If you read my previous entry, you know I want to run a marathon in 2009 (I blame this new bug on my brother, who inspired me/talked me into it). Likely my first marathon will be the New York City Marathon in November. Then in January 2010 I want to run the Disney Marathon, with the ultimate goal of running the Paris Marathon before I die. There are plenty of races and time to decide; this isn't what this blog entry is about. I want to run for a charity, but I need help deciding. I'm appealing to you for suggestions.
I periodically get mailings from The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Team in Training, recruiting members to run for the charity. Joining means being part of a team, part of an organized and valid charitable organization, and race fees and travel and lodging are all taken care of. There is an initial fee to join, then, depending on the race and the distance, a minimum fund-raising goal to meet. If the goal is not met, the runner is required to pay the difference. I plan on going to a local meeting to see what it's all about.
However, I would like to run for a more local charity (and since I'm a brat, running and training with a team doesn't really appeal to me). I'm having trouble thinking of a good one. There are plenty of local places I could support: Mom's House, The Danielle House, Literacy Volunteers of Broome/Tioga County, the local chapter of Special Olympics, or Sky Lake. Or I could run for a United Methodist charity - like UMCOR, Nothing but Nets, etc. I'd like, somehow, to set up an online donation site as well, which is a little harder if I'm trying to stay local. So help me! Any ideas would help.
If you're a friend, friend of a friend, stranger, leave me comments. If you have any experience with this or guidance, I would like it.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
New Year's Revalations
There is no war on Christmas, but there should be.
If you think you're a prophet, you're not.
If you've ever called yourself a martyr, you're not.
Politeness is not the same as kindness.
When you're too nice and too "good," people don't like you, which defeats the purpose; whose life are you actually making better?
There is no such thing as realism.
Sometimes reaching out isn't as good of an idea as you think it is: do it, but be prepared.
It's okay to be annoyed by people who say, "Oh, I don't watch TV." TV is often awesome.
Honesty is right, but not an excuse to be mean.
I know how you really feel about me. No, really, I do.
If you think you're a prophet, you're not.
If you've ever called yourself a martyr, you're not.
Politeness is not the same as kindness.
When you're too nice and too "good," people don't like you, which defeats the purpose; whose life are you actually making better?
There is no such thing as realism.
Sometimes reaching out isn't as good of an idea as you think it is: do it, but be prepared.
It's okay to be annoyed by people who say, "Oh, I don't watch TV." TV is often awesome.
Honesty is right, but not an excuse to be mean.
I know how you really feel about me. No, really, I do.
In 2009 I will:
Run a half marathon
Not talk so much
Skip out of a church service early to watch the season finale of LOST if I have to (again)
Not talk so much
Skip out of a church service early to watch the season finale of LOST if I have to (again)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Don't do it!
I just finished sending a Merry Christmas e-mail to my freshman roommate from college, who is now married to her college boyfriend. So it got me thinking about the "college relationship" and how weird it is, or at least was when I was in college.
College relationships fall into a few categories: the college student (usually a freshman guy) still dating the significant other from high school who is still in high school, the college student dating another college student from a different college, two students from the same college dating, friends with benefits, that person you make out with if you end up at the same party, or, which seemed the most prevalent at my college, two college students from the same college who officially date for awhile but breakup and still have sex, this post-breakup relationship lasting far longer than the "real" one.
Sometimes, rarely, both parties involved were adults about it. By "adults" I mean somewhat realistic, knowing that it was a temporary situation until one or the other moved on and/or found someone else. Inevitable awkwardness would ensue, but it wouldn't last long. Granted, the moving on would have occurred much sooner if they'd have stopped sleeping together, but different strokes I guess. Most of the time, though, one or both parties were fooling themselves. Sometimes both fooled themselves into thinking they were "adults" who could simply stop when they decided to, who were over the other and simply passing time in a pleasurable way. However, in most cases, the post-breakup "relationship" persisted because the person who got dumped still had feelings for the dumper, and the dumper still wanted the dumped to have feelings for him or her; the dumped fooled himself or herself into thinking they were going to get back together and that the other person actually cared.
Thankfully, I actually never found myself in this particular situation. Well, not the college and sex part anyway.
side note
When I went to school I fell into the "college student dating a college student from another college" category, and, even worse, a carryover relationship from high school. A few months into academia I was given an ultimatum by my significant other, one which neither of us were willing to budge on, so he broke up with me. So I cut him off basically completely. The breakup was inevitable, I know now, since what I perceived as/forced to be a relationship he had intended to be a fling (yes, I know you expected it to be the other way around). I initially cut him off completely out of stubborness, because he had said he wanted to still be close friends and I stopped being his friend to punish him. Turns out this was the right way to go anyway, even if my intentions were cruel. I no doubt would have been the one fooling herself into believing we would get back together.
side note over
However, I likely feel close to this last scenario because my husband found himself in a similar situation, long before me of course. It made him completely miserable. Do I have a point? I don't know. Do I have instructions? Yes.
If you are the dumper: If you have any amount of decency or any sense of kindness end the relationship when you ended the relationship. You know this is the right thing to do. Sure, the relapse may be comfortable, and you may actually think you are doing the other person a favor. You aren't. You are making it so much worse. No matter what the other person says, if he or she proposes the post-breakup relationship tell him or her NO. If you have proposed or initiated the post-breakup relationship, get over yourself and end it. Fewer things in this world are crueler than to break up with someone and then not let him or her go. You are selfish and manipulative. Stop it now (if you are actually capable of not being selfish and manipulative).
If you are the dumped: If you are thinking of pursuing a post-breakup relationship, DON'T. This means you still have feelings for the person, and you are fooling yourself if you think this would help more than hurt. He or she broke up with you; this person does not want to be with you. If this person is not letting you move on, call him or her out (feel free to use some bad names if necessary). If this person has proposed a post-breakup relationship, run far, far away. Warn your friends. I know it sounds good right now, but you will be miserable. Run. Away. Make sure to get your things back first. If you really believe you two are meant to be, which you probably believe if the breakup is new, it's better to have a clean break now or you will forever resent him or her, and then never really be meant to be. If you can't run away, hopefully you have some friends who will at least try to help.
Webster's defines "closure" as "an often comforting or satisfying sense of finality." You will never get this from the other person. Closure, if it in fact exists, comes from being away from the other person, from starting a new routine, from reconnecting with old friends you may have pushed away (which in a healthy relationship doesn't happen, by the way), from finding new interests. If all else fails, give me a call and we'll hang out.
College relationships fall into a few categories: the college student (usually a freshman guy) still dating the significant other from high school who is still in high school, the college student dating another college student from a different college, two students from the same college dating, friends with benefits, that person you make out with if you end up at the same party, or, which seemed the most prevalent at my college, two college students from the same college who officially date for awhile but breakup and still have sex, this post-breakup relationship lasting far longer than the "real" one.
Sometimes, rarely, both parties involved were adults about it. By "adults" I mean somewhat realistic, knowing that it was a temporary situation until one or the other moved on and/or found someone else. Inevitable awkwardness would ensue, but it wouldn't last long. Granted, the moving on would have occurred much sooner if they'd have stopped sleeping together, but different strokes I guess. Most of the time, though, one or both parties were fooling themselves. Sometimes both fooled themselves into thinking they were "adults" who could simply stop when they decided to, who were over the other and simply passing time in a pleasurable way. However, in most cases, the post-breakup "relationship" persisted because the person who got dumped still had feelings for the dumper, and the dumper still wanted the dumped to have feelings for him or her; the dumped fooled himself or herself into thinking they were going to get back together and that the other person actually cared.
Thankfully, I actually never found myself in this particular situation. Well, not the college and sex part anyway.
side note
When I went to school I fell into the "college student dating a college student from another college" category, and, even worse, a carryover relationship from high school. A few months into academia I was given an ultimatum by my significant other, one which neither of us were willing to budge on, so he broke up with me. So I cut him off basically completely. The breakup was inevitable, I know now, since what I perceived as/forced to be a relationship he had intended to be a fling (yes, I know you expected it to be the other way around). I initially cut him off completely out of stubborness, because he had said he wanted to still be close friends and I stopped being his friend to punish him. Turns out this was the right way to go anyway, even if my intentions were cruel. I no doubt would have been the one fooling herself into believing we would get back together.
side note over
However, I likely feel close to this last scenario because my husband found himself in a similar situation, long before me of course. It made him completely miserable. Do I have a point? I don't know. Do I have instructions? Yes.
If you are the dumper: If you have any amount of decency or any sense of kindness end the relationship when you ended the relationship. You know this is the right thing to do. Sure, the relapse may be comfortable, and you may actually think you are doing the other person a favor. You aren't. You are making it so much worse. No matter what the other person says, if he or she proposes the post-breakup relationship tell him or her NO. If you have proposed or initiated the post-breakup relationship, get over yourself and end it. Fewer things in this world are crueler than to break up with someone and then not let him or her go. You are selfish and manipulative. Stop it now (if you are actually capable of not being selfish and manipulative).
If you are the dumped: If you are thinking of pursuing a post-breakup relationship, DON'T. This means you still have feelings for the person, and you are fooling yourself if you think this would help more than hurt. He or she broke up with you; this person does not want to be with you. If this person is not letting you move on, call him or her out (feel free to use some bad names if necessary). If this person has proposed a post-breakup relationship, run far, far away. Warn your friends. I know it sounds good right now, but you will be miserable. Run. Away. Make sure to get your things back first. If you really believe you two are meant to be, which you probably believe if the breakup is new, it's better to have a clean break now or you will forever resent him or her, and then never really be meant to be. If you can't run away, hopefully you have some friends who will at least try to help.
Webster's defines "closure" as "an often comforting or satisfying sense of finality." You will never get this from the other person. Closure, if it in fact exists, comes from being away from the other person, from starting a new routine, from reconnecting with old friends you may have pushed away (which in a healthy relationship doesn't happen, by the way), from finding new interests. If all else fails, give me a call and we'll hang out.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Jesus said:
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Well, at least some Texas pastor who was just on the Early Show would have you believe. Jesus in fact did not say this, but he did preach, often, against false prophets.
This is the passage they'll use:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Matthew 19: 2-12 (NIV)
1. For obvious reasons they were male and female in the beginning. Not so much of an issue right now.
2. Jesus never actually said "marriage is between a man and a woman"; it's just how it was; there was no need to distinguish. Marriage was primarily for producing children. I'd say most people today (except for Mike Huckabee) would argue that marriage is for a little more than that. So, not so much of an issue now.
3. I bet Rev. Texas is just fine with divorce, which is actually what Jesus was talking about here. We've rightly amended the "except fors" to allow women as well as men to leave an unhealthy marriage. I say it's time for the "eunuchs" who were so clearly born that way to receive the same compassion. Pick and choose and pick and choose. To quote Jack Black as Jesus, if we're going to pick and choose anyway, why can't we choose love?
4. Women's lib had not really happened at this point, so telling a man to stay with his wife was a really progressive social stance that protected women.
And no matter what they say, taking away the right of marriage is based on hate. They'll say it's based on the Bible, but you know better. Read about "traditional" marriage in the Old Testament and then laugh at the next person who says they want to protect traditional marriage based on the Bible. And make sure you aren't wearing two different fabrics.
And here, as you'd guess, is a video:
Well, at least some Texas pastor who was just on the Early Show would have you believe. Jesus in fact did not say this, but he did preach, often, against false prophets.
This is the passage they'll use:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Matthew 19: 2-12 (NIV)
1. For obvious reasons they were male and female in the beginning. Not so much of an issue right now.
2. Jesus never actually said "marriage is between a man and a woman"; it's just how it was; there was no need to distinguish. Marriage was primarily for producing children. I'd say most people today (except for Mike Huckabee) would argue that marriage is for a little more than that. So, not so much of an issue now.
3. I bet Rev. Texas is just fine with divorce, which is actually what Jesus was talking about here. We've rightly amended the "except fors" to allow women as well as men to leave an unhealthy marriage. I say it's time for the "eunuchs" who were so clearly born that way to receive the same compassion. Pick and choose and pick and choose. To quote Jack Black as Jesus, if we're going to pick and choose anyway, why can't we choose love?
4. Women's lib had not really happened at this point, so telling a man to stay with his wife was a really progressive social stance that protected women.
And no matter what they say, taking away the right of marriage is based on hate. They'll say it's based on the Bible, but you know better. Read about "traditional" marriage in the Old Testament and then laugh at the next person who says they want to protect traditional marriage based on the Bible. And make sure you aren't wearing two different fabrics.
And here, as you'd guess, is a video:
Thursday, December 18, 2008
A purpose-driven inauguration
So Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. This makes me sad.
To quote Sarah Posner from The Nation:
"Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
I guess pissing people like me off is one way for Obama to say, in 2012, to the evangelical "Christians" whom he will be courting/coddlingbecausetheyarebabies, "Look how I pissed people like her off."
At least the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery is delivering the benediction. Is it to coddle me? Probably.
I know he's supposed to be everyone's president, but I want him to be my president. MINE! Diplomacy shmiplomacy.
And since my new favorite thing is to post videos in my blog, here is one on the topic from Anderson Cooper 360, mostly because I love him.
To quote Sarah Posner from The Nation:
"Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
I guess pissing people like me off is one way for Obama to say, in 2012, to the evangelical "Christians" whom he will be courting/coddlingbecausetheyarebabies, "Look how I pissed people like her off."
At least the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery is delivering the benediction. Is it to coddle me? Probably.
I know he's supposed to be everyone's president, but I want him to be my president. MINE! Diplomacy shmiplomacy.
And since my new favorite thing is to post videos in my blog, here is one on the topic from Anderson Cooper 360, mostly because I love him.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
'Tis the Season
It's the time of year for hope and self-reflection. Sundays are lent to preparation for the coming joy. And, like every year about this time - some years it happens earlier, some years later - the hope disappears and expectations shift. To the Indianapolis Colts. Because the Bills cannot possibly make the playoffs.
Go Peyton!
Go Peyton!
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
I love you, but
When I find (or am told about, in this case) an interesting Web site, I like to share. So today I'm sharing a Web site called "I Love You But" at http://www.loveyoubut.com/. It's a site dedicated to the moments in relationships when you "realize you don't love someone completely, because there is one little thing that keeps bothering you."
For example, those who have been in relationships with me could say, "I love you, but you think people actuallly read your blog," or "I love you, but you always get angry about misused apostrophes," or "I love you, but you laugh at your own jokes." These are of course the worst things about me.
So, if you feel so moved, leave me a comment and share about these moments in your, um, past relationships. It'll be fun for all.
Since it's only fair, here are some from my relationships:
I love you, but you don't fight back.
I love you, but you order Zima.
I love you, but you know know me too well.
Fun for all.
For example, those who have been in relationships with me could say, "I love you, but you think people actuallly read your blog," or "I love you, but you always get angry about misused apostrophes," or "I love you, but you laugh at your own jokes." These are of course the worst things about me.
So, if you feel so moved, leave me a comment and share about these moments in your, um, past relationships. It'll be fun for all.
Since it's only fair, here are some from my relationships:
I love you, but you don't fight back.
I love you, but you order Zima.
I love you, but you know know me too well.
Fun for all.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Word
Doing what I do for a living the use and meaning of words is something I end up discussing often (and usually not because I bring it up). Two words I've used lately that caused some discussion are "snarky" and "minion." So, as I like to do every chance I get, I'll share with you the Webster's definition for the two words in the context in which I used them:
Snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or matter
Minion: a servile dependent, follower, or underling
And you have to admit, snarky and minion are cool words, and I bet they aren't as bad as you thought they were. I also love that when you use the word "snarky" you are likely being snarky yourself. Two words often discussed and debated when I was in college were "swanky" and "smarmy." (There must be something about words beginning with s and ending in y.) You know what comes next:
Swanky: characterized by showy display: ostentatious
Smarmy: of low, sleazy taste or quality
For example, we decided that drinking leftover champagne out of Dixie cups in our empty apartment after graduation was swanky. "Smarmy" often applied, and often correctly, to particular persons. "Swanky" has lost some of its charm for me, but I should use "smarmy" more often, because you know many opportunities will present itself.
A blog entry on this topic could go on forever. I will leave you with this advice: look it up; it often doesn't mean what you think it does. I will also leave you with the correct pronunciation of a few words the pronunciation of which has caused actual arguments. You're welcome.
Caramel: car mel before care a mel
Coupon: cooh pon before q pon (I was wrong about this!)
Elementary: element air e before elemen tree
Syrup: sir up before sear up
Let me know if there are others you'd like listed, either for pronunciation or definition. I will do it with a smile.
Snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or matter
Minion: a servile dependent, follower, or underling
And you have to admit, snarky and minion are cool words, and I bet they aren't as bad as you thought they were. I also love that when you use the word "snarky" you are likely being snarky yourself. Two words often discussed and debated when I was in college were "swanky" and "smarmy." (There must be something about words beginning with s and ending in y.) You know what comes next:
Swanky: characterized by showy display: ostentatious
Smarmy: of low, sleazy taste or quality
For example, we decided that drinking leftover champagne out of Dixie cups in our empty apartment after graduation was swanky. "Smarmy" often applied, and often correctly, to particular persons. "Swanky" has lost some of its charm for me, but I should use "smarmy" more often, because you know many opportunities will present itself.
A blog entry on this topic could go on forever. I will leave you with this advice: look it up; it often doesn't mean what you think it does. I will also leave you with the correct pronunciation of a few words the pronunciation of which has caused actual arguments. You're welcome.
Caramel: car mel before care a mel
Coupon: cooh pon before q pon (I was wrong about this!)
Elementary: element air e before elemen tree
Syrup: sir up before sear up
Let me know if there are others you'd like listed, either for pronunciation or definition. I will do it with a smile.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Church is a Verb
This is a duplicate of a post I wrote for the BishBash 2009 blog, but I thought I would share it here and maybe garner some more comments. Enjoy:
Church is a Verb
In the English language many nouns have been "verbed," or turned into action words. For example, you can Google someone, Xerox a document, friend someone on Myspace, or Facebook someone. All of these words (Google, Xerox, friend, Facebook) were originally nouns that we've turned into verbs. The BishBash Power Sqaud wants to add church to that list.
Instead of church being just a place we go, let's make church a thing we do.
You help at a soup kitchen: you churched. You stood up for a schoolmate being bullied: you churched. You worshipped, you prayed, you performed any act of love: you churched. You can even church at church! Saying "I church" is like saying "I help," "I give," "I love."
The theme for BishBash 2009 is "Church is a Verb." Let us know what you think! Leave us a comment here on the blog or e-mail Sky Lake director Matt Williams at matt(at)skylakecenter.org (replace the "(at)" with an "@," of course). Please share with us any ideas you may have for the day as well.
I church. Do you?
Rethink church.
http://bishbashblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/church-is-verb.html
Church is a Verb
In the English language many nouns have been "verbed," or turned into action words. For example, you can Google someone, Xerox a document, friend someone on Myspace, or Facebook someone. All of these words (Google, Xerox, friend, Facebook) were originally nouns that we've turned into verbs. The BishBash Power Sqaud wants to add church to that list.
Instead of church being just a place we go, let's make church a thing we do.
You help at a soup kitchen: you churched. You stood up for a schoolmate being bullied: you churched. You worshipped, you prayed, you performed any act of love: you churched. You can even church at church! Saying "I church" is like saying "I help," "I give," "I love."
The theme for BishBash 2009 is "Church is a Verb." Let us know what you think! Leave us a comment here on the blog or e-mail Sky Lake director Matt Williams at matt(at)skylakecenter.org (replace the "(at)" with an "@," of course). Please share with us any ideas you may have for the day as well.
I church. Do you?
Rethink church.
http://bishbashblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/church-is-verb.html
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Status Quo
Tonight I attended a get-together with my church conference's bishop (admittedly mostly to meet with her about the upcoming BishBash on July 25th, but I figured I'd stay for the service). The purpose of the service was for the bishop to discuss the new conference that will be formed in 2010.
For the non-Methodists reading this, and for the Methodists unaware, the United Methodist Church structure begins with the global church and then breaks down into jurisdictions (regions of a country), which is made up of conferences, which is made up of districts, which is made up of local churches. I may have missed a step or two but you get the idea. Currently, upstate New York is split into four conferences, with two bishops serving the four conferences. Those at the top said, "Actually, your area needs only one bishop." So the four conferences got together and decided to become one big conference. Tonight's discussion was about what this means for our current conference, districts, and local churches.
Many meetings have been taking place to work this all out, with one of the first tasks being to establish a vision statement. I received a small part of the new conference's vision statement tonight, with a bullet point reading that the new conference "seeks to become a kingdom community where congregations seek to live together in the way of Jesus, evidenced by the status quo giving way to a revolution of community and neighborliness."
This caught my attention because (1) the church acknowledged that a status quo exists and (2) the word "revolution" was used. As a 28-year-old whippersnapper I feel it's my duty to rage against the status quo. Down with the status quo! But wait, didn't I just a few blog entries ago say I believed in the American Dream and wanted a white picket fence?
Webster's defines status quo as "the existing state of affairs." How do I fit into this? Let's see.
Straight? Check.
Married? Check.
Christian? Check.
Employed by a for-profit business? Check.
Kids? Not yet, but someday.
Home owner? Not yet, but someday.
I have a car, an IRA, department store credit cards, a Crock-Pot, a gym membership, and a college degree. And I'm okay with all of this. But as much as I fit the status quo I just as much believe it should be shaken up, redefined. How do I rage against the status quo?
From the inside out, I think. I'm not sure what this means, yet. Use my Crock-Pot for charity fund-raisers? Use my gym membership to help me run a marathon to bring awareness to a cause? Use the mobility and flexibility of my current job for a for-profit company to also volunteer, or write a book? Is this enough? Being a part of the status quo is only negative if the status quo is. Goal: help make the status quo Good. Probably from the inside out.
For the non-Methodists reading this, and for the Methodists unaware, the United Methodist Church structure begins with the global church and then breaks down into jurisdictions (regions of a country), which is made up of conferences, which is made up of districts, which is made up of local churches. I may have missed a step or two but you get the idea. Currently, upstate New York is split into four conferences, with two bishops serving the four conferences. Those at the top said, "Actually, your area needs only one bishop." So the four conferences got together and decided to become one big conference. Tonight's discussion was about what this means for our current conference, districts, and local churches.
Many meetings have been taking place to work this all out, with one of the first tasks being to establish a vision statement. I received a small part of the new conference's vision statement tonight, with a bullet point reading that the new conference "seeks to become a kingdom community where congregations seek to live together in the way of Jesus, evidenced by the status quo giving way to a revolution of community and neighborliness."
This caught my attention because (1) the church acknowledged that a status quo exists and (2) the word "revolution" was used. As a 28-year-old whippersnapper I feel it's my duty to rage against the status quo. Down with the status quo! But wait, didn't I just a few blog entries ago say I believed in the American Dream and wanted a white picket fence?
Webster's defines status quo as "the existing state of affairs." How do I fit into this? Let's see.
Straight? Check.
Married? Check.
Christian? Check.
Employed by a for-profit business? Check.
Kids? Not yet, but someday.
Home owner? Not yet, but someday.
I have a car, an IRA, department store credit cards, a Crock-Pot, a gym membership, and a college degree. And I'm okay with all of this. But as much as I fit the status quo I just as much believe it should be shaken up, redefined. How do I rage against the status quo?
From the inside out, I think. I'm not sure what this means, yet. Use my Crock-Pot for charity fund-raisers? Use my gym membership to help me run a marathon to bring awareness to a cause? Use the mobility and flexibility of my current job for a for-profit company to also volunteer, or write a book? Is this enough? Being a part of the status quo is only negative if the status quo is. Goal: help make the status quo Good. Probably from the inside out.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What should our trivia name be?
A few weeks ago my brother introduced me to a text messaging service known as ChaCha. Maybe you already know about it. Maybe I'm way behind on the times. Maybe I'm the person who rented a movie that came out three years ago and now wants to discuss it with you as if it were new (I stole this from Jim Gaffigan). Either way, I'm going to talk about ChaCha, or 242-242.
It's simple. If you have a question and are not near a computer or a reference section but you do have your cell phone, text 242-242 with your question, and they will text back an answer. I know texting Googl (466-453) offer sports scores, weather, phone numbers, etc., but I don't think it answers questions directly. Even if it does, I will not cheat on ChaCha because of last night, so I'm not even going to check Googl.
During a discussion - not during trivia because we don't cheat unless everyone else does - the question came up of whether Mike Arcuri or Richard Hannah won the U.S. House seat in NY. I texted ChaCha, who told me that Mike Arcuri had won. Good to know. We then were trying to decide on a trivia name, and, as you may be able to tell by this blog entry's title, I decided to ask ChaCha. The answer? Flonkerton.
Perfect.
It's simple. If you have a question and are not near a computer or a reference section but you do have your cell phone, text 242-242 with your question, and they will text back an answer. I know texting Googl (466-453) offer sports scores, weather, phone numbers, etc., but I don't think it answers questions directly. Even if it does, I will not cheat on ChaCha because of last night, so I'm not even going to check Googl.
During a discussion - not during trivia because we don't cheat unless everyone else does - the question came up of whether Mike Arcuri or Richard Hannah won the U.S. House seat in NY. I texted ChaCha, who told me that Mike Arcuri had won. Good to know. We then were trying to decide on a trivia name, and, as you may be able to tell by this blog entry's title, I decided to ask ChaCha. The answer? Flonkerton.
Perfect.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Thinking for oneself
Unlike in most situations, when with family I try to avoid talking politics. But without fail every time my extended family gets together I am approached with a political subject. This past Saturday at my grandfather's eightieth birthday my uncle sat next to me and asked me who I voted for. This was one of my quieter uncles, so I was suprised he brought the subject up, this on top of the surprise that I was asked the question at all; it's been pretty clear ever since I figured out how to think for myself what side of the line I stand on. Granted this thinking-for-myself task took me a little longer to figure out than maybe more normal, balanced people, but nonetheless I figured it out, then there was no looking back.
I realized quickly that my uncle asked the question simply as an excuse for him to share his voting story. He told me that his pastor told his congregation to vote the Bible. Even though he goes to a Methodist church, the "Methodist" pastors in Alfred/Andover/Wellsville area of New York emulate Franklin Graham more than either of the Wesley brothers. For example, my aunt who goes to Andover United Methodist will not touch a Harry Potter book because her PASTOR told her that J. K. Rowling is a witch. Yes - a Methodist pastor. Anyway, I replied to my uncle, "So you voted for John McCain because he has now declared himself pro-life." My uncle said yes. I replied again saying I'm glad that he voted and that he had a clear reason why. I believe it to be wholly misguided reason, but a reason nonetheless. I continued (of course), saying, "I believe I voted the Bible too. And I voted for the other guy." We ended the conversation at that. He wouldn't have tried to fight me on it anyway.
My lifelong Republican grandma sitting across from me, who happens to now have no hearing, said to my uncle, "You voted for Obama? Me too! He's our guy." On the subject, but the wrong assumption. I thought it was funny.
So my uncle voted the way his pastor told him to. "On the Bible." How the people voting for John McCain so arrogantly and self-righteously claimed the Bible and God as theirs and their candidate's is endlessly frustrating to me, as I'm sure you can tell if you ever read anything I've ever written before. Especially that it was a Methodist pastor who told the congregation to vote for the candidate who represents the privileged, the wealthy, the social darwinistic, the war advocates, the gun lovers, the death penalty supporters, the privatizers, the Haves - the people and beliefs Jesus preached against. One issue - abortion - and they think they are on God's side. It doesn't work that way; God doesn't vote. As loudly as I declare that I vote based on my Christianity, I will never tell you God is on my side. I will never believe you when you tell me God isn't on my side. You and I have no absolute knowlege of God, and if you think you do I strongly suggest you read the Bible and reassess the situation. (Read the Bible yourself. Do not simply rely on what your pastor tells you it says and means. Please.) It's called faith, and I vote the way I feel will move the world more toward the ideal world Jesus talked about. And how dare you put God in a box, especially one shaped like an elephant.
About the pro-life stance: (1) John McCain for the majority of his career has been pro-choice. He pandered to the conservative base, as he had to, to get the presidential nomination. (2) Even if he became president, he wouldn't have fought to have Roe v. Wade overturned. I believe him to be a rational (for the most part) man who believes in separation of church and state and the Constitution. He knows it would have been a wasted effort to to try to please a loud but small part of his base, a part that won't be satisfied until the Constitution is thrown out the window and we become the exact religious despots our country fought against to become a free country. And yes, I feel comfortable speaking for John McCain on this issue. This is the "wholly misguided" I mentioned previously. Those who believed John McCain was going to outlaw abortion were misguided. They based their vote on this, and it makes me a little sad.
Now I'll share my view on abortion, which I don't often share (with anyone besides my husband since the subject has come up so often recently). I know, me not sharing an opinion? Crazy. Well, I'm going to do it now.
You'd probably guess and guess right where I stand on whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I do not believe abortion should be illegal. I am, however, pro-life. I would not have an abortion, regardless of the way the baby were conceived; only if my and the baby's death were certain, or the death of all babies I were carrying if carrying more than one were certain would I consider it. I have many reasons for being pro-life, which I'll share if you ask me, especially if abortion is something you're considering. However, I feel that this is a decision to be made for oneself. It is between a woman, her doctor, the father if applicable and then only partly, and her God. I would never, never support a law that made abortion illegal. I would never tell a woman her decision regarding this was wrong. I do not feel like less of a Christian for believing this.
What perhaps disappoints me the most is that my uncle would have voted for anyone his pastor had told him to. A pastor could argue just as well (if not better) for Barack Obama or Ralph Nader. My uncle made a decision, but he didn't really make the decision himself, just like my aunt didn't judge Harry Potter for herself. I'm sure it's much easier to just do as you're told and never have to make any decisions, but it's disheartening to say the least, and absolutely frightening to say the most.
I realized quickly that my uncle asked the question simply as an excuse for him to share his voting story. He told me that his pastor told his congregation to vote the Bible. Even though he goes to a Methodist church, the "Methodist" pastors in Alfred/Andover/Wellsville area of New York emulate Franklin Graham more than either of the Wesley brothers. For example, my aunt who goes to Andover United Methodist will not touch a Harry Potter book because her PASTOR told her that J. K. Rowling is a witch. Yes - a Methodist pastor. Anyway, I replied to my uncle, "So you voted for John McCain because he has now declared himself pro-life." My uncle said yes. I replied again saying I'm glad that he voted and that he had a clear reason why. I believe it to be wholly misguided reason, but a reason nonetheless. I continued (of course), saying, "I believe I voted the Bible too. And I voted for the other guy." We ended the conversation at that. He wouldn't have tried to fight me on it anyway.
My lifelong Republican grandma sitting across from me, who happens to now have no hearing, said to my uncle, "You voted for Obama? Me too! He's our guy." On the subject, but the wrong assumption. I thought it was funny.
So my uncle voted the way his pastor told him to. "On the Bible." How the people voting for John McCain so arrogantly and self-righteously claimed the Bible and God as theirs and their candidate's is endlessly frustrating to me, as I'm sure you can tell if you ever read anything I've ever written before. Especially that it was a Methodist pastor who told the congregation to vote for the candidate who represents the privileged, the wealthy, the social darwinistic, the war advocates, the gun lovers, the death penalty supporters, the privatizers, the Haves - the people and beliefs Jesus preached against. One issue - abortion - and they think they are on God's side. It doesn't work that way; God doesn't vote. As loudly as I declare that I vote based on my Christianity, I will never tell you God is on my side. I will never believe you when you tell me God isn't on my side. You and I have no absolute knowlege of God, and if you think you do I strongly suggest you read the Bible and reassess the situation. (Read the Bible yourself. Do not simply rely on what your pastor tells you it says and means. Please.) It's called faith, and I vote the way I feel will move the world more toward the ideal world Jesus talked about. And how dare you put God in a box, especially one shaped like an elephant.
About the pro-life stance: (1) John McCain for the majority of his career has been pro-choice. He pandered to the conservative base, as he had to, to get the presidential nomination. (2) Even if he became president, he wouldn't have fought to have Roe v. Wade overturned. I believe him to be a rational (for the most part) man who believes in separation of church and state and the Constitution. He knows it would have been a wasted effort to to try to please a loud but small part of his base, a part that won't be satisfied until the Constitution is thrown out the window and we become the exact religious despots our country fought against to become a free country. And yes, I feel comfortable speaking for John McCain on this issue. This is the "wholly misguided" I mentioned previously. Those who believed John McCain was going to outlaw abortion were misguided. They based their vote on this, and it makes me a little sad.
Now I'll share my view on abortion, which I don't often share (with anyone besides my husband since the subject has come up so often recently). I know, me not sharing an opinion? Crazy. Well, I'm going to do it now.
You'd probably guess and guess right where I stand on whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I do not believe abortion should be illegal. I am, however, pro-life. I would not have an abortion, regardless of the way the baby were conceived; only if my and the baby's death were certain, or the death of all babies I were carrying if carrying more than one were certain would I consider it. I have many reasons for being pro-life, which I'll share if you ask me, especially if abortion is something you're considering. However, I feel that this is a decision to be made for oneself. It is between a woman, her doctor, the father if applicable and then only partly, and her God. I would never, never support a law that made abortion illegal. I would never tell a woman her decision regarding this was wrong. I do not feel like less of a Christian for believing this.
What perhaps disappoints me the most is that my uncle would have voted for anyone his pastor had told him to. A pastor could argue just as well (if not better) for Barack Obama or Ralph Nader. My uncle made a decision, but he didn't really make the decision himself, just like my aunt didn't judge Harry Potter for herself. I'm sure it's much easier to just do as you're told and never have to make any decisions, but it's disheartening to say the least, and absolutely frightening to say the most.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 22: 36-40 (NIV)
The Mormon Church, a church that claims the Christian faith and is based in Utah, spent $20 million advertising dollars in California to abolish the constitutional right for gay men and women to get married. In early polling and trends in California, Proposition 8 - a proposition to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman - had no chance of passing. Even the state's Republican governor has spoken out against Prop 8. It wasn't until the Mormon Church became involved that the tide turned. Why? Misleading advertising. I'm not sure if misleading is the right word. Innaccurate would be better.
Now. The Mormon Church has every right to speak for or against any issue it so desires. In fact, I wish more churches would open their status-quo, too polite, weak mouths and take a stance against the injustices Jesus preached against instead of being an advocate for them, or worse - being quiet bystanders. The churches who currently speak out resemble far more the pharisees than Christ.
So many churches are afraid to lose their tax-exempt status by taking a stance. Besides that I think being Christ-like is worth losing tax-exempt status, speaking is protected by the First Amendment. Unlike what Mormon advertising for Prop 8 said, no person, organization, or church would lose the right to free speech if the proposition were not passed. Where the church can get in trouble is when it spends its tax-exempt money to support an overtly political person or law. And even though I feel the Mormon Church did just this by spending their $20 million on Prop 8, it is very unlikely they will lose their tax-exempt status because the law is so loose. Though I completely disagree with them on this issue and think it's very wrong that they used lies to persuade the public, I, in a very general way, admire the church for taking a risk.
I can't even blame the entire vote on the Mormon Church. The Californians who allowed themselves to be scared and misled by the church are just as much or more to blame. Part of the blame belongs to the church because as self-proclaimed followers of Christ the church has placed itself at a higher standard/scrutiny than just "regular folk" who don't invoke Christ's name. In Christ's name the church should be working for social justice, not against it. Shame on you Mormon Church. (If you declared yourselves Paulians instead of Christians I may have less disappointment in you, but even Paul talked about love and equality.) The voters share the blame because (1) a minute or two of real research would have disproven the Mormon ads' claims, (2) a brief moment of common sense would have disproven the Mormon ads' claims, and (3) in their hearts they know this proposition is wrong. Shame on you California voters, for believing that sex education would be taught in kindergarten, that homosexuality would be forced on your children, and that churches would lose their right to free speech.
As a Christian I take to heart what Jesus said when he said the greatest commandments are to love your God and love your neighbor as you would be loved. The greatest commandments trump all others, negating any sentiment that does not align with them. We teach the golden rule but don't live it. I am guilty of this too, but I like to think that I at least try, and at the very least don't openly defy it.
Since no law can be based on solely the Bible or any religious text due to separation of church and state, Prop 8 will likely not make it past the courts. God willing. California judges now must uphold the discrimination, but maybe the amendment itself can overturned by a higher court. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. I do know that the amendment can be amended by voters. I think it's worth a try.
And now that you've read all of this, here's commentary on the subject from Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (his is better than mine - that's why he's at the end).
Matthew 22: 36-40 (NIV)
The Mormon Church, a church that claims the Christian faith and is based in Utah, spent $20 million advertising dollars in California to abolish the constitutional right for gay men and women to get married. In early polling and trends in California, Proposition 8 - a proposition to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman - had no chance of passing. Even the state's Republican governor has spoken out against Prop 8. It wasn't until the Mormon Church became involved that the tide turned. Why? Misleading advertising. I'm not sure if misleading is the right word. Innaccurate would be better.
Now. The Mormon Church has every right to speak for or against any issue it so desires. In fact, I wish more churches would open their status-quo, too polite, weak mouths and take a stance against the injustices Jesus preached against instead of being an advocate for them, or worse - being quiet bystanders. The churches who currently speak out resemble far more the pharisees than Christ.
So many churches are afraid to lose their tax-exempt status by taking a stance. Besides that I think being Christ-like is worth losing tax-exempt status, speaking is protected by the First Amendment. Unlike what Mormon advertising for Prop 8 said, no person, organization, or church would lose the right to free speech if the proposition were not passed. Where the church can get in trouble is when it spends its tax-exempt money to support an overtly political person or law. And even though I feel the Mormon Church did just this by spending their $20 million on Prop 8, it is very unlikely they will lose their tax-exempt status because the law is so loose. Though I completely disagree with them on this issue and think it's very wrong that they used lies to persuade the public, I, in a very general way, admire the church for taking a risk.
I can't even blame the entire vote on the Mormon Church. The Californians who allowed themselves to be scared and misled by the church are just as much or more to blame. Part of the blame belongs to the church because as self-proclaimed followers of Christ the church has placed itself at a higher standard/scrutiny than just "regular folk" who don't invoke Christ's name. In Christ's name the church should be working for social justice, not against it. Shame on you Mormon Church. (If you declared yourselves Paulians instead of Christians I may have less disappointment in you, but even Paul talked about love and equality.) The voters share the blame because (1) a minute or two of real research would have disproven the Mormon ads' claims, (2) a brief moment of common sense would have disproven the Mormon ads' claims, and (3) in their hearts they know this proposition is wrong. Shame on you California voters, for believing that sex education would be taught in kindergarten, that homosexuality would be forced on your children, and that churches would lose their right to free speech.
As a Christian I take to heart what Jesus said when he said the greatest commandments are to love your God and love your neighbor as you would be loved. The greatest commandments trump all others, negating any sentiment that does not align with them. We teach the golden rule but don't live it. I am guilty of this too, but I like to think that I at least try, and at the very least don't openly defy it.
Since no law can be based on solely the Bible or any religious text due to separation of church and state, Prop 8 will likely not make it past the courts. God willing. California judges now must uphold the discrimination, but maybe the amendment itself can overturned by a higher court. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. I do know that the amendment can be amended by voters. I think it's worth a try.
And now that you've read all of this, here's commentary on the subject from Keith Olbermann of MSNBC (his is better than mine - that's why he's at the end).
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Male Cougar
I'm not talking about the animal, but I'm guessing most people reading this don't think of a large cat when they hear the word "cougar." I am of course referring to older women who date/seek younger men. Famous cougars include Mrs. Robinson, Demi Moore, Linda Hogan, and me - if being four years older than your husband counts.
Despite that the term is derogatory and sexist, I'm going to talk about it anyway. Just for fun. The important questions: What is the age difference requirement for a cougar? Can cougars be hot, or can only unattainable older women be hot? Are cougars looking only for a boy toy? I will not actually be answering or discussing any of these questions; I just want you to think about them.
My friends and I used to go to a more "upscale" bar when we were 22-23 because we knew older men and women there would buy us drinks. Good drinks. So the boys looked for the cougars, and the girls looked for, well, the male cougar. (Most of the time we simply met nice people who appreciated our situation in life.)
Like the term "male slut," why is the word "male" in front of it? Men can just be plain old sluts; no adjective is necessary. Men can be plain old cougars too. But does a term exist for "male cougars"? I, of course, did some research.
I've heard a tom (which is the actual term for the male cat), a dingo, a silver fox, a manther, an elephant seal, a liger, Daddy, a bobcat, a "creepy old guy," and "man." Or, a Redenbacher.
Despite that the term is derogatory and sexist, I'm going to talk about it anyway. Just for fun. The important questions: What is the age difference requirement for a cougar? Can cougars be hot, or can only unattainable older women be hot? Are cougars looking only for a boy toy? I will not actually be answering or discussing any of these questions; I just want you to think about them.
My friends and I used to go to a more "upscale" bar when we were 22-23 because we knew older men and women there would buy us drinks. Good drinks. So the boys looked for the cougars, and the girls looked for, well, the male cougar. (Most of the time we simply met nice people who appreciated our situation in life.)
Like the term "male slut," why is the word "male" in front of it? Men can just be plain old sluts; no adjective is necessary. Men can be plain old cougars too. But does a term exist for "male cougars"? I, of course, did some research.
I've heard a tom (which is the actual term for the male cat), a dingo, a silver fox, a manther, an elephant seal, a liger, Daddy, a bobcat, a "creepy old guy," and "man." Or, a Redenbacher.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
I, Too, Sing America
Yes. We. DID!
I am so, so happy that Barack Obama won the election. It hits me at moments and I get goosebumps. President Barack Obama. This moment was a long time coming and I am so excited to be a part of it. I'm proud of America. I'm proud to be American. Now let's get to work.
Watching the news this morning, because you know I am, I kept thinking the statement "I, too, am America." I did a quick Google search and figured out why it was in my head - it's from a Langston Hughes poem titled "I, Too, Sing America." I cannot recommend enough that you read Langston Hughes, often. For today I'll share with you "I, Too, Sing America."
I, Too, Sing America
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--
I, too, am America.
I am so, so happy that Barack Obama won the election. It hits me at moments and I get goosebumps. President Barack Obama. This moment was a long time coming and I am so excited to be a part of it. I'm proud of America. I'm proud to be American. Now let's get to work.
Watching the news this morning, because you know I am, I kept thinking the statement "I, too, am America." I did a quick Google search and figured out why it was in my head - it's from a Langston Hughes poem titled "I, Too, Sing America." I cannot recommend enough that you read Langston Hughes, often. For today I'll share with you "I, Too, Sing America."
I, Too, Sing America
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I'll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody'll dare
Say to me,
"Eat in the kitchen,"
Then.
Besides,
They'll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed--
I, too, am America.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Exit Polls
What is an exit poll? Basically, when someone - standing 100 feet away from the polling place - asks you who you voted for. You tell them, he or she tallies it. Such polls are used most often by newspapers and television broadcasters so that they can report results before official results.
In 2004 exit polls showed Kerry leading most of the night. Well, we know how that turned out. The rumor is that news and media outlets will be citing exit polls sparingly this year, and not calling states based on it. We'll see. You know I'll be watching.
Don't forget to vote. TODAY. For Barack Obama. We need a new direction.
In 2004 exit polls showed Kerry leading most of the night. Well, we know how that turned out. The rumor is that news and media outlets will be citing exit polls sparingly this year, and not calling states based on it. We'll see. You know I'll be watching.
Don't forget to vote. TODAY. For Barack Obama. We need a new direction.
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Nathan Bedford Forrest may be known as a Confederate Cavalry leader during the U.S. Civil War, but he is better known as the alleged founder of the Ku Klux Klan, serving as its first grand wizard.
Floridians last night voted on whether to change the name of Nathan B. Forrest High School in Jacksonville. The result? Forrest High remains Forrest High.
Ridiculous and sad.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TODAY!
(for Barack Obama, of course)
Floridians last night voted on whether to change the name of Nathan B. Forrest High School in Jacksonville. The result? Forrest High remains Forrest High.
Ridiculous and sad.
DON'T FORGET TO VOTE TODAY!
(for Barack Obama, of course)
Monday, November 03, 2008
Barack Obama's Grandmother Passes Away
Madelyn Dunham, Barack Obama's grandmother, died of cancer today. That sucks. My prayers are with the family.
That's all.
That's all.
Electoral College Map
For the most recent electoral college map, visit here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
For some printable maps to color in as the states are called, visit here:
http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us_nl.pdf
http://www.abcteach.com/maps/usa.htm
Why blue should be your favorite crayon:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
For some printable maps to color in as the states are called, visit here:
http://www.eduplace.com/ss/maps/pdf/us_nl.pdf
http://www.abcteach.com/maps/usa.htm
Why blue should be your favorite crayon:
Iverson for Billups, McDyess, and Samb
In more sports news, the Detroit Pistons are trading Chauncey Billups, Antonio McDyess, and Cheikh Samb to the Denver Nuggets in exchange for Allen Iverson.
Everyone TOMORROW needs to go trade George Bush for BARACK OBAMA. Do not forget to VOTE!
Everyone TOMORROW needs to go trade George Bush for BARACK OBAMA. Do not forget to VOTE!
Phil Fulmer to resign
Phillip Fulmer, head coach of the Tenessee Volunteers, will announce his resignation today at 5:00 p.m. EST according to ESPN.
Don't forget to vote for BARACK OBAMA on Tuesday November 4.
Seriously. It's time for a real change.
Watch CBS Videos Online
(Do you get what I'm doing yet?)
Don't forget to vote for BARACK OBAMA on Tuesday November 4.
Seriously. It's time for a real change.
Watch CBS Videos Online
(Do you get what I'm doing yet?)
Where do I vote?
If you'd like to know where you go to vote for Barack Obama, visit:
http://vote411.org/
http://maps.google.com/vote
Vote411 worked better for me. I recommend it.
For those of you in NY, check here for your voting info, including your voter registration status:
https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx
Everyone else: http://www.canivote.org/
http://vote411.org/
http://maps.google.com/vote
Vote411 worked better for me. I recommend it.
For those of you in NY, check here for your voting info, including your voter registration status:
https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx
Everyone else: http://www.canivote.org/
Oh, Democracy.
I just spent an hour talking politics at the mechanic's. As we sat watching the CBS Early Show, Harry Smith and the compulsory political experts interchanging red and blue states on the big floor map to show the current poll trends, my waiting-room mate said, "That's scary." Knowing better, I still asked, "That John McCain has a chance to win?" My fellow car owner replied, "No - that Barack Obama may become president." I could have just nodded and kept my mouth shut, but when presented this option I rarely take it. This instance was no different.
I replied, "Well, I instead am really excited for an Obama presidency." My friend told me I was young and brainwashed. I replied that I think I'm pretty well informed and in control of my brain, thanks. He said McCain was too liberal for him. I said I wish Obama were more liberal. We realized then we were not going to agree on much:
He wants to kill all of the terrorists; I want to try to change their hearts. He wants to intimidate countries into producing more oil; I want to find energy alternatives. (He then asked me what kind of car I drove, and was happy to find out - after my declaration of desire for less dependency on oil - that I drove a 42-mile-to-the-gallon Toyota Tercel. He respected me for this. I respected him for respecting me. We all know I could be much better in this regard, but I'll take the kudos anyway; I don't often warrant them.) He wants a strong military force throughout the world; I want that money spent on education and non-military humanitarian efforts. He believes government shouldn't take any of his money; I'm okay with paying taxes that go to beneficial programs. He says tomato; I say tomato.
However, we did agree that "the system" is flawed. I did say, though, that I'll take a flawed system if it means people who really need help get it, even if ten people who don't really need it also get helped. He disagreed.
You can't change people's mind-sets until you change society's mind-set, and making the rich richer and poor poorer isn't going to do this. (We agreed on this too, but then disagreed over who would help decrease the gap and make the system better.) The system obviously needs to change, and both candidates will try - I just think McCain will change it for the worse by making it harder for everyone to get help and Barack will change it for the better by making it easier for everyone to get help. Yes, "everyone" includes the moochers, but when it is easier to mooch than to work, why not mooch? If you make it easier for those who work to get help (maybe even more help than the moochers get!), won't that provide at least a little more incentive to join the working class?
I choose to believe Obama when he tells me he wants the American Dream to be reality again. I don't care if the American Dream is unhip, I still want my version to come true. I like believing that it can, for anyone. I even like white picket fences . . . and the right to use them for picket signs.
Besides the brainwashing bit, no personal attacks were made this morning in the mechanic's waiting room. Nobody yelled. Nobody really even called the other person wrong. Joe the Plumber and Betty Bleeding Heart left as friends. Really.
I replied, "Well, I instead am really excited for an Obama presidency." My friend told me I was young and brainwashed. I replied that I think I'm pretty well informed and in control of my brain, thanks. He said McCain was too liberal for him. I said I wish Obama were more liberal. We realized then we were not going to agree on much:
He wants to kill all of the terrorists; I want to try to change their hearts. He wants to intimidate countries into producing more oil; I want to find energy alternatives. (He then asked me what kind of car I drove, and was happy to find out - after my declaration of desire for less dependency on oil - that I drove a 42-mile-to-the-gallon Toyota Tercel. He respected me for this. I respected him for respecting me. We all know I could be much better in this regard, but I'll take the kudos anyway; I don't often warrant them.) He wants a strong military force throughout the world; I want that money spent on education and non-military humanitarian efforts. He believes government shouldn't take any of his money; I'm okay with paying taxes that go to beneficial programs. He says tomato; I say tomato.
However, we did agree that "the system" is flawed. I did say, though, that I'll take a flawed system if it means people who really need help get it, even if ten people who don't really need it also get helped. He disagreed.
You can't change people's mind-sets until you change society's mind-set, and making the rich richer and poor poorer isn't going to do this. (We agreed on this too, but then disagreed over who would help decrease the gap and make the system better.) The system obviously needs to change, and both candidates will try - I just think McCain will change it for the worse by making it harder for everyone to get help and Barack will change it for the better by making it easier for everyone to get help. Yes, "everyone" includes the moochers, but when it is easier to mooch than to work, why not mooch? If you make it easier for those who work to get help (maybe even more help than the moochers get!), won't that provide at least a little more incentive to join the working class?
I choose to believe Obama when he tells me he wants the American Dream to be reality again. I don't care if the American Dream is unhip, I still want my version to come true. I like believing that it can, for anyone. I even like white picket fences . . . and the right to use them for picket signs.
Besides the brainwashing bit, no personal attacks were made this morning in the mechanic's waiting room. Nobody yelled. Nobody really even called the other person wrong. Joe the Plumber and Betty Bleeding Heart left as friends. Really.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Mason-Dixon Poll
For the latest Mason-Dixon Poll results, see: http://www.mason-dixon.com/public/index.cfm.
Don't forget to vote for BARACK OBAMA on NOVEMBER 4.
You already know why you should.
Don't forget to vote for BARACK OBAMA on NOVEMBER 4.
You already know why you should.
NYC Marathon Results
For the results of the New York City Marathon, visit here: http://www.nycmarathon.org/results/index.php
And don't forget to vote for Barack Obama THIS TUESDAY!
http://maps.google.com/vote
(You can vote for whoever you want. Just base your decision on whether you want to start climbing out of the hole or if you'd rather dig it deeper.)
And don't forget to vote for Barack Obama THIS TUESDAY!
http://maps.google.com/vote
(You can vote for whoever you want. Just base your decision on whether you want to start climbing out of the hole or if you'd rather dig it deeper.)
Friday, October 31, 2008
Beating. Head. Against. Wall.
I may have reached my limit. Let's just vote already.
I am so sick of John McCain and his steaming, runny globs of turd that he keeps throwing around and saying it's free chocolate. Now "Joe the Plumber" is campaigning for them - yes, standing at the podium talking about how he will be better off with John McCain and Sarah Palin in the White House. He is allowed his opinion. He is allowed to share it. Now I will share mine:
Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber! Who doesn't pay taxes! And will be better off under Obama's tax plan! (And he knows this!) I cannot believe that the McCain campaign is not only NOT hiding him, they are putting him in the spotlight!
"Joe" the proclaimed independent is really Samuel the Republican. But, actually, I don't really care about his name or party; I'm just really annoyed that he's pretending to be someone he's not. I'm really annoyed that the McCain campaign has naught but myths and fear to hawk now. But what annoys me the most are the people who choose to believe it all. This goes for both sides, of course, but c'mon people do you really believe Obama is going to take all of your money and give it to poor people? Do you really believe McCain's trigger-happy temper-fueled war mongering will keep us safer? Do you really believe giving rich people more money will help the poor?
I heard on NPR yesterday a McCain campaign spokesperson use the following metaphor to explain Obama's tax plan: It's like going to a restaurant, and instead of tipping your waitress you give that tip money to the homeless guy outside.
A point my husband immediately made: gratuity is GRATUITY, meaning a tip is not owed to anyone. Webster's defines gratuity as "something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some service." You do have a right to give your money to the homeless guy. That said, Obama will never tell you not to tip your server, metaphorically or literally. I'll admit that the metaphor isn't too far off, but I would instead say that Obama would rather have you skip dessert and give the dessert money to the homeless guy while still tipping the server for what you bought. He is not arguing that you take money away from anyone; he is arguing that you reconsider to what you give your money.
A more realistic metaphor for what the McCain campaign is arguing is: Obama orders a piece of pie, gives it to the homeless guy, and asks the waitress to pay for it. This scenario is of course silly and untrue.
Using this metaphor for the McCain economic policy: order as much food as you possibly can and tip excessively, then the waitress will share her money with the homeless guy. This would work in theory, but, as the past eight years (and all trickle-down schemes before) have shown, the waitress usually keeps the money.
What makes me sad is that I never really disliked John McCain until the Republican primaries of this election. When it was rumored that Kerry was going to pick McCain as his running mate, I thought, Hmm, maybe it could work. My staunch Democrat grandfather in the early 2000s considered voting for McCain if he became nominee. I used to like John McCain. I could even agree to disagree (a little) with him on some issues. No longer. Not after he changed his tune - changed the whole instrument he was playing - to gain the nomination. He pandered to the socially conservative base, turning 180 degrees in his long-held opinions to get the base to choose him and then get them to support him. Now he's trying to be the old John McCain again to get the independents. Sigh. I understand why he had and has to do it, but the doing of it is not admirable. And he completely lost me when he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and then angrily lashed out at journalists who questioned him on the irresponsibility and inhumanity it implied.
I'm okay with someone changing his or her mind on a position after they've soul searched and researched, but I'm not okay with claiming your opinion has changed just to manipulate people so you can gain power. Playing different characters was the only way John McCain was going to get the Republican nomination. What this tells me is that McCain doesn't really believe in straight talk or making America better, he believes in power. No method, as long as it gets him the presidency, is off limits. And if this is the case, why does he really want to be president? I used to like you, John McCain. Now I'd rather go get a beer with George Bush.
I know Obama isn't completely selfless in his quest for the presidency. I know that the black-and-white world will not magically turn into technicolor the day Barack is inaugurated, if he is elected. I know his plans must go through Congress and that they may not all work. But I believe his policies will be better for the country, and I believe he will fight for them. The fact that he chose to be a community organizer instead of a high-paid lawyer at a successful law firm (which a law degree from Harvard can often get you) makes me believe he actually does want to make the country better. I choose to believe based on the facts.
Back to Joe. He has every right to practice as a plumber without a license, just like I can practice psychology without a license. You can practice medicine without a license. Your mom can practice law without a license. While the latter three will usually result in harsher consequences for both the practicer and the client, with an unlicensed plumber you can end up with steaming, runny globs of turd all over. Which would be crappy (har har).
I initially intended this entry to be short. Oh well. I guess I'm not as sick of analyzing the situation as I thought.
To Republicans (especially my Republican friends reading this): I get why you are Republican. I really do. Small government, state rights, free markets, fiscal conservativeness are issues I get. I even respect your right to feel the way you do about abortion, the death penalty, military force, gay marriage, gun rights. I respect the Constitution and its diverse interpretation, and, like Obama, believe it allows for no absolutes on any issue. I get why you are voting for a Republican.
The Republicans I don't get right now are those who are not just voting against a Democrat but are voting FOR McCain. In 2004, I voted against Bush, not really for John Kerry (sorry, John). Maybe they are voting AGAINST Barack, likely because they choose to believe the insane claims that he's a terrorist and socialist, which has nothing to do with his party or his policies. For some maybe it's the old John McCain they are hoping for. For some the new John McCain is preferable because he is more conservative. In fact, he's now more Bush than Bush, so if you like George Bush you like New John.
And, for the love of God, I hope those of you reading this already know who you are voting for. This diatribe is not to try to pursuade "undecided voters." If you still don't know who you are voting for (and actually care), I suggest some soul searching regarding your life philosophy, your [your name here] Doctrine, which is a good thing for people to do anytime, but especially during an election year. There is so much information available. Decide how you feel about the issues (or just one issue at this point), and vote. You have two very different options. Choose one.
I am so sick of John McCain and his steaming, runny globs of turd that he keeps throwing around and saying it's free chocolate. Now "Joe the Plumber" is campaigning for them - yes, standing at the podium talking about how he will be better off with John McCain and Sarah Palin in the White House. He is allowed his opinion. He is allowed to share it. Now I will share mine:
Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber! Who doesn't pay taxes! And will be better off under Obama's tax plan! (And he knows this!) I cannot believe that the McCain campaign is not only NOT hiding him, they are putting him in the spotlight!
"Joe" the proclaimed independent is really Samuel the Republican. But, actually, I don't really care about his name or party; I'm just really annoyed that he's pretending to be someone he's not. I'm really annoyed that the McCain campaign has naught but myths and fear to hawk now. But what annoys me the most are the people who choose to believe it all. This goes for both sides, of course, but c'mon people do you really believe Obama is going to take all of your money and give it to poor people? Do you really believe McCain's trigger-happy temper-fueled war mongering will keep us safer? Do you really believe giving rich people more money will help the poor?
I heard on NPR yesterday a McCain campaign spokesperson use the following metaphor to explain Obama's tax plan: It's like going to a restaurant, and instead of tipping your waitress you give that tip money to the homeless guy outside.
A point my husband immediately made: gratuity is GRATUITY, meaning a tip is not owed to anyone. Webster's defines gratuity as "something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some service." You do have a right to give your money to the homeless guy. That said, Obama will never tell you not to tip your server, metaphorically or literally. I'll admit that the metaphor isn't too far off, but I would instead say that Obama would rather have you skip dessert and give the dessert money to the homeless guy while still tipping the server for what you bought. He is not arguing that you take money away from anyone; he is arguing that you reconsider to what you give your money.
A more realistic metaphor for what the McCain campaign is arguing is: Obama orders a piece of pie, gives it to the homeless guy, and asks the waitress to pay for it. This scenario is of course silly and untrue.
Using this metaphor for the McCain economic policy: order as much food as you possibly can and tip excessively, then the waitress will share her money with the homeless guy. This would work in theory, but, as the past eight years (and all trickle-down schemes before) have shown, the waitress usually keeps the money.
What makes me sad is that I never really disliked John McCain until the Republican primaries of this election. When it was rumored that Kerry was going to pick McCain as his running mate, I thought, Hmm, maybe it could work. My staunch Democrat grandfather in the early 2000s considered voting for McCain if he became nominee. I used to like John McCain. I could even agree to disagree (a little) with him on some issues. No longer. Not after he changed his tune - changed the whole instrument he was playing - to gain the nomination. He pandered to the socially conservative base, turning 180 degrees in his long-held opinions to get the base to choose him and then get them to support him. Now he's trying to be the old John McCain again to get the independents. Sigh. I understand why he had and has to do it, but the doing of it is not admirable. And he completely lost me when he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and then angrily lashed out at journalists who questioned him on the irresponsibility and inhumanity it implied.
I'm okay with someone changing his or her mind on a position after they've soul searched and researched, but I'm not okay with claiming your opinion has changed just to manipulate people so you can gain power. Playing different characters was the only way John McCain was going to get the Republican nomination. What this tells me is that McCain doesn't really believe in straight talk or making America better, he believes in power. No method, as long as it gets him the presidency, is off limits. And if this is the case, why does he really want to be president? I used to like you, John McCain. Now I'd rather go get a beer with George Bush.
I know Obama isn't completely selfless in his quest for the presidency. I know that the black-and-white world will not magically turn into technicolor the day Barack is inaugurated, if he is elected. I know his plans must go through Congress and that they may not all work. But I believe his policies will be better for the country, and I believe he will fight for them. The fact that he chose to be a community organizer instead of a high-paid lawyer at a successful law firm (which a law degree from Harvard can often get you) makes me believe he actually does want to make the country better. I choose to believe based on the facts.
Back to Joe. He has every right to practice as a plumber without a license, just like I can practice psychology without a license. You can practice medicine without a license. Your mom can practice law without a license. While the latter three will usually result in harsher consequences for both the practicer and the client, with an unlicensed plumber you can end up with steaming, runny globs of turd all over. Which would be crappy (har har).
I initially intended this entry to be short. Oh well. I guess I'm not as sick of analyzing the situation as I thought.
To Republicans (especially my Republican friends reading this): I get why you are Republican. I really do. Small government, state rights, free markets, fiscal conservativeness are issues I get. I even respect your right to feel the way you do about abortion, the death penalty, military force, gay marriage, gun rights. I respect the Constitution and its diverse interpretation, and, like Obama, believe it allows for no absolutes on any issue. I get why you are voting for a Republican.
The Republicans I don't get right now are those who are not just voting against a Democrat but are voting FOR McCain. In 2004, I voted against Bush, not really for John Kerry (sorry, John). Maybe they are voting AGAINST Barack, likely because they choose to believe the insane claims that he's a terrorist and socialist, which has nothing to do with his party or his policies. For some maybe it's the old John McCain they are hoping for. For some the new John McCain is preferable because he is more conservative. In fact, he's now more Bush than Bush, so if you like George Bush you like New John.
And, for the love of God, I hope those of you reading this already know who you are voting for. This diatribe is not to try to pursuade "undecided voters." If you still don't know who you are voting for (and actually care), I suggest some soul searching regarding your life philosophy, your [your name here] Doctrine, which is a good thing for people to do anytime, but especially during an election year. There is so much information available. Decide how you feel about the issues (or just one issue at this point), and vote. You have two very different options. Choose one.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
"How do you know that the sky is falling, Chicken Little?" asked Henny Penny.
"I saw it with my eyes, I heard it with my ears, and a bit of it fell on my head," said Chicken Little.
John McCain wants you to know that a socialist revolution is coming. No, he's not talking about a South American country; he's talking about the United States. If you don't vote for John McCain, Che Guevara will become the Secretary of State. (It doesn't really matter that Che is dead - the ghost of Che is just as real as Joe the Plumber).
Saying Barack Obama is a socialist is like saying John McCain is a goodwill ambassador. (Sing it with me: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. I know John, I should get a life.) John McCain is now trying to make you believe that the choice is between capitalism and socialism. The economy doesn't matter when the sky the falling.
What caused Chicken Little to assess that the sky was falling and the world was ending? An ACORN. Somebody get the king.
P.S. Barack Obama has not "preempted" the World Series. Talk about grasping at bendy straws. . . Fox, yes Fox, has said McCain's claim that Barack Obama is interfering with America's pastime is false. I mean, I know a presidential election is far less important than a baseball game, so if you're upset about losing a little bit of pregame coverage than you should vote for McCain. It's not like it's the Super Bowl.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
It was almost like a party
Fifth grader Damon Weaver from Palm Beach County, Florida, offers the best election coverage I've seen yet.
Awesome job, Damon.
Awesome job, Damon.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Let's Go Buffalo!
It's football season. Now the heart of football season. I am a Buffalo Bills fan. I was raised on football, so all other sports are relegated to second fiddle. If the Bills played the Mets, I would expose my inner frat boy and cheer my heart out for the Bills against the Betsy Wetsy baseball players. I will not apologize for this. Nor will I apologize for caring so much about something that world peace depends nothing on. (But the NFL does do a lot for the United Way. Beeyotches.)
In order to be a Bills fan you must possess an inborn optimism that defies all logic, even if you spend most of the game yelling at the television and your beloved team. For example, I'm still super pissed off that we - yes we - lost to Miami on Sunday. I wrote my team off early in the third quarter and could not be swayed. Bills fans learn to expect the worse, because sometimes expecting the worst helps the worst hurt less. But we still hope for the best, because on those occasions the Bills do well we yell twice as loud for them as we did AT them. Word of warning: under no circumstances agree with me when I say the Bills suck, unless you are a member of my family or a card-carrying Bills fan. (You earn the card by opening beer cans with your teeth and knowing how you should feel about Rob Johnson.)
So, for myself and for all you Bills fans out there who are disheartened after Sunday, here are some videos to help remind you why we, insanely and/or inexplicibly, love the Bills.
In order to be a Bills fan you must possess an inborn optimism that defies all logic, even if you spend most of the game yelling at the television and your beloved team. For example, I'm still super pissed off that we - yes we - lost to Miami on Sunday. I wrote my team off early in the third quarter and could not be swayed. Bills fans learn to expect the worse, because sometimes expecting the worst helps the worst hurt less. But we still hope for the best, because on those occasions the Bills do well we yell twice as loud for them as we did AT them. Word of warning: under no circumstances agree with me when I say the Bills suck, unless you are a member of my family or a card-carrying Bills fan. (You earn the card by opening beer cans with your teeth and knowing how you should feel about Rob Johnson.)
So, for myself and for all you Bills fans out there who are disheartened after Sunday, here are some videos to help remind you why we, insanely and/or inexplicibly, love the Bills.
Locks of Love
My hair has grown past my shoulders. In a few more months it should be long enough to donate to Locks of Love. However, I'm going to need your help.
I have fine hair. I think fate gave me fine hair to balance out my big head; I would look like a bobblehead if I had thick hair. This still doesn't mean I like having fine hair, especially when it reaches a certain length. I'm appealing to you to help me not cut my hair. I already know how I want it cut, so all it would take is a sneaky trip to the salon. If I show any warning signs, please intervene. Thanks.
I have fine hair. I think fate gave me fine hair to balance out my big head; I would look like a bobblehead if I had thick hair. This still doesn't mean I like having fine hair, especially when it reaches a certain length. I'm appealing to you to help me not cut my hair. I already know how I want it cut, so all it would take is a sneaky trip to the salon. If I show any warning signs, please intervene. Thanks.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Some humor (not mine)
Here's a quote from Binghamton-born author David Sedaris, from his recent article in the New Yorker, regarding undecided voters.
"I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
I haven't expressed it here in the blog, but I dare you to ask me how I feel about undecided voters.
"I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention? To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. 'Can I interest you in the chicken?' she asks. 'Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?' To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."
I haven't expressed it here in the blog, but I dare you to ask me how I feel about undecided voters.
Something you CAN rage against:
Voter purging and voter suppression.
I feel with my last post I took away a great American opportunity to be angry about obstruction of democracy. Now I offer you an alternative.
Voter purging is when state and county boards of elections go through lists and removed voters who have died, moved, or have committed a felony. However, there are no national standards for this nor any oversight, and many voters are mistakenly removed. Citizens are supposed to be contacted when this happens, but, of course, many are not. If you get to the voting booth on November 4 and are wrongly told you cannot vote, CAST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AND CALL A VOTER HOTLINE.
National Voter Assistance Hotline: 1-866-Our-Vote
Democratic National Committee: 1-888-DEM-VOTE
(The GOP doesn't offer a hotline, otherwise I would put it here. I did find some help for Republicans voting abroad here.)
UPDATE ON 10/31: The GOP has offered a hotline. 866-976-VOTE. They want you to call and report voter fraud. WTF? It is also available for you to complain about electioneering, intimidation, and violence. Just don't make it up or you'll get caught and look stupid.
Voter suppression, purging being a part of it, involves making it harder for people to vote. Most often you'll hear of such suppression against minorities and lower income voters, who often vote Democrat. For example, a Republican fund-raiser in Ohio sued Ohio's secretary of state to make her verify all of the new registered voters - all 700,000 of them. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly and unanimously stopped this suit. A new law in Florida requires that new voters provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number on a registration form, which is cross-checked against government databases. Not a bad law per se, but one in which human error (aka typos) play a huge part. Who suffers? African-American and Latino voters, whose names are often hyphenated and with nontraditional (aka non-WASP) spellings. From the St. Petersburg Times: "Of the rejected registrations, 2,403, or 27 percent, said they were Hispanic; 2,382, or 27 percent, identified themselves as African-American; and 1,727 listed their race as white. A total of 1,902 did not disclose their race. Nearly half, 4,383, were Democrats, while 1,136 were Republicans. Most of the rest identified with no party." Whether it was the law's intent or not, it clearly prevents many Democrats from voting.
The Republican "uproar" over alleged voter fraud and subsequent investigations into registered voters in order to "protect democracy" is, in my opinion, a clever guise to do the exact opposite. In their defense, I don't think Republicans target minorities because they don't want non-whites to vote - they aren't being racist - they just don't want Democrats to vote, and many minorities just happen to be Democrat.
As much as I would like to mail a card to every registered Republican telling them that election day has been changed to Wednesday November 5, I would much rather have everyone who can vote and win fair and square - or not win fair and square.
For more info on voting rights, visit the People for the American Way Web site.
And for ACORN's response to allegations that they are a radical left-wing organization trying to commit voter fraud, watch this video:
I feel with my last post I took away a great American opportunity to be angry about obstruction of democracy. Now I offer you an alternative.
Voter purging is when state and county boards of elections go through lists and removed voters who have died, moved, or have committed a felony. However, there are no national standards for this nor any oversight, and many voters are mistakenly removed. Citizens are supposed to be contacted when this happens, but, of course, many are not. If you get to the voting booth on November 4 and are wrongly told you cannot vote, CAST A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AND CALL A VOTER HOTLINE.
National Voter Assistance Hotline: 1-866-Our-Vote
Democratic National Committee: 1-888-DEM-VOTE
(The GOP doesn't offer a hotline, otherwise I would put it here. I did find some help for Republicans voting abroad here.)
UPDATE ON 10/31: The GOP has offered a hotline. 866-976-VOTE. They want you to call and report voter fraud. WTF? It is also available for you to complain about electioneering, intimidation, and violence. Just don't make it up or you'll get caught and look stupid.
Voter suppression, purging being a part of it, involves making it harder for people to vote. Most often you'll hear of such suppression against minorities and lower income voters, who often vote Democrat. For example, a Republican fund-raiser in Ohio sued Ohio's secretary of state to make her verify all of the new registered voters - all 700,000 of them. The U.S. Supreme Court quickly and unanimously stopped this suit. A new law in Florida requires that new voters provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number on a registration form, which is cross-checked against government databases. Not a bad law per se, but one in which human error (aka typos) play a huge part. Who suffers? African-American and Latino voters, whose names are often hyphenated and with nontraditional (aka non-WASP) spellings. From the St. Petersburg Times: "Of the rejected registrations, 2,403, or 27 percent, said they were Hispanic; 2,382, or 27 percent, identified themselves as African-American; and 1,727 listed their race as white. A total of 1,902 did not disclose their race. Nearly half, 4,383, were Democrats, while 1,136 were Republicans. Most of the rest identified with no party." Whether it was the law's intent or not, it clearly prevents many Democrats from voting.
The Republican "uproar" over alleged voter fraud and subsequent investigations into registered voters in order to "protect democracy" is, in my opinion, a clever guise to do the exact opposite. In their defense, I don't think Republicans target minorities because they don't want non-whites to vote - they aren't being racist - they just don't want Democrats to vote, and many minorities just happen to be Democrat.
As much as I would like to mail a card to every registered Republican telling them that election day has been changed to Wednesday November 5, I would much rather have everyone who can vote and win fair and square - or not win fair and square.
For more info on voting rights, visit the People for the American Way Web site.
And for ACORN's response to allegations that they are a radical left-wing organization trying to commit voter fraud, watch this video:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
It's kind of sad, really
Even though the "voter fraud" hysteria has been continually debunked by legitimate news and information outlets, the McCain campaign continues to harp on it (just as they do the "Obama is going to take all of your money" argument, also wholly debunked, but I digress).
If you take just a moment to think about it, you'll realize how off base and, frankly, bananas the argument is. If any fraud has actually occurred, it would be called voter REGISTRATION fraud, meaning it would be caught before any voting occurred. Do you really think the men and women overseeing the voting at the polling place would really let Mickey Mouse vote? There are checks in place to make sure neither I nor Amanda Huginkiss vote more than once (or at all if I don't exist). You know this. Take a deep breath; it's okay.
Still a little worried? FackCheck.org is a good place to visit. It's nonpartisan, btw. The McCain campaign has been peddling that ACORN is out to destroy democracy. (I'm not exaggerating the terminology - Sarah and John say "destroy democracy.") Quoting FactCheck, "There's no evidence of any such democracy-destroying fraud." ACORN employees have been investigated for voter registration fraud and some have even been convicted of it, but prosecutors explain that the employees did so in an attempt to get paid for work they didn't do, not to encourage illegal voting. They are trying to cheat their employer, not democracy. A comparison being thrown around is that the McCain campaign's accusations toward ACORN is like calling Macy's a criminal organization because a Macy's employee has been caught shoplifting. Only slightly hysterical. No ACORN employee has been convicted of election fraud. You can take another deep breath.
So why is it sad? John, Sarah, and all of their peeps know that what they are saying isn't true, but they've got nothing else. Obama exaggerates too, but he doesn't flat out lie in order to scare people. (Okay, so palinaspresident.com is super scary, but Obama didn't create it or endorse it, nor is he arguing that oil drilling would actually occur in the White House front lawn if Republicans win, which is kind of doomsday exaggeration the Republicans are using against him.) That, my friends, is why it's sad.
If you take just a moment to think about it, you'll realize how off base and, frankly, bananas the argument is. If any fraud has actually occurred, it would be called voter REGISTRATION fraud, meaning it would be caught before any voting occurred. Do you really think the men and women overseeing the voting at the polling place would really let Mickey Mouse vote? There are checks in place to make sure neither I nor Amanda Huginkiss vote more than once (or at all if I don't exist). You know this. Take a deep breath; it's okay.
Still a little worried? FackCheck.org is a good place to visit. It's nonpartisan, btw. The McCain campaign has been peddling that ACORN is out to destroy democracy. (I'm not exaggerating the terminology - Sarah and John say "destroy democracy.") Quoting FactCheck, "There's no evidence of any such democracy-destroying fraud." ACORN employees have been investigated for voter registration fraud and some have even been convicted of it, but prosecutors explain that the employees did so in an attempt to get paid for work they didn't do, not to encourage illegal voting. They are trying to cheat their employer, not democracy. A comparison being thrown around is that the McCain campaign's accusations toward ACORN is like calling Macy's a criminal organization because a Macy's employee has been caught shoplifting. Only slightly hysterical. No ACORN employee has been convicted of election fraud. You can take another deep breath.
So why is it sad? John, Sarah, and all of their peeps know that what they are saying isn't true, but they've got nothing else. Obama exaggerates too, but he doesn't flat out lie in order to scare people. (Okay, so palinaspresident.com is super scary, but Obama didn't create it or endorse it, nor is he arguing that oil drilling would actually occur in the White House front lawn if Republicans win, which is kind of doomsday exaggeration the Republicans are using against him.) That, my friends, is why it's sad.
Defend our Title!
So I totally dropped the ball on this this year. Binghamton is up once again to be voted the Capital of the Pierogy Pocket of America. You can vote once a day, and voting ends October 24. Yes, this Friday. Go here: http://www.pierogypocket.com/. Vote every day. On as many computers as you can.
We're up againsts Buffalo, NY; Whiting, IN; Forest City, PA; and Elmira Heights, NY. We have to win. The prize is $10,000, which will go to CHOW (Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse).
We're up againsts Buffalo, NY; Whiting, IN; Forest City, PA; and Elmira Heights, NY. We have to win. The prize is $10,000, which will go to CHOW (Community Hunger Outreach Warehouse).
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debate Drinking Game Results
The drink:
Magic Hat "Participation" variety pack, brewed in Vermont, in the lovely, according to Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, great northwest United States.
Magic Hat "Participation" variety pack, brewed in Vermont, in the lovely, according to Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, great northwest United States.
The shot glasses:
The glasses my younger sister brought us back from Paris, where we are moving if McCain wins.
The television station:
Uh, PBS of course.
The final talley:
Obama = 28 drinks
McCain = 25 drinks
My hypothesis was wrong! Obama said more things on his list than McCain, so Tim drank more than me - three beers to my two and a half. I'm certain we missed some, but close enough. I thought we'd be drinking more as well. I could have chosen more domestic-policy-related words since domestic policy was the debate's topic, but how often do debates really stay on topic? Last night they were pretty good.
Tim drank many times because of the stipulation that he drink every time Obama looked at McCain when he attacked him. I almost as many times for McCain NOT looking at Obama when he attacked him. McCain did look at Obama more in this debate than previous debates. Tim drank more for "middle class" than for anything else. I thought "look" would be the big one. I drank only once for "my friends," which occurred during the closing statements. When Bob gave them the opportunity for closing statements I thought I was a goner. McCain's closing statement was what brought me closer to Tim's talley; Obama was significantly ahead for most of the debate. My most anxious moment of the night was when Bob asked about the VPs - I held my breath waiting for McCain to say "hockey mom," which would have meant I had to chug two beers. He didn't say it.
Some debates about the debate:
"Reagan" was on the list for McCain. One of the first statements of the night was about Nancy Reagan. I put "Reagan" on the list thinking of Ron, and his being John's hero, and the crazy Republican idea that Reagan policies are to be emulated, but we decided that I should drink for Nancy, determing that "Reagan" said by McCain in any context was for the same intent.
McCain did bring up Bill Ayers, so Tim and I discussed whether it meant I needed to chug a whole beer. We decided no, because "Weather Underground" was on the list, not Bill Ayers, and McCain never actually said "Weather Underground."
Some thoughts:
- Bob Schieffer was by far the best moderator.
- Joe Six-Pack must feel totally dissed since Joe Plumber got all of the attention.
- OH MY GOD DID MCCAIN SAY PEOPLE WHO SERVED IN THE MILITARY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO TAKE CERTIFICATION TESTS TO BECOME TEACHERS? They don't have to be educated or qualified to teach children? They can just become teachers because they went to boot camp? They can become teachers by just signing up? This is an even stupider idea than trickle-down economics. This may be an even dumber thing to say than saying New Hampshire is in the great northwest.
- I'm pretty sure McCain thinks Palin's youngest child has autism; he's confusing Down syndrome with autism.
- Thank you, Barack, for pointing out that nobody is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And it was totally awesome when John, after repeatedly interrupting you, told you not "to raise anyone's taxes," you said, "Well, I don't mind paying a little more." Awesome.
- On that note, though, Barack, you could be a little more aggressive. Holy crap you are chill.
- Speaking as an adopted child: F*** you John for presenting adoption a simple solution to abortion. Obviously I'm a huge advocate for adoption; I would encourage any woman to choose adoption over abortion, but it is ridiculously, positively, absolutely up to her to decide. Giving a baby up for adoption means carrying the baby for nine months, which changes everything about your life. As does having a baby and then giving it up. So, as a woman: F*** you John for belittling what this means. I would never tell a 15-year-old who had been raped that she could not rid herself of the tiny clump of cells that if allowed to grow will mean she can't have any caffeine, she can't have all sorts of food, she'll gain a whole bunch of weight, she'll have permanent stretch marks and belly fat, she'll have to give up any sports or physical activities she engaged in, and, oh yeah, that she'll be a pregnant 15-year-old who will be judged constantly and who will after nine months have to push a large baby out of her small vagina. And then after all that, give him or her up. I mean, I know being a pregnant teenager is all the rage now, but still. So, this was just a thought.
- Michelle Obama wore blue and Cindy McCain wore red. Why does Cindy McCain smile at audiences like we're a kindergarten class? Is it because we're poor?
So that, my friends - or folks, if you prefer - is my story of the last presidential debate of 2008. To end this post, I'll share with you the sayings on our Magic Hat beer caps: "Do not Quibble with Iskabibble, "the Biggest Gaffe is the Failure to Laugh," "Don't smirk at quirks," "The universe Always has Other plans," "In Magic We Trust," and "Have 3, Gotta pee." Interpret any deep meaning from these that you will.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Presidential Debate Drinking Game
I admittedly am not the first person to come up with this. I would venture that I'm about the 2, 376, 988th person to come up with it. But blog about it I will.
Tomorrow night is the third and final debate (*sniff*), which will be held at Hofstra University and mediated by Bob Schieffer. Tim and I, as we've done for every debate so far this election season, will watch it. Except this time, we're playing a drinking game. I drink for McCain, and Tim will drink for Obama, and we'll both keep a tally of how many times we drink. (I realize we could just keep a tally, but that's not as much fun.)
I don't really have a hypothesis to share other than I think I'll be drinking more than Tim. Maybe at the end of the debate I can come up with some conclusions. The following are the words or phrases that when said we'll have to drink. As you can see, the amount of words is even and the likelihood of them being said is in my opinion even (even though I still think McCain will say his more).
OBAMA
Folks
Look (two drinks for "uh, uh look")
Bush
Four more years
Last eight years
Middle class
Failed Republican policies
As I've said before
Affordable health care
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Al Qaeda
Every time he looks at McCain when he attacks him
Chug a whole beer if he mentions the Keating Five or "Bomb bomb bomb Iran"
Chug two beers if he mentions McCain's first wife, how many jets McCain's crashed, or how many houses McCain owns
MCCAIN
Maverick
My friends (two drinks for "But look my friends")
Reach across the aisle
Experience
Warshington
Tax small businesses
Surge
Victory
Fannie and Freddie
My record
Earmarks
Reagan
Every time he turns his back to Obama when he attacks him
Chug a whole beer if he mentions the Weather Underground or says Obama's middle name
Chug two beers if he winks or says "you betcha," "doggone it," or "hockey mom"
BOTH
Bipartisan
Wall Street/Main Street
Change
Bail out
Clean coal technology
Mortgage
Golden parachute
Crisis
Fundamental difference
Chug a whole beer if they hug at the end (and try not to throw up)
If you have any phrases you think I should add, by all means leave me a comment. I love beer, and politics, so it's about time I combined them. In addition, I recommend highly reading Oliver Burkeman's liveblog for The Guardian during the debate, especially the comments. Yes, he's a Brit, but that makes it even better. You can read the last debate here.
Tomorrow night is the third and final debate (*sniff*), which will be held at Hofstra University and mediated by Bob Schieffer. Tim and I, as we've done for every debate so far this election season, will watch it. Except this time, we're playing a drinking game. I drink for McCain, and Tim will drink for Obama, and we'll both keep a tally of how many times we drink. (I realize we could just keep a tally, but that's not as much fun.)
I don't really have a hypothesis to share other than I think I'll be drinking more than Tim. Maybe at the end of the debate I can come up with some conclusions. The following are the words or phrases that when said we'll have to drink. As you can see, the amount of words is even and the likelihood of them being said is in my opinion even (even though I still think McCain will say his more).
OBAMA
Folks
Look (two drinks for "uh, uh look")
Bush
Four more years
Last eight years
Middle class
Failed Republican policies
As I've said before
Affordable health care
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Al Qaeda
Every time he looks at McCain when he attacks him
Chug a whole beer if he mentions the Keating Five or "Bomb bomb bomb Iran"
Chug two beers if he mentions McCain's first wife, how many jets McCain's crashed, or how many houses McCain owns
MCCAIN
Maverick
My friends (two drinks for "But look my friends")
Reach across the aisle
Experience
Warshington
Tax small businesses
Surge
Victory
Fannie and Freddie
My record
Earmarks
Reagan
Every time he turns his back to Obama when he attacks him
Chug a whole beer if he mentions the Weather Underground or says Obama's middle name
Chug two beers if he winks or says "you betcha," "doggone it," or "hockey mom"
BOTH
Bipartisan
Wall Street/Main Street
Change
Bail out
Clean coal technology
Mortgage
Golden parachute
Crisis
Fundamental difference
Chug a whole beer if they hug at the end (and try not to throw up)
If you have any phrases you think I should add, by all means leave me a comment. I love beer, and politics, so it's about time I combined them. In addition, I recommend highly reading Oliver Burkeman's liveblog for The Guardian during the debate, especially the comments. Yes, he's a Brit, but that makes it even better. You can read the last debate here.
Monday, October 13, 2008
It's October of an election year, and I've been quiet.
I know; I'm a little surprised too. Besides some of the videos I posted last month, I haven't really said anything about the upcoming election because there are plenty, plenty of other places for you to get information. (I recommend factcheck.org the most.) But, as you know, the fact that you can get info elsewhere has never really stopped me from yacking before.
I guess I haven't really felt like blogging about it. This is not because I don't care, because I do, a lot - I'm slightly obsessed with the election actually. I love election years. Now that I've had plenty of time to digest the current situation, I will, as succinctly as possible, share my feelings about who you I think you should vote for.
McCain and Palin realize that Republican policies aren't the most popular right now (because they are bad). They've been trying really hard to show how they are different from their fellow Republicans (which they aren't). They've gone so far as to steal the slogan of "change" from the Democrats (because they have nothing original to offer). They spend a lot of time talking about how un-Republican they are (except about gays, guns, zygotes, and dinosaurs). So, we should vote for the un-Republican Republican instead of the Democrat. We should vote for the Democrat-like Republican instead of the straight Democrat. Dumb. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . And I can't believe anyone (who is not rich and out of touch as well) believes John McCain actually cares about them.
According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Bush's approval rating is now at 26 percent. His disapproval rating? 70 percent. His approval rating specific to the economy is only 22 percent. To put this in perspective, only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon got lower approval ratings. No president has had a lower disapproval rating. With this the case, I can't remotely fathom why anyone is thinking of voting Republican (besides the people who vote only to make sure that gays can't get married and women can't make choices about their own bodies).
Besides failed and embarassing Republican foreign policies, the economy is clearly the most important issue in the election. Bush's economic policies are not just Bush's, they are Republican policies. Seven of the last eight recessions have occurred under Republican leadership (sorry Jimmy). In January I'm sure this will change to eight of the last nine.
Republican policy is to cut taxes for big business with the idea that what is good for business and the rich is good for the country. The big businesses are then supposed to create jobs with their extra cash, make a bunch of new investments, and thus stimulate the economy. The magic formula is cut taxes = new jobs. McCain and Palin have been saying this over and over, as if all that needs to happen is for taxes to be cut and new jobs will magically appear. Uh, taxes were cut under the last administration and look what happened. Yes, I know there is a little more to it than that, but this is a huge part of it. You can't force rich people to invest in the country. Well, unless you tax them.
I'm not even going to go into "values" voting, except to say that I too vote the way I do because of my faith, and my soul screams against McCain. I'm not only voting against McCain, I'm voting for Obama.
I guess I haven't really felt like blogging about it. This is not because I don't care, because I do, a lot - I'm slightly obsessed with the election actually. I love election years. Now that I've had plenty of time to digest the current situation, I will, as succinctly as possible, share my feelings about who you I think you should vote for.
McCain and Palin realize that Republican policies aren't the most popular right now (because they are bad). They've been trying really hard to show how they are different from their fellow Republicans (which they aren't). They've gone so far as to steal the slogan of "change" from the Democrats (because they have nothing original to offer). They spend a lot of time talking about how un-Republican they are (except about gays, guns, zygotes, and dinosaurs). So, we should vote for the un-Republican Republican instead of the Democrat. We should vote for the Democrat-like Republican instead of the straight Democrat. Dumb. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . And I can't believe anyone (who is not rich and out of touch as well) believes John McCain actually cares about them.
According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Bush's approval rating is now at 26 percent. His disapproval rating? 70 percent. His approval rating specific to the economy is only 22 percent. To put this in perspective, only Harry Truman and Richard Nixon got lower approval ratings. No president has had a lower disapproval rating. With this the case, I can't remotely fathom why anyone is thinking of voting Republican (besides the people who vote only to make sure that gays can't get married and women can't make choices about their own bodies).
Besides failed and embarassing Republican foreign policies, the economy is clearly the most important issue in the election. Bush's economic policies are not just Bush's, they are Republican policies. Seven of the last eight recessions have occurred under Republican leadership (sorry Jimmy). In January I'm sure this will change to eight of the last nine.
Republican policy is to cut taxes for big business with the idea that what is good for business and the rich is good for the country. The big businesses are then supposed to create jobs with their extra cash, make a bunch of new investments, and thus stimulate the economy. The magic formula is cut taxes = new jobs. McCain and Palin have been saying this over and over, as if all that needs to happen is for taxes to be cut and new jobs will magically appear. Uh, taxes were cut under the last administration and look what happened. Yes, I know there is a little more to it than that, but this is a huge part of it. You can't force rich people to invest in the country. Well, unless you tax them.
I'm not even going to go into "values" voting, except to say that I too vote the way I do because of my faith, and my soul screams against McCain. I'm not only voting against McCain, I'm voting for Obama.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Top Five Things I Equally Love and Hate
Deadlines
Bad writing
Birth control pills
Wasting time
Diplomacy
Bad writing
Birth control pills
Wasting time
Diplomacy
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Top Five Traits I'd Turn Up if I Found a Personality Trait Volume Control
Patience
Spirituality
Courage
Tact
Perceptiveness
Spirituality
Courage
Tact
Perceptiveness
Monday, September 22, 2008
Top Five Traits I'd Turn Down if I Found a Personality Trait Volume Control
Negativity
Pride
Mouth
Judgment
Self-consciousness (which may actually stem from self-centeredness)
Pride
Mouth
Judgment
Self-consciousness (which may actually stem from self-centeredness)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Top Five Guilty Indulgences
Celebrity gossip
Writing myself as a character into books
Putting too much mix in my hot cocoa
Stalking online photo sites and Facebook for old pictures of my husband
Searching for my name under Google books to see if I'm in the acknowledgments
Writing myself as a character into books
Putting too much mix in my hot cocoa
Stalking online photo sites and Facebook for old pictures of my husband
Searching for my name under Google books to see if I'm in the acknowledgments
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Top Five Ways to Spend a Sunday Afternoon
Watching football
At a baseball game
Napping
With the youth group
Lunch with friends and family (potluck or other)
At a baseball game
Napping
With the youth group
Lunch with friends and family (potluck or other)
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Top Five Ways to Spend a Saturday
Wine tour
Visiting a museum or historical site
At a park
At a festival
At a beach
Visiting a museum or historical site
At a park
At a festival
At a beach
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Top Five
Since theme months are so much fun and spawn the most comments, September *drum roll* will be a theme month. I’m stealing my theme from Rob Gordon in High Fidelity (or Rob Fleming if you prefer the book character's name) and making top five lists for whatever category I feel like making a top five list for for that day. I promise not to cop out on my answers to the "If you could do/be" lists by answering anything like "Exactly where I am." I hate when people do that. It's boring. It’s OBVIOUSLY a hypothetical exercise, so play the frick along! This may make my list of top five pet peeves . . .
The beauty of top-whatever number lists is that they reflect who you are at a moment in time. Five years ago my lists would have been different, and who knows if the next day I will want to change the previous day’s list. I also promise not to lie on these lists. It’s so embarrassingly clear when someone is lying about his or her favorite things. In other words, I won't be attempting to make you think I'm cool. You should know better by now. These will be my lists of favorites (or equivalent when speaking of the negative), not a lists of best/worst evers based on artistry or expert opinion. I will not be objective.
So, to start it off:
TOP FIVE FOODS I'LL EAT EVEN IF I'M FULL
Pizza
Cheese and crackers
Deviled eggs
Butterscotch chip cookies
Bacon
Get it? Sweet.
The beauty of top-whatever number lists is that they reflect who you are at a moment in time. Five years ago my lists would have been different, and who knows if the next day I will want to change the previous day’s list. I also promise not to lie on these lists. It’s so embarrassingly clear when someone is lying about his or her favorite things. In other words, I won't be attempting to make you think I'm cool. You should know better by now. These will be my lists of favorites (or equivalent when speaking of the negative), not a lists of best/worst evers based on artistry or expert opinion. I will not be objective.
So, to start it off:
TOP FIVE FOODS I'LL EAT EVEN IF I'M FULL
Pizza
Cheese and crackers
Deviled eggs
Butterscotch chip cookies
Bacon
Get it? Sweet.
Return from the road trip
Some highlights from our road trip:
* My car getting 42 miles per gallon
* Passing the Shamokin/Pottsville sign on I-81
* West Virginia's policy of construction zone speed applying only when lights are flashing
* Witnessing a man karate kick the diesel pump
* My "Peace is Patriotic" magnet remaining on my car below the Mason-Dixon and back
* Drinking Guiness outside . . . legally
* Bodo's Bagels being a short walk from our cheap (but nice) hotel
* Getting to Monticello early enough to see the fog on the mountains
* Love lies bleeding being still fully in bloom
* Ignoring the GPS's directions
* The larger-than-life size Jesus cutout behind a trailor in Fishersville, VA (exit 91 off I-64)
* Five hours of talk radio
* Getting home in time to watch some of the Scrubs marathon on TV Land--which we get.
* My husand getting why I like Monticello
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A road trip
This Sunday my husband and I are hopping in the car and heading down to Charlottesville, Virginia, to visit Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson. It’s one of my favorite places, if not, so far, my favorite place I’ve ever been. I’m really looking forward to showing my husband Monticello. I’m not expecting him to feel the same as I feel about it, but, as a history major, I’m sure he’ll enjoy being a tourist.
Best part: the gardens. At this time of year the flower garden looks like an organized attack of wildflowers. I’m hoping especially to see love-lies-bleeding, bloodflower, and flowering tobacco, whose flower smells sweet and a little like jasmine, but comes out only in the evening or if it’s a cool part of the day. I was lucky one mid-September afternoon—and probably won’t be this trip since it’s going to be hot and we’ll be there in the morning.
If it were allowed, the winding walk flower garden is where I would have gotten married. However, the place is open every day except Christmas, and the Jefferson Foundation doesn’t place weddings on their top ten list of preservation strategies (I asked during one tour; they said no). Perhaps if I could prove myself a direct descendant of Jefferson the idea may have been considered? I thought about a secret elopement in the corner of the garden, but if I were going to get married at Monticello there were going to be guests and pictures. I’ll ask again this trip, and if they’ve changed their minds I’ll get a divorce and remarry my husband, just for the wedding. About this I think I’m only 30 percent kidding. In other words, I really like Monticello. I considered working there after college in some capacity, but magic is lost once you go behind the curtain.
It must have something to do with Jefferson himself. Granted, Monticello is genuinely appealing to many people--it's not an ugly place--but I like knowing that Jefferson was there. I share none of his intellect, eloquence, foresight, or taste, so I can't view Monticello or the world as he did, but I like being close to it anyway. What I can relate to is his struggle between ideals and reality, and how he could never really get the two to meet. The hardest person to fight is yourself.
It's peaceful up on the mountain, even with all of the tourists around. I'd love to have it to myself for a morning, but it wouldn't be authentic. Since Monticello was a plantation, in its "glory days" there would have been many, many people moving about the grounds all day as well, just with more purpose. Ideally, had I been able to visit during the "glory days" (the quotes remain due to slavery), James and Dolly Madison would have been there, and the cook would be serving the French dish of noodles with melted cheese that Jefferson liked. Mmm.
Update: I didn't ask about weddings. It's better that way.
Best part: the gardens. At this time of year the flower garden looks like an organized attack of wildflowers. I’m hoping especially to see love-lies-bleeding, bloodflower, and flowering tobacco, whose flower smells sweet and a little like jasmine, but comes out only in the evening or if it’s a cool part of the day. I was lucky one mid-September afternoon—and probably won’t be this trip since it’s going to be hot and we’ll be there in the morning.
If it were allowed, the winding walk flower garden is where I would have gotten married. However, the place is open every day except Christmas, and the Jefferson Foundation doesn’t place weddings on their top ten list of preservation strategies (I asked during one tour; they said no). Perhaps if I could prove myself a direct descendant of Jefferson the idea may have been considered? I thought about a secret elopement in the corner of the garden, but if I were going to get married at Monticello there were going to be guests and pictures. I’ll ask again this trip, and if they’ve changed their minds I’ll get a divorce and remarry my husband, just for the wedding. About this I think I’m only 30 percent kidding. In other words, I really like Monticello. I considered working there after college in some capacity, but magic is lost once you go behind the curtain.
It must have something to do with Jefferson himself. Granted, Monticello is genuinely appealing to many people--it's not an ugly place--but I like knowing that Jefferson was there. I share none of his intellect, eloquence, foresight, or taste, so I can't view Monticello or the world as he did, but I like being close to it anyway. What I can relate to is his struggle between ideals and reality, and how he could never really get the two to meet. The hardest person to fight is yourself.
It's peaceful up on the mountain, even with all of the tourists around. I'd love to have it to myself for a morning, but it wouldn't be authentic. Since Monticello was a plantation, in its "glory days" there would have been many, many people moving about the grounds all day as well, just with more purpose. Ideally, had I been able to visit during the "glory days" (the quotes remain due to slavery), James and Dolly Madison would have been there, and the cook would be serving the French dish of noodles with melted cheese that Jefferson liked. Mmm.
Update: I didn't ask about weddings. It's better that way.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Playing psychologist
I've edited many psychology books and journal articles, so many that I sometimes feel certified to open my own practice. I'd probably be more qualified to tell you what words are misspelled most often in the psychology field than the presenting symptoms for a cognitive disorder, but close enough. I also lived for two years with two psychology students diagnosing me for various disorders (some of which I may indeed have), I own the DSM-IV, and I watch Frasier. These are my criteria for my following blog entry.
I can't remember if I've talked about this before, but I would like to introduce a new disorder into the field. You've likely heard of the Peter Pan syndrome. It's not in the DSM; it's a pop psychology term, but awesome nonetheless. It was introduced by psychologist Dan Kiley, who wrote The Peter Pan Syndrome and The Wendy Dilemma. Quick overview: Peter Pan = men who refuse to grow up, and Wendy = inappropriately self-sacrifing woman (does all the work, complains all the time but does nothing to remedy it, "admits" to being wrong when not, full of self-pity, and generally an annoying and unnecessary martyr). Staying on the J. M. Barrie theme, I'd like to introduce to the wonderful world of pop psychology the Tinker Bell Disorder.
I termed this disorder a few years ago during a discussion with a friend. It reoccurred to me this morning due a dream I had last night of an ex (who may have appeared as Sonny Corinthos from General Hospital). In the dream a group of friends and I were staying at a beach house. A hurricane was coming, and my ex had decided to go stand by the ocean. He likely, as in real life, was doing this because he decided I would be better off without him. He loved me, or at least thought he did, and so because he loved me he'd stay away--think Edward Cullen in Twilight and you'll get the picture, minus the vampire part, although sometimes I felt like il suo cantante. Not that this ex ever in real life threatened suicide, by hurricane or any other means--he was never horrible and manipulative--but he did remove himself from my life on multiple occasions under the same premise. (This drama may explain why he appeared in the dream as a soap opera star). Anyway. In the dream I decided that I too would stand out in the hurricane for as long as he did. I woke up before the battle of stubborness could be won.
Ironically, when my ex was trying to be most like an adult--making decisions for me based on what would be best for me--he was behaving his most childish. He didn't really have Peter Pan Syndrome, mostly because of circumstances beyond his control, but it was this childish behavior, and subsequent non-grown-ups I was attracted to/I attracted, that led me to diagnose myself with Tinker Bell Disorder: Women who like men with Peter Pan Syndrome. Different from Wendy. Tinker Bell loves Peter even though (or because) Peter can't love her back. Tinker Bell exists only because someone wills her to be there, and, in fact, she has a very short life in Barrie's novel, because that's the way it's supposed to be. Fairies live (commit) only a short time because to fairies it seems like a long time. By the end of the novel Tinker Bell has died and Peter has forgotten all about her. Disney leaves this out.
Those diagnosed with Tinker Bell Disorder aren't really ready to be adults either. Aren't ready to be adults and aren't ready to love adults. Once Peter decides to leave Neverland Tinker Bell will stay back, or will actually cease existing because Neverland is the only place she can exist. In the movie Hook, where Tinker Bell actually talks, she tells Peter, "Peter, you know that place between asleep and awake? That place you still can remember your dreams? That's were I'll always love you, Peter Pan." Not the real world.
However, it's okay to visit Neverland now and then. (Just not Michael Jackson's.)
I can't remember if I've talked about this before, but I would like to introduce a new disorder into the field. You've likely heard of the Peter Pan syndrome. It's not in the DSM; it's a pop psychology term, but awesome nonetheless. It was introduced by psychologist Dan Kiley, who wrote The Peter Pan Syndrome and The Wendy Dilemma. Quick overview: Peter Pan = men who refuse to grow up, and Wendy = inappropriately self-sacrifing woman (does all the work, complains all the time but does nothing to remedy it, "admits" to being wrong when not, full of self-pity, and generally an annoying and unnecessary martyr). Staying on the J. M. Barrie theme, I'd like to introduce to the wonderful world of pop psychology the Tinker Bell Disorder.
I termed this disorder a few years ago during a discussion with a friend. It reoccurred to me this morning due a dream I had last night of an ex (who may have appeared as Sonny Corinthos from General Hospital). In the dream a group of friends and I were staying at a beach house. A hurricane was coming, and my ex had decided to go stand by the ocean. He likely, as in real life, was doing this because he decided I would be better off without him. He loved me, or at least thought he did, and so because he loved me he'd stay away--think Edward Cullen in Twilight and you'll get the picture, minus the vampire part, although sometimes I felt like il suo cantante. Not that this ex ever in real life threatened suicide, by hurricane or any other means--he was never horrible and manipulative--but he did remove himself from my life on multiple occasions under the same premise. (This drama may explain why he appeared in the dream as a soap opera star). Anyway. In the dream I decided that I too would stand out in the hurricane for as long as he did. I woke up before the battle of stubborness could be won.
Ironically, when my ex was trying to be most like an adult--making decisions for me based on what would be best for me--he was behaving his most childish. He didn't really have Peter Pan Syndrome, mostly because of circumstances beyond his control, but it was this childish behavior, and subsequent non-grown-ups I was attracted to/I attracted, that led me to diagnose myself with Tinker Bell Disorder: Women who like men with Peter Pan Syndrome. Different from Wendy. Tinker Bell loves Peter even though (or because) Peter can't love her back. Tinker Bell exists only because someone wills her to be there, and, in fact, she has a very short life in Barrie's novel, because that's the way it's supposed to be. Fairies live (commit) only a short time because to fairies it seems like a long time. By the end of the novel Tinker Bell has died and Peter has forgotten all about her. Disney leaves this out.
Those diagnosed with Tinker Bell Disorder aren't really ready to be adults either. Aren't ready to be adults and aren't ready to love adults. Once Peter decides to leave Neverland Tinker Bell will stay back, or will actually cease existing because Neverland is the only place she can exist. In the movie Hook, where Tinker Bell actually talks, she tells Peter, "Peter, you know that place between asleep and awake? That place you still can remember your dreams? That's were I'll always love you, Peter Pan." Not the real world.
However, it's okay to visit Neverland now and then. (Just not Michael Jackson's.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
