff they can't be expected to see other lifeforms as more indispensable. By clearing the doorway of human debris Wal-Mart avoided a riot and possibly more casualties, conveniently citing consumer safety as priority #1. Save for a minor incident Black Friday was carried out around the nation for what is was intended: to shovel as much money into the pockets of retailers as possible and ring in the Christmas shopping season during which we are expected to commemorate the miracle birth of Jesus whose image personifies suffering, forgiveness, kindness, compassion, and an appeal to the best in us...
I give the American Dream as the backdrop in this unfortunate mall clerk's fading nightmare on Main Street another ten years before its fairy-tale veneer will have entirely peeled back and exposed an utterly subdued, intoxicated, on credit living nation that's just as easily manipulated by power-grabbing politicians as by the morally bankrupt multi-national corporations that control them. Lofty shopping mall names like Green Acres may foreshadow a future of empty storefront facades they once adorned if todays' relentless consumerism continues to indiscriminatingly feed the all-devouring locust called Capitalism.
About Holiday Sales
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Bush's Parting Gift, Another Great Depression?
Many comparisons have lately been made between our current economy and the Great Depression. While future historians may have a better view of the severity of both incidents, a real comparison can of course not be made unless we strain ourselves to give equal weight to a majority of causes. The comparison is not only questionable, but seems to suggest that we'll be facing the same hardship now as the nation did back then. There's no doubt that both times a financial crisis spearheaded what some would call a catastrophy, but what I see as a collapse of Capitalism. I'm not saying this will be the end of Capitalism, as it can recover and I'm sure it will, but right now it's flat out on its back and if that isn't a collapse then what is...
Indeed, the patient is Capitalism and its recovery is not expected any time soon. It's all too clear now that pure, unadulterated greed lies at the core of a system that sprouted from the industrial revolution and turned the globe into a mine field of interdependent economies and a landfill for the results of glutinous consumerism. In the end just promises of future product availability turned out to provide the strength that held up the house of cards the economy had become. Capitalism, which after all believes in itself and free markets, deserves to be left to its own devices to recover—however painful that process may be. All the money now thrown at it will be wasted if it's only used to keep the machine running without looking at what it exactly produces. But, the people now protesting, the taxpayers, should also realize that they have been feeding the private jet uppercrust by indiscriminately buying their spit & shine crap, useless mass-produced trinkets, and stuff that doesn't work, is badly designed, badly engineered, and produced by poor suckers without shoes in dictatorships. So, in the end it's us that are sick and we better understand that real medicine never tastes like sugar water.
Under Bush, regulations that were in place to control corporate behavior have been relaxed to the point where Wall Street ran euphorically wild with the bulls until all was exhausted and greedy CEO's got into their private jets to beg in Washington for more party money from you, the taxpayer. It's a scam that has been played by the Republicans since they took control of the White House. We were promised victory in Iraq, lower gas prices, Obama's, uh, Osama's head, national security, and ended up getting bilked for billions of dollars while being spied on domestically. They controlled everything until two subsequent elections taught them that America had enough of these out-of-control control freaks that call themselves conservatives but conserved nothing, except for their hatred of gays, immigrants, and the French.
Now, I have no doubt that the greedy corporate bastards that got us in this mess will be the same that get us out, as they control the government, global resources (that may include you!), product manufacturing, infrastructure, media, and market (that certainly includes you!). Of course, they will also be the ones shaking things up by buying failing companies for a fraction of their worth and letting others die. In the process, many may die, either physically, or figuratively (and I hope that isn't you, or me!), before the markets stabilize and then it will begin a new cycle with the kind of outcome that will lead to comparisons with the Great Depression.
Only the people at the base, the workers, citizens—consumers all—can change the course if they are beginning to think and shop differently. As we've seen now—and I hope it's a lesson—it's our money that controls the players at the top, not the other way around, as "trickle-down" Reagan-onomists and rightwingers have had us believe for too long. Luckily, as has been proven by Obama's election, the books he wrote, and the discourse that took place in blogs and other media helped turn hapless citizens into informed buyers. The Obama brand may still disappoint, but its emergence stands in sharp contrast with the old-school baseless attacks the political right depended on. This is a different time and this time we know better. We're no longer the unshaven great unwashed from the Great Depression era. We've got blog power!
Let us hope that we can do better and that an open dialog about what our real needs are may lead to better products that address real needs at prices that reward everyone in the product cycle fairly. To follow what things are heading in that direction I recommend treehugger.com.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Huckabee: Gays Haven't Crossed Civil Rights Violence Threshold
While Mike Huckabee holds on to the view that gays haven't yet crossed the Civil Rights Violence Threshold, he apparently doesn't realize that such statement sounds like an invitation to turn gay-bashing up a notch, now that Newt Gingrich has also publicly declared that there is a "gay and secular fascism prepared to use violence." Oh, boy! The gays and seculars are coming, armed to the teeth with rakes and clubs!
Seriously, ultimately all issues of race, gender, equality, etc., will need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it's stacked with conservative political appointees. At the core of all arguments against equality is either stupidity, bigotry, faith or a combination of all three, which is what is commonly projected by those publicly airing their fearful opinions. What we see here is only the beginning of the battle. The "concerned" citizens need to be separated from their biased fears and begin accepting that any form of discrimination is hurtful and shameful for a nation that sees itself as civilized, modern, and advanced.
We're not talking about "others" who happen to be "different." We're talking about our children, born from our blood. To deny them anything less than what we reserve for ourselves is selfish, loathsome, and despicable.
Religion and State must be separated as per the Constitution. Religious groups are nothing but cults, even if they belong to big brand name cults. The Law ought to be fact-based, and since marriage is recognized under the law as a contract (whatever you think about it from your cult perspective) it should be applicable to all citizens, regardless of age, sex, gender, etc. America has a terrible past when it comes to discrimination and still voices ring out loud and clear to continue doing just that. It is what made Dick Cheney and his wife so evil in my eyes, having a gay daughter, yet denying her equal rights.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Friday, November 14, 2008
Netflix Rocks With Roku...
This year circumstances prompted me to buy a new HDTV. I settled on the Series 5 Samsung 32" after reading nothing but great reviews on the web and although it was more than I wanted to spend, Cirquit City extended a $100 discount, just because I asked and maybe also because I heard rumors they're going bankrupt. They may be giving even more discount now that it's official. After looking at the different sizes I settled on 32" because broadcast picture quality is not always great as often extreme video compression leads to blocky and blotchy on-screen artifacts especially when motion is involved—something that's just amplified on a larger screen. So, I figured the 32" size and the fact that the Samsung has an extreme high response rate this model delivered the most bang for the buck in terms of features, sharpness, rich blacks and color fidelity. I briefly had an LG in the same size that I returned because there were things that bothered me where the Samsung more than delivered.
If, like me, you're not all that interested in the HD broadcast channels (Bikini Destinations [implants galore], or cooking shows) the next best thing is playing a DVD. Now, recently Netflix made Watch Instantly available for Mac owners and I had tried it, but since I work all day on my Mac using it also for movie watching is not appealing to me and certainly can't compare to watching a movie together in bed.
Alas, a trip to Netflix revealed that there's also a $99 device (a small box by Roku) available for instant watching on your HDTV. I decided to give it a shot.
Now, I also own the Apple TV, a device I've had for a few years and which last year became capable of renting and watching movies on. Unfortunately a recent issue HD movie rents for $5 and is good for only 24 hours, whereas the Netflix Watch Instantly feature is free and affords unlimited watching movies and TV shows with any 1 DVD at-a-time plan of $8.99 or higher.
While not as good as the screen quality of Apple TV (which cost $229, has a 40Gb hard drive while Roku only streams and with which you can do so much more, like playing and buying music, TV shows, watching YouTube, etc.), the Roku delivers higher quality on your HDTV compared to watching Netflix on your computer. Supposedly, within months the service will begin including HD quality as well, at which time it should be very competitive with the Apple TV, except for price, where Netflix is the winner. Still, that's not where it all ends, as not all Netflix content available on DVD are (yet) available as Watch Instantly content. The same goes for Apple TV, where Hollywood reigns supreme. However, where Apple TV has been lacking in independent movies, the free Netflix movies have a decent offering of those.
Of course, within time all this technology will change again, but for now the combination HDTV-Netflix-Roku is pretty irresistible for movie fanatics I think, especially with the same box soon being able to stream HD content. Netflix seems to have out-competed Blockbuster and surely Tower Video and positioned itself for online streaming at affordable prices. Even though there are competitors, such as Hulu, with Netflix's vast customer base my money's on Netflix.
I hope my experiences have given you something to consider if your situation is somewhat like mine—technology-wise, of course.
Ciao!
If, like me, you're not all that interested in the HD broadcast channels (Bikini Destinations [implants galore], or cooking shows) the next best thing is playing a DVD. Now, recently Netflix made Watch Instantly available for Mac owners and I had tried it, but since I work all day on my Mac using it also for movie watching is not appealing to me and certainly can't compare to watching a movie together in bed.
Alas, a trip to Netflix revealed that there's also a $99 device (a small box by Roku) available for instant watching on your HDTV. I decided to give it a shot.
Now, I also own the Apple TV, a device I've had for a few years and which last year became capable of renting and watching movies on. Unfortunately a recent issue HD movie rents for $5 and is good for only 24 hours, whereas the Netflix Watch Instantly feature is free and affords unlimited watching movies and TV shows with any 1 DVD at-a-time plan of $8.99 or higher.
While not as good as the screen quality of Apple TV (which cost $229, has a 40Gb hard drive while Roku only streams and with which you can do so much more, like playing and buying music, TV shows, watching YouTube, etc.), the Roku delivers higher quality on your HDTV compared to watching Netflix on your computer. Supposedly, within months the service will begin including HD quality as well, at which time it should be very competitive with the Apple TV, except for price, where Netflix is the winner. Still, that's not where it all ends, as not all Netflix content available on DVD are (yet) available as Watch Instantly content. The same goes for Apple TV, where Hollywood reigns supreme. However, where Apple TV has been lacking in independent movies, the free Netflix movies have a decent offering of those.
Of course, within time all this technology will change again, but for now the combination HDTV-Netflix-Roku is pretty irresistible for movie fanatics I think, especially with the same box soon being able to stream HD content. Netflix seems to have out-competed Blockbuster and surely Tower Video and positioned itself for online streaming at affordable prices. Even though there are competitors, such as Hulu, with Netflix's vast customer base my money's on Netflix.
I hope my experiences have given you something to consider if your situation is somewhat like mine—technology-wise, of course.
Ciao!
A dinosaur bailout...
Towards the end of the presidential election the McCain camp attacked Obama on his liberal socialist agenda in the midst of a period in which Wall Street, lenders, and the auto industry is begging for citizens' tax dollars. It's not that the people want socialism, it's the capitalists that in their crumbling greed have discovered that when vision fails, innovation lags, and products miss the mark, government by and for the people affords one last money grab before extinction or survival of the fittest prevails. Before they got on their knees they have fought unions, wrecked the environment, bought politicians, and distanced themselves as far as they could from the common man, dangling a world of soulless luxury in front of us to get us to max out our credit just to keep up with the Joneses. The dinosaurs had grown too big for their brains and moved too slow and ultimately demise was their fate. A different world emerged in which smaller, smarter, and better adapted to the environment creatures existed. Let these mammoths die and watch smaller, smarter, and better adapted to the environment companies emerge. People have to learn to do things themselves again and not have dinosaur corporations do the thinking for them.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Death of the DC Darling
The DC Madam is dead. She did what few women chose by way of suicide; she hung herself. While it's unclear if she did this alone or may have had some "help," one thing we know: she was recently convicted for running a call-girl operation.
She maintained she was merely a single mom trying to make ends meet. Many single moms have chosen for the sex trade in order to keep their economy afloat. In America, that means engaging in illegal practices. Prostitution is a no no, but as we've seen when politicians are involved hardly any ever serve time, and the only victim is their spouse having to flank her man as he publicly sobs and promises to seek help for his deviant behavior.
Sex can't be a crime, if it's something everyone does. It should not be a crime to make an arrangement with another consenting adult. The US has a terrible record of criminalizing its citizens and publicly exposing anyone suspected of a crime. Lives are destroyed and reputations tarnished because by criminalizing sex between adults there can't be protection of individuals on either side of the transaction. There are cultures where prostitution is much more accepted, such as in The Netherlands. When I lived there a long divorced friend surprised me one day by announcing she'd been working in a brothel for the last 3 months. She was enjoying the extra money, enjoying the sex, and enjoying the friendships with other women, most of them divorced mothers. She was taxed as a sex-worker, and no one in our circle of friends ever spoke ill of her choice. In fact, her new line of work seemed to have empowered her. We all know that her situation isn't uncommon for many women that find themselves without adequate income. Most of us prostitute ourselves for the gain of our "Johns" by engaging in the trade of time and energy. The bodily fluids we exchange for wages is our sweat. Rationalize for yourselves why one form of physical exploitation is accepted and the other one is not. It doesn't make sense. Legalize it, legalize pot and other victim-less behaviors and America's overcrowded prisons can begin being used for people who actually commit crimes.
She maintained she was merely a single mom trying to make ends meet. Many single moms have chosen for the sex trade in order to keep their economy afloat. In America, that means engaging in illegal practices. Prostitution is a no no, but as we've seen when politicians are involved hardly any ever serve time, and the only victim is their spouse having to flank her man as he publicly sobs and promises to seek help for his deviant behavior.
Sex can't be a crime, if it's something everyone does. It should not be a crime to make an arrangement with another consenting adult. The US has a terrible record of criminalizing its citizens and publicly exposing anyone suspected of a crime. Lives are destroyed and reputations tarnished because by criminalizing sex between adults there can't be protection of individuals on either side of the transaction. There are cultures where prostitution is much more accepted, such as in The Netherlands. When I lived there a long divorced friend surprised me one day by announcing she'd been working in a brothel for the last 3 months. She was enjoying the extra money, enjoying the sex, and enjoying the friendships with other women, most of them divorced mothers. She was taxed as a sex-worker, and no one in our circle of friends ever spoke ill of her choice. In fact, her new line of work seemed to have empowered her. We all know that her situation isn't uncommon for many women that find themselves without adequate income. Most of us prostitute ourselves for the gain of our "Johns" by engaging in the trade of time and energy. The bodily fluids we exchange for wages is our sweat. Rationalize for yourselves why one form of physical exploitation is accepted and the other one is not. It doesn't make sense. Legalize it, legalize pot and other victim-less behaviors and America's overcrowded prisons can begin being used for people who actually commit crimes.
John McCain, hero or traitor? Some straight talk...
2008 presidential nominee, Republican Senator John McCain (born August 29, 1936 in Panama) is repeatedly being called an "American hero" by people on all sides of the political spectrum and all walks of life. He's often being thanked for his service to his country.
Not much thought seems to go into such words of praise. After all, since 9/11 almost anyone in public service who wears or wore a uniform is now customarily being labeled "hero," or "heroes" in the case of an entire group or profession.
Most know bit and pieces of McCain's story, as it's been widely publicized. He comes from a family of four-star admirals in the US Navy. He became a Navy pilot and in 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down and captured, badly injured, by the North Vietnamese. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war during which time he was according to his own statements tortured before being released in 1973.
While he survived 5 airplane crashes (4 while piloting!), his hero status is mainly attributed to the time he spent as a POW, and during which he claims to have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of his captors. It's well-documented, including by McCain himself in various books he wrote and in interviews, that he ended up divulging military information to his captors and signing "war-crime confessions," acts commonly associated with treason, but long since forgiven by many (but not all) due to his ordeal, which by his own account, included two years of solitary confinement.
If the above description contains the information necessary to define him as an "American hero," so be it, but it's a far stretch from how the idea of "hero" came to be understood.
Let's first make it clear that McCain has never referred to himself as a hero, but rather that he "was privileged to serve in the company of heroes, but never, never have I described myself as having done anything heroic." Indeed, reference to his capture on his own website is limited to the following paragraph: "John McCain spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross."
Does McCain know better than anyone that flying technically advanced aircraft over the city of Hanoi on his 23rd bombing mission, releasing tons of bombs on a predominantly civilian population during a misguided war in which America was the aggressor was a far cry from the kind of behavior that sets a true hero apart? Moreover, the man who first saved him from drowning after he crashed in the Hanoi lake and then shielded him from being killed by bystanders, a peasant (and hero, by every definition!) by the name Mai Van On, died without a mention in any of McCain's publications, or a token of his gratitude other than a photo op.
Not that McCain was without valor, again, by his own account. In 1968, after the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son of an Admiral and offered to release him (which in itself is questionable, as he was a golden catch for their propaganda), he says he refused. He would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. We have only McCain’s word for it.
Yet, this incident itself is hardly ever mentioned as the reason for his widely perceived status as hero. It's certainly overshadowed by his own testimony in U.S. News and World Report, of May 14, 1973, in an article written by former POW John McCain, in which he states that "On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, (McCain) called for a North Vietnamese guard. (McCain) told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." And he did, from ships' positions to personnel readiness, attack package routes, and targets... Maybe that's why it's not odd that on a 1993 visit to Vietnam, McCain pleaded with his former captors not to release any records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs. Many believe McCain's records could prove so damaging to his reputation as a Senator they could eliminate his chance to become president.
As outlined above, and as publicly stated by McCain, so far there's nothing classically, or traditionally, heroic in his tale. To the contrary.
I'd go further and express that today America suffers from an inferiority complex that's being compensated for (and smartly exploited for political gain) by bestowing the title of hero haphazardly on just about anyone in uniform. Protesting it is tantamount to being seen as “anti-American,” or “unpatriotic.” Then, should we not ask why Americans need to turn deeds performed in the line of duty into acts of heroism? Can't that be called a superiority complex?
If you act on an impulse and run into a burning barn to save someone, is that the same as having trained for just such an event and go in with experience and full support of other firefighters, wearing special equipment designed to help you see, breathe, communicate, and survive? I don't want to minimize a firefighters virtue, but someone can't be a hero just for putting on a firefighter suit (or a fly-suit as Bush tried for his infamous "mission accomplished" statement).
If definitions are changing when it comes to what makes a hero, is it really just up to those intended on manipulating our emotions for political gain to create modern mythology, and invent a quintessential "American" branded kind of heroism, or do the centuries-old definitions of heroism still apply today?
By comparing tales of heroism from ancient to recent we can establish the common traits of the hero. History seems to indicate that among other things there must be perceived risk and selfless intention to become a hero. In the example of John McCain, his choice to enter the US Navy be considered selfless act, but once enlisted, just doing his job—and by extension being captured while doing it not very well—doesn't necessarily make him a hero.
In the classic sense, the title of "hero" is reserved for those who do something extraordinary that goes far beyond the call of duty. Someone who saves others with disregard for his or her own life or limb is by definition a classic hero. John McCain saved no one and instead engaged in the brutal act of raining fire and brimstone from the sky on civilians in a country that had never threatened the US. This is a man who cheered on the US's Christmas Bombing of Hanoi from his confinement, knowing very well that while aimed at breaking the North's resistance it would also wreak great havoc among civilians. That in itself seems selfish rather than selfless and shows that at the time he had learned little about the cruelty of war and remained a stout supporter of the US's involvement in the Vietnam war—all the while collaborating with his captors and acting as a war criminal for their propaganda purposes.
America's cult of celebrity worship may have more to do with how we perceive modern day heroes. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 delivered Jesus and Martin Luther King as #1 and #2 heroes. John Wayne and Michael Jordan were in the top 10. I don't want to diminish the personal contribution and sacrifices these individuals have made to society, but what does that tell us about the quintessential American hero? That celebrity status is more valuable to us than the performance of actual heroic feats?
What some of these individuals exhibited can certainly be attributed as traits that at least partially characterize a hero, such as courage; or not giving up until a stated goal is accomplished; or doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences; or doing more than what's expected of them; or changing society for the better; or exhibit a willingness to risk personal safety to help others...
However, most of these traits have to do with character, which is supposedly already present prior to the performing of any act of heroism. In that respect, McCain has exhibited character more than anything else, and I would present that his character falls in one of two camps for judgment: those that agree with his behavior as a POW and later as a Senator, and those that don't.
While heroes may have a strong character on the outset, often a hero's character develops during the journey toward hero-dom, and can be the result of it, as may be the case in the example of an otherwise as ordinary perceived individual surprising everyone by running into a burning barn to perform a heroic feat. In that respect, heroes don't sit by the fire waiting to be called into action. Rather it's a set of circumstances that propels an ordinary individual into action with heroism being the extraordinary result.
Is then bravery alone enough to be labeled a hero? The press today likes to paint our soldiers in Iraq as quintessential "American" heroes at every opportunity, but while they can certainly be viewed as brave for going into combat and risking their lives, they do so in the line of duty, a duty which often have them empty their weapons almost indiscriminately in the general direction the enemy, often killing and maiming innocent bystanders, afterwards conveniently dehumanized with official terms such as "collateral damage," or "casualties." Heroism in itself it is not, as argued earlier, even though heroic moments may ensue when for instance comrades are rescued under fire. For the recognition of those specific moments there are medals, but a soldier’s presence alone in a combat arena cannot be used to label them as heroes. It's simply not how heroism has been defined throughout time.
In McCain's case we're looking at a man who initially performed in line with the duty he signed up for. Loss of life, injury, capture, and imprisonment were and are risks that are well understood by anyone engaging in combat and are also part of training and the military code of conduct. Collaborating with the enemy is not being taught as a survival technique. On the contrary, the entire military machine hinges on the principle of honor. It is difficult then to rhyme the military's notion of honor with McCain's willingness to divulge military secrets during his captivity. For that reason alone, McCain is probably the most unsuitable person to ever have gotten this close to the presidency. What man in his right mind would declare it's "fine by me" to see our military remain in Iraq for a hundred years? As argued before, a hero is someone opposite from the idea of putting more lives at risk. Oddly enough, McCain has not shown to be particularly occupied with the soldier's or veteran's well-being, and his dealing with POW cases and families raises more questions than it answers.
To this day, there are plenty that see McCain as a traitor instead of a hero. Many of them served in the military the same time he did. They remember him as the man who as soon as after four days in captivity (during which he claims he was tortured, a claim contested by other POWs) made a deal with his captors and did the opposite of what a hero would've done. There are pictures of McCain warmly embracing his former interrogators (and torturers?). Apparently he's either very forgiving, or has his own reasons as touched on earlier.
So then, in light of the aforementioned, is John McCain the quintessential American hero or a traitor? A strong case can be made that he was and is not a hero by any standards, but has become someone with celebrity status Americans often confuse with that of a national hero, like Michael Jordan. On the other hand, if a traitor is someone who aids and abets the enemy willingly and repeatedly, an equally strong case can be made that it applies to McCain, enforced by his own statements, and the question then is if such a person ought to be President of the United States...
Not much thought seems to go into such words of praise. After all, since 9/11 almost anyone in public service who wears or wore a uniform is now customarily being labeled "hero," or "heroes" in the case of an entire group or profession.
Most know bit and pieces of McCain's story, as it's been widely publicized. He comes from a family of four-star admirals in the US Navy. He became a Navy pilot and in 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down and captured, badly injured, by the North Vietnamese. He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war during which time he was according to his own statements tortured before being released in 1973.
While he survived 5 airplane crashes (4 while piloting!), his hero status is mainly attributed to the time he spent as a POW, and during which he claims to have suffered emotionally and physically at the hands of his captors. It's well-documented, including by McCain himself in various books he wrote and in interviews, that he ended up divulging military information to his captors and signing "war-crime confessions," acts commonly associated with treason, but long since forgiven by many (but not all) due to his ordeal, which by his own account, included two years of solitary confinement.
If the above description contains the information necessary to define him as an "American hero," so be it, but it's a far stretch from how the idea of "hero" came to be understood.
Let's first make it clear that McCain has never referred to himself as a hero, but rather that he "was privileged to serve in the company of heroes, but never, never have I described myself as having done anything heroic." Indeed, reference to his capture on his own website is limited to the following paragraph: "John McCain spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was finally released and able to return home years later, John McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross."
Does McCain know better than anyone that flying technically advanced aircraft over the city of Hanoi on his 23rd bombing mission, releasing tons of bombs on a predominantly civilian population during a misguided war in which America was the aggressor was a far cry from the kind of behavior that sets a true hero apart? Moreover, the man who first saved him from drowning after he crashed in the Hanoi lake and then shielded him from being killed by bystanders, a peasant (and hero, by every definition!) by the name Mai Van On, died without a mention in any of McCain's publications, or a token of his gratitude other than a photo op.
Not that McCain was without valor, again, by his own account. In 1968, after the North Vietnamese discovered he was the son of an Admiral and offered to release him (which in itself is questionable, as he was a golden catch for their propaganda), he says he refused. He would only accept the offer if every man taken in before him was released as well. We have only McCain’s word for it.
Yet, this incident itself is hardly ever mentioned as the reason for his widely perceived status as hero. It's certainly overshadowed by his own testimony in U.S. News and World Report, of May 14, 1973, in an article written by former POW John McCain, in which he states that "On October 27, 1967, four days after being shot down, (McCain) called for a North Vietnamese guard. (McCain) told the officer, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." And he did, from ships' positions to personnel readiness, attack package routes, and targets... Maybe that's why it's not odd that on a 1993 visit to Vietnam, McCain pleaded with his former captors not to release any records they hold pertaining to returned U.S. POWs. Many believe McCain's records could prove so damaging to his reputation as a Senator they could eliminate his chance to become president.
As outlined above, and as publicly stated by McCain, so far there's nothing classically, or traditionally, heroic in his tale. To the contrary.
I'd go further and express that today America suffers from an inferiority complex that's being compensated for (and smartly exploited for political gain) by bestowing the title of hero haphazardly on just about anyone in uniform. Protesting it is tantamount to being seen as “anti-American,” or “unpatriotic.” Then, should we not ask why Americans need to turn deeds performed in the line of duty into acts of heroism? Can't that be called a superiority complex?
If you act on an impulse and run into a burning barn to save someone, is that the same as having trained for just such an event and go in with experience and full support of other firefighters, wearing special equipment designed to help you see, breathe, communicate, and survive? I don't want to minimize a firefighters virtue, but someone can't be a hero just for putting on a firefighter suit (or a fly-suit as Bush tried for his infamous "mission accomplished" statement).
If definitions are changing when it comes to what makes a hero, is it really just up to those intended on manipulating our emotions for political gain to create modern mythology, and invent a quintessential "American" branded kind of heroism, or do the centuries-old definitions of heroism still apply today?
By comparing tales of heroism from ancient to recent we can establish the common traits of the hero. History seems to indicate that among other things there must be perceived risk and selfless intention to become a hero. In the example of John McCain, his choice to enter the US Navy be considered selfless act, but once enlisted, just doing his job—and by extension being captured while doing it not very well—doesn't necessarily make him a hero.
In the classic sense, the title of "hero" is reserved for those who do something extraordinary that goes far beyond the call of duty. Someone who saves others with disregard for his or her own life or limb is by definition a classic hero. John McCain saved no one and instead engaged in the brutal act of raining fire and brimstone from the sky on civilians in a country that had never threatened the US. This is a man who cheered on the US's Christmas Bombing of Hanoi from his confinement, knowing very well that while aimed at breaking the North's resistance it would also wreak great havoc among civilians. That in itself seems selfish rather than selfless and shows that at the time he had learned little about the cruelty of war and remained a stout supporter of the US's involvement in the Vietnam war—all the while collaborating with his captors and acting as a war criminal for their propaganda purposes.
America's cult of celebrity worship may have more to do with how we perceive modern day heroes. A Harris Poll conducted in 2001 delivered Jesus and Martin Luther King as #1 and #2 heroes. John Wayne and Michael Jordan were in the top 10. I don't want to diminish the personal contribution and sacrifices these individuals have made to society, but what does that tell us about the quintessential American hero? That celebrity status is more valuable to us than the performance of actual heroic feats?
What some of these individuals exhibited can certainly be attributed as traits that at least partially characterize a hero, such as courage; or not giving up until a stated goal is accomplished; or doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences; or doing more than what's expected of them; or changing society for the better; or exhibit a willingness to risk personal safety to help others...
However, most of these traits have to do with character, which is supposedly already present prior to the performing of any act of heroism. In that respect, McCain has exhibited character more than anything else, and I would present that his character falls in one of two camps for judgment: those that agree with his behavior as a POW and later as a Senator, and those that don't.
While heroes may have a strong character on the outset, often a hero's character develops during the journey toward hero-dom, and can be the result of it, as may be the case in the example of an otherwise as ordinary perceived individual surprising everyone by running into a burning barn to perform a heroic feat. In that respect, heroes don't sit by the fire waiting to be called into action. Rather it's a set of circumstances that propels an ordinary individual into action with heroism being the extraordinary result.
Is then bravery alone enough to be labeled a hero? The press today likes to paint our soldiers in Iraq as quintessential "American" heroes at every opportunity, but while they can certainly be viewed as brave for going into combat and risking their lives, they do so in the line of duty, a duty which often have them empty their weapons almost indiscriminately in the general direction the enemy, often killing and maiming innocent bystanders, afterwards conveniently dehumanized with official terms such as "collateral damage," or "casualties." Heroism in itself it is not, as argued earlier, even though heroic moments may ensue when for instance comrades are rescued under fire. For the recognition of those specific moments there are medals, but a soldier’s presence alone in a combat arena cannot be used to label them as heroes. It's simply not how heroism has been defined throughout time.
In McCain's case we're looking at a man who initially performed in line with the duty he signed up for. Loss of life, injury, capture, and imprisonment were and are risks that are well understood by anyone engaging in combat and are also part of training and the military code of conduct. Collaborating with the enemy is not being taught as a survival technique. On the contrary, the entire military machine hinges on the principle of honor. It is difficult then to rhyme the military's notion of honor with McCain's willingness to divulge military secrets during his captivity. For that reason alone, McCain is probably the most unsuitable person to ever have gotten this close to the presidency. What man in his right mind would declare it's "fine by me" to see our military remain in Iraq for a hundred years? As argued before, a hero is someone opposite from the idea of putting more lives at risk. Oddly enough, McCain has not shown to be particularly occupied with the soldier's or veteran's well-being, and his dealing with POW cases and families raises more questions than it answers.
To this day, there are plenty that see McCain as a traitor instead of a hero. Many of them served in the military the same time he did. They remember him as the man who as soon as after four days in captivity (during which he claims he was tortured, a claim contested by other POWs) made a deal with his captors and did the opposite of what a hero would've done. There are pictures of McCain warmly embracing his former interrogators (and torturers?). Apparently he's either very forgiving, or has his own reasons as touched on earlier.
So then, in light of the aforementioned, is John McCain the quintessential American hero or a traitor? A strong case can be made that he was and is not a hero by any standards, but has become someone with celebrity status Americans often confuse with that of a national hero, like Michael Jordan. On the other hand, if a traitor is someone who aids and abets the enemy willingly and repeatedly, an equally strong case can be made that it applies to McCain, enforced by his own statements, and the question then is if such a person ought to be President of the United States...
Monday, April 28, 2008
Obama Intelligent Enough For You?
The Jeremiah Wright controversy is one of Obama's own making and I'm sorry to see an otherwise brilliant man fall victim to the God-hoax he thinks he has to keep embracing in order to be electable in this country.
As I write this his future is uncertain as it pertains to seeking the presidency. Personally, I hope he'll be able to overcome these adversities, as I regard him at this moment in the race as the only viable candidate who exhibits the poise, the calm, and the vision of someone able to lead America away from the self-destructive path it's been on for eight years. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain represent the old school thinking that has brought us to the brink we now find ourselves on and they will certainly not be able to deliver the changes we need as a people and as a nation, and which we needed yesterday.
In Obama we have a man who at this moment has proven to many that he's intelligent, seeks new ways of governing, and appears to be the kind of charismatic individual that can bring people together and can get things done. He indeed represents the "hope" that his campaign runs on. However, I'm troubled that Obama in all his brilliance has not been able to figure out something even my son already came to terms with at an early age, namely that there's no proof there is a God, either Christian, Muslim, or otherwise denominated, and that there's no proof Jesus existed or if he did "said" anything currently attributed to him (as if a scribe was always by his side), or that raging men in long gowns somehow have earned the distinction to explain to the rest of us how everything fits together if only you are willing to believe that there's someone omnipresent at the helm of our ship balancing precariously on the cusp of a steep waterfall.
I would have had more respect for Obama if in his new thinking he also could've done away with the ancient, trivializing, tribal rituals that have spread across the world in the form of religion of one ilk or another. If he'd been able to do that he could've made a case for why all the crappy divisive political bickering has taken us into a reality of war, debt, environmental disasters, etc. That the political pandering to the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and luminaries of the Catholic church has at every turn exposed the dirty underbelly of America, where Jesus's mythical message of love is curiously absent when it comes to women's rights, acceptance of gays, sexual abuse of the innocent by priests, greed, power, etc.
As a thinking man Obama could have distanced himself not only from the hocus pocus of Jeremiah Wright's designer-brand of Trinity Christianity, he could have easily figured out that everything Jeremiah Wright's Church stands for can be achieved politically. Why do we continue to leave the most important decisions of our time to an unseen, unacting, uncaring God when it's us and our hope (the very definition of Obama's message) that can make all the things happen that need to happen in order to survive the coming period of global warming, unnatural disasters, food scarcity, and mass migrations.
So, in that sense, yes, the chickens have come home to roost in the form of Obama's negligence to trust his intelligence, and it's to his detriment that he could not inspire those of us who have long abolished the silly sermons, crappy leaflets, and devastating dogmas of the men and women "of the cloth," who haven't been able to create an inkling of paradise on earth even in their own homes.
Had he been just a tad more intelligent and less calculating, by counting on those afflicted by the God-hoax, he could have found plenty of like-minded free thinkers congregating in the audience of almost every comedian who isn't afraid to speak his mind, be his name George Carlin, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, Larry david, Keith Olbermann, and countless others who appear much wiser, free-er, and insightful than most any politician. And because we don't carry bibles, pray in groups, or build club houses at every street corner, and can't be counted easily doesn't mean our numbers don't run in the millions. We are the ones who look through the bullshit of a God who can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted other than as dictated by organized religious practitioners; we are the ones who see through the bullshit of old style politics, the bullshit of promises that can't be delivered on, and are well aware that Jesus won't come back to save us (sorry to have to break it to you).
Maybe Obama can save us, but I'm still doubtful he possesses just that tad more intelligence that is needed to denounce the dumbest of dumbest among us who insist to believe in something that doesn't exist, which includes John McCain being any different than George Bush.
Jeremiah Wright personifies old dogma's, conflicted thinking, and leaving important decisions to a higher being. That describes George Bush as well. And because of that analogy Obama stands a lot closer to George Bush and everything that has gone wrong with America in the last eight years than he may be aware of.
My advice to Obama: You are currently our only hope for change within government. Realize your destiny and see that religion is the enemy of us all. Maybe then you can replace all those believers that may turn their backs on you with the intelligent people we're always told by politicians make up America but no one ever appeals to...
As I write this his future is uncertain as it pertains to seeking the presidency. Personally, I hope he'll be able to overcome these adversities, as I regard him at this moment in the race as the only viable candidate who exhibits the poise, the calm, and the vision of someone able to lead America away from the self-destructive path it's been on for eight years. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain represent the old school thinking that has brought us to the brink we now find ourselves on and they will certainly not be able to deliver the changes we need as a people and as a nation, and which we needed yesterday.
In Obama we have a man who at this moment has proven to many that he's intelligent, seeks new ways of governing, and appears to be the kind of charismatic individual that can bring people together and can get things done. He indeed represents the "hope" that his campaign runs on. However, I'm troubled that Obama in all his brilliance has not been able to figure out something even my son already came to terms with at an early age, namely that there's no proof there is a God, either Christian, Muslim, or otherwise denominated, and that there's no proof Jesus existed or if he did "said" anything currently attributed to him (as if a scribe was always by his side), or that raging men in long gowns somehow have earned the distinction to explain to the rest of us how everything fits together if only you are willing to believe that there's someone omnipresent at the helm of our ship balancing precariously on the cusp of a steep waterfall.
I would have had more respect for Obama if in his new thinking he also could've done away with the ancient, trivializing, tribal rituals that have spread across the world in the form of religion of one ilk or another. If he'd been able to do that he could've made a case for why all the crappy divisive political bickering has taken us into a reality of war, debt, environmental disasters, etc. That the political pandering to the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and luminaries of the Catholic church has at every turn exposed the dirty underbelly of America, where Jesus's mythical message of love is curiously absent when it comes to women's rights, acceptance of gays, sexual abuse of the innocent by priests, greed, power, etc.
As a thinking man Obama could have distanced himself not only from the hocus pocus of Jeremiah Wright's designer-brand of Trinity Christianity, he could have easily figured out that everything Jeremiah Wright's Church stands for can be achieved politically. Why do we continue to leave the most important decisions of our time to an unseen, unacting, uncaring God when it's us and our hope (the very definition of Obama's message) that can make all the things happen that need to happen in order to survive the coming period of global warming, unnatural disasters, food scarcity, and mass migrations.
So, in that sense, yes, the chickens have come home to roost in the form of Obama's negligence to trust his intelligence, and it's to his detriment that he could not inspire those of us who have long abolished the silly sermons, crappy leaflets, and devastating dogmas of the men and women "of the cloth," who haven't been able to create an inkling of paradise on earth even in their own homes.
Had he been just a tad more intelligent and less calculating, by counting on those afflicted by the God-hoax, he could have found plenty of like-minded free thinkers congregating in the audience of almost every comedian who isn't afraid to speak his mind, be his name George Carlin, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, Larry david, Keith Olbermann, and countless others who appear much wiser, free-er, and insightful than most any politician. And because we don't carry bibles, pray in groups, or build club houses at every street corner, and can't be counted easily doesn't mean our numbers don't run in the millions. We are the ones who look through the bullshit of a God who can't be seen, heard, felt, tasted other than as dictated by organized religious practitioners; we are the ones who see through the bullshit of old style politics, the bullshit of promises that can't be delivered on, and are well aware that Jesus won't come back to save us (sorry to have to break it to you).
Maybe Obama can save us, but I'm still doubtful he possesses just that tad more intelligence that is needed to denounce the dumbest of dumbest among us who insist to believe in something that doesn't exist, which includes John McCain being any different than George Bush.
Jeremiah Wright personifies old dogma's, conflicted thinking, and leaving important decisions to a higher being. That describes George Bush as well. And because of that analogy Obama stands a lot closer to George Bush and everything that has gone wrong with America in the last eight years than he may be aware of.
My advice to Obama: You are currently our only hope for change within government. Realize your destiny and see that religion is the enemy of us all. Maybe then you can replace all those believers that may turn their backs on you with the intelligent people we're always told by politicians make up America but no one ever appeals to...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
